Mission Statment

click me to Open or Close
"This is a non-profit, non-denominational and apolitical online discussion site, designed to support research and study of consciousness experiences, such as near death experiences and other spiritually transformative experiences, support experiencers and spread the message of love, unity and peace around the world. We do not allow proselytizing or bullying (please refer to our Joining Rules). We welcome and encourage people of all backgrounds, nationalities, countries and/or religions to bring up any topic they feel fit for this place and to read and participate in the conversations held here, in a relaxed and friendly atmosphere."
Unusual Experiences, Philosophy,Hinduism, Buddhism, Reincarnation
13 posts Page 1 of 1
"By itself nothing has existence. Everything needs its own absence.
To be is to be distinguishable, to be here and not there, to be now
and not then, to be thus and not otherwise. Like water is shaped by
the container, so is everything determined by conditions.
" (gunas).


Last night theoretical physicist Sean Carroll stated that the total energy of the universe is "ZERO"!

Light, matter and antimatter are what physicists call positive energy. However, there is an equal amount of negative energy stored in the gravitational attraction that exists between all the positive-energy particles.

The positive exactly balances the negative, so, ultimately, there is no energy in the universe at all !




"I am nowhere to be found. I am not a thing to be given a place among other things.
All things are in me, but I am not among things. Truly, all is in me and by me.
There is nothing else. The very idea of 'else' is a disaster and a calamity.
"
- Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's I AM THAT

"In a little while, the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live. In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you."
- John 14:20

================================================================
http://www.livescience.com/33129-total-energy-universe-zero.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
BTW,

Last nigh, Sean stated that as a child he was religious. However, as he matured and began to study the creation around him, he fell from belief in a personal God.

Last night he argued that there is no God, no spiritual or supernatural realm, and no ghosts or an afterlife, and what gives our lives meaning is, instead, the tangible impact we have on our world and those around us.
(A number of callers to the show challenged him on those assertions.)

Carroll has been studying the intersection of quantum mechanics and gravity, and he stated that "what we're beginning to catch on to is that space and time themselves are not going to turn out to be fundamental." They're going to be approximations that are made of something else, in the way that material objects are composed of atoms, he explained.

What Sean posits evokes waves of thought within me.

If ultimately everything sums to ZERO (eg, particle/anti-particle, matter/anti-matter, positive energy & negative energy [aka dark matter & energy]) , then isnt this ultimate duality even in all things including love, hate, good & evil, etc. ?

If I am good here then my dual is bad somewhere else - the sum of all things (matter, energy and even the actions of living things) always summing to "ZERO."

Also, when Sean states that "space and time themselves may not be fundamental" then hasnt he really provided the answer to the theme of this thread (ie, Everything Just a Dream) ?

Mainly, the source of spacetime and all that it contains, is really the dream of the mind of God !


Rey
====================================================================
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/
The statement "Everything sums to zero" becomes a reductio ad absurdam if that is applied to a field it wasn't intended to apply to.

An electro-magnetic wave also sums to zero but your WIFI, radio and TV still work!

The problem is that everything goes black when one refuses to see the light. (No reflection on you intended!)
DennisMe wrote: The statement "Everything sums to zero" becomes a reductio ad absurdam if that is applied to a field it wasn't intended to apply to.


Bingo. And well said.

What Sean posits evokes waves of thought within me.

If ultimately everything sums to ZERO (eg, particle/anti-particle, matter/anti-matter, positive energy & negative energy [aka dark matter & energy]) , then isnt this ultimate duality even in all things including love, hate, good & evil, etc. ?

If I am good here then my dual is bad somewhere else - the sum of all things (matter, energy and even the actions of living things) always summing to "ZERO."

Also, when Sean states that "space and time themselves may not be fundamental" then hasnt he really provided the answer to the theme of this thread (ie, Everything Just a Dream) ?

Mainly, the source of spacetime and all that it contains, is really the dream of the mind of God !


With respect, I'm not sure why we have to go there, conflating the theoretical with the actual. Yes, it may be a "dream in the mind of 'God' ". But does it really "matter" if everything materially sums to zero? It's an interesting but irrelevant exercise. We might as well say that, from the POV of consciousness, "nothing matters".

We can only posit the existence of "the Dreamer" (the mind of God) because it makes sense that it exists. We can witness similar processes within ourself and assume something similar happens on a grander scale. But we are incapable of simultaneously maintaining our individualized consciousness and embracing that Mind. You can't "embrace Unity" and be separate from it. The NDE's in which the individual merges or begins to merge with the Light shows us this. The "price of entry" into the greater being is your individualized awareness. Everyone's invited to the party, but you have to leave your self at the door to get in (shades of Oingo Boingo's "Dead Man's Party" :D ).

This Unity of All or greater being is symbolized by a single point. We can posit that such a point exists. But in the material worlds we can not see it as such. Optics proves that it is impossible for us to resolve a single point. It manifests as point within a series of concentric circles (called the Airy disc). This limitation does not exist in the object being observed, but in the observer. The simple act of observing gives things context that it doesn't inherently have.

Even the symbol for the Sun, which is the Point of Origin of creation in our system, is a point within a circle.
Look at the title of Sean's book:

"THE BIG PICTURE - On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself"

From many physicists testimonies, cosmology & quantum mechanics fields of study are driven by a need to understand the nature of reality and ultimately "what it's all about" (eg, meaning of life/existence)?
(Some are now purporting that it's all a simulation in some quantum computer. Is this or any of it more far-fetched than Deutsch's multiverse or Hugh Everett's "Many Worlds" theory in which there is the idea of constant creation of alternate worlds or universes containing the alternate of each and any action taken in this universe? The Many Worlds theory is significant/substantial enough to be considered in Penrose's "Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness" as well as by other physicists such as Kaku and Hawking.)

And the question keeps coming up about how could something (ie, our universe) come from nothing (ie, a big bang before which time supposedly did not even exist)?

Although not without its difficulties, to me, it is less stretch with a Zero (net effect universe) emanating from a Zero (big bang out of "nothing).

Or (in other words),

nothing from nothing is a touch easier to buy than a "something from nothing."


"There is nothing to look for, nothing to be avoided, but all is to be accepted in our presence to the world.
Because of that, there is neither good/evil duality, nor inner/outer separation.These differentiations are
only visions of the mind intending to differentiate things. All is equal in essence. The spontaneous
awakening induced by this experience does not belong to time, because the source exists at
this very moment. The awakening always existed…

I understood at last, after this 30 year quest, that there is nothing to be reached, nothing to get.
Everything is already there, because all is this vibrating energy.
"

- Mathilde M's NDE


So who, in the final analysis, knows whether Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive ?
============================================================================================
Ref: Why Does the World Exist? - Jim Holt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Does_the_World_Exist%3F

http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/consc_reality_dan.htm
Rey, I think what DennisMe is saying, and which I also underscore, is the question of relevance and application. Taking a far-fetched theory and pretending it has broad relevance. I have great respect for Kaku and Hawking, but when I encounter stuff like this, I ask "what do I do with this?" And the answer is, nothing. This is non-actionable information. With concepts like this, we get so far ahead of our skis that they don't even exist yet.

I think the bar is pretty high for the theoretical physicists and their like to prove the relevance of their theories. Until they do, they're just stories. Saying things like "the total energy of the universe is zero" is pretty meaningless. So what. To me this shows how imbalanced within their mentality they are. I have a friend who is a psychic. She is off in her world of predominantly emotional connection with disembodied beings. And in reply to her stories of this or that spirit doing whatever they do, I often say to her also; so what? Beyond taking this as an interesting bedtime story, why should I care?

The way I see it, she is as heavily biased within her emotional/feeling side as the theoretical boys are within their mental. And to me, that's what makes their ideas far-fetched; they're imbalanced. They go to extremes with only one aspect of our existence.

I very much agree with the many mystics and adepts who, throughout time, have told us of the folly of trying to understand what is in "the mind of God".
Hmmm .....

We are of different proclivities (and probably rightfully so).

Some are satisfied with things as they are (ie, not interested in thinking outside any type of box) while others (and they are many) are seekers and dreamers. The latter include artists, scientific researchers, inventors, mountain climbers, astronauts and to a degree probably even nascar drivers and sky divers.

It is one of the reasons why individuals have interest in NDERF.

Who is it that said, “Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think" ?
Hey, whatever floats your boat.
Precaud wrote: We can only posit the existence of "the Dreamer" (the mind of God) because it makes sense that it exists. We can witness similar processes within ourself and assume something similar happens on a grander scale.

When a scientist in mathematics or physics is finding out things about the Universe or other things about nature, then to us as normal cirizens this may seem as if he/she invented something new. We honor them for their intelligence with a Nobel prize or other similar rewards, and this is ok as they really open up a new view about things.
But If we think a bit deeper into this matter, then we have to say that whatever they find out, had been invented long time before, by 'nature/the source/God' (whatever we call it), and in fact what they really do, is to retrace some of the steps in nature that existed long time even before man was there.
If the Universe can be understood through mathematics, and if you need intelligence to understand and utilize mathematics, well, then nature is intelligent. Logo.
So I think that this is a good argument that 'behind' nature/or the Universe there is an Intelligence that is greater than ours, as we still do not know much.

Rey wrote: The positive exactly balances the negative, so, ultimately, there is no energy in the universe at all !


Let's assume there is somebody who has a business with a value of 1 million dollars, but at the same time he also has depts in the value of 1 million dollars. The balance is zero. Can we then say that there is nothing there?
Marguy wrote: But If we think a bit deeper into this matter, then we have to say that whatever they find out, had been invented long time before, by 'nature/the source/God' (whatever we call it), and in fact what they really do, is to retrace some of the steps in nature that existed long time even before man was there.
So I think that this is a good argument that 'behind' nature/or the Universe there is an Intelligence that is greater than ours, as we still do not know much.


I totally agree with the principle of what you wrote. It is as if everything possible is just waiting to be discovered or re-discovered. High-order intuition, creative thought, invention/discovery is like landing a fish that exists in the ethers/logos/whatever and the recipient "lands it" with the right form, right inquiry or necessity, right preparation, etc. I very much relate to this from my own creative process. It's very similar to what Louis Pasteur had in mind when he said "Chance favors the prepared mind".

However, in fairness to Rey and my discussion, where I was responding to his construct of "the Mind of God", I think we need to differentiate between the source and the intelligible content. "The Mind of God" refers to the Source, not the content. The Hindu yogis, who have explored and mapped out the inner worlds in amazing detail, certainly make that distinction, between Consciousness and its reflection in the individual, Universal Mind.
Precaud, yes, you understood me right.
I also like the way Marguy summed it up with the comparison to a business having a net worth of zero.
The scientific idea of "nothing from nothing" applies when you only regard matter and is "needed" to uphold the law of conservation of energy etc. So, to a pure materialist that's the whole story. However, like the business with a net worth of zero, there's a lot more going on and many people have vested interest in the business and what happens to it. Nobody reduces a business to bare finances. This business may encompass a generation's dream, another generation's livelihood and many generations' futures. Clearly, there's more to it than meets the books.

I think we need to be careful not to imply that there's no meaning to life because there's a zero balance to matter-antimatter creation. The meaning may very well not be what we thought it was but that doesn't make it all for nothing. The meaning may not be trying to obtain this or that goal. Whether it be the highest state of Nirvana or becoming a billionaire. Maybe the meaning is just the experience and it turns out this is all just one big pilgrimage of souls. As with any pilgrimage the goal is not the end, it is the spiritually transformative power of human experience.
Rey wrote: And the question keeps coming up about how could something (ie, our universe) come from nothing (ie, a big bang before which time supposedly did not even exist)?


This is also something that I have been thinking about for a long time.
I can conceive that before a big bang there was no space and no time, because it is very clear to me that space is needed, for matter and light to be able to exist and move. And while matter and light are moving in space from one point to another there is a duration e.g. time passing. So space induces time, one is not existing without the other.

At the beginning,( still supposing that the big bang happened) there was no space and no time, so logically the energy needed to create a Universe as ours, must have been existing outside of time and space, and as such it was/is not material, but immaterial. Maybe in another dimension?
Now we know that everything that exists is a form of energy, and if the theorem is correct that energy cannot be destroyed, only changed from one form into another, (what we humans are doing daily), I really wonder what energy really is. We have this word 'energy' for this, but I strongly doubt that anybody on earth can tell me exactly what this energy is.
There is one thing to be able to handle energy, calculate it, and take as granted to be able to change its form, there is another thing to really know what it is.

Another thought; if this original energy created space, what we most of the time consider as a 'void', we have to consider also that even this 'void' is still part of this energy,( it belongs to the Universe and the Universe is One) as the energy was changed into a 'void'. And it is not empty space, it is not nothing.

Since the event of quantum physics, more and more scientist come to the conclusion that our Universe might be somthing like a enormous thought, and I like this idea.
Because I do not think that a thought is nothing.
With our thoughts we can change the material brain literally, as has been proved by scientists; a single thought can raise our stress level or can calm us down; some people even died of cold thinking they were trapped in coolfridge, while the fridge was even not on power. It was their thought that killed them.
Physical energy amounting to zero could be compatible with a virtual universe.

But even so it wouldn´t matter because zero or not zero, we are "aware". We have consciousness.

That is why we can have consciousness experiences when our brain is not functioning, because consciousness doesn´t belong to the physical universe which has its precise laws. Consciousness doesn´t need these laws.
The physical universe is finite while consciousness is not.
13 posts Page 1 of 1

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron