View Full Version : Where did the first molecule or wave of energy come from?


ferrarl
07-21-14, 10:27 PM
I find it safe to say that pretty much all scientists and us believe that big bang put this universe to being. But where did big bang come from?

In order for it to happen, don't we need energy or molecules to start out with?

To me it seems logical to say that everything has to have a beginning, something never just pops out of nothing.

If there was a point in time when nothing existed, nothing should exist right now. If something produced by nothing from nothing actually existed, logically it had to create itself. And if it actually existed, wouldn't it had to exist before its own creation? So I'm pretty sure we can say there never was a point when nothing existed.

So could someone tell me a logical reason for our existence.

phantasm
07-21-14, 10:54 PM
I think about this and then my brain hurts. :doh: but I do wonder from time to time.

I love watching shows about the cosmos and space, and it makes my worries seem so small and unimportant, like nothing "really" matters in the grand scheme of things.

ferrarl
07-21-14, 11:03 PM
Those shows also skip the existence of the first molecule like its unimportant :p

sarek
07-22-14, 02:25 AM
Before the Big Bang (if it was even there, they're not even sure about that now) we don't actually know very much.

After the Big Bang things are a great deal clearer especially once you leave the short period of extreme energy densities in the first 10 ^ -30 seconds.

After that progressively quarks and other subnucleonic particles formed into the particles we know, neutrons, protons, electrons, etc.

These remained separated for a while due to the high temperatures (too much movement) but as it slowed down they congregated together into atomic nuclei. Eventually temps came down enough for the electrical force to also bind electrons to the nuclei thus forming the first hydrogen atoms (and a few heavier ones like Helium, but thats a long story)

Most heavier atoms were formed later when hydrogen atoms began to lump together inside stars and fusion began.

As temperatures dropped even further, the energies dropped enough for weaker electrical forces to bind separate atoms together to form molecules.

dvdnvwls
07-22-14, 02:26 AM
In this very special situation, expect "It seems logical..." to stop mattering or making sense.

sarek
07-22-14, 02:47 AM
To me it seems logical to say that everything has to have a beginning, something never just pops out of nothing.

If there was a point in time when nothing existed, nothing should exist right now. If something produced by nothing from nothing actually existed, logically it had to create itself. And if it actually existed, wouldn't it had to exist before its own creation? So I'm pretty sure we can say there never was a point when nothing existed.

So could someone tell me a logical reason for our existence.

Nothing still exists. We're in it even as we speak. The clue is that all that exists is made up not of things, but of frequencies, vibrations. Its easy enough to make them cancel out. So if you add up all the somethings together, you end up with nothing.

So how do we get to the specific universe as we see it around us? Why this one and not something else? Why do we have the physical laws that we have?

The answer is rather simple. We exist because we are not impossible. Everything that is possible exists somewhere inside all this nothing that it adds up to.

Small edit since i missed a spot: The Big bang as such can be explained as a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum. It keeps popping our virtual particles. As long as the net energy of whatever it is that pops up, is low enough, it can exist for a long time. If the energy is zero, which it would be in a so-called critical universe, it could exist forever.
And of course, this same process could produce many other universes also. They are out there but we have not yet been able to directly detect them(work in progress).

someothertime
07-22-14, 02:52 AM
For it to come from somewhere.... somewhere would have had to too!

Distance / Time are human concoctions which the universe transcends.

sarek
07-22-14, 03:24 AM
The problem with stuff like this is that it very literally does not fit inside a logical brain. It is as if we do not have enough dimensions to completely comprehend ideas which at first sight seem totally opposite.

How can time exist and not exist?
How can nothing be everything?
How can a wave be a particle?

If we want to really "see" (rather than just understand) things like this, we need to access other ways of comprehension.

You can talk about that sort of thing forever, but the fundamental reality is that

The Tao which can be spoken of, is not the true Tao.

SB_UK
07-22-14, 03:26 AM
Complexity arising from effectively nothing isn't disputed by science and a mechanism could put the metaphors of creationism into line with the less metaphorical nature of science.
Science makes a mistake of looking at evolution at every level through the eyes and language of a different set of experts so the commonalities ie 'duality' balancing, tree formation aren't made.
The clue is that all that exists is made up not of things, but of frequencies, vibrations. Its easy enough to make them cancel out. So if you add up all the somethings together, you end up with nothing.
So - definitely this kinda' idea with the slight amendment that the 'thing' which balances ie cancels (duality) don't delete one another - a bit like 2 balanced children on a see-saw don't disappear ... ... and as it was taught to me -

the peculiarity is in the 'thing' which balances.

IE - as it was taught to me - the 'thing' which balances - even though it's tempting to consider it energy - is more a construct which alters through emergence and so can take different form.

So - it's really tempting to consider the 'thing' energy because of the onus in physics on energy.
But the 'thing' appears to be information if we look at mind - which is the highest emergent property presented within the Universe ie the most number of emergent events have had to be observed to deliver mind.

In the case of mind - we're looking at informational entropy rather than energetic entropy.

All that we can really say is that an underlying 'social impulse/metalevel' exposes itself through evolution in creation via mechanism -
- but that energy / information aren't absolutes - they're just instantiations of an underlying capacity for a creative substrate to express itself within what we call reality
- but which isn't true reality
-- true reality representing the 'thing' which projects duals prior to being forced into dual construction, duality formation, tree of 'life' construction, emergence of something new ... ...

-*-

What's the take home message ?
Emergence of something new is kinda' hard to second guess.

Mind from neutrino ?

Once it happens - we can see how the pattern is consistent - but the very nature of something more than we had before makes it hard to imagine what that thing'd be before it happens.

So an animal couldn't have imagined mind - because an animal'd need a mind to imagine mind.

-*-

My key question 'd be is 'information' a wrapper for 'energy' ie have we identified the key thing (information entropy) which describes that thing (fundamental substrate) which evolves (instantiates itself into duals and produces 'things' in what we call reality)

- don't know ... ... don't think so

- wondering whether we won't know what that next 'thing' is until it happens ?

-*-

So perhaps it is just something (the creator) which reveals 'complexity' by mechanism that we're trying to identify
- but it would be ever so nice to help the creator along.

ADDers bored.

As mentioned the 'thing' operates by putting structures in place - the current structure we're tasked with putting in place is a tree of mind (tree of knowledge of good and evil) - and through putting in place a model of understanding of reality which defines what is best for man ie a mechanistic low and high level (ie physics to sociology) understanding - we kinda' complete the evolutionary level of mind - as that's all we're meant to do.
Get our head around how we came to be, and in the process act appropriately.

Currently you can't really move for people with weapons and a chosen God (some form of -ISM) whose reason for existence is the defeat all opposition.

-*-

So - just to suggest that 'definition' of what it is that that thing is that expresses itself in different ways (energy, information) isn't so useful - all that's useful is to note the general thrust - the general mechanism ie to create social structures at each and every level of creation
- and to work on mind to create a social level at the level of global community.

What'd happen next ?

As far as I can see - human onus will change from science to art ie when we understand reality sufficiently we'll shift to the higher things in life
- which of course require neural training (much like learning context mind)

- and complexity takes on a new instantiation - not of a model of understanding of reality (that's over) <- modernism

- but post-modernism translated as cerebellar complexity associated with a higher resolution enjoyment of sensory experience.

Therein lies the pleasure of eg musical chills.

There's no evolutionary mechanism for something without survival advantage to float our boats.

Art appreciation is our 'new' thing ... ... not too sure what happens next though.

Guessing ??? thinking ??? augmented reality through fusion with tech though that's happening now and may be part of the 'art' appreciation stagee.

Don't know - perhaps we've our hands full simply helping people to see it's nice to be nice.

SB_UK
07-22-14, 03:50 AM
Very strong implications for education if we're required to suppress violent competitive instinct, build Systems not Molecular mind and to begin training people in sensory world appreciation

- we're doing the opposite training people to shut up and do their day job, dreaming of supporting their pro football team with a Big Mac and fries

- all 3 aspects of social education flouted by societal convention.

-*-

To qualify - the point being that all that we can say about how stuff came into being - is that there's a mechanism underlying it
- that we can see the mechanism

- but that there's nothing we can do to second guess the creator - but everything we can do to give the evolutionary mechanism a hand.

Emergence (evol) is a little like magic looking forwards prior to an event
- but makes sense (can be made to make sense) looking back.

From a world where all animals did was compete (violent pro football, walk around town all day looking for a McDonalds) - deriving satisfaction from quality {period} or from understanding the mechanisms at play in the world around - of giving without expectation of receiving - were kinda' leftfield - it's a relief that these new properties were conferred - though if they hadn't - we wouldn't now be feeling a sense of relief ie it's only when a species that is more evolved feels dissatisfaction when behaving as though the evolutionary event had not occurred:
"- we're doing the opposite training people to shut up and do their day job, dreaming of supporting their pro football team with a Big Mac and fries"

Why ?

Because everything in what we call reality has to make sense.

SB_UK
07-22-14, 04:24 AM
Where did the first molecule or wave of energy come from?The basis to religion appears to be an eternal substrate.

All we need is for that eternal substrate to manifest itself in things like quarks, carbon atoms, cells and ideas requiring a mechanism (emergent evolution) - and we're there.

The emergent event is a little special - the rest is adequately studied using some scientific approach ... ... the key factor though'd be that there's a 'thing' which encodes the capacity to evolve and which changes its fundamental nature in what we call reality as it evolves ie is is a fundamental unit of energy ? is it a fundamental unit of logic ? is it a fundamental unit of information ?
- to which the answer is that these are simply forms it takes on as and when required.

Is there a limit to the complexity which can be attained ?
Not too sure we have to worry about this - but I think possibly.

From previously we have a pattern of 23 - 24 eg chromosomes to form an open (seemingly closed) circle - I think that there may only be 24 rounds of broad evolution in us ... ... though if energy and information ie physical and psychological realms only actually represent 2 ... .... well we've still plenty of room to develop.
Personally I'm having difficulty imagining the end of the quality abstraction layer - as graphics improve, screens increase in resolution, music improves in quality, reality augments with digital devices - we're in a particularly impressive period of artistic generation and dissemination.
Will having higher ppi resolutions than the eye can handle - result in our own brain changing to keep up ?
Maybe.

Sensory world / quality training.
The new education ??

Wouldn't it be nice to taste all several hundred tastes in chocolate, to walk controlled on your hands, to feel a smooth hand planed surface of wood, to have a perfectly tuned bicycle ... ... quality quality quality ... ...
note - to be contrasted with today's nasty throwaway culture where nobody looks after anything.

SB_UK
07-22-14, 05:56 AM
For it to come from somewhere.... somewhere would have had to too!

Distance / Time are human concoctions which the universe transcends.

It's useful to ask how old was the 'sea' which existed priot to Big Bang.

We just can't do it - can't wrap our heads around an answer to that question.

We must accept that the 'sea' is axiomatic on our generation.

So - the mind stumbles here but not really.

The mind is a product of this Universe ie is a creation of (at home within) phenomenological reality and not what preceded it 1 second before the Big Bang.

We can't generate a coherent model for the generation of that 'sea' - which should drive the mind mad - until the mind sees that it's only able to make sense of the evolutionary progression of which it is a part post-Big Bang.

IE we're conditional on that axiom - and so can't challenge it.
We're conditional on that axiom evolving to generate the Universe and so are 'land locked' away from that sea
- can hypothesize its existence - but are forever prevented as phenomenological creatures from swimming within it.

However - a large part of the transition to wisdom results in synchrony with it - ie effectively making it to heaven - think of an internal wave in synchrony with the 'waves' which make up 'the sea'
- and this internal wave upon physical death then is resorbed back into the sea if and only if that transition (to wisdom/enlightenment) is made ... ... ie there's a path to eternal life

- but it's your spirit which 'ascends' not what you'd call you - but once again we're delusional - because what is us must be our spirit - and clinging to a materialist viewpoint of what we are - ie what we see when we look in the mirror actually reflects what we're seeking to transcend in order to:
in synchrony with
achieve resonant synchrony / positive interference with our internal [of all phenomenological reality] maker.

Aha! so it's a wave - the fundamental substrate is a wave ?
Well maybe we can think about it that way - but a wave of what ?
A wave has to be composed of something ie water, slinky metal, jelly

Oh, I see ... ... modelled as a wave which expresses different attributes in phenomenological reality with cycles of emergence - completion of emergent structure
- ie behaving regularly but exactly what it is - cannot be defined

- it's more a tendency to complexity of no phenomenologically definable substance.

Fortune
07-22-14, 06:12 AM
In this very special situation, expect "It seems logical..." to stop mattering or making sense.

Also, a lot of quantum theory is completely counterintuitive. Einstein rejected it early on and really didn't like it, and counterintuitive effects (such as wave/particle ambiguity) were long misunderstood.

There's currently a lot of evidence for the Big Bang, and much of what we know about physics allows for the existence of other universes, as well as the possibility of our universe interacting with those universes (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19887-microwave-radiation-map-hints-at-other-universes.html). Despite what that link says I think that current understanding is that this evidence is not entirely verified or accepted.

Two current models for the big bang are:

The first is a cyclical universe, in which the big bang recreates the universe, so the universe will eventually collapse into an infinitesimally small point and cause another big bang, over and over.

The second is an infinite medium in which infinite universes are coming into being, existing, and fading away. Sometimes they interact, leaving the aforementioned "bruises."

Both of these account for "something" existing before the big bang itself.

There are probably more models than these two, and each of these has multiple different models to explain the processes involved.

Fortune
07-22-14, 06:16 AM
For it to come from somewhere.... somewhere would have had to too!

Distance / Time are human concoctions which the universe transcends.

I don't think that this is the case. Time and distance are certainly subject to human interpretation, but these are real qualities within our universe. Sometimes people come up with interesting theories about such things. (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/07/is-time-disappearing-from-the-universe-radical-theory-says-yes.html)

Fortune
07-22-14, 06:19 AM
The problem with stuff like this is that it very literally does not fit inside a logical brain. It is as if we do not have enough dimensions to completely comprehend ideas which at first sight seem totally opposite.

How can time exist and not exist?
How can nothing be everything?
How can a wave be a particle?

If we want to really "see" (rather than just understand) things like this, we need to access other ways of comprehension.

You can talk about that sort of thing forever, but the fundamental reality is that

The Tao which can be spoken of, is not the true Tao.

I don't think this is true.

I mean, a lot of the more esoteric stuff is counterintuitive, but that doesn't make it incomprehensible. It means that in order to understand it we have to set aside certain assumptions.

This site covers that rather extensively, although some of the explanations get a bit involved. (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Quantum_Physics_Sequence)

Fortune
07-22-14, 06:35 AM
So could someone tell me a logical reason for our existence.

Cogito ergo sum.

sarek
07-22-14, 06:45 AM
I don't think this is true.

I mean, a lot of the more esoteric stuff is counterintuitive, but that doesn't make it incomprehensible. It means that in order to understand it we have to set aside certain assumptions.

This site covers that rather extensively, although some of the explanations get a bit involved. (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Quantum_Physics_Sequence)


I have no doubt that you can catch it all in a formula. There is an amazing beauty in the mathematical beauty of nature. Look at my forum name sarek, that name itself signifies a decades long belief in the power of logic.

But the formula is not the thing. It is not the beingness of the thing. It is not the feeling of "encompassioning" (=compassion + understanding) which you have when suddenly and perhaps fleetingly all the contradictions and dualities all dissolve.

SB_UK
07-22-14, 07:12 AM
tao


So - definitely this kinda' idea with the slight amendment that the 'thing' which balances ie cancels (duality) don't delete one another - a bit like 2 balanced children on a see-saw don't disappear ... ... and as it was taught to me -

the peculiarity is in the 'thing' which balances.


==

Tao is considered to have ineffable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffable) qualities that prevent it from being defined or expressed in words.
Tao is intrinsically related to the concepts yin and yang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang) (pinyin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin): yīnyáng (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/y%C4%ABny%C3%A1ng)), where every action creates counter-actions as unavoidable movements within manifestations of the Tao .... ...

wikiP/tao

Dizfriz
07-22-14, 08:14 AM
Cogito ergo sum.


Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum (I think that I think, therefore I think that I am.)- Ambrose Bierce


Dizfriz

Fortune
07-22-14, 08:15 AM
I have no doubt that you can catch it all in a formula. There is an amazing beauty in the mathematical beauty of nature. Look at my forum name sarek, that name itself signifies a decades long belief in the power of logic.

But the formula is not the thing. It is not the beingness of the thing. It is not the feeling of "encompassioning" (=compassion + understanding) which you have when suddenly and perhaps fleetingly all the contradictions and dualities all dissolve.

I don't really buy it, though. We already have people expressing an understanding of this sort of thing. You do need math to be able to physics, and that can be a barrier, but that does not mean that comprehension is limited or impossible.

Like, general and special relativity are not exactly intuitive (esp. special relativity). Like the idea that the speed of light is an absolute limit is not an intuitive stance, but it is something understood by physicists as a general rule. Also the understanding that two events may appear to happen at the same time in one frame of reference but at different times in a different frame of reference, and that in those frames they really are simultaneous or they are not for those reference frames.

Quantum entanglement is another one, as is whether light is a particle, wave or both (that link explains what is going on, but it takes several articles to get there).

This is complex stuff, but I do not think it is incomprehensible nor unexplainable. Nor do I think something being explained in terms of math means an inferior understanding (although someone can know the math but not understand why the math is correct).

someothertime
07-22-14, 08:17 AM
the only objection i have to the big bang is *the*....

.....which ties in with the OP's statement. aka..... it would sound more plausible if it was called "a big bang".... or "our big bang"....... hang on..... :rolleyes: you know what i mean.... :o :faint:

the way i see it the more we dig, the closer we get to the next layer..... and we are mere amoebas in the scheme of things.... which ties in with Sareks point about grasping the totality of how many planes this universe dissects.

i love science.... and am fully supportive and open eared to all the research and evidence... which opens worlds of understanding and further investigation.

alas... i feel that it is the design / a constraint if you will that intelligent organisms are unable to extend beyond their own universes....

truman producers standing at the border of the galaxy holding the remote with the "big shrink" botton poised awaiting intrusion to flip the switch ;)

Fortune
07-22-14, 08:57 AM
It's the big bang like it's the universe or the galaxy or the sun or the moon. It defaults to our big bang.

Also, I wouldn't say we're amoebas. Amoebas are amoebas. We're the universe understanding itself.

ferrarl
07-22-14, 10:39 AM
My problem with having stuff or 'the sea' always been in existence, it has existed eternally then. For me it takes more faith to believe in eternal matter or something out of nothing than in intelligent design by an all powerful deity that has existed for eternity.

SB_UK
07-22-14, 12:37 PM
My problem with having stuff or 'the sea' always been in existence, it has existed eternally then. For me it takes more faith to believe


in eternal matter or
something out of nothing than in
intelligent design by an all powerful deity that has existed for eternity.

They're all valid descriptions of the same thing.

The least contentious 'd just be a fundamental substrate forced evolutionary event through impetus provided, occurring from the point we call the Big Bang.

We know galaxies can collide - perhaps 2 Universes collided (Big Bang) to produce one and the rest is actually literally history.

http://isc.astro.cornell.edu/~spoon/crashcourse/phase_snapshots.matteo_springel_hernquist.jpg

So - the galaxies aren't obliterating one another like a missile and a thing - much as observed in multiple places around the world currently
- but there appears to be a delicate dissolution in structure, and then a re-combination of the 2 precursor into a single structure.
I'm wondering whether the dissolution {silence} reformation of 2 galaxies (Universes) becoming 1 would give us a Big Bang event ?

The key freaky bit is the moment of silence (nothingness) [that's fundamental substrate - out of coherence to our senses] which pre-empts the newly formed Universe making itself known.
"a fundamental substrate forced evolutionary event through impetus provided, occurring from the point we call the Big Bang"

Perhaps when 2 became 1 - that it all kicked off (t=0) in the newly formed one ?

Sounds like a song for Celine Dion and Oasis.

-*-

Either ways it's what's happening in this Universe right now which we need to worry about - and it ain't pretty
- sadly not pretty because of human beings and not not pretty for any other reason.

It's true that the GIT appears to be our dominant physical structure but we're really going to need to learn bowel control because pooping over all of creation just doesn't seem appropriate.

ferrarl
07-22-14, 03:26 PM
Perhaps when 2 became 1 - that it all kicked off (t=0) in the newly formed one ?

Sounds like a song for Celine Dion and Oasis.


I think I have a good visualization for the 2 becoming 1.

Lets call first galaxy Bob and the second galaxy a Chipotle burrito with hot salsa.

So what pretty much happened was that Bob ate a Chipotle burrito, waited few hours, and big bang happened :giggle:

HADDaball
07-22-14, 04:40 PM
The chicken..

No, the egg :)

Unmanagable
07-22-14, 04:50 PM
I think I have a good visualization for the 2 becoming 1.

Lets call first galaxy Bob and the second galaxy a Chipotle burrito with hot salsa.

So what pretty much happened was that Bob ate a Chipotle burrito, waited few hours, and big bang happened :giggle:

So it all began on/in Uranus?

Amtram
07-22-14, 09:26 PM
My problem with having stuff or 'the sea' always been in existence, it has existed eternally then. For me it takes more faith to believe in eternal matter or something out of nothing than in intelligent design by an all powerful deity that has existed for eternity.

What created the all-powerful deity?

mctavish23
07-22-14, 10:24 PM
Highway 61

u r welcome :cool:

ferrarl
07-23-14, 12:38 AM
What created the all-powerful deity?

Matter has to come from somewhere, it just doesn't exist for no reason. Laws of physics don't just come from nowhere and they never change. In a same way as we have orderly, never changing laws, couldn't we have something more complicated, like orderly never changing deity?

I think one has always existed. Similarly to our consciousness, this deity doesn't have to be within time or space. Since I exist, something had to start everything and an all powerful deity who doesn't have any limitations is the explanation that makes most sense to me.

Fortune
07-23-14, 01:49 AM
Parsimony principle: Don't needlessly multiply entities. The simplest hypothesis is typically the best in accounting for unexplained facts.

This is also called Occam's Razor.

If your premise makes the most sense, you should be able to argue why it makes the most sense.

The information available to us that explains cosmogony does not require the existence of a conscious being in order to bring one or more universes into existence. Parsimony sort of requires a reason as to why such a conscious being is necessary for the existence of matter and spacetime.

If such a reason existed, it would likely be discussed at length, but it is not. To make a convincing argument, you need to demonstrate why such a reason exists and is the best explanation.

As far as I know, the closest anyone has come to such a thing is the simulation hypothesis (http://www.simulation-argument.com/), which proposes that if it's possible for humanity to achieve the singularity, then we are most likely living in a computer simulation.

Of course that hypothesis led people to Roko's Basilisk, which people find to be a fairly disturbing possibility (google at your own risk - some people find this idea upsets their peace of mind. It doesn't really bother me, or a lot of other people, but some develop existential dread or panic. I have no idea why).

Also, human consciousness exists within the constraints of spacetime, just like everything else in this universe.

SB_UK
07-23-14, 03:19 AM
I think I have a good visualization for the 2 becoming 1.

Lets call first galaxy Bob and the second galaxy a Chipotle burrito with hot salsa.

So what pretty much happened was that Bob ate a Chipotle burrito, waited few hours, and big bang happened :giggle:

I think that hot Chipolita has to be Bob's girl not grill.

Venus not Uranus.

Mars in need of getting a grip - or maybe Venus a headlock ?

primitive mating strategy - Bob destroys Chipolita (ownership of woman by man)
modern mating strategy - a balance of effective equals

SB_UK
07-23-14, 03:34 AM
Cogito ergo sum.

The urge to prove that 'we are' - occurs only because we don't (by default) feel as though we belong here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsCD5XCu6CM
As soon as we do though - people cease to search for proof of the hardness/reality of reality.

Reality isn't real
- but it's all we have and can be sufficient.

We're a divine computer simulation with the all important proviso that the evolutionary algorithm promises us unimaginably better if we get with the program.

Ahhh - you want to control me using God ?
No - quite the opposite.

No control.

There's no freedom in a locked room/wage slavery [<- human not natural constructs].

sadly not pretty because of human beings and not not pretty for any other reason.


(A)

Fortune
07-23-14, 03:56 AM
The urge to prove that 'we are' - occurs only because we don't (by default) feel as though we belong here.

As soon as we do though - people cease to search for proof of the hardness/reality of reality.

Reality isn't real
- but it's all we have and can be sufficient.

We're a divine computer simulation with the all important proviso that the evolutionary algorithm promises us unimaginably better if we get with the program.

Ahhh - you want to control me using God ?
No - quite the opposite.

No control.

There's no freedom in a locked room/wage slavery [<- human not natural constructs].

(A)

I am not yet sure how to respond to this, but it is thought-provoking. Esp. the first line.

Amtram
07-23-14, 05:03 PM
Matter has to come from somewhere, it just doesn't exist for no reason. Laws of physics don't just come from nowhere and they never change. In a same way as we have orderly, never changing laws, couldn't we have something more complicated, like orderly never changing deity?

So the all-powerful deity is made of matter? Then it had to come from somewhere, so where did it come from?

And change is constant, the laws of physics are just what guide that change within our known universe.

SB_UK
07-25-14, 02:52 AM
Never heard of a chipotle but saw the word twice in a shop after reading your post.

Presumably I've seen the word thousands of times before but didn't register until attention drawn to it.

Key mechanism of mind - having one's attention opened to ... ... ...

Why do some people actually want to know eg where did the first ... ... ? and others don't ?

Even though people here like God versus Science debates - well ... ... day before was a program on Magaluf and then yesterday on Sunny Beach

- I'm not too sure the majority really care.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/jul/23/sunny-beach-bbc3-documentary-in-making

Why bother doing science if nothing changes ? ie cheap toxic food, alcohol, drugs are considered a good thing judging by those 2 docs.

SB_UK
07-25-14, 03:10 AM
primitive desires [see Magaluf - immediate activation of preprogrammed pleasure ie fighting,sex,eating]

versus

higher desires [deriving a meaning to life - science, philosophy, art]

And then dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to doRead more: Pulp - Common People Lyrics | MetroLyrics (http://www.metrolyrics.com/common-people-lyrics-pulp.html#ixzz38SfYVYlv)



So getting around to a point

- perhaps people need a chipotle moment to open their minds to art/science/philosophy/religion

- otherwise forever in an addictive pursuit of money, power, sex are they

- a pursuit (definition of addiction) which will never end until you do to a miserable death.

pursuit money - selfishness, fear of people, exclusive social set, live in fear of losing wealth
pursuit power - abuse fellow man, don't work - make other people work, develop aggressive, rude, threatening behaviours
pursuit sex - abuse women, vanity, purchasing people

Sure only the 'lucky' few become that wealthy -- but broken they break themselves in the process.

goal - to escape not embrace primitive immediate pre-programmed pleasure so you're free [of its controlling nature ie can't use the rational mind to overcome addiction].

-*-

So pleasure derived from money/power/sex - observed in animals.

pleasure from making world better - properly human - creative - unprecedented - non-addicive
- gives life a meaning.

we're stuck fighting injustices but hopefully will push pash that stage soon and unite against boredom.

Can't go out because can't afford it.
Can't go for a walk - no land free for use.
Stuck at work when the sun's shining.
No time to take part in community initiatives - mentally/physically tired/diseased - all the people around me have inflammatory or metabolic conditions ie from asthma to diabetes.
Can't allow kids out - too many cars.

Computer broken - low quality - don't buy another.
Shoes can't be repaired - too expensive to replace.
Bike poorly designed - transmission replacement of cogs and Chain = 1/2 price bike.

We live in a shabby throwaway culture.

SOLUTION ?

throw it all away
Never needed any of it anywayhttp://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/zero7/throwitallaway.html

SB_UK
07-25-14, 03:25 AM
My general point is that if the individual really wants to answer the question of 'what happened first ?' then off the individual'll go towards enlightenment and a meaningful life

- if not and trapped the individual will remain as an animal.

Before you know it you'll be (if you're successful) another one of those ageing female celebrities who people make fun of for plastic surgery and toy boys ... ... or ageing male millionaires without any humanity.

Just the desire for money.

Where the love/desire of money is ... ... ...

mildadhd
08-04-14, 10:41 PM
There is frozen water molecules on Mars.

And Uracil can be made by humans, in space like conditions.(if I understand correctly)

But I think the specifics for life as we know it, depends multiple factors in the environment, including the location of the earth, etc.

(Side Note I am guessing)


NASA scientists studying the origin of life have reproduced uracil, a key component of our hereditary material, in the laboratory. They discovered that an ice sample containing pyrimidine exposed to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions produces this essential ingredient of life.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/uracil.html

(Layman, open to corrections)

There doesn't seem to be one factor only, but multiple factors interacting together?

Question?

What came first Neuropeptides or Neurotransmitters?


P

mildadhd
08-04-14, 11:19 PM
Maybe a better question would be..

What is the difference between neuropeptides and neurotransmitters?

(just having fun, I don't know, but I am curious, and was recently wondering what the difference was, if anyone has any insight, to these topics in relation to the OP somehow?)



P

mildadhd
08-07-14, 12:03 AM
I wonder if the types of molecules being considered are primarily gravity related?

I really have no clue, fun thread topic.



P

Hathor
08-07-14, 12:16 AM
To me it seems logical to say that everything has to have a beginning, something never just pops out of nothing.



Your statement does not seem logical to me. :)

Everything having a beginning absolutely requires a time when absolutely nothing existed.

Edit: Well not necessarily but I still think my second point below is valid wtf!

So if everything nullified the absolute nothing, how did it do so without 'just popping out of nothing'?

Why do you not entertain the idea that there has always been something? (ie Energy :))

It sounds absurd, but adding it to what you said seems to me to make what you said a bit less absurd.

Here is the best essay I have seen on the topic


http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Heidegger,Martin/Heidegger.Martin..What%20Is%20Metaphysics.htm

mildadhd
08-07-14, 12:38 AM
Your statement does not seem logical to me. :)

Everything having a beginning absolutely requires a time when absolutely nothing existed.

Edit: Well not necessarily but I still think my second point below is valid wtf!

So if everything nullified the absolute nothing, how did it do so without 'just popping out of nothing'?

Why do you not entertain the idea that there has always been something? (ie Energy :))

It sounds absurd, but adding it to what you said seems to me to make what you said a bit less absurd.

Here is the best essay I have seen on the topic


http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Heidegger,Martin/Heidegger.Martin..What%20Is%20Metaphysics.htm


E

When I read this post I get a picture of unintentionally cranky donkey on a ever changing sandy beach, at high tide, for some reason?

Thanks for the link.

P

Hathor
08-07-14, 01:10 AM
E

When I read this post I get a picture of unintentionally cranky donkey on a ever changing sandy beach, at high tide, for some reason?

Thanks for the link.

P

You are welcome

I don't feel cranky, but was a tad embarrassed that I made a fallacy and posted it before I noticed.

But maybe I am always cranky so dont notice it unless it is really acting up

I do get cranky, but not here so much as the hot topics are discouraged :)

I like to prowl the WWW and look for fights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpokjMDGM60

mildadhd
08-07-14, 01:43 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpokjMDGM60



..Fighting around the world.

He fights his directors and he fights his fans.

It's a problem no one understands...


E

It might be easier to understand, if we consider unconditoned emotional response systems, from the ground up?

Maybe a combination of overactive SEEKING system and RAGE system, and maybe PLAY system and other primary emotional systems might be factors?



P

Hathor
08-07-14, 03:20 AM
E

It might be easier to understand, if we consider unconditoned emotional response systems, from the ground up?

Maybe a combination of overactive SEEKING system and RAGE system, and maybe PLAY system and other primary emotional systems might be factors?



P


Very interesting my skydiving homie with the missing bones @ yale ;)

I rememberd I do get cranky here, but it is not at a member. It could be unconditioned anger because it is anger about conditioning.

The conditioning is to make obedient little herded animals who only answer questions they did not ask, which keeps them from asking what the hell fractional reserve plus interest is or else why the textbooks change every year unless the author is insane, in which case they keep the same book for half a century (true story)

I did not take well to this conditioning so I had no good job to buy an overpriced car to show how effin cool I am to potential mates.

So I am conditioned to rant and rave about conditioning I couldn't be conditioned by, which is pretty funny when I think about it, but is it unconditioned?

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1632708&postcount=3

mildadhd
08-07-14, 04:23 AM
Very interesting my skydiving homie with the missing bones @ yale ;)

I rememberd I do get cranky here, but it is not at a member. It could be unconditioned anger because it is anger about conditioning.

The conditioning is to make obedient little herded animals who only answer questions they did not ask, which keeps them from asking what the hell fractional reserve plus interest is or else why the textbooks change every year unless the author is insane, in which case they keep the same book for half a century (true story)

I did not take well to this conditioning so I had no good job to buy an overpriced car to show how effin cool I am to potential mates.

So I am conditioned to rant and rave about conditioning I couldn't be conditioned by, which is pretty funny when I think about it, but is it unconditioned?

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1632708&postcount=3

E

Like all other mammals, donkeys are born with the same 7 raw primary unconditioned emotional response systems.

SEEKING, FEAR, RAGE, LUST, CARE, GRIEF/PANIC, PLAY

Maybe the response has something partly to do with early implicit memories of the first time Christopher brought you to school, pulled your tail off, then attempted to pin your tail back on again, blindfolded?

P

Hathor
08-07-14, 05:12 AM
E

Like all other mammals, donkeys are born with the same 7 raw primary unconditioned emotional response systems.

SEEKING, FEAR, RAGE, LUST, CARE, GRIEF/PANIC, PLAY

Maybe the response has something partly to do with early implicit memories of the first time Christopher brought you to school, pulled your tail off, then attempted to pin your tail back on again, blindfolded?

P

Ah, well even worse was the time I pinned the tail on another donkey! :confused:

I was about 4 or 5 years old.

The blindfold fell down my face till I could see.

I marched right up to that other donkey and pinned that tail.

When I got older I realized it must have been obvoius to the parents at least that I sort of cheated.

I am ashamed! not of abusing my own kind, not of cheating, but of being seen cheating! :o

as for the seven you speak of, it seems rather systematic for my tastes

actually I lied, if it can be reduced to a polarity I can see a place for it

I love Donnie Darko and agree that Swazee guy is the effin antichrist, but I I think he may be wrong on this one

Sometimes I wonder if the movie was being ironic, but probably not? :confused:

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2hapf9SRr1r8cb3go1_500.gif

mildadhd
08-07-14, 05:32 AM
Ah, well even worse was the time I pinned the tail on another donkey! :confused:

I was about 4 or 5 years old.

The blindfold fell down my face till I could see.

I marched right up to that other donkey and pinned that tail.

When I got older I realized it must have been obvoius to the parents at least that I sort of cheated.

I am ashamed! not of abusing my own kind, not of cheating, but of being seen cheating! :o

as for the seven you speak of, it seems rather systematic for my tastes

actually I lied, if it can be reduced to a polarity I can see a place for it

I love Donnie Darko and agree that Swazee guy is the effin antichrist, but I I think he may be wrong on this one

Sometimes I wonder if the movie was being ironic, but probably not? :confused:

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2hapf9SRr1r8cb3go1_500.gif


I think your right, the brain functions as a whole and it is much more complicated.

The unconditioned subcortical seven are complex, but mulitply less complex than upper limbic and higher neocortical.

Making the seven good foundation, to in understanding the whole.

I peed my pants in grade 2.

P

SB_UK
08-07-14, 08:13 AM
fear -> + mind -> love

That's absolutely correct.

How do we see the expression of fear in those who have not yet become wise ?
This incredible desire to have the biggest military with all the shiniest killing machines.
A strong police force.
A government, army and police force with the power to do what it wishes, confidentially - under the 'guise' of national security ie you're dead (the fear card played) unless we (government) operate in the shadows.
-- Fear does not mean locking oneself in a cupboard; fear expresses itself differently.

How do we see the expression of love in those who have become wise ?
A desire to do NO harm.
We see that poorly chosen words hurt.
That using limiting raw materials hurts the survival prospects of the species.

That manufacturing processes generating materials which can't be recycled is not right.
-- Love does not mean dressing up like a hippie and flouncing; love expresses itself differently.
There's elegance in consistency - sometimes it feels that that's the attraction ie elegance
- but then again science as the simplest explanatory model is synonymous with elegance.

The Dy... vacuum cleaner isn't the height of excellence.
NOT NEEDING to vacuum clean is the heart of science.
What a bore !

Perhaps the best way to describe a person who is capable of no harm - is somebody who is sufficiently happy through plain existence in the sun.

IE no need for anything.

You could argue that if all people were like that, that we'd never get anything done.

However - the point is that just because people are happy as is, doesn't mean that they won't strive for better.

It's more a desire for higher quality life than the desire to feed a self-destructive addiction that we're fleshing out here
- in the motivation which operates in the pre-wise mind versus the motivation which operates in a wise mind.

SB_UK
08-07-14, 08:56 AM
How do we see the expression of fear in those who have not yet become wise ?Offence is the best defence.

How do we see the expression of love in those who have become wise ?
Attention Offenders for offence is stressful, stress drives premature ageing and as you grind your telomeres down - your end approaches or in 1 word - CHILL !

-*-

How do we see the expression of fear in those who have not yet become wise ?
OFFENCE !

How do we see the expression of love in those who have become wise ?
~ chill ~

SB_UK
08-07-14, 09:00 AM
Where did the first molecule or wave of energy come from?

Luton airport.

Hathor
08-07-14, 10:11 AM
Luton airport.


Perhaps the last will come from Denver Airport. :confused:

http://www.exohuman.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/denver-airport-bronco-sculpture-night-view1.jpg

I have not read all your talk of the fear/love flap yet, but I was not clear that in the movie Donnie rejected it, and I suspect he is wrong. It is possible Donnie Darko rejected it as simple because he did not look and see how perplexing it is.

If there is anything to what you said perhaps it can also be used to show how fortune used the Razor in a way that is not profitable?


5.47321 Occam's Razor is, of course, not an arbitrary rule nor one justified by its practical success. It simply says that unnecessary elements in a symbolism mean nothing. Signs which serve one purpose are logically equivalent, signs which serve no purpose are logically meaningless.

well perhaps that works better with the airport part of the post :confused:


But more in the nature of Fortunes take, is the Fear/Love flap superior to the Seven of Peripheral?

I think so.

mildadhd
08-07-14, 11:09 AM
See thread.

If we didn't have the 7 unconditioned emotional response systems (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1670697&postcount=1)


P

Hathor
08-07-14, 12:48 PM
How do we see the expression of fear in those who have not yet become wise ?Offence is the best defence.

How do we see the expression of love in those who have become wise ?
Attention Offenders for offence is stressful, stress drives premature ageing and as you grind your telomeres down - your end approaches or in 1 word - CHILL !

-*-

How do we see the expression of fear in those who have not yet become wise ?
OFFENCE !

How do we see the expression of love in those who have become wise ?
~ chill ~

Yes offence is huge. If somebody Kant figure something out and insists A is absolutely static when it is in flux, they can get silly and start thinking themselves wiser than everyone but Aristotle. It would be funny if they were not such a bad writer and so darn rude.

A variation of this is is when people make fun of my ego. Sure I get carried away, but when I look down my nose at somebody I hope to see the hypocrisy before I open my big mouth!

I look down on Miss A is A, but I have to draw the line somewhere

See, [A] is looking down my nose which is bad mkay? but when [A] is Ayn things get so absurd that [A] is not Bad, but Ayn is a dork.

The vanity of others offends our taste only when it offends our vanity.

well Ayn ripped him off too :)

mildadhd
08-07-14, 02:08 PM
"The truth is an offense, but not a sin"

(author unknown)

i!i i!i

Hathor
08-07-14, 02:22 PM
that is a good one, but not absolute.

The sin is in the offended consciousness when it is faced with the truth.

But when there is no offense in the consciousness facing the truth there is no sin in the picture.

mildadhd
08-07-14, 02:41 PM
that is a good one, but not absolute.

The sin is in the offended consciousness when it is faced with the truth.

But when there is no offense in the consciousness facing the truth there is no sin in the picture.

Thanks,

Sounds efficient.

What drives the "facing"?

P

Hathor
08-07-14, 02:42 PM
The truth drives the facing when there is no offence, but when there is offence the reasoner is sinning :)

http://nsa34.casimages.com/img/2014/08/07/140807090347423394.jpg

http://nsa33.casimages.com/img/2014/08/07/140807090514384179.jpg

mildadhd
08-07-14, 02:53 PM
"P can be equal to E, if and only if, P is not equal to himself."


Bertrand Russel's paradox. (Translated by P)




P

Hathor
08-07-14, 03:34 PM
Thanks for the translation, but wasn't BR from England :confused:

You are also pulling my leg about BM above I think

I am still on the offence trip from Marley, which I understood through my help from SK whose book I posted above (well It was techniclly the Johannes Climacus pseudonym from Soren Kierkegaard.

The paradox worked its majick a century later on another author, walter kaufmann. Inerestingly kaufmann is probably the most popular 'interpeter' of kierkegaard in north american universites, and has been about half a century.

Ill post the offence and then explain how messed up he became while offended almost sinful his behavior

http://nsa34.casimages.com/img/2014/08/07/140807095624994397.jpg

http://nsa34.casimages.com/img/2014/04/15/140415062117511320.png

http://nsa33.casimages.com/img/2014/04/15/140415062315777749.png

Kaufmann quotes Nietzsche against himself, and in that act quotes Kierkegaard against himself.

Kaufmann starts the process by quoting and analyzing Kierkegaard's description of transparent despair (Kierkegaard's Demonic)

Kierkegaard says of such despair that it is "seldom seen in real life", and Kaufmann notes that "ve are served notice that he projects himself, as if that did not go without saying..."
He then quotes [from the same train of thought?] in SUD: "It is Kierkegaard says, as if a 'clerical error vould revolt against the author, out of hatred for him vould forbid him to correct it, and vere to say: 'No, I vill not be erased, I stand as a vitness against thee, that thou art a very poor vriter' "

Kaufmanns insight into this is:

"Being physically deformed, Kierkegaard kneu the temptation of flinging himself into the face of God vith vords like these, and for him, obedience meant humble acceptance of the absurd."

After a detour into Shakespeare and more deformity, Kaufmann contrasts 2 quotes, one from Kierkegaard, one from Nietzsche.

First Kierkegaard from his journal:

"After my death no one will find in my papers (this is my comfort) a single explanation of what it was that really filled my life, the secret writing of my inmost parts which explains everything and often transforms what the world would call bagatelles into events of prodigious importance for me, which I regard as insignificant apart from the secret gloss which explains them"

Then Kaufmann says: "This note should be compared with Nietzsche's observation:

"The worst readers of aphorisms are the writers friends if they are intent on guessing back from the general to the particular instance to which the aphorism owes its origin: for with this pot-peeking they reduce the whole author's effort to nothing, and they only deserve it when, instead of philosophical outlook or instruction, they gain nothing but-at best, or at worst- the satisfaction of a vulgar curiosity."

Kaufmann's reason for the contrast is "For Nietzsche his ovn experience is the mere occasion for more general insights that are meant to have objective validity."

Shenanigan says this should be compared to Nietzsche's observation:

"More essentially: whether a tendency toward generalities is not already a symptom of decadence; objectivity as disintegration of the will" - Nietzsche, WtP 444 (Kaufmann Translation lol)

Regardless, it is clear that Kaufmann is doing to Kierkegaard very close to vhat Nietzche is complaining about in the quote provided by Kaufmann himself, and in the very same page Kaufmann seals the deal vith a clerical revolt, getting 2 birds stoned at once:

"I have said that Kierkegaard's range of experience was narrow; and yet his life was certainly no less interesting than Freud's or Nietzsche's. [...] In the concept of dread for example where he deals psychologically with original sin and admits that his psychology is based on his own case, he is preoccupied with the relation of his own sin to his father's; and he probably wondered whether his own deformity was not a punishment for his fathers sins."

mildadhd
08-07-14, 08:29 PM
E

Sorry,

1)I should have wrote,

Bertrand Russel's paradox. (interpretation by P)


2)The quote below is an example of some Bob Marley lyrics , but they are originally from the bible, I am not sure who was the original author.

"..But the stone that the builder refuse.

Shall be the head cornerstone.."

(lyrics from the song "Ride Natty Ride")

I think the quote below also originated from one of Bob Marley's influences as well, but I am unsure exactly who the original author is, I could be mistaken.

(0:32)"The truth is and offence, but not a sin"

Jah Live (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvVles_EqXU)


I would like to take some time to consider your last couple of posts.



P

SB_UK
08-08-14, 02:44 AM
Perhaps the last will come from Denver Airport. :confused:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLBKOcUbHR0

SB_UK
08-08-14, 02:46 AM
The end is nigh.



Well I'm gonna' spend my last 3 minutes walking to the sun of God.

Freezing here !

Final thought to God -

'Well that whole phenomenological reality thing was just plain strange'
Human beings spent their time poking other human beings with sharp sticks.
What's that all about then ?Why couldn't they just take nature walks in the sun (after moving somewhere warm!!) ?

Tried running barefoot on grass - excellent for feet !

Eliminating Nike and 'friends'.

All corporations deleted.

1 Pair of underpants going strong after 20 years.

Heirloom ?

"As my dying wish to you my son"
- then you throw your underpants at their head.

Wouldn't be out of place in the bibble.

SB_UK
08-08-14, 03:37 AM
http://exploringtheinvisible.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/daylight.jpg?w=300&h=200

Born on
eat on eat from poop on run on
- job done
push daisies up into (http://www.abaenglish.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/PushingUpDaisiesScreen.jpg)

SB_UK
08-08-14, 04:33 AM
At least from the perspective of man with mind.

Where did the first molecule or wave of energy come from?earth to earth ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppyF1iQ0-dM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMThz7eQ6K0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMThz7eQ6K0)

Point being that we're dying from the moment we realise we're 'alive' - at which point the emphasis should be on discovering what alive means
- since 'alive' isn't.

SB_UK
08-08-14, 06:39 AM
http://exploringtheinvisible.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/daylight.jpg?w=300&h=200

Born on
eat on eat from poop on run on
- job done
push daisies up into (http://www.abaenglish.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/PushingUpDaisiesScreen.jpg)[/quote]


Planet Earth is blue :(
And there's nothing I can do.We We We.

P learnt how in Grade 2.

ADDers predisposed.

Social reward.
Renewed motivation.

Not stimulants to drive uninteresting immoral behaviours.
http://img.webmd.com/dtmcms/live/webmd/consumer_assets/site_images/articles/health_tools/top_reasons_your_child_cant_sleep_slideshow/getty_rm_photo_of_little_girl_sleeping_at_school.j pg

Hathor
08-08-14, 10:07 AM
'Well that whole phenomenological reality thing was just plain strange'
Human beings spent their time poking other human beings with sharp sticks.
What's that all about then ?

Well speak of the devil, this is the logical conclusion of Skinnerian 'psychology' I had just noticed.

They do more than share 'racy photos', these bring young people with questionable morals working for uncle sam

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/us/politics/edward-snowden-at-nsa-sexually-explicit-photos-often-shared.html


They play psyop too. I dreamed of one guy they tried but he was a dyk

But now comes the greatest joke of the dream, Flask. While I was battering away at the pyramid, a sort of badger-haired old merman, with a hump on his back, takes me by the shoulders, and slews me round. ‘What are you ‘bout?’ says he. Slid! man, but I was frightened. Such a phiz! But, somehow, next moment I was over the fright. ‘What am I about?’ says I at last. ‘And what business is that of yours, I should like to know, Mr. Humpback? Do you want a kick?’ By the lord, Flask, I had no sooner said that, than he turned round his stern to me, bent over, and dragging up a lot of seaweed he had for a clout- what do you think, I saw?- why thunder alive, man, his stern was stuck full of marlinspikes, with the points out. Says I on second thought, ‘I guess I won’t kick you, old fellow.’


The quote below is an example of some Bob Marley lyrics , but they are originally from the bible, I am not sure who was the original author.


"..But the stone that the builder refuse.
Shall be the head cornerstone.."

(lyrics from the song "Ride Natty Ride")

This cornerstone is mentioned by a few authors, but I think it can be well explained as Mammon stood on its head:



http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/upside-down-dollar.jpg

15
ΚΕΦΑΛΗ ΙΕ
THE GUN-BARREL

Mighty and erect is this Will of mine, this Pyramid of fire whose summit is lost in Heaven. Upon it have I burned the corpse of my desires.

Mighty and erect is this Φαλλος of my Will. The seed thereof is That which I have borne within me from Eternity; and it is lost within the Body of Our Lady of the Stars.

I am not I; I am but an hollow tube to bring down Fire from Heaven.

Mighty and marvellous is this Weakness, this Heaven which draweth me into Her Womb, this Dome which hideth, which absorbeth, Me.

This is The Night wherein I am lost, the Love through which I am no longer I.


http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/823/jhc1u.jpg
____http://planetwaves.net/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/the_devil_rws-thoth_large.jpg

mildadhd
08-08-14, 11:41 AM
A person is standing on one side of the earth.

And another person is standing on the opposite side of the earth.

Ask them both, to point up.

And they will be pointing in opposite directions.


P

Hathor
08-08-14, 01:28 PM
Yes that is well said.

If I point the gun barrel at myself first then I can turn it on those who put it in her hands while I admire her facial features through the ethical sphere.

This relates to Horus dream reflexion and Mesmer.

This jaffa thingy goes as followed: GIR AFFE means a monkey who wants more and more, it is out of Horus dream reflexion as you said : the whole sperms came back to prince phillip, therefore they have problems to speak now

mildadhd
08-08-14, 10:30 PM
One reason why I enjoy studying the 7 raw primary unconditioned emotional response systems (deeply subcortical) is because they are the same instinctual pre verbal emotional feelings (affects), in all humans. (mammals)

Secondary emotional conditioned processes (upper limbic) and tertiary emotional self regulation processes (neocortex) are much more complexly verbally subjective.


P

Hathor
08-09-14, 12:42 AM
pre verbal emotional feelings



P

Yes wonderful, that helps me get the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Razor away from Denver Airport and back to donnie darko, so I can see if fortune lets me hang-off this ladder.

5.47321 Occam's Razor is, of course, not an arbitrary rule nor one justified by its practical success. It simply says that unnecessary elements in a symbolism mean nothing. Signs which serve one purpose are logically equivalent, signs which serve no purpose are logically meaningless.

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

pre verbal emotional feelings

Well that is a headfull to put into feeling, so I will stay on the ladder for nau in case of faulty parachute or bad legs, but thanks for the insight G ;)

Hathor
08-09-14, 12:46 AM
lol i will have to tell you about my legs sometime. The skull wanted an arm and a leg; but I don't have arms

“Hast seen the White Whale?”

“See you this?” and withdrawing it from the folds that had hidden it, he held up a white arm of sperm whale bone, terminating in a wooden head like a mallet.

either way I am gimped :confused:

mildadhd
08-09-14, 12:56 AM
I made a mistake I think Fortune and the Razor are right.

Considering the much less complex unconditioned primary affective systems genetics, before the much more subjectively complex secondary conditioned systems genetics and tertiary self regulatetion systems genetics, really makes things easier for me to understand.

P

Hathor
08-09-14, 01:11 AM
well I don't know if you are talking about fortune or fortune or which version of the Razor, but I know in the first case A is not A

But nau my head is going to explode subjectively, not always a bad thing but I am not in the mood, so I will turn back to the beginning of energy, which may be a phantasm.

Here is some quote from the little herded animal, I do not agree with it all, but I think he may be correct regarding the big picture.

http://nsa33.casimages.com/img/2014/08/09/140809073302388521.jpg

Hathor
08-09-14, 02:43 AM
I may be an even worse writer than Ayn Rand, but am a better thief.

If the world may be thought of as a certain definite quantity of force and as a certain definite number of centers of force

-and every other representation remains indefinite and therefore useless

-it follows that, in the great dice game of existence, it must pass through a calculable number of combinations.

In infinite time, every possible combination would at some time or another be realized; more: it would be realized an infinite number of times.

And since between every combination and its next recurrence all other possible combinations would have to take place,
and each of these combinations conditions the entire sequence of combinations in the same series,
a circular movement of absolutely identical series is thus demonstrated: the world as a circular movement that
has already repeated itself infinitely often and plays its game in infinitum.

http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2014/Standdaarbuiten3/11thdutch2014a.jpg

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/821/4056680584.png

mildadhd
08-09-14, 12:16 PM
Where did the first molecule or wave of energy come from?

Seems like there are the multiple different combinations of factors making every thing, based on mass, chemical, location, radiation, rotation, charge, etc?

Example

Uracil(a key component of our hereditary material) = environment (space like conditions) + ice sample containing pyrimidine + ultraviolet radiation.

lines, circles, triangles, squares...etc


NASA scientists studying the origin of life have reproduced uracil, a key component of our hereditary material, in the laboratory. They discovered that an ice sample containing pyrimidine exposed to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions produces this essential ingredient of life.

See Post #39 (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1670232&postcount=39)



Interestingly, unsure where to consider the scientists and laboratory, in general?




P

Hathor
08-09-14, 02:51 PM
I call fortune!

Why is there anything at all, and not far rather nothing!

Cease ye, and nevermore lift up the lament; for all this is Determined!