How I see reality and existence

From my perspective the quantum universe is both infinite and one, nothing and something. People often ask how the universe could exist, how something could come out of nothing. I don't think anything came out of anything else, I think we are fooled by the illusion that "something" and "nothing" are distinctly separate things.

If you break down matter to atoms, then atoms to their nucleus, the nucleus to it's subatomic particles that now exist on the quantum level... certain notions of existence tend to change. These binding subatomic particles that are catylists for the formation of all matter, AND energy, are essentially nothing but the fabric of reality itself. They are pure energy... but not energy as in the energy we normally know with certain energy particles, but energy as in pure forcefields. Raw, unconstructed, withouth any form or substance, forcefields. Forcefields that act as energy in and of themselves. This energy is nothing more than miniature anomylies within existence, little fields of bent space-time that create a gravitational pull.
In fact, gravity is essentially the building block of all existence from atoms to circulatory systems. It is the surrounding event horizon of these little spacial anomylies, where space is bent the closer you go to them. When you get matter, you get the most compact and complex arangement of these trillions of anomylies, one so incredible that physical form is created out energy, energy created of fluxuations in space-time. When such physical entities reach the size of planets, the gravitational pull is clearly obvious from our perspective as the non-matter space-time surrounding the planetary body is bent and pulled in as it gets closer to this incredibly powerfull forcefield of condensed reality.
From this perspective, my personal and constantly developing perspective, matter, energy, and nothingness are all built of the same base components, space-time/reality itself. The separation is an illusion constructed by certain areas of existence taking more complex forms, creating variations of areas of raw force and as a biproduct, gravitation. Of course the mechanism for the creation of certain varriations is beyond my scope of understanding, though I believe stephen hawking had some theories on that, including the creation of matter and anti-matter in one nano-second intervals as the initial catylist for physical existence in the form of matter and energy.

Overall, I think we're so caught up in these notions of "something" and "nothing", we don't consider that everything could be the same, that reality itself is not something so clear and distinctly physical and non-physical.

This is just how I see reality, take it as you will. Find peace with the ultimate reality, understand the true nature of existence, and you'll understand why peace is more natural, more what we should be, than anything else. May you all find your peace, I'll continue searching for mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrdevious

Overall, I think we're so caught up in these notions of "something" and "nothing", we don't consider that everything could be the same, that reality itself is not something so clear and distinctly physical and non-physical.

---

I'll say this, to start with, I think you're wrong. I think this is a very fundamental thought that thousands of people have had and entertained at one time or other, and we actually seem to see quite a few posts about it. Of course, like many of these issues it's the lack of anything resembling definate proof that keeps the mystics mystical (if such things can even be proved). Having said that I'm highly in sympathy with your post. I just don't think "considering" does anything for the individual at this point. As I've said, I think most people have had this thought. What most people are incapable of doing is believing in it, and understanding the consequences of such a reality. Which I must admit, I have not approached the midway point of working out for myself even, although I try every now and then. Perhaps you've done better.

I'd say I agree with your truth but I think that peace requires something more. like practice?

hmmmmm...

If peace were natural, we would be practicing it, what is natural for humans is survival at all costs(it is the very root of being a human, and you can see it practiced anywhere large or small scale). Secondly, you over-worded many things you said. Thirdly, where you stand on views of reality is a bit presumptuous, given that to explain what you think reality may be, alone defies what you state about reality; If everything and nothing were the same, I don't think a distinction could have ever been formed. And lastly, your ideas of reality are on par with Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking's third grade journals. (This is not meant to insult, merely enlighten that you should do more work before stating half ideas half beliefs.)

Very well, I see my ideas arent' going to be met with much acceptance. But these are just my ideas nontheless. Whether or not they'll prove true or false, I hope I'll get to find out some day. I don't see the reason for all the hostility toward my ideas (from everyone) though; these aren't even theories, just some interesting ideas that seem to make sense to me. I make no claim to their validity beyond some toying with concepts.

Quote:

---

If peace were natural, we would be practicing it, what is natural for humans is survival at all costs(it is the very root of being a human, and you can see it practiced anywhere large or small scale).

---

I think you misunderstand me. I know that aggression, competition, dominance, all these things are natural. They are some key elements to the evolutionary process. But what I'm talking about isn't the complex natural drives that control most organisms, I'm talking about the natural and final state of reality. What I mean to say is that through extinction of our primal, instinctive nature, through extinction of the ego and sense of separation, we can see the most natural state of being there is, perfect harmony with the ultimate. That, in my humble opinion, is the most natural state of all because it is the basis of our existence. The primal drives that direct organism behavior is the considerably more complex result of this base nature.

Quote:

---

Secondly, you over-worded many things you said.

---

I'm very stoned on tramadol (legally through prescription) and weed, it's not always easy to piece together ones thoughts.

Quote:

---

Thirdly, where you stand on views of reality is a bit presumptuous, given that to explain what you think reality may be, alone defies what you state about reality; If everything and nothing were the same, I don't think a distinction could have ever been formed.

---

I disagree. As I was trying to convey, the separation is a result of more complex systems creating new forms for reality to take. Which I suppose may be responsible for the rules in relativity, but I'm no expert in that field.

Quote:

---

And lastly, your ideas of reality are on par with Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking's third grade journals. (This is not meant to insult, merely enlighten that you should do more work before stating half ideas half beliefs.)

---

I'm not familiar with Michio Kaku and only partially familar with Hawking's works. I didn't intend to state these as absolute beliefs, just ideas, a hypothesis from certain observations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2600HERTZ

If peace were natural, we would be practicing it, what is natural for humans is survival at all costs(it is the very root of being a human, and you can see it practiced anywhere large or small scale).

---

On a tangent from Dev's points, I'd just like to clarify in regards to the above quote: so what?

You say that as if the natural drive for survival at any cost justifies itself. Which is like saying that murder and rape are ok as long as you really want to do them.
You say what is natural for humans as if we are beasts who are incapable of choosing for ourselves. While I'd agree that in many ways we are determined both physically and socially, we always have the opportunity to break into new space.

While I don't disagree with you, that statement was in response to him saying peace was natural for us.

I do agree Mrdevious with your statement that paceful is more of what we should be. And i left out in my first statement that it is almost noble of you to state that you do have a scope of understanding that you obviously, until more informed, cannot stretch beyond. (Alot of people will get so far into thier own beliefs that it becomes hard to think they aren't just making shit up as they go, and it didn't come off like that here.)

I do give props on you atleast having some views in this realm of thinking though. For so many people thoughts like these never reach their minds.

:jointsmile:

hey devious, did my thread happen to influence the creation of this thread in any way?
btw, ive often thought of the same things you have. we're like the metaphorical peas in a pod

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MastaChronic

hey devious, did my thread happen to influence the creation of this thread in any way?
btw, ive often thought of the same things you have. we're like the metaphorical peas in a pod

---

Actually it did MastaChronic, it was a very good thread you made. I especially appreciate it because you made something more philisophical, not just ANOTHER god vs. no god thread (I've made a few myself, and only recently realized how counter productive they are). This original thread started as a response to your thread, but then my brain started going off and expanding what I was originally going to type, and so I decided to make it a new thread.

lol, thats great.

I'd have to say I agree about most of what you said, particularly about the separation between something and nothing being an illusion. I think most opposites are an illusion, really; Take light and darkness, for example. These aren't two seperate substances -- the darkness is incidental, because there is light. Darkness is a product OF light. In a similar way, nothing (or what we percieve as nothing) is a product of something. Saying that light and darkness are a duality is like saying the side of a tree which you are looking at is an opposite entity from the side of the tree facing away from you which you can't see. It is one's own perception that creates these concepts of 'light' and 'darkness' in the mind, and likewise something and nothing are concepts.
Actually, the idea that something and nothing are a duality is somewhat absurd, because the concept of 'nothing' is absurd. There is no such thing as 'nothing'. If nothing did exist, it would then be something, and therefore is negated by sheer paradox. I think 'nothing' is just a concept that we use, and nothing more than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by afghooey

Actually, the idea that something and nothing are a duality is somewhat absurd, because the concept of 'nothing' is absurd. There is no such thing as 'nothing'. If nothing did exist, it would then be something, and therefore is negated by sheer paradox. I think 'nothing' is just a concept that we use, and nothing more than that.

---

You're sort of just spinning words there though. I could just as easily say that nothing doesn't exist. So everything must exist. And the sum of everything must include nothing, or else it wouldn't be everything. So nothing must exist.

But it's not really that convincing is it?

Nonetheless, I think there's better evidence in favor of nothing than of something.

nothing/something...light/dark....we define one by the other. So they must both be there....?

Murderer's and rapist's still do what they do, an ultimate reality will and does incorporate these things, perfectly, without disruption, in to it's existance. A belief is just that, and is driven by the same primal urges that control your want to fuck, fight and eat, maybe not with the same initial intensity, but they are inextricably linked by your brain, to seperate yourself from your thought processes, your urges, and then your resulting identity, you find your most natural state of being? A state where everything is the same, although the ability of choice for man is different from beast.
If you want to strip the barrier of physical reality, definitions of matter, things we can actually see and interact with, then surely you won't be able to even begin laying down a framework, in more/less productive actions, emotions, opinions, of peope.

I personally think that the "ultimate reality" (the thing that encompasses all motions of masses, with the passage of time, relative to each and every microsopic/macroscopic body), has got it covered, mine, or anybody else's choices are subsidiary effects, of the ultimate realities working, as, no matter what, nothing (including celestial bodies, different states of matter, different environments, and organisms) has ever been able to throw any type of monkeywrench in to, and "catch out" the ultimate reality, you could kill everybody on earth single handedly, each time coming up with more and more elaborate and undignifying ways of killing them, and no force will come and stop you, then at the end, the earth will keep on spinning, and going around the sun, the cosmos certainly won't give out a cry of love and understanding.

I suppose theres no single thing or force that drives us, every1's different, some people are passive/aggressive, dominant/recessive, and theres no changing that, people never really change, certain things that become apparent to them along life, will change there behaviour, but there is no ultimate truth, as opinion is relative, one person could flip out at the revelations that have brought another contentment. If different schools of thought can co-exist, and things are not bounded by any force that prohibits anybody in acting in any way possible, then wouldn't sitting on either side of the fence when it comes to detached definition of that which is truly real, be paradoxical to your original thought of a boundless universe?

Tramadol's very nice isn't it? Especially with weed and a lil bit of liquor, gave me a bit of trouble taking a shit for about a day afterwards, so I didn't much take it recreationally after a few higher than medical dose attempts, never really topped Kratom though...........even for medicinal value, oh man........did I used to ramble my bollox off about science and its implications when I was floating around on that stuff......kinda get carried away don't ya?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by afghooey

I'd have to say I agree about most of what you said, particularly about the separation between something and nothing being an illusion. I think most opposites are an illusion, really; Take light and darkness, for example. These aren't two seperate substances -- the darkness is incidental, because there is light. Darkness is a product OF light. In a similar way, nothing (or what we percieve as nothing) is a product of something. Saying that light and darkness are a duality is like saying the side of a tree which you are looking at is an opposite entity from the side of the tree facing away from you which you can't see. It is one's own perception that creates these concepts of 'light' and 'darkness' in the mind, and likewise something and nothing are concepts.
Actually, the idea that something and nothing are a duality is somewhat absurd, because the concept of 'nothing' is absurd. There is no such thing as 'nothing'. If nothing did exist, it would then be something, and therefore is negated by sheer paradox. I think 'nothing' is just a concept that we use, and nothing more than that.

---

You should read the kabalion by three initiates. it's hermetic philosophy, and there is much in it pertaining to your thought here.. ..


Junk~

"You're sort of just spinning words there though. I could just as easily say that nothing doesn't exist. So everything must exist. And the sum of everything must include nothing, or else it wouldn't be everything. So nothing must exist."

That might be convincing if nothing were the opposite of something, but it isn't. If nothing was the opposite of something, then it would be true that something can't exist without nothing. But something does exist without nothing, because nothing doesn't exist as anything but a concept. It's a symbol that points to itself.

I'm also curious as to what you mean by "I think there's better evidence in favor of nothing than of something." We're here, we're something That's evidence that something exists. Where is nothing? When we use the word, we usually don't mean it in a literal sense. "What's in that box?" "Nothing." But there is something in the box, if only air. Even vaccuums can't be perfectly empty, there's always something there.

Ah, and thanks Junkyard. Gotta return some books to the library tomorrow, I'll see if I can't find it. :)

mrdevious, i agree with absolutely everything you've said.

You're right mrdevious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrdevious

Very well, I see my ideas arent' going to be met with much acceptance. But these are just my ideas nontheless. Whether or not they'll prove true or false, I hope I'll get to find out some day. I don't see the reason for all the hostility toward my ideas (from everyone) though; these aren't even theories, just some interesting ideas that seem to make sense to me. I make no claim to their validity beyond some toying with concepts.




I think you misunderstand me. I know that aggression, competition, dominance, all these things are natural. They are some key elements to the evolutionary process. But what I'm talking about isn't the complex natural drives that control most organisms, I'm talking about the natural and final state of reality. What I mean to say is that through extinction of our primal, instinctive nature, through extinction of the ego and sense of separation, we can see the most natural state of being there is, perfect harmony with the ultimate. That, in my humble opinion, is the most natural state of all because it is the basis of our existence. The primal drives that direct organism behavior is the considerably more complex result of this base nature.




I'm very stoned on tramadol (legally through prescription) and weed, it's not always easy to piece together ones thoughts.





I disagree. As I was trying to convey, the separation is a result of more complex systems creating new forms for reality to take. Which I suppose may be responsible for the rules in relativity, but I'm no expert in that field.



I'm not familiar with Michio Kaku and only partially familar with Hawking's works. I didn't intend to state these as absolute beliefs, just ideas, a hypothesis from certain observations.

---

I forgot about this thread, but I wanted to say awhile back: sorry for being such an asshole up there, it was a bad day and I had to tell someone off. So I am sorry man.