The origin of mankind

[Junko]

Milk and honey and toast.

[Junko]

Yes, the atom came first and then the atomic bomb.

Good thing that mankind has never figured out how to use atomic bomb properly today. Edited April 6, 2016 by Junko

[Karl]

Okay.  I'm with you here.  And I can understand your attempt at self-creation.

 

Stephen Hawking tried the same thing in his documentary about the universe not needing a god to be created.  But his suggestion was that the universe was created out of nothing.

 

I don't buy that.  The universe was created out of singularity (One).  Everything of the universe was an aspect of singularity prior to the Big Bang.  What caused singularity to bang?  Maybe singularity wasn't happy being so alone and wanted some friends so it gave birth to Two.

 

With singularity we still do not need a creator.  We do need a cause but we will never know that cause because it happened prior to singularity banging.

 

 

 

Oh, forget the big hand and the sprinkling.  The entire universe (potential) was within singularity prior to the Big Bang.

 

Maybe I'm ahead of Hawking at this point. The universe wasn't created, the universe IS in whatever form it is and has always. This is a proper mind bender, but there was never a time when.....because all time is in the universe. There was no start, because causality has been always. Now, if there was a Big Bang within the universe it is certainly very possible, but nothing came before the universe because there was nothing but the universe.

 

See the problem here ? As soon as you say it begins, started, or any other thing, then it had to begin within something. What was the thing in which the singularity appeared ? The universe. Was the singularity the universe ? That's possible, but the universe is whatever question you can think to ask of it.

[Michael Sternbach]

I asked this of Brian and he back heeled it, so I will try again. A field IS something, it isn't nothing.

 

I didn't say it's nothing. But it may be no more than space in a conditioned state.

 

What's also very clear to me is that a field (how so ever that is defined and Brian wouldn't attempt it- even though it seems to me he is in the best position to do so) has to be emitted by something.

 

Even though it's very clear to you, it is quite wrong. The zero point field (or vacuum field) exists everywhere without the presence of any matter emitting it.

 

The "soul field" is related to this field in my view.

 

The article Field Concepts and the Emergence of a Holistic Biophysics by the Swiss researcher Marco Bischof may help with this.

 

http://www.marcobischof.com/en/texte/show.html?id=art_3d141900af22a

 

Within the universe we do have causality, so we can logically infer that something does not come from nothing. It's also evident that a field needs a substrate, in other words something over which it has an effect.

 

The soul has an effect on the matter of the body which it animates. (Anima = soul, btw.)

 

Now, putting that aside. If what you say is true. Then, how do you explain its injection into the body. I mean we know cells a living right at the beginning of gestation. Sperm are cells as are human eggs. So do you equally believe these are conscious entities deriving their soul from this field. How is it that, until a baby becomes almost full grown in the womb, it is not yet conscious.

 

Although already the sperm cells and egg cells have a connection to the 'vacuum field', this is of a much lower order than a soul connecting to a developing human body. It does this gradually, that's why the fetus is becoming increasingly conscious.

 

If it lacks a vital organ it might be still born so how do you account for that ?

 

Obviously, the soul cannot establish a connection to a body that doesn't have the capacity to function.

[Karl]

I understand what you are saying but I fear you do not understand what I said.  The word "born" is to be understood figuratively, not literally.  Only living things are born.  The rest are created.

 

And yes, everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be but as Dao is dynamic all things undergo constant change.  Here today, gone tomorrow.

 

My usage of "no-thing" is referring to the duality of "wu and yu", Mystery and Manifest.  While in the state of wu there is no-thing until this potential of wu is manifest and then there are things.

 

Yes, the chicken came first.  Then the egg was laid. 

 

One came first, then Two, then Three, then all manifest things.  A functioning brain capable of consciousness came first and then there was consciousness.

 

And I agree, existence came first and then consciousness.

 

Certainly constant change which is causality. Every action and reaction.

 

I would suggest the removal of mystery and then see no duality. There is only manifest. No duality is possible. You have never come across anything that is something and something else as well. A is A. Begin there. Any mystery is solved immediately by an axiomatic IS. A mystery is generally something that cannot be known, but with existence we already have the known, so no mystery is possible. I mean, there it is, bold as brass, it isn't hiding and its origin is the universe which we have already talked about.

 

Exactly, a functioning brain/body must be logically prior to consciousness. Existence must exist prior to consciousness.

 

These questions boil down to 'was I created?' Which has been answered by your parents. Was the universe created? No. It could not have been created because it is the universe and any creating is on the level of causality within the bounds of the universe. Can consciousness exist seperate to the body ? No because existence implies identity and identity consciousness, therefore there cannot be a no identified consciousness because it woukd contradict existence. When I die where do I go ? Nowhere. The end. The body dies and there is no place a consciousness can go, it's like run down clockwork or a depleted cell.

[thelerner]

Why would you want to know the origin of Humankind? Why would you want to know the Purpose? Since the origin and the purpose are one in the same.  Would you really want to know if you are fulfilling the Purpose, cause if you were not, What do you think that would hold for you?

Like so many other pieces of useless factual knowledge I've collected, it allows me to tell others- I'm right, you're wrong- and get a little glow of egotistical satisfaction.

 

That, and aligning myself to it's Purpose, which should probably give me some sort of bonus points..

[Nungali]

Ok ... what are atoms made from?

 

Little mini-atoms .   

 

(or  teenie baby turtles) 

[Karl]

I didn't say it's nothing. But it may be no more than space in a conditioned state.

 

 

 

Even though it's very clear to you, it is quite wrong. The zero point field (or vacuum field) exists everywhere without the presence of any matter emitting it.

 

The "soul field" is related to this field in my view.

 

The article Field Concepts and the Emergence of a Holistic Biophysics by the Swiss researcher Marco Bischof may help with this.

 

http://www.marcobischof.com/en/texte/show.html?id=art_3d141900af22a

 

 

 

The soul has an effect on the matter of the body which it animates. (Anima = soul, btw.)

 

 

 

Although already the sperm cells and egg cells have a connection to the 'vacuum field', this is of a much lower order than a soul connecting to a developing human body. It does this gradually, that's why the fetus is becoming increasingly conscious.

 

 

 

Obviously, the soul cannot establish a connection to a body that doesn't have the capacity to function.

 

Brian said a field was something in which there are points with values. Values are something and not zero. This surely implies a flow as there are values ? Every is implies an ought. I'm not saying I understand in any sense I'm just cycling through the logic. If there was a field surely we could detect it ?

[Nungali]

Good thing that mankind have never been figured out how to use atomic bomb properly today.

 

HUH ?  

 

There is a proper use for an atomic bomb ? 

[Karl]

HUH ?  

 

There is a proper use for an atomic bomb ? 

 

Popcorn making ?

[Stosh]

There are also small nukes which are effective at closer ranges, fired by tank etc . 

[thelerner]

HUH ?  

 

There is a proper use for an atomic bomb ? 

 

 

There are also small nukes which are effective at closer ranges, fired by tank etc . 

Hmnn, is this Origins of mankind, or Endings..?

[Stosh]

According to Planet of the Apes , it could count either way.

[Marblehead]

Maybe I'm ahead of Hawking at this point. The universe wasn't created, the universe IS in whatever form it is and has always. This is a proper mind bender, but there was never a time when.....because all time is in the universe. There was no start, because causality has been always. Now, if there was a Big Bang within the universe it is certainly very possible, but nothing came before the universe because there was nothing but the universe. See the problem here ? As soon as you say it begins, started, or any other thing, then it had to begin within something. What was the thing in which the singularity appeared ? The universe. Was the singularity the universe ? That's possible, but the universe is whatever question you can think to ask of it.

Yeah, Hawking had a goal.

 

There was no time during the universe's state of singularity.  There is no way to even attempt measuring how long it was in that state.

 

Beyond the ever-changing borders of the universe there is Absolute Nothingness.  And this is where singularity was.  But there is no way to measure that either even though tracing the Big Bang backward one could define a point within the universe where singularity likely was.

 

The Daoist concepts of cycles and reversion apply here.  Even universes come and go; cycles.  Singularity, manifestation and return to singularity; reversion.

 

Perhaps our present universe is what was in the last universe a black hole.

 

True, even singularity at one time was the entire universe that we presently have.

 

Were there others?  Will there be more?  No one knows the answers to these two questions.  But we can still play with the questions.

[Marblehead]

I would suggest the removal of mystery and then see no duality. There is only manifest. No duality is possible. You have never come across anything that is something and something else as well. A is A. Begin there. Any mystery is solved immediately by an axiomatic IS. A mystery is generally something that cannot be known, but with existence we already have the known, so no mystery is possible. I mean, there it is, bold as brass, it isn't hiding and its origin is the universe which we have already talked about.

I will expand on this.  It's not really duality.  Manifest is a subset of Mystery.  That is, yo is a subset of wu.  Manifest is an aspect of Mystery, not an opposite.

 

Dark matter and dark energy are also aspects of Mystery.  Or maybe dark matter is really seven additional parallel universes.  But even if this were so they would still be a mystery to us as if they exist they exist in other dimensions with different physical laws.

 

Wu is the total potential of Dao.  We can't define Dao, we cannot solve the mystery.  But we can experience the manifest.  We are of the manifest.

[Karl]

Yeah, Hawking had a goal.

 

There was no time during the universe's state of singularity.  There is no way to even attempt measuring how long it was in that state.

 

Beyond the ever-changing borders of the universe there is Absolute Nothingness.  And this is where singularity was.  But there is no way to measure that either even though tracing the Big Bang backward one could define a point within the universe where singularity likely was.

 

The Daoist concepts of cycles and reversion apply here.  Even universes come and go; cycles.  Singularity, manifestation and return to singularity; reversion.

 

Perhaps our present universe is what was in the last universe a black hole.

 

True, even singularity at one time was the entire universe that we presently have.

 

Were there others?  Will there be more?  No one knows the answers to these two questions.  But we can still play with the questions.

 

There are no borders because borders suggest a beyond. If beyond is where there is nothing then there can be no beyond, there is only the universe, it is the same as life. While we are here we are conscious of it, when we are dead so is consciousness. Just like that there is no beyond. The flame goes out.

 

The universe is finite but unbounded. There is only causality, so, what we imagine as an edge isnt likely to be anything close.

 

Are there more, will there be more ? Who can say, but we are already and we can't get our heads around the opportunity we have.

[Marblehead]

There are no borders because borders suggest a beyond. If beyond is where there is nothing then there can be no beyond, there is only the universe, it is the same as life. While we are here we are conscious of it, when we are dead so is consciousness. Just like that there is no beyond. The flame goes out.

Yeah, speaking of the edge of the universe is insane as if it is true that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light we can't even observe the edge is real time, no matter where in the universe we are.

 

Yes, there is only the universe as we can observe it.  That is why anything beyond the limits of the universe is defined as Absolutely Nothing.

 

Well, unless we go brain dead but our body is kept alive. 

 

The universe is finite but unbounded. There is only causality, so, what we imagine as an edge isnt likely to be anything close.

I would accept "The Dao is finite but unbounded."  If dark energy stops pushing the universe outward then there may be a time when the universe begins to collapse upon itself and we could call that point where the universe stopped expanding and before it started collapsing the ultimate boundary.

 

No, I can't even imagine an edge but I can imagine trying to imagine it.

 

Are there more, will there be more ? Who can say, but we are already and we can't get our heads around the opportunity we have.

We cannot go into the past prior to the Big Bang and I have no idea what I will be doing tomorrow let alone how the universe will end.

[Junko]

Ok ... what are atoms made from?

Atoms are made from protons,neutrons and electrons.

[Apech]

Atoms are made from protons,neutrons and electrons.

 

And what are they made from?

[Junko]

Protons and neutrons are made from quarks.

Electrons are made from nothing eles.(as far as we know)

[Apech]

Protons and neutrons are made from quarks. Electrons are made from nothing eles.(as far as we know)

 

 

All of them are energy exhibiting different states and properties?

[Nungali]

Quark is an Eskimo word for turtle. 

[Michael Sternbach]

Quark is an Eskimo word for turtle.

Does this mean that particles consist of turtles? And those turtles consist of smaller turtles - all the way down?

[Michael Sternbach]

All of them are energy exhibiting different states and properties?

 

That's one way to look at it.

[Michael Sternbach]