L
literarywriter
Guest
Its decay? Then what? Levels of nothingness?
Parallel nothingnesses? Their decay? Then what?
Parallel nothingnesses? Their decay? Then what?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Erase the concept of space in which you can make/separate conceptual levels within nothingness, because that is not nothingness. Erase even the idea of nothingness, and you get closer.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
LW,
I believe that, after we die, our personality dissolves into nothingness, but our higher self continues on. So it's not bad as it sounds.
I believe that, after we die, our personality dissolves into nothingness, but our higher self continues on. So it's not bad as it sounds.
L
literarywriter
Guest
I was being sarcastic with my original post. I don't buy into nothingness. Here's one of the problems I have with it. It seems, or I'm under the impression, and anybody who believes in it, they can clarify things for me if they want, that being said, I'm under the impression, people who believe in it believe it's like sleeping or you just won't be aware of things. It's hard to picture in one's mind of course, because then it's not nothingness. That being said, I believe people have to be held accountable. I can't subscribe to such a point of view where people aren't held accountable, because to think that my eternal resting place will be next to Hitler's, I can't acknowledge such a belief, and I won't. Now I know that example is extreme, and might turn some people off. But is it not true? I mean, if a person has such a belief, it's almost like we're all going to be sleeping in the same eternal bed, if you believe in nothingness. (And to argue, you won't know, is kind of a weak argument.)
Just some thoughts. . . .
Just some thoughts. . . .
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
From Chuang-Tzu, The Discourse on Making All Things Equal:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The torch of chaos and doubt - this is what the sage steers by. So he does not use things but relegates all to the constant. This is what it means to use clarity.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now I am going to make a statement here. I don't know whether it fits into the category of other people's statements or not. But whether it fits into their category or whether it doesn't, it obviously fits into some category. So in that respect it is no different from their statements. However, let me try making my statement.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly there is nonbeing. But I do not know, when it comes to nonbeing, which is really being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something. But I don't know whether what I have said has really said something or whether it hasn't said something.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The torch of chaos and doubt - this is what the sage steers by. So he does not use things but relegates all to the constant. This is what it means to use clarity.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now I am going to make a statement here. I don't know whether it fits into the category of other people's statements or not. But whether it fits into their category or whether it doesn't, it obviously fits into some category. So in that respect it is no different from their statements. However, let me try making my statement.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly there is nonbeing. But I do not know, when it comes to nonbeing, which is really being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something. But I don't know whether what I have said has really said something or whether it hasn't said something.[/FONT]
H
Hermes
Guest
"...reincarnation is real and happens after we die - we come back into a culture, karmic family, country, economic circumstance and physical body that your karmic balance allows...
...you see the way I see it and the way I was indoctrinated by my Guru - there are two kinds of families, your karmic and spiritual. The first is your life, your blessing/burden/pain. The other is your past lives and past connections going back sometimes eons. So in reality, these two often intersect and physical family and karmic family becomes one. In other words, you meet characters from your past life in your current life." loosely quoted from my new book Confessions of a Mystic Traveler
Confessions of a Mystic Traveler (The Circle of Life: Chapter 1): Andras Nagy: Amazon.com: Kindle Store
...you see the way I see it and the way I was indoctrinated by my Guru - there are two kinds of families, your karmic and spiritual. The first is your life, your blessing/burden/pain. The other is your past lives and past connections going back sometimes eons. So in reality, these two often intersect and physical family and karmic family becomes one. In other words, you meet characters from your past life in your current life." loosely quoted from my new book Confessions of a Mystic Traveler
Confessions of a Mystic Traveler (The Circle of Life: Chapter 1): Andras Nagy: Amazon.com: Kindle Store
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
Nothingness is hard to understand through explanation, you might have to accept the concept until it all comes together by itself. Do consider seattlegals first post. You keep understanding 'nothingness' with a beginning and an end, which not everyone does. It is similar to sleeping in that there is no consciousness, only nothingness. Death isn't eternal, like the end of a sentence isn't eternal, it is simply the end of something.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
The nothingness of "pre Big Bang" is as absurd as the "singularity" of the Big Bang. The empirical mind (science) cannot go there, one must use meta-physical thought.
The current darling of physics, Membrane Theory says it's repeating Big Bangs and Big Crunches forever and ever and always has been. Similar to ordinary Big Bangs and Crunches from General Relativity and a closed Universe.
Precisely the same Many Worlds, with the same relationships, of Many World Quantum Theory, perhaps as unified as they ever will be.
Thomas 18
The disciples said to Jesus: "Tell us how our end will be." Jesus said: "Have you already discovered the beginning that you are now asking about the end? For where the beginning is, there the end will be too. Blessed is he who will stand at the beginning. And he will know the end, and he will not taste death." © Patterson-Robinson
Precisely the same Many Worlds, with the same relationships, of Many World Quantum Theory, perhaps as unified as they ever will be.
Thomas 18
The disciples said to Jesus: "Tell us how our end will be." Jesus said: "Have you already discovered the beginning that you are now asking about the end? For where the beginning is, there the end will be too. Blessed is he who will stand at the beginning. And he will know the end, and he will not taste death." © Patterson-Robinson
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
No, some M-theorists postulate that. No proof, merely nice equations. But some pretty mainstream cosmologists (like Heller and Penrose) who are not M-Theorists believe it also.
Many Worlds (as such) has nothing to say about the Big Bang (one could postulate a Big Bang in Many Worlds.
It is not correct to attribute cyclic cosmology to M-Theory (one does not imply the other) or to attribute the same to many-world theory.
At this level, it is all metaphysics.
Many Worlds (as such) has nothing to say about the Big Bang (one could postulate a Big Bang in Many Worlds.
It is not correct to attribute cyclic cosmology to M-Theory (one does not imply the other) or to attribute the same to many-world theory.
At this level, it is all metaphysics.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Cyclic Universe[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]PAUL STEINHARDT is the Albert Einstein Professor in Science and on the faculty of both the Departments of Physics and Astrophysical Sciences at Princeton University.
He is one of the leading theorists responsible for inflationary theory. He constructed the first workable model of inflation and the theory of how inflation could produce seeds for galaxy formation. He was also among the first to show evidence for dark energy and cosmic acceleration, introducing the term "quintessence" to refer to dynamical forms of dark energy. With Neil Turok he has pioneered mathematical and computational techniques which decisively disproved rival theories of structure formation such as cosmic strings. He made leading contributions to inflationary theory and to our understanding of the origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the Universe. Hence, the authors not only witnessed but also led firsthand the revolutionary developments in the standard cosmological model caused by the fusion of particle physics and cosmology in the last 20 years.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
...
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]More specifically, this model proposes a universe in which the evolution of the universe is cyclic. That is to say, the universe goes through periods of evolution from hot to cold, from dense to under-dense, from hot radiation to the structure we see today, and eventually to an empty universe. Then, a sequence of events occurs that cause the cycle to begin again. The empty universe is reinjected with energy, creating a new period of expansion and cooling. This process repeats periodically forever. What we're witnessing now is simply the latest cycle. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The notion of a cyclic universe is not new. People have considered this idea as far back as recorded history. The ancient Hindus, for example, had a very elaborate and detailed cosmology based on a cyclic universe. They predicted the duration of each cycle to be 8.64 billion years—a prediction with three-digit accuracy. This is very impressive, especially since they had no quantum mechanics and no string theory! It disagrees with the number that I'm going suggest, which is trillions of years rather than billions. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The cyclic notion has also been a recurrent theme in Western thought. Edgar Allan Poe and Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, each had cyclic models of the universe, and in the early days of relativistic cosmology, Albert Einstein, Alexandr Friedman, Georges Lemaître, and Richard Tolman were interested in the cyclic idea. I think it is clear why so many have found the cyclic idea to be appealing: If you have a universe with a beginning, you have the challenge of explaining why it began and the conditions under which it began. If you have a universe, which is cyclic, it is eternal, so you don't have to explain the beginning....[/FONT]
Edge: THE CYCLIC UNIVERSE
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]PAUL STEINHARDT is the Albert Einstein Professor in Science and on the faculty of both the Departments of Physics and Astrophysical Sciences at Princeton University.
He is one of the leading theorists responsible for inflationary theory. He constructed the first workable model of inflation and the theory of how inflation could produce seeds for galaxy formation. He was also among the first to show evidence for dark energy and cosmic acceleration, introducing the term "quintessence" to refer to dynamical forms of dark energy. With Neil Turok he has pioneered mathematical and computational techniques which decisively disproved rival theories of structure formation such as cosmic strings. He made leading contributions to inflationary theory and to our understanding of the origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the Universe. Hence, the authors not only witnessed but also led firsthand the revolutionary developments in the standard cosmological model caused by the fusion of particle physics and cosmology in the last 20 years.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
...
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]More specifically, this model proposes a universe in which the evolution of the universe is cyclic. That is to say, the universe goes through periods of evolution from hot to cold, from dense to under-dense, from hot radiation to the structure we see today, and eventually to an empty universe. Then, a sequence of events occurs that cause the cycle to begin again. The empty universe is reinjected with energy, creating a new period of expansion and cooling. This process repeats periodically forever. What we're witnessing now is simply the latest cycle. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The notion of a cyclic universe is not new. People have considered this idea as far back as recorded history. The ancient Hindus, for example, had a very elaborate and detailed cosmology based on a cyclic universe. They predicted the duration of each cycle to be 8.64 billion years—a prediction with three-digit accuracy. This is very impressive, especially since they had no quantum mechanics and no string theory! It disagrees with the number that I'm going suggest, which is trillions of years rather than billions. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The cyclic notion has also been a recurrent theme in Western thought. Edgar Allan Poe and Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, each had cyclic models of the universe, and in the early days of relativistic cosmology, Albert Einstein, Alexandr Friedman, Georges Lemaître, and Richard Tolman were interested in the cyclic idea. I think it is clear why so many have found the cyclic idea to be appealing: If you have a universe with a beginning, you have the challenge of explaining why it began and the conditions under which it began. If you have a universe, which is cyclic, it is eternal, so you don't have to explain the beginning....[/FONT]
Edge: THE CYCLIC UNIVERSE
Many Words Quantum Theory produces the same exact Many Worlds that General Relativity and a closed Universe produce. Precisely the same.
When the Universe comes close to the singularity, planck time or whatever, for all practical purposes, all information is destroyed. So, how do you know which cycle of the Big Banging and crunching is going on now. They are all happening at the same time, and always have been, and sorting out those overlapping Many Worlds from GR is what the Quantum Theory is.
In my opinion.
When the Universe comes close to the singularity, planck time or whatever, for all practical purposes, all information is destroyed. So, how do you know which cycle of the Big Banging and crunching is going on now. They are all happening at the same time, and always have been, and sorting out those overlapping Many Worlds from GR is what the Quantum Theory is.
In my opinion.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Nope. You obviously are way out of your depth. Many worlds is an alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation. There may be some relativity physicists who believe in the MWT, but it is not implied by GRT. Nope nowhere near the same. Quantum and Relativity are about fundamentally different things.
You can believe they are "precisely the same" ain't so.(compare Quantum theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to Theory of relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Do they overlap? Yep. But very few (like Hawking and Penrose) can do both.
"When the Universe comes close to the singularity, planck time or whatever, for all practical purposes, all information is destroyed. So, how do you know which cycle of the Big Banging and crunching is going on now. They are all happening at the same time, and always have been, and sorting out those overlapping Many Worlds from GR is what the Quantum Theory is."
The first sentence says nothing. At the singularity all Relativistic and Quantum equations (as we can construct them now) fail to apply. That is what the term means. Information? Do we know it is destroyed? No. Do we know there was information before the singularity? No. So the first sentence is meaningless.
We do not even know if there is a Big Bang, let alone a set of cycle. The one thing we really, really do not know is how the Big Crunch happens. It just makes sense to some of us (most physicists believe in one Big Bang, not a cyclic cosmology.
The "all happening at the same time" is the assumption of Einstein and the "Block Universe" set. Not everyone agrees with it (and the math does not differentiate). Sorry, Quantum Theory and Relativity Theory are (at this point) mutually exclusive). That is most relativity theorists do not believe in what most quantum physicists believe and vice versa. Just not as easy as you want it to be.
Best of luck!
You can believe they are "precisely the same" ain't so.(compare Quantum theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to Theory of relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Do they overlap? Yep. But very few (like Hawking and Penrose) can do both.
"When the Universe comes close to the singularity, planck time or whatever, for all practical purposes, all information is destroyed. So, how do you know which cycle of the Big Banging and crunching is going on now. They are all happening at the same time, and always have been, and sorting out those overlapping Many Worlds from GR is what the Quantum Theory is."
The first sentence says nothing. At the singularity all Relativistic and Quantum equations (as we can construct them now) fail to apply. That is what the term means. Information? Do we know it is destroyed? No. Do we know there was information before the singularity? No. So the first sentence is meaningless.
We do not even know if there is a Big Bang, let alone a set of cycle. The one thing we really, really do not know is how the Big Crunch happens. It just makes sense to some of us (most physicists believe in one Big Bang, not a cyclic cosmology.
The "all happening at the same time" is the assumption of Einstein and the "Block Universe" set. Not everyone agrees with it (and the math does not differentiate). Sorry, Quantum Theory and Relativity Theory are (at this point) mutually exclusive). That is most relativity theorists do not believe in what most quantum physicists believe and vice versa. Just not as easy as you want it to be.
Best of luck!