If you dont see eye to eye then that means you have an argument, if you dont want to share it thats fine, but its weird seeing all these weird responces I got on this forum. — Illuminati

I do have an argument, but I'll just observe for now. And yes, it is a little weird, but also interesting.

Personally, I can't recommend it, as one who has also followed this line of thought. It's enlightening but alienating. — MrLiminal

I think i know what you mean, but i don't mind the trouble.

Well, we don't see eye to eye on the whole zero and chaos thing, but that's okay. I don't want to either encourage or discourage you.

From my understanding, everything you quoted and said in your last reply to me is absolutely correct. I have a more engineering and technical oriented way of describing it, but it is essentially the same.

The only point on which i might differ is this:

The “normal” state is non-existence, referred to as Chaos or Zero, which is not an absolute absence but an undifferentiated, formless, and unrestricted unity – a state of absolute potential. — Illuminati

I do not consider "Zero" and "Chaos" to be the exact same thing. I think of Chaos as a kind of higher-order Zero. The difference is that Zero is the static undifferentiated balanced state, while Chaos is the state of dynamic balanced differentiation. Both sum to zero, but one is literally a singular zero, and the other is a multitude that adds up to zero. In my view, Chaos emerges from Zero, and from Chaos emerges order (ordo ab chao). Multiple parts or "pieces" are required to create emergent forms of increasing complexity.

By chaos, i essentially mean what you described in the following quote:

This initial tension and balance between opposites (e.g., positive/negative energy, matter/antimatter) is the driving force of change and evolution, leading to dynamic equilibrium rather than static opposition. — Illuminati

I do think the ancient and traditional way of describing what we are referring to in this discussion is somewhat incomplete, and it is not readily comprehensible to most people, particularly modern minds. Part of my project is to reinterpret what the ancients said in a more modern, updated form, while also filling in some of the gaps they left in their descriptions. It is quite possible in my opinion that these gaps were left intentionally, or it may be that they lacked the requisite concepts to viably formulate certain descriptions of the Monad and its subsequent processes.

Thats exactly it. — Illuminati

Yes, but how do you suppose the determinate and finite aspects of the universe come from or emanate from this Indeterminate One Infinite Zero? How and why?

Where does 2, 3, 4, 5... come from?

Havent found what exactly? — Illuminati

The thing of all things that is not a thing.
The sound of the silent word.
The nature of origin, and the point of reason.
The deep darkness from which the light of sight shines forth.
You want to step into the space between the spaces.

Any and all of these, and none.

I think you’re looking in the right place, but you haven’t quite found it yet, in my humble opinion, of course.

If it was literally #D printed top teh atomic level there is no human touch, so it woudl not be Art. — I like sushi

So, you think that an atomically precise replica of a genuine work of art is not art? For you, the art lies in the physical artifact itself rather than in the concept behind it? But earlier, you suggested that there should be no difference between the two, as i quoted below.

And if so what is there to say against them both being Original if they are indistinguishable by every other trait other than their existing history (which is unobservable physically)? — I like sushi

If i created a work of art, such as a painting, and then gave you an atomically precise printed copy of it, would you consider it art or not? Or, if i wrote a book and gave you an atomically precise copy of it, would you regard that copy as a work of literature?

We find difficulties in these areas and this interests me a lot as it is here that logic fails to demarcate what somethign si or is not due to the subjectivity of experience. — I like sushi

Can you clarify what you mean by “demarcating what something is or is not due to the subjectivity of experience”?

Agreed, to a point. I think I would say 'practical' with a bit more force. If the physicality of a painting is primarily what matters (and I would argue that it is), then both would be indistinguishable. The history of the painting is much harder to construe as 'physical' as a painting -- in terms of aesthetic quality -- is not determined by its historical journey. — I like sushi

Some art is valuable not only because of its aesthetic appeal but also because of its historical significance. An old painting, such as one created by a famous deceased artist, holds greater value due to its history. This is why a replica of the Mona Lisa costs significantly less than the original. The value lies not in the physical painting itself, but in what one thinks and believes about the painting. It’s a subjective distinction, meaning that one could be deceived into thinking the copy is the original and still experience the same feelings as if it were, in fact, the original. Also, one can be convinced that the original is a fake and lose a large portion of its subjective value.

