This is a composite of posts that I saved from someone else’s blog. The idea is kind of complex Or rather it’s long, boring, and more of a “theory of everything”. Its pertaining to the Big Bang, expansion, nothing, everything, perspective, infinity, finite, and the like. I know I’ve probably made many errors in logic and probably posses a poor understanding of the terms, language, systems, and the types of math used (please forgive me for that). Even so, scientifically understanding this means a great deal to me. Thanks for bearing through my ignorance. Begin posts..
“Perception is reality when reality doesn’t matter.
These are just my own beliefs on a thought provoking post. I more or less see things in cycles and continuations.
Infinite negative must exist for infinite positive to exist. If something infinitely expands it must of had no beginning because a beginning infers there is an end. Though, if there is an end it is connected to the beginning and will be constricted by space time.
To know the here and now is to understand the ultimate reality for that directly affects you the most. The realm in which you exist and that laws that govern that are in-tune with your level of perception. To know what is not meant to be understood by human perception would be fun but as useless as the Triangulum Galaxy understanding American Politics. The “Divine” can be found in the most simplest of places if one is looking”.
“Hey Mishima, great response. I just have a few questions if you could clear them up for me?
“The Universe… Where did it come from? It came from nothing” – How does “something” come from “nothing”? Can you give me any example of absolute nothing manifesting something?
” A point without space, or time.” – Then why call it a point? surely there can be no “point” if there is no space or time.
“It began expanding” – Why? What made “it” just start expanding? Nothing can just “start” motion without an initial force or action. Ok, “Something came from nothing” then with no cause it “began to expand”.
“Where did this macro universe come from? It came from the infinite past” – how could this “macro universe” come from the “infinite past” if you say there is a “point” that time and space didn’t exist? “.
“I hate to break it to you” – and I’d hate to break it to you, that you, are not the first to convey to me, that “no human” is able to explain how “everything” came from “nothing”. That is because nothing and everything are mutually exclusive and only exist within one another. “Everything” is “one” in the whole but separate in the whole as one. They exist and don’t exist simultaneously and are one and many mutually, infinitely infinite and equally finite.
An easy metaphor to help explain this is the colors black and white. Black is the absence of all color while white is the presence of all color. Black represents nothingness. While white represents everything. But if a child colored on a white background with a black crayon the black would appear while the white would not. Thus the white/everything would have the appearance of nothing while black/nothing would take on the characteristics of everything. That’s because black/nothing and white/everything are the same and only exist as separate entities in perspective. Nothing in itself is something and everything can appear to be nothing.
Thus “nothing” can not create something nor can a creation create itself. We can only exist and not exist if the acts of existing and not existing have always been true and are one in the same. A continuation of cycles of one and the many no matter at which point you start.
Perception is reality when reality doesn’t matter”.
All I can say is i currently (in being) “exist” now, the sun exists now, from every atom, to the planets and beyond, if it’s there it exists now. Did they in the past? No. Will they in the future? No. For nothing will exist forever except for everything.
Not an argument just an observation”.
“Using black and white crayons was just a metaphor to try and easily express a point being made and not meant to be taken literally. My point was, what appears to be “nothing” can take on the characteristics of “something” and the same is equally true vice versa.
“Whiteness is not everything” – yes white light (sunlight) contains every color in the spectrum while black is the lack of. Meaning, yes, black is the absence of light, no color, nothing.
“Since we have defined ‘color’ as the wavelength(s) of visible light reflected from an object, with the remainder being absorbed, a black object has no ‘color’ by our definition. An object we call ‘white’ reflects all wavelengths of visible light and therefore could be considered all-colored”.
Richard R. Rupnik
Internal Quality Auditor
Now when talking in terms of graphics we get a different answer..
“In computer graphics, we use combinations of just three lights to produce the colors on a screen, red, green, and blue. We also use different systems for calculating colors. One of those is hue, saturation, and lightness. This system is more accurate in describing how we perceive colors. The hue is what we call color–red, brown, white, etc. The saturation is how much of the other colors is present, and the lightness is how bright the color is.
The interesting thing about this system is, white and black have the same hue and saturation, the lightness is all that is different.
Anyway, what all this boils down to, is the answer to your question simply depends on how you look at the problem.
On one level, you are right. Black doesn’t reflect light, and white reflects all colors. On the other hand, if you are talking to someone like me who deals with generating colors on a computer screen, black and white are exactly the same color, one is just brighter than the other”.
The above shows my thesis to be true. White is the presence of all color and black is the lack of. And that “everything” and “nothing” are mutually exclusive and are one in the same controlled only by perspective.
As far as expansion goes if something is infinitely expanding then it is infinitely contracting .. If something is infinitely large that infers that things are infinitely small as well.
And with the nihilism points you were making some of it makes a great deal of sense but I would argue that there are trillions of realities within the one ultimate reality and that all realities are just as true as they are false. Also, that the ultimate reality is true while containing the false because both true and false realities are equally true and false so they can only be one in the same. If something exist, it’s reality also exist, thus in turn it’s perception of reality must exist. Consciousness is not needed for reality to exist as it does not govern the laws of the physical only those of the perceptive conscious”.
“There is no such thing as a starting point. Every point of perspective could infinitely expand and infinitely contract in perspective. From the one to the many then back to the one and the many and so on infinitely. We are one of the many inside the one, infinitely. The cycle is the Infinite Source. It is the all and the nothing. It is the continual source, it is the Divine Infinite Cycle, which is the separate and the all. It is the one within the many and the many within the one. It is one while being many”.
Good site. Most of what I said seems to correlate with the concepts expressed in there. I’d like to add that their definition of zero/balance/expansion fits perfectly into my thesis. That we are in a constant cycle of expansion until everything has broken down to the point that there will be zero perceptive difference in “everything” and “nothing”, thus “nothing” takes on the characteristics of “everything” and everything will appear as nothing. While both being part of the same whole. But keep in mind, things can be constantly broken down into smaller fractions. So now begins the “contraction” of everything due to everything constantly expanding into nothing. Creating “everything” all over again.
Divine – definition = of, from
Its the Divine Cycle which is the Infinite Source”.
“Something and nothing can’t exist at the same time” – the reality your mind accepts as true is “everything” to you and your existence and perception while it has “nothing” to do with the reality my mind believes to be true. Both exist as separate realities within one ultimate reality. Which in itself is an infinite amount of possible realities. Now say we had a dry leaf and we crumbled it and crumbled it down into smaller and smaller pieces until we could no longer see the leaf, at what point did the leaf no longer exist?”.
“The leaf would continue to exist as small particles even if too small to see…” – so potentially the leaf could break down into smaller and smaller pieces infinitely? While being many and still one? Or can we agree that at some point the leaf would lose the characteristics of something and gain the characteristics of nothing? Maybe even break down to the point that something balances with nothing to be one? And while the leaf might lose its original form it’s pieces are still part of the leaf and thus in a sense they are still the leaf while remaining separate in form from the leaf’s original form?
“also the leaf would continue to exist in our minds and memories” – I agree.
I basically agree with the rest of your post too.. Especially the here and now being the most important reality. That’s what I believe 100%. My very first post said just that and I’m glad you emphasized on that being the thing to worry about. It’s very true.
However, one thing we might differ on is..
“all these points and opinions are quite irrelevant without our existence in the first place….” – I don’t think consciousness is needed for reality or perspective reality to exist. For instance, the perspective view from the moon and the sun are different from each other even with out a conscious recognition of this”.
“I think I know what you mean when you say absolute nothing. I just personally think “nothing” is an illusion or better yet “nothing” is due to “everything” existing thus nothing is a part of everything. .. Back to the dry leaf metaphor, say we had the dry leaf in it’s original form still. In complete balance and structured in form. Now we will assume I am right that this is a continual cycle. This complete leaf will crumble due to the infinite cycle already in place. The leaf is one, now it breaks into pieces thus a small amount of space is created between each piece. As we break the leaf down further it creates more and more smaller pieces and in turn the more pieces of leaf we have the larger amount of space there is between them. The expansion of everything creates nothing cuz nothing is created by the constant break down of matter and its expansion. Nothing is part of something due to expansion. Now when the leaf breaks down to the point it takes on the characteristics of absolute nothing, everything and nothing are in complete balance. Plank level. No time. It’s not needed. Yet this is a continual cycle so the leaf will continue to break down beyond plank into negative and becoming less than nothing. But if there are still pieces to break down it’s obviously still something. Everything is on a journey to break down till it becomes nothing and then something once again in nothing”.
“Prior to the Big Bang everything is in one immeasurably dense ball. Now we find this hard to understand because we can’t imagine how everything can be constricted to a space while nothing else exists around it. Cuz obviously nothing can’t exist nor can it be possible for nothing to contain something, let alone everything. It’s impossible. Yet equally impossible is it for something to contain nothing cuz nothing is nothing and you can’t contain nothing, only empty space. So nothing can’t contain everything and everything can’t contain nothing. How can this be?”.
“For now tho, lets get back to the leaf metaphor and to make it more relative to the subject at hand lets instead use the dense ball I mentioned earlier. The one that was in existence prior to the Big Bang. Now this immeasurably dense ball contains all matter and consequently all perspectives too. When the explosion happens this initial state of inertia begins to expand and immediately space is created between everything (all matter). This caused a gigantic explosion because all of the extreme dense matter was trying to separate concurrently. This explosion would of caused all of the pieces of “everything” to simultaneously blast in every direction. Bringing about the largest explosion ever because zero to something is the highest percentage gain possible. You can only maintain that at best. So where as before stood a dense ball of everything now are the pieces of the everything and the space between them. There was no space before that, just a dense ball of everything and we know “nothing” can’t be a part of anything let alone everything. Then the “nothing” must of existed first, right? Well, absolute nothing can not create something. Nor could “nothing” have contained “everything” in its early, near-infinite-state of denseness. Then if “nothing” can’t create “something” can something create nothing? We can observe something create something and create the appearance of nothing in almost every facet of existence. We can also observe something contain what appears to be nothing. Where as “nothing” can not be observed, known, seen, contain/ed, or be observed in any way less that in the case of matters expansion and deterioration. Thusly showing nothing must exist due to everything and everything’s existence didn’t start at a point of nothing but rather nothing’s existence started at a point of everything. Everything expands by matters break down and the space it causes. All forms of matter are continuously breaking down until they will cease to exist in their current state. When everything takes on the characteristics of nothing everything/nothing will be balanced again. But in a polar opposite state then that of the Dense Ball. Now if this is a infinite cycle of expansions and/or contractions there must be a vacuum, polar shift or a contraction back to complete density and everything/nothing once again taking on the characteristics of everything. Otherwise “everything” continues to break down infinitely past negative creating an infinite amount of “Big Bangs”.
Either way “nothing” and “everything” are not independent of each other and the only observance that’s possible to make is that of “something” creating the appearance of “nothing” while the opposite is never true. One can not observe absolute nothing manifesting something in no instance. Therefor, I conclude for nothing to exist something must of existed first. While the Big Bang was the largest explosion, the continual break down of matter and the space created accelerates the expansion. “Nothing” is only the space between “everything”. And just as we recognize any object as whole in state and do not make a distinction from its composite of cells and the space between them as being separate from the object but rather as part of the same whole nor should view the space between all matter as separate from the matter in its entirety or of source as they are both part of the same whole, Everything.