can anything create its self or anything else?

[shaolin]

Is there anything that is able to create its self or anything else?

 

Create means from nothing at all to something.

 

Manufacture means for something that already exists to become something else or to change an already existing thing in to something else.

 

ie somone who makes a chair out of a tree has manufactured it and not created it, because to create means from absolutely nothing.

 

Or to clone a sheep from just 1 cell or dna is to manufacture it because it started from something and not from nothing just like human life from a sperm and an egg etc.

 

To write music or poetry or any art or thought is manufactured as it comes from something and is developed.

 

Creation means nothing at all - something. It doesnt matter how big or small.

[shaolin]

Depending on how this thread goes and the other thread on created vs manufactured goes, I may have found a way to rationally show a limitless thing actually exists.

 

I hope we will continue to question our ideas. And thanks for everyones input and patience, this is what makes this site so great.

[Apech]

Things that arise cause other things to arise through a kind of knock-on effect. I think this would come into your definition of make rather than create.

 

To create out of nothing - is about how things spontaneously arise from no-thing, rather like the idea of the quantum field where small particles kind of bubble in and out of existence - this occurs because of the self differentiation of a field of energy. The field of energy is self-grading in that in takes up discrete vibrational energy states as photons and electrons and so on.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

[Marblehead]

There is a song I remember that includes the words: Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.

 

The inverse also applies, I think: You can't get something from nothing.

 

And then: You can't get something out of it unless you put something in it.

 

And so I restate what I have said many times before: Everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be. It (things) just takes different forms over time.

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

As Marblehead says, Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it simply changes form..

 

Energy is the 'substance' of that which 'is'.. yes, there is the observable condition of energy just 'popping into existence' in the ZPF (Zero Point Field), but.. it is my 'unsubstantiated' belief that the energy 'popping into existence' is pre-existing, we simply don't have the technology to make that observation, yet.. What is observable, is that there is energy manifested in a 'Universe' of ways, that there is 'space', unlimited 'space' (void) in which this energy can manifest its unlimited potential.. it is also observable that this energy is possessed of Consciousness, the 'force' which organizes/creates the manifestations.. the fundamental principle, is between 'space' and energy there is a dynamic interactive duality, each dependent on the other.. and, Consciousness is the "Creator"..

 

Be well..

[OneSeeker]

Apologies in advance, here comes some of my usual historical-intellectual blather:

 

I'm inclined to rephrase the question to, Does anything exist which is the cause of its own existence? My answer would be no.

 

We are very accustomed to thinking in terms of cause and effect. In physical terms, certainly, we take it for granted that every object or phenomenon exists because of some chronologically prior cause. And in metaphysical terms, many of us accept the concept of karma, which also is often described as cause and effect. Either way, the idea essentially is that something exists or occurs, and certain other things come to exist or occur as a result.

 

This type of thinking leads naturally to the idea that there exist "chains of causation" that can be traced backward in time. One result of this approach is the Big Bang theory, which claims that all these chains in the universe can be traced back to a single point of origin.

 

The problem, however, is how one is to answer the question, what is (was) the cause of that point of origin, and what is (was) the cause of its sudden change into something else? Regrettably, the standard answer of scientists seems to be, there's no way to answer those questions scientifically, so don't ask.

 

Aristotle already saw the issue and posited the existence of a First Cause, the Unmoved Mover. To avoid having everything turn into an infinite regression, however, it's necessary to presume that this First Cause was itself either uncaused or self-caused.

 

Both of these possibilities raise obvious conceptual difficulties. "Self-caused" suggests that something nonexistent brought about its own existence. "Uncaused" suggests that it came to exist for no reason, purely randomly, and might just as well not have come to be at all; that may be possible, but it seems pretty unsatisfactory from a human point of view.

 

The answer Plotinus proposed, and which also appears to me to be the answer of Taoism and Buddhism, is that the ultimate Cause of Everything is neither existent nor nonexistent, but transcends such categories. Because it is the source of everything that can be said to exist, it is "before" time, space, matter, energy, universal laws, change, causation, existence or nonexistence. Thus it is not caused, not uncaused, not self-caused.

