• Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!

The Seed Of Origin

William

Acolyte
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
492
Reaction score
122
Awards
3
Q: Is it possible that the infinitesimal super hot object preceding the Big Bang, didn't in fact contain the vastness of the matter within our universe but rather, was the event in which the energy from the blast resulted in the formation of Galaxies and everything else which we call "The Universe" from the field of inert material which already existed as 'space'?
Matter + Energy + Space = Time.
 

Jarhyn

Acolyte
Joined
Jan 27, 2022
Messages
289
Reaction score
258
Awards
3
Q: Is it possible that the infinitesimal super hot object preceding the Big Bang, didn't in fact contain the vastness of the matter within our universe but rather, was the event in which the energy from the blast resulted in the formation of Galaxies and everything else which we call "The Universe" from the field of inert material which already existed as 'space'?
Matter + Energy + Space = Time.
Rather, I think it is just the liminal event in an infinite mathematical system. As to whether that series is an infinite normal is a mystery, but I'm not so sure it IS an infinite normal we exist in explicitly.

Any actual universal seed would need to start not with "stuff" but "relationship definitions", wherein new forms of relationship within the series are revealed, and some mechanism is provided to operate within the provided definitional framework.

I wonder sometimes if all this stuff is just "the only way all math may together be expressed"

Heat doesn't come until way later, not until 3-d particle geometry gets defined.
 

SkullTraill

Glorious Light of Knowledge and Power
Staff member
Custodian
Librarian
Joined
Apr 12, 2021
Messages
1,784
Reaction score
14,482
Awards
19
Q: Is it possible that the infinitesimal super hot object preceding the Big Bang, didn't in fact contain the vastness of the matter within our universe but rather, was the event in which the energy from the blast resulted in the formation of Galaxies and everything else which we call "The Universe" from the field of inert material which already existed as 'space'?
Matter + Energy + Space = Time.
No.

There is some merit in the idea that the big bang was not about space or matter but instead about a precosmic change in what we now describe as the "quantum fields" of the fundamental forces and particles, however, the way your question is phrased (and please forgive me for this condescension) makes it painfully obvious that you don't have an academic background or a significant amount of time invested in learning the maths and physics (especially the maths) behind what scientists call the big bang. I wouldn't say it's entirely your fault, most of the pop media available online and in books regarding the big bang is dumbed down by orders of magnitude, and these topics are those which when dumbed down to that extent, are impossible to explain with normal words and concepts of the English language.

I always tell people who try to dip their toes in deep mathematical concepts such as QM, QFT, QED, etc that they HAVE to understand the math first. Because, if you can't understand the math, you're going to misinterpret the poor selection of words and abstractions that we have chosen to use to describe these things by way of language.

It's very hard to understand what a mathematician means when they use words like "field" and "infinite density" etc, and it is VERY easy to misconstrue them based on the mundane, every-day meanings and concepts of those words.

But here's a few things:
  1. There was no such thing as "infinitesimal super hot object preceding the Big Bang"
  2. When you say "was the event in which the energy from the blast resulted in the formation of Galaxies and everything else which we call "The Universe"" you're not describing anything new or novel compared to the notion of it being "matter that then expanded" that you're trying to contend. They are both equivalent and both equally misguided.
  3. "field of inert material which already existed" - again, no such thing exists, it's just a misconception that arises from a lack of understanding of the actual math.
Rather, I think it is just the liminal event in an infinite mathematical system. As to whether that series is an infinite normal is a mystery, but I'm not so sure it IS an infinite normal we exist in explicitly.

Any actual universal seed would need to start not with "stuff" but "relationship definitions", wherein new forms of relationship within the series are revealed, and some mechanism is provided to operate within the provided definitional framework.

I wonder sometimes if all this stuff is just "the only way all math may together be expressed"

Heat doesn't come until way later, not until 3-d particle geometry gets defined.
I'm sorry, but complete garbage that would get you laughed out of any university. Again, you're flirting with some intelligent thoughts when you said "relationship definitions" as essentially that's part of what "fields" are, and "the only way all math may together be expressed" is honestly a viewpoint I often sympathise with when trying to make sense of the universe from a philosophical standpoint.

But when you say shit like "not until 3-d particle geometry gets defined." that just instakills your credibility and your statement becomes gibberish.



I really, honestly, truly do not want to gatekeep science, that's not what I'm trying to do, but you HAVE to understand the maths, the real maths to even begin to try and comprehend novel and abstract ideas that we haven't even got words to properly describe. Without that, it's meaningless woo woo.

In the spirit of helping, here's a video from a Stanford lecture, and while not related to the topic of this discussion (if that were even possible to properly define) and this video alone won't even come close, and I mean not even remotely close to understanding major theories like QM and the math behind the big bang, it's an easy stepping stone to get started on a journey to understand the math. There are many videos like this from Stanford and MIT that you can watch, and once your math is good, you can start reading papers/journals and grad-level text books and use them to find the holes in your understanding of the math and do your own research. Once you've got a good grip on the grad-level math, you can then start to actually do some academic research on QM and the big bang. Make sure to understand all the math along the way.

And on the flipside, if I may be brutally direct, if you watch the video, do some self-learning and still can't understand the math or make sense of the equations, then never talk about QM or "the origin of the universe" again because you're not capable of understanding it.

Video 1 (of hopefully many in your own research):
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

William

Acolyte
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
492
Reaction score
122
Awards
3
SkullTraill Glorious Light of Knowledge and Power said:
I really, honestly, truly do not want to gatekeep science, that's not what I'm trying to do, but you HAVE to understand the maths, the real maths to even begin to try and comprehend novel and abstract ideas that we haven't even got words to properly describe. Without that, it's meaningless woo woo.

Thanks for your reply. I created other "Seed of Origin" threads on other platforms.

Are you saying that math is a language which cannot be interpreted by any other language?
Do you understand the math of cosmology fluently?

I myself do not have a mathematicians brain so is this to say I am cut of from the knowledge which cannot be told to me in English?

Since I created this thread, I have been exposed to other models of the universe, and the seed remains as near an analogy for what is being described. It is not a perfect analogy but it is adequate...

I have deduced that 'The Singularity" is "Absolutely all data" encompassed in something which is absolutely non-physical...

As ever I am open to why this isn't the case, but I am not impressed with any claim which might have it that "unless I understand the math, I can never know" because it sounds to me much the much as "God is beyond our ability to know" both claims requiring faith in order to accept.
 

SkullTraill

Glorious Light of Knowledge and Power
Staff member
Custodian
Librarian
Joined
Apr 12, 2021
Messages
1,784
Reaction score
14,482
Awards
19
Are you saying that math is a language which cannot be interpreted by any other language?
Not basic maths, but advanced maths is without a doubt impossible to interpret in English (I make no claims for other languages) unless you understand the math.

Do you understand the math of cosmology fluently?
I have studied QM academically and even still I would say "no"

I myself do not have a mathematicians brain so is this to say I am cut of from the knowledge which cannot be told to me in English?
Yes, I do say that.

Since I created this thread, I have been exposed to other models of the universe, and the seed remains as near an analogy for what is being described. It is not a perfect analogy but it is adequate...
What does it matter to assign a word like "seed" to an extremely deep and nuanced abstract subject such as the big bang? Sure, you can interchange the words and analogies any way you like, but it does not bring you anywhere close to actually understanding it. Your "seed" analogy does not get you any further in understanding the true nature of the origin of the universe than any 5th grade science text book or pop media "definition" of "the big bang". Even with math, which is the only language we have to explain these concepts, we cannot understand it fully, without maths, there is no hope (as of yet).

I have deduced that 'The Singularity" is "Absolutely all data" encompassed in something which is absolutely non-physical...
Your "deductions" mean nothing to a scientist. But... if it makes you happy, so be it 😂

As ever I am open to why this isn't the case, but I am not impressed with any claim which might have it that "unless I understand the math, I can never know" because it sounds to me much the much as "God is beyond our ability to know" both claims requiring faith in order to accept.
No human was alive during the big bang, nor can we ever produce it in a scientifically controlled experiment. We can never experience it, to see it with our own eyes and describe it with our own languages, so we use the closest thing we have to a universal language (maths) to work backwards from other science and maths we know, extrapolating, to try and find some sort of mathematical explanation. That is why without maths you will never really understand anything to do with the big bang. You can reject me and my statements, and you can pretend that in your head you're close enough to understanding it and thats good enough for you, and I can never stop you from doing that. But I know that it's never going to be worth my time personally to discuss the actual nuanced DETAILS of the theory with someone who cannot understand the math fully, much less with someone who refuses it completely.
 

William

Acolyte
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
492
Reaction score
122
Awards
3
I am not one to disregard anything any more than I am one to accept on faith any claim.

My interest is in the idea that consciousness has always been in the background noise and that the universe is a mindful creation, and mathematics only confirms that - not in what the mathematicians claim to understand about the universe, but in the very fact that they discovered this language inbuilt into the universe itself....just like every other language has also been built into the universe.
Mathematics was not invented, it was discovered.

Such cosmologists might even mock such an idea, having not thought to include in their equations any symbol for the mind.

Even the use of unknown numbers imply missing data and therefore probable mis-interpretation.

The existence of mathematics allows me to tick off one more piece of the puzzle. I am not so much interested in the creation as I am with connecting and maintaining said connection, with the Creator-Mind.

I think the main barrier between the theists and the non-theists is that they believe diametrically different things about the mind, even to the point where it is simply a waste of time either party arguing about that.

😂
 

Roma

Apostle
Warned
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
2,781
Awards
12
In the Hindu tradition, occasionally all Existence disappears in the event called Mahapralaya.

During the Mahapralaya there is only Beingness - until Beingness wishes again to experience separated Existence.

Thus the alleged big bang may be the result of a local pralaya ceasing, whereby a universe re-emerges into temporary manifestation
 

William

Acolyte
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
492
Reaction score
122
Awards
3
I was just searching "is zero a number?"

"0 (zero) is a number, and the numerical digit used to represent that number in numerals. It fulfills a central role in mathematics as the additive identity of the integers, real numbers, and many other algebraic structures. As a digit, 0 is used as a placeholder in place value systems."

I now search "is zero a real number"
"Real numbers are, in fact, pretty much any number that you can think of. This can include whole numbers or integers, fractions, rational numbers and irrational numbers. Real numbers can be positive or negative, and include the number zero."


Zero makes the mathematics work...but if zero [representing nothing] is a fraudulent necessity, then perhaps the interpretation of mathematics is incorrect, and perhaps the reason mathematic works [is correct] is because the zero isn't really representing nothing, so much as it represents something which is not detectable but still exists as something.
 

Roma

Apostle
Warned
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
2,781
Awards
12
Pythagoras tells us that numbers are alive - and from my experience I would agree.

So then the question is: can we find the intelligence that is represented by the number zero?

When I compare the energies of +1, 0 and -1 the number zero has a much stronger energy. Try the experiment for yourself.

So I observe an intelligence that responds when I try zero and thereby deduce that zero is as much a number as +1
 

William

Acolyte
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
492
Reaction score
122
Awards
3
Pythagoras tells us that numbers are alive - and from my experience I would agree.
this would mean that numbers are self aware. How realistic it that, or is the phrase better consider poetical.

So then the question is: can we find the intelligence that is represented by the number zero?

Oh okay - you are not meaning literally you are meaning the numbers represent things....along the same lines as my expressing the thought that zero represent The Mind.

Not just human minds but The Mind altogether - anything which displays mindful attributes.

When I compare the energies of +1, 0 and -1 the number zero has a much stronger energy. Try the experiment for yourself.
So I observe an intelligence that responds when I try zero and thereby deduce that zero is as much a number as +1

You will have to explain your technique before I can repeat it and see for myself.
 

William

Acolyte
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
492
Reaction score
122
Awards
3
My reasoning has more to do with the fact that the number zero is integral to mathematics and thus - may [or even must] represent The Mind because it cannot truly represent nothing, because we have no evidence that nothing even exists.

For example, when a brain dies, it appears that the consciousness which occupied that brain, has also died - has literally become "nothing".
This of course relies on the belief that the mind is an emergent property of the brain - the standard belief of non-theists.

Theists do not understand the mind in the same way.

Either understanding in and of itself, does not explain what happens to the individual mind when the brain dies, since it is understood that such is not observable to the human awareness...or any scientific instruments - other than to show that the brain is dead and therefore "nothing" is happening in that brain which can be observed.
Yet the brain does not disappear [turn into nothing] and we know that it will turn into something, 'dust to dust' death transforms rather than causes something to disappear into some supposed 'nothing'.

Just from that, we can appreciate that Zero (0) cannot represent 'nothing' but can represent 'something that is known to exist, even that it cannot easily be seen."

The MInd = 0

And as you also note there is the sequence '-1 [0] +1' and the zero is the middle bit - the central point where all other points derive from, which is just like how consciousness is also positioned -
 

Roma

Apostle
Warned
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
2,781
Awards
12
this would mean that numbers are self aware.

Animals are intelligent but mostly not self-aware. Quite a few cats can recognize themselves in a mirror. Self-awareness requires a higher plane intelligence.

you are not meaning literally

Why would you think that?

You will have to explain your technique

I am well used to numbers - having done much statistical and econometric work. Numbers get unhappy when they are misused - and indeed the economic gestalts get unhappy when abused/described by models that misuse numbers and relationships.

Consider that numbers occur at the deepest levels of Existence - the numbers being an outer form of the harmonic intent of The Source of All. That harmonic intent occurs within the Beingness that gives rise to Existence. How profound therefore are what we call numbers!

As for whether numbers may be self-aware, I have just tried showing the number 100 a "mirror" and it does not notice the "mirror". This suggests that the number 100 is not self-aware.

I am reminded of the distinction between lesser and greater devas. The lesser devas (nature spirits) are sometimes called "the army of the voice". This is because they are driving into action by voice and intent. The greater devas have learned voice and intent - often by incarnating temporarily as humans.

Are numbers like the army of the voice - driven by a higher intent. Humans sometimes try that that.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Roma

Apostle
Warned
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
2,781
Awards
12
does not explain what happens to the individual mind when the brain dies, since it is understood that such is not observable to the human awareness

Beethoven's third symphony, second movement, describes the three death process of the initiate
 

William

Acolyte
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
492
Reaction score
122
Awards
3
Numbers get unhappy when they are misused - and indeed the economic gestalts get unhappy when abused/described by models that misuse numbers and relationships.
I thought you might have meant it literally - but again, in the above you are being poetic...not saying that numbers actually can get 'unhappy'...

I will check out the link you provided.

also
The Number Zero = 170
The Voice Within = 170

Zero = 64
Focus = 64
 

William

Acolyte
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
492
Reaction score
122
Awards
3
The site you linked me to does not appear to have an examination of Zero in the "Secret Magic Of Numbers" list .

In Tarot the Zero number is associated with the card representing the Self.
 

William

Acolyte
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
492
Reaction score
122
Awards
3
As for whether numbers may be self-aware, I have just tried showing the number 100 a "mirror" and it does not notice the "mirror". This suggests that the number 100 is not self-aware.
That is funny! :D
Do you see any connect between the number 100 and the number 55?
 

Roma

Apostle
Warned
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
2,781
Awards
12
Do you see any connect between the number 100 and the number 55?
The number 100 sees 55 as its little brother. 55 sees 100 as its big brother. They belong to the 5 family. The 5 family shows me its role as imprinting spirit upon matter - while maintaining a resonance to its immediate source: the galactic logos
 

William

Acolyte
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
492
Reaction score
122
Awards
3
As it happens I live in Unit 64

The energy in the half-built townhouse was so strong that I put a deposit on it immediately
As it happens, my house number is also 64 :D
 
Top