Can there be a beginning?

Man has pondered this questions for thousands of years. Science and religion have posed theories and beliefs depicting the absolute beginning of the universe, of existence. From the science’s Big Bang to the ancient Egyptian creation myths. It seems common to most mythologies, science included, to attempt to find and explain the very beginning.

But they all begs the question “What came before that?”. Science offer various theories for what came before the Big Bang, but you may always ask “But what started all that?” and “But why?”. And “How did the laws of physics come about?”.

If existence came from a spirit or spirits, then “What prompted it or them to create?” “Why?”

And so we may wonder, can there be a beginning at all?

283 thoughts on “Can there be a beginning?

  1. In my opinion, mankind is still very far to understand such deep things. We got used to judge the entire phenomenon using the tools of mathematics, physics, DNA, chemistry, etc. I just wonder if these are the correct tools or maybe we need something else, something yet unknown to discover such a complicate answer.

  2. Hm. theory, belief, beginning, explain, what, why – one level of consciousness : the mind. The mind as a bubble in which the laws of the mind operate. Sure, I can see the Moon and the Stars like anyone else the same way and we agree to that. What if I tell you that I experienced the Universe in a very different way – like “formless” “space layers” of “dimensions”? Where there is no concept of “beginning”? It’s a different perception. Is it true? For me certainly. For those who also had that experience – well, we more or less can communicate about it – less than more.
    For me it all boils down to one principle – “creations” of THAT (consciousness, unknowable by the mind, potential – whatever label) can be experienced….how “far”…”what the nature-answer” of that experience is/will be…..not that what the human mind can come up with….or the “senses”…….there are 9 levels of consciousness in Buddhism and more in the Tibetian Buddhism (if I remember well)…..so, way to go……I am curious….if I don’t get a final answer…Hm. I LOVE BEING CURIOUS…and ! I may even be “lucky” ………

    Geir – what is your theory or experience of this question so far?

    1. Geir
      Here I commented that there are several levels of consciousness. On the “mind” level, there is “beginning”. On another, there isn’t, as there is no time in it. On another, it’s all energy, as Elizabeth says, on another it’s all potential….nothing really exists…..on another this nothing is everything and everything is always accessible….me has experience of them.
      Which one, what is your awareness of it now?
      I

  3. Perhaps the issue is the assumption that for every particular and thoroughly identified effect, there is a very particular and thoroughly identified cause. And this assumes that one can particularize and identify a single cause and a single effect, when the reality is that this is always a complex system. The assumption continues with the premise that one can identify and trace a consistent chain of these causes and effects backwards through time and forward through time by observing their artifacts in the present — and really we are only ever observing present artifacts. Discreet presence is assumed. Discreet artifacts are assumed.

  4. Most people believe that matter is the only reality. But matter consist of 99,999.. % empty space and the remaining parts are very strange behaving particles. This particles behave sometimes like particles and sometimes like waves (depending of how they are measured). Einstein said that matter and energy are the same thinks, just in a different manifestation.
    If you look further than you find out matters are made out of atoms, atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electron. Neutrons and protons are made out of quarks and quarks are made out of vibrating strings. Scientists believe that strings exists in 9 or more dimensions (whatever that means?)
    After all that (and there are much more strange scientific findings) you still believe that our universe is real??? And do you believe that our scientist have really a clue about the beginning of our universe???

    1. The essence of quarks is highly in dispute. String theory has been going through a succession of blows during the past two decades. There are many other explanations for the basis of matter and energy.

    2. +1 you have my agreement, I never have studied science or philosophy but I know what I have seen in session and I seen the string particles clearly before I ever known about them reading here and my reality is the same, and about: matter is energy.. How could be different? That s the reason I have written more than once.. there is no such a thing as time, space, there is only energy and nothing more.

  5. A hierarchy that has a beginning:

    – Nothingness
    – Tension
    – Awakening
    – Awareness
    – Cognition
    – Space expansion at cognition
    – Emotion equivalent to surprise
    – Space buckling and division at cognition / surprise
    – Divided-off space is a copy of first space
    – Awareness is duplicated in the divided-off space
    – Two awarenesses now exist, one a copy of the other
    – Individual cognitions occur in the separate spaces (awarenesses) creating the state of individual in each awareness
    – the individual awarenesses can have individual cognitions which will calve the individual spaces, creating more awarenesses
    – the cycle would continue until group awareness recognized the mechanism and chose to limit it

    And that would be just the start.

      1. There is tension in no-thingness. Me sees it that way too at this point. I see a kind of no-mest-“space” collision which could be an answer to this…..

          1. I never once experienced tention and I have worked with and handled lots of energy and ” nothingness” dont have that component, in fact I never seen such on animal. My reality..

            1. Maria after out talk ”My attantion got stuck” on the item just how many viewers the same body hat at one time, Cog: there can be many but not all of them have the same reality or experience all of it.
              in fact the one who experiences the complite incident: from before the birth and knowing why want THAT BODY than experiencing the conception-the sexual act it self’ and through the whole life time to death of the body and leaving the body as a spiritual knowingness, I believe that being has the right to the body is the so called owner of the body and that person in this case is the superior being.
              In other words the true owner and that is recognised by the other viewers.
              As i have experienced we can view part of somebodies life as i have in the case of Peter, but not all of it so therfore I WAS NOT PETER..Ijust known experieced some of his experiences.
              Same goes for those who connect into Buddha’s space-life at one point.. that experience do not give full reality for them from birth to death of the body.
              Now: who stay with the body from the beginning to the end? The one who uses that body as a tool in order to achieve ones goal, and that entity is the rightful owner of that body the rest of the beings are just hanging in there and they come and go, stay for a while and experience stimulation which in their space would be needed and wanted in order to be for a moment.
              Your reality please…

            2. Maria..’surge is on experience, since one only can have one experience at a time, when one experiences that ”energy-mass” in reality is nameless it has no name no meaning, but later when concetp-explanations were born created on the same ”energy mass’ was given name.. but naming anything, pull or push or falling those are just names.. and it is very possible one is giving manny different names to the major mass-anchor to one is glued permenentally .
              We all have experienced and we continually experience energy. but humans add a name a consideration, give a explanation or discription, in other words they try to explain what the experience is…. hard-soft, big or small, that comes from comperison of two reality.
              If one really want to experience reality than order to do so one has to give up not only considerations what one has collected -thinking-speaking etc but all the concepts including: infinite, entity, spirituality, since these concepts are no more or better than saying that the apple is sweet.
              To experience the NOW that fraction of the second is the only reality one has. hehehe but again this is my reality…

            3. CH….. yes one can combine energy mass[ not mixing but side by side, close to each other] and each is a anchor and one can overview all that at the same time since they are all yours: example one mass moving to the right [ we know we have that concept now because we have the left too] that is a comet than another comet is coming from the right, they pass very close to each to each other, now you can experience the energy which is created between the passing comets: you now experience the pull both ways it later could be discribet being ripped apart which later when one has the body as on anchor experienced: the body is ripped apart the same was as the energy was created but the passing of the two comets.. the energy-mass was your first experience of tension and that you kept as on anchor since it was just that and you used the same anchor for the body so when the body is being ripped apart in fact that action is the 2 comet passing each other and what you experienced than.
              If you want on explanation for what is gravity I can give one..

            4. Elizabeth: “If you want on explanation for what is gravity I can give one.”

              Yes, please do. I’m all ears. 🙂

            5. Marildi here you go.. Gravity…

              The planet is imploding, the core is the most condensed and as that happens it pulls in other particles-energy but do read:

              If you would slice the Earth in half you could see the many inter -mashing ”layers”: the atmosphere is thin, than as you observe the air becomes thicker-heavier as you go closer to the surface of the planet, than comes the soil, first it is soft than hardens and becomes liquid, if you look at the core it is so condensed is has become solid-dead but it is not..

              I have observed how the star becomes ”dead’ dies.. dead- is when particles become so condensed that they no longer can move, But the seemingly dead core is emanating energy at the same time, so in reality it is not dead but ”solid”.

              When the star is being born: that is: energy flowing one way and that one way flow [ from every direction toward one point=core] that is the strongest energy but when the center becomes totally condensed so heavy -solid -unmoving -dead that “”dead”” energy-mass of course emanates and gives out ”stronger flow” and with that now the out flowing energy from the core over powers the inflowing energy, the center has now the stronger more powerful outflowing energy and that causes the death of the star: because its no longer growing but the outflowing energy particles make it less and less since the core particles now loosening up : that is the out-flow and sooner or later the star melts away..

              All the particles-energy now becomes again the same form as they were before..in fact they have not changed shape but they were simply condensed so tightly that a singular shape was not observable.. not to the ”’eyes” of course..

              First part when the planet is still in a growing stage everything ‘energy’ moving toward its center=that is a pulling action-gravity and the condensations starts is there and when there is no more pull the core is heavy-strong enough have more energy-power to over come the inflow that is the beginning of death of any planet…

              Not bad write up by a little old white haired lady who never had much education… hehehe… but I too went to kinder garden.

            6. Thank you, Elizabeth! That was very interesting indeed, and I hope all the physicists took note of this write-up of the little old white-haired lady. 😉

            7. Marildi… I answer your questions because I know the reason for asking and I also know that you will duplicate the answer.. You are most welcome and it is I who thank you for your asking..

            8. 🙂 Eliz, this goes for your other comments too that I can’t reply to.

            9. Sounds about right to me Elizabeth. It also seems to me that the connection and perception would not be very good for any but the primary individual. i.e. kind of dim or unreal or maybe little better than a vague memory kind of thing. But that would be guessing.

            10. Yes,, and depands just how strong that experience would be, how the oroginal owner felt. Example: i had that head on collision. that would be experienced by many, but me pottering in my garden admireing the flowers fould only effect few, but in reality different entities would be aware on my activities, thoughts, The beings who live in the garden, the fairies gnomes and those who have uses the same flow as my garden is mocked-up with. but when having a cognition, that cognition has made out of, contain or not.. I could call that ”pure” power which penetrates the ”vastness” and every one who resides in that vastness receives that cog,
              Now your reality on this please?
              out of our talk, I milked 2 cogs not bad…about who is the real owner of the body, i been wondering for some times. I never doubted that I was B…. but the other considerations who claimed the same I did not compitelly hehehe ”understood” hehehe love that new reality I have gained from you! understood?

            11. Elizabeth, lets email further on this conversation rather than hijack this thread! But it will not be until tomorrow, as I am off to dreamland!

          2. Because once, earlier I asked the question “How did it start” – and got a very similar answer/”perception” of what 2x is writing about as a start….there was a “non-mest space” collapse/collision in ” ” this….can’t find a word for that, Also, after “awakening” some
            “experience” of Higgs, boson whatever without reading about it first. I will look at it all again….I don’t want to be “influenced” by 2x. A proper level of consciousness is needed to
            ask ANY question….the answers are there….anyone has access to them. Me may not be precise….I know….as me is being “alone” here….no method. No complaining…will answer it later. May take some time.

            1. Geir …here Vinay simply would put it””unknowable” but MT have given you different reality on the same… but that reality is still the same ”unknowable”

            2. Marildi
              It’ll take some time means days or more. I work about 10 hours a day now. Also, though this question is interesting, there are other interesting ones for me. Also, some questions just arise daily, as I live quite spontaneously. These are facts. Geir, 2x, Elizabeth will “solve and answer” this. When I can, I will contribute.

            3. Please do contribute, Marianne. I believe your contributions will have far-reaching ramifications in the very direction you yourself would like them to. 😉

      2. Go from the reverse direction:
        – tension, like charge (plus / minus) can exist between 2 points
        – the point is dimensionless
        – 2 points separated could come together
        – if we thought, for a moment, of 2 thetans coming together we would expect that the 2 identities would not merge into one identity. The 2 thetans could carry individual identies, even very different attitudes to the common point. This would be an example of tension between 2 points meging to a common point, yet still maintaining the quality of tension

        If that was the case, then I see no reason that the corallary would not also be true – that a tension could arise at a point.

          1. Might this be relevant:

            “It is one of the ‘facts’ of objects that space and energy must have been caused before the object could exist in the MEST universe. Thus any object has prior cause. For this reason when anyone in the MEST universe begins to study in order to resolve some of the riddles of the MEST universe, he falls into the trap of supposing all cause to be prior and time itself to exist.” (Scn 8-8008)

          2. In applied math there is no such thing as uniform randomness. It is observable, for instance, that in die rolls there is a distribution curve of results. This is the basis of probability theory: that results will skew in a probabilistic manner. Thus between any 2 points it is more likely for a difference of some sort to occur than not occur. The example of tension was a mechanism that came to mind that suits the mathematical observation. It is an observable phenomenon that naturally exists in any sheet material. Whether or not it is the exact mechanism that did spark an awakening is maybe not as important as whether or not it could naturally occur, and if it did, would it NOT spark an awakening.

            If you were happier saying that a naturally occuring means at a point sparked an awakening, that would be perfectly acceptable. The point is simply that the first event would have been going from nothingness to an awakened state. Tension is merely a probable cause of that.

            1. isene: “But why are there two points? Or any point?”

              Does “nothingness” appeal to you more than point, or zero point?

              The fact that we’re here exchanging pixels is evidence of an earlier start and the start I’ve proposed makes more sense to me than a physical iniverse “always existing” or an “always existing unknowable God”. That’s at least one implant I don’t feel in-dramatization at this time. 🙂

              It’s interesting to me that the wave / particle duality can be latched onto by many and accepted, even though the probabilistic state is undefinable with contemporary physics, yet we, who should understand the non-physical probabilistic state better than physicists still feel comfortable with terms like “unknowable”.

              A few days ago Chris came up with an intriguing concept for the mind / thetan where there was a probabilistic state for theta and the mind was a condensation from that probabilistic state in response to restimulations from the environment. That made an incredible amount of sense to me as it fits perfectly with the nature of the being, as described by LRH, and what we are learning from QM. In essence, the QM probabilistic state is an echo of theta. That opens as many doors for furthering QM as it does for furthering the development of a path for theta advancement.

            2. 2ndxmr: “A few days ago Chris came up with an intriguing concept for the mind / thetan where there was a probabilistic state for theta and the mind was a condensation from that probabilistic state in response to restimulations from the environment.”

              I thought it was intriguing too! You two were talking about cognitions and the de-condensation of facsimiles, and the connection between the two. That got me thinking about the tech of “postulate off equals erasure” and I thought, OMG that explains it in physics terms!

              Per the tech, charged facsimiles are held in place by a postulate (and this has been proven “in the lab” numerous times with many pcs). So when the postulate itself is viewed and as-ised there is a de-condensation of both it (the postulate) and all the charge (energy) in the facsimiles associated with it. The postulate seems to be the ultimate “glue” and this piece of knowingness may very well open the door to possible improvements of the tech. It seems to me to be a very senior datum.

              Chris and 2ndxmr, thanks for that!

              @Geir – this is an example of why I think this is a discussion worth having. And you too have said that you are interested in improving Scn tech

            3. My nicle here if I may? [ in Canada the the treasury is withdrawing the use of ”cent”] Postulate is nothing but a anchor point and the Postulate is placed anchored an a mass-energy.. When one as-is a thought one connection to that mass-energy is as-ised but not the Energy -mass it self. Only ones consideration, ones creation is gone.

            4. Marildi: “So when the postulate itself is viewed and as-ised there is a de-condensation of both it (the postulate) and all the charge (energy) in the facsimiles associated with it.”

              Wow!

              That actually would be a mechanism to explain the significance of the postulate and the result of observing it.

              That is a datum that is worth the time it takes to understand. It creates a model that works in the physical universe and explains mental mass in terms we have become familiar with in terms of quantum mechanics. It may even point the way to a simpler handling of mental masses.

              Theta is like a cloud of potential – potential good, potential evil, potential pain or happiness. The state at any moment in time in governed by attitude and restimulation. What we call mental mass would be the condensed energy from the theta “cloud’ that is the result of restimulation. The postulate is the thing decided by the thetan and stuck in the energy mass in an attempt to deal with the energy. The analogy of a post-it note wouldn’t be too far off: an idea attached to the energy to try and categorize, or hold off, or somehow deal with it. But instead of “dealing with it” the post-it holds it there in space where it can act on the person.

              However, if you pull off the post-it, the energy / picture can de-condense and return to the probabilistic state of theta knowledge. At that point, though, it can no longer have the same effect as before. Now, as knowledge, it would be viewed as-is and dissipate if the environment re-approximated it.

              So if that is the mechanism it begs the question “Is it possible to locate and pull off the post-it note without having to read it?”

            5. 2ndx you have to say: nononono than one more time: no..
              [ my spelling is the pits, as you noticed] you were talking about as-ising.. but why so comlicated?

            6. Elizabeth: “you were talking about as-ising.. but why so comlicated?”

              Actually I see it as a simplification because it makes real something that was only words before. Words can be completely adequate – somebody could accurately describe a red framablot to you and you’d fully understand. But you might understand it even better if you could see one. What you’re seeing as complexities may be just that, but they allow me to see the stuff more clearly. The words haven’t changed. Postulate off still equals erasure.

            7. What ever works for you… by now you know I speak simply but I see everything to the fraction of the atom.. I dont have words for many things i just call them ”thing” as you can see that works for me.
              But i do admit in occasion i miss the words because i would like to describe something incradible which dont exist here and i cant because I cant find the right expressions.. maybe better that way? No one miss it any way…

            8. 2X: “The analogy of a post-it note wouldn’t be too far off: an idea attached to the energy to try and categorize, or hold off, or somehow deal with it. But instead of ‘dealing with it’ the post-it holds it there in space where it can act on the person.

              Funny to compare it to a post-it note. In the definition of postulate LRH says “…He posts something” 🙂 And what you say about the guy dealing with it (the energy) with a “post-it note” could also be expressed as adopting a stable datum in a confusion.

              2X: “However, if you pull off the post-it, the energy / picture can de-condense and return to the probabilistic state of theta knowledge.”

              Elizabeth says “When one as-is a thought one connection to that mass-energy is as-ised but not the Energy -mass itself.”

              I’ve been thinking about that and maybe she is right about it just being the thought that as-ises (or, in physics terms, de-condenses) and that the connection to the energy/charge has simply been cut. LRH did say that Clears being run on Dianetics could mock up incidents again, i.e. postulate them back into existence. Hmmm…

              But nevertheless, the significant point is that with the postulate as-ised/de-condensed the incident is no longer able to be restimulated. So yes, it does beg the question “is it possible to locate and pull off the post-it note without having to read it?” Wow back atcha!

              And there’s another datum that I happened to run into today (incredible the synchronicity of things sometimes) that may interest all of us. In an older copy of 8-8008, in the glossary was this definition:

              “ELECTRONICS: Lower and cruder manifestations of the same order of actuality as thought.”

              “…of the same order of ACTUALITY”! In other words, your Higgs field may not just be a construct but just as much an actuality as thought! Both Elizabeth and Marianne seem to have perceived it directly. (This gives some credence to a RWOT, doesn’t it?) Also I recall a datum that says thought is of the same or of a similar order as a thetan. Do you know the one?

            9. Marildi: “Elizabeth says “When one as-is a thought one connection to that mass-energy is as-ised but not the Energy -mass itself.”

              I’ve been thinking about that and maybe she is right about it just being the thought that as-ises (or, in physics terms, de-condenses) and that the connection to the energy/charge has simply been cut.”

              2x: No, the energy would be de-condensed. It would return to a state of probabilistic energy, able to be re-created but not existing at all like it did while in restim. A Clear could re-create it by pulling it up from rational memory and mocking it up solid. That would be condensing it. But if it was just a situation of where the incident had been erased (de-condensed, in rational memory) and the the person was in the approximate environment (you could say the restimulative environ, except he shouldn’t be able to be restimmed, hence “approximate”) he should not suffer a restim / key-in. That is because he is able to see it and as-is it.

              Marildi: ““…of the same order of ACTUALITY”! In other words, your Higgs field may not just be a construct but just as much an actuality as thought! Both Elizabeth and Marianne seem to have perceived it directly. (This gives some credence to a RWOT, doesn’t it?) ”

              2x. The Higgs field would definitely be an actuality, but one of space, not necessarily thought. Theta can create space and can create thought. Are the two equivalent? Not necessarily. Space is a factor of beingness but needs no thought. Thought needs no space. On the surface they appear different and I would think the primary difference would be wave complexity, space being simple and uniform, thought being complex and non-uniform.

              As for the RWOT, there is certainly a stable construct condensed out of space. But you can also condense soot and tar out of smoke so it comes down to how you define Real.

            10. 2X “Theta can create space and can create thought.”

              I didn’t interpret the definition of “electronics” as having that meaning for “thought”. I think it means “thought” as in this Tech Dict definition:

              3. a static of unlimited capabilities, which has itself no wave-length, no space, and no time. It is impinged upon a physical universe which has space, time, energy and matter. The mission of thought is survival in the physical universe and in order to do this it is effecting a conquest of the physical universe. (5203 CM03B)

              And I forget how you’ve expressed it, but haven’t you described the Higgs field basically as electronics and also considered it to be theta at least in part?

            11. Marildi: “And I forget how you’ve expressed it, but haven’t you described the Higgs field basically as electronics and also considered it to be theta at least in part?”

              2x. My think is that the Higgs field is the result of combined spaces where different thetans could have been creating individual but intersecting spaces with different geometries. The spaces all start with an EM (electromagnetic) structure. It is the different geometries of the spaces that would allow them to intersect in a manner that could create multiple dimensions.

              Electronic can be used to mean EM and in the sense LRH used it, I expect that is the meaning.

              Thought may have an EM structure. Theta would not if it was in a probabilistic state.

            12. 2x: “My think is that the Higgs field is the result of combined spaces where different thetans could have been creating individual but intersecting spaces with different geometries”

              Okay, got that. But you’ve used words like zero-point and static in describing the Higgs field too, haven’t you? That’s where I got the idea that theta exists in the Higgs field – in fact that the Higgs field IS theta since “by consideration” theta can have location, wavelength, etc.

              And if we substituted the word “theta” for the word “thought” (which is defined as theta in that one definition) in the definition of “electronics”, it would read like this:

              “ELECTRONICS: Lower and cruder manifestations of the same order of actuality as theta.”

              But thinking about it again, you are probably right that it isn’t that definition of “thought”. However, I do wish I could find that other datum about thought (your definition of it) being of the same or of a similar order as a thetan. That would then pretty well equate EM to theta, through the definition of “electronics”, wouldn’t it? It would be similar to the equating of “viewpoint” with “thetan” as the thetan has no location but has assumed one as a viewpoint. (Sorry if all this is unintelligible. :))

            13. Marildi: “Okay, got that. But you’ve used words like zero-point and static in describing the Higgs field too, haven’t you? That’s where I got the idea that theta exists in the Higgs field – in fact that the Higgs field IS theta since “by consideration” theta can have location, wavelength, etc.”

              2x. Space geometries include dimension zero which would be the dimension of theta. The Higgs could be theta, as a God, but I’m now inclined to think of it as a space construct.

              Marildi: “I do wish I could find that other datum about thought (your definition of it) being of the same or of a similar order as a thetan. That would then pretty well equate EM to theta, through the definition of “electronics”, wouldn’t it? It would be similar to the equating of “viewpoint” with “thetan” as the thetan has no location but has assumed one as a viewpoint”

              Theta can generate EM but is not EM as EM is a condensed state. Theta in a very massy condition (more pictures condensed) may have a much larger EM measure than unenturbulated theta. Theta should be in the probabilistic state and so would not appear as EM until it generated a thought (a condensation from theta). Thought may be very close to theta depending on the tone level of it.

            14. 2X: ” . . . may have a much larger EM measure than unenturbulated theta. . . ”

              Chris: I think of this in terms of harmonics and power quality.

            15. Marildi: I’ve been thinking about that and maybe she is right about it just being the thought that as-ises . . . and that the connection to the energy/charge has simply been cut.

              Chris: I think you have something there.

            16. Chris: “I think you have something there”

              I’ve been thinking more about it. As 2x reminded me, once the incident has been “as-ised” (leaving aside the question of de-condensation for the moment), one can be in an environment that previously would have been restimulative but would now no longer be. That is to say, the charge in the facsimiles of the incident would no longer be there to impinge on the person. That is to say, the incident would not again go into restimulation – although all other perceptics in the incident remain (charge is the sole thing being removed in auditing).

              As for a charged incident that has not been “dis-charged”, there exists (as you know) the mechanism of stimulus-response – which takes place as a result of the similarity of energies in the PT perceptics to the energies in the charged incident, causing them (the energies in the charged incident) to go into action, to “resonate”, quite like a tuning fork would do. In other words, restimulation is strictly a mechanical thing to do with the behavior of energy.

              Also, when re-thinking this question of de-condensation of charge I thought about something else: Besides the environment setting charged incidents into action, it can also bring back to mind any non-charged facsimiles (here again, like a tuning fork) as indicated by the fact that we can be “re-minded” of those particular moments in time by the similar perceptics in the environment. This would be the same principle as what occurs with any as-ised incident. So, it does seem to me that the charge is no longer there. What happened to it? Well, based on the findings and theories of QM, the best answer seems to be the physics explanation of de-condensation back into the probabilistic state.

            17. 2x
              Lots of experience here of what you are writing about in this thread. Lots!!
              “If you pull of the post-it, the energy can decondensate and return to the probabilistic state of theta knowledge”. e.g. “This is the mechanism of clearing a word beyond ! conceptual understanding. “Is it possible to locate and pull off the post-it without having to read it?” Of course! When you “stop” (“you are no-thing, theta) “you” perceive any energy…thus theta, not resisting it, dissolves it….there can be a “flesh” of a consideration for a second, which then “floats away”, or just “theta knowledge” (cognition), or “deeper” just theta….and theta “energy” for next action…I will write about more of what you are writing about.

            18. Marianne: ” When you “stop” (“you are no-thing, theta) “you” perceive any energy…thus theta, not resisting it, dissolves it….there can be a “flesh” of a consideration for a second, which then “floats away”, or just “theta knowledge” (cognition), or “deeper” just theta….and theta “energy” for next action…”

              Yes, I get that! That is a lot like blowing by inspection – seeing or sensing the energy and dissolving it. The “stop” action is a good one. It helps to spot the energies. Thank you for pointing that out!

            19. Marianne, I was hoping you would continue to contribute to this subject! Your direct perception and experience is invaluable in putting together a whole model which can help take is in the direction of enlightenment. Adyashanti himself is using mere words (things of the physical universe) to attempt to show the way – or to at least point in the right direction. Wouldn’t you agree?

              You said: “When you ‘stop’ (‘you’ are no-thing, theta) ‘you’ perceive any energy…thus theta, not resisting it, dissolves it….there can be a ‘flesh’ [‘flash’?] of a consideration for a second, which then ‘floats away’, or just ‘theta knowledge’.”

              2x words it in terms of blowing by inspection. I myself am still not sure whether there is any difference between what you (and he) are describing and OT TR 0 – simply being there with no resistance to anything that is in the mind, or comes into the mind. Actually, LRH first stated that the purpose of OT TR 0 was gain the ability to “be there and confront”; later he changed it to just “be there”. Does one of those describe what you mean by “stop”? I’m asking again about this because the answer make help make it clear to me.

              The drilling of OT TR 0 (with or without a twin), and thus eventually “perfecting” the ability to simply “be there” – or maybe we should say simply “be” – with no resistance, may in fact be good instruction and a practical means of acquiring that ability to “stop”, as you term it. In other words, I’m trying to understand exactly what is meant when you say “stop”.

              You also wrote that you will write more and I am looking forward to whatever it is. 🙂

          1. The physical universe is viewable from a human view. Words to explain the earlier origins have to be taken from a human view. It does not mean my view is a human view.

            1. isene: “Do you claim to have super-human knowledge or insight?”

              Wow! That was a misinterpretation of magnitude!

              What’s wrong with taking a theta view on things?

            2. Well, you suppose that other religions or science do not?

              I am simply trying to understand your demarcation of what constitutes a “Human view”

            3. isene:”I am simply trying to understand your demarcation of what constitutes a “Human view””

              The “human view” was in response to Elizabeth, who originated it.

              I have nothing against other views. My views are nothing but an extension and coallescing of the views of science, LRH, other authors and other worthy contributors to this blog.

              I view the expansion of knowledge that we’ve collectively gone through as astounding. The was a point we differed on LRH’s view that there could only be one Source (him) and no one else should contribute. I still don’t have a major objection to what he did. That’s the other topic, though. The point here is now we’re looking as a group and answers are coming out of the group. Whether or not my current think has any major correctness to it remains to be seen, as does any idea you or anyone else comes up with. What I’ve stated has a consistency, to me, between physics and meta physics. That’s all.

            4. You right my dear, each and every experience is only on anchor…. the so called ”havingness” and we wanted to have it all, and we have it all, the joke is on us.

            5. The physical universe is nothing but condensation of theta whein what we see as forms are levels of condensation. There is no such thing as a human view. That is a consideration.

            6. MT..”’There is no such thing as a human view. That is a consideration.”” and not having human view that too is only a consideration.
              Since thinking and talking is done by humans who have bodies and behave, think alike and agree on the same, fallow the the same laws and beliefs is human way of living::: Humans born and die, must eat, sleep and they cant fly or walk through wall that is human way of thinking… and they believe that they are young, than they become old, and some has female bodies, others have male bodies, that is human thinking… than some believes that some humans are better than others and have more power because they have money… that is human way of thinking…than we can forget things, we can be sick, have cancer, or drugs are good, the rain is wet, in too much of that one can drown, that is human way of thinking.. etc,,, etc… etc.. did you get my drift? hehehe and humans believe they see with eyes.. and when their eyes is removed they no longer can ”see” because their belief will not allow them to ”see” without the eyes.
              Also ignorance is human: belongs to the same category as the above way of thinking and believing.

            7. Marianne: “The physical universe is nothing but condensation of theta whein what we see as forms are levels of condensation. There is no such thing as a human view. That is a consideration.”

              Fundamentally that is true but in reality virtually everyone has to depend on human eyesight and human bodies to get around an do things. So it may be a truth, just not a practical truth.

            8. Elizabeth
              I perfectly see what you mean. There is human POINT of view (the anchor is the body, reflected in the mind)….what you write is full of humans “think”, “believe” – that is considerations. Yes, from that “point” of view it’s human and practical. What I argued is that there is no “human” view….only “VIEW”. (but don’ forget, you said we don’t have anything in common…..which is from one aspect absolutely true).

    1. 2ndxmr:
      “- the individual awarenesses can have individual cognitions which will calve [halve] the individual spaces, creating more awarenesses
      – the cycle would continue until group awareness recognized the mechanism and chose to limit it”

      It seems to be the same basic mechanism/phenomenon with cell division. And I guess with cancer the second point about limiting the mechanism has gone awry.

      1. M. “It seems to be the same basic mechanism/phenomenon with cell division. And I guess with cancer the second point about limiting the mechanism has gone awry.”

        An interesting fractal.

    2. Geir – you ask why tension. Think of when you wake up from sleeping — if you can catch it as awakening happens you can notice a sort of tension just before full awareness of surroundings takes place. Its kind of like engaging or positioning a focal point. As to nothingness, I am not so sure that it is truly nothingness.

      1. Marian thaks, A cog on “nothingness” there is nothingness for the ”eyes” only.
        Example; I put the apple on the table, I have turned away and while I was doing that somebody taken the apple away. I look back and where the apple has been there is now nothingness. if something can be seen, observed than nothingness is also a ”item” a consideration and that too can be observed, noted experienced.. something is here– nothing is here. I know this because Nothingness is a curtain and when that nothingness is observed it contains no pictures so that one sees nothing, when one puts there a item which has shape-form, color than one sees something.
        The same goes with invisible… When we say it is invisible than one experiences that reality and because that experience one cant see any other picture..
        I have learned a lot while i was in the kinder garden… 🙂

  6. A long, long time after the start:

    – awarenesses (thetans) have discovered ways to create and manipulate space
    – the space created by theta would have a basic two dimensional character we identify as electro-magnetic (EM)
    – theta has discovered by trial and trial that combinations of EM can have the effect of creating a bubble in the nothingness that floats almost like a soap bubble in air (except there is no air, just the bubble)
    – these combinations of EM are created by eXpanding space and then rapidly Contracting (collapsing) that space (XC)
    – this action creates vortices in the space bubble which are similar to the vortex created when water drain from a sink
    – the tiny vortices have a line of force down the axis of rotation. That line of force is felt most prominently by an object that is swirling closest to the edge of the vortex, or has fallen into the vortex.
    – with the space vortices, that line of force would be what we call gravity
    – physicists are now referring to this phenomenon as “loop quantum gravity”
    – the “space” bubble is actually a multi-dimensional construct we know as the Higgs field
    – the Higgs field can spontaneously generate what we call light and particles (elementary particles)
    – the Higgs field would do that by condensing from a potential, probabilistic state to a wave/particle state
    – in collapsing, the Higgs field becomes the Higgs boson which then breaks apart into elementary particles and light
    – combinations of elementary particles create atoms
    – atoms are, thus, condensed elementary particles which are a condensation of the Higgs field which is a multi-dimensional space construct
    – the space vortices of the elementary particles can have a number of different, stable orientations from one another
    – these different orientations are what give the elementary particles the qualities of mass, spin and charge. Elementary particles can be best thought of as a sort of Rubic’s Cube: different orientations and different color combinations give different “qualities” to the observed result

    And so theta uses space to create energy and what we call matter, which is really just condensed space.

    1. 2X: “. . . And so theta uses. . .”

      Chris: Interesting post. In it, you are welding extant physics to Scientology doctrine. Zeroing in on this phrase, say a little bit about your confidence in this assertion as well as whether you are using any definition for theta different from Hubbard’s.

      1. @Chris

        As I’ve mentioned before, this concept of the theta production of space is in the Axioms but the idea of using space to create a universe didn’t become real to me until I experimented with making my own space large and small. That was something I had a decent ability to do after certain processing and drilling. What I added to it was the XC cycle, repeated and sped up. That action released an enormous amount of energy and made me realize what that could do if done over a broad distance at a very high rate.

        The main point of speculation is the EM character of the theta generated space. That character demands two orthogonal dimensions to start with. That is well within theta ability to produce. What I can’t yet answer is why one dimension will have an E quality and the other dimension will have an M quality. If we were talking a flow of electrons I could answer the question, but how theta compares is a bit more complicated.

        One thing that you got me to look at in more depth was the probailistic nature of theta. That state conforms to the basic nature of theta as described in the Axioms as it literally describes a nothingness with no position in space and no dimension. From that state we know we can get a condensation and it is that action of condensing that could generate the EM characteristic. It’s still a bit more complicated than that but the explanation starts getting difficult.

  7. Fallacy in the Big Bang diagram above: an equal and opposite expansion should exist as well.

    – the “universe” started out as the multi-dimensional space construction we now call the Higgs field
    – it was BIG
    – the physical universe in the diagram above is expanding into the Higgs field
    – that has to be the case as the Higgs field is the essential basis of all
    – there are really 2 physical universes in what we call the “universe”, the one in the diagram and an equivalent one expanding in the opposite direction
    – the difference between them is that one possesses the quality we call matter and the opposite possesses the quality of (is) anti-matter
    – this division of universes explains the lack of anti-matter in this universe
    – anti-matter would have been created in equal amounts to matter at the moment of the big bang
    – an intense magnetic field around the big bang point would have caused the matter/anti-matter split
    – this magnetic field could be produced by theta
    – theta could have first created the Higgs field and then created the instability and magnetic focus at the center of the field which resulted in the Big Bang.

    – the Higgs field must be larger than the distance spanning the furthest distance between the oppositely expanding physical universes (PUs)
    – the big bang happened about 15 billion years ago
    – our PU is moving close to light speed away from the point of Big Bang (BB), thus we would be about 15 billion light years away from BB
    – the Higgs field must be greater than twice the extent of distance that the 2 PUs have expanded
    – the Higgs field is continuous in intensity, therfore it is not expanding (if it was expanding it would diminish in intensity as would an expanding puff of smoke)
    – the Higgs field must have started off as a created field (combination of spaces) that was more than 30 billion light years across (like a sphere that large)

      1. When you look at the Big Bang diagram you’ve posted, does it not strike you as odd that the expansion goes out from a point in just one direction?

        You have probably seen picture of super-nova explosions which show jets going either side of a constriction point. That constriction point is caused by the magnetic field due to the rapidly rotating core material.

        I think it would be reasonable to assume a similar construct for this PU and an anti-matter PU. It is also the best explanation for the lack of ant-matter in this PU.

        1. The “one direction” is Time. You want the universe to also expand backwards in time?

          Also, do you thing the past exists?

          1. Here’s possibly more food for thought (this is the paragraph before the last quote I posted from 8-8008):

            “One of the principles of causation is outlined in the cycle of action, but it is not necessarily true that one can only cause a cycle of this pattern or that one must cause cycles at all, for it is excellent processing to mock-up with reverse cycles going from death back to creation with objects which one has mocked up.” (Scn 8-8008)

            1. I wasn’t looking for another thread on Scientology. Because Scientology suffers from exactly the same problem as any religion, mythology or science – that it cannot explain “Why the beginning?”

              This is more of a general question that what Scientology or Christianity or Norse Mythology or Astrophysics has to offer currently.

              I am starting to question the idea of a beginning at all.

            2. Honestly, I’m not trying to make it into a thread on Scientology either. The point wasn’t that the concept came from LRH – there are other philosophers who have said the same, but it’s not as easy for me to find their quotes. I simply intended to communicate an idea to consider that is hard for me to articulate and quoted Hubbard only because he said it better than I could have.

            3. isene: “I am starting to question the idea of a beginning at all.”

              You’ll have to expand on that one. Is that the “always was” viewpoint?

            4. Geir: “I am starting to question the idea of a beginning at all.”

              It seems to me that this is a matter of frame of reference. From the perspective of existence in the physical universe we could talk about a beginning, just as easily as we use words like “yesterday” or “last year”. But if we accept that there is actually no such thing as time, then I can imagine looking at the whole of existence and all creations as an analogy to looking at one very long reel of film laid out with all the frames from “beginning” (certain creations) to PT, and imagine viewing all those frames. This could only be done if we weren’t limiting ourselves as we do to viewing a certain small portion called PT.

              So there they are, the frames, existing in the Now, without in *actuality* a beginning or an end in terms of time. Nevertheless, I imagine that at the “beginning” of that long reel there can be seen to be some energy creations, and those original creations can be “looked at”, either directly as Marianne and Elizabeth have described having done; or they can be looked at by reasoning based on the whole of the reel, which includes the frames of the findings of physics and all the fractals that can be observed as well. So in THAT frame of reference, there would be a beginning.

            5. Geir: “But what prompted such a beginning? And why?”

              Okay, I got what you’re asking. But the question itself may not be valid in that it assumes there is a cause for every effect – which is a physical universe principle which itself assumes the actuality of time. And thus your question may have no bearing on anything other than the physical universe – which we are trying to figure out how to transcend.

              Basically, maybe there’s no “why”, only “is”.

            6. And thus no “beginning”.

              Why are we so hung up on a beginning? Most mythologies seems to insist on one.

            7. Geir: “And thus no ‘beginning’.”

              Fine, I can have that. I can see it as a metaphor or, as in my earlier post, an analogy. It’s a “human view” in expression because that’s the common language we have to communicate with.

              I don’t know if 2ndxmr would agree but his description of a “beginning” we could also look at in large part as a description of what is going on Now, continuously. And I think it would be enlightening just to take it from that perspective and hash it over and develop it together. (Being the great think tank that we are :))

            8. Geir: “And thus no ‘beginning’.”

              Marildi: “Fine, I can have that. I can see it as a metaphor or, as in my earlier post, an analogy. It’s a “human view” in expression because that’s the common language we have to communicate with.”

              Hardly a metaphor. I’ve proposed a means with a finite beginning. Kalam seems to be in full agreement although he hasn’t taken it as far to propose an actual means of beginning. Geir hasn’t been challenging the Kalam video which is riddled with incompleteness. On the other hand I have proposed a full model based on the attributes of theta, of which he, as an OT, should have some reality. I find it fascinating that people will rabbit from a logical progression and hide amongst a philosophical wilderness of ununified concepts.

              isene “Why are we so hung up on a beginning? Most mythologies seems to insist on one.”

              I think science would be the first to say there should be a beginning. It’s mythologies and religions that talk about the eternal god.

              In the grand scheme of things (like putting meat on the table tomorrow) it may not matter if we have an understanding of a beginning point. From the viewpoint of a thetan wanting to rehabilitate oneself, a knowledge of origin and timetrack is virtually essential.

            9. 2x, my reference to time as a metaphor is that I have the consideration that it is not an actuality but definitely is an agree-upon reality. As regards the physical universe, it is obviously very real. But when we go outside that context in talking about how it (the PU) began, i.e. “the beginning”, it doesn’t seem to me that time can be an actuality since it is defined as the change of position of particles in space – which puts it strictly in the PU.

              My point was that the use of the word “beginning” has to be put into context and it seemed to me that there was a semantics problem in the discussion. In other words, I saw it as a problem with words. Was that a misinterpretation on my part?

            10. As an example – I find the Scientology view of Creation (The Factors) sadly lacking in describing the actual start it poses. Why exactly Factor 1 and 2 and why go from 1 to 2?

            11. Geir: “Why exactly Factor 1…?”

              Maybe I don’t understand what you mean by “Why?”

              Factor 1. Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of effect.

              By “Why?” do you mean why is that being said, i.e. how do we know that is true? Or what?

            12. “Why was there a cause?”

              So are you asking what caused the Cause? If so, that’s what I was trying to answer earlier when I said it doesn’t seem to be a valid question except in the context of the physical universe, where everything is considered to be the effect of some cause and has to have been preceded by a cause. But since the original Cause is not a part of the physical universe, why would there necessarily be any such requirement?

            13. No – I am asking “Why was there a cause?”

              And then I am asking “Why did the cause cause something?”

              Why Exactly? Precisely why?

            14. Marildi: Maybe I don’t understand what you mean by “Why?”

              Chris: This might be the starting point of the religion of Scientology and is one of the initial requirements for faith in Hubbard.

          2. I understand that it has been diagrammed with a time axis. That doesn’t invalidate that there could be a physical approximation of a similar shape. As I’ve said, stellar explosions in rapidly rotating star masses show the characteristic. And again, that sort of explanantion is the only one that accounts for the lack of anti-matter in this PU.

          3. 2X: “On the other hand I have proposed a full model based on the attributes of theta, of which he, as an OT, should have some reality.”

            As in “You should know what I write is the truth, because I believe OTs should agree with me”?

            I question the models where “something seems to arrive from nothing” or where “something seems to arrive from something-like-a-nothing, but where we cannot explain how or why that something-like-a-nothing is or came to be”.

            1. isene: “I question the models where “something seems to arrive from nothing” or where “something seems to arrive from something-like-a-nothing, but where we cannot explain how or why that something-like-a-nothing is or came to be”.”

              So have you ever had any theta awareness or not? If you’ve had any experience like being apart from your body (which I had way before I knew about Scientology, or the spirit for that matter) then you’d already have the answer to the question. Worst case I would have thought you’d have answered it by time you attested to a few OT levels, maximally.

              So what is it – are you denying that there is a thetan / spirit self / whatever? It sure sounds like it. If the answer is “no” then how do you justify questioning that something could come from nothing when that’s what we’re talking about as theta, what we’re talking about as you, and the rest of us being? If you are a thetan, where did you come from? Let’s hear your theory.

            2. 2X, good question since on the new blog post Geir states that all models have at least one assumption. And your “assumption” should hardly be a stretch for Geir or most of us here.

            3. I question everything. That’s the nature of me, I guess. I am a work in progress.

              “Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond any doubt that they are right.” (Lauren van der Post)

            4. Geir, your own assumption as stated in the “On Will” article is “Potential Cause causes effects simply because it can”.

              My idea is that one person may *assume* the effects caused by Potential Cause are a RWOT (Real World Out There) and another may *assume* that those effects are all simply considerations. Either way, I thought we were going to have a discussion about the effects themselves and try to determine exactly what they are. I thought you would like such a discussion since you’re interested in physics.

              You also stated “I find the Scientology view of Creation (The Factors) sadly lacking in describing the actual start it poses. Why exactly Factor 1 and 2 and why go from 1 to 2?”

              So why don’t we see if we can fill in that lack? 2ndxmr gave us a start, which he himself said may or may not be correct and that he was interested in feedback. Why don’t we give him some?

            5. I have already contributed some thoughts and am also interested in yours and others’.

              You know much more about physics than I, but from what I could understand I thought 2x’s ideas did have consistency. At least we have a launching point there. What’s your ideas about it, my lord? 🙂

            6. I am still exploring. Hence my latest blog post.

              There is no need for a deep understanding of physics necessary to offer a philosophical explanation of some basic assumptions.

            7. “”I am still exploring”” you think you will find the answers you are looking for in our universe?
              We dont have it.. but you do.. you only can ask because you know what to ask, since you have the answer.
              While you explore our universes you that will bring disapointments… since nothing outside of your own universe measure up to the reality and value how you see your own…and you compare your reality with ours and that should not be done since our univers to you is not real.

              Would by apricated if you would comment on this post

            8. isene: “Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond any doubt that they are right.” (Lauren van der Post)

              LOL! I’ll try to remember that!

            9. Maybe Ron wrote Factors 1 & 2 because he thought he needed them to be there. The Factors are written somewhat is “these are self-evident truths” language, but all too often I find things described as “self-evident truths” to be anything but. They also form a really handy way for writers to neatly dodge having to explain themselves more fully.

              Have you considered the possibility that maybe Factors 1 and 2 are simply not valid?
              And if this were the Discworld the Factors could easily be made out of narrativium?

            10. LRH did preface The Factors with: “(Summation of the considerations and examinations of the human spirit and the material universe completed between A.D. 1923 and 1953.)”

            11. But he forgotten to add “””THIS IS MY REALITY AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SAME SUBJECT YOU WILL REALIZE YOUR OWN and have your own conclusion-reality.”””

            12. He basically did say it was his own reality when he described it as the summation of “considerations and examinations” over a certain period of years.

            13. Right words , My siter and I we both recall reading similar , when he said take what you need and discard the rest… we both did just that. Tell me why did you keep it all?

            14. E. I didn’t “keep it all”. What I’ve said is that so far I have found nothing in the basic materials (like the basic books) that I found to be inconsistent or unreal to me; rather, what he says in those materials seems to me to be quite true.

              Most of what people complain about are things that occurred after those early materials were written, but usually those people seem to not know the difference. And in large part those things being criticized were not what LRH ever said. Some of it may very well have been as he did, for example, make mistakes in his estimation of effort, IMO.

            15. girls, girls, girls…don’t you ever heard about “man in black”? 🙂

            16. I did see that when I looked into 0-8 just before posting. I considered quoting the same statement but decided not to. On reflection, perhaps I should have.

              i consider the Factors, at least the first few, to be an example of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem – they can’t be proven or even demonstrated to work that way.

            17. I don’t know that much about Godel’s Theorems but from what I understand he has proven mathematically that any super-set theory must have one or more assumptions, which makes it incomplete. The other thing I understand is that a theory cannot be both complete and consistent. I figure that the assumption parts of The Factors are what makes that “system” incomplete. But as to consistency, I think The Factors are, so I don’t see that they violate Godel’s theorems.

              Do you find The Factors inconsistent?

            18. marildi: I don’t know that much about Godel’s Theorems

              Alan: You understand the maths just fine. Godel’s Theorems seem to play out in the universe in interesting ways, from Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle to Ron’s idea of why not-isness in necessary to cause persistence (as in the Phoenix Lectures).

              The “one or more assumptions” aspect also ties in nicely with the Scientology view of a postulate. A postulate can’t be proven, it doesn’t need a reason to exist, it simply *is*. If you accept a given postulate on that basis then everything that flows from it can be proven, but not the postulate itself.

              For the Factors, I think they are both inconsistent and incomplete. Incomplete it easy – they attempt to summarize the complex interaction between theta and MEST and by definition the summary can never be all, therefore it is incomplete.

              Inconsistent is a bit harder. Take these:

              1. Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of effect.
              2. In the beginning and forever is the decision and the decision is TO BE.
              3. The first action of beingness is to assume a viewpoint.

              11. But there are other viewpoints and these viewpoints outthrust points to view…

              Where do these other viewpoints appear from? #1 claims there is A cause, not multiple causes. Does the cause create two or more viewpoints? Is it a case of God split himself into multiple parts so he could have friends? Or are there multiple causes that interact in unexplained ways?

              The Factors don’t address such things and that makes them inconsistent. Which makes them a possibly valid description of how the universe works 🙂

            19. Splog (that’s more fun to call you than Alan, for now :)),

              I’ve pondered over that very question as regards the Factors you listed. For me, though, an answer can be inferred without that much of a stretch from the Factors themselves,

              Actually, this is one of the points 2ndxmr addresses in his model, As you say, the posts are all over the place on this long thread but that point is first taken up in his initial post, summed up with this:

              “- the individual awarenesses can have individual cognitions which will calve [halve] the individual spaces, creating more awarenesses” 2013-03-10 at 18:33

            20. Marildi.. ” creating more awarness”. in fact not creating more awarness that can not be done, the first creation just sits there.. as simply ”IS” in ”now”.

            21. E. didn’t you agree one time that a thetan could create another thetan? I was pretty sure you did.

              But if the answer to that is “no” then please say your idea of how there came to be many thetans.

            22. I never said that since I dont believe such a cincept-idea. Bodies can create bodies and that is that.. from seeds grow a plant and has seeds again. Enegy can reshape it self and show different form. But something which is NOT MADE of energy- do not contain any than it cant produce. Just think My dear, you know this already and when I am talking to you I am not talking to the wall…

            23. M….. to tell you todays reality how I see it? yes and no.. I know one can view-have zillion different view points but not all of them anchor a being..
              more sessions -cognitions I have from that I realize that my view of item can be and is made up from hundreds of differen trealities, they vary a bit.. therefore not the same but still every one reality belongs in my universe.. Confusing… not a bit..
              So just how many beings there are; that depands on how- what side i view that idea.-item

            24. E. thanks for that. Can you say something about how many beings existed when the MEST universe first came into being, and how the number of them increased. You’ve talked about that before but I forget exactly what you said.

            25. Guessig that: a number??????? would be pure undiluted assumption… I will not even try. I have on idea… but that still a assumption..and totaly meaningless.. it has no value, since soon as one has on ”amount” one is sitting in a sidewalk cofe and doing philosophy….:)

            26. E. good point and I agree. I guess my question was not really to ask a number but to ask if, in your auditing, you saw the beginning of the universe, or near the beginning – and if you did, were there already many thetans, or less than there are now, or whatever else you might have to say on this subject.

            27. Number only could be established if there would be the “I” there since individuality starts with the ”I” and we look at this idea than we can see-believe that from the very beginning was loooooong gone before separation-individuality become a fad and the idea of ”identities” were established.

            28. I have not gotten that far.. have reality on that…. since that topic do not belong where knowledge is based on stractual understanding and communication.

            29. isene: “And as noted “Before the beginning” is itself an inconsistency.”

              That statement is pretty much a fallacy unless you state whch beginning you’re talking about.

              There can certainly be a “before the beginning” (of breakfast, etc.)

              My submission is that it was consciousness that put everything else there.

              There is no reason there can’t be a “before the beginning of consciousness”. Before the beginning of consciousness there was a “no-consciousness”.

            30. In Factor #1, LRH is talking about “before time” which makes no sense. Note that time only enters in at Factor #21. Would this falsify the basic premise of The Factors (Factor #1)? Or is anyone here able to help Hubbard out rescuing his view of Creation?

            31. Would here be a interest to hear me if I opened my mouth? Oh, not a good idea first of all I dont know the Factorsand second I dont think I would be throwing life-belt toward LRH… I am in the humoros mode. Gear I hope you are well ! 🙂

            32. Factor 1. Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of an effect.

              isene: “Or is anyone here able to help Hubbard out rescuing his view of Creation?”

              Again, we have to decide on the definition of beginning.

              I think it should be the beginning of the consciousness chain that brings us to this point in time.

              I would call that a fair assumption, since Scientology is all about consciousness. (Is Godel and his minions happy now that we have an assumption?)

              With that assumption we can have a “before” scenario.

              Then we’re down to what caused consciousness.

              At that point I will defer to my own speculation that some natural, mathematical or physical factor caused an awakening of that which then became conscious.

              That awakened consciousness would then have been the Cause of all other consciousnesses – either by an automatic response such as I speculated on, or by Hubbard’s speculation – that it wanted to create an effect and did so causatively.

              The difference between Hubbard’s speculation and mine is that mine doesn’t require a decision to cause an effect i.e. the means to cause the effect is intrinsic and automatic to the nature of the being.

            33. Geir: But Hubbard is talking here about “before time”. And that is clearly a fallacy.

              Alan: Taken literally word for word, yes it is fallacious. What would you replace “before” with so that it makes sense and isn’t fallacious?

            34. Alan: Taken literally word for word, yes it is fallacious. What would you replace “before” with so that it makes sense and isn’t fallacious?

              Chris: This proxy vote just in from Vinaire who is sunbathing in India: unknowable! But would I say that? Well I voted his vote for him, but for me, I think I’d just take out the word “before” and get rid of the paradox and swallow hard and watch for a counterintuitive idea to surface.

            35. 2x: “I would call that a fair assumption, . . . ”

              Chris: Call it anything we like but if you’re trying to rationalize or be fair to Hubbard and the thousands who followed, we better stick to the whole universe swallowing beginning that he said. The man who wrote “tens of millions of words” the famous science fiction author and the man who rose above the bank when every other human stab at that had utterly failed and given us psychiatry instead — he was perfectly able of saying what he meant. Let’s don’t mince words now that the facade crumbles. That would be disingenuous of us.

            36. 2x: At that point I will defer to my own speculation that some natural, mathematical or physical factor caused an awakening of that which then became conscious.

              Chris: And I don’t see a problem with this.

            37. 2x: That awakened consciousness would then have been the Cause of all other consciousnesses – either by an automatic response such as I speculated on, or by Hubbard’s speculation – that it wanted to create an effect and did so causatively.

              Chris: And so we dive back into Vin’s unknowable and speculate. I like to do this as well as the next person – what do you suppose the defining characteristic of “awakened” would be? Everywhere I look, I see consciousnesses. But are they “awakened?” Do they need to grow flowers, make nectar and manipulate bumble bees to be awakened? Or does bathing and using underarm deodorant qualify? Language first? — and are we sure we understand all the forms of language? Use the correct manners and fork for salad?

              I don’t think our ideas about consciousness, or intelligence is laid out very well except from the context of our own human bias in a human and stultified way — certainly not from a worldly or universal “world view.”

            38. 2x: The difference between Hubbard’s speculation and mine is that mine doesn’t require a decision to cause an effect i.e. the means to cause the effect is intrinsic and automatic to the nature of the being.

              Chris: This is how I see it too. But we don’t have to stop at “being.” I just want to let you know that being OT, I can now write this stuff and start my own religion. “Before the beginning was gravity and the entire purpose of the gravity was the creation of effects. And I breathed into the gravity the breath of life and it knew what it was sucking.” From the right and ethical point of view that might become consistent. International dues are only $200 per year or $2,000 for lifetime membership until I need more cash. Any takers? I only need a couple of takers to round out this month to be upstat.

            39. Geir: In Factor #1, LRH is talking about “before time” which makes no sense. Note that time only enters in at Factor #21. Would this falsify the basic premise of The Factors (Factor #1)? Or is anyone here able to help Hubbard out rescuing his view of Creation?

              OK, I’ll bite.

              “before” does not necessarily imply “time”.
              “before” only implies a sequence, and time is a special kind of sequence. Per factor #21 it must have consistency of viewpoint and be regulated.

              The Factors are written in English, a woefully inadequate language for the task. The written form is only an expression of the rules, not the rules themselves, and can introduce ambiguity.

              “before” can even refer to other kinds of sequence. Letter “A” comes before “B” but doesn’t imply “A” existed prior to “B”. I do agree though that the wording of factor #1 strongly implies a time component

            40. Splog: The Factors are written in English, a woefully inadequate language for the task. The written form is only an expression of the rules, not the rules themselves, and can introduce ambiguity.

              Chris: Not the English or language at all, but our understanding of rules and how their iteration can actually be the source of ambiguity and randomity is lacking. (reference: Wolfram-NKS)

            41. 2ndxmr: Before the beginning of consciousness there was a “no-consciousness”

              I don’t quite agree. Before the beginning of conciousness there was an absence of consciousness, all within the frame of reference defining consciousness of course.

              It’s a tautology

            42. Splog, “no-consciousness” and “absence of consciousness” mean the same thing to me. We are in agreement. The point is, that state could precede consciousness, allowing a “before the beginning” scenario.

            43. 2ndxmr: The point is, that state could precede consciousness, allowing a “before the beginning” scenario.

              splog: I want to read your first post in the thread thoroughly before replying. That might take a wee while, it looks like theres a lot of meat on that bone 🙂

            44. Splog: It’s a tautology

              Chris: Hurray! Another Tautologist! We will start a club and study the tautological universe. I am in good company.

            45. Chris: Hurray! Another Tautologist! We will start a club and study the tautological universe. I am in good company.

              Alan: ooooo goodie! Can we discuss the redundant redundancy of redundancy?

            46. 2x: That statement is pretty much a fallacy unless you state whch beginning you’re talking about.

              Chris: Agreed. This is Hubbard’s inconsistency then.

            47. @Splog: Plus before a beginning was a Cause? And it had a Purpose? And the entire purpose was the creation of an effect?

              Cause-Effect breaks down over the issue of time. If it was a cause then there was an effect and this was not before any beginning (maybe LOL) … thus Factor #1 is false.

            48. Chris T: Cause-Effect breaks down over the issue of time.

              Alan: Cause-Effect creates time, it is not subject to time.

              I think the central issue is is what exactly do those words before and beginning mean? You correctly point out that the usual definition simply doesn’t work, it’s illogical. And as I pointed out elsewhere, English is inadequate for this task but it’s the tool we have.

            49. Alan: I think the central issue is is what exactly do those words before and beginning mean?

              Chris: Yes, or we could not try to wring additional significance out of Hubbard’s words and just acknowledge that he hadn’t studied enough or looked deep enough and just continue on with our own looking.

              Hubbard had a long line of good people in his life who wanted to and did help but in the end he chose blind loyalty over research capability. His own ego blocked Scientology from becoming premier. Why am I adding that ad hom comment? Because we obsess over every part of speech that Hubbard used and there’s your ambiguity — we create the ambiguity through our obsession with Hubbard. (opinion)

            50. Chris: “…we create the ambiguity through our obsession with Hubbard. (opinion)”

              I don’t know if there has been a philosopher in history who didn’t have people nit-picking over his words, or lack thereof, so, one the one hand it is understandable that we are nit-picking but it truly gets in the way of getting anywhere. So, if you’re done venting for a while…

              I only hope that we can soon move to a place where we can say “Here in factor 1 it says.. and I’ve got a beef with that because… and I propose we think of it thusly… or change it thusly…” and then get some meaningful ammendments made as opposed to the current output which is largely just condemnations of cult, greed and whatnot.

            51. 2X: . . .and then get some meaningful ammendments made as opposed to the current output which is largely just condemnations of cult, greed and whatnot.

              Chris: It could happen!

      2. Geir ”’Do you claim to have super-human knowledge or insight?” I know you seldom talk to me that is fine but that dont stop me reading your comment and here is one to 2ndx ”Do you claim to have super-human knowledge or insight?””
        there is no such a thing as ”super-human knowledge” only different viewpoints are in existance, whos better or not that comes from judgement and by having that judgement one creats a new viewpoint.

    1. “The universe started out as the multidimensional space construct that we now call the Higgs” -could be…I would vote for it now that that multidimensional space is still “virgin”….also, as you say, created…..could be the “copy-product” of the initial “space collapse and collision” due to the “tension” in no-thingness.

        1. yes i have… complication in any form is born out of such a game conditions because those considerations take one away from the ”now’. therefor they are traps go into other traps… and more of the same.
          What is continual though form if not a trap?

          1. Elizabeth, at one point you described running an incident encountering a flash of light — what was going on with that? Was this something like this big bang flash?

            1. Maria….. no dear, that light was- is permenent.. could have had a bang but i did not have ears than… hehehe.. so I would not know it there was a sound. But by now I know how ”light” is being born and that light was not the bang what others say is the big bang.

            2. Maria… I have seen a different light about two monts back of which I have not spoken yet… I set here in daze and ”thinking” what the hell was that!
              I really had to pull in knowledge in order to be able to put meaning-words to that phonemanon but I have found it… you have my number…

        2. 2ndx………………………. Implants and more Implants!!!

          I would like to share with you some of my findings.

          I have found about six could be more occasion when after the session -big cognitions I knew for sure I have attained the ultimate, I was finally free of all, there was nothing to be known, nothing to confront and each time after few days or even few hours I poked around because I still had ”thoughts”and put together concept which I felt was ”reading…had charge” they were these: ”nothing there”’ all gone” plus I pulled back the cog. and closely examined it and had a session on its content.
          And I have found that each time when I thought I was free, there is no more: that was a implanted suggestion.

          There are many of them [implants-game conditions] set up in order to make one believe that it is the end, we have it all– there is no more and these implants of course the way they work: they lead one back to the Bank.. BECAUSE IF THERE IS NO MORE THAN WHAT I AM GOING TO DO?

          So, since there is no more out there nothing to do than one simply stays where one is and continues with the life one has at that time and with that one is back where one was before in the MEST-Bank game. You been gotten again!!! hehehe

          They were designed for that purpose for one to believe one has attained enlightenment so one stops looking and bingo..in fact one is still sitting in the middle of the Bank-MEST.

          There are other implants which are set up : gives beliefs and make one believe ones is to going to ”die” and soon.. they are very interesting to take apart and understand those reason why they wanted you to believe that you will soon ”die” and of course the ”death wish” and wanting to commit suicide is part of the implant package and in fact many will do so since the re stimulation is very strong and with that and many will fallow the command do die pull in accidents, illness or commit suicide.

          You been had again and simply because you have believed that you Beliefs are real.

          The implants “Demands” and if those items are not handled in session the implants command is fallowed.

          Also there are other packages which make one BELIEVE there in such a thing as ”nothing.. emptiness, void, invisible and the famous-unknown-unknowable”” every one of there considerations were born out of these Implants.

          And of course the BIG GUN was ”’being annihilated ” when one received that implant with that one truly believed: that one is erased for ever, now that implant was in use many times and any one who is on this Planet had more than one variation of it.

          I believe the ”fear of death” is born out of that implant thinking -believing 100% that after dropping the body one is erased one is no more and never was and never be again and have life..and never again will have the opportunity enjoy having the experience another implant since the implant is that: being in one than one is having living a life.

          Also those implants made one believe that one cant see, or know, or communicate: all life activities-knowledge one ever have had was erased by simply believing in a new belief -reality: “””””there is nothing- only empty-ness and forever void””””

          Easter beliefs have these thought They believe once one reached the void-emptiness one has arrived hehehe, but not one of them who have arrived into that so called enlintened state looked into what those words contained, coverd up.

          I call these Implants major ”blockers” because every one of them were designed to stop the person to see more and from moving freely and having different reality. .

          These implants In my reality are the TRUE SUPPRESSIVE works.. and guess what: we not only were given but we also were the givers: that is the game… no innocence existing in the MEST universe.. and those who believe they never ever done anything like that hehehe and more hehehe..[ they should be in one continual session to erase those lies they believe in].

          .Thanks for reading this and if you have a thought please give…

          1. E. very, very interesting post. I am looking forward to 2x’s reply and how he thinks this may relate and tie in to the “physics of existence”. I hope this isn’t going to be one of those times where he is too busy to reply for a day or two. But I’m sure he will!

            I for one thank your for going to the trouble of writing all this down. 🙂

            1. M… you are welcome. and you are right I have great difficulty with writting.
              First I have to pull back knowledge from invisible form them into thoughts than make words and put the words in understandable forms, its the pits.. difficult process.
              I have to re-read what I write over and over and still the words are mis-spelled, or I had it in though form but I never writen it down but of course I did not realise that so they are missing… Huge undertaking..

            2. Yes, absolutely a huge undertaking. The words can only “approximate” at best, since they are only symbols for an actuality and not the actuality itself.

          2. Eliz: “Implants and more Implants!!!”
            Thank you so much, enjoyed this – real keeper!

            1. You are welcome sweety instead woolly animals now you cant count implants so you can fall asleep easily.. hehehe. one implant.. two implant,etc…:)

    1. aotc: An interesting take:

      Chris: I watched one time through and correct me: This proposes that there had to be an initial cause caused by an uncaused Cause?

          1. Hi Chris, yes it’s a fascinating subject! It ranges from the easy to understand to the very difficult, I can just about cope with easy stuff! I think there are stronger cosmological arguments than the Kalam because the second premise in particular rests on our current scientific knowledge which is subject to change. More purely philosophical arguments I think are stronger such as Leibniz’s and arguments from St Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas thought a beginning of the universe couldn’t be proven or disproven but that the nature of the universe right now (the existence of change for example) proves the existence of a God – though not a wizard on a cloud type God 🙂

            A few more links:

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/an-ironclad-proof-of-god_b_2567870.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

    2. Interesting. ” Out of nothing, nothing comes” – it perfectly alligns with one ! of my “sensations” that it’s all potential – all along. There actually nothing “exists”. Hm. at least I hear it from somebody else – good to have a “company”. Still, how is it really in fact? This topic is indeed tough. This morning I saw the world “around me” as pure light. All light! Elizabeth might say….god knows what! Has any of you ever had that sensation? ( I had that before too.) One key factor could be how “we” as ” ” (whatever) “observe” and “perceive”.

      1. Also…can you “hear” it that the way! he speaks, argues and the conclusion is all “intellectual” talk? (logical, little “ego”, little “fear”, the “being” is in “half-hiding” ) I don’t mean it to be an evaluation….just that the intellect alone will not find the “truth”….

        1. He’s actually a very humble guy despite his intellect. I agree though Marianne that the mind can only take one so far along the road to truth

      2. What should elizabeth say.. I woke up come out of a strange dream. Elizabeth Taylor was cooking and I was in her kitchen and she was going to give my hair a perm But first she dressed my hair with pure shit and she said because it was good conditioner and somebody come by a bald headed man and he said sniffing at me and said ”you smell like shit” and he laughed and walked away.. Marianne you waken into light, I waken understanding that not only inside the body has brown stuff but an the top of it .. hehehe.. which was better wakening?

      3. Marianne, If I would be sitting and hidding in sweetness and light than I would not have learned a thing…
        The path I chosen have it all. I have learned what light means but that was a very very small part of the whole picture… one can only know what light means if one walked in darkness, one only can taste sweetnes if one tasted the sour, ect etc etc …
        There is no such a thing as one sided universe that one has only one reality, one experience .. like being alway in the light, alway have been good, hehehe those who claime that I would like to put them in the dentist chair and pull their overts with a plier.. big one, since I would need a big plier to pull their heavy sticky overts which is rooted deep into their core and burried under the ”light”.

        1. I get what you mean….but you said you don’t talk to me. Hiding….in sweetness? Light? I know that you don’t mean it! That light sensation was just one! Gone! Won’t write about others as you will say one of them was an engram, implant ( ?). It was a little tough. Sure, after this heavy universe stuff….as-ised. Gone. Back to usual “FLOW”. Thanks for talking to me, though. I never ceased to like you….I like “quarrels”, “heavy stuff” too…

          1. Yes Marianne I mean it.
            We hide things in very bright light because when somebody looks into the light cant see a darn thing outside of blinding light.. But inside that light we have hidden immense amount of treasures in order to be kept safe, to not to be found by others. and that goes for darkness, I have writen about what is in the darkness and why ”people” pull away from darknes and have fear of it.. and why peole ”live” in the light because there are many good reason for that.

  8. Marildi “– there are other philosophers who have said the same, but it’s not as easy for me to find their quotes.” Why have to always quote someone. Put in your own words would be excellent for our better understanding. 🙂

  9. Reading all this interesting posts, for the first time I have tremble in my knees 🙂 All of you guys try to find and explanation how this world began…If I’m allowed some black humor, I wonder also how this world will end…:)

    1. 🙂 good one… same way as everything ends up, there is a good saying or part of the saying? and who really cares 🙂
      “from dust to dust” if there is a biginning to some thing surely it will end..

      1. Hi Elizabeth! Well, even if I’m not exactly that type of man who dig an underground shelter for the Mayan End of the World…well…I care 🙂 But hopefully you, me, Geir and all the others will not be contemporary with it…PS. Marildi too…:)

        1. Hi there.. I was not talking about Planet Earth I was talking of the Universe it self.. since nothing is forever if it is something, particles condens than fall apart desolve. But before the Universe ends this little Planet wont even be in memory.. but that too is no in the now.. this planets end will be caused by collision , now that will have a bang to it but promise you wont feel a thing!
          Do I have dark thoughts?I do, I do I have waken without perm in my hair but shit on my head.. so can can one be full of light that way? hehehe.. Do have a lovely evening !

          1. It depends how last the perm in your hair, isn’t it? 🙂 Now seriously, you don’t have dark thoughts, what you say is pure science. But me, as an ordinary man, I remain to my hope: no big-bang as long as I live 🙂 Take care, Elizabeth…

            1. Dear you… about the: BOOK of FUTURE and the BOOK of PRESENT. please read…

              The pure science which pours out is nothing but collected understanding what is what: from cognition’s I have had.

              I have not received formal education this life as in class rooms reading somebodies reality and been told by teacher that is so that is real because they knew! [ I have nothing against education.. here in this planet it is good to have such knowledge]
              Dont under estimate your self that you are ”ordinery” You deep in your core you know you are not.. and i dont buy that either.. hehehe..
              about the collision.. no problem, by the time that will happen Earth will be long forgotten by all who ever had reality on it.

              This is written in the BOOK of FUTURE.
              There is two book in the the Great Library, they are placed close to the entrance as one enters they float there in space.

              One, the BOOK of FUTURE is huge, immense it’s represent the “yet to come”.
              This Book is magnificently created, it covering is condensed life-force it shimmers and as you look at the covering for the first time you can see what is your role in the Universe and than the book opens up for you and as the pages turn front of your eyes you will see your future what is going to happen and every major event is represented in form of Holograph.. each page hold different image… one cant stand front of this marvel for eternity and view the yet to come.

              The other book, the BOOK of PRESENT.. it is a very simple thing, when one view it one only see on empty page and that empty page represent the NOW… in reality we only have Now…

              Few dares to look though the book, they rather have the unknown and even fewer understand the meaning of the empty page..

              Elizabeth..

            2. Elizabeth, that Book of Future can be eternal…but our life can last just couple of decades…Enough time to read it?

            3. Dragos, we live for ever, but we only use bodies for achor for fraction of that eternity. A spirit is without body most of the time… and having a body is not life but inprisonment.
              Reading the Book of Future really have no value since we only have the ..”now”…and looking at its cover is not for the faint hearted since look at self the core, only those dare who have nothing to hide and dont have fears.

            4. When you drop your body i will take you and David and you can see if for your-selfs. It is real….real as anything is in the Universe where solidity dont exist.

            5. Eliz: When you drop your body i will take you and David and you can see if for your-selfs. It is real….real as anything is in the Universe where solidity dont exist.

              Dee: Yahoo! 🙂

      2. Elizabeth: ” . . . if there is a biginning to some thing surely it will end..”

        Chris: “Or if there is an ending to something then surely it began? Thank you for a clue.”

          1. Geir: Yes. Nice one.

            Chris: Elizabeth has some corkers so I pay attention. Now I only have to make a list of things that end, being mindful of the Law of Conservation of Energy, and then run it! hahaha

            1. Chris: Elizabeth has some corkers so I pay attention.

              E; the only reason I have corker because I went to kinder garden and I have paid attantion.. 🙂
              attanding kinder garden has paid off!!!

          1. Eliz: example please?

            Chris: It may be easier to look around us and see if anything is “ending.” If we can see anything end, then that may be easier to see where it had its beginning.

            1. hehehehe well thanks for the explanation.. session –being in one, that is what happens: take a item from Planet Earth one of the consideration which used as a glue to hold that mud ball intact and run with it: and find earlier similar–earliar similar and locate when that idea was ”’ born”.
              You see Chris nothing new ever happend on this planet so far which did not have had a much earlier starting point and that place alway in the universe where solidity did not existed.

            2. @Elizabeth — Well, that’s my next items — “things that begin” and “things that end” I already know that is reading . . .

  10. Take the question “what came before the Big Bang?”

    There’s a nonsensical word in there and it is “before”. Before implies time, a sequence of events. Causality causes time to flow in one direction only – forwards. Now that may or may not be how the universe actually works, but it certainly is how we humans perceive it. The perception we call time may well be an artificial construct in our minds but no big deal, we can work with the perception.

    Let’s postulate the beginning of time, call it time instant 0, analogous to absolute zero temperature. Science is currently convinced that there is such a thing, it is when the universe “began”. Now this is where things get tricky – time is an aspect of this universe together with matter/energy and space. We know that no system in this universe can replicate itself, not even DNA does that (it merely copies information), the universe cannot make more of itself, nor can it change it’s own rules. In this universe we *can* create new independant universes or systems, apparently that is what we do when we close our eyes and use imagination, perhaps dreaming is something similar. That created system is independant of this universe and not dependant on it in any meaningful way, other than we create change and stop it by our imagination.

    Similarly, time (as we perceive it in this universe) has no meanig outside this universe. We cannot discuss “before the Big Bang” in any meaningful way as there could not possibly have been anything ‘before” it. This universe may well have been created by another “system” independant of this one, but I do not believe any agent internal in this system can ever perceive the creating system, just as the constructs we manufacture in our imagination cannot interact with us directly. If they did, that would violate so many established principles such as matter and energy cannot be created by the mechanics of this system.

    If we cannot perceive the creating system then the only answer to the posed question has to be “mu”. Perhaps the creating system can influence us (eg by destroying our universe) but I don’t see how we could influence it. It will have it’s own laws, rules and behaviours likely rather different from this one, and that simply does not fit into our current frame of reference.

    I’m not entirely sure how much sense that all makes, I’m having to use words from our frame of reference like “before”, “external” and “creating system” to describe things in other frames of reference that they don’t apply to. I can grasp the concept but English simply does not have the tools to communicate about it.

    Alan.

    1. Hi Alan…. Thanks you for your post… I understand your reality.. and have similar one.
      About Imagination there is two different kind, the one which just roles let say “inside ones head” inside ones universe and they are usually very pleasent and I realized that something fishy going on with those..
      One believes that it is ” mine” since no other being can hear -see or experience that and it feels like my creation and it is so real so perfact and make one feel that one is being in sevent heaven and when they are over they leave a warm after -glow….. and that is the catch right there… the afterglow bit, since that is heavy energy-mass.
      I will drag one of those marvels into session and I believe that I will find some lovely machinery which produces such a aphrodisiac- concepts..
      Yes, and there is no time, than how could one believe in before or after?

      1. Elizabeth,

        I don’t believe there really is any such thing as time. We observe an effect and an apparency that we interpret as time but that doesn’t mean it has to exist. That would then mean there is no before or after and those things too must be imaginary. But they are still useful constructs – without time matter energy and space as we perceive them, we wouldn’t be here in this form doing what you and I are doing right now. The universe is what it is and we perceive it however we chose to perceive it. I can ponder the mechanics of it one day and the next day simply perceive it and do nothing else.

        Modern science is working in this area too; the current theory is something along the lines of there is only potential and when that potential is observed the waveform collapses and takes on an observable form. I have not read anything that indicates the observable form *has* to be a certain way, so I interpret that to mean it could have several forms depending on viewpoint. Maybe I interpret a bunch of photons as a wave and we get electromagnetic radiation that makes my radio work. Maybe I interpret the photons as particles then they can hit the solar cell to make electricity that powers the radio. Same thing, two aspects. Either way my radio works and that’s the bit I consider useful 🙂

        To come back to time. If the MEST universe we see doesn’t really exist as such and is only a construct caused by observation, then time is just another construct, just another layer on top of what is beneath it – and that is potential. Time does not apply to potential, neither does it apply to whatever agent decided it would be a useful lens to view the universe through.

        1. Thanks Alan..
          but to me where I am at ”time” do not exist.. therefore before or after has the same meaning as time.. That is my reality.
          But I can talk ”time” Once upon time…. yesterday… next month… but that still do not really means that time exist..

    2. That was a really good post and contribution. Hang with us and continue. Would your sense of “systems” comes from physics-type study or intuitively?

      1. A bit of intuition, some physics, some maths, some Phoenix Lectures but mostly from having to deal with electronic devices and writing computer software. I know, it doesn’t make sense 🙂

        I do get a bit (OK, a lot) fuzzy on the details but that’s because I have high ability to understand abstract concepts and low exposure to other people who worked in these fields. It’s the old “Scientology makes you insular” trick, and I really should have finished my university studies

        1. So your reality-understanding is partially collected information and the rest is as you say: intuition and that is the base of your knowledge.
          Thank you…. I take back what I have writen because we do not have same reality… far very far apart.. this is not meat to be on insult.. no.. just very different reality..

          1. E: just very different reality..

            Alan: That’s OK. I’m male, I have a need to analyze stuff. I have a feminine side that can intuit and simply experience without analysingbut it’s under-developed. I find it hard work using that aspect of me, so it stays under-developed

            1. Hehehe.. very funny.. Where I believe i am at, there is no male or female thingy. but i have analized everything in this universe by now and that ability do not go hand in hand having any kind of body… my reality of course… Tell me, what body has to do with that ability?

  11. Splog/Alan, great post! You said a lot of what I had tried to say – but so much better than I did. Btw, what do you think of 2ndxmr’s model of “the beginning” (which he describes in several posts, starting with one near the beginning of this thread)? Myself, I really like the physics orientation for understanding the universe, both physical and “non-physical”, and not necessarily trying to theorize about any “super-set” other than theta itself.

    1. marildi,

      I get lost in these giant threads 😉

      Do you mean 2ndxmr’s list starting with nothingness, tension, awakening?

      1. Splog: I get lost in these giant threads 😉

        Chris: You have to work from your email box and manipulate from there or you will be frustrated wading through hundreds of comments at a time.

        1. Chris: You have to work from your email box

          Alan: I try, but I find this WordPress theme confusing. I like to click reply and look at the whole context on screen, and the programmer in me wants to see threads nicely indented. This theme doesn’t seem to do that well. And what’s up with so many postings not havign a reply link?

          1. Al: I like to click reply and look at the whole context on screen, and the programmer in me wants to see threads nicely indented. This theme doesn’t seem to do that well. And what’s up with so many postings not having a reply link?

            Chris: I highlight the specific text that I am replying to. Then I hit “reply” from my e-mailbox rather than the blue “reply” oval in the email itself. This opens up a usual email reply box — but only in my email and not on the thread itself. I put the person like “splog” at the front of their comment to make it clear whose comment it is. Double space and begin my comment with my name, then write my comment. The postings which have no reply link is a WordPress feature we can do nothing about. The way I do this seems to file my comments more logically within the thread although I don’t get to enjoy them. haha

            I’ve done this so much it is second nature – I also like to read in the blog but I can’t follow up and down a long thread so pretty much have given up except when I want to find a specific comment, then I look like mad for a link before trying to scroll . . .

          2. There is only a certain number of nested levels allowed – or else the text becomes too narrow in most themes. Hence no reply button on the posts at the end of the nest 🙂

            1. Bull’s-eye! This new LOOK of the blog is a possible visual example of what we have been discussing recently: beginning, cause, effect, little bit of the Higgs, the Universe….As experience (direct perceiving) is for me “higher” order, I would prefer not to put it into words. As the mind will begin to label, form an expectation…one thing though because I don’t want to leave you here with a secret/puzzle. If you just sit still and look at what is in front of your eyes and just “hold” a question there about the listed above “concepts” that you yourself form based on your higher level of awareness….I wonder what you will perceive……I am very interested in your answers! Thank you Geir! Incredible!

            2. Hi Marianne! The beggining was Marildi’s complain, the cause was Geir’s listening to her and the effect is another theme blog colour 🙂 Mistery of the Universe is solved! 🙂 PS. Don’t be upset, I was just joking 🙂

      2. Yes, that’s the first post on his theory.

        This particular WordPress theme is very hard to follow as to which post a reply is to. I think it has to do with shades of black and charcoal (which tells you very little, I know :)). You can probably get the hang of it by looking at this thread that started with your post and the replies to it and then the replies to those replies. And you can see how another new thread gets started by the one where I started a new one by mistake when I meant to reply to yours.

          1. Right, Dragos. I think there are four shades altogether, starting with black. But it is really too much trouble to try and figure it out a lot of the time – if it can even be done :(! I hope Geir gets the bug to change themes again soon. I would love one of those that has vertical lines where you can easily, and with certainty, follow on up to the post being replied to – even if it is WAY up the line. 😉

            1. Let’s say…this combination protects the eyes…:-) I have dark brown eyes, so I want to protect them…:-) At least for me, who wear glasses, it’s fine. But of course, it’s not my decision.

            2. The eyes may be protected but what consolation is that if you can’t understand what the hell your protected eyes are looking at? 😀 Besides, my eyes are blue. 🙂

            3. If I have to point you in a specific era, I think that will be post-Civil War. You remind me of Doctor Quinn, Medicine Woman 🙂 Always active, always protesting, always complaining 🙂 I’m sure you are also a dedicated feminist, isn’t it? 🙂

            4. Did you notice that almost all of my complaints are about the complainers? 😛

              And actually, I never got into the feminist movement (although I haven’t analysed why). But I’m pretty sure you are a male chauvinist. LOL 😉

            5. No waaaay!!!! I’m the most tolerant person in the world (except Reds, I don’t like communists). So, Marildi! Voila! Black and charcoal dissapears, you owe Geir a bottle of Scotch 🙂

            6. Actually, I knew that about you. I was just doing my kung-fu thing. 😉

              Geir probably doesn’t even drink Scotch. But if he does, he would have to share the bottle with me, half and half, and we might be able have an unheated conversation for once. 😀

        1. marildi: Yes, that’s the first post on his theory.

          Alan: I haven’t fully digested all of what he said yet so I don’t really have an opinion yet. With luck I’ll remember to post my opinion when I have it 🙂

          1. Okay. That first post is a very sketchy outline but he elaborates on it with additional posts.

            I’m sure you’ll remember because I think it will interest you. Some of your comments have given me that idea. 🙂

    1. You are welcome.

      I was listening in on the conversation and decided it was time (again). The only issue with this theme is that you have to hover the mouse over a comment to make the “Reply” link appear…

      1. It’s perfect, Geir. Really, we’re just joking 🙂 It’s fine as it is now, and mouse over for reply it’s very smart.

      2. Cool! 🙂

        But wait. What about any new posters? How will they know about the hover trick?

        1. marildi: “How will they know about the hover trick?’

          Alan: Geir can always fall back to the classic sysadmin trick of letting the users figure it out for themselves. Oops, now my professional bias is showing 😉

          1. What I want is a wordpress plugin for vim so :set autoindent works. Oops, I just did it again 🙂

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s