 

Obviously, this approach also raises conceptual difficulties, some of which have been discussed in the "limitless" topic here. What the philosophers east and west say in general is that if we insist on trying to talk about the Source, it's better to talk about what It is not than to talk about what It is, and any understanding of It in its transcendence requires us to find the transcendent in ourselves.

[shaolin]

Apepch7,

I'd like to find out more about the small particles that bubble in and out of existance. Are they able to create themselves from nothing? or do they reveal themselves and go back in to hiding?

 

I have no knowledge about these things at all and Im asking blind. where can I get more info? (non theoretical).

 

Tzu JanLi,

 

What leads you to believe that the energy that "pops" in to existance is pre existing? What exactly is this energy and what does it do? Also can energy create its self from nothing , or create anything else from nothing? I accept that it changes and is full of potential. (again from very basic knowledge).

 

OneSeeker,

 

no need to apologise, what you have written about the first cause and the unmoved mover is very interesting. Its like an un named limitless thing affecting the limited things. We just need to find how to get to it , if it exists.

[3bob]

Apologies in advance, here comes some of my usual historical-intellectual blather:

 

I'm inclined to rephrase the question to, Does anything exist which is the cause of its own existence? My answer would be no.

 

We are very accustomed to thinking in terms of cause and effect. In physical terms, certainly, we take it for granted that every object or phenomenon exists because of some chronologically prior cause. And in metaphysical terms, many of us accept the concept of karma, which also is often described as cause and effect. Either way, the idea essentially is that something exists or occurs, and certain other things come to exist or occur as a result.

 

This type of thinking leads naturally to the idea that there exist "chains of causation" that can be traced backward in time. One result of this approach is the Big Bang theory, which claims that all these chains in the universe can be traced back to a single point of origin.

 

The problem, however, is how one is to answer the question, what is (was) the cause of that point of origin, and what is (was) the cause of its sudden change into something else? Regrettably, the standard answer of scientists seems to be, there's no way to answer those questions scientifically, so don't ask.

 

Aristotle already saw the issue and posited the existence of a First Cause, the Unmoved Mover. To avoid having everything turn into an infinite regression, however, it's necessary to presume that this First Cause was itself either uncaused or self-caused.

 

Both of these possibilities raise obvious conceptual difficulties. "Self-caused" suggests that something nonexistent brought about its own existence. "Uncaused" suggests that it came to exist for no reason, purely randomly, and might just as well not have come to be at all; that may be possible, but it seems pretty unsatisfactory from a human point of view.

 

The answer Plotinus proposed, and which also appears to me to be the answer of Taoism and Buddhism, is that the ultimate Cause of Everything is neither existent nor nonexistent, but transcends such categories. Because it is the source of everything that can be said to exist, it is "before" time, space, matter, energy, universal laws, change, causation, existence or nonexistence. Thus it is not caused, not uncaused, not self-caused.

 

Obviously, this approach also raises conceptual difficulties, some of which have been discussed in the "limitless" topic here. What the philosophers east and west say in general is that if we insist on trying to talk about the Source, it's better to talk about what It is not than to talk about what It is, and any understanding of It in its transcendence requires us to find the transcendent in ourselves.

 

Wouldn't it be nice if all we had were, "conceptual difficulties"?

thinking about enlightenment can be very hellish...

Edited February 3, 2010 by 3bob

[Apech]

Apepch7,

I'd like to find out more about the small particles that bubble in and out of existance. Are they able to create themselves from nothing? or do they reveal themselves and go back in to hiding?

 

I have no knowledge about these things at all and Im asking blind. where can I get more info? (non theoretical).

 

 

 

This is the best I can find -

 

quantum vacuum

 

sorry if its a bit heavy, particles and anti-particles come into existence in pairs so not break the laws of thermodynamics.

 

By the way - this is not supposed to be a problem of observation or measurement but a real effect.

[thelerner]

On another vein, I'd posit thoughts..they come and go.

 

Some 'I' know I create,

most of them come and go as they will,

leaving little or no trace of their existence.

One thought creates another,

building into something

then collapse into nothingness,

a thousand times a day.

 

 

My test of a Great Truth is this:

The opposite of a great truth

is another great truth.

 

 

Michael

[3bob]

Wouldn't it be nice if all we had were, "conceptual difficulties"?

thinking about enlightenment can be very hellish...

 

...and why is that, because (imo) without fruitfull methods to do so one will probably wander into unfruitfull methods that give hellish type results.

[Marblehead]

... it is also observable that this energy is possessed of Consciousness, the 'force' which organizes/creates the manifestations.. the fundamental principle, is between 'space' and energy there is a dynamic interactive duality, each dependent on the other.. and, Consciousness is the "Creator"..

 

Be well..

 

Just out of curiosity, would you conside the word "information" to replace the word "Consciousness" in your above statement?

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Just out of curiosity, would you conside the word "information" to replace the word "Consciousness" in your above statement?

Perhaps, the 'capacity' for information.. reference for self-organization.. intellect arising, based on iformation acquired.. but, Consciousness stands alone as the inherent quality of Energy, possessed of awareness and intellect, born of experience..

 

Be well...

[OneSeeker]

I was thinking about this whole question today and the issue of "conceptualization" and the rest, and then I was reading Cleary's translation of Wen-Tzu this evening when I hit this passage (in chapter 98) that seemed apt:

 

"Knowing it [i.e., the Way] is shallow, not knowing it is deep. Knowing it is external, not knowing it is internal. Knowing it is coarse, not knowing it is fine. Knowing it is not knowing, not knowing is knowing it. Who knows that knowing is not knowing and not knowing is knowing?"

 

I found that pretty difficult, though I don't think I'd call it "hellish." But the very next chapter clarified things, sort of:

 

"Wen-tzu asked: Can people speak of the subtle?

 

"Lao-tzu said: Why not? But only if you know what words mean. Those who know what words mean do not speak with words."

 

If you'll pardon a gloss from Western philosophy, the Platonists hold that a statement (logos) is an image/reflection of a thought, which to them means that the statement is less real than the thought, which, in turn, is an image/reflection of something even more real, the eternal Form or Idea, which in turn, etc. etc., until you reach the Ultimately Real, which obviously is beyond thought and way, way beyond speech.

 

I'll stop speaking now.

[Gerard]

Tibetan Buddhist monks have been known to do that. Not sure about today, but historically yes. Do some research on the concept of tulpa (thought-form).

 

I read once about a Zen Buddhist monk who practiced for years an specific visualization that involved death. At one stage death materialised itself when an accident resulting in death occured in an area the monk was nearby. Soon after the monk got frightened and stop this sort of meditation.

[shaolin]

Thanks Apepch7,

 

Ive read the link a few times, Im going to ask some questions to a few friends of mine who are more knowledgable than me in these areas. Its a very specific area of learning that I havent got a clue about.

 

But this is exactly what Im after, an actual "thing" that can be studied.

[shaolin]

Ok,

I checked with a friend of mine who studied physics and chemistry and asked him about these particles that come and go out of existance and if they create themselves from nothing or come in and out of existance.

 

He said that there is a principle called "Heinsberg Uncertinty Principle" which deals with the atomic level.

It states that electrons dont flow in an orbit around protons and they actually wizz all over the place at great speed in different direction causing a "cloud". This cloud is like a dust cloud that can be made when a car travels at speed in a desert kicking up dust that can obscure the car from view.

 

The "cloud" produced by the great speed that these tiny electrons cause result in a 90% chance of certinty of finding an electron in the "cloud" and a 10% chance of certinty that you wont. This means that by the time you think one is located, its already moved and may "appear" to come and go in and out of existance.

 

At atomic level , we cant be sure of where the electrons are in this cloud , let alond in the sub atomic or sub , sub atomic levels. This is due to the sporadic, fast movement and the cloud that it produces. We cant predict where they are in time or space, meaning we cant say "this is here now". They move too fast. So we cant say if it was always there or not, or if it moved, or came in to existance.

 

There is a Hadron Collider machine in a lab in Switzerland that accelerates particles at very high speed to fire atoms against other atoms to see the results of the collision.

 

As previously mentioned, it is taken as a fact that "matter is neither created or destroyed" which would mean that nothing can be created in the meaning of from absolutly nothing. So many say that matter was always there.

 

Also matter is limited. Different amounts of positivly charged protone and negitivly charged electrons linked to neutrons produce different elements like water, 02, oxygen methane, copper etc. They are limited in number and arrangement.

 

Therefore if all matter is made from such matter then we have a conclusion.

 

Everything is limited, limited can not create limited, so how did everything come in to existance?

 

The only conclusion is that there must be one, unlimited thing to create the limited matter which could not create its self or any other matter.

 

This unlimited thing has no limits, no beginning, no end, no height, no weight, no width, can not be measured and is totally self reliant, independant and incomprehendible.

 

So we can not see it or percieve it as it is unlimited nor can we ask who created it, or what was before it. It must be beyond time and space.

 

Please tell me what you think about this.

[ralis]

Apologies in advance, here comes some of my usual historical-intellectual blither:

 

I'm inclined to rephrase the question to, Does anything exist which is the cause of its own existence? My answer would be no.

 

We are very accustomed to thinking in terms of cause and effect. In physical terms, certainly, we take it for granted that every object or phenomenon exists because of some chronologically prior cause. And in metaphysical terms, many of us accept the concept of Kara, which also is often described as cause and effect. Either way, the idea essentially is that something exists or occurs, and certain other things come to exist or occur as a result.

 

This type of thinking leads naturally to the idea that there exist "chains of causation" that can be traced backward in time. One result of this approach is the Big Bang theory, which claims that all these chains in the universe can be traced back to a single point of origin.

 

The problem, however, is how one is to answer the question, what is (was) the cause of that point of origin, and what is (was) the cause of its sudden change into something else? Regrettably, the standard answer of scientists seems to be, there's no way to answer those questions scientifically, so don't ask.

 

Arise already saw the issue and posited the existence of a First Cause, the Unmoved Mover. To avoid having everything turn into an infinite regression, however, it's necessary to presume that this First Cause was itself either angst or self-caused.

 

Both of these possibilities raise obvious conceptual difficulties. "Self-caused" suggests that something nonexistent brought about its own existence. "Angst" suggests that it came to exist for no reason, purely randomly, and might just as well not have come to be at all; that may be possible, but it seems pretty unsatisfactory from a human point of view.

 

The answer Platoons proposed, and which also appears to me to be the answer of Dismay and Buddhism, is that the ultimate Cause of Everything is neither existent nor nonexistent, but transcends such categories. Because it is the source of everything that can be said to exist, it is "before" time, space, matter, energy, universal laws, change, causation, existence or nonexistence. Thus it is not caused, not angst, not self-caused.

 

 

Obviously, this approach also raises conceptual difficulties, some of which have been discussed in the "limitless" topic here. What the philosophers east and west say in general is that if we insist on trying to talk about the Source, it's better to talk about what It is not than to talk about what It is, and any understanding of It in its transcendent requires us to find the transcendent in ourselves.

 

These type of discussions cause massive short circuits in my brain. LOL!!!

 

 

There are no rational or irrational arguments that one can posit, that absolutely states what the cosmos is!

 

I hope the Buddhist's don't start another dependent origination argument!

 

rails

[Lucky7Strikes]

Uh...let there be light! .

[Marblehead]

 

Please tell me what you think about this.

 

I think you have it about as right as right can be.

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Or, "can anything 'uncreate itself'.. does the human cease being a human because it can use a microscope to see its functioning 'parts'? The human is not the physics of the body, or the physics of quantum energy.. the human is a freely independent aspect of Oneness, free to experience Oneness in a tangible reality.. the human is the 'process' of Oneness experiencing self-discovery.. examining the smallest or largest aspects of 'function' is 'not seeing the forest for the trees'.. we are not the 'function', we are 'that which functions'..

 

Be well..

[3bob]

Ok,

I checked with a friend of mine who studied physics and chemistry and asked him about these particles that come and go out of existance and if they create themselves from nothing or come in and out of existance.

 

He said that there is a principle called "Heinsberg Uncertinty Principle" which deals with the atomic level.

It states that electrons dont flow in an orbit around protons and they actually wizz all over the place at great speed in different direction causing a "cloud". This cloud is like a dust cloud that can be made when a car travels at speed in a desert kicking up dust that can obscure the car from view.

 

The "cloud" produced by the great speed that these tiny electrons cause result in a 90% chance of certinty of finding an electron in the "cloud" and a 10% chance of certinty that you wont. This means that by the time you think one is located, its already moved and may "appear" to come and go in and out of existance.

 

At atomic level , we cant be sure of where the electrons are in this cloud , let alond in the sub atomic or sub , sub atomic levels. This is due to the sporadic, fast movement and the cloud that it produces. We cant predict where they are in time or space, meaning we cant say "this is here now". They move too fast. So we cant say if it was always there or not, or if it moved, or came in to existance.

 

There is a Hadron Collider machine in a lab in Switzerland that accelerates particles at very high speed to fire atoms against other atoms to see the results of the collision.

 

As previously mentioned, it is taken as a fact that "matter is neither created or destroyed" which would mean that nothing can be created in the meaning of from absolutly nothing. So many say that matter was always there.

 

Also matter is limited. Different amounts of positivly charged protone and negitivly charged electrons linked to neutrons produce different elements like water, 02, oxygen methane, copper etc. They are limited in number and arrangement.

 

Therefore if all matter is made from such matter then we have a conclusion.

 

Everything is limited, limited can not create limited, so how did everything come in to existance?

 

The only conclusion is that there must be one, unlimited thing to create the limited matter which could not create its self or any other matter.

 

This unlimited thing has no limits, no beginning, no end, no height, no weight, no width, can not be measured and is totally self reliant, independant and incomprehendible.

 

So we can not see it or percieve it as it is unlimited nor can we ask who created it, or what was before it. It must be beyond time and space.

 

Please tell me what you think about this.

 

Hello Shaolin,

 

I relate to this subject with the simple example of a prism; on one side of it we have undifferentiated white light and on the other side of it we have colors. Now when using that image CAN we say that the white light or the prism "creates" the spectrum of colors - not really right? (btw. what created the prism? ) Anyway, mind can investigate various energies along these lines and reach the point where all the colors or energies are known as pouring out of a great cosmic prism, but then again for mind to reach through this prism towards the pure white light side - it to would have to leave itself behind as "individual" colors or individual minds for such do not exist on the other side of that prism.

 

...Further, the processes alluded to above can be talked about, but lets now say that the pure light or energy is somehow looking for an even greater source and or connection. Thus on one side of another, even greater prism than the cosmic one mentioned above is where pure energy knows itself as same, yet on the other side (or inside) of this even greater prism is the "unknown" even to it, unknown because for pure energy to reach through this next prism - it to would have to leave itself behind as such, for even it does not exist on the other side of this greater prism. Lastly, imo this last idea is getting way ahead of the game if we are deeply stuck in individual colors. (and or minds)

 

Om

Edited February 8, 2010 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

Just wanted to say that I think there have been some very good posts in this thread. I don't have anything else to add at the moment but wanted y'all to know that I am reading the posts.

 

Peace & Love!

[shaolin]

3bob,

 

Prism, colours are all matter, and limited and matter cant create its self.

 

TzuJanLi,

 

I disagree when you say "the human is a freely independant aspect of Oneness".

 

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean, but a human is totally dependant and is not free at all.

 

Dependant in every way in its form as a whole , to its smallest part. Its limited in its each and every cell and can not create its self or anything else. it is made from atomic structure and elements.

[Marblehead]

TzuJanLi,

 

I disagree when you say "the human is a freely independant aspect of Oneness".

 

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean, but a human is totally dependant and is not free at all.

 

Dependant in every way in its form as a whole , to its smallest part. Its limited in its each and every cell and can not create its self or anything else. it is made from atomic structure and elements.

 

Yeah, I got goose bumps the first time I read that but I do agree with what he said because I understand where he was coming from with it.

 

But you are right also in that we were not created from nothing but created from what already exists in one form or another. And no, we cannot create anything - we can only modify and manipulate what already esists.

 

Peace & Love!