The big bang theory BBT. Probably another way to think about.

Discussion in 'Serious Discussion' started by Yen, May 9, 2012.

  1. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    10,969
    10,542
    340
    OK I have found the essay and decided repost it here, because of the other discussion of the BBT.
    Before you go on I want to say something that is very important to me.
    I am not somebody 'special' and I don't want to teach something. This essay has not the claim to be right, or even to be the ultimate truth.
    I don't want to convince somebody, I do not want to change somebody's belief or even doubt it. I cannot repeat that frequently enough. :)

    It is something important to me personally, it seems right to me and I would be happy if somebody can take a little benefit of it.
    That's all.

    Start of original essay I had written for me personally and discussed a lot with some friends, so be prepared of a 'crazy post' :biggrin: :


    The big bang theory (not the series). Probably another way to think about and a way to unite science and religious aspects.

    (Do not read that huge essay when you are in a hurry. Try it later. It took me hours to get this in words and my hole life to think about, lol).


    I have thought about the big bang theory and I noticed there might be some interesting points of view I want to share.
    These points are based on my profession, but also on my personal experiences, the way I am, my belief and culture.
    This is my own way to think about, it's no 'theory' from another one I agree with and repost it here.
    Prepare yourself to read some scientific stuff, but also aspects of Hinduism, Buddhism and of Christianity.

    The big bang theory makes me thinking about since I was a child. And my own way to 'read' the theory has changed when getting older.

    This essay is not meant to state what's 'right' or true, it has no claim to be that.
    The idea is to inspire. Pure inspiration. To be yourself. I try to make that clear what I mean.

    What means the big bang theory to us?
    To many it means nothing at all. They have heard about but it actually has no meaning for them. They simply don't care about, they say it doesn't matter how exactly everything 'has begun'.

    But behind all that there stands a very important question. The question about our source. The source of anything.
    So especially scientific interested people are also interested in the big bang theory.The question about our source is a matter of both, science and religions.

    The scientific theory is usually like:

    "It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across, actually a point. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky."

    Scientific sight of the matter:

    [​IMG]



    How can we take a 'benefit' when reading that? I think most of us are taking it the common way, but when doing that soon one is unsatisfied and the next question follows at once. What had been before the big bang, about 15 billion years ago???

    First we need to know the theory is based on observations and nothing but a result of regression in time.
    Our observations show us that the universe is expanding. Everything moves away.(red shift of light, Doppler shift).
    And we have that misterious background radiation found uniform everywhere.

    What happens if we try to approach the absolute, but always from a relative point of view?
    We cannot in another way as by using the mind.
    It happens always the same!!! The multi dimensional space becomes regressed until there is only one dimension left: A point with no room, no surface.

    In other words: The universe had no other choice than to start at a point when trapped in this pure scientific theory.
    It is not knowledge and science to say the universe began at one point 'somewhere'. All attempts to approach the pseudo absolute will end in a point.
    So the scientist tried when developing the big bang theory something to 'achieve' a human mind never is able to.
    From this purely scientific point of view it makes no sense at all.
    It makes no sense to try to locate that point where everything has begun, because there was no location at all. Remember: When going back in time until to that point, there was no space yet!!! (Only one dimension = Singularity!!!)

    We should keep away from approaching the absolute, being relative in mind. But scientists hardly can. Also most adherents of a particular religion. They try and try it anyway.
    They try to make a statement about the absolute, which is senseless by its meaning.

    Another example: Absolute zero. Every scientist knows its value: -273,15 degrees Celsius = 0 Kelvin.
    It's also nothing but a theoretical value. You get it by extrapolation of a temperature / volume relation to V=0 (at which temperature a gas has theoretically a volume of zero). It never can be reached practically.
    What conditions are there??? In theory there is absolute lack of any movement. Everything collapses in one point, there is no volume.
    Sounds that familiar??? It's just another attempt to approach the absolute from a relative point of view.
    And as result we have the same: No volume, no movement just a point, a point that never can be observed practically.

    The point where the universe should have begun and the absolute zero, both are nothing but theoretical values.
    We approach time t=0, the point where everything has begun. But t=0 neither existed nor is it absolute. Zero is not absolute. The absolute is eternal.

    And now the trouble most scientist are creating by themselves. They cannot simply accept that there is something that simply is ever, was and ever will be. It's the absolute. The absolute cannot have a point where it has started (t=0) or a value be zero.

    There is no absolute zero, there is no calculated point where the universe has started. Both never can be observed.
    Both are products of the human mind, which is relative. We try to approach t=0 and name it absolute.
    So how we can get that theory anyway?

    The Singularity hasn't started. It ever was will be and is. As long as time moves forwards, the universe will expand.
    As long as there is an observer it can be observed.

    And the big bang hasn't happened 12 billion years ago. It happens now, will ever happen and has happened all the 'time' as long there is the 'mind'.

    And all that is perceived is relative to the observer and reflected by the mind.
    So the only thing that is real and eternal is the Singularity, from this Singularity the world arises now. It's creating the I (observer) and everything that is not I (= the universe, all the things that are observed.)


    The point which scientists have calculated to be the start point, the origin of the universe, is a result of absurdity. The multi dimensional space always collapses to one point if one tries to describe the pseudo absolute (t=0). All those attempts can be nicely wrapped into new theories.

    Furthermore the attempt to get the absolute by a relative (mind) generally is a major problem of mankind.
    No matter regarding belief, religion or science.

    At science it's reflected in absurd theories, pride to think scientists are the only ones who are able to explain everything. They even try to find something faster than light speed. There is nothing faster (higher value) and if it ever will be it will be always the speed of light relative to the space. But concerning the big bang theory they assume space can expand faster than light speed.

    Adherents of religions: Fights which one is the absolute right, fights that caused and causes wars.
    And all this because we are ignorant.
    Every time the mind tries to explain the absolute it will fail. We are stupid, one side claims his delusion is more right than the delusion of the others. So we are wasting our time, playing those games. No matter if they are the games of the scientists or those of religious zealots.

    To experience the absolute, the relative has to dissolve and never by using the relative mind. The existing mind is the reason why it fails. Anyway all academics are using their well trained mind! They are proud of it, to have it inflated with thoughts nobody else can get.

    So if 'the moment' should happen where one gets it all (actually this moment is here all the time, it's nescience that deludes us), it never will be found in any theory or dogma. The absolute can be experienced only at present, but never by the mind.
    The big bang is happening now. There never had been a start of it.
    The mind annoys. The mind always wants that everything has an start or a beginning. But only relative things have a start and an end. The mind game ends when t=0 = nothing but a point, without volume, without more dimensions.
    So our choice is to take the big bang theory literally, but different as common. Then one 'knows' his origin.

    The major mistake is to search for it / calculate it. (somewhere outside in space at a place and back in time). Also a major mistake is to take religious scriptures literally.
    The full truth can only be experienced when going inside, when relying on the source, on the Singularity, presently.
    Therefore the mind needs to stand still until the delusion of I and non-I dissolves. The only thing that will remain is the absolute, the Self, pure Singularity. It is now, it is the only thing that is real, it is eternal, it ever was, will be and is. It never can be a thing that has 'begun'.

    The scheme is from the scientific view, but I have added the aspects coming from Buddhism / Hinduism = Unification of scientific and religious aspects, both are taking place in the mind.

    [​IMG]


    So which consequences has this 'new' point of view?

    There is nothing to observe without an observer (there is no world, no universe, without one who observes it).
    When one's mind becomes 'altered' his relative world changes. (There is no awake world for the one who sleeps).

    Theories reflected by the mind only can have some relative truth. Relative truth always creates new unanswered questions in mind.
    But the initial start to 'find' the absolute truth can happen in the mind only, but not be understood by using the mind.

    The most common that exists is the absolute truth, the Self that causes the mind cannot be realized by the mind, because the Self is its cause. There can't be two 'Selves' the one that realizes / recognizes the 'other'(Singularity).
    There is no center somewhere of the universe from where it has started to exist. As long as there is the mind, there are thoughts which creates the space / time, the expanding universe, the non-'I' and hence a location for the Singularity 'outside'.

    To dissolve / extinct the mind doesn't mean to destroy it. To destroy something there must be the destroyer and the thing to be destroyed, this is still Duality.(Keyword wrong idea of asceticism).

    To dissolve the mind is to become calm until the mind stands still. It cannot be described using words (active mind), we have metaphoric phrases: The answer of all questions is found there where no question arises.
    There is nothing real, but the 'Self'.
    The Self has got different names (in mind). Singularity, the unconditional, Brahman, God, 'the place' where everything has begun, the big bang. 'I am' proves the existence of the Singularity.


    Some examples from the bible with my comments added in brackets to add to the scientific stuff from above.

    "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Mt 5.3. (poor in spirit doesn't mean to be dumb, lol)
    "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." Luke 6.20
    (Poor of thoughts / things will make you recognizing the truth)

    "Be still and know that I am God" Psalm 46:10
    (Can be easily misunderstood: Keep your thoughts that feed / distract away, be calm and still, the mind vanishes and god is the only thing that is left. Danger!: Ego=God)

    "I AM that I AM" Exodus 3:14, Moses asked for the name of god and has got that answer.
    (You always exist. The Be-ing is the Self. ‘I am’ is the name of God.)



    Feel free to be inspired....or to be even more confused. It's up to 'your' mind. The 'absolute' can only be the same, it's always the mind of a individual that creates inconsistencies.

    Let's stop to let the mind create inconsistencies, religion and science have one in common, they are mind games. Or in other words, both 'will end' in the Self when 'realizing' the truth. The bible says god has created the world within 7 days, the scientists say it has been created 12 billion years ago.
    From a relative point of view both have some relative truth, but at the absolute there is no point of view. (POV= Duality = takes place 'in the' spirit). Both are illusionary, though.

    So why to hassle about who is more right? The scientist's mind works in that way that they comply with the scientific theory, the Christian's mind works in that way that they comply with the creation story. Both usually deem the others to be wrong. Makes that any sense?

    Well, to be honest if one wants that I should make a statement about, I (my mind) would prefer the scientific related theory (illusion).
    Oh yes my young mind was purely related on science, the bible was a joke to me, I have studied Chemistry. I thought I will be find there the absolute truth, how wrong I was.

    If my essay should sound absurd to you, then just ignore it. 'Nevermind!' Never-(the)-mind is a good expression, just take it literally, lol.
    But as I have mentioned, I have no other choice but to address one's mind (to make clear that 'we' have to 'put it aside', finally...)
    Nobody has another choice, the scientists, the adherents of a religion, basically all the humans. The big difference is who of all them is able to 'tell' you the real truth / to instruct you to 'find' it. That's the reason why we are here, to figure that. When staying trapped in mind games we are wasting our time.


    It took me a long time to get how much truth is in this and there are many 'wrong' ways to get it.


    Maybe one day there will be a scripture about 'our' origin, a scripture which is all in one, it should be possible to unite all theories about in mind. Finally they all have only one job.
    If my essay makes you even a bit to smile on it then it was worth the effort.

    Peace.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  2. sid_16

    sid_16 MDL Giveaway Organiser

    Oct 15, 2011
    2,211
    3,720
    90
    Yen sir, nice discourse. The religious point (according to Christian the God created the universe in 7 days) you wrote , I think , a conclusion with no logical basis. Not only do they assume a creator exists, and if H/She exists then who created /Him/Her and if they assume that this creator is uncreated himself because he's infinite. See as I said in other thread, nothing can be infinite, therefore, their creator is also not infinite if H/Se exists. Therefore, if the universe is created, then it needs a creator, who needs a creator so on and so forth ad infinitum. And I think there is not a single phenomenon in nature that requires a creator. Natural phenomenon arise naturally, that is without a creator.
    Yen sir please correct me if I'm wrong.
    thanks,
    sid_16
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  3. zen45

    zen45 MDL Senior Member

    Feb 25, 2010
    330
    332
    10
    i beleive in a creator "god" i dont beleive in religion, religion is nothing more than bunch of im right and your wrong assholes looking for some kind of gain be it money power or whatever, we are part of everything and everything is part of us, in time we will develop into something great using our minds to do things but we must get past persional gains to achive the goals we were ment to. peace brother- and as spock would say "live long and prosper" :shisha:
     
  4. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    10,969
    10,542
    340
    #4 Yen, May 10, 2012
    Last edited: May 10, 2012
    (OP)
    I have not the power to correct you.:) There is an universal truth on that relies anything since 'you' are 'a product' of it.
    But I can post my thoughts.
    I don't know how much you know about the creation story of the Christians.
    We can try to evaluate something relative to a complex of the mind (theory, doctrine, statement, scripture) or in another way by recognizing that the 'first' way always has an relative aspect.

    Going on the first way: I have only posted a very brief essence of the creation story, there is written god has created the world within 7 days.
    The issue (as I have written) is always that 'we' are trying to make a statement about the absolute (which is eternal) with a relative mind (which is related to time). The authors of the creation stories have chosen 7 days why exactly 7 I don't know, but it doesn't matter. To 'fit' something in time you need to relate it to common units (days, years).
    So they did it to give the creation story a structure, to categorize.
    Once again, it really doesn't matter how they actually did. 'You' can choose whatever you want. Like stage one, stage two....or chapter one chapter two...time is relative.
    They gave it a structure by describing what god exactly did at day one, day 2 and so on. To feed the mind to have some 'hold'.
    This is a common practice, we categorize to build a structure of something.
    So the creation story has some relative truth and the BBT as well. They are not wrong. And there is no point to argue which one is more right.
    Concerning this I want to repeat: We must not take scriptures literally, no matter to which religion they belong.

    "And I think there is not a single phenomenon in nature that requires a creator."
    From the relative point of view it requires a creator, from the absolute: it requires no creator.

    Example: We have a look on a piece of art a wooden sculpture of something.
    Everybody who perceives it as something different from themselves (as non-'I') reflects it by their minds. So we get different statements of it. While doing that everybody creates a own object with a personal meaning.
    "It's a beautiful wooden sculpture"
    "It's nothing , but a piece of wood'
    "It's the image of a entire age".
    "It's pure inspiration"

    Is there anything right or wrong at these statements? The mind creates the object with ones personal meaning to him / her. So it always requires a creator, which is the mind.

    From the absolute: There is no object, no creation. It simply is. And it is not different from 'you'. Words fail here. Some say it's (all is) consciousness.

    Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi a quote of a book I have got.. A wise Indian man: Page 52.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi

    (We are lucky and can get aspects from different religions, cultures). My parents have educated me the Christian way, but because of my travels I learned many from other cultures as well.)

    He is able to put 'it' in words far better than I am able to.




    There is nothing wrong with it. You have your personal meaning of the religions. Even though I think you actually mean some adherents of particular religions. And the way you are perceiving them right now you deny them. So you have found your relative truth for now.
    You cannot find something at them that makes you to get a benefit.

    But I guess your mind changes when getting older.

    Peace. :)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  5. sid_16

    sid_16 MDL Giveaway Organiser

    Oct 15, 2011
    2,211
    3,720
    90
    #5 sid_16, May 11, 2012
    Last edited: May 11, 2012
    The truth hasn't changed. Only what people's opinion of what is true has changed.
    The Absolute is the concept of an unconditional reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence. It is sometimes used as an alternate term for "God" or "the Divine", especially, but by no means exclusively, by those who feel that the term "God" lends itself too easily to anthropomorphic presumptions. The concept of The Absolute may or may not (depending on one's specific doctrine) possess discrete will, intelligence, awareness or even a personal nature. It is sometimes conceived of as the source through which all being emanates. It contrasts with finite things, considered individually, and known collectively as the relative. As such, the word "Absolute" signifies a negative concept: non-relative, non-comparative, or without relation to anything else. This is reflected in its Latin origin absolutes which means "loosened from" or "unattached."
    .

    So, on that note, what kind of observable evidences do we have for such an unconditional reality to be existing?

    Considering the assertion: Perception is not absolute, the next question arises: Is perception absolutely reliable to gather information that can be subjected to an inference agent?

    Now, the only way we can become aware of the surroundings is perception of it, which is claimed to be subjective.

    How can subjective channels lead to absolute conclusions? here is an interesting philosophical view point . Absolute

    I've no firm grasp of the spiritual leader/s so I'm unable to comment on their teaching.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  6. sid_16

    sid_16 MDL Giveaway Organiser

    Oct 15, 2011
    2,211
    3,720
    90
    Yen sir, asking question to a scientist about scientific subject mater is like teaching soccer tricks to David Beckham or Zinedine Zidane but for the sake of the argument I'm asking this- Real things exist their existence is absolute. How do you determine that? Let me provide you an example. From the perspective/ concept of vacuum fluctuations, can you define 'reality' and how this definition can be considered absolute/objective? Vacuum fluctuation and virtual particle
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  7. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    10,969
    10,542
    340
    Loosened from or unattached. These words express it quite well.
    The matching quote from Maharshi:
    "Look, the Self is only Be-ing, not being this or that. It is simple
    Being. Be - and there is an end of the ignorance."

    It is that simple that the 'mind' never can be satisfied with it. Every time when I hit a key to reply I fail.

    "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
    This is one of the 10 Commandments of the bible.

    Commandments are written to instruct the Christian to get the absolute truth.
    They are never meant to be prohibitions.
    What happens if one does it anyway? Some who take that literally might think god will punish them if they do anyway.
    In fact it is written, because if you do it anyway, you lose god.
    You lose god = the absolute, because there is somebody who gives a meaning to it. So the absolute turns into a relative 'thing', into an image of it.

    Loosened from or unattached. This Commandment wants you to do that. Simply be and not be this or that.
    The fact that you can say : 'I am' proves that there is being. Pure being is the absolute.

    Have you had in your life a special feeling? I mean felt bliss? Our minds are not the same way active all the time.
    When we are worried about something, or study something, our mind is full of thoughts and hence strong and active.
    These moments we are far away from the absolute, we are lost in relativeness.
    But there are moments with less thoughts, weak mind. And the light of the absolute shines through.
    Situation: You are relaxed, calm, perhaps out in the nature, watching something beautiful, perhaps with a good friend or your family.
    You have closed your eyes, or not.

    And then it starts. The observer the observation and the things observed lose their definitions.
    There is nobody watching something. The process of shining is dynamic. You come closer to god, to the absolute.
    You start to be and stop to be something....and you cannot say anymore 'you' feel 'it'...
    There is bliss and you probably lead to have got some tears in your eyes...(recognizing 'that' later).
    You know now that the absolute actually ever is, it never needs to be proven, it is pure experience.
    It is the only thing that is real.

    I do not use scientific terms anymore to try to say what I mean. I did it when I was younger, but they only distract even more....

    MDL forums are not the right place to feel what I try to explain.....it will reveal....when the mind stands still...

    I hope it will be a benefit what I have written, I cannot do it in another way, I have no chance I always actually fail....
    Scientists are there to make the mind even more active.
    So when I get asked about the absolute I refrain from scientific phrases.
    Religious or spiritual people practice things and follow instructions which are causing the opposite.

    They make their mind calm, peaceful, still.
    They go to a temple, Church or mosque.
    They sing, pray, chant. They meditate, they turn their sight inwards.
    They withdraw the power of the mind by decreasing its activity.

    Why?
    Because the home of relativeness is in the mind. When the mind dissolves, the pure Self = being is the only thing that is left.
    The place where no question arises. The place of all answers. God shines through then. The big bang IS.
    When awareness is very strong then 'one' can notice how things are created. It's the transition from the absolute to the relative. The cause is to lose pure being and to be something, to have an imagination of something the idea of 'I', to think, to let the mind grow again.

    Each individual has its own way which is suitable to reduce the power of the mind. The only way is to do it.

    "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." This is the truth.

    There are 'minds' which perceive that what I have written to be absurd. It's OK. It had surely been the same to me when I was younger.
    Hence one never shall enforce a way to be the right one...
    This is not my intention.:)

    Why has this post became that huge again? Because we (the mind) cannot accept that the simple truth is just to be.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  8. sid_16

    sid_16 MDL Giveaway Organiser

    Oct 15, 2011
    2,211
    3,720
    90
    ^^
    Sir, Ill reply after I do some research.:D
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  9. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    10,969
    10,542
    340
    Take your time. :D
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  10. SOCRATE_MMXII

    SOCRATE_MMXII MDL Expert

    Jan 25, 2012
    1,034
    315
    60
    @Yen: nice essay. I can say that your essay is not only beautiful, but inspirational.
    @sid_16: I see that your EGO <your thoughts, your mind identity> is still strong [please don't get me wrong on this] - because your mind is trying to conceive and limit and categorize the UNTHINKABLE. You can search as many theories as you like, but GOD/SINGULARITY/BRAHMAN/UNIVERSE a.s.o. simply IS. If you can calm your thoughts and stay still for a moment you can FEEL <IT>. ;)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  11. ipetem

    ipetem MDL Novice

    May 15, 2011
    4
    0
    0
    Very well said.
     
  12. R29k

    R29k MDL GLaDOS

    Feb 13, 2011
    4,668
    4,254
    150
    @Yen
    That is describing the measurement problem in quantum mechanics

    Like you I have been fascinated with what exactly is reality. Personal God and creator God and what not are not concepts that sit well with me. To me they are all flawed human concepts made real by the placebo effects of the ever willing subjects. I think many people don't understand that our mind is a huge recorder that records basically everything we do and replays it in our subconscious when the right triggers are met. Whether it is triggered in a dream or a near death experience I think it amounts to the same thing, an illusion of reality. Our indoctrinated mind can never observe reality without tainting it so we have many variations of reality, our own personal reality. Like light passing through a prism, our varying minds refract us to differing wave lengths of the same light beam. Our whole existence consists of quantifiable variables. That is my crazy interpretation of reality, in essence we are creating our reality by the choices we make or don't make.

     
  13. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    10,969
    10,542
    340
    @R29k not sure if you actually record something....IMHO one always notices different aspects of the Reality which ever is the same. To record means to 'add'.

    Two scientists I respect very much (I do not respect many, Hawkins I don't for instance)

    Erwin Schrödinger.:worthy:

    Werner Heisenberg :worthy:

     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  14. R29k

    R29k MDL GLaDOS

    Feb 13, 2011
    4,668
    4,254
    150
    To record means also to store. I also don't like Hawkins, to me he is getting senile.
    To me reality is multifaceted since it all occurs in the mind of the beholder. For example a Sporting Event, many watch a singular event yet they have differing perspectives.
    Is it possible to see a true reality, I think no ! Since no one person can see the untainted whole and as stated above, There is nothing to observe without an observer.
     
  15. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    10,969
    10,542
    340
    „Is it possible to see a true reality, I think no”

    The Reality would have to divide into the seer and objects.
    But it is possible to be the Reality.
    With to be I mean not to separate ‘I’ and non ’I’

    “There is nothing to observe without an observer.”

    That is right, but it doesn’t mean that there is nothing at all without an observer.
    There is only subject. All is one.


    To store means also to add.
    There is nothing to add. To store and to record is an illusion.
    When ‘you’ look at the world ‘you’ actually see ever the entire Reality, since there is only IT.
    The mind works as a filter and is affected by the illusion of dualism, the idea of ‘I’ and non ’I’.

    The resolution of the singular Reality to the illusionary duality creates space and time. (To record is a process in time, so to record is also illusionary.)

    Alan Watts:

    “But what about memories? Surely by remembering I can also know what is past? Very well, remember something. Remember the incident of seeing a friend walking down the street. What are you aware of? You are not actually watching the veritable event of your friend walking the street. You can’t go up and shake hands with him, or get an answer to a question you forgot to ask him at the past time you are remembering. In other words, you are not looking at the real past at all. You are looking at a present trace of the past…….
    From memories you infer that there have been past events. But you are not aware of any past events. You know the past only in the present and as part of the present.”

    The only thing that is real is the present and it is eternal. Past and future are creations of the mind.

    Then Ken Wilber continues:

    “The same holds for the ‘future’ as well, for any thought of tomorrow is nevertheless a present thought. Inescapably, we know the past and future ‘only in the present and as part of the present’. Thus, the only time we are ever aware is NOW! Hence did Schrödinger state ‘Self’ is always now. There is really no before and after for the Self. There is only a now that includes memories and expectations.

    You might want to read there as well: http://forums.mydigitallife.net/thr...rather-than-nothing/page9?p=583051#post583051
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  16. gorski

    gorski MDL Guru

    Oct 21, 2009
    2,849
    734
    90
    Why on Earth (so to speak :D ) would a "perfect" being have any needs?

    One must have a need (imperfection) to "want" anything at all...

    One wants to "create" and create "imperfectly"...???

    Ahem... some God...
    :rolleyes:
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  17. vondoom

    vondoom MDL Novice

    Oct 11, 2012
    11
    0
    0

    thats really informative... and so the image.. i think any person unknown to this theory, read this post will know to much about this theory ......