Monday, March 4, 2013

The universe was not "created" out of nothing

To understand how the physical universe came to be, people believe that everything was created by a God/gods, that we were the product of a galactic explosion or, as I believe, that nothing was created, but is instead a transformation from one state to another.  There are many other ideas about how the physical universe came to be, but I believe most people fall within the first two ideas.  I will try to explain my position that something cannot come from nothing, even from the point of view of a theistic creator.

First of all, everything we can see or think of are concepts or symbols.  They have no true form, no physical reality.  This includes everything we consider "real".  It isn't that something exists and therefore we perceive it.  Rather, we think (not in terms of waking or "ego" thinking), therefore we create, and that creation is the result of thought, which is then perceived.  In physical reality, we see that process at work all the time.  Our very existence is a concept made real by the characteristic of the One consciousness.  The One consciousness (or if you don't like the term "consciousness" because it's too religious or metaphysical for you, then replace it with the term "energy") that always existed is the Source for all thought.  Consider that even for a Big Bang, "energy" must already have existed for it to even exist as a "singularity".  What we perceive as physical material is the actualization of concepts into a specific type of form in a specific reality.  How this happens, at least for our physical universe, is the subject of this post.

The concept of "nothing" means that as an absolute, there isn't anything to be a source for creation.  This includes matter and physical things, but even concepts, thoughts, energy, or even God or gods.  Because the true nothingness is devoid of anything that could be labeled as something, by definition it cannot be the source of anything.  Since this is such an absolute emptiness, those who believe in creation, whether by a god or some random energetic event, must redefine "nothing" to really mean something unlike the created things but not nothing.  There could be things that are "invisible" (to the eye) or even non-physical such as energy, but it cannot be claimed that something came from absolutely nothing.  If the claim is that an old something existed before the new something, then what was that first something (assuming there is a "first" or beginning) and how did it come to be (a question based on the assumption that time exists, where progression is sequential), if you believe in existence?

Before I continue, I am not saying that "nothing" does not exist.  I'm saying something does not "come" from nothing.  In other words, I am saying something is not the result of nothing.  Instead, something always exists and "nothing" is also something.  In fact, the concept of "nothing" is simply the contrast to the concept of "something" as you would not know that "something" exists without "nothing" also existing.  If you were blind and I asked you "what do you see", you'd say "nothing".  And yet, you're seeing something we termed "nothing" because you're observing that you do not observe anything, all the while, you exist "somewhere in this nothing".  In order to "know" something, you must know that you know.  Therefore, if you do not know something, you would not know it.  This is very much in line with Taoist ideology, but as I'll describe in this post, nothing and something are simply states of being because "everything" always exists (science calls it conservation of energy).

Those who believe in the "Big Bang" theory assume that the beginning of the universe existed as a "singularity".  What this means is that everything that could exist to create the known universe existed as a single bundle of energy.  There's nothing wrong with this theory, except for the idea that this energy "exploded" out to form the universe.  Many who aren't familiar with the idea of a singularity assume that the Big Bang began as nothing.  But as I said before, you cannot create something from nothing.  I think the only real difference between the Big Bang theory and what I ascribe to is that while both my belief and the BB "sends out" a tremendous amount of energy to create the universe, but in my view, the "sending out" differs and the idea of a singularity creates a certain connotation of being limited as an aspect of physical reality.  I view my "singularity" as being "infinite", meaning no concept of space, rather than a "single point" source, and the infinite Source defines physical reality itself as a single aspect out of many, rather than being contained within it.  Also, it isn't a single expansion or explosion of the singularity at some fixed point in historical time, but rather the continuous transformation of the infinite conscious energy, creating infinite realities within a timeless framework.  It's funny, however, that the term "singularity" and "God" can be synonymous; one creator and one source of the universe.  The only difference being that one is viewed as being the source of life without having life itself, while the other is the giver of life.  I view the words "God" and "singularity" as the same thing, the source of existence.

For the argument that the universe was created by "God", you must first define what "God" means since everyone has a different perspective on this (which is not surprising since people choose to view "God" in so many personal ways based on bits and pieces of religious text).  If you believe in the notion that "God" created the universe separate and apart from itself, then does that mean God is also a well-formed thing (something that takes up volume/space) since it is somehow separated from the creation (however and whatever that separation is)?  Then that would mean time/space, or something like those concepts, also exists outside the physical universe.  The non-physical universe would really be no different from the physical universe, with "things" having form, being separate and individual.  If "God" can create something from nothing, then the question is what is this "God" made of, how was it made, and by whom or what?  One might argue that this "God" wasn't created at all, but just from reasoning, if it is possible to create something out of nothing, then the creator could have been created out of nothing also, which brings up all the questions about the point of origin for everything including "God".  If something can come from nothing, then at some point, nothing must have existed and somehow, a "God" came out of that nothing to create more somethings.  But if "God" somehow came out of nothing, then there should be more "God's" out of nothing.  And on top of that, what created "God" out of nothing?

If you believe in the notion that the universe and anything else that can be, is a PART of "God", then it is closer to my belief.  This also requires defining what "God" is, since it obviously cannot be nothing.  "God" in this case, doesn't create out of nothing, but transforms a portion of whatever it is to something else.  This also means that whatever this "God" is doesn't necessarily have to have a beginning (a point of creation) because if it can create something from itself, then anything created from itself is still itself, but just in a different form.  If everything is really just a transformation of itself, everything could already have existed with no beginning.  While this "God" could also have a beginning (a point of origin), this would require explaining how something from nothing came about and what caused this event.  But if something cannot be created from nothing, then the only logical explanation for something existing is that the something, regardless of appearances, must have already existed, perhaps as something else.  The difficult part for anyone to grasp this "always existed' concept is the inability to conceptualize outside of a time framework.  It is because we try to reason and understand based on a timeline that beginnings and endings appear to exist.  There are many reasons why we interpret events in terms of time, including the dependence on visual data and the misunderstanding of the source of memory and consciousness.

Using mathematics as an analogy for the argument of creation, the number 0 represents the absence of anything, while 0 in terms of a transformation represents just another state, not a value or quantity.  Also, in terms of transformation, don't think of the number 1 to mean some whole value that is a fixed point, but rather think of it as describing everything.  That's because the number of states between 0 and 1 is infinite since any fractional number in between can be divided even smaller and smaller, infinitely.  For creation in math terms, in order to have value a mathematical operation must be applied to the value 0.  There are very few mathematical operations that can be applied to 0 to get a positive non-zero value.  Addition is the most obvious operation, but other functions can be applied as well such as the factorial of 0, which equals 1.  The factorial of nothing philosophically could be arranged in any way, but because there is "nothing" to arrange, there can only be 1 arrangement (0 will always equal 0, hence only 1 way to be represented).  Another simple operation is to take the cosine of 0.  This is an interesting fact, which I'll talk about in a minute.

The problem with going from 0 to non-zero in creation terms is that you need to add something to get something.  If I'm adding something to nothing, then that something being added must already exist, which means the problem didn't start from nothingness.  This obviously cannot be the case if you believe in absolute nothing as the starting point.  Now, if I take the cosine of 0, I get 1. The interesting thing about this is the fact that it cycles between -1 and 1 infinitely.  It is also the function of a wave/frequency.  So from 0, the only way to get to a non-zero is to add something, which I already said cannot occur if there was nothing to begin with, or we change the 0 to a non-zero as a cyclical wave.  We won't take the factorial to understand creation because it only describes the number of ways nothing can be arranged.  I've written before that physical reality is like a symphony of multiple instruments, each instrument adding its frequencies to the harmony of the song's frequencies.  Here's an interesting video I found after I posted this blog entry describing the wave concept of electrons in a similar way:



There is no such thing as time.  In a system without time, everything already exists, but what that "everything" is depends on the point of focus.  If there is no time, then there is no space.  In quantum mechanics, the only way a particle can be "everywhere" at the same time is if there is no space or specific locations.  In addition, if something is everywhere at the same time, then it's pointless to have a measurement called "time" since the measure of time is relative (i.e. you have to have a point of reference, just like measuring space).  This goes back to the idea of a wave.  A wave isn't really changing in space, but instead, it is a concept that changes as a periodic alteration of amplitude.  From any point along the wave, a periodic frequency will oscillate between -1 and 1.  From one perspective, say from one point looking at another point along the wave, it could look like it is "moving" over time and thus at a specific point, the value alternates between -1 and 1.  But from the perspective of a point looking at itself, it isn't moving at all, but rather for a single wave, the point is moving up and down in terms of energy level (this is what the video described as a standing wave).  It is changing state along that function, but not in terms of time or space.  In addition, it doesn't move at all.  It can change from one level to any other level in a non-linear fashion.  The level is simply it's state, it's value, it's form, or whatever other term useful to designate the moment of being.  I believe the video calls this "level" of a point in the wave, the quanta or a packet of energy.  This concept was thought to be the definition of an electron for quite a while to describe matter as particles.  But in reality, that particle concept is really a snapshot of a single point along the wave.  This is why light behaves as both a particle and a wave.  It is a wave with its points along the wave acting like particles because it has state or quanta at each point, and those points are their states at the "moment" in time (the "now") of observation.  If you can imagine the wave in this manner, then try to imagine a wave riding on top of the wave, which is also riding on top of another wave, and so on infinitely.  You have an infinite number of waves riding on top of waves.  Expanding even further, you have an infinite number of frequencies, not just one single frequency.  In telecommunication, the base wave is called the carrier wave, while the wave riding the carrier wave is the signal or data.  If you have an infinite number of these signal waves riding on top of signal waves, it may be difficult to visualize, but it would represent the multiple dimensions of possibilities that exists "on top of" a greater dimension of reality.  At any "level", a segment of the carrier wave could be looked at as being "flat" while the signal has the familiar oscillating wave.  Then if you looked at a small section of that signal wave, it would appear to be a "flat" carrier wave which also has a familiar oscillating wave.  This is the infinite infinity, a pattern within a greater pattern, each "carrier level" of signal representing a greater and greater accumulation of data within the signal wave.

All the points along the wave (or if you prefer, all the frequencies in the wave where each point in the wave is a state of being) can be considered separate and individual perspectives, or in terms of consciousness, identities (the state of a point on the wave) within the One identity (the entire wave).  If you can accept that consciousness is a state, then it shouldn't be difficult to accept that consciousness isn't just one state or one value, but all values between -1 and 1 (remember, I'm using the number 1 to represent "everything", positive is one side of the "coin", negative the other.  Together, it adds up to a balance, where the factorial of 0 is also 1 or everything).  It is the focus (or observation if you want) that determines what state or level or value the current "moment" is.  Between -1 and 1, there is an infinite number of states which can change as minute fractions.  So each point has an infinite number of states it can be in, or infinite possibilities.  By focusing on one of these states or "dimensions" for each point or identity, that point creates its "reality".  This reality is what you could call the "observed" state.  Then, as a point along the infinite wave, your perception depends on the state of your focus within the infinite frequencies.  Your "level" is dependent on the number of frequencies or states you can focus on at one time, where the higher that ability, the more light you become because of the amount of frequencies you can hold at attention.

All physical matter has three main states it can be in: solid, liquid, or gas, with the fourth state occurring through ionizing gas (plasma state).  Once a physical object achieves a steady state, it remains in its form unless energy is added or removed.  The act of adding energy (such as heat) means you're loosening the molecular bonds such that the molecules begin to flow (liquid) until they become individual molecules (gas).  If you continue to add energy, the charged particles begin to break off from the nucleus creating plasma.  Adding even more energy will continue the breakdown process.  The opposite is to "remove" energy (you don't actually remove it, the frequency simply slows down), which reduces the vibrational activity in the molecules, causing the bonds to stabilize even more, to solidify into something that has fixed form and is visible compared to the gaseous state.  The interesting aspect of this is that in non-living things, an external source of energy must be applied to change its state.  But in living things, that external energy is a part of the organism.  It is what gives them movement and flow.  It remains in a "liquid" state.  All "living" things is composed of mostly water.  There are endothermic reactions that generate energy and in most, heat.  But before any endothermic reactions can occur, the living organism must have energy to begin the process of becoming a living creature.  That external energy is the non-physical something that exists before any physical thing can exist.  The non-physical energy, of which the amount is immeasurable, is converted from one form (much much higher frequency than single atoms) "down to" the slower frequencies of matter.  This "coagulation" causes the frequency to change states first into gas, then liquid, and then solid.  As a reminder, I'm using terms that has recognizable meaning for people to understand as atoms and all of matter are not "physically real" except in our minds.  Our physical senses do not actually interact with physical things, but rather the electromagnetic energy that IS all things.  The term "physical" is a mental concept that we use to describe what we are experiencing, just as all forms are mental concepts manifested into an experience.

Again, it is impossible for something to come from absolutely nothing since even a god is something.  Everything must have come from something else.  So this begs the question "what created that something else"?  This argument has been used to deny an intelligent creator by arguing that the creator had a creator, but as I've described in the last paragraph, the notion of an intelligent creator isn't a problem if there is no such thing as creation at all.  Rather than creation, we have the ability to change state or form.  Nothing is added, and nothing is removed.  Whatever exists, always existed and will continue to exist, never created and never destroyed.  What there is, simply changes what it is, and there you have something from something else.  The idea of infinity would not allow for a beginning or end because by definition, infinity never ends.

I've said that we are like a symphony, each individual adding to the music as its own piece in the orchestra.  Together, we play as one and we are one, the oneness creating the song of our reality.  Each different song represents a different reality with all the individual pieces experiencing that different reality.  The physical reality is one song, and within that song, the wave forms all the matter we view as "real" including our physical senses.  Those senses are no less made of waves as the world we perceive.  Because of this, we "capture" the state of the wave as discrete particles to experience form.

Just as music is composed of frequencies, light is also composed of frequencies.  There have been many anecdotes from people who have left the physical reality and returned to describe the reality of the spirit world as light and music.  We are the music and light, and we form it.  The highest light is all frequencies (those with "less light" which is simply an experience of a different state, remain "in the darkness" as quoted from the bible if they cannot get past this "lower" state of being), and music is a portion of those frequencies.  The multitude of songs within the light create all the experiences of infinite possibilities we could imagine.

No comments: