For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
Attack on Frog responding to The Alpha Decider – “The idea of “nothing” is very hard to understand.Even if you could remove all the particles and shield against all electric and magnetic fields you will still have gravity.And even if you remove gravity there will still exist quantum particles popping into and out of existence trough out the universe.“
The unbounded potentiality of primal infinity.
Anything is possible.
Attack on Frog – “If you add all the mass and the energy in the universe,everything,looks like all sums up to 0.“
Considering essential infinity. If zero still has meaning, I’d agree.
There is a tendency to fixate on mass and energy. Holding those aspects separate from consciousness.
As though thoughts and dreams are not included.
FB Adams – “Interesting description. From this side of the screen, it would be a non-existent spiritual dimension in which perhaps no material or time could invade, thus the need for a material existence.“
Not sure what would imply a “need for a material existence”.
Existence being the emergence of Self perception.
From that, form and other.
From that, Mind.
Original nature remains untouched but seamlessly accessible.
The eternal Now, has always been the common denominator. Dimensionless and Timeless.
The Now not different than The Self.
Abstractions of the mind-made-simulation of the personal self, being what you have called “this side of the screen”.
Entanglement in that, gets mistaken for reality.
Scientists becoming militant atheists, strikes me as symptomatic of that delusion.
Even as a futile attempt to deify it.
ScottCA – “Interesting comment.
Hawking suggests that time is bound in a manner of speaking.
That time in the initial conditions functions as a special dimension.
This makes the initial point in time a pole on a sphere and not the end of a line. There is no before in this explanation.“
I probably would agree with this but haven’t grasped the significance of the image yet.
That there is “no before in this explanation”, makes perfect sense though.
It equates to “beginningless”, as in eternal Infinitude.
Perhaps “time” being the oscillation of “attention”, between the poles of your sphere.
ScottCA – “My understanding of what Hawking has said is that because of the extreme distortion of space-time in the initial conditions space becomes filled with worm-holes just about everywhere. Time ceases to have a significant meaning under those conditions. He says further that time under these conditions then behaves like a spatial dimension. This TED Talk contains his presentation of the topic:”
“Now this only holds true under the extreme initial conditions; following the big bang time would behave in the linear fashion we are familiar with it, so the pole on a sphere metaphor only really works with the beginning point. Hawking himself does not mention poles in his presentation, but I read this metaphor elsewhere as a way of understanding what time would be like under the condition Hawking discusses.
I would like to explore this theory Hawking introduced, the idea of a theory that can explain our existence is exciting. To even have a potential answer to ‘where did all this come from’ is a very impressive achievement for humanity. I will seek out further articles on this topic.“
It was interesting to study the difference in emphasis.
“… because of the extreme distortion of space-time in the initial conditions space becomes filled with worm-holes just about everywhere. Time ceases to have a significant meaning under those conditions.“
As an aspiring yogi, one does not see it in terms of “distortion of space-time” or even “initial conditions”.
These expressions seem to indicate a standardized reference point in linear time.
Like a 400 year old oak tree evaluating it’s acorn in terms of branches and leaves.
Though we might say “original nature”, that does not indicate a condition that is gone.