I am sure everyone has heard of the analogy taken at the atom level too where a painting is replicated down to the atomic level? If we then accidently mix them up do they both become the original to us? — I like sushi

Well if i knew which one was the original before they got mixed up then i would know that one of them is the original. I will have a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong and i would know that fact. With no way of knowing choosing one over the other would simply be a belief and not knowledge. Objectively the original is still there but hidden away from our ability to know.

It would not be reasonable in my estimation to state that both are the original, because even if structurally identical they have two different paths within spacetime. Although for practical purposes in most cases i suppose it shouldn't be a problem.

A fake painting is still a painting. A fake, fake painting is still a painting. The ony matter than seems unclear is whether or nto it is fake. — I like sushi

"fake" = -1 [False]
"painting" = 1 [True]

fake painting => fake(painting) = a fake painting

• "fake" is referring to the "painting"
• [-1 * 1 = -1] = False

fake fake painting => fake(fake(painting)) = a genuine painting

• the first "fake" is referring to the "fake painting"
• [-1 * (-1 * 1) = 1] = True

fake fake fake painting => fake(fake(fake(painting))) = a fake painting

• the first "fake" refers to the second "fake" which is referring to the "fake painting"
• [-1 * (-1 * (-1 * 1)) = -1] = False

Keep on adding more "fake" and it will alternate between "fake painting" and "genuine painting" forever.

A "fake fake painting" if you will can also be thought of as a "copy of a copy of the original". The more "fake" you add the further removed from the original the "fake painting" will be. The difference in this way of thinking about it is that once fake always fake with no periodic alterations between fake and genuine.

For example, when we build a car, we put the parts together in a way that the whole, car, has specific function. If you put the part the other way, the whole loses its function. The same applies to a meaningful sentence. When we build a meaningful sentence, we arrange the parts such that the sentence has a meaning. A meaningful sentence refers to an idea, though. The conscious mind creates the idea once the last word in the sentence is read. Although you can break a sentence into its parts, you cannot break an idea since it does not have any parts. — MoK

You’re right that when we hear a meaningful sentence, an idea is “created”. For most of us, ideas feel complete and indivisible. Continuing with the same example, if i say “a car”, the idea that forms in your mind is a single, unified concept. You don’t consciously think about the engine, wheels, or chassis as separate components. The mind creates a cohesive, emergent form from the assembled sentence. However, the apparent unity of an idea doesn’t mean it lacks parts. The complexity and quality of an idea is directly proportional to the number of parts and their relationships to each other that an individual recognizes.

An idea may appear indivisible to your conscious mind, yet its underlying parts typically reside beneath the surface in the subconscious. These hidden components, however, can rise into conscious awareness when examined or reflected upon.

Consider the difference between a car mechanic and someone who simply drives a car. An average driver’s idea of a car is a unified whole, composed of only a few high-level parts: the steering wheel, the pedals, and the body. A mechanic’s idea of a car, however, is far more detailed and complex. Their knowledge and experience allow them to break down the “unified idea” into a multitude of additional components and their relationships to each other: the fuel injection system, the differential, the transmission, the sensors, and the control units. The mechanic’s mind has taken the same unified concept and, through a process of deconstruction, revealed its hidden assembly. Because of this his or her idea of a car is imbued with different affordances than the average person's idea of a car, and thus can do more with it than the average person can. This is where the value of an idea comes from. The more parts of an idea one is aware of, the more capacity for creativity one is afforded with that idea.

Questions:
What do you think is responsible for the differences between different ideas? Why isn't every idea the same idea? Do you think an idea can exist on its own without some form of physical representation or scaffolding that holds it together?

The missing parts are the conscious and subconscious minds. — MoK

More questions:
Okay, but are the conscious and subconscious minds separate from the brain, coming from outside the brain to interact with it, or do you think they are generated by the activity of a living brain? Also, what do you think accounts for the difference between the conscious and subconscious minds?

I have to say that thinking is a process in which we work with old ideas and create new ones. Ideas are mental events that are experienced and created by the mind. Ideas are not reducible to something else. — MoK

Right, i agree that thinking is a process. If the process stops, thinking stops; if the process starts, thinking starts. Excellent.

Now, would you agree with this line of reasoning? If something can be created, then that same thing can be broken down into the parts that were used to create it, although the thing itself ceases to exist once it has been reduced or decomposed. Furthermore, if you take those same parts and reconstruct the original arrangement and relationships would that not result in the original irreducible thing once again?

To put it another way a car stops being a car when reduced to its parts, and becomes a car again when the parts are put together again. Would you agree?

both the conscious and subconscious mind are involved when it comes to writing about complex ideas that are normally long. — MoK

So, are you saying that the missing requirements for thinking, apart from the brain, are consciousness and subconsciousness?

What I am saying is that thinking cannot be done solely by the brain. — MoK

That's interesting, but can you tell me specifically what else is needed apart from the brain in order to think or have thoughts?

Pixel Grip - Last Laugh

Pixel Grip - Reason To Stay


Pixel Grip - STAMINA

Fair enough. I deep subject I agree. — Wayfarer

It most certainly is. :smile:

My remark was directed at the paragraph about the Robocop analogy, where it seemed to be suggesting that the brain usurps the role of an actual agent. — Wayfarer

Well, what i intended to express there was that the deeper the exogenous stimulation of the brain is, the more integrated and unified the effect felt by the subject. Between the sensory (input) and motor (output) regions lie the neural structures responsible for decision-making, where sensory-motor coordination occurs. This central region of the brain's input/process/output system is where stimulation and manipulation become indistinguishable from self-generated decisions.

“…the mind seems to act independently of the brain in the same sense that a programmer acts independently of his computer, however much he may depend upon the action of that computer for certain purposes.”

The extended mind theory proposes a different way of defining the "whole". It argues that the cognitive system is not limited to the brain or even to the body, but is a coupled system that includes the brain, the body, and various external tools and resources. In this view, a person's mind is not just their brain; rather, it is the entire functional system involved in performing a cognitive task.

I largely subscribe to this perspective. For instance, in the context of programming, the relevant cognitive system includes the programmer, the computer, and the software being developed. Within this framework, the programmer and the computer are not entirely separate; their cognitive processes emerge from the integration and interaction of both components. The mind, considered as a coupled system, cannot function independently of its essential parts. If the computer is removed, the cognitive system and its capabilities are fundamentally altered. The mind is therefore not separate from the brain; it is a larger system, with the brain serving as a central component.

Additionally, extended mind theory is not generally considered to commit the mereological fallacy as far as i can tell. On the contrary, it can be seen as a sophisticated response to the very issue that the mereological fallacy highlights, since it addresses the relationship between parts and wholes in cognitive systems by emphasizing integration rather than separation.

However one crucial point that Penfield noted was that the subject could always distinguish a movement or a memory that was elicited by the surgeon from something the subject themselves did. They would say 'you did that'. — Wayfarer

My explanation for this relates to how the situation is set up. The patient is aware of what is happening and knows that the surgeon will be performing exogenous stimulations of his brain. The patient is perceiving the environment and the situation, processing that information in the very brain that is being stimulated. The brain recognizes that it did not generate this movement on its own because it notices there was no conscious reason for it. In the context of the situation, the brain can easily deduce what happened.

A similar phenomenon occurs with "alien hand syndrome", where a patient who has had the hemispheres of their brain disconnected loses volitional control over one hand, much like in the video example. This happens because there are effectively two separate perspectives living in the same brain due to the disconnection. If the two hemispheres were internally connected and integrated, the movement would feel completely volitional. The sense of free will arises from this internal integration of the entire nervous system and brain. Once that integration is disrupted, actions begin to feel out of the individual's control; particularly if the stimulation occurs in shallower regions like motor centers. The surgeon stimulating the brain externally mimics this type of disintegration.

If the surgeon simply stimulates a motor region to move the hand, the brain recognizes that it did not perform the necessary processing to initiate the movement. However, if the surgeon were to stimulate a deeper, more upstream structure, one that precedes motor regions, it could then trigger the initial unconscious pattern of a specific decision, such as moving the hand, which would then feel volitional. It should also be noted that our conscious decisions are processed subconsciously before we become aware of them.

This scene from Robocop illustrates how the right stimulation of deeper brain regions responsible for decision-making can be hijacked, making the person believe they are making their own decisions while actually being controlled externally:

Another crucial point is that neuroscience has not been able to identify the area of the brain that is responsible for the conscious unity of experience. 'enough is known about the structure and function of the visual system to rule out any detailed neural representation that embodies the subjective experience'. And yet this sense of subjective unity is the fulcrum around which all our inner life turns. — Wayfarer

I do not believe there is a single, literal region of the brain responsible for the conscious unity of experience because it is the unified integration of the entire brain and nervous system that gives rise to this unity. It is all the parts working together harmoniously. Disruption to the integrity and unity of the brain would disrupt the unity and integrity of conscious experience. The visual center of the brain is only one part of the whole brain and does not process sound, smell, or any of the other senses. All the sensory centers must work together in the right way for conscious unity to emerge.

The point is that ideas are not causally efficacious within materialism since an idea is a mental event only. We know that ideas are the key elements in thoughts. So, materialism fails to explain how we could have thoughts. — MoK

Yes, but my point is that an idea or a thought cannot exist without a material substrate to support and contain it, such as the brain. When you have an idea or a thought, what is actually happening is that a neural structure or pattern in your brain is being activated or excited. This activation is perceived by other parts of your brain, and the network of interconnected "neural self-perceptions" between these different parts and regions of the brain causes the conscious awareness of your thoughts and ideas. As soon as that neural pattern is disrupted or stops, all thoughts and ideas would equally be disrupted or cease. It is evidently clear that the material substrate for thoughts and ideas is not only the neurons in your brain but also the relative networked connections between them. The structured organization of your material brain is the very thing that allows you to have even the simplest thought possible.

It appears that you have taken idealism and materialism to be two completely different and incompatible perspectives, when in fact they are two sides of the same coin. To use the computer analogy i suggested earlier, a computer's hardware represents its materialistic aspect, and the software represents its idealistic aspect. They go together like time and space and cannot really do anything without each other. Software cannot exist without hardware, and hardware cannot do anything without software.

If you were to allow a brain surgeon to open your brain and begin poking at different areas while you were still awake and aware, you would notice that when the surgeon stimulates a specific spot in the brain, you would experience a specific memory, thought, or emotion associated with that area. This demonstrates that the material and the ideal are causally and efficaciously connected.

Look here:

How does the mind create thoughts? — MoK

What is the duty of the brain when it comes to thoughts, if the mind is the thinking thing? — MoK

The mind does not create thoughts; it is the brain that generates them. The mind simply emerges from the operations of the brain. It represents the aspect of the brain that is more than the sum of its parts (the parts being the neurons). One way to distinguish between the brain and the mind is to use an analogy: the brain is like hardware, while the mind is like software.

The structure and architecture of the brain establishes a latent space in which the abstract objects we call memories are stored and associated. When you have an experience, the brain disassembles the raw data of that experience into its fundamental components or features and stores these parts in a kind of hierarchy within its neural patterns. When we think, the brain retrieves these associated components and reassembles them in what some people refer to as the "global workspace". This process is called remembering because we are taking the parts, or "members", of a stored experience and putting them back together. All of this happens constantly, whether you are aware of it or not, even while you sleep, which is why you dream. The term "mind", at least how i use it, refers to the overall abstract aspect of the brain's activity. It is a phenomenon similar in my view to life itself, but at a higher level of abstraction.

A mind is actually an emergent abstract space. In the same way you can have a "thing" in the world, in physical space, you can also have a "think" in the abstract space that is the mind. In fact any space is in fact a mind of some kind. Molecular space, biological space, culture space, and particularly cyberspace which is the latest spacial emergence on this planet.

In my practice I revere the presence and wisdom in the plants and animals around me. — Punshhh

:smile:

Animals and plants are pretty much identical to humans when it comes to the cellular structure. So how come their soul is markedly different to that of humans? — Punshhh

At the individual cell level, they are largely the same, although some differences exist due to genetic expression. Each animal has an evolutionary heritage that shapes the morphology of its body and its brain or nervous system. These differences in morphology account for variations in neural architecture and, consequently, the kind of "soul" an animal possesses. The "soul" serves as the template for the expression of consciousness and determines the specific type of consciousness that a particular animal exhibits. This is why, for example, the consciousness of a fish is different from that of a bird or a dog, and so on.

If one examines different artificial neural network architectures and considers how the same input information produces different outputs when applied to each architecture, it becomes clear that differences in neural architecture fundamentally affect how information is processed within that architecture.

This image shows a sample of various neural network architectures:


This image shows a sample of various brain morphologies:

But consider again Aristotle's view of 'psuche' (psyche). There was the vegetative, animal, and rational soul, each with different levels of capability, and each possessing the powers of the lesser kind, plus additional powers - in humans, the capacity for rational thought and speech (hence humans, the 'rational animal'.) — Wayfarer

Good answer. This is mostly how i see it, much like Aristotle. However, regarding the mirror test with animals, i’ve noticed that passing it does not necessarily depend on the organism’s level of complexity. It appears to involve a specific structure in the brain or nervous system, which need not be as complex as one might assume at first in order to provide self-awareness. It is certainly interesting.

Yes, i've heard of that experiment, but the version i know involved basketball players mentally rehearsing their moves, as opposed to physically practicing on the court.

Well, my main point is that the soul - not that you have to believe in such a word! - is not something you have, like an appendix or a limb, but what you are. It's a question of identity. — Wayfarer

That is absolutely correct. You, i, and the Buddhists are in perfect accord on this point. You are not who you are without your soul.

However, i think all souls are aware, but not all souls are self-aware. What are your thoughts on this specific point? Do you think an entity can "have" or be an identity (a soul) without directly realizing it is an identity? Consider animals that do not recognize themselves in a mirror.

I thought your depiction had merit. — Wayfarer

:up:

I'll also add that it is now thought that neurons are actually generated in specific regions of the adult brain throughout life, and also that new neural connections and pathways are being created and destroyed regularly through the process of neuroplasticity. — Wayfarer

That is quite true as well. For me, it is precisely these neural connections that constitute a soul. A unique human soul emerges from the distinct pattern of connectivity formed within the specific constraints of the human neural architecture. A different animal would develop a different kind of soul, and there are all kinds of souls. A soul is able to change and evolve thanks to the neuroplasticity of the brain.

This is not an accurate description in the case of neurons, many of which persist from birth — wonderer1

This is precisely why i stated it as:

Over a period of seven to eight years, almost all the cells in your body have been replaced, — punos

Soom T - Path of the Wanderer (ft. Tom Fire)


Stick Figure - World on Fire Remix (DUBBED By Moon Phaser)

Slightly Stoopid - Livin In Babylon (ft. Yellowman)


Soom T - Far From Home

Since you're looking for different perspectives on the soul here is mine. An welcome to the forum fellow spark.

Question 1: "If there is such a thing as a "soul," where did it come from? Did God or any other diety create it?"

A "soul" is an information pattern that persists beyond the body. By "persist beyond the body", i do not necessarily mean that the soul survives the death of the body, though it can in certain circumstances.

Here’s what i mean: Your biological body replaces its cells periodically. Over a period of seven to eight years, almost all the cells in your body have been replaced, yet you still perceive yourself as the same person you were eight years ago. The substance of your body may change, but the "soul", your information pattern, persists in continuity. Reflecting on the Ship of Theseus can help gain a deeper understanding of this principle.

Question 2:
A) "If there is a "soul" inside your body, is it seperate from you or is it the same as you?"

The connection between the body and the soul is a bit nuanced. In reality, a soul cannot exist without a body, but it is not necessarily tied to a single body. A soul can be translated into another body, but this must be done in a very specific and careful way to maintain conscious continuity; otherwise, the soul can become damaged or even destroyed. So, in one sense, your body and soul are one, but in another sense, they are not.

B) "In other words, who is in control of the body? Is it like a "Player vs. Vessel" situation as we see in the games created by Toby Fox (Undertale and Deltarune)? "Are you truly in control of yourself?" is the question I am trying to ask, I suppose."

The answer to this question enters into free will territory, and i would prefer to decline the opportunity to speak on that subject at this time.

C) "And let's say hypothetically, that Christianity is true, would that mean that You would go to Heaven, or "you," the soul? Since those are two separate things."

If Christianity were true, then going to heaven would entail a transformation of the body, which i would interpret as translating the soul into another operational substrate; a body that more permanently preserves your information pattern, protected from external entropy. One could think of heaven as a kind of "virtual reality" where a soul (information pattern) can exist and function in optimally enhanced ways: deathless, and coterminous with the universe, or at least while the physical substrate or system that runs the "virtual reality" remains operational.

Question 3: "If the soul is seperate from the body, why even bother to be a good person? You wouldn't even go to Heaven, your SOUL would. Would you even bother to be a good person?"

I won't address the issue of being a "good person", because both good and bad people have souls that operate in the same way. A bad person can enter heaven (a kind of virtual reality) just as easily as a good person can. The question is whether God lets you in or not, but there is no intrinsic difference between the souls and their ability to inhabit heaven.

Consider this analogy: Think of your body as a car, and the driver as the soul. Suppose you have a red car and you like to speed and run red lights. What will happen is that you will receive tickets, develop a bad driving record, and face higher insurance rates. Even if you get a different car, now blue, your bad driving record follows you, even in the new car or body. What you do with your body affects how your soul develops.

So, in the context of your question, even if your current body does not go to heaven, the consequences of what you did while in that body will remain with your soul and may influence your entry into heaven. One is not the body; one is the soul and the soul is the psyche or mind.

Question 4: If the soul and the body are one and the same, how would that even work? Is it something akin to "you are the soul piloting a human body" type situation, like some spiritual people say?

I believe my replies to your other questions sufficiently answer this one.

Unfortunately, the audio isn't very good. I had to use my large speakers along with captions.

You forgot this one :smile: :
Bob Seger - Night Moves

"workin' on mysteries without any clues"

In this graph, a break happens and is carried over by a series of three annihilations. Focusing on the bottom row, notice that there is a negative particle at the far left that did not annihilate with its original pair. Because the positive particle did not annihilate with its original negative partner but with another negative from another pair, it leaves the positive charge just hanging around. Then because this positive particle annihilated with the negative of another pair, it leaves the positive from that pair hanging, which then annihilates with the next negative particle, leaving that positive charge hanging, and this process repeats over and over again forever separating the two charges further and further. — punos

I asked Grok 3 to brake down this description in a simpler to understand way (hopefully it helps):

• Imagine particles that come in two types: negative (-) and positive (+). They like to pair up, one negative with one positive.
• We start with one negative particle all alone on the left side.
• Its original positive partner leaves it and pairs up with a different negative particle instead.
• This leaves the first positive particle without a partner.
• The lonely positive particle then finds a new negative particle to pair with.
• When it does, it takes that negative particle away from another positive particle it was already paired with.
• Now that new positive particle is left alone.
• The newly unpaired positive particle finds another negative particle to pair with, breaking up another pair.
• This keeps happening over and over, like a chain reaction.
• Each time a positive particle pairs with a negative one, it frees up another positive particle, but there’s always one positive particle left without a partner.
• In short, it’s a repeating cycle where particles swap partners, and one positive particle always ends up alone as the process continues.

The Virtual/Actual Particle process is over my head. But for my own philosophical purposes, I substitute "Potential" in place of "Virtual". Potential could refer to Plato's eternal realm of Forms, for which we have no empirical evidence. But Virtual refers to Vacuum Energy*1, for which we also have no empirical evidence, only mathematical theories & speculative inference. So, either way, we are shooting in the dark. — Gnomon

Virtual in this context relates to time. A virtual particle is virtual because it exists for no longer than one or maybe two instances of time. It's there and gone before you know it, thus it's virtual. When this virtual churn of particles gets disrupted, it pops out of the virtual state into the actual state (as in my descriptive illustration) and becomes real in time.

For me, potential is another word for "possible", and if something is possible, then it is also probable to some degree. For something to have potential, it must have an alternative state that it can possibly take. Primordial potential is supplied by the latent dimensional manifold (space) in which energy can take differential states (scalar and vector states).

I think that as knowledge increases, humanity will come to understand that not all things need to be proven empirically. We will learn that logical structures below what cannot be empirically observed must exist in some latent or Platonic form, and that these hidden logical structures must be of a certain form to yield the forms that we can see or detect empirically. I think that the empirical form of knowing is kind of like training wheels for a humanity still learning how to know. The empirical method helps shape our understanding of the logic of the universe, and when this shape is complete, we will be able to move beyond the empirical, but that is probably still a long way off.

You know, every shot in the dark either tells you that something is there or not there. It's like shooting a laser in a pitch-dark room trying to find some object. If you use the laser systematically, you will eventually hit the object. Then you use your laser to determine the shape of the object by hitting it in different places. You will never see the object as it really is, but you can learn that it is there and that it has certain features.

Personally, my amateur cosmology combines elements of both. The Bang "Singularity" was a seed of eternal-infinite Potential (Platonic Form ; divine creative power???), which became the source for our limited supply of space-time Energy (first law of thermodynamics), but which continually changes Form from Causation to Matter & back again, producing the continual creation that we call Evolution. But, I suppose your guess is as good as mine. :smile: — Gnomon

The "divine creative power" in my model of understanding these things is tied to logic itself, which performs operations of divisibility upon itself and all that exists within it. Imperfections in these divisibility operations are the source of "free energy" (free energy principle by Karl Friston) or "vacuum energy". These imperfections are caused by the aforementioned broken symmetry of space. Additionally, in my mind, the words "divinity" and "divisibility" are related. Divisibility is what divinity does.

However, we must always keep in mind that the map is not the territory, and that our models are only as good as what they can predict. This doesn't mean that reality is literally isomorphic with our models, except perhaps in their predictive power. That is what counts.

I try to eliminate as much guesswork as possible by starting from a completely blank beginning and working up as i build the logical structures one by one that are necessary for the emergence of a universe like ours. If the logic works, then it is as good as the real thing, at least in my book. The moment we ignore the logic of structure, we lose the plot and get lost.

There is a disconnect in our understanding between classical physics and quantum physics, and there is another disconnect between quantum physics and what lies below quantum physics. To resolve these disconnects, we will have to change the way we think about things in a radically different way than we have been doing. If we insist on thinking in the same old way, we will always remain in the same old situation.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein

The question i always ask in relation to the beginning of spacetime is: Why did the universe suddenly decide to begin existing at some arbitrary "time", and not one second earlier or later? How strange. One might respond by saying that there was no time before time began, thus making it a meaningless question ("north from the north pole"). Okay, but if there was no time before time began, then how or why did time begin? Something must have happened before the universe began in order to cause it to begin.

One way i get around this conundrum is to say that time has always existed, and within this pre-Big Bang time, things can happen which cause Big Bangs to occur, out of which entropic "arrows of time" come into being. Our universe is one such "arrow of time". Our notion of time is thermodynamic and entropic, so if we try to employ this notion to understand things before the birth of the "arrow of time", we would be lost. It would be like trying to fit a square object in a round hole. The problem, i think, is in assuming that "absolute time" does not exist, and assuming only "relative time" does.

I personally do not subscribe to the idea of a multiverse because the way i see it, there is only one universe, infinite in expanse and "timeless" in its duration. What may be happening is that "arrows of time" emerge locally out of the natural breaking of symmetry in infinite space. These "arrows" go on for a while and spread thermodynamically into infinite space. Eventually, the "arrow" dissipates almost completely, and another arrow of time comes into being. This is one way (not the only way) to potentially explain it. It's not necessarily the way i see it, but it's something to work with. This idea i think is very similar to Roger Penrose's cyclic theory of the universe.

The model i'm leaning towards at the moment has nothing to do with Big Bangs or multiple universes. I think it's possible that matter simply precipitates out of space as per the quantum foam and its virtual particles getting knocked off their path to annihilation with their anti-partner, which leaves them floating around in space with no way to finally annihilate. These particles accumulate in space gradually over eternity, and we get a universe that looks like ours with huge collections of these lost particles forming dust clouds, stars, and planets. For a local observer, the universe would still look like it's expanding. Only inside a local gravity well would things remain gravitationally bound.

The description below is my own model for how virtual particles become actual particles, as a continuous process. We don't need a Big Bang to create the matter in the universe. I don't have a name for it yet, maybe "Continuous Creation Model", or maybe you can suggest one. :smile:


In this graph representation of the quantum foam, the top row of circles with 0s represent null space. The next row below represents virtual particle/antiparticle pairs, and the row below that represents the return of the virtual particles back to their ground symmetry state after annihilation.



In this graph, a break happens and is carried over by a series of three annihilations. Focusing on the bottom row, notice that there is a negative particle at the far left that did not annihilate with its original pair. Because the positive particle did not annihilate with its original negative partner but with another negative from another pair, it leaves the positive charge just hanging around. Then because this positive particle annihilated with the negative of another pair, it leaves the positive from that pair hanging, which then annihilates with the next negative particle, leaving that positive charge hanging, and this process repeats over and over again forever separating the two charges further and further.

The result is that these charge separations reduce the probability of full annihilation, and they accumulate in infinite space over an eternity. Note that it is not the particle that is moving away, but the charge itself that is being carried by different successive virtual particles along a sequence of annihilations. The positive, charge is propagating to the right in this illustration, but in reality both charges would propagate in opposite directions away from each other.

It's not difficult to understand but it is a bit difficult to explain in writing, which is why i made these quick images to help illustrate the concept.

:smile:

America - A Horse With No Name


Neil Young - Old Man


America - You Can Do Magic

Although Whitehead was a remarkable mathematician, apparently he was not a hard-nosed logician, or empirical scientist. Instead, like many mathematicians --- going back to Pythagoras, Pascal, and Ramanujan --- he seemed to view the world from the open-minded perspective of an artist or mystic — Gnomon

I think the mystic and the rationalist are two sides of the same coin, like the left and right hemispheres of the brain, and the dichotomy between Eastern and Western modes of thought. I like to think of myself as a kind of 'logical mystic', or a "mysic of logic". The mystic tends to get a gestalt image of the whole process but misses the logical details, while the rationalist tends to focus on minute details of the whole process but misses the big picture. This is similar to the relationship between reductionism and holism; one needs both to grasp the comprehensive logical picture. We must bring to bare the whole of our minds on the whole of the mystery. There is a key, and i do believe it can be found (certain keys have already been found), but it is like a needle in a haystack. The solution might be to burn the heystack to ashes in order to reveal the key within. :smile:

There is one truth between two perspectives: