Guidance

[Cino]

The nothing inside an empty jug is a void that can be filled. The nothingness between planets is empty space, but it still can be travelled and measured. Even an invisible pink unicorn is a description of an imaginary quality. But nothing has no abilities or qualities; it cannot be described in any way because it is just not there -- and therefore something can never come from nothing, imo

The concept of causality breaks down when confronted with "nothing", I agree. But causality also breaks down in the face of well-understood and -researched phenomena like quantum mechanics. No, I'm not saying our everyday experience is anything like QM, that's nonsense in my opinion. I'm giving an example of an aspect of our world where causality is not the solid dependable corner stone we tend to think it is. To me, this means I want to question whether I'm not expecting too much of the "comes from" in "something comes from nothing". I'm sharing my massively speculative thoughts on this, not trying to invalidate yours.

 

[RJM]

No, I'm not saying our everyday experience is anything like QM, that's nonsense in my opinion. I'm giving an example of an aspect of our world where causality is not the solid dependable corner stone we tend to think it is

Sure. It describes the mechanism of existence. A rhinoceros is not likely to give birth to a zebra, regardless of quantum uncertainty -- and uranium will always eventually always decay to lead. A certain type of star will always become a white dwarf, not supernova.

I've learned that will is a powerful force: once the goal is decided, the details of the process sort thenselves out. I light a fire for the purpose in hand; I'm not concerned with the precise atomic mechanism?

I do get your point. But my own life experience brings me to the realization of a personal spiritual guidance which to myself is unmistakable, as in @Namaste Jesus 'alleycat' dream linked earlier.

There are laws involved in the subtle but ultimately real spiritual dimension that seem at odds with those of 'nature red in tooth and claw'

 

[RJM]

I want to question whether I'm not expecting too much of the "comes from" in "something comes from nothing". I'm sharing my massively speculative thoughts on this, not trying to invalidate yours.

And again, perhaps the standard model view of 'reality' may be just one many others. As in the music analogy. There may be dimensions we can never begin to conceive of from our natural, animal perspective? My Father's house' has many mansions. It breaks down at timespace singularity.

Perhaps like clever little fleas we measure and deduce and build to fit our flea existence, but never come close to understanding the full nature of the dog we're on, yet shout for all to know our wisdom: Dog? What dog?

(Not you @Cino)

 

[RJM]

I believe the planets are living entities.

Those images of intergalactic filament networks remind me of images of neural networks in the brain. I'll try post images later on

 

[RJM]

Appears I'm not the first to notice

https://foglets.com/the-universe-as-like-human-brain-discover-scientists/

"The universe as like human brain: discover scientists

A new study finds similarities between the structures and processes of the human brain and the cosmic web.

The research was carried out by an astrophysicist and a neurosurgeon.
The two systems are vastly different in size but resemble each other in several key areas.
Scientists found similarities in the workings of two systems completely different in scale – the network of neuronal cells in the human brain and the cosmic web of galaxies.

Researchers studied the two systems from a variety of angles, looking at structure, morphology, memory capacity, and other properties. Their quantitative analysis revealed that very dissimilar physical processes can create structures sharing levels of complexity and organization, even if they differ by 27 orders of magnitude ..."

 

[Cino]

Sure. It describes the mechanism of existence. A rhinoceros is not likely to give birth to a zebra, regardless of quantum uncertainty -- and uranium will always eventually always decay to lead. A certain type of star will always become a white dwarf, not supernova.

I've learned that will is a powerful force: once the goal is decided, the details of the process sort thenselves out. I light a fire for the purpose in hand; I'm not concerned with the precise atomic mechanism?

Absolutely. I thought you were primarily referring to cosmology, the origins of the universe, with your line about "something from nothing". So the question we're exploring is more like "where does our will come from"? How do we form intentions?

On one level, it is a response to stimuli, I think. There are even some ancient religious traditions which explore this to great depth, like Buddhism, where the sequence of "dependent arising" of phenomena includes steps describing this process. But I feel that this level, whether discussed in modern scientific or ancient Buddhist terms, doesn't address the sense of agency inherent in forming an intention or exercising one's will. In that sense, it is really like your example of the chemistry of fire not being in the forefront of one's mind when a specific purpose. It's about the ends, not the means, in a way? And the ends always involve having a meaningful relationship with the world we find ourselves in, and while our surroundings contribute a lot to this relationship, it is ultimately up to us to find meaning in it.

I do get your point. But my own life experience brings me to the realization of a personal spiritual guidance which to myself is unmistakable, as in @Namaste Jesus 'alleycat' dream linked earlier.

There are laws involved in the subtle but ultimately real spiritual dimension that seem at odds with those of 'nature red in tooth and claw'

Yes, I think I get what you mean. Only I found this subtle spiritual guidance to not come from anywhere, and this was not for lack of searching. I know everybody experiences this for themselves in supremely personal ways, I'm just sharing what it is like for me.

 

[RJM]

Only I found this subtle spiritual guidance to not come from anywhere, and this was not for lack of searching.

A person has a dream 'alert' to an event that later happens in reality? It has happened to me many times. First the dream -- waking with powerful remembrance of the dream and then the event occurs -- not the same as 'remembering' the dream in retrospect only when the event occurs ...

 

[powessy]

I only go by their understanding of nothing and what nothing explains itself to be. Nothing is void of all things, including thoughts, there is no bag it is just nothing.

Like you trying to explain your interpretations of nothing, a mind formed to figure this out. A mind formed to understand something. If you were to tell me all the things that are something how much time would each of these thoughts get. In your brain you teach yourself about quantum mechanics, how often do you give this part of your brain time. How much time do you give your brain time to figure out cooking or religions. All these parts of the brain are parts of yourself, that consolidate these individual thoughts.

Now you are a man which part of the brain teaches you about a vagina from a woman’s perspective or being a cat or a dog or all the things that are not you. We can store thoughts about them but we cannot become them. Then there are the things you know absolutely nothing about. Where are these thoughts at? These thoughts then would be nothing to who you are.

The thoughts of nothing still forms a mind it is still a thought not one that I can explain because I only know what something is.
Imagining nothing is the bag you created to figure it out.

I just know the story they told me happened in the beginning of time as something/time/god tried to figure out why minds kept becoming nothing here figuring nothing out. God too created a bag to understand nothing and he gave it time a lot of time trying to figure it out. The story says that all things outside of nothing found time/god inside of nothing trying to figure it out, they wanted to know how he was something if this was nothing. All these thoughts then entered into nothing to become something inside of nothing. This allowed all of his thoughts to have time all the time.
This consolidation allowed all things to become part of everything else or together in time.

God was something all the time how could something understand nothing when he knew everything about everything.

powessy

 

[RJM]

Nothing is void of all things, including thoughts, there is no bag it is just nothing.
... The thoughts of nothing still forms a mind it is still a thought not one that I can explain
... all things outside of nothing
... inside of nothing
... these thoughts then entered into nothing to become something inside of nothing.

I'm saying that a void is not nothing -- it is a void.

Emptiness is not nothing -- it is space -- or the potential for space, or for mind, or whatever. Emptiness by definition must be bounded. It must be contained. There can be no such thing as nothing. Literally.

The 'nothing' you reference is a millieu of some sort. Minds, entities or whatever, emerge from it, and enter into it? It is a potential?

God was something all the time how could something understand nothing when he knew everything about everything.

Ok

Just my own thoughts ...

 

[RJM]

@powessy
I suppose I'm referencing 'nothing' in material terms of time and space and gravity and forces. In terms of "something from nothing'. But outside of the physical universe, in a 'spiritual' context, the terms no longer have meaning?

Reposting this, originally provided by @Aupmanyav

The Four Different Meanings Of 'Nothing' To A Scientist

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...gs-of-nothing-to-a-scientist/?sh=3de1f356394b

 

[muhammad_isa]

@powessy
I suppose I'm referencing 'nothing' in material terms of time and space and gravity and forces. In terms of "something from nothing'. But outside of the physical universe, in a 'spiritual' context, the terms no longer have meaning?

Do you mean that "they mean nothing"?

 

[RJM]

Do you mean that "they mean nothing"?

I believe @powessy is referencing a non-material frame, to which material terms of time and space and physical forms and forces that constitute nature are no longer the (only) basis of 'reality' because physical reality manifests from spiritual reality (not from nothing)

I could be wrong, and of course his ideas are far more involved than that. Much, much more involved. However I continue to nit-pick the use of the word 'nothing' as the opposite of 'something' by @powessy although in the context the intent is clear enough.

Put it that way, lol ...

 

[powessy]

@powessy
I suppose I'm referencing 'nothing' in material terms of time and space and gravity and forces. In terms of "something from nothing'. But outside of the physical universe, in a 'spiritual' context, the terms no longer have meaning?

Reposting this, originally provided by @Aupmanyav

The Four Different Meanings Of 'Nothing' To A Scientist

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...gs-of-nothing-to-a-scientist/?sh=3de1f356394b

In the above link number 4. Is the nothing in which I refer to, or is close. First you have to understand minds and how thoughts or things are sorted. Take one thing let’s say a simple fly, it’s yourself that it is inside of is a yourself that spans the universe. If I strip away the yourself the fly is inside of, it will never become something again. In auto cad we think of layers, everything exists on its own layer. A simple thought of this would be mules do not have a yourself they cannot become something again until there are many more of them to form a yourself. There are things here that do not have their own layer and will not become something again and again.

Even though these yourselves are not seen by us here they exist as a force that allows us to become something again or not. Gods contemplation of nothing was what allowed all these layers to come together as many things to become something here. This also allowed us to become ourselves only.

I understand your thoughts about nothing very well. The nothing I speak of is how all things formed in this material universe but ended up not becoming something again. God taught everything inside of nothing to allow us to have the time we need to become something again and again, and to become more complex thoughts, like people, worlds, galaxies and universes.

Just thoughts about their thoughts.

powessy

 

[Ella S.]

Actually, I wouldn't. If God proved His existence beyond doubt, human freedom would be stripped away in an instant.

What about our freedom to choose to know? It seems more like God is limiting our free will by obscuring what our choices actually are by not proving his existence to me.

 

[RJM]

God is limiting our free will by obscuring what our choices actually are by not proving his existence to me

Why should God have to 'dance' to suit human curiosity? Why should God have to put on some sort of performance to satisfy human curiosity?

God doesn't lose or benefit from human belief or disbelief. Is God under some obligation to conform to what human beings want? Is that the way it works?

Perhaps spirit reveals itself and its ways to the one who seeks in quietness and humility?

 

[Ella S.]

Why should God have to 'dance' to suit human curiosity? Why should God have to put on some sort of performance to satisfy human curiosity. God doesn't lose or benefit from human belief or disbelief. Is God under some obligation to confirm to what human beings want? Is that the way it works?

EDIT
Perhaps spirit reveals itself and its ways to one who seeks in quietness and humility?

God can do whatever he wants, just like any human can. That doesn't mean that what God ultimately does is ethical or justifiable.

 

[RJM]

God can do whatever he wants, just like any human can. That doesn't mean that what God ultimately does is ethical or justifiable.

But whereunto shall I liken this generation?
It is like to children sitting in the markets, and calling to their fellows,
And saying, We have piped to you, and ye have not danced;
we have mourned to you, and ye have not lamented.
(Matt 11:16-17)
Read full chapter

 

[Thomas]

That doesn't mean that what God ultimately does is ethical or justifiable.

From our limited pov.

 

[Thomas]

What about our freedom to choose to know?

That seems to me the greatest freedom we have, that desire ...

It seems more like God is limiting our free will by obscuring what our choices actually are by not proving his existence to me.

There's a whole debate here.

I don't think it's a limit so much as a necessary condition. Of course, my interpretation is all interwound with biblical metaphysics (as I read it), but put simply, my lifepartner very early in our relationship set conditions, like not turning up on the doorstep unannounced at 11.00pm after being 'off-grid' for two days ... basically I couldn't get away with the nonsense I was used to getting away with ...

I really think if we want to know God there are conditions, and that is right and fitting, or else everybody has the right to everything just because they want it. God doesn't demand we get to know Him, and people live fantastic lives, from a worldly point of view, without giving God a second thought, whereas others think about God a lot, and are wracked with trials and tribulations ... all part of my contingent world view.

I'm not answering your objection, so much as offering a commentary on my way of seeing.

All I suppose I'm saying is everything has conditions, according to its nature, and those conditions have to be met.

Suppose I believe God loves me, you, everybody unconditionally ... then we both know that there are those who will abuse that love, because they will know they can get away with anything. So wiser to keep that one quiet.

My course director, who happened to be a Biblical scholar, fluent in Hebrew Greek, Latin, French (enough to read philosophy) Ugaritic, even! He sat on a panel to review translations of the Bible. He was talking once about the famous meeting between Moses and God on the mountain:
"Moses said to God: Lo, I shall go to the children of Israel, and say to them: The God of your fathers hath sent me to you. If they should say to me: What is his name? what shall I say to them? God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you." (Exodus 3:13-14)
Not to debate the Hebrew, but Fr John said, look at this as God roasting Moses. Moses asks (on the people's behalf) 'who are you?', to which God replies, 'Bloomin' cheek! You go and tell them I AM, and I AM asks who the heck d'you think you are?"

It was all very light-hearted, but there is a point here, hopefully @RabbiO might add in, that the people have got some nerve asking God to validate Himself ... that kind of thing.

Have to say, some of the most hilarious, heretical, blasphemous conversations I've had were with theologians at a college noted for its Catholic orthodoxy. (OTOH, we had moments when we look round thinking, "Is He in the room? (But then we catlicks are dead suckers for all that spooky stuff!)).

 

[Cino]

Not to debate the Hebrew, but Fr John said, look at this as God roasting Moses. Moses asks (on the people's behalf) 'who are you?', to which God replies, 'Bloomin' cheek! You go and tell them I AM, and I AM asks who the heck d'you think you are?"

It was all very light-hearted, but there is a point here, hopefully @RabbiO might add in, that the people have got some nerve asking God to validate Himself ... that kind of thing.

Have to say, some of the most hilarious, heretical, blasphemous conversations I've had were with theologians at a college noted for its Catholic orthodoxy. (OTOH, we had moments when we look round thinking, "Is He in the room? (But then we catlicks are dead suckers for all that spooky stuff!)).

And Moses was not the first biblical figure to question or challenge his God. It's a theme that runs through all of the Hebrew Bible. The New Testament, not so much - doubting Thomas being a notable exception.