The origin of mankind

[Karl]

The martial arts are Mars .... what are the venusian arts ?

Shoes and handbags-the marital arts.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Can you explain why it appears to be expanding ?

That's a tough one.  Logic suggests that the speed of expansion would gradually slow and eventually reach a maximum boundary at some point because of the effect of gravity.

 

However, all current data suggests that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.  This requires a force existing in empty space pushing the boundary of the universe outward into Absolute Nothingness.  (Making the universe larger.)

 

Science calls this force "Dark Energy".  But the galaxies themselves aren't being effected by it because there isn't enough "empty space" between objects in a galaxy and the Black Holes are providing the gravity needed to keep their galaxy in tact.

 

So the question is:  What is Dark Energy?  So far I have heard no supportable answers.  After all, it's just empty space, right?  Apparently "empty" isn't really empty.  We just don't have the knowledge to detect it. 

[Gerard]

The Australian Dreamtime.

 

Wonderful belief system and very much in line with Buddhism, Daoism as well as other ancient beliefs.

 

Interpendent origination is one of the central elements according to Buddhist philosophy, Dreaming using Australian Aborigine terminology.

 

The Creation Process

 

Beyond the real of form there is the real of spirit and we all exist in there as an amorphous entity flowing to the Tao. From the Tao we emanate and to the Tao we return.

 

 

My culture is my identity.Dreamtime stories tell the life of my people.Growing older.Hearing stories of my ancestors living off the land*Becoming one with the creaturesEven though I haven't met themI feel this unbreakable connectionThrough the stories I have heard.The stories that have been passed down through generations.These stories are living through us.Without our culture we have no identityAnd without our identityWe have nothing.

...Dreaming stories

 

 

*Note: Do you remember the story about John Blofeld's meeting with Taoist Dzeng? Same thing different context.

 

In similar fashion:

 

Edited May 25, 2016 by Gerard

[Stosh]

Technically one cant 'detect' any energy of Any type , except by what that energy does.

What we call 'energy' is adherence to the basic principles of the cosmos.

The principle of expansion of space , ('dragging' material objects within it) , cant be approached without understanding the difference between space within the universe and PURE nothingness..( which is ..the lack of applied ' cosmotic principle' or presence of it. )

Its all in my new book coming out next year, I still have to put the final touches on it.  

[Karl]

There is no such thing as pure nothingness. Everything has an identity. Nothing is nothing.

 

As MH has touched upon it, the definition of space is not an object definition (though it no doubt contains things. Space is the gap between things and it is measurable. So when we say space bends or stretches this is not the correct way to look at it. Space between object increases or decreases. You cannot bend a distance, but you can describe an arc due to gravitational effect.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Karl

[Junko]

In Dao way,nothing is everything.

[Karl]

In Dao way,nothing is everything.

 

You might see a contradiction in that statement.

 

You are saying in effect something is nothing. Thus A is not A.

 

In order to say A is not A you must first say A is A or you are really saying that anything you say means nothing and we can all act as if you said nothing at all.

 

I'm not sure how well that will translate in your native tongue.

[Junko]

I think the sentences mean it doesn't have to be so perfect.....

[Karl]

I think the sentences mean it doesn't have to be so perfect.....

 

Depends on your definition of perfect. Perfect is a conceptual measuring by a human. A flower cannot be said to be anything but a flower. It is what it is. A human may say the flower is 'perfect'. They may mean that it fits their idea of beauty, shape, size, colour or other comparative. It must be perfect in respect of a flower which the human believes is less than perfect, but the flower remains a flower despite its colour, shape, number and shape of petals, perfume.

 

Unless you can specifically define the Dao then it has no identity. If you say the Dao is everything then that equates to the universe and all its materials and causalities. If you say the Dao is nothing, then it is nothing, it is an unintelligible noise, or scribble, which is backed by nothing and has no connection with reality.

[Junko]

Ok to me words don't make any sence at all. Words are just tools.Yes we human use words for expressing or for the art.

[Stosh]

Depends on your definition of perfect. Perfect is a conceptual measuring by a human. A flower cannot be said to be anything but a flower. It is what it is. A human may say the flower is 'perfect'. They may mean that it fits their idea of beauty, shape, size, colour or other comparative. It must be perfect in respect of a flower which the human believes is less than perfect, but the flower remains a flower despite its colour, shape, number and shape of petals, perfume. Unless you can specifically define the Dao then it has no identity. If you say the Dao is everything then that equates to the universe and all its materials and causalities. If you say the Dao is nothing, then it is nothing, it is an unintelligible noise, or scribble, which is backed by nothing and has no connection with reality.

Nothing is the absence of everything, something is the absence of nothing. .. both require certain expectations and these are swappable. 

[Karl]

Ok to me words don't make any sence at all. Words are just tools.Yes we human use words for expressing or for the art.

 

Yes they are only perceptual symbols, but they are linked to concepts. You know what a flower is even if I haven't yet told you what kind of flower. The concept of 'flower' is a mass of every flower you have ever perceived, plus all those that you haven't by the process of inductance. If I then add red and rose, then you know the concept of colour and the species of flower. There is obviously no intrinsic flower in the word flower.

[Karl]

Nothing is the absence of everything, something is the absence of nothing. .. both require certain expectations and these are swappable. 

 

No. Something is not the absence of nothing. Something is something. Nothing is nothing. We can't envisage nothing and that's where the confusion is. There are no cakes left on the plate, does not mean there are no cakes, only that there are no cakes in that particular place. There aren't cake shaped holes in the plate devoid of anything.

[Junko]

Nungali would say'give me those red roses!!

[Michael Sternbach]

No. Something is not the absence of nothing. Something is something. Nothing is nothing. We can't envisage nothing and that's where the confusion is. There are no cakes left on the plate, does not mean there are no cakes, only that there are no cakes in that particular place. There aren't cake shaped holes in the plate devoid of anything.

 

Yes, there are. At least there are examples for something similar to that.

 

[Stosh]

No. Something is not the absence of nothing. Something is something. Nothing is nothing. We can't envisage nothing and that's where the confusion is. There are no cakes left on the plate, does not mean there are no cakes, only that there are no cakes in that particular place. There aren't cake shaped holes in the plate devoid of anything.

Sure there are ! the donut hole , is the absence of the donut in that place , one has to expect donut there to consider there to be a dearth of donut. Same as there is the dearth of nothing where there is something.  

Envision a 'negative' ocean where there is a blob of water , and compare to the positive ocean where there is a bubble in the water , same deal.There are properties of the 'empty' bubble just as there are properties of the 'water blob'.

The bubble , filled with the water blob , would cease to exist.. just as the empty space ocean would cease to be definable if empty space replaced the blob. 

Youre just stuck on the idea that there is nothing in empty space , while there is something real about full space.,, but it is space which defines that which may exist at any given spot.  ( three things - something , nothing , space containing no thing.) Within that which we call the universe there is nothing in spots , but thats the absence properties which we consider empty space, beyond that boundary there is .. zippo ,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,none of our universe is there . Its really very simple, just ,, its just not how one ordinarily views things. 

But as an example , in electronics one can use the concept of electronholes, one can describe the procession of electrons which satisfy holes to neutrality , or one can follow the procession of the holes in the opposite direction. The holes are the absence of the neutral state provided by conjunction with the electrons, so the hole has properties and therefore is not nothing. 

Edited May 25, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

Sure there are ! the donut hole , is the absence of the donut in that place , one has to expect donut there to consider there to be a dearth of donut. Same as there is the dearth of nothing where there is something.  

Envision a 'negative' ocean where there is a blob of water , and compare to the positive ocean where there is a bubble in the water , same deal.There are properties of the 'empty' bubble just as there are properties of the 'water blob'.

The bubble , filled with the water blob , would cease to exist.. just as the empty space ocean would cease to be definable if empty space replaced the blob. 

Youre just stuck on the idea that there is nothing in empty space , while there is something real about full space.,, but it is space which defines that which may exist at any given spot.  ( three things - something , nothing , space containing no thing.) Within that which we call the universe there is nothing in spots , but thats the absence properties which we consider empty space, beyond that boundary there is .. zippo ,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,none of our universe is there . Its really very simple, just ,, its just not how one ordinarily views things. 

 

I can't decide if you are being serious or not ? :-)

[Stosh]

I can't decide if you are being serious or not ? :-)

I am being serious , but since I know the confusion this issue provides , I'm sympathetic and therefore chuckle as well. 

My example of the electron hole is a simplification down to a single parameter of charge , electrons have other properties , but each of those also follow the same rule .

According to what the universe defines as total homogeneity,  anything that differs from that , is what we consider 'something'. 

The universe is trending back to total homogeneity which drives the processes , of,,  for example ,, neutralization of charges. 

Edited May 25, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

I am being serious , but since I know the confusion this issue provides , I'm sympathetic and therefore chuckle as well.

My example of the electron hole is a simplification down to a single parameter of charge , electrons have other properties , but each of those also follow the same rule .

According to what the universe defines as total homogeneity, anything that differs from that , is what we consider 'something'.

The universe is trending back to total homogeneity which drives the processes , of,, for example ,, neutralization of charges.

I disagree. Something is something; nothing is nothing. The universe has identity no matter if it's homogenous or not. It is something. I don't have any confusion with the issue as long as we stay on the philosophical end of things.

 

I don't argue entropy only causality. Things don't rearrange themselves back into the things they were prior to disintegration, but that does not mean they don't form new things. The universe was supposed to be contracting until it was discovered it is actual expanding.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Dao (no thing) gave birth to One (a thing)

One (a thing) gave birth to Two (two things)

Two (two things) gave birth to Three (three things)

Three (three things) gave birth to the Ten Thousand Things (actually more than ten thousand things)

[Karl]

Dao (no thing) gave birth to One (a thing)

One (a thing) gave birth to Two (two things)

Two (two things) gave birth to Three (three things)

Three (three things) gave birth to the Ten Thousand Things (actually more than ten thousand things)

 

I have no idea how you integrate that with your materialist views !

 

When have you ever witnessed no-thing giving birth to some-thing ? We have a universe that is, always will be and always has been. There was no 'before' and there will be no 'after'.

[Marblehead]

I have no idea how you integrate that with your materialist views ! When have you ever witnessed no-thing giving birth to some-thing ? We have a universe that is, always will be and always has been. There was no 'before' and there will be no 'after'.

You didn't watch that Stephen Hawking documentary in which he proved that the universe was created from nothing?

 

I'm not arguing with you.  Just suggesting that we should consider alternate perspectives.

[Junko]

Talking about black hole, are there different sizes?

[Marblehead]

Talking about black hole, are there different sizes?

Yes.  Some are defined as Black Holes and others are defined as Super Massive Black Holes.

 

To the best of my recall, the Super ones are at the center of spiral galaxies where there is plenty for them to eat.  The normal ones just float around in the universe, sometimes finding something to eat but often finding nothing for long periods of time.

 

Black Holes are interesting for me as they are so similar to what is believed Singularity was prior to the Big Bang.

[Karl]

You didn't watch that Stephen Hawking documentary in which he proved that the universe was created from nothing?

 

I'm not arguing with you.  Just suggesting that we should consider alternate perspectives.

 

It isn't about perspectives but about logic. If someone discovers a better means of thinking than logic then I've yet to hear it. If the universe was 'created' then it isn't the universe. It's something else entirely and we might as well say it was God because that really is where people like Hawkins are headed. That's the problem with materialist atheists, they live by science as a philosophy and it isn't one. Science comes after philosophy. If a scientist is getting into creationism -even an atheistic version-he has veered into philosophy and he must put away his microscope and go macro.

 

It's not my 'opinion' that shows me an atheist creationist is logically inconsistent. I can add 2 + 2 = 4 I don't need to consider alternative perspectives. I don't require 'it might be true for you but not for me' or ' that 2 is just a symbol' or 'no one can know if it's exactly 2'.

 

Scientists should stop philosophising and get back to their microscopes, experiments and direct observations utilising the logical method they were given.

 

The universe wasn't created, because that involves an infinite regression. The intrincisists came up with God and now the subjectivists have determined it's nothingness. Absolutely barmy. What created God, what created nothingness ? Maybe nothingness created God, or God first created nothingness-I mean he is omnipotent and omniscient so nothingness is a fucking doddle for God. He is just as relevant as nothingness in that context.

 

The final play for materialists is to substitute zero for the intrinsicist infinity. It's like crap chequers.