 
Everything Solved: The Universe Explained

By Austin P. Torney

Copyright 2012 Austin P. Torney

Smashwords Edition

Something Forever?

What are the Fundamentals that are ever what they were?

OK, Stuff Forever... which we might better call Something Forever, for, if 'stuff' is sometimes taken to be higher or formed substance, that's not what is meant by that which is/was forever, as substance comes from, or is, fields/oscillations or at least substance has those in its wave nature, emitting those, which may be called 'energy' or 'unstructured substance', if energy is taken only as a measure of work.

So, these more basic things are still something, and we want to find out if the something has always been, all on its own, and not just because 'nothing' cannot be, maybe, which 'nothing' may still be a hint, but 'nothing' would still have no primacy, since it is said that 'it' isn't there, plus having no 'there' in which to be, and 'nothing' is also a negative, for it is only existence that defines what is there, and where 'there' is. (but..., well, we will see)

It would be fine to say that there isn't anything outside existence, since existence is all there is. It is also conceivable to know that a lack of anything would mean no existence, but that didn't happen, so, for now, we will still look to existence and how it had to be, which, if so, is necessarily 'forever' in that it had to have always been the case, if nothing becomes of nothing, causing that notion to be thrown out for now. So, the 'forever' aspect seems to be forced, but the extent must be finite, as we will see, and so we'll have to explain the amount, and not just as "that's all there is of it", which is still true, but that there is a 'why' and a 'how' for the amount of the 'what', all of which will become apparent.

The universe would seem to be a bubble within nothing, expanding into nothing, but, again, 'nothing' would not seem to be, or there, so the universe grows within itself. The universe is still that which changed into its expanded form, and ever reflects its properties, such as symmetry, if that is its necessary nature. Things do not escape from the universe. If I reach my arm out through the edge of the universe, I just create more spacetime through my emanations. Or space wraps back, boundless but not infinite.

If the universe came from something else, we'd just have to go on to that, so let us say that we are already discussing the basic something. To avoid creating something out of nothing, if we have to, it is then a necessity that the basic something has always existed, that is, it is timeless, or eternal, in time, and it is the same as the universe, as it only changed its form, although we wonder why and how. This becomes a problem., as there is still the 'problem' of there being nothing to make anything of, and we can't leave any problems hanging about.

Since the universe is expanding, it cannot be infinite, nor can anything, so it is finite, although perhaps unbounded, which is both by its expansion and if spacetime is curved. Technically, it expands into itself, but it is still not surrounded by anything. The universe's size and location is relative to nothing, whatever than means and implies.

Only in the expression as the universe from the All of the Something Forever do we have space, time, and the rather enduring amount of finite substance that may even be still growing, as is space, to be classified as finite or infinite (imagine how crowded that would be), but the All is still the All, which means there isn't any more, so in that respect it is the 'mostest' that can be our universe.

We live in the finite but seemingly unbounded and closed universe that constantly changes but is itself kind of future-eternal, as it is only a change, even if in a dispersed form, and it is all of itself, contained to itself, and not really contained by not having anything outside it, for that is a 'nothing' which is not there, although this is still called nonexistence, and it ever cannot do anything, anyway, so who cares. Remember, if necessary, we have skipped onwards to that something which is the basis of the universe, in case there were further somethings in-between, such as maybe what gave rise to fields, if that was an intermediate.

So far, we have the current expression of the (maybe) basic Something Forever, if it is eternal, as a finite, 4D spacetime universe, with 'c', the finite speed of light, which seems to disallow everything from happening at once; so, we conclude that there must have been a kind of all-at-once-ness to the singularity, when in that form, or at least it was really crowded (it may have been as large as the universe), but if space came later, wrapped into spacetime, then it's more than crowded, with everything being on top of everything, taking us back to superposition, which is also said to be of the quantum realm, possibly as an essence that carried on.

We've identified why the universe must be finite, but we must go on to say why it has that amount of extent, which at first guess I'd say because it was dictated by the point of symmetry breaking, which we'd then have to go to explain, and, also, of course, how existence has to be a necessity, and, as such, eternal, and past-eternal, if it is.

The expansion of the universe is even accelerating, but is this at the expense of energy density getting lower or is the actual extent of stuff increasing its amount? It would seem that 'creation' (a change in form) is still ongoing. Whatever the case it's still one heck of a fuel, one that keeps on giving.

The prime cause, whatever it is, if eternal, couldn't have come from anything, for it is all there is, and must do as it must, heaving no inputs to direct it a certain way, even if 'what it must do' is anything and everything possible, within any necessary defaults as to how it is, such as symmetry, perhaps. That it is causeless makes it 'eternal' in the sense of it always having been there, as it didn't come from anything else. So, while it is already made, it never had to be made, and was never made. Thus, I wouldn't expect it to have any certain form picked out of any available varieties, for it could only be the way it is. It had no choice. Being already made without ever having been made needs a resolution. Can't have any problems hanging around. The never-made condition of the 'something' is incomplete, but its basis is as it didn't come from anything, which is bordering on that it was from 'nothing'.

The Something Forever, if it was, or nothing, changed, into its expression as the universe, in a very large fashion, causing time to appear, for change is time and time is change. Is it because real somethings cannot remain timeless, balanced, and of perfect symmetry, to the nth degree, as unlike platonic forms that can?

Space appeared, too, for there became room for it. Or it is that the room is space, its lone physical (if not material) quantity being volume. Or is it that particles and their fields or fields and their particles make up all that we call 'space'?

An aside: 'ct' seems to translate 'time' into a spacetime distance, as a 4D difference of 3D spaces (plural intended) ? And spaces seem to be a difference or interval of time, as d/c.

In a singularity, everything is at the same 0-dimensional point, where there is no space and no time, in a conjectured superposition of symmetry, which we might regard as 'less than' the existence of space, time, and particles, but it is still something, never-the-less, although it seems less, as even a near nothing, but not a nothing at all, as it's still something, which makes all the difference. Existence requires space and time, which formed as spacetime at the beginning of the universe, and therefore they, being existence, seem to have had to come from a lessor existence, but, not really, for they were still inherent therein.

So we have, philosophically and logically, and partially by Big Bang and other science, that something (so far) is the only option, always there, at least as an option, but we have only touched on the mechanics and the implications involved.

The Stuff Forever that could no longer contain itself as a singularity, changing its form and 'banging' into a universe, obviously met a constraint that was being built up to in its wave form—since matter and spacetime came after the 'bang', as a low probability, but guaranteed (eventually), event, so we can go on to say about the only possible wave state of the Forever Something as the how and why of the 'bang', as well as the 'what' of the waves. Yes, it is a tall order, but we know that it could only do what it did, since all action is only from itself, there being no external directives possible for what is itself causeless. So, we expect to get 'lucky' in finding the only possible wave equation.

The symmetry of a balance of opposites even carries on into the universe, as it must; for the essence can't go away, for that's all there is, making the universe to be a change in form of it.

Meanwhile... a few more foundations, and some higher effects, which are necessary to go through in any case.

On Diversity and 'Emergence'

The origin of diversity is undiversified, unstructured 'prime' matter and energy. Whatever it is, it is the fundamental building block or blocks from which all matter as we know it is formed. The particles of matter combine and come apart and the product particles continue the process. Most combinations that we know contain less energy than their components because they lost energy in combining. Therefore they need to get energy back to come apart. For that reason they are relatively stable combinations, and their stability is why they are yet present to us.

These particles, by virtue of existing as matter with energy, are in motion. Collisions occur. Some collisions result in combining of the particles. Some of the consequent combinations are stable and unlikely to come apart. That is the first step of diversification. Now the process continues except that an additional type particle, the double particle just formed at the first step, is involved and available to participate in combinations. Thus more varied combinations can occur. Further new types are produced and diversity expands ever increasingly more rapidly as more types participate in making new combinations, making further new participant types.

It occurs unavoidably if matter and energy are present. It is the simplest case, the fundamental form of changes in quantity yielding changes in quality, type, kind, as in the Periodic Table of the Elements.

The rate of diversification and the potential variety increase rapidly as each new variation occurs, as shown in the mathematics of combinations. It is a process that generates the elements, the molecules, the substances, the chemistry, geology, biology of the universe as we know it. The mechanisms vary but evolutions do occur, as they are built up on underlying evolutions at progressively simpler levels, involving existing types interacting with each other unavoidably, where changes in combinations and quantities produce new types, which new types increase the options available for further new types, this often being called 'emergence'.

Diversity is the inevitable result when 'prime' matter and energy exist' as diversity from potential. No master plan containing it all in final form is needed; only the beginning is needed and the rest will follow. The specific details of the result are a matter of circumstance but the potential is existential.

The Goal and the Method

From where (which is really how and why) came the prime matter and energy (if from anywhere), this being the material, the motive force, and the form (in potential) of the entire universe, and how does it all operate?

Because the universe exists this question must have a rational solution. I am looking into the Something Forever option, for the Something From Nothing option seems very much stalled, as to any possible mechanics, but....

The solution of Something(s) Forever as the origin of the universe must be complete, not needing itself to be further explained, justified, or rationalized. What we call the 'natural laws of physics' must be shown as inherent characteristics of matter and energy, an in turn how they are or became, of the same inherence beneath—of no choice, since causeless. It is the no-choice, default condition that narrows the choices and leads to the ultimate knowledge, when the basic or the basic(s) are never made, but always were and still are. The focus for now is on the singular, but who knows, it could become two, or more. This is not to say that my exploring of the Something Forever option means that is it the answer.

Infinity...

Bear in mind that no characteristic, parameter, nature, capability, thing, or whatever can be infinite. Infinity can be dealt with in mathematics, but it is impossible in any physical reality. What is total, whole, or complete does not mean that it is infinite. Things, characteristics and so forth can be all of what they are—and that it is possible to be as finite. The something of the Something Forever would be of eternal duration, but of finite extent.

Then there is the notion of 'eternal' to be shown as possible or not, as in Something Forever, or even, as perhaps a stretch into the negative, in Something From Nothing, but, in either case, a state changed into the universe, and so an interruption had to have happened, but an unavoidable one. The 'eternal' business will be dealt with.

As I am on the Something Forever option I will continue to look at that one, but, in general, something (or even a lack of anything) cannot stay as the same form forever, because, (1) That didn't happen, since a universe formed, and (2) Even during an infinite duration (called 'eternal'), if taken as possible, of something (or even of not anything), the probability of change is 100%, for the probability of change operates on infinite or near infinite opportunity, as in potentially infinite. Otherwise, all would have just stayed in its original form—and there would have been no universe.

The View From Here...

We stand on Sol's third planet, looking for the basic something, whose essence must persist all around us within its materialized forms. The 'something' was changeable, as in the 'bang', its multiplicity having to ever be true to itself, though.

Before this realization, we thought to poke around in the giant haystack of the universe, to find the needle, and we did find some great things out, such as all the 'sum-things' balancing to zero, but the pinhead of the 'singularity' wasn't there anymore in the form it had been, if it even had been as such, as even a 'singularity'. Perhaps, rather, it was as large as the universe, yet still single, as a giant neutron.

There is much that we do understand, high and low, and near and far, so now we aim for the ultimate source, but we always did look, anyway. We looked to the sun, it filling our eyes with spots, and finding a nuclear furnace.

Stars had breathed life into us. All is as it had to be, for it became and is here, as workable, and so there is a relation among all things, which ever reflects the source.

So we add logic to our science, to clear away the haystack that clutters our view, and wonder, "What is it that everything in the universe has in common in its diversified forms?"

Eventually it hits us: waves, perhaps knocking us over. Everything has waves, from violins to oceans to particles. The eternal something or 'sum-thing', if from nothing, is a wave—an oscillation, and its opposite. In one fell swoop we have more than narrowed the field, for it is the field. No longer having to be blinded by looking at the sun, we bask in the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind of logic ever leading the way. We are past what we think it ought to be, freed of our being part of it as to wishes and desires that can get in the way. We use math to refine the wave, guided by logic, and so now we are using methods as dependable and eternal as that which we seek.

The something of the wave's characteristics turns out to be only what it can be, as it has no external directives. It is the default condition. All the other options to what it could be melt away, as impossible, leaving but one or two default option, that of how it is, and why, although not exactly what.

The size/amount of the universe is inherent in it, as, too, it can only be what it is. There are no more puzzlement about why the amount wasn't more or why it wasn't less. We find its only and exact changing point of materialization, for there can be no other. Energy is conserved, for this cannot be any other way. The 'elementary' forces are unified. The universe, in its materialized form, is in plain view, and we are in it, and of it: it is the entire haystack, and the needle is everywhere.

We, too, must do as we must, although that can change from learning, to a new 'must do', but at least it's one based on a wider range of information as to the consequences. At first, we do not like this state of affairs, but then the other shoe drops, for the alternative (that isn't possible) would be that our thoughts and actions do not depend on anything at all, and so then we come more to 'like' how it really is, although only in that that's how it has to be. The determinism inherent in the states beneath doesn't explicitly show up the felt states of being. Introspection doesn't reveal it, for what is beneath is not apparent directly. We only know of it from the externals of science. Relying only on one's internals for knowledge has its limits.

There is still the puzzle of cause and effect not seeming to apply to the base existence itself, as, well, not from anything, which is as to say as from nothing, but the answer falls out of our derivation of the wave's nature.

The 'needle' knits the fabric of the universe with the thread of the wave. We have made our way to the depths of the deep, Logic guided us, math provided, the 'default conditions' waved us on, and science confirmed.

There is one last step we need to take to improve our view of the universe for what we are working on (waves), and that is to visualize it as it really is, untranslated by our senses on into the brain, and which exercise will serve to mostly remove us from ourselves, at least the part that could get in the way.

Since we only really 'see' the insides of our heads, the re-presented internal 'reality' is but second-hand, although a useful (and often somewhat better) face has been painted upon onto this external reality that we never contact directly (well, the senses do, but we do not see this jumble of fields directly in consciousness).

So, you might be seeing a red tomato sitting on a green or bluish counter in your kitchen, or in your imagination—as a fainter image of the same, or you might see or imagine the solar system, it having a sun, moon, and planets.

We are now going to try to look, imagine, and visualize how reality really is, out there, not in here. First, note that the red of the tomato and the blue of the counter are differing wavelengths of the visual portion of the e/m wave spectrum, which through the eye and the visual systems of the brain are re-presented in the brain as 'red' and 'blue'.

So, look at the tomato and the counter again, but render them as waves, as they really are, out there, the waves being more concentrated where the objects are. Then do this for the entire universe. And that's what we'll be working with. You can extend this technique to the other senses, too, such as visualizing the waves of air-vibrations that are to become the 'sounds' in your ears, or, as 'taste' or 'smell', molecules arriving, which in turn, are clumps of waves. Even what is re-presented in the brain as light is really, out there, but a lot of photons (waves).

So, we see that while 'red' and 'blue' look different because their wave frequencies differ, they are both waves at heart, and not such totally separate things after all.

The Two Options' Commonality

So now we take another, slight diversion, but we do so since they ever come into play later or overall, and that's why they are here. It seems that Something From Nothing vs the Something Forever are options that come close to being the same, if not the same, at heart.

If there is Something Forever then the something doesn't come from anywhere, as it's ever there, as causeless, which could be an incomplete tale, since if the story is broken down further it could have the meaning and the indication that the something comes from nowhere and is made of not anything, which, is, well, a lot like saying that it came from nothing. But, the something could be some very minimal, almost intangible thing, as a default, if nothing cannot be; yet, there is really nothing to make anything of, and so it's tough to consider a thing as always made without it ever having been made, in the first place, one which never was.

Similarly, about the Something From Nothing option, it is also seems rather causeless, but the important point is that the capability itself, that which turns nothing into something, would have to be eternal, which is forever, this still being a something in itself, or it is that nothing is not really nothing, but is a necessarily the near-nothing of the near-intangible hinted at above.

One may argue that the something itself, if produced from nothing, had a beginning, at least as of that form, and could even happen somewhere else, but the something itself is not past-eternal, as it would be in the Something Forever case; yet, the essence of the 'something' would still eternal, as being the something from nothing capability, and what is of the essence is still it, albeit in a changed form.

There could even be another, separate stream of Something Forever which is of the same something as from another stream, just as another Something From Nothing could produce the same material. The same for different streams having different content, which could only be if we see that our primal wave basis can have more than one option. And perhaps the Something From Nothing could have another stream that produces different somethings. The stream of either could also each have different somethings in them. But, the birth of all that is the universe happened as a whole, all the elementaries coming out at the same time, and they still have symmetry showing, such as opposing charge and matter/anti-matter states, even produced in pairs, kinetic vs potential energy, and many more, so it really seems that there would only be one stream.

A basic misunderstanding that the Big Bang, and the subsequent radiation, occurred in the same fashion as any other event in three dimensional spacetime. It did not. It IS three dimensional space and time. The Big Bang was the creation and expansion of space and the beginning of time. It was an all-together thing.

So, both Something From Nothing and Something Forever have some commonality, in that both have an eternal aspect, both have very tiny, quite minuscule material basics, both could be multiple streams, both show symmetry in the material, both 'banged', both have the same expanding universe, and all its other properties, both have a 'nothing' aspect, one as fairly direct and one as implied, and both had an interruption in a big way to any quietus they had before.

Since there are only the two options, we could take what they have in common as being the absolute truth of what must be, which is primarily the 'eternal' aspect, and so it is that this 'eternal', itself, had no creation, which might be of interest to the religious, for it would have had no Creator. Even without the 'eternal' aspect, neither something from nothing nor forever stuff can be 'God'.

An aside: Some say that 'God' is in their felt state of being; however, this is a 'second story' account coming from the 'first story' of the states beneath, which are not accessible internally, but one can be informed of them externally, via science's findings. Some people are wholly taken in by the second story, but that is not the whole story, as the author (the chemical substrate) is not apparent. Or they may know the science behind sensation, feeling, and cognition, but the belief overwhelms any meaningful realization and incorporation of it.

I'm still going along here on the Something Forever option, concentrating on the interruption that made for our wavy universe of a lot of balance symmetry, whether of a singular explosion or a similar outpouring happening all over the 'place', although the latter is likely, as it would match the size of the universe, as well as that the 'Bang' did seem to be everywhere, and, of course, it made the space of that 'where' as it went along. Empty space or the lack of space is not anything, which is 'nothing'.

A Continuous Function

The constituent(s) of Something Forever (if it is) must be unitary, that of a continuous unity, with no breaks or lessor parts, such as like that of a line or a wave (a wavy line), for not anything can precede the basis, as it is/was always there, just as it is, in its essence, which ever remains, even if changing its form, as even then it is still there as what it changed into, which could be a very rapid change, as in becoming the universe, or at least the culminating part was.

For now we will wonder about how and why it had to change form, which was really of the unstructured form of the unformed changing into the more and more formed and structured, as some of that process will tell of its ultimate nature. The conservation laws must be heeded, as well as our paying attention to the symmetry that is already indicated. I will get back to this, after some other things, though here is a glimpse into the mechanics...

Fields/Energies are the most elementary somethings that we know of, so we will ever start with a wave, as that also meets the unitary and continuous requirement of the basic something, plus all the particles of the universe have some wave behavior. The basis is like a something and an anti-something, both being somethings, but opposite, such as negative and positive waves—sum-things.

We will need trigonometry. Essentially, the waves build, but meet a proven problem with bandwidth limitations, and then a universe emerges from the terrifical overload, which also explains the exact amount of matter that the universe has, which, again, as ever for everything, can only be what it is, there being no outside directives to the basis. The 'Big Bang' could have been everywhere that the size of the primal wave was.

We'll have to see what interrupted Something Forever, which could only be itself, but which still allows the forever aspect, such as before (using time) or the 'as is' aspect (with no time). It does seem that the interruption must occur in some kind of time, unless time was created by it, yet there would still seem to be a 'before' and 'after' the change, even if all was 'sameness' before, as in no cause, or 'eternal'. Hint: the impossibility of infinity is the cause, and the barest minimum of something happening would be sufficient to interrupt, to be a change, in the 'perfect' symmetry. In reality, everything leaks, although perhaps not in Plato's ideal realm.

Space and Time

'Space' is the potentiality for anything that by its nature can exhibit or experience the characteristic 'volume' to so exhibit or experience it, as well as a change in its volume or location, which is displacement. How matter/energy behaves in space is its own business, we taking them to be separate from space, although occupying it. The 'infinite potential' of space to be anywhere and everywhere as this or that volume has itself no existence, since it is a concept, so it doesn't conflict with the impossibility of an actual infinity, but an actual infinite volume or displacement of space would be a conflict, and is impossible. No worries, though, for the Something of Something Forever is not infinite in extent; however, it seems to have to be of eternal duration, so that will have to be accounted for somehow.

'Time' is the potentiality for anything that can exhibit or experience the characteristic 'duration' to so exhibit or experience it. However, unlike the case with space, anything and everything can exhibit or experience duration—even an idea in one's head.

While infinite extent is only of one direction—as to the largest, the potentiality for eternal duration extends eternally into both the past and the future, so it has two directions, somewhat like that the potentiality for volume extends infinitely in all directions. But, just as with space, time is only a concept and involves no conflict with the impossibility of infinity (taken as eternity), but infinite (eternal) duration would involve a conflict, an absurdity, but not the mere potentiality of it, such as to be of this duration or that, then or now, or whatever. This is of some concern to the Something Forever idea, so we must explain it somehow, perhaps through symmetry being a necessity, and so we might combine this with the how and the why the interruption occurred that changed form into a universe, since, in any case, a 'forever' duration of Something without a change of the unexercised potentiality of space—a Something that has to be simple, whole, unitary, continuous, and of no volume did, in fact, change—its form changing to real-ize spacetime into existence.

The 'eternal' duration of the absolute primal something would have 'completed' if our universe had not originated, but the change necessitated and made inevitable that very origin.

The What...

But, then, how is the original 'something' to be explained? And just what was it? It was, first of all, the non-condition of anything and everything to be found in the universe that followed it: matter, energy and all of the forms and ramifications. Secondly it was simple, whole, unitary, continuous, and of no volume. Its former existence consisted of the duration without change of the unexercised potentiality of space.

How does something simple yet representing everything in the universe change for into the expression of the universe? First is the problem of change from 'little' or 'nothing' to something large without, at least initially, as an infinite rate of change, which is impossible. Second is the problem of change without violating conservation.

Note: Since Emmy Noether used time symmetry to note the conservation of energy, is there no longer a law of conservation of energy if space is expanding?

We will try to see why symmetry and conservation must be so, and that the universe itself is the source of all data and knowledge as the direct reflections of reality's underlying structure, and not data and knowledge of human creations.

The Rate of Change

To avoid a material infinity the rate of change at the moment of the change must have been finite. Rather than an instantaneous jump from a little to a lot of something, no matter how small or 'negligible' that something might have been, there had to be a gradual transition at a finite rate of change. Further, the rate of change of that rate of change, the change's second derivative, at that moment had to have been finite, and so on _ad infinitum_ for all of the further derivatives.

The Equation (Ellman's)

That requirement means that the form of the change had to have been either a natural exponential or some form of sinusoid. We seek the form of the change as a function _U(t)_ , the 'U' being for universe.

The only possible form for the manner in which our universe began is a sinusoidal oscillatory form. Oscillations, waves, are ubiquitous in our universe because the universe began from an initial such oscillatory form. There simultaneously had to have arisen an identical-in-form but opposite-in-amplitude oscillation so that the pair balanced out.

The function must not be open-ended, that is it cannot ever have an infinite amplitude, and the function must smoothly match the _U(t)=0 'change'_ condition at _t=0, as 13.57 billion years ago._

What about:

U(t)=0, for t<0 and U(t)=t^2, for t=0 and t>0, where 't' is time.

Well, the first derivatives, for before and after 't' are 0 (unstated) and 2t; the second derivatives are 0 and 2 (discontinuous); and the third derivative, which is the rate of change of the second derivative must be infinite at _t=0_ to produce the instantaneous jump from _0_ to _2._ That cannot have happened in the real universe, so the function fails.

One can conceive of the idea of a function for which all derivatives are non-zero and no two are alike (in a general sense analogous to the pattern of digits in an irrational number), but it is not likely that such a function can exist. In any case the more certain and more simple way to achieve all non-zero derivatives is a repeating derivative function, such as:

dU(t)/ dt = ± U(t) [First derivative = the original function] or

d^2 U(t) / dt^2 ± U(t) [Second derivative = the original function]

It is a function that might seem usable, meeting the repeating derivative function is of the natural exponent, ε, is:

U(t)=0, for t<0 and t=0

U(t)= εt–1, for t>0 = t + t^2 / 2! + t^3 / 3! +...

which does have zero value at _t=0_ and otherwise meets the derivatives requirement.

Of the functions that meet the requirement that the second derivative equal the original function per equation there are just a few, only one of which, as Cos(t) - 1, remains, as the others are open-ended (going to infinite value) or the tangent to U(t) at t=0 is not identical to the tangent to the function for t < 0, which is the horizontal t-axis, meaning not zero at t-0.

Well, we already knew that the conditions had to be a forced default. The other candidates were

εt - 1, Cosh(t) \- 1, Sinh(t), and Sin(t).

So, combining the times and adding in a frequency parameter, 'f', we have

U(t) = U0·[1 - Cos(2π·f·t)],

with U0 being an amplitude parameter.

Again to maintain conservation and to avoid getting something from nothing, there is an identical-in-form but opposite-in-amplitude oscillation so that the pair balances out, so, then:

U(t) = ± U0·[1 \- Cos(2π·f·t)]

The universe coming into being had to avoid an infinity of amplitude, an infinite of rate of change, and had to maintain conservation.

Why Did it Happen?

A duration is the period of time that a particular state or set of conditions persists. The duration is terminated by a change, which change also initiates a new duration. In the universe change is ubiquitous. It is the constant and continuous stream of change that makes durations able to be measurable. Before the beginning of the universe a duration was in process even though it was not able to be measurable (mensurable). The beginning of the universe was the first change and it terminated the original primal duration.

The probability of the happening of such an event as the universe beginning in the manner described above was/is extremely small. But the event was/is not impossible, since it happened. Furthermore, in the absence of that event occurring there was an extremely large duration of opportunity in which that extremely small probability could operate. In the absence of the beginning the original duration would have been infinite and that infinite opportunity operated on by minute, but non-zero, probability results in absolute certainty. The beginning of the universe could not avoid happening eventually.

Size or amount of time are of no meaning here because there is nothing to which they can be compared or by which they can be measured. Whatever amount of change occurred is what occurred. Whatever time it took, or went on for, whatever its oscillatory frequency was, is what happened. Twice as much or half as much have no meaning.

Deductions

There are now three conclusions about the initial oscillatory _U0·[1 - Cos(2π·f·t)]_ form can now be had:

The universe of today must be an on-going evolved consequence of its beginning, of the initial oscillatory form;

The frequency, _f,_ of the sinusoidal oscillation was, and is, very large; and

The nature of the change is one of concentration or density of the something that is oscillating.

The frequency would have to be either very large or very small, high enough so that it is not detected or noticed by us in every day life or so low that it appears to us as no change at all in our experience.

It has already that the only possible form for the manner in which the universe began is a sinusoidal oscillatory form because oscillations, waves, are ubiquitous in our universe.

If the frequency of the initial oscillation were so small that it appears to us as no change at all then it would completely eliminate oscillations playing any significant part in the behavior of the universe as we know it. Therefore, the frequency must have been very large, so rapid compared to our perception that we do not notice the oscillation at all.

The change can hardly be one of gross size if it is going on right now at high frequency as has just been concluded. One can conceive of the fundamental 'substance', the 'something' of the universe flashing into and out of existence from a zero to a maximum density or concentration in an oscillatory fashion at a rate so high that we neither detect nor notice it at all; but, it is not possible to entertain a concept of reality flashing from zero to full size, a size that includes ourselves and our environment, in such a fashion.

Besides, the reality that we know is not "flashing into and out of existence ...." Our reality is more the oscillation itself than what is oscillating and the continuing oscillation is our steady, constant reality.

Thus the interruption that gave us our universe was the starting of an oscillation, present to us at a very high frequency, and of _U0·[1 - Cos(2π·f·t)]_ form, of the _density,_ as the variation will be hereafter referred to, of the _medium._

So then...

What about the identical-in-form but opposite-in-amplitude oscillation that maintains conservation and what is the medium, what is that which is oscillating?

All so far has applied both to the 'negative' oscillation, _-U(t),_ and the 'positive' oscillation, _+U(t),_ because the exact same reasoning as for _+U(t)_ applies to _-U(t)_ and, after all, they are not distinguishable in the discussion. The terms '+' and '-' are merely terms of convenience for two equal form opposite magnitude unknown things. We probably tend to think of our universe as the '+', but that is meaningless and irrelevant. There can be no objective designation of _+U(t)_ and _-U(t),_ no way to identify one versus the other. Both had to appear and our universe cannot avoid being the evolved result of both.

The question could arise as to whether _+U(t)_ and _–U(t)_ are co-located or separate. The answer is that they must be co-located. Their function relative to each other is to maintain overall conservation from the beginning. That conservation must be maintained locally and generally, which requires that they occupy the same space. They initially are identical except for their _+/-_ oppositeness and therefore each must obey the same laws thereafter. Those laws practice conservation, and consequently conservation will be maintained if the beginning conserved it, which it did.

Since _+U(t)_ and _-U(t)_ are co-located, the universe that we know and exist in is the combined integrated result of both _+U(t)_ and _-U(t)._ The '+' and '-' electric charges of our universe, in both matter in protons and electrons and in anti-matter as anti-protons and positrons, must derive from that aspect of the beginning. This is rather akin to the yin and yang of the tao in oriental philosophy.

The question of what the medium is can only be answered in terms of its characteristics, what it does and how. It is useless to attempt to use human terms (gas, jelly, field, aether, or whatever) to describe that which so far underlies the things our vocabulary was developed to describe. The characteristics of the medium are its definition. The medium is:

A continuous entity, not a mass of 'particles' nor anything having parts;

Simple and uniform throughout, except, of course, for the density variations, the oscillation; and

Of minimum 'tangibility' or 'substantiality'.

The problems remaining to be resolved are:

Why did the effects of the equation not cancel? and

How did the beginning produce the Big Bang and evolve into our universe of today?

First, to Help Resolve—

**The** _Development of the Unified Field Concepts_

(from Roger Ellman)

Electric Field

Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, _c._ Given two static electric charges separated and with the usual Coulomb force between them, if one of the charges is moved the change can produce no effect on the other charge until a time equal to the distance between them divided by _c_ has elapsed.

For that time delay to happen there must be something flowing from the one charge to the other at speed _c_ and the charge must be the source of that flow.

The Coulomb effect is radially outward from the charge, therefore every charge must be propagating such a flow radially outward in all directions from itself, which flow must be the 'electric field'.

Motion of Charge and 'At Rest'

Comparing two such charges, one moving at constant velocity relative to the other, at least one of the charges is moving with some velocity, _v._

The flow (of 'field') outward from that charge must always travel at _c._ Forward it would go at _[c + v]_ if propagated at _c_ from the source charge already moving that way at _v._ Therefore, it must be sent forward from the charge at _[c - v]_ so that it will travel at _c_ when the _v_ of its source charge is added. Flowfwd=[c–v]

Analogously, rearward it would go at speed _[c - v]_ if propagated at _c_ from the source charge already moving the opposite way at _v._ Therefore, it must be emitted rearward from the charge at _[c + v]_ so that it will travel at speed _c_ when the _v_ of the source charge in the opposite direction is subtracted. Flowrwd=[c+v]

But, that rearward – forward differential means that the direction and speed of motion can be determined by looking at the propagation pattern of the flow as propagated by the charge.

And, if the pattern were the same in all directions then the charge would be truly 'at rest', which means that there is an absolute 'at rest' frame of reference.

Unification of Fields

Except for the kind of field, all of the preceding applies in the same way and with the same conclusions for magnetic field and gravitational field as for electric field.

Therefore, either a particle that exhibits all three such fields, as for example a proton or an electron, is a source of three separate and distinct such flows, one for each field, or there is only a single such flow which produces all three effects: electric, magnetic, and gravitational.

The only reasonable conclusion is that electric, magnetic, and gravitational field are different effects of the same sole flow from the source particles.

Sources and Their Decay

The flow is not inconsequential. Rather, it accounts for the forces, actions and energies of our universe. For a particle to emit such a flow the particle must be a source of whatever it is that is emitted outward. The particle must have a supply of it.

The process of emitting the flow from a particle must deplete the supply resource for the particle's emitting further flow, must use up part of its supply, else we would have something-from-nothing and a violation of conservation.

It must be concluded that an original supply of that which is flowing came into existence at the beginning of the universe and has since been gradually being depleted at each particle by its on-going outward flow.

That Which is Flowing

The flow is a property of contemporary particles. Those particles are evolved successors to the original oscillations with which the universe began. Then, that which is flowing is the same original primal 'medium', the substance of the original oscillations at the beginning of the universe.

Since it is flowing outward from the myriad particles of the universe simultaneously and that flow is interacting with myriad others of those particles without untoward interference, the 'medium' must be extremely intangible for all of that to take place, any one particle's flow flowing largely freely through that of other particles, as intangible as, well, 'field'.

More on Field, but Ever Onto the Answer to the Beginning

Before the universe began there was no universe as now. Immediately afterward there was the initial supply of medium to be propagated by particles. How can one get from the former to the latter while: (1) not involving an infinite rate of change, and (2) maintaining conservation?

The only form that can accommodate the change from more-or-less nothing to something much in a smooth transition without an infinite rate of change is the oscillatory form of equation _,_ below.

U0·[1 - Cos(2π·f·t)]

The only way that such an oscillation can be in existence without violating conservation is for there simultaneously to be into existence a second oscillation, the negative of first equation, as follows.

-U0·[1-Cos(2π·f·t)]

That is, the two simultaneous oscillations must have been such as to yield a net of not anything, the prior starting point, when taken together.

The Oscillatory Medium Flow ≡ Electric charge and field

The initial medium supply of each particle, each being a direct 'descendant' of the original oscillation at the universe's beginning, must be oscillatory in form per the two equations _._ Therefore the radially outward flow from each particle is likewise an oscillatory medium flow of the form of equations _._

The flow is radially outward from the particle, therefore, the oscillation of the medium supply of each particle is a spherical oscillation. The particle can also be termed a _center-of-oscillation,_ which term will also be used here.

The amplitude, _U0,_ of the _[1-Cosine]_ form oscillation is the amplitude of the flow emitted from the source particle, which flow corresponds to the electric field. Thus the oscillation amplitude must be the charge magnitude of the source particle—the fundamental electric charge, _q,_ in the case of the fundamental particles, the electron and the proton. Then, the conservation-maintaining distinction of amplitude _+U0_ versus amplitude _-U0_ must be the positive / negative charge distinction.

The frequency, _f,_ of the _[1-Cosine]_ form oscillation must then correspond to the energy and mass of the source particle, that is the energy of the oscillation is _E = h·f_ and the mass is _m = E/c^2 = h·f / c^2._

While it does not pertain to the universe's beginning, because the outward medium flow from each particle must deplete the source particle's remaining supply of medium for further propagation, the amplitude magnitude, _U0,_ must exponentially decay. That is, it must be of the form of the equation: ⎢U(t)⎢ = U0 · ε^-t/τ

Medium Emission and Medium Flow

When a charge is at rest, medium is emitted by it and flows outward in the same manner in all directions, but, when the charge is in motion at constant velocity, _v,_ the flow forward is emitted at speed _[c-v]_ and rearward at _[c+v]_ per above. There can be only one frequency, _f,_ in the _[1-Cosine(2π·f·t)]_ form oscillation of the emitted flow regardless of whether it is directed forward, rearward or sideward. Therefore, to obtain the slower speed, _[c - v],_ emitted forward the wavelength forward, λfwd , must be shorter so that the speed at which the flow is emitted, = _f·λfwd_ , will be slower. The case is analogous rearward where λrwd is longer in order for the speed, [c+v], to be greater.

In all directions from the moving charge, including any that are partially sideward plus partially forward or rearward, the speed of emission and the wavelength emitted will be the resultant of the sideward plus forward or rearward components of a ray in that direction.

The absolute rate of flow outward of the emitted medium must be at speed _c._ Forward that comes about because the forward speed of the charge, _v,_ adds to the forward speed at which the medium is emitted, _[c-v],_ resulting in the medium flowing at the speed of the sum, _speed = v+[c-v] = c._

That speed increase raises the _[1 - Cosine(2π·f·t)]_ form oscillation frequency (per the Doppler Effect). Thus forward medium flow speed is _c = ffwd·λfwd_ . Analogously rearward the speed of medium flow is at _c = frwd·λrwd_.

In all directions from the moving charge, including any that are partially sideward plus partially forward or rearward, the speed of flow will be _c_ and the frequency and wavelength of the flow will be the resultant of the sideward plus forward or rearward components of a ray in that direction.

Magnetic Field

A charge at rest exhibits the electrostatic effect but not the magnetic effect. That charge has a spherically uniform pattern of _[1 - Cosine(2π·f·t)]_ form oscillatory medium emission and flow outward.

A charge in motion exhibits the magnetic effect in addition to the electrostatic effect. That charge has a pattern of emission and outward flow of medium that is cylindrically symmetrical about the direction of motion but that varies in wavelength and frequency from _ffwd·λfwd_ forward to _frwd·λrwd_ rearward.

The electrostatic [Coulomb's Law] effect is due to charge location. The magnetic [Ampere's Law] effect is due to charge motion. Clearly, then, the electrostatic effect is due to the spherically uniform medium flow from the charge and the magnetic effect is due to the change in shape of that medium flow pattern caused by the charge's motion.

Electro-Magnetic Field

There is a continuous emission of medium in _[1-Cosine(2π·f·t)]_ oscillatory form from each charge, which medium flows outward, away, forever. Constant velocity motion of a charge produces a change in the frequency and wavelength of that medium flow.

Changes in the velocity of the charge cause corresponding further changes in the medium's oscillatory form as successive increments of medium are emitted and flow outward from the charge. Earlier increments so changed propagate on outward away from the charge, forever, at _c._ The stream of outward flowing medium carries a history of the motions of the source charge.

Propagating electromagnetic field is the carrying of both of those field aspects as an imprint on the otherwise uniform medium flow from the charged particle, an imprint analogous to the modulation of a carrier wave in radio communications.

Electro-magnetic field is caused by acceleration / deceleration of charge, that is by changes in the charge velocity. Therefore:

The changing electric and magnetic fields of electro-magnetic field actually are form changes imprinted onto the outgoing medium flow and carried passively with it [analogous to modulation of a carrier wave in radio communications].

Because all medium flow is spherically outward in all directions from its source charge, changes in it, caused by changes in the source velocity, propagate outward in all directions. Those medium flow changes are the changing electric and changing magnetic fields of electro-magnetic field.

It is not the speed of light which is the fundamental constant, _c,_ light being a mere modulatory imprint on medium flow. It is the speed of medium flow which is the fundamental constant, _c._

Gravitational Field

As pointed out earlier above, the frequency, _f,_ of the _[1 - Cosine]_ form oscillation corresponds to the mass of the source particle. Therefore the frequency aspect of the radially outward medium flow is the 'gravitational field.'

The Answer

Further Analysis of the Beginning's Initial Oscillations

The analysis so far has developed the only form that can accommodate the requirements of the beginning of the universe, change from little or nothing to something in a smooth transition without an infinite rate of change while also not violating conservation.

Figure 3:

Examination of this wave form reveals two problems. One, that it is an immediate mutual annihilation, will be dealt with shortly below. Of concern now is that an infinite rate of change still remains. The envelope of the oscillation has an infinite rate of change at _t=t0_ as can be seen in Figure 4, below, which displays the envelope. That infinite rate of change is no more acceptable than that of the original problem.

Figure 4:

Viewed in a mathematical or graphical sense without any consideration of the physical reality represented, the envelope discontinuity at _t=t0_ is not a difficulty. The only quantity that actually exists and is varying is the overall _U(t)._ The envelope is merely our perception of a characteristic of the wave form. The actual varying quantity, per Figure 3, has no discontinuity at _t = t0_ for the reasons already presented.

However, looked at in a physical sense the oscillations depicted in Figure 3 are the effects called _energy, mass,_ and _charge_ embodied in what we call a 'particle' and are something other than nothing. They are a material physical reality that did not exist prior to the beginning of the universe. They can no more leap from zero to a finite non-zero amount than could the original _U(t)_ so leap. That infinite rate of change in the amount of _energy / mass / charge / oscillation_ at _t=t0_ is no more acceptable than was the infinite rate of change encountered in the original analysis of the probable beginning and it must be corrected by the same kind of reasoning as then pursued: the envelope, also, had to originate as a _[1 - Cosine]_ form of oscillation, the only form that avoids an infinite rate of change and matches the requirements of the situation.

That original envelope oscillation was at a lesser frequency than the original wave by the definition of a wave form envelope. If it were at a greater frequency then the roles (envelope and wave) would be reversed. If it were at the same frequency it would not act as an envelope and the infinity problem would remain. If we designate the envelope frequency as _fenv_ and the frequency of the wave oscillation within the envelope as _fwve_ then the envelope would be of the following form.

_(21)_ Uenv = [1 - Cos(2π·fenv·t)] The wave is, as before, of the form

_(22)_ Uwve = ± U0·[1 - Cos(2π·fwve·t)]

and the envelope-modulated wave is per equation _(23)_ and Figure 5.

_(23)_ U(t) = [Uenv]·[Uwve]

= ± U0·[1 - Cos(2π·fenv·t)]·[1 - Cos(2π·fwve·t)]

The '±' in the expression accounts for the oscillation being of both _+U(t)_ and _–U(t),_ of course, so that conservation is maintained.There is no contention here that _+U(t)_ represents 'positive' _energy/mass_ and _-U(t)_ negative. Neither the mass effect nor the energy effect is a 'real' reality. The only reality is the oscillations; all else is our perception of the effects that are produced by the centers and their waves. Among those effects are what we have chosen to refer to as _mass_ and _energy._

Figure 5:

The only reality, the oscillation, consists of two equal and opposite oscillations that mutually maintain conservation.

There is no such thing as negative mass or energy. Negative energy amounts are spoken of in physics discussions but they are not absolutely negative, only negative relative to some other defined energy. For example, the energy of an atom's orbital electrons is negative relative to the energy that they would have if they were free of the atom.

Photons and electromagnetic waves carry energy and it is always 'positive'. That is our perception of the effects that they produce. Actually, so far as the underlying outward propagating medium wave on which the photon E-M wave is a modulating imprint is concerned, a photon deriving from a particle / center-of-oscillation in _–U(t)_ is _180°_ out of phase with one deriving from a _+U(t)_ particle / center-of-oscillation, and reflects the same conservation as the original _+U(t)_ and _–U(t)_ oscillations. Likewise, electro-magnetic radiation from a positive particle's motion is _180°_ out of phase with E-M radiation from a correspondingly moving negative particle.

However, the form of _U(t)_ of equation _(23)_ and Figure 5 still does not resolve the problem of an infinite rate of change at _t=t0._ The _[1 - Cosine]_ envelope is itself an oscillation that begins at _t0_ with a sudden step from zero to its full amplitude. Figure 5 shows the first two cycles of that envelope oscillation, which if only the envelope is considered, is a simple oscillation at the envelope frequency, even though visually, in the figure, it is only the trace of the peaks of the overall complex oscillation. It is _energy/mass/oscillation_ that begins suddenly in its full amount at _t0_ just as, in Figure 3, the oscillation of equation _(21)_ begins at _t0._

Therefore, it is necessary to introduce yet another envelope of _[1 - Cosine]_ form to prevent the infinite rate of change at _t0_ in the prior envelope. That correction will in turn require still another such correction and so _ad infinitum._ Apparently at this point an infinite string of envelopes thus results as a necessity of the situation. The resulting _U(t)_ would then be

(24) U(t) = ± U0· PROD of i=∞ [1- Cos(2π·fenvi·t)]× ... i=1

... ×[1- Cos(2π·fwve ·t)]

where the PROD symbol (really a large π, Greek 'p') means the product of the indicated factors of the 'Cosmic Egg' except that several other considerations further modify the situation.

(1) While the foregoing reasoning is sequential—from an original wave to an original wave and its envelope, then to a second envelope, and then another _ad infinitum—_ the event was instantaneous. It is analogous to the manner in which a cosine function, which has an infinite set of derivatives (which are the means by which it avoids an infinite rate of change), springs 'full blown' into existence rather than occurring as the function followed by the first derivative, then the second, and so forth; so the overall original oscillation, ± _U(t)_ with its infinite set of envelopes also had to spring 'full blown' into existence, not appearing first with one, then a second, and so forth, envelopes.

The unending series of successive derivatives of a cosine nevertheless results in a limited or closed form, the cosine. It can be represented by an infinite series of terms which, because each successive term is sufficiently less than the prior term, has a definite sum, the cosine (i.e. the series is convergent). But, it would appear that the infinite series of envelopes of _U(t),_ while theoretically necessary, cannot exist in a real physical situation. There must have been some kind of convergence to a definite, limited sum or form. Furthermore each additional envelope corresponds to an additional increment of _energy/mass_ and there cannot be an infinite amount of that. Something had to set a finite limit on the number of envelopes.

(2) Only the 'outer' or 'last' envelope being of the _[1 - Cosine]_ form is necessary to control the difficulty of an infinite rate of change at _t0._ All of the 'inner' envelopes, and the wave itself, being simple cosines rather than _[1 - Cosine]_ forms is far more simple. It would appear to have been the more likely actual case. That assumption is not essential to the following development, but it does make its presentation far simpler and more practical.

[It turns out that whether the '[1 _-'_ part of the _[1 - Cosine]_ form of the envelopes, is present or not (other than that of the 'last' one) the net effect on the form of the 'Cosmic Egg' oscillation is the same because the number of envelopes is so extremely large. That is demonstrated in Figures 6 (coming in a page or two), which shows the convergence of the two different wave forms, that of _[1 - Cos(x)]n_ versus that of _[1 - Cos(x)]·Cosn-1(x),_ into the same wave form for moderately large _n, n=100,_ which is still far smaller than the extremely large actual number.]

(3) Each additional envelope factor in equation(24) results in a higher frequency content in the overall expression. That is, as each envelope is added the expansion of the expression as the product of multiple cosines into a sum of individual frequency cosine terms becomes longer and acquires higher frequency terms. But, the original oscillation could not have had an actual component at infinite frequency. [Table 8, further below, shows that as a cosine is raised to successively higher integer exponents the highest frequency component in the expansion also increases correspondingly.]

Considering sound waves propagating in a gas as an analogy, there is an upper limit to the frequency of sound that can be propagated. The limit is set in two ways. The wave length of the sound waves decreases as the frequency increases. When the wave length becomes reduced to on the order of the size of the individual particles of the gas it cannot further reduce because the particles cannot subdivide.

Likewise, as the frequency increases the oscillatory motion of the gas particles must become more rapid. But the mass of the particles makes more rapid motion ever more difficult and the motion is ultimately limited by the speed of light. Thus the nature of the medium in which sound waves propagate inherently sets a limit on the propagation of sound waves in that medium.

It is reasonable that there be some aspect of the medium, which, as we know, already limits the speed of medium wave propagation to the speed of light, which aspect sets a limit on the highest frequency / lowest wave length waves that can propagate as medium. That must be the case if for no other reason than to again avoid an infinity and as a result the series of envelopes, of factors in equation _(24),_ was limited to some finite but quite large amount. The real universe original _U(t)_ had an enormous set of envelopes but not an infinite set; they were cut off at some point. (Further analysis of this cutting off is presented later below.)

This reasoning yields a revised _U(t),_ the form of the original oscillation, the 'Cosmic Egg', as equation _(25),_ below. There _N0_ is the number of envelopes. The '[1 _-'_ parts, have been eliminated from all but the '∞th' envelope (the 'most infinite', the 'last' or 'outer', envelope), and that envelope does not appear in the expression because the envelopes effectively cut off long before that point.

The resulting form of _U(t),_ the 'Cosmic Egg', is as follows.

_(25)_ U(t) = ± U0·[Cos^N0(2π·fenv·t)]·[Cos(2π·fwve·t)]

[N0 is the number of envelopes until they cut off.]

Figure 6. Comparison of U(t) 'Cosmic Egg' Wave Forms (Amplitude Normalized)

a.[1-Cos(x)]n For n=1,3,10,100

b. [1 - Cos(x)]·[Cos(x)] n For n = 0, 2, 9, 99

c. [1 - Cos(x)]100 versus [1 - Cos(x)]·[Cos(x)]99

For very large _n,_ that is very large _N0_ of equation _(25),_ the converging of the wave form into a single narrow peak proceeds to a momentary 'spike' per cycle. (N0 is found further below to be about _10^85.)_ Figure 7, below, shows the appearance of the wave form for extremely large _n,_ that is for _n = N0_ it shows what the wave form of the original 'Cosmic Egg', the start of our universe, 'looked like'.

Figure 7:

The U(t) 'Cosmic Egg' Wave Form of Equation (25)

As noted above, our today's particles being direct 'descendants' of the original oscillation, their initial medium supply must be oscillatory in form per equations _(19),_ the underlying basic form of equation (25) the 'Cosmic Egg'. Then the 'Cosmic Egg' was an immense particle, a super neutron [because electrically neutral], the most complex particle possible. Its atomic mass number was approximately _N0 = 10^85._

That 'Cosmic Egg' was so beyond the level of instability of the heaviest atoms known, in terms of atomic mass number a relative level of instability of _10^85_ compared to _10^2,_ that it exploded instantly in a massive radiation of particles and energy – the 'Big Bang'. In terms of Figure 7, that explosive decay happened sufficiently before the wave form reached the first 'spike', happened when the progress of mutual annihilation had only partially progressed, and therefore had mutually annihilated only a portion of the total wave form, leaving the particles that constitute today's universe.

And that is how the only possible beginning gave rise to the 'Big Bang'. And that is why it did not completely mutually annihilate to no net universe.

The Finite Limitation of the 'Cosmic Egg' Envelopes

By 'finite limitation' is meant that in the vicinity of the cut-off number of envelopes, _N0,_ the amplitude of each of the further successive envelopes being imposed on the original _U(t)_ was progressively less than its predecessor and the rate of that amplitude decrease increased sharply with further envelopes — there was a sharp cut off of amplitude and the progressive amplitude of further envelopes approached zero, became infinitesimal. Two effects jointly contributed to there being such a sharp cut-off of the otherwise infinite number of original 'Cosmic Egg' envelopes. The first, and most important was a bandwidth effect. The second results from the mathematics of _U(t)_ effect.

The bandwidth effect is exactly analogous to the bandwidth limitation found in electronic devices. An example is sound systems for human use. Such systems are unable to process signals of all frequencies because unavoidable capacitances and inductances in the devices set limits. Such devices always have bandwidths, limited ranges of frequencies that they can successfully process, which are determined by their components and design. In the case of the 'Cosmic Egg' a similar bandwidth type of limitation operated.

Every oscillation in nature exhibits, and the theory of oscillations requires, that the oscillation consist of two aspects storing and exchanging the energy of the oscillation back and forth by means of a 'flow'. With one aspect varying in oscillatory fashion then when that aspect decreases there must be some 'place' for its energy to go, a place in which it is stored until it reappears in that aspect when it increases again. It cannot completely disappear or be lost because the oscillation would die. That 'place' is the oscillation's second aspect and it obviously must vary in a manner related to the first aspect's variation, but with its energy storage in opposite phase.

A pendulum, for example, oscillates by the motion (flow) of its swinging mass between peak height in the gravitational field (potential energy) at each end of the swing and peak speed of motion (kinetic energy) at the mid-point between the ends of the swing. Then the original oscillation at the start of the universe must have so been: medium being stored or 'expressed' in two alternative forms, each oscillating and storing energy in opposite phase to the other.

An example of the general form is an electric circuit having inductance and capacitance exchanging oscillatory energy via flow of electric current as follows.

_(26)_ L· d2i/dt2 + R· di/dt + 1/C·i = 0

[L is inductance, _C_ capacitance, variable _i_ the electric current and _R_ is electric resistance.]

The first and third terms of equation _(26)_ are the two energy storage processes alternating in opposite phase to each other. The second term treats the loss of energy to the system, for example dissipated or, for the universe's medium, energy lost to the oscillation by the outward flow of medium. The derivatives of the flow, _i,_ are functions of the frequency content of that flow.

The definition of bandwidth is that point, for various different frequencies, where the energy [proportional to the square of the flow] becomes reduced to half the peak value and that point is a function of the parameters. The upper bandwidth point occurs at the value of frequency, _f,_ for which _R = 2π·f·L._ [The lower, not of interest here and very minute for _U(t),_ occurs at _R = 1/2π·f·C.]_

The upper bandwidth point for _U(t)_ [at its equivalent to the electrical example's _f = R/2π·L]_ produced the cutting off of the otherwise infinite series of envelopes in the universe's origination. See1 for calculation of the 'Cosmic Egg' bandwidth, which calculation is too lengthy and involved to be included here, but which correlates well with the value of _N0_ determined shortly further below.

The second effect, the mathematics of _U(t)_ sharpened the cut-off; it made the falling off of amplitude much more drastic once it started. The key to that behavior is to be found in Table 8, below, the expansion of the _Cosn(x)_ function.

Table 8: Expansion of Exponentiated Cosines

The table makes clear that in the expansion of _Cosn(x)_ the highest frequency multiple of the fundamental frequency, _x,_ is _n_ times that frequency. The 'Cosmic Egg' expression equation _(26)_ contains the factor

_(27)_ Cos ^N0[2π·fenv·t] and that factor creates the set of envelopes of the original oscillation and means that the highest frequency in the original _U(t)_ was _N0·2π·fenv._

The above table illustrates important aspects of the equation _(27)_ expansion. The sum of the coefficients of the terms in the expansion always equals the divisor in front of the expression. As a result the expansion has the same overall amplitude, _U0,_ as the unexpanded function (obviously a mathematical necessity). The table also illustrates that the relative amplitude of the increasingly higher frequency terms is increasingly smaller, an effect adding to the bandwidth cut off effect.

Analysis of the coefficient patterns in the terms of the _Cosn(x)_ expansion discloses a pattern related to the binomial expansion as demonstrated in Table 9:

Clearly, with the exception of the constant term (where, in the table, * = 0x) the other terms of the expansion of _Cosn(x)_ have the same coefficients as the corresponding terms of the binomial expansion. (Of course they must then be multiplied by _1/2n-1_ per Table 8.) The formula for the binomial expansion can thus be used to obtain the coefficients for any value of _n_ in the expansion of _Cosn(x)._

In the above table, _N0 = 10^85_ is the _n_ of the formula. It is not practicable to calculate all of the coefficients of the cosine expansion of the envelopes for _10^85_ envelopes. On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to calculate the _85_ cases corresponding to the frequency multiples of the expansion: _10^1, 10^2, 10^3, ··· 10^85._

Figure 10 on the next page is a plot of the relative magnitude of the successive coefficients of the various frequency multiples _(1·x, 3·x, ··· 10^85·x),_ in the expansion of _Cosn(x)_ for _n=N0=10^85._ The plot indicates a sharp and drastic cut off, an attenuation of the higher frequencies. Figure 10(a) uses a linear horizontal axis and shows the cut-off in detail. Figure 10(b) uses a logarithmic horizontal scale to better present the tremendous range in frequency multiples from _1_ to _10^85._ It shows that the cut-off is quite sharp and drastic.

This cut-off is merely the action of the mathematics of _cosn(x)._ The complete actual cut-off of the 'Cosmic Egg' was the product of this cut-off and the bandwidth limitation discussed above. If this effect operated in the case of an electronic sound system then, with increasing sound frequency, at the approach to the cut-off sound would suddenly cease rather than fade away in reducing amplitude as the bandwidth limitation, alone, causes.

Figure 10. The Cosn(x) Limitation of the 'Cosmic Egg'

(a) Linear Scale

(b) _Logarithmic Scale_

Determination of the Value of N0

In the original _U(t), N0_ is the number of protons and electrons (as combined into neutrons) in the original 'Cosmic Egg' and that _N0,_ as the exponent of the envelope frequency cosine function, is the effective number of envelopes. The magnitude of that quantity, _N0,_ can be approximately determined. The procedure is to calculate the mass of the universe and divide it by the mass of an individual proton, which is

_(28)_ mp = 1.67...·10^-27 kilograms.

Hydrogen atoms or their equivalent, that is protons and their associated electrons, are the vast majority, more than _99%_ of the matter of the universe. The electron is of negligible mass compared to the proton within the limited accuracy of the present calculation, so it is reasonable here to deem the mass of the universe as being all protons.

Determining the mass of the universe, _mU,_ proceeds by estimating the average mass density, ρ, and the applicable universe volume. Those estimates are rather lengthy and involved. The universe mass is the product of the two and its determination by that procedure is developed fully, with the following result for ρ.

_(29)_ ρU ≈ 5·10^-27 kg/meter3

Next the volume of the universe is needed so as to obtain the universe's mass as the product of the mass density and the volume. The volume of the universe develops as follows. The universe's radius applicable to the just obtained universe mass density should be based on an earlier time than the present because the investigations into estimating that density had to treat astral objects which we observe as they were some time in the past — their distance from us divided by the speed of their light.

Those earlier times were in the range of _0 to 7 or 8 Gyrs_ into the past. As we look into the past at an increasing radial distance from us the observed volumes increase as that radius cubed. For that reason the applicable universe radius to use with the universe mass density just determined is that which existed at the time into the past _t_ ≈ _6.5 Gyrs_ ago. The development indicates that the estimated radius of the universe for the present calculation is:

_(30)_ RU = 14 G-Lt-Yrs = 11·10^24 meters.

Therefore the mass of the universe, as the product of its volume based on that radius and its equation _(30)_ density, is:

_(31)_ mU = ρU · [4/3·π·RU^3] = 3·10^49 kg.

and the value of _N0_ from those data is

_(32)_ N0 = mU/mp = 3·10^49 / 1.67·10^-27 ≈ 2·10^76

However, analyses in recent years of the hypothesized or speculated likely scenario of the early universe, the 'big bang', result in the rough estimate that there were then about _10^9,_ one billion, mutual annihilations for every proton present today. (This is based upon the observation that in the present day universe there are about _10^9_ photons per proton. That estimate is a not unreasonable measure of the original number of annihilations. The mutual annihilations each produced two photons. Photons from other later causes, primarily black body radiation and electron orbital changes should be in an amount on the order of one photon per proton, far from _10^9,_ and leaving the original mutual annihilations as the dominant source).

In that case the _2·10^76_ estimate for the present number of particles would give an original _N0_ value, at the initial instant before any mutual annihilations, of about _2·10^85._ While all of this estimating is quite approximate it would nevertheless be reasonable to take that _N0_ was on the order of _10^85._

That is an immense number. And, in this case it is the effective exponent of the envelope _cosine_ in _U(t);_ it is the effective number of original envelopes to the 'Cosmic Egg'. It is the bandwidth limit imposed by the very nature of the original (and on-going) medium's wave oscillation and propagation.

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS

1. The universe came into existence from a prior 'something' of absolute nothing. Yes, nothing!

a. The implied infinite rate of change was avoided by the transition from nothing to something being oscillations in a _[1 – cosine]_

b. The implied violation of conservation was avoided by two such oscillations simultaneously beginning, the two identical except of opposite amplitude [+/-].

2. The complexity of problem 1a, above, led to an apparent infinite set of frequencies in the original oscillation; however, characteristics of the situation limited that set to the finite number _N0 = 10^85_ .

a. One of the limiting factors was a bandwidth limitation.

b. The other limiting factor was in the nature of the coefficients of successive terms in the expansion of exponentiated cosines.

3. The expectation that the conservation-maintaining solution should have led to a complete mutual annihilation and no further universe was not fulfilled because of the nature of the complex waveforms.

a. They represented an immense, complex pair of particles, so unstable that they exploded in an immense radioactive decay into myriad particles, the particles of our universe today. They so exploded before they could completely mutually annihilate.

b. Our universe, as the evolved successor to that great event, is based on _centers-of-oscillation_ of _[1 – cosine]_ form, the protons, electrons and their anti-particles of our universe.

QED

What About 'God'?

Some people might be able to be perfectly agnostic, in a 50-50 balance, but it is tough to always sit on a fence. Balances usually topple, as people employ probability, whether realizing it or not, plus, beyond that 'math' form, it happens in practice, in everyday life, because it's tough to be half one way and half another, so even the slightest sway could lead to theism or atheism.

The one, perhaps, 'poverty' of agnosticism is to think that the 'God' vs 'no God' chances are equi-probable.

— Byron's Golden Mean —

Let us have wine, lovers, song, and laughter,

Water, chastity, prayer the day after.

(I would add...)

Such we'll alternate the rest of our days;

On the average, we'll make Hereafter!

God is a mathematician?

If math underlies all, which is more than that the universe has regularities to it that are totally amenable to math, then 'math' is not a complex SuperBeing who thinks, plans, and creates. The math would be such as of a simple continuous function, like a wave, and indeed the E/M spectrum is waves and so do particles have a wave nature. Everything is waves, the brain re-presenting in the 'mind' with a more useful face painted upon, such as red or blue from the wave's wavelength/frequency, direction, distance, and forms of objects from the angles and concentrations of the photons' source, the brightness obtained from the intensity, etc.

After all is said and done about 'God' existing, much more is said than done, but for the believers layering umpteen more levels of structures upon the first invisible unknown, which is even said to 'be known by faith', which in turns means, after looking up 'faith' that one 'knows' by 'not knowing'.

There is no meat to it, and still none, after all the unethical claims, pronouncements, declarations, and statements of 'God' being so, although it's not a fact, as ever noted, but who's going to be attracted to a movement that admits that its truths may not be so.

Yet, the strong believers are unfazed, which demonstrates that, like a strong emotion, a strong belief can overwhelm or even bypass the rational part of the brain, for we know that strong emotions do have a direct path into consciousness, bypassing logic. Of course, it is also the the brain's wires that more often fire together can closely wire together to make for a strongly continuing vote.

There is still no meat, but beyond those who became believers simply due to the social, familial, cultural, and geographics influences, and 'fake' feelings 'God' because of its rooting, there are yet those who claim to actually feel 'God' in them as a real sensation.

So, finally, there is almost some meat, but it rots away since all thoughts, sensations, and feelings have a substrate beneath that cannot revealed by introspection. So, the believers fall for their own thoughts and felt states of being, which is not unlikely in humans, since, well, 'they' thought of it or felt it, yet the externals of science can inform them of much more than can be accessed internally; however, in some people, this information tends to get ignored or neglected, as it may seem to 'hurt', and so we see but the restatement of 'God exists' as a continuing response, the near to last resort, the last resort perhaps being anger, as if that shows to the world that one has to right. Well, anger has no brains, and neither do fiats claimed as truth with no showing.

The only reason to believe that is close to almost being reasonable is that it can provide comfort, as sense of being taken care of. Martin Gardner did this, but logically, he did not claim 'God'.

Many are those whose objects of wishes and affection have been relegated to the Graveyard Of The Gods, where such gods as of Olympus from the mountain tops lie below, just as they 'lied' above, and where all such invisibles are destined.

'God' is claimed to be a SuperBeing—the first and only, as fundamental, with a system of mind by which He thought, planned, designed, implemented, and attends a universe and whatever else there is that He made out of Himself or from other material that He conjured up, for He can do anything.

What is wrong about this is that merely a statement, a declaration that claims the truth without a showing, which is unethical, as innocents or the unstudied may be taken in by it. That it is a deception is bad enough, but is it empty to begin with.

As a idea of a negative, it can still be disproved, but only via self-contradiction:

The supposed Entity is not just more complex than an atom or a molecule, but the Being is even more complex and powerful than a human being, plus many more levels higher, ultimate levels even.

Composite complexities have parts, and these parts always have to be simpler and precede the assembled form; so, no complexity at all can be First and Fundamental, much less something very complex.

Many fell into this error because they thought that life required Life behind it, then made it into a simpleton conclusion by throwing the template into the river, suddenly no longer requiring LIFE behind the Life, and so forth.

Or they simply extended the old practice of a strict father figure up and onward, but that was a conception born in our world.

By continuing to believe or preach, believers wired and grooved their brains to act as if it were true, these brains ever producing 'it is' as the answer that really wasn't, it only begging a larger question. Other than 'it is', they cannot produce much more discussion than to say that it feels like it is or latch on to Holy Books which by humans who also made outright proclamation and claims, laying a house of cards upon the original, negative notion by writing scriptures such as the Old Testament, only in which some ancient human history may have had some truth to it.

Either the tiny things that make up all that is in the universe came from a simple, eternal state or they are from 'nothing', and, if from nothing, that would not quite be a nothing, since it would have the capability/potential to form and emit the little things, and so this capability/potential would have to have been eternal, as well; so, there was no creation, either way, and thus no Creator.

Look to the future for higher evolved forms, but they won't be 'God' either.

The origin of all must be a forced, default condition, since, being causeless, it cannot have any directives coming into it. It has no options, doing only as it must, and so we have a universe.

In addition, nothing extra-, beyond-, or supernatural has been seen in the universe, such as a planet stopping in its orbit, as only the natural is observed to happen; yet, 'God' is supposed to be everywhere, doing everything. We also know that 'supposed-to-be' has no basis to be used from in the first place of the so-called 'known' unknown, and so to still go on about it and its properties goes nowhere.

Now it is for believers to prove their 'God' notion.

I noticed that some people believe in Gods who don't intervene, and that some people perhaps now tend to use 'Deity' for those, which maybe I wasn't right about, for I went on to assume the word 'Theity' being for a God who does intervene in the Universe and in Earthly affairs, but then someone told me that wasn't a real word.

Sure enough, I Googled 'theity' and all 17 references were mine.

There is no charge if you want to use it.

In Plato's ideal and imaginary realm, anything can be perfect, such as a pencil balancing on its point or maybe even infinity being attained, but in the real universe I have a feeling that perfection crashes, else what they say was the really great symmetry of the 'singularity' before the 'Big Bang' should have just stayed that way if it was perfect.

Forgetting about lessor deities, such as the different one that every village in India has, what the super Deities all have in common is that they created the universe, but the differences in the further beliefs layered upon the invention of the invisible make for cultural differences, and any differences in culture, not just religious, is cause for trouble, even war, for "How could they be so wrong!", for the difference of another belief seems to cause one's own belief to lose credibility, for they can't all be correct.

Yes, all usually have 'creation' in common, even the Big Bang making the universe, no matter what the language, but there are enough major differences that can to lead to clashes... Such as whether their God sent Jesus (as Divine) or did not send (just another human), with even those who were there at the time not agreeing on it, which difference also pertains to the status of Mary. Or if their God has a Heaven or a Hell or even any afterlife at all, or if most of it is of a new Earthly life of reincarnating upwards and downwards. Or if their God lets a Devil exist, or if their God wants them to wipe out the infidels, or if there are angels, and all kinds of more differences that are incompatible. For many, 'different' equals 'wrong'.

Pakistan and India would seem to have differing visions of the afterlife, perhaps adding to their tense relations; Irish Protestants war with the Irish Catholics; Sunnis and Shiites fight over what is probably no more different than Episcopals and Catholics, but I may be oversimplifying it. And Bosnia/Serbia, etc.

It is especially that ideas that are made up will have a lot of differences, but for the 'creation', for there can only be one such, since the universe is indeed here.

All those 'prophets' purporting to hear God's inspirations can't be relied on in the least, and many of then even 'heard' different, conflicting things. All scriptures can be ignored, in addition to the chapters already discarded. That there are so many variations of 'inspirations' demonstrates the creativity of human imagination.

If things are spontaneously appearing from nothing (which they must, to avoid infinite regress) then isn't it simpler to start with a big dumb ball of energy than a conscious something-or-other?

Yes, this hits the nail on the head. Since actual infinities (not potential ones) are impossible, not only must the universe be finite in extent, but also in time, that being better known as not eternal, for an actual eternity is not possible, either (or the universe would not have appeared).

Something From Nothing is already fully indicated because there is literally nothing to make anything of. That Something Forever would be a certain, exact amount of the same stuff having been around forever, with no decision point, is another indication of Something From Nothing, plus that it is already made without ever having been made in the first place, a place that never was, for this is an incompleteness, and ideas that have them must be invariably wrong, as due to the incompleteness.

Seems to me that the simplest idea about the origin of the universe is that it was created, not that it appeared spontaneously from nothing.

The simplest state is a lack of anything, and so it would be that this state couldn't last, doing away with the idea of a chain of Creators and CREATORS, etc, who must themselves be complex, even a heck of a lot of it, and certainly not simple at all.

The symmetry of a balance of opposites even carries on into the universe, as it must; for the essence can't go away, for that's all there is, making the universe to be a change in form of it.

Since the universe's creation would necessarily imply the existence of a Creator, which must necessarily be more complicated than the universe, this doesn't make any sense.

True, no sense, and probably just an extension of the human realm in which we have fathers and our fathers have fathers, many of which were the boss in the old days, making for a Creator based on a strict father figure.

Evidence is irrelevant concerning truths.

Well, if you cannot get at the suggested 'truths', it could be, but self-contradiction can be used for universal negatives that have no positives. Aside from that, absolute truth is what matches reality.

If one begins with a notion that has no positives to it, meaning that it cannot be shown in any way, then it is useless to still go on to layer more upon the notion, such as its properties and doings, for those cannot be used as inputs to the notion. Thus, it really is that one can go no further. No one would buy such a bill of goods, for it has no 'goods'.

Epilog, Misc, and Wrap Up

Alan Watts is right on, about no real cause and effect in life and the universe, and this leads on to the Theory of Everything, which anyone can claim, as it is evident. There is a continuity, an unfoldment from the beginning of the universe, which was a change in form, true, but from 'before', and the essence continues on in it, for its not like anything else could have poked its nose in. Events unfold, but they have no real boundaries. We buy food because so we can eat, and we eat because we are hungry, and we are hungry because we are life forms...

Everything that happens is the 'effect' of the beginning. Its expression can't happen all at once, for the speed of light is finite. Events 'lead' to other events, yes, though not as 'cause' but because that's what has to happen. It's kind of like Einstein's block universe image if one wants to try to visualize it all at once.

So, the fundamental (first) basis of the universe had to be a simple, continuous function, with no breaks or parts, for those would have to precede. So called 'parts' compiling into complexities, such as atoms, molecules, and beings have to come later, not first, which is why the base existent has to be simple and continuous, and of a symmetry, as nature is of a balance of opposites, which as complimentary, as Watts demonstrates, can only work together, again, this ever reflecting the unity.

So, we ask ourselves "What it is that everything in the universe has in common?"

To help, we 'render' it as what's really 'out there', so we can get out of its re-presentation within out brains.

The answer is 'waves', which almost knocks us over, for they are ubiquitous in the universe. We have accomplished what seemed to be the impossible task of finding the needle in the very large haystack of the universe. Oh, it would have been easy to 'see' the pinhead of the supposed singularity, as it was, before the growing, but it changed into all that is now around as the cosmos.

The needle weaves the fabric of the universe with the thread of a primal wave, and a wave is a simple continuous function.

Although we are as tourists along for the ride, as actors in a scripted play, it still seems novel, and we can 'perform', plus, it can be fun, and so there is still something to be gotten out of it.

Internally, it is a 'second story', true, for the states making up the 'first story' beneath are not apparent to the felt states of being; however, although it may be the whole story for some people, others can be informed by science about the substrate beneath. And, of course, it is the 'wave' that is the basement.

Pandora's box of truths ever opens wider, no matter who tries to keep a lid on it, although some may see it as Dennet's universal acid that eats away all their folklore and superstitions.

Believers don't use sense, but, sometimes, resort to saying that the sense of their sensations from their nervous system shows something, but that is either of the non-apparent substrates beneath the felt states of being, or they just though about things too long, then thinking to feel them as real, such as we can scare ourselves into 'feeling' ghosts.

For example, 'agency' was attributed to a wild beast, making it to be of danger, which showed true, over any laborious consideration of its constituents, but then some went on to claim agency for the wind and such, and then onto nature spirits, and to 'God'.

'Like-minded', such as in others wanting the same wishes to be true, or even claiming felt sensation of the nervous system to be from somewhere else, like God's realm, is not evidence of anything but the non-apparentness of the substrates beneath that lead to the felt states of being; so, introspection, feeling, sensation, and imagination can't do it all, for one needs to be informed by science, as to the substrates, and by cognitive science on how the nature of strong belief works and how it can beguile a person to keep on making statements, fiats, declarations, and pronouncements as being 'truth', or still claiming it because there may be undiscovered truths out there.

The template of life requiring Life behind it is no sooner employed than it is thrown away after just one usage, it suddenly no longer totally applicable as it so much had to be in the first place to start the chain.

Faith and reasoning can be mutually exclusive, and, actually, they are opposites. That is a kind of a 'problem' with the human condition, but also one for some which has naturally come to be.

Information on how strong belief and/or strong emotion has a direct pathway into consciousness would be useful.

Strong belief often induces 'neglect' to anything contrary. I see it in forums all the time. Also, the brain keeps broadcasting it, in a big way, and so it is ever in the way.

Closed minds come in all shapes and sizes.

Learning can change one's fixed will to a larger but still fixed will, but one having 'choices' based on wider information; however, if the mind is closed then learning can't happen, which is doom, and then we can have compassion for those in this state, but at a debate forum we might have to call a 'bypass', for discussion with back and forth understanding either won't happen or won't be effective.

Yet all is what it is and will be, which already includes the present and future moves, pro and con, enlightenment and not, unity or separation.

There is both separation and wholeness at the same time, as complementary. That the universe is this way is reflected in that some parts of the brain take in the whole, at once, in parallel, and other parts of the brain zoom in on the details, sequentially. These alternations, like yin and yang receding each into the other, make for a rounded life.

So, just how complex would a Creator need to be?

During the planning stage, complex intelligence that's enough to foresee all that will come to pass, then, during the design phase, match it all to the plan, and in the construction stage, obtain all the right material, get surprised and disappointed at what has been wrought, and then wonder why humans failed, but throw them out of Eden; and, so, then start over, wiping out all but Noah and his wife, Joan of Arc, but it still failed, so then give the Ten Commandments to Moses—still failed, write a Bible—didn't work, so, send Jesus—failure, so let Our Lady of Fatima appear—nope, didn't do anything, so, make global warming burn up the Earth, as only not by flood again was the promise, when the rainbow was invented to signify the big mistake, and go back and redo everything, finally learning some real science in order to become the ultimate scientist.

I was a close friend of one of only two Lamas in the U.S. from ever dining in their Cafe in New Hamburg, NY, which they later gave up, for reason unknown, but it did bring them out of their temple in nearby Wappingers and more into the public, who could identify them by their robes.

So, we'd talk, his bodyguards retreating, while being served by the more personable Buddha Girls who wore regular clothes and exuded great joy and happiness. It's not that any one person knows everything, but their outlook seemed to work to some extent.

It's not so much that 'nature' got it wrong, for we are nature and the continuing unfoldment of the one big event of the universe, whether it is real or taken as not real, for a difference that makes no difference is no difference.

Of course the whirlpool taken as the self is not separate and permanent, but just longer lasting than some whirlpools in a stream, and still utilizing metabolism to take things in and fairly dependent on what has come before and what the vision of the future has us doing in the present.

Some humans will ever manage to bring in the spiritual and such things as rebirth, even in several realms.

That things are ever changing, to me, is not a cause for dissatisfaction, for that is the way of all, but some people and some Buddhists might take it as reason to throw out the whole smash, the good with the bad, for the nature of one makes necessary the other, and so they are ever joined.

As in good science, they are after the reality that reality is, and not especially the that is re-presented in the brain, but, of course, the internal reality is all we have, and so I wouldn't completely throw out the baby with the bathwater.

One good thing is to do what is right. For example, both I and a Buddhist would pick up litter because it was the right thing to do, not because someone or God might be watching.

So, anyway, the Great Lama would always give me a 'high five', and even if it was raining I would tell him that it was still sunny on the inside.

As for dealing with troubles by noting that they are not real, one can seem to remove oneself from the center stage of the drama or trauma, taking a place way further back in the audience. reducing one's part more to witnessing than being right on stage, even going on to let it pass right on by, through not latching on to it.

So, all is still real, but I suppose it is not to some since what happens is the continuation of the big event of the universe, the one and only cause of all that unfolds.

While dining with the Lama, I showed him a newspaper headline about the very close votes for Gore and Bush, asking the Lama about who he thought really won. He gave me the great wisdom of "Who cares!"

I was hoping to find a connection between the world of ideas and the world of phenomena. Was hoping to find active forces that compel science to invent ideas corresponding to the reality of our world. And I had hoped it would be simplified.

Of course we must get into it, for we cannot just go by what is re-presented in brains as phenomena, but must all the more consider the noumenona that are 'out there' from which the phenomena is obtained. If we only relied on the mind's eye, no one would know, for example, that there are waves and fields, but external of the instruments of science inform us further than just our introspection.

The noumenona are closer to a deeper reality, or are it, such as a certain wavelength/frequency of the visible past of the large E/M spectrum is re-presented as 'red' in a brain.The solution to all is not about why science or scientists might be 'compelled' to invent ideas... nor really about the methodology of doing science.

And a lot of the core portion has already been simplified for presentation here.

God instructed Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge and they disobeyed him.

And so do children even now when you tell them not to touch something, but 'God' may not have been aware of this tendency that He Himself placed into human nature.

There are few things as pointless as debating the finer points of an old storybook that is interpreted a thousand different ways. The first clue should be that not even the Bibles' devoted adherents can agree on what it means.

That's a good one. Since there is no agreement, plus the Bible being shown as wrong in so many places, some followers have gone on to claim that the Bible is of symbolic language, decodable only by experts, making it no longer a book written in plain text for the common man.

_[To_ Balerion, from Wynn _] Oh, yeah, I mustn't forget: I am whatever you say that I am. :bugeye:_

For example, the above has flaws. Words posted do tell, and it is only in that scope that they are referenced as your input, not in the largest scope of all that you are as a person ("I am")—which is possibly being used to distract from the focus on the words in your posts.

The "Oh, yeah, I mustn't forget" intro seems as a distraction 'hint' appealing to that there is just a superior-type thing going on here ("mustn't"), which would lesson the validity of the responses to your words and also to your words being your words, as in this case.

The "whatever you say" is a further deflection towards neglecting the response, and the "whatever" part is saying than any and all of what Balerion says is not applicable to your words.

Responses should have some meat to them. Having them be as shields doesn't do it, and that posturing is only going to be uncovered in this place, although in daily life it may work to some extent.

The 'bugeye' icon was another attempt at same.

... _would know exactly when you'd come into existence, what choices you would make, what kind of person you would become and he could grand you entrance based on that knowledge._

You have inadvertently stumbled into an area that, God or no God, one does as one 'will' do, unless one's 'will' can be shown not to depend on anything at all, but that is another topic.

At any rate, assumptions cannot go anywhere from a universal negative that has no positives, which causes 'faith' and its slippery language, that identifies this short-cut word as being something; however, it reduces to 'knowing' an unknown, and so it is not a knowing or a showing.

Since the 'God' notion is not known or shown in the first place, going on about it, such as layering further structures upon, does nothing for truth but compound one's situation by making one feel all the more that it is so.

Ignore all posts that yet go on to make things up about a proposed invisible.

Space's physical (if not material) quantity is volume, and yet space never seems to be empty, for it seems that virtual particles pop in and out, although not necessarily from space itself, and space contains rather enduring things, too, the key word being 'contains', as only 3D (and higher, but not lower), can fully contain something totally within it' that doesn't touch a boundary.

It seems that energy-mass occupies space, and that an absence of space or empty space would not be anything (nothing), unless space's only apparent quantity—volume—is really something (in the case of empty space).

One must also not just consider space alone, by itself, for it is joined with time in spacetime—and that's what has been considered as what the Big Bang emitted.

Dogma is carved in stone; the end. Its followers cannot exult in mystery, since all is solved, by fiat; however, scientists embrace mystery, exulting in it as what can be explored and then understood, ever building and continuing on, not being 'all done'.

... _Apparently not, as long as a bully can beat a nerd._

You are trying to take something known, such as happens in school, in a lame attempt to apply it as if it is the same as here, of Science/Courts vs Superstition, as well as supplying no meat in your posts, as usual. What a court decides about the Constitution is not a 'bully' over claims of 'unknown' as true. The word 'bully', as used here, does not apply. Poor attempt.

It was once thought by the Church that physical illness was caused by evil spirits, yet science showed bacteria and viruses to be responsible, which not only damaged the superstition but ended it, and so some may posit science as the enemy to belief. Science findings are not 'bullying' either, but are the continuing opening of the box of truth that the superstitious try to keep a lid on.

The Church still thinks that mental ills called 'sins' are caused by evil spirits...

Karma, soul, God, etc.

The problem with a universal-negative-type idea is that it is an idea of the imagination, as is anything added on to it, none of which can be used as input to what is trying to be shown, plus the showing is not ever possible in the first place. This bids one to move on to scientifically study just what it is in the cognitive nature of some to persist in strong belief and how that belief can even cause one to state opinion as fact and truth rather endlessly.

Yes, mainstream science is easily referenced, and tells of what has been proved, as well as what is likely, although some may wish to learn it here by blundering, but that is human nature. So, the real excitement is in going into areas not yet proven, trying to make progress with them or an alternative.

Give us science, but if not possible, then logic, but if not possible, math perhaps, but if not, then some kind of indication, but if none, then imagination, but realize that what is imagined is only of the human basis to do so, but please don't give us nothing at all, which is what outright claims of universal negatives are—that have no positives, but this is only human nature, too, and so it bids us to go on to see what makes this happen, and that gets us back to science.

Going on and on about an invisible universal negative by placing further 'structure' can't add anything as input to the notion. What is it in human nature for some that forces them to do this? This consideration would get us back to science and knowing, the opposite of unknowing claims of 'known'.

... _because realizing that we're just organic beings reliant on organic processes would be to completely discredit this idiot notion that suffering occurs to "those who lack creativity."_

The ultimate humility arrives when one realizes that we are electro-bio-chemical beings, which is opposite to the pride and hubris of wishing for some Divine importance.

The science of chemistry deals with bonding hormones (for love and attachment) and opiate-endorphins (for happiness), dopamine (excitement over what is new and novel), serotonin (mood), and more.

We aren't internally aware of the state of the chemical/neurological substrate beneath the felt state of being above it (but from it), as we are only informed of it by science, a fact that goes to show that introspection can't find everything out.

Still, it would not be the best result to think or talk about bonding hormones during courtship, romance, or making love.

As the 'God' notion cannot be shown, some people have still grooved on it, and so they begin to feel it as a sensation within, here relying only on internals, but it is no wonder that people can fall for their own thoughts, feelings, and sensations.

One time I let myself 'believe' (go along with) a legend of a ghostly (dead) lady who was said to appear by the side of the road, high up in the misty Pali Mountains of Oahu, Hawaii, and, well, we went up there after midnight and sure enough I began to feel the sensation of being scared, as well as an almost kind of presence.

Believers often state the existence of 'God' as being truth and fact, such as in preaching and in churches, which is not ethical, for 'God' is just a belief—'faith' ever being spelled out in its definition as 'an unknown invisible', which adds nothing to it being known, although it tries to by 'faith' proposing the 'unknown invisible' as actual and existing. So, there is really no by faith' knowledge, but just wishes and desires for 'God' to exist, for perhaps the idea grants comfort.

Now, too, who is going to join a religion or a church if they say that 'God' might not exist?

Science can investigate why strong belief/emotion can overcome/bypass the rational/logical brain, and already it is known that emotion has a direct path into consciousness. (And worse when someone is having an outburst and can't be dealt with.)

Many decisions in life are based on emotion, such as getting a house that has a lot of openness, with cathedral ceilings, at the logical expense of a great loss of square footage, but, of course, not all based on emotion, for one may note that a bedroom could be added in the basement.

Emotional/belief decisions on what can't be shown to exist would seem to be a different story, but all are free to do as they do; however, in debate forums people freely ask and comment about things.

On debate forums, when confronted with something contrary, although it has great merit, one may be offended, since the position may be undone or dented ('hurt'), and thus the person may feel it, too, if they are closely identified with the position, so they might then use anger and insult as an 'answer', since there is no other resort, to try to show how right they must be, by the fact that they got mad.

Faith speaks before reason speaks, for good reason. Remember being a baby, what did you believe?

OK, that's good proof, so I'm a believer now, which I forgot that I was as a baby.

On my first day of life, I was a bit discombobulated. My new world was very bright and so I asked for sunglasses. I am a writer, so I was already able to speak. On the second day I realized by the very great reason of faith that God's system of mind had planned, designed, and created everything. I deduced that God is First, eternal, and the boss of everything. On the third day I noted that God had done nothing to earn His position, having been lucky to be in the right place at the right time. Boy, talk about a 'silver spoon'. So, there was God sitting around forever, most of which time he wasted searching for His earliest memory, of which there wasn't any. So, approximately 13.573976453106388118204 billion years ago, He implemented the universe, but it didn't work out so well, most of it amounting to a load of crap. He was disappointed with Adam and Eve who had been around for 13.573976453106388118204 billion years, so He threw them out, but still tried some more, sending a flood, then the Thirty Commandments, then His son, followed by Our Lady of Fatima, and soon to do, the burning up of the Earth via global warming. So, anyway, now I could pray and worship, crawling on my knees to Church. On the seventh day I rested, sleeping 18 hours, and became atheist.

But... and here's the shift that creates the inconsistency... this hypothetical intelligent designer is where all such explanatory regresses must then stop, because the designer is supposed to be sufficient unto itself in all possible ways (a gratuitous assumption, seemingly adopted for entirely religious reasons).

That is a very dramatic change in, and seemingly a contradiction of, the original argument -- forms that perform functions must (for some reason) be interpreted as examples of intelligent design, and designs must in turn point inexorably beyond themselves to the existence of a separate intelligent designer.

ID is dead, by the above, and so any continued support of it is but blather that ignores the contradiction brought about by the change of direction in mid stream. This show that identifying a 'God' of ID or any 'God' was of a simplistic, simpleton assessment that couldn't even get beyond itself.

BB from nothing?

Or of a change in Something Forever. We have narrowed the choices to two, or rather, logic forced it. Since one must be true, we give much more than a cursory glance to the only two options, each of which appears to be paradoxical; yet, there can be no paradoxes, for there is a reason for the universe. The 'meat' is about to arrive.

The 'one' (total solidity) cannot be, nor can 'zero' (complete vacuity); thus, the in-between sum-thing state of positive and negative has to be...

That a unseen force was guiding evolution. These birds got up into the trees and flew - there must have been some help?

Evolution consists of accumulations of adaptations upon already stable organism platforms, for example, flying evolving after gliding, which evolved after something else, etc. Birds did not arrive intact, in mid-air, flying. Evolution has triple confirmation, via fossils, DNA, and embryonic stages, all matching each other. To deny it or that it happens naturally is born of out a wish for a Creator, and a Creator is impossible, via self-contradiction.

'God', as First and Fundamental and making All is an impossible notion because anything higher is composed of the simpler and simple that are ever closer to the fundamental, for parts must precede. Not even a molecule or an atom can be the ultimate basis, for they are composites. Nor even the 'elementary' electron, for then how did it get its properties? And certainly not a being or a Being (even higher), as those are very complex systems. Look to the future for higher evolved life forms, but these will still not be 'Gods'. So, the notion of 'God' is totally eliminated, via self-contradiction. The complete wrong direction was being looked to, which couldn't even be more wrong, for complex, composite entities cannot be fundamental, much less higher ones and some really higher one. An ultimate complexity of a Being is not going to be just sitting around as the First.

Fake definitions of 'God' cannot be used towards what one is trying to show, for this is circular. Sure, 'God' is a nice wish, for some, bringing comfort in the sense of being taken care of and having meaning, but this desire does not make for a 'God'.

Some have gotten so grooved and embedded in the 'God' idea that they deceptively and unethically state 'God' as truth and fact. They might even go on to fight other religions that have differences in what was initially made or further layered on, feeling that their own credibility is lessened by the mere existence of other beliefs. And some may go on to fight against the non religious, too, and science. All because their flawed goods of what was 'good' and 'true' causes them to label anything contrary as 'evil'.

And some become extremists, making war, which can only come to a bloody end. All because of a wish.

so you are saying that a figment - god - doesn't exist?

'God' cannot exist in reality The notion is but a figment of the imagination. There are many figmentations for which no actuals can exist.

figments...

Into the realm of supernatural figmentations

I drifted off, within my newest imagination.

To interview all the living Gods there;

Some who've left and some yet ruling everywhere.

Notions of 'God' are of the wide purview

Of the inquiring mind confined, their 'why'—

That wide expanse of fables, faith, hoaxes,

Lies, imaginations, fictions, guesses,

Foggy notions, concoctions, phantasms,

Fantasies, falsehoods, conceptions,

Decrees, fiats, misrepresentations,

Dead ideas, magic, proclamations,

Wild tales, anecdotes, revelations,

Untruths, revelations, hearsay, scrap heaps,

Yarns, and fish stories stated as beliefs

In that unseeable supernatural station

Through faith's without knowledge ration;

These are all figmentations of the imagination.

I agree, nothing is beyond science to answer, and that is why i made my magic explained thread

True, for science ever continues, finding answers, while Dogma cannot, being carved in stone, it showing nothing, an Olympic-size shut-out 'game'.

Well, medicine started out as magic, and now too many people cite that as the way magic interferes with science. It all started with some little plants...

Yes, and was useful toward curing physical ills that the Church once said were caused by the magic of evil spirits. And Church still thinks that mental ills called 'sins' are caused by evil spirits.

Okay, and where did this 'science' come from? Where does all science come from, originally? The shamans, and they consort with gods? I hope you can now see the value of this figment.

'God' has been disproved, and you didn't refute any of it or undo any part of it, nor did you substitute your own proof of 'God'.

You are just merrily continuing on, out of 'neglect', due to belief—to state, proclaim, and pronounce the figment of imagination as having a real, true, and actual object behind it—and that does nothing at all toward the idea. Zippo; nil; nada.

Figments bear reactions, so exist. The crusades were, according to you, based on a figment, and seeing as how there were reactions from this figment, it exists, as nothing that causes reactions cannot exist.

Of course imaginations happen, even when their objects cannot exist. The Crusaders existed and so did their opponents, fighting over their differing figments of their religious imaginations, plus over the actual cultural differences.

Slippery language may work out in the world, but here on forums it can't get far. A figment of imagination can exist, yes, as imagination, but this doesn't force the object of it to exist.

Well, my theory for god is not like you might expect. I think that god evolved, out of energy circulating on itself until it learned, like a muscle learns, to do things. If life can evolve, why not a god?

That 'god' would be just a higher evolved life form, not fundamental, not a basis for everything, but just for some lower life forms like us. Calling it 'god' only causes confusion, for it would only seem like one.

God is the universe.

A 'God' who is equal to the universe, is first of all, not a 'who' and thus not a Being, and whatever is the same as the universe is but a synonym for the universe, meaning that a rose is still a rose by any other name, such as a universe is a cosmos is a whatever.

'God', as a Being, is said to have made the universe, and 'God', as a Being, being the universe, would be limited and restricted to doing only what the universe can do, which, again, is not the idea, plus it adds nothing, as it is only a synonym.

What you may really be doing, given your non perfection stance, and no feelings or directing, is just having all that is, and its basis, such as waves, oscillations, and forms, such as found by science, to be called as 'God', since it is a source, or just is, but this greatly and gravely overloads the common meaning of the word 'God' with something else, such as the natural universe, with no extra-, beyond-, or supernatural about it, which is not the idea of 'God' at all.

A physical and natural Ground Of Determination, even with the initials, 'G.O.D.', is not God as an intentional Creator, perfect or not. Your best hope for someone who created or started us going by planting a microbe (since evolution is true) is some highly evolved alien out there in the universe.

So, you are saying, something that causes reactions in the real world does not exist? okay...

No, still wrong, for existent figments of non shown things don't cause their object to be true.

I think god exists because there are no other creatures showing the thrashes of evolution. There are no neadrathals left. There was a tribe in the amazon that was lost to the world, and when they saw a helicopter they thought it was evil and threw spears at it. So...

Why is there no evidence of evolution? There are theories, but no hard skeletons showing the evolution in great numbers. Hell, there should be zounds of skeletons available for study.

There are plenty of bones, even full skeletons, such as recently found near Johannesburg, which even show a mixture of ape and human traits, but surely not all of the dead fall in a place where they can get fossilized. Evolution even has triple confirmation. Read up on it. It has evidence galore, even in transitional forms of creatures.

Okay, well, consider that due to young earth creationists, the amount of people on our planet is nearly exactly what it should be? Consider that population typically grows at a rate of 2.5 per generation or something - someone explained this to me much better - and then with that many million years on earth there should be way more people then seven billion, yes?

Population both rises and falls, and there have even been near extinctions. After once such near wipe-out, the population of our ancestors was down to just a thousand or two hardy souls, as told by Marine Isotope Stage 6, and it thought that they may have subsisted on shell fish in South Africa, but the location is still being worked out.

... _why does an atheist have a personal view of god in the first place?_

Some may have changed from theism to atheism, or, if not, happen to be well informed.

It's also good to learn a subject of debate from both sides, and so atheists at large may may know even more about the notion of God than theists, who may have just accepted it outright, since atheists had to get deeper into it to talk of it.

I was Catholic until I abandoned in in 5th grade, and then my study of science combined with reading about theism had the side effect of proving God not to be true in several ways, each of which could stand alone.

In 6th grade I fell in love with my nun teacher, Sister Theophelia, through her personality and what I could see of her, which was only the front part of her face. In 8th grade we found out that Theophelia had run off with our priest, Father Kramer. Cripes! I didn't know in 6th grade that I might have had a chance with here. I could have carried her books and walked her home to the convent, though it was but thirty feet away.

Okay, if you dig deep enough, and a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs, then there is not enough fossils - near each other - to be seen.

We find lots of dinosaur bones; others decayed or are still to be found.

The dinosaurs were around for hundreds of millions of year or so (I didn't look it up), seeming to be the ultimate Kings and Queens of Forever, but something wiped them out, as well as a heck of a lot of other life on Earth, and so all of the sudden one day the dinosaurs were no more.

A nervous shrew-like creature peered out of the forest where it had to hide, and said, "Holy Christ, they're all dead! Yea! Now there is space for me to evolve!"

And the population dynamics? Well, it has been hard to debate this with other people because they just ignore me, seeing as how i pump trolls.

If there were supposed to be so many people, and there are, according to a start with a man and a woman, then why do cultures vary so much on things like genetics? I mean, look at the is realites, they are pale while the turks, closer to europe, are 'darkish.' How did people get such a great variety of looks in such a short space of time, even with the millions of years of evolution? If the people were in the right climate, why is it so different across the pond, from europe to north america?

Actually there is very little genetic variation among humans, all things considered, and what there is is over millions of years, and not overnight or a short period of time

Death is the 'chooser' of the wise' from the 'silly', the pointed from the pointless, as Robert Ardley noted, sifting the rest from the best (I say).
The 'cause' is that of the environment and how things operate in it. 'Random' can't even exist. Creatures are fine-tuned to the Earth by evolution, this fine-tuning limited to what is handy to pull off of the shelf at the time.

'Chance' is not the scientific alternative to Intelligent Design; natural selection is.

So, if they had long to evolve, then why are there so few of them? I know i am repeating myself, but it seems to be a paradox to me. The only answer can be aliens guiding the life here, or, a force of conscious nature. And how did they cross the sahara?

We all descended from the few hardy souls remaining after some near extinction or perhaps even from just one of them, if DNA analysis can show this.

The answer is evolution, even of those prior aliens who may have come here.

They took a jet plane across the Sahara.

The tricky theist (or agnostic) doesn't volunteer any of God's attributes, since they can be contested, but waits for the atheist to speak of them, so the theist can deflect away from the main idea of 'God' existing, and stall the whole discussion, into details that don't really mean anything, so as not to have the other side win, for the theist position cannot even get off of the ground.

The tricky theist tells that God is undefined, which is really not telling what God is, but what He isn't (isn't defined); yet, the tricky theist is still saying that God exists as the Fundamental Creator Being who is the source of all, including the universe which God thought up and implemented. This is inherent in Theism, so the tricky theist cannot deny this. In Deism it is nearly the same but for that this type of God no longer intervenes in the universe after He starts it going.

First of all, a mere definition, as above, doesn't prove that its object is true, so there are no facts behind the claim to work with, which the atheist notes as worthless, so, it the theist still doesn't add anything else, it gets on to proving that God cannot exist due to the God notion being self-contradictory, which is only based on the theist's unavoidable Creator Being position, and not on God's further attributes such as benevolence and all-knowing, etc., but one can still note that those, if given, are merely layered on to the original, unsupported claim, which, along with the original claim, cannot be used as input to proving the claim, for that would be circular. "Could-be's" don't count, either, for the Theist must still say how God "could be".

So, first, to expose the tricky theist's non basis, we ask for facts, but he may not have any, or think that he does have something, but that it won't go over, and is so tricky that he just still says that God exists, but is otherwise undefined. Then we might say that we'll take logic since there are no facts (but he adds no logic), and then say that we'll take philosophy since there is no logic (no philosophy arrives), and so we'll take imagination since there is no philosophy (but none is given), and so we'll take feeling or sensation of God's presence within (not given). Nothing was ever given since it could be contested and undone.

By this time the tricky theist might realize that he cannot present anything at all, and so we can tell him that his basis has done worse than flopped, for there isn't any, and since his score is zero, he has lost, because the onus was on him to back his proposition.

We can then ask why, then, is the theist for the notion of God as the Creator Being, we being careful to remain silent and wait, ever steering back to the question if the theist tries deflections.

We can't wait forever, so we could leave, but the guy keeps hanging around, and this is a place that we are at for debate, plus we have not used up all of our ammo at once, for it is best to pace it out.

At some point, after it is for sure that it is that the tricky theist doesn't have anything, which is quite a bad reflection on his proposition, we note, as not a trick, that while he has nothing, that we have plenty to show for the impossibility of God's existence, which he will have to not only undo but replace with his own information. After this, he will have to engage, but not via that his notion can adapt to any and all turns of events, for he has nothing to show for that.

So, yes, once we take the position that God cannot exist, the onus is now on us to show the truth of that proposition. Plus, the theist will still keep on preaching, of at least the 'God exists' part, which is unethical, for it cannot be shown, which we remind him of, gaining more position, ever only by honesty, for people may be taken in by the claims, especially young children, other innocents, or adults who tend to accept 'authority', which doesn't help the world, but even harms it, for anything contrary to this flawed bill of 'goods' gets labeled as 'evil', and that just goes on to cause larger problems.

We can deal with the theist's admission of being immoral in his stating of truth without fact, or anything like "the end justifies the means", but the theist continues to deflect, and at some point asks us to disprove the notion of God, but knows inside that he has lost a lot of ground, which we can continue to bring out as an obvious result, one which has to stand if he still says nothing for his position.

So far, we have only used just the identification of the fundamental Creator Being, and nothing else, and so will continue with that approach in disproving God's existence, s that is the only information given.

If this was an official debate, there would already have been 'drops' all over the place.

So, after the intermission in the debate, the tricky theist returns, still handicapped by not be able to expound and expand on his position, which the audience notes and rightly talks about, and now faces points based only on his premise, which he has to own, which faces either its full disproving (preferred) or quite enough to crumble it. We have at least destroyed the credibility of the practice of preaching the unknown as truth and fact, which is really the main problem. Yet, it still continues, albeit to a lessor degree, and so God's existence must be disproved.

Believers who have become totally robotic will not be reached, as their brain wires that have so long fired together have become very strongly wired together, forcing their claims to ever be just proclaimed again and again, which at least may give them something to think about and something else that they have to respond to and undo, exposing their basis; however, the tricky theist just wants the other side not to win, which seems to give his side a chance, as a 0-0 tie game, even though his side has nothing potential in it to score.

The game goes into extra innings, though, and we have actual information from reality, while the theist only has fantasy to draw from, and cannot draw from that, but will have to try, or else we will say that our points have not been undone and replaced by anything but a magic statement of magic.

1) Composites can't be first and fundamental, such as proposing that atoms, molecules, or beings (such as us) are, nor Beings (such as Gods), all the more, to umpteen degrees even, because their parts must come before, and the parts of the parts, they getting ever closer to the simpler and the simplest that is first and fundamental. So, the direction being looked at for the Creator Being God notion is completely opposite, which couldn't be more wrong, rendering the God notion totally beyond repair.

Plus, a believer cannot demand that life has to come from Life and then throw the template of the demand right out the window to then all of the sudden say that Life wouldn't then require LIFE behind it, and so forth.

The God notion was but a simpleton idea that just went one level up and then inexplicably halted, "case closed", ending all thinking, but that's what dogma is. Our karma has run over the dogma.

For those who still doubt, we will identify that humans still use probability, to decide, as they must, in practice, for one cannot really be on and off the fence at the same time, plus sitting on a fence can be uncomfortable. They begin to see that the possibilities of 'God' vs 'no God' are not equi-probable, as perhaps they mistakenly thought in the first place.

The tricky theist may say that 'God' is an unprecedented happening, God just happening to be sitting around eternally as the First, with all His power, having done nothing to earn it (we would add), but at least the tricky theist had to claim more attributes of extensions, but has nothing to show, while we do have something to show, and even more.

2) Basic 'somethings', or just 'something' are either as Something Forever or From Nothing. 'Nothing; is not 'God', but its opposite, and if as Something Forever then they were never made, and so they had no creation, and thus no Creator.

The two and only two possible options above even conjoin, in that each indicates the other, for Something Forever did not come from anything, and so the notion is incomplete, and we can only complete it by going on to note that when something doesn't come from anything that this is akin to saying that it comes from nothing.

And for the option of From Nothing there had to be some default (a forced 'capability') to make it turn into something, or as 'sum-things', positives and negatives, that still sum to zero overall (and we do see this balance of opposites in nature). Yet, the forced defaults' 'capability' was potentially eternal, as unexercised, but not actually eternal, for it changed into a universe, plus we already know that what is said to be 'forever' is as from nothing.

'God' is now gone twice over. Intermediate managers have been laid off, they adding nothing, and not First.

And still the basis of all has to be simple, for it is not the basis if it is complex or composite, with parts. The Creator Being would not be simple, for it would have to have a system of mind that thinks, plans, designs, and creates.

All that's left to be as 'God', but not a 'God', is but a highly evolved alien life form making us or putting a microbe here that evolved into us (and evolution has triple confirmation).

So, a 2-0 shutout, although 1-0 would have been enough. It was also a perfect game, since the theist had no hits. Balks were many, though.

Responses to 'attributes' that may arise by mistake

'Infinite' extent is impossible, as an actual, for it can never attain completion, being a short-cut word for just that, so the universe and what is its basis must be finite. What if the finite Being is said to be all the amount there is and can be, still making it the All, with nothing else beyond? This is fine, but since the Being idea can't be supported, it adds nothing, any any 'infinite' extent or power has been chipped away, in case that 'attribute' finally comes up.

If the proposed 'God' is supposed to be everywhere, doing everything, then we note that it is seen nowhere, doing nothing extra-, beyond-, or supernatural, since all can be naturally explained. No planets suddenly stopped and froze in there orbits with nothing flying off of them, etc. Nothing supernatural happens, high and low, nor near and far. Absence of evidence thus becomes evidence of absence.

' **Cliff Notes' Summary of the Solution to All:**

From science, I noted that what everything in the universe has in common is waves, which is a kind of a 2D term, but in 3D they can be as vortexes, which are again, ever present, but real thrust is that they are oscillations. Since, by logic, the essence of All as one big and continuous event must carry on into the universe (only a change in form), the fact of waves/oscillations/vortexes everywhere informing us of the nature of the essence, for nothing else can come into play.

I have the primal wave to be involved with apparent nothingness (no other source), but as produced from apparent nothingness, thus making the wave to be a something, not as e/m waves being apparent nothingness itself—the default situation. It is a default 'capability' that forces an potentially eternal state to have a probability of changing form (into the universe), although not in a way that violates energy conservation, nor gets something from nothing, nor has an unacceptable infinite rate of change. There are plenty of examples of oscillations in higher nature, so we need not go into those, plus the goal is to add more at the low end.

The so-called 'bang' is one that happened 'everywhere', although size can lose its meaning when there is no scale, for the primal wave is as large as the universe. There must be an opposite, negative, primal wave, too, to preserve nothingness and conservation, which are really saying the same thing, and the two primal waves envelop about 10^85 similar wave patterns until meeting a bandwidth limitation (an actual infinity cannot be), at which point the universe becomes in the form that we know it. 10^85 is also the number of 'particles' in the universe. The primal wave and its opposite are both existent, although we might call them a 'something' and an 'anti-something'.

The primals are much like a giant neutron, and this gives rise to two and only two stable matter particles in free space, the electron(-) and the proton(+), because there are only two ways to make them, as one is of the wave envelope's oscillation and one is of the wave's oscillation, both being of a cosine form, as those derivatives and their derivatives do not have an infinite rate of change. Other trig functions were ruled out. Only cosine was left (forced). Forced default conditions ever wave us on.

Everything has a wave/vortex nature, even humans. we, as whirlpools, taking things in (and out) being just longer lasting than a little whirlpool in a stream. All that happens in the universe is the unfolding of one large event rather than local causes and effects that we only can claim as such (wrongly) because we make boundary points upon what is continuous.

Note that the basis of All has to be a simple, continuous function, and a wave is the only such. We can't have a basis with parts making it up, for then it wouldn't be the basis, the parts having come before.

Another, forced, key is that infinity can only be potential, not actual, and that supposed 'eternal' situations have to change, or not anything would have happened. And of course that there is literally nothing to make anything of

All I needed was the math part for all this, and I found it from Roger Ellman.

The 'needle' that we were forced to find in the haystack is what knits the fabric of the universe with the thread of the wave. Science (the good part) informs us, logic guides us, math provides, and the necessitated 'default condition' ever waves us on.

The aim is toward the base existent, but further on up there are new spins (vortexes) arriving, too, such as, say, a particle sends an influence to a second particle, which then has a response towards where the first particles was (but it has moved on a bit), and so this induces a whirl effect, as the first particle also may respond to where the second particle just was (but has moved in the meanwhile).

IMHO, fathoming in our physical reality that all physical things have limits, indeed it can be concluded that all must happen (change) as it must, as in both in physics and in human life.

We may not like the idea of a fixed will, but to show the contrary, one would have to explain how one's 'will' doesn't depend on anything at all, so then it is that the other shoe drops with a really big thud, for that is not observed nor would it work, plus we dislike that option more than its opposite, so, now, we still don't like the first option of a fixed will all that much, yet we've come to understand that it's the only way things can be, so we are pleased that we gained the information, and having more information is learning, which makes for a wider and newer, but still fixed will that has more directions as 'choices'. We are are ourselves and no one else because our will deepens on our learnings, experience, memories, and associations. So, 'determination' at least works, and it now seems less of a 'curse', for its opposite would be 'undetermined' action, which would be an abomination, but it can't be so anyway, for there is no 'random' anyway, not that 'random' acts would do anything but produce chaos.

Fixed will is a view obtained from information about reality, not a result of not wanting 'God' to be true. What we want or don't want can only get in the way of the search. The information about fixed will gives birth to compassion for those who are stuck, those having the inability to learn, for that is doom.

I recall a story on someone asked Buddha on is there anything that does not change in this ever changing world, Buddha replied that the act of nature for the change in this ever changing world, does not change.

Its capability is still is here, and everywhere else, some of these 'places' not in our universe, and it could produce more, of things that change, which is an ongoing expression of itself, but still itself, at heart, for it is but a change in form. The 'capability' of potential cannot remain unexcercised, remaining that way for an actual eternity, and did not, for change is inevitable.

A system cannot be first, nor can even any thing be first, not even an electron as an 'elementary' particle, not even the waves, fields, and oscillations that compose it, nor even one solitary wave, which I propose as the first actual thing, for there is nothing to make anything of and so that is what was truly first.

Let's see, as I recall, Meleager's trap was that _it's unreasonable to believe that god can be disproved beyond_ _all_ _possible doubt, so therefore, being an atheist - someone who denies without question the existence of god - is, by definition, unreasonable._

God - of some sort - has been proven to exist to countless people for thousands of years.

... _one only has to have a first-hand experience of god._

Let's remember, that the existence of god is proven by definition if that person finds the evidence to be compelling. It doesn't have to be good evidence, and it doesn't necessarily mean god is real.

Also, one can be brought up in a church and be taught specific methods for achieving 'grace', or communion with God, or salvation, which lead to certain life results that become quite apparent in one's life. Many people have tried and these methods have failed for some, leading them to falsify the existence of that or another god. Other people have succeeded, thus verifying (proving) the existence of that god to them.

Is there any reason why I should close my mind to the possibility?

Yes, for even the 'possibility' / 'could be' indication is not indicated or shown to be possible, merely presumed. So, it matters not what someone's version is since no 'is' can be shown. I'll deal first with the one basis of the main religions—that God is the basis of all, and with other versions as they come up, those which do not have God as the basis of all.

'Rational faith' is a trust that a known repetitive happening will occur again, such as the sun 'rising', whereas religious faith concerns an unknown that cannot be said to have happened, so, while 'faith' is also a general term beyond its religious use, a word like 'trust' (or a better one) will prevent confusion from the overloaded word of 'faith', for a theist might mistakenly say to a non-theist, "See, you employ faith, too."

God has already been shown to be impossible (a complexity cannot be first), and soon there will be another disproof. Meanwhile, theists can't even show 'God' as a 'could be, much less beyond that, which isn't even a 'that' anyway.

1) Composites can't be first and fundamental, such as atoms, molecules, or beings (such as us), nor Beings (such as Gods), all the more, to umpteen degrees even, because their parts must come before, and the parts of the parts, they getting ever closer to the simpler and the simplest that is first and fundamental.

So, the direction being looked at for the Creator Being God notion is completely opposite, which couldn't be more wrong, rendering the God notion totally beyond repair.

A believer cannot demand that life has to come from Life and then throw the template of the demand right out the window to then all of the sudden say that Life wouldn't then require LIFE behind it, and so forth.

The God notion is but a simpleton idea that just goes one level up and then inexplicably halts, "case closed", ending all thinking, but that's what dogma is. Our karma has run over the dogma.

For those who still doubt, such as agnostics, we identify that humans still use probability, to decide, as they must, in practice, for one cannot really be on and off the fence at the same time, plus sitting on a fence can be uncomfortable. They begin to see that the possibilities of 'God' vs 'no God' are not equi-probable, as perhaps they mistakenly thought in the first place.

The tricky theist may say that 'God' is an unprecedented happening, God just happening to be sitting around eternally as the First, with all His power, having done nothing to earn it (we would add), but at least the tricky theist had to claim more attributes of extensions, but has nothing to show, while we do have something to show, and even more.

2) Basic 'somethings' are either as Something Forever or From Nothing. 'Nothing; is not 'God', but its opposite, and if things are as Something Forever then they were never made, and so they had no creation, and thus no Creator.

The two and only two possible options above even conjoin, in that each indicates the other, for Something Forever did not come from anything, and so the notion is incomplete, and we can only complete it by going on to note that when something doesn't come from anything that this is akin to saying that it comes from nothing.

And for the option of From Nothing there had to be some default (a forced 'capability') to make it turn into something, or as 'sum-things', positives and negatives, that still sum to zero overall (and we do see this balance of opposites in nature). Yet, the forced defaults' 'capability' was potentially eternal, as unexercised, but not actually eternal, for it changed into a universe, plus we already know that what is said to be 'forever' is the same as from nothing.

'God' is now gone twice over. Intermediate managers have been laid off, they adding nothing, and not First.

And still the basis of all has to be simple, for it is not the basis if it is complex or composite, with parts. The Creator Being would not be simple, for it would have to have a system of mind that thinks, plans, designs, and creates.

My Complete Solution To All shows how the forced default conditions came together as the universe. 'God' was not required.

All that's left to be as 'God', but not a 'God', is but a highly evolved alien life form making us or putting a microbe here that evolved into us (and evolution has triple confirmation).

So, a 2-0 shutout, although 1-0 would have been enough. It was also a perfect game, since the theists had no hits. Balks were many, though.

3) The Final Solution

There is literally nothing to make anything (actuality) of and so that must be what it comes from, in an expression of it, as a distribution, for no other source is possible. 'From nothing' is not from 'God'; it is from nothing—from nonexistence. It is everything that existence is not.

That's it. Done. And it cannot be undone. No actuality can be the first source. All things must have beginnings, from nothing, and 'things' includes beings.

Confirmation isn't even needed, but we have it in spades, as an overall zero-balance of 'sum-things' as somethings... which summation to zero is the basis for the conservation laws, now as well as before, for they are inherent in the perfect symmetry of nothing. The opposite polarity of charge, matter vs anti-matter, and the negative potential energy of gravity balancing the positive kinetic energy of stuff all together constitute the nullification of existence in the overview, although one of them would be primary, but all are intertwined, such as gravity/mass/matter/energy operating from one another.

And, finally, lo and behold, the universe does appear to have come from nowhere and nothing, for just before it was here it was not here.

Because the universe happened, we see that change is inevitable.

Only the simplest possible actuality could be first, as a thing, but not First, since nothing must be the source of it, and so Nothing is ever the First. The simplest actuality produced from nothing would have to be a continuous function (no parts), such as a wave, and its counter-wave, for balance.

What about that the base actuality was around forever, its exact amount just happening to be such and such, no more, no less, already made in its certain form, but never made, that same exact stuff in its original amount still here and ever will be?

While this 'forever' result would also disprove 'God', since the stuff was never created by anything, much less by a Being, it is an incomplete solution, and thus an invariably wrong solution, due to its incompleteness. Something being not from anything is akin to it being from nothing. Things cannot be causeless, leaving only nothing to be causeless, as the default, simplest state.

So, no thing be can first, not even an electron as an 'elementary' particle, not even the waves, fields, and oscillations that compose it, nor even a solitary wave and its opposite, which I propose as the first actual things, for there is nothing to make anything of and so that is what was truly First, and its zero-sum balance of opposites shows in nature.

So, now, atheists have something, which is better than just the theist's feeling/sensation born of repeated exposure to the God idea, or of the nervous system, which felts states of beings are not the whole story, but only a second story, as they are ever of the non-apparent first story substrates of the levels of physical and neurological states beneath, on into the basement beneath those.

A 3-0 shutout.

An external world exists, for we have senses to take it in, the senses being spy outposts that directly contact external reality. That we have an understanding of reality is shown since we can manipulate it out there using stuff out there to make things that work out there.

And what's up with probabilities? Do probabilities exist in reality itself, or do they only apply to our imperfect knowledge of absolutely determined events?

Since we cannot predict from 'chaos', which doesn't imply that the happenings are random or even that 'random' is possible, the probability thing is a 'prediction' of the possible happenings overall, during some duration.

Causality has been a major topic of discussion since David Hume criticized the concept. If all we can observe is constant conjunction between cause and effect, even if we shrug off the problem of induction, we still have problems accounting for what the connection between cause and effect really is, ontologically speaking. In some cases it isn't even clear how cause and effect should be distinguished one from the other. If all that connects cause and effect are observed constant conjunctions, then what is it that distinguishes scientific laws from accidental correlations?

We make what seem to be useful boundaries on the flow of things to note 'cause and effect', but there is only the one initial, circumstantial, cause ever continuing to unfold as the one big event.

It's still that once one uses a specific word, one has to declare the word in all its specifics. I know we all have a vague idea of what 'God' means, but ask ten people ten questions about God, and one may find that there may be ten ideas about god out there. If one uses a word, one must fully explain that word, and in light of the Theory of Everything, one must also do that on scientifically satisfying grounds.

Many have said semantically impossible things in which the words sound good, but make no sense, like, say, "God is the Universe", but, like a rose, the cosmos still the universe by any other name (a synonym). Some even said what God is not, such as being undefinable, but that only supported the 'claim' that to say that this notion of 'God' says nothing, for it indeed defines nothing.

All of these are now moot:

1) God intentionally created the universe. He is a Being, first and fundamental before all.

2) God is involved in every happening, every interaction. Nothing goes on all by itself without God.

3) God is everywhere.

4) We are God's special creation.

5) God listens to our thoughts.

6) God operates from a supernatural dimension.

7) God places a soul in every human.

8) God published a true book, via inspired humans.

9) God performs miracles.

Austin, this UVS philosophical quote might be suitable for your TOE on the nothingness of space.

"In the physical universe, space as a nothingness is an intrinsic feature of nature,

is a prerequisite for any physical entity to exist." - UVS inspired,

All physically things are existing in a nothingness of nature.That sums it up very well.

'Nothing' is the prime prerequisite, for it is the only source for the physical. The unexercised potential for its change becomes actual when probability catches up with it, as it must, producing two opposite wave oscillations of plus and minus '1-cos' (so no abruptness), basically, so as not to violate energy conservation, making it more as a distribution or expression of nothing rather than getting something free and clear from nothing, more waves and their envelopes forming within larger waves and envelopes, to not have an infinite rate of change, which are to be all the particle oscillations in the universe. which formation tends towards infinite, but 'infinite' can never be, so there is a finite limitation, plus there are bandwidth limitations, and so the symmetry blows up, which disallows complete annihilation, and out comes the universe, the two and only two stable matter always charged particles in free space still being the original two types of oscillations, that of the wave and the envelope, as the electron and the proton, with one and only uncharged, neutral energy particle, the photon being an out of phase (by a half cycle) wave oscillation conjunction.

(Why are there exactly two fundamental particles not one or several ? There had to be exactly two because there had to be the wave at some frequency and the envelopes at some other, lower, frequency. Why are the electron and the proton stable whereas almost everything else appears to be unstable ? 20th Century physicists have hypothesized that the proton is unstable and decays with a very long mean lifetime. Experiments have been conducted to detect this decay (by detecting an associated form of radiation called Cherenkov radiation). The experiments, although conducted under conditions and over periods of time that according to the physicists' theory should have detected proton decay events, have yielded no such events. The proton and the electron are stable. The reason is that they are simple centers-of-oscillation; there is no simpler form to which they could decay and their structure is so simple that there is no imperative to attempt decay to a simpler form.)

Wave frequency is energy, wave amplitude is mass, and matter/antimatter and charge polarity are there having to be two opposing primal '1-cos' waves.

The answer to the ID vs Evolution 'dilemma' is that there can be no 'random', for that means that not anything was depended on. What was depended on was the environment, to which survival was fine-tuned, via genetics. That's not enough, though, for, in turn, nature had to have the capability for creatures to form and adapt in the first place.

So, the capability for our existence was absolutely inherent in the universe all along, the universe having had to be such in particular to be able to produce life. If not, we wouldn't be here to discuss it. A differently formed universe may not have had this capability.

We will always look back to see what we at first think are fortunate events, such as asteroids wiping out the dinosaurs and much of other life, but asteroids (and their basis) were ever on the way here.

The universe also had to be very large, which it is, and so then there are places, amid all the 'junk', like the Earth, where all the conditions line up just right, which is a lot of them, such as even there having to be a moon for stability, lest the Earth wobble too quickly in and out of hot and freezing zones.

It is all still a design without a Designer, since a Designer could made the right place and put all the creatures on it intact and fully formed.

Evolution took ages, which is yet another indication that it is true, along with fossils, DNA, and embryonics all matching each other, which is an undeniable triple (even quadruple) conjunction of confirmation.

So, all, now, is what it had to become, the outcome already guaranteed by the particular arrangements of nature in the beginning, which amounts and more were circumstantial, not existential, unless it is that tiny things of any properties can always combine and amount to higher and higher composites and complexities, these tiny things unable to be 'inert', due to the forced default condition of the Beginning, such as that actual infinities are impossible, such as infinite density, forcing things like waves within waves to 'blow', from the bandwidth limitation, waves having to be so since they are continuous functions without lessor parts, and so they can be the first 'thing', with an opposing primal wave so that all cancels to nothing, which is the only source of existence, so that something is not actually obtained, free and clear, from nothing, and that, while much annihilation of the opposites did occur, the remainder could not once it all blew up. The zero-sum balance of 'sum-things' remains apparent in the universe today as polarity of charge, matter/anti-matter states (ever produced in pairs), gravity's negative potential energy canceling that of the positive kinetic energy of stuff, and there being two and only two stable matter particles in free space—the electron and the proton, hinting that there are only two ways to make them.

In our case, in our universe, whatever happened in the Beginning is what happened, but is was such that we had to become after 13 billion years. No choice; no luck' no 'random'.

And, too, we do what we must (determinism), which might be disheartening to some, that is, until the other shoes drops, and we look into what the opposite of 'determined' would be, which is 'undetermined' events, which are not possible, but if they were, in our imagination, then that would lead to complete chaos.

So, now, the former disheartened are perhaps a bit happier that our will does depend on things such as our memories, experiences, learnings, and associations.

We are in a 'scripted play', yes, but at least we get to be in it, and it is fun. We also like that we have found truth, even though it's like Dennet's universal acid that eats away all our superstitions (if we had any).

There is no 'random', not even a probability-statistical one. There are no intermediate mini first causes as 'random' beyond that of the original and main 'random' of bottommost causeless state of 'nothing'. All that then goes on is an unfolding of that.

One cannot even make a truly random number generator, for, when one tries, such as in computers, one must even keep a history to maintain its regularity of randomness (when designing certain computer instructions for rounding, or for other reasons). I used a computer random number generator once to shuffle a deck of computer cards for the game of Hearts, but it always went on the same if the initial seed was put back in, which was at least good for replays.

Atheism is false.

This is saying that there has to be some kind of 'God'. 'God' was a fine idea, although a simplistic extension of the human family, and it onward spurred the investigations of Cosmology, Logic, and Philosophy onto and unto the identification of the simpler and simplest basis of All, which expectedly proved not to be all fancy and complicated, and perhaps even boring to some, but it's still exciting to find the answer to the most often asked and wondered about question. Our descendants may evolve to become much higher forms in the future, being ever more "in the zone".

— Sanctuary —

I ran breathless through meadow and forest,

Fast pursued by the stings of wind and rain;

On and on I wandered, wild without rest,

Searching for a haven from life's dull pain.

— The Library —

The storm chased me till I could go no more;

I stood helpless, backed up against a door,

And fell through it before harm could touch me,

Cushioned by dreams within supporting me.

— Romantic Poetry —

I found a garden half as old as time,

In which poets could live and write their rhyme—

While the nightingale created the rose,

By moonlight magic, from the thoughts sublime.

— The Secret —

My quick thoughts rose, mist rising from the dew,

As living dreams unveiled more than I knew.

From poetry's light a garden grew,

Revealing mysterious wonders new.

— Vastness of Information —

The scene unfolded before me, such as

Music often approaches and surrounds

And builds on the vibrance which in one is

To fill all that lives with beautiful sounds.

— The Awakening —

I brushed aside the webs of gossamer,

As came to life all that I remember:

My quick thoughts fell, condensing into dew,

As living dreams revealed more than I knew.

— Keats —

I wandered down memory's path,

Aglow in the soft beauty that it hath.

I saw Johnny Keats kissing Fanny Brawne,

As he spoke more than words but less than song,

— More Romantic Poets —

And Byron, endowing form with fancy,

While Wordsworth penned his thoughts to Lucy,

And Shelley, plumbing the depths of mystery;

I read them all; now they're a part of me.

— Listening —

Deeper still I probed, looking in on it,

And heard Mrs. Browning reading a sonnet.

Poetically, I took them all in, even

The shadowy Emily Dickenson.

— Vassar College —

So, there, I rested, up against a tree,

Savoring the feeling of their poetry,

Where all the flowers used in Shakespeare's plays

Grew together in a living bouquet.

— He's O.K., I'm O.K. —

And, there, beneath the rose tree, Old Khayyàm

Wrote his verse, looking younger than I am,

And lived the proof of his philosophy,

The writing of which was but secondary.

— Life Now Comes First —

All this I remember, and much more,

But, I shall not write as I did before,

For living and feeling come first in life,

And now I've a garden I can't ignore.

— This Rare Earth —

Oh, never has there been a time more rare,

But that I could truly say "I was there

On that Heavenly sphere of blue and green;

Yes, I was there in life extraordinaire!"

— The Theater of Life —

At first, it was like a moving picture show,

Attended by mysteries, row upon row,

That were faceless, laughing, in the dark below;

So, I laughed, too, and better enjoyed it so.

Consciousness is the 'it' of our inner reality as expressed from the correlated 'bits' of the neurological states, for the 'bits' must come first. Still, it is as if the same information has two forms, as water turning into wine, unless the firing of the neurons across the synapses of the 'bits is the 'it', the wine being the same as the water.

The best argument for Atheism is one that cuts out the possibly of God at the source, which would be a Theory of Everything, although the TOE is undertaken an unbiased search for the truth, with the non-existence of God as a fall out of it, and so the TOE can be used for the God area.

There is a unity to the Cosmos, it all being of the big event of a change in form, known as the 'bang', with nothing else being able to come into play, and while it cannot be felt, it can be figured out.

At first, separation seems to be apparent, such as electrons vs protons, positive and negative charge, space vs stuff, space vs time, the weak nuclear force vs the strong nuclear force, past vs future, electric vs magnetic, gravity's potential energy vs the kinetic energy of stuff, and more, but, deeper, these are seen to be paired opposites of a single balance, as two sides of the same coin of symmetry.

There is not so much a string of individual causes and effects as there is a continuing unfolding of the one basic, initial effect from the eternal Ground of Determination (G.O.D.), which has to be nothing, for all sums to it, which is an unfortunate set of initials since it overloads the common meaning of the word 'God'.

So, there has to be a Ground, and as there can be no 'infinite', what it produces must be finite, it exuding the universe because density has a finite bandwidth limit, this accumulation happening because probability must eventually catch up with nothing's potential eternal duration's unxercised instability that is by default restricted to expression as two opposing primal waves, as waves are simple continuous functions that have no parts, another default, so as to maintain (and invent) the conservation laws.

That what all of nature has in common are waves is evident, as well as that an interruption or change in the potential eternal nothingness that could not stay as an actual eternal resulted in the universe, as truly seeming to come from nowhere and nothing.

One can be thankful that this Ground had to be, since we have life from it, and even call it 'God' since it is the source, but it is all what naturally had to be, not anything extra-, beyond- and supernatural.

Anything added on is by human mammals, of their imaginations, who are notorious for making things up, for the mind keeps wanting an answer.

Those who meditate seem to get rid of the self, but the 'seems' is still to them, feeling at one with the Cosmos, calling being with God, but it is that the quietus induced also quiets the neurons having to do with self-identification and one's bodily boundaries (Buddhist monks were monitored by electrodes).

So, the felt states of being are a second story, being not the full story, for there is a non-apparent neurological substrate first story state beneath, along with sub-levels of basements below that.

Science can inform us of the non-apparent states beneath, and so introspection alone doesn't cut it (all), and that is rather the poverty of falling for one's own thoughts, based on, well, nothing more than that one thought of them, which is a very likely pitfall.

THE MATERIAL WORLD Our so-called 'material' is but penultimate, secondary, and, thus, non-elemental, as emissions of opposite particle pairs from the opposing primal waves of 'sum-things'. All this, such as its other forms of positive mass-energy and negative gravity energy, plus opposite charge polarity, sum and cancel to a big zero, literally, being but the arbitrary and fleeting phantoms of the temporary particulars of specifics sprayed from the uncaused, eternal, fundamental, and necessarily indefinite ground-state of 'nothing', beneath, that could have no real intent or direction to it; for there could be no 'before', but itself, nor of causes beneath causes of an infinite regress.

Life is the glorious result, a 'freedom', although still within our form limited, of course, but with no strings of meaning attached, and so it's much better than having a constraining 'purpose', yes, when you really think about it.

Now and Zen

Everything that is part of us—our cells, tissues, organs and organ systems—has come about over billions of years because it proved successful in the great survival stakes during our perilous evolutionary descent (ascent) with modification. The brain, being no exception, evolved, in part, to allow a creature to learn from what happens in its life, to retain key elements that could influence future actions.

We are geared for self-preservation. We will do anything to avoid facing the possibility that who we are now cannot continue. We ourselves are mainly the cause that we are interested in. The self is preoccupied with staying alive, which is why our species is still around today. It is a prime biological function to be afraid of death, and, so, the self, as thus contrived, is able to fully play its crucial survival role. We want to equip our brain with a 'soul' that offers us an escape when the brain dies since the self cannot come to terms with its own extinction.

From a subjective standpoint, we are all born equal and undifferentiated (before that, 'we' were dead), but, as mature selves we make a distinction between the individual and the surroundings. Still, the brain keeps changing throughout life, in a pattern of the shifting flux of its neurons; we gain and lose memories and feelings, essentially creating a new person over and over again. The self is thus not so rock solid as it seems. These moment-to-moment changes differ from death only in degree. In essence, they are identical, although at the opposite ends of the spectrum. So, we are not static things.

Other neural networks will come to be in other, future people, albeit with an 'amnesia' of what went on before in the brains of the previous others. Why should we be happy about this? We never can be, because the 'I' cannot operate outside of its own boundaries. The only viable alternative is to think of a way in which it is possible to ever continue on. What will it be like to be a part of someone else after we die, with our own particular narrative of life cast aside? This is the 'zen' of now and then and when.

Everything happens, even over and over again, if not in this universe then in the others that could be...

Mission Impossible

The Infinite is nowhere to be found as an actual, for it defeats it own aim of being so by an extent never being able to amount to it, so, only the finite is possible, and thus the universe is finite, as well as what gave rise to it—the opposing primal waves/envelopes within the same that were of it and are still in it today.

Eternity tried to be, as well, but couldn't make it, as the state of sameness before the universe, for the universe became, it being all that the pre and potential 'eternity' was not.

The third Impossible, of Nothing Forever, could not stay as such, being perfectly unstable, but it is the basis of All—Nothing, that lack of anything that must ever precede the 'sum-things', for there is literally nothing to make anything of, which is undeniable.

The Impossible of Things Forever failed, too, for what is claimed to not be of anything is thus from Nothing.

Of all the supposed elemental fellows, only Nothing survives, but as unstable, thus producing Everything. when probability catches up to it in a big way.

It blew because infinite density is not possible, as well as by the cosine wave function reaching the limit of its bandwidth, and so the annihilation of the opposing primal waves could not complete, the remainder becoming the universe.

THE EVER VICTORIOUS

Over Man came the Triumph of Love

But Chastity gave it quite a shove;

However, Death then all conquered,

But this was not the final word,

For Time happily reigned over all,

Or so it thought—as its thrall,

But, Divinity vanquished its trend;

Yet, still, this was not the end,

For, as ever, the basis was left to sting,

Since Nothing overwhelms everything.

Matter and Energy Particles

Electrons and protons, as centers of oscillation of the waves and their envelopes, are only only two stable matter particles in free space because their are only two ways to make matter, along with their corresponding anti-matter particles from the opposing primal waves. Electrons and protons have opposite charge, making for the dance of the atom. Energy/mass is wave frequency/wavelength, and related, and charge is the wave amplitude.

A photon is the only possible energy particle in free space, necessarily neutral, of its 180 degree out of phase waves allowing positive and negative to live in peace.

So, there is a symmetry here, as ever.

All of nature is waves.

The default conditions forced the universe to be. No option; no choice.

Something had to be because Nothing couldn't (stay).

Beneath, Below, and Further

In succession due does the large give way and rule to the ever smaller, the tiny, the minuscule, and onto the negligibly insufficient 'AWOL' of not really much of anything there at all. Yet, it is at this bottom herefrom that the all of the upward progression begins its call, and so here the answer lies, to the sprawl, at the boundary where nature wrote its scrawl of existence upon the non, and back and forth, a place not necessarily like that we thought it is, a lawless, formless realm that's ever been the quiz.

Stability, too, does decrease, downward, woefully, melting within our descending journey, and so we must meet the perfect instability of the potentially perfect symmetry that cannot be, for, not only is it that everything must leak but that there can be not even one more antique of a controlling factor lurking about, for of anything else we've totally run out.

Here, then, the pulsations and the throbbings that must ever swing between being and not, ever averaging to nothing in their rise and fall, alternating here-there, varying.

Eternity and his elemental fellow rhymes of anything and everything bide their times, of which they have and always had continually all of the time of everlasting perpetuity, and, so, then, if one waits long enough, which is but an instant in forever's trough, say, for a month of Sundays in donkey's years, then not only do the rarest of events come to pass, but, eventually, so do all things possible that last.

And then, somewhere, sometime, it does the same all over again.

The TOE in Two Hands to Now in Hand

We always had the TOE in one of two hands, either as From Nothing or Something Forever, which was already a great accomplishment, and now we have the TOE, as From Nothing, and on the other hand we have, well, five fingers, for the other hand is now empty, but it signifies that universes can be ever and ever again.

Let's hear it for Roger Ellman and his math!

In everyday life, it is often "Live and let live", about beliefs, as we go about more important business; however, on debate forums people like to get to the bottom of things, and so here we can, for this is the place for it.

Theists can't know 'God' but they hope there is one. 'God' as supposed is the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority, or at least a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes. They may invent more details and layer them on beyond the basic notion. This is all what human nature does sometimes, which was more often in the old days when much less was known about nature.

Atheists not only reject unsupported declarations but also counter them, along with investigating why strong belief can gain a persistence in some believers. It is no matter if all are reached or not.

Vedanta shows my God.

The dream notion, if it be held, must be carried through and through. If so, the old Indian dream writings on dream paper cannot just be seen as the only real thing, and therefore meaningful kinds of ideas, when other dream writings on dream papers are not, for all would be but writ on water with the feathery quill of smoke and fog.

There is really no 'chance' or 'random', for that would mean that events don't depend on anything at all. The potential for life was inherent in the universe all along. The Earth, and other places, were always going to have the right conditions. The asteroids that killed off the dinosaurs and much other life to give mammals an opening were always on their way here. Two monkey chromosomes fused, and we became the third type of chimp, no longer able to mate with the other types. We can always look back and call it "good fortune", such as also our not being near the dangerous galactic core, and having a moon for the stability of the seasons passing slowly instead of a planet wobbling in and out of freezing and hot zones much too quickly, but we really don't even have to look, for we already know that all had to come together for us to be, since we are. We still look, though, ever finding and noting the 'good luck' that had to be so.

So as an atheist you're saying that you have some magical unnamed ability that makes your disbelief in god somehow more valid that of anyone else's disbelief? Somehow being able to label yourself atheist validates disbelief.

That if a theist points out why someone else has a false belief in a god their argument can be immediately dismissed just on the basis that they are a theist?

For me, the theist has nothing, for unsupported 'magic' doesn't do anything, and s/he is deceptive for preaching it as truth. Two strikes. The reasons for the persistent nature of strong belief can be shown scientifically. Three strikes.

So, we go on to seeing if 'God' is even possible, for the preachings of notions as fact can cause big problems in the world (which is a fourth strike).

The atheist uses science, not a magical unnamed ability, showing that complexities cannot be First, but must even come way later, as just higher evolved beings, and thus not 'God' This is a home run. Strike five on the theists.

We accept that some theists can't change, and that some even become extremists. Drones wipe them out every day, not because of their beliefs but because of the harm that they do.

The atheist continues to use science and reason, while the theists cannot, we showing the reasoning that universe has to come from nothing, this confirmed by the zero-sum balance of opposites seen in nature, as well as knowing that there is nothing to make anything of. This is the second home run. Strike six.

Some theists can't change but they begin to die off. For the rest, church attendance drops, even in the once stable U.S. Northeast. Some churches and schools close, consolidating. Religions begin to stress human support systems over the God dogma of the mythic age.

Debates continue, though, as ever, only the atheists being able to employ non-magic. The theists still want 'God', for the notion is a comfort, but can only have it via magic.

Some, like William Lane Craig, realize that that all things must have beginnings; however, this would include beings and Gods, but this doesn't fly for them, since 'God' has to be First and Fundamental, so they wish to exempt 'God' from their own realization. Strike seven.

They want eternal things, namely 'God', but eternal things don't come from anywhere or anything, which is the same as from nothing, and only simple, continuous functions as things without parts can be first, as things, giving rise to very tiny 'elementary' simple particles that can recombine and go through phase changes to form more composite and complex stable structures on up to beings, but this takes many billions of years.

Looking back, and downward, we see that the simpler and simpler gets more and more unstable, the more and more stabler being in the other, upward direction. The simplest state, which we can easily conceive of, is the lack of anything—nothing, and so that state has to be perfectly unstable. Strike eight.

Even if we grant that the simple, base existents could have been around forever, then they were never made, and so there was no creation or Creator. Yet, whence their overall amount, and their individual properties, as so made and defined, if never made and defined?

'God' has been disproved via self-contradiction, for the complex cannot be first, and disproved again, by having no presence in the origin of the universe as either the base existents being from nothing, as shown, or they have been around forever (an incomplete notion, but the only other option).

Some theists still continue, as they must, having grooved themselves, but get bypassed, by many governments.

More and more books come out against religion and theism, which was once unheard of, at large, the readers ever learning more. Theists retreat to saying that the Bible, once claimed to be of plain and simple text for the common man, is really but symbolic, with only experts being able to decode it.

The notion of 'God' is in full retreat. Science and observation shows that spirits, good or evil, do not cause good deeds or 'sins', that praying for the very sick does not help them, that amputees do not grow back their limbs by any miracles, that evolution is true, that nature operates naturally, with nothing extra-, beyond-, or supernatural going on—with no such things as planets freezing in their orbits, or anything.

The theists have nothing, while the atheists have everything, and the agnostics don't even have probability.

Now it is up to the theists who want to engage not only to undo the analysis, but also to replace it with their own, but magic will not sell a bill of goods, nor even produce one.

Case dismissed.

Whatever.

Either the 'what' was ever or it is of nothing. 'God' struck out.

Hey, I just went ahead in time, entering the future, and there are more waves of the future already nearby and about to arrive. It's a StarGate. See you in the near future.

The hypercube is of 4D, four distances, as so is spacetime as Einstein's block universe. Internally, the 4th dimensional distance converts to time, via the speed of light, c, as seen in these dimensional units:

dddt (internal spacetime) = dddd (hypervolume) / d/t (speed of light)

What harm is there in believing in god? It makes you do good things, for a reason, yes, but good things abound. charity, absence of crimes - if there is true belief - and so forth.

Some do behave better, out of fear, but the civil laws have the same principles, and people may not like to end up in jail or Hell. Such morality long preceded Moses.

On the other hand, the non-existent 'goods' of some believers causes anything contrary to be labeled 'evil', and so they go to war, even against other faiths, and especially against other religions since the mere existence of the creeds seems to lessen their own credibility.

I would swear you in particular, due to your debating, has something personal with the figment of god? Why do you take it so personally, it is not about you. this is a debate forum where we express ideas, not lynch helpless gods. i am not complaining, i am just pointing out the tone of your posts is always one of seeming to look down on people that believe in god, and that is personal.

The search was for truth, wherever it led, and so the idea of 'God' died, becoming really, really dead, and so some can claim 'God' was lynched, so to speak. Believers are unethical to proclaim 'God' as truth and fact. Every time you lie you murder a part of the world. Flawed debate wouldn't go over here.

The capability for life was inherent in the universe from the beginning, in how the universe's form was, given, too, that there could be a place like Earth that had all the right conditions for it, which was likely because the universe is really large, another requirement, and that the universe could last for billions upon billions of years to allow time for life to evolve...

OK, Charlatan, it's a go. We will first build a proto-version of our later and ultimate space ship, which will be good enough to take over the world. We will not wait for the exponential increase in Global Warming to arrive and thwart our efforts, not to mention it ending all life on Earth. This is it, do or die off, so the ethical questions regarding the takeover have become moot. We need the intervening years to drain the world's wealth in order to build our final ship, which will carry life to one of the Keppler-found "New Earths'". If the first planet isn't suitable we'll go on to the next.

There is already a secret 'World Intelligence Agency', an outgrowth of the unknown 'Ninja Empire' predecessor—of martial arts operatives, which you almost realized via the 'Ninja Star', but is now merged with CIA/DIA/MI6. They will assist us, as I am a member, they already having a plan for a world takeover. Our weaponized proto-ship will insure that it happens, and the best weapons will be retained in our ultra version, but we will look to space-worthiness features over weapons, since there is no alien life nearby. We (and our descendants) could be traveling a very long time, so some very good-looking ladies will be with us.

The takeover will begin as a rather innocent extension of the Iranian War that is to begin for sure in September, 2012, our actions being built upon the larger and subsequent Middle-East War, and then we will escalate it to World War III. Work can then begin on our Ultra-Warp ship.

(I wrote a Star Trek novel, but called it 'Star Track' and also slightly changed the characters' names, so as to avoid copyright infringement.)

There are aliens nearby. they live on mars, under the surface. i saw a news article about a domed building inside a cave - something about a glass chamber...

They're harmless, and stuck there. WIA knows about them. They're welcome to move to the cinder that Earth will become. It will be a step up for them.

Science News: NASA is feverishly pursuing the manned Mars Landing plan, but needs suitable astronauts, so they went to White Cliffs, Australia. Here they found a population of about 80 in a wilted world of horrible heat, rocks and dust. Due to the heat, their cave-houses are burrowed into the hills. When a vehicle goes by, it raises a cloud of red dust that eventually settles and covers everything. They have had electricity since 1993, TV since 1998, but no channels yet. Taipan snakes slither by, their venom 50 times more poisonous than a cobra's. Australia began as a nation when convicts actually began wanting to go there for the gold rush.

So, anyway, NASA enlisted them all in the Mars Landing Program, figuring that they wouldn't really know the difference between Mars and White Cliffs, or that, if they ever did, they'd be happy to reside in a much more hospitable place.

Science Saves Us From the Warm Future: The White Cliffs Underground Motel and the various home residences have the right idea—free cooling to 67 degrees F: perfect! This may be a good plan for all if the future if global warming really happens to happen for real.

I can imagine a stay in the Dug-Out Motel, it being quite a heavenly destination after traveling forever over bumpy roads and then getting out of the 'blender' mode and into the pool, as all this traveling would grant more appreciation of the three star AAA Motel. Perhaps a lovely lady would like to come along? Any volunteers?

Our room would have natural light from a shaft, which saves on electricity. There are no windows, but that only saves us from having to view the non-scenery. Cell phones wouldn't work, but, hey, that's great—there would be no interruptions of any pending eruptions. Hey, how come people in soap operas always answer their darn phone? It always ruins the moment.

Plus, we could always dine in the restaurant, since the nearest supermarket is a rough six-mile drive away. And the dust-assisted sunsets are truly unbeatable, they having ten times as more colors than the rainbow. Plus, with White Cliffs having electricity now, the beer is no longer a steamy hot 110 degrees F, but ice-cold. There was a bad drought in the 1890's and the land has not recovered, but who needs that when one has love and cold beer.

Everything Solved

A Summary:

The Forced Default Conditions That Cause Existence and How it Goes

1. We will see that what is is what had to be. Basically, extent and duration must be finite, for the infinite and the eternal cannot be attained, and that, plus the observed wave nature of everything, leads to the basis of everything—the TOE, as confirmed via the balance of opposites in nature. There are no true paradoxes., and so that knowledge becomes our trusted guide.

2. Finite extent is the only option, since infinite extent could never be completed; so, infinity cannot be actual, but only potential, as in an extent becoming ever larger and larger. It never reaches 'infinite'. If an extent wraps back on itself then it is boundless, not infinite, such as the surface of a sphere, the extent of which is an area of a certain number of cm^2. There may be a practical limit to the size of the concentrated finite extent, due to impossible infinite density, such as the point at which a black hole forms. Same for the smaller and smaller infinitesimal reverse extent, of the infinitely small; it cannot be an actual smallest infinitesimal; it cannot go to zero; potentially, it may get smaller and smaller. A practical limit might be the Planck size. This is not to say that something couldn't get canceled to zero if it had a complete opposite.

3. Similarly, finite duration is the only option, since eternal duration would never complete, so eternities cannot be actual, only potential, as in durations/intervals lasting longer and longer. There may be a practical limit to long duration, such as whenever probability catches up to it, causing a change, which starts a new duration. Same with a duration getting less and less, as the Planck time could be the limit.

4. So, what exists as something could not have always been around, even it stayed the same, for eternity is impossible, plus, what doesn't come from anything means the same as that it must come from nothing, which is a lack of anything—nonexistence. In addition, there is literally nothing to make anything of, and that is for sure, so that is the source, for sure.

5. Something From Nothing and Something Forever, the only two options, are the same, both as things become of nothing, and so From Nothing is the only option left, which makes it not an 'option', but forced.

6. Only 4D spacetime works; 3D space + 1D time = 4D. All other arrangements would be either too simple or totally unstable. 1D time needs to account for the nullification of existence, overall, somehow.

7. The base existents cannot have parts, or it wouldn't be the base; so, it has to be a simple continuous function. They are two opposing primal waves, from NothingGods need not apply.

8. There have to be two base existents, as 'sum-things', meaning a something and an anti-something, so they can cancel to the nothing from which they arose, for there is no other source. It sounds like a paradox but we know that it cannot be one. At first we think that Nothing can't produce anything, but a state of a lack of anything would have no laws to it, leaving it open, at least to the default conditions, plus it is that stuff can't just be sitting around all defined and made with no definition point to make and define it in the first place and time that never was. Why was its exact amount not any more or any less?

9. Nonexistence, which is a lack of anything, or nothing, cannot have endured eternally, for it didn't, obviously, as now there is something. So, there had to be something, no choice. Probability caught up with Nothing. What about that it could have been past-eternal, at least up to the point of changing into something? Well, since Nothing is not an existent, but a lack of, as it opposite, we can give it that past-eternal, for ever back nothing had only nothing before it, which only would have been more of the same. Call it infinite, too, as in being all over. Only Nothing qualifies as the prime mover that is not itself moved.

10. An existent came about from nothing, but it had to be a simple, continuous function, and what we have in the universe now must still and always be it, even in its changed form, as not anything else could have entered in.

11. What is common to everything in the universe is the wave nature, and a wave is a continuous function.

12. Two opposing primal waves were the first existents, from nothing, and a multiplicity of sub-waves within them. They could not attain infinite density, plus cosine waves within waves have a bandwidth limitation, and so a universe banged out before annihilation could complete. There are a billion more photons for every matter particle, so that was the cancellation ratio. There could not have been an infinite rate of change and conservation must be maintained. This heart of the theory is shown in the detailed version.

13. Energy is wave frequency and mass is wavelength, and of course they are inversely related. Charge is the wave amplitude. There is opposite polarity of charge and there are opposing matter states of matter/antimatter because there had to be two types of primal waves, of somethings and their opposing primal waves of anti-somethings. The summation of all this is nothing, which it has to be, no choice. Neither the mass effect nor the energy effect is a 'real' reality. The only reality is the oscillations; all else is our perception of the effects that are produced by the centers and their waves. Among those effects are what we have chosen to refer to as mass and energy. The only reality, the oscillation, consists of two equal and opposite oscillations that mutually maintain conservation.

14. Since there were only waves and their envelopes, plus their anti-waves and the anti-envelopes, there are only two possible stable charged matter particles in free space—the electron(-) and the proton(+), and their anti-particles, because one is of the wave (the proton) and the other is of the wave envelope (the electron). So, there were only two ways to make them. They are the only two centers of oscillation possible. Stable uncharged matter particles are not possible in free space (the neutron decays).

15. And there can only be one stable uncharged energy particle (packet) in free space—the photon, because its negative and positive waves are not opposing but are 180 degrees out of phase, which still cancels the mass of the wavelengths, leaving only the energy of the wave frequencies, and, so, plus and minus can live in peace, as neutral 'charge'. Stable charged energy particles are not possible.

17. Yes, there is a clear symmetry to the two stable matter particles and the one stable energy particle. It is the perfect symmetry of nothing!

18. A charged matter particle represents half of totality, and matter particles always arrive in opposite pairs, while an energy particle represents all of totality, as does an atom. And all of totality, in the overview, sums to zero, as a perfect balance of opposites., as it must.

19. The necessary zero-summation is the basis for the conservation laws.

20. There are about 10^85 particles in the universe because that was number of primal cosine waves and sub-waves going on when the universe banged due to the bandwidth/density limitation.

21. Low probability had all the time it needed for a change in the pre-universe state of nothing to something to eventually occur.

22. Lo and behold, the universe does appear to have come from nowhere and nothing.

23. The fact that there is literally nothing to make anything of cannot be undone, and so that is what all is from.

24. Not only would claiming that the base existent(s) were around forever be the same as from nothing, as they are clearly not from anything, but it is also that what was already made and defined would have been never made and defined, and so there would have been no point at which its individual specific properties and forms, as well its exact, certain total amount, could have been defined.

25. We were already down to only two options, which were Something From Nothing vs. Something Forever, which was already a great accomplishment, since one of them had to be the TOE, and now we are down to one—Nothing.

26. Nothing could not stay as such, so something had to become and be, and now we know that this occurrence was forced, no choice, and so one could then say that this capability/potential is that which was around forever, before things, as an essence of the no-thing nothing that must precede all things. The potential seems to be more than nothing but less than something.

27. Or it is that we can have our cake and eat it, too, since nothing is indeed the basis, but that it never sleeps, always being up to something, as it is perfectly unstable, as simpler and simpler states must ever get on to, for they are ever more reactive and going through phase changes, and nothing is the simplest state of all, nothing's doings ever happening but summing to zero, and, like in the quantum realm, zero would a definite number, not fuzzy, and so it is disallowed, movement thus being natural, not stillness, and so nothing must ever jiggle about, as loose change, jitterbugging away. So, we have our cake, and Edith, too. It would take a God to keep nothing intact. Change is inevitable, as we see, because the universe formed.

28. There are other balances in nature, too, such as the weak nuclear force that promotes changeability, versus the strong nuclear force that promotes stability, as well as the positive kinetic energy of stuff versus the negative potential energy of gravity, plus that atoms and molecules seem neither overly inclined nor disinclined to merge and part. The result is that things are neither so frozen that they cannot change nor so wildly changeable that they cannot stay together at all. Yes, balance, but not all in one place, just overall.

29. In the overview, totality is symmetric, but, internally it must be of polar opposites, which it is, and that is the confirmation of the origin of existence from the non.

31. There could not be 'cause and effect' forever down, and especially not to the origin itself, for that is where the buck had to stop, and so then nothing external could input to it, and so cause had to be replaced by an equation, that of the zero sum.

32. Essentially, charge, along with matter/anti-matter, since they must have opposite charge, makes for the nullification of existence, and so charge must have something to do with time, for only the 4th dimension, time, of spacetime that can be a difference dimension, for space is compositional and summative. It's kind of like Einstein's 4D block universe, time being the difference of spaces, like an index to the slices, either way, backward or forward, but things only go forward. The waves of the future are already massing nearby, as incoming, and about to arrive, in a 4D time way. Similarly, spaces are the difference of times. Time is a spacetime 'distance', which is not a regular distance, and regular distance is kind of a spacetime 'time'. Normally, such as when, say, walking, we think of ourselves going through space in time, not as us standing still and space moving past us at some rate.

33. There is determinism, after the origin, as all is of the continuing big event of the bang and what was before, although we may make artificial local boundaries to claim local cause and effect. We may feel uncomfortable about that all is determined, but its opposite, 'undetermined', would be that physical actions and our own willed actions don't depend on anything at all, which cannot be, and it wouldn't work anyway, as all would be chaos, and we wouldn't have evolved, and so then we are not so unhappy since the dependence is the only way things can be, and we do like that our actions represent what we have personally come to be, via our learnings, memories, experiences, and associations, plus that a wider, and newer, but still fixed will of the instant can be had from learning, and in doing it more, as making the will to at least be dynamic through its successive fixed states. The only real consolation, though, is that we are existent, and active in the 'scripted' play, plus that it can be enjoyable, and that it ever does seem to be novel. For those who cannot learn, which is total doom, we now gain a good measure of compassion.

34. We sought the truth, wherever it led, as no one can keep a lid on its opening box, although religious dogma tried and tries to, and so it is that we even welcome Dan Dennet's universal acid, for it eats through all the folk tales and superstitions.

35. It should be obvious that 'God' has flunked out, for beings cannot be first and fundamental, since they are complex systems, which even come way later on, and that Nothing is not 'God', although it is a Ground Of Determination, and neither is Stuff Forever 'God', nor is a forever capability/potential of Nothing to jiggle about and not sit still 'God'. One can still call it G.O.D., but it's not a thinking, planning, designing SuperBeing., for that notion has been cut off at the source, and so all of the claimed attributes are now moot. We are on our own, but are still of the ongoing big event as a whole.

36. The universe is large, and so there had to be some places, like Earth, where the right conditions were all present; however, the capability for life also had to be inherent in the universe from the beginning. There is no 'random' not even in evolution's natural selection, for it depends on the environment. It came together little by little, over millions and billions of years, through accumulation, upon already stable organism platforms. It fine-tuned us to the Earth, and not any other way around. We've only been around for an evolutionary instant, but we are here, and so we can ever look back to find that 'fortunate' events came our way, but we don't really need to look, for they will always be known to be there.

37. We really ought to colonize space before Global Warming burns up the Earth, or some other disaster arrives, but we are not particularly made for life in space, and the other possible 'Earths' are far away. Living in the now would seem to be the answer. Yes, we've found the essence of existence, but existence would seem to overwhelm essence in importance, but the essence information still helps, and, after all, it was the most often asked question. Our time appears to be that of a small parentheses within a much longer time.

38. What happens, happens, and will, as of the continuum, and this already includes present and future alerts, pro and con, as to what to do about anything. All is already in the cards, and even the effects of knowing this are also accounted for.

39. Everything can also happen, over and over again, either in our large universe or in the next: everything possible not only happens, but it repeats again and again.

40. The Eternal Return

Behind the veil, being that which ev'r thrives, the Eternal Nothing has ever been alive. Some time it needed to variate everything for, and now sometimes 'knows' how these bubbles to pour, of existence in some 'meant' universe, those that wrote your poem and mine, every verse. So, as thus, thou lives on yester's credit line, in nowhere's midst—now in this life of thine, as of its bowl our cup of brew was mixed into this state of being that's called 'mine'.

Yet worry you that this Cosmos is the last, that the likes of us will become the past, space wondering whither whence we went after the last of us her life has spent? The Eternal Saki has thus formed trillions of baubles like ours, and will form, forevermore—the comings and passings of which it ever emits to immerse in those universal bubbles blown and burst.

So, fear not that a debit close your account and mine, knowing the like no more; the Eternal Source from its pot has pour'd zillions of bubbles like ours, and will pour.

When you and I behind the cloak are past, but the long while the next universe shall last, which of humans' approach and departure it grasps as might the sea's self heed a pebble-cast.

_Be of good cheer--the sullen month will die, and a young moon requite us by and by: look how the old one meagre, bent, and wan with age and fast, is fainting from the sky!_ (a Fitzgerald quatrain that's not in his 'Rubaiyat')

41. The infinite cannot be attained, so there cannot an infinite regress of things ever coming from lessor things, nor any infinite regress of 'cause and effect', so the buck stops, not at Harry Truman, but at the default conditions inherent in 'nothingness' (the only possible source, too). 'Finiteness' is one of the default conditions, as well as the primal something having to be a simple continuous function with no parts, such as a wave, balanced by an opposite primal anti-something, this zero-summation also being a necessity, so that something is not truly obtained from nothing, free and clear, without summing to it.

From here, the full Theory of Everything is further developed. As confirmation, nature is full of waves and balances. There is one cause and effect—the first, and everything that happens is a continuation of that, local and artificially imposed boundaries not withstanding.

A 3D volume can hold a 3D object within it, with no boundaries touched. In both 1D and 2D, any contents would always touch a boundary, such as a line segment and a plane.

The reason for taking a good long look into Something From Nothing is that there is literally nothing to make anything of, and there is no doubt about that. So we don't just shrug it off, neglecting it even, as some might, for at the end of the day no one can suggest any other source. So, it is a truth, but one that some might not like, for it seems a paradox.

There is then, usually, a retreat to the only other possible option, that of Something Forever, but it cannot truly satisfy, for it is an incomplete notion. The only way to complete the notion that the basic something comes from not anything at all is to thus equate 'not anything' to nothing. so, the two options reduce to the same.

Another problem with the same exact base existent stuff having always been around is: How could its total amount have been determined, as well as its forms and properties? For one have something already made and defined that was never made and defined.

The cause of existence can only be of the forced default conditions, as there would be nothing else to enter in to it, for that is where the buck has to stop. It is more of an equation, and one that still shows as a balance of opposites in nature—the necessary zero-sum reflecting the perfect symmetry of nothing.

Infinite extent is impossible, for it could never attain completion, and so all must be finite, as is the universe, as well as what gave rise to the universe, for its doings met the necessarily finite bandwidth limitations, at which point, everything blew, into a universe.

Probability caught up with 'Nothing', and so something had to become, as I will try to explain eventually. There is no other source for something, which is really 'sum-things', for there is no alternative. Note: 'something forever' is as it is not from anything, which is the same as being from nothing.

Hard to believe, I know, but there can be no true paradoxes, and that knowledge drives us on.

Consciousness is the second form of the same information that is of the correlated neurological state, second because it comes after the brain has done its analysis. 'It' from 'bit'. Either that or it exactly is the firing of the neurons, the brain perceiving itself, as sort of a sixth sense. Does the water turn into wine, or is the wine the same as the water?

Yes, the extent of things must ever be finite, as it can never get to 'infinite'. Nor should the shortcut word of 'infinite' be used in language as an actual, a common enough tendency. Replacing it with its definition would show why.

Finiteness, then, becomes one the the keys, of the default conditions that make for existence having to be a forced state, which I will try to get more into elsewhere.

William Lane Craig, a cleric famous for trying to introduce God out of nowhere, perhaps due to a bias of wishing for such, did get as far as to note that all things must have beginnings. Unfortunately, as an aside, this would include beings and Beings (namely, God). He also noted that there is no source for things, which is true for sure, although many might just slip right on past this important point. But then he stumbled, driven by so much wanting 'God', claiming that 'God did it', begging the question beyond repair. I leave the rest as an exercise for now.

As another aside, the notion of a 'God' as a first and fundamental SuperBeing who created everything can be disproved, in two separate ways, by self-contradiction, cutting Him out at the source, making anything else moot, such as more attributes layered on by imagination, and, further, we can deduce how and why existence came about, which doesn't have 'God' in it.

Eternal duration is another matter, but just slightly, for as referenced earlier, it may have 'persistence' before it changes form, its potential for change unexercised for a time.

And, indeed, all is a continuum of the big event of the 'bang' and before.

No, it implies that t(it is raining)=0 and t(it is not raining)=0. That is, neither are true.

Perhaps there is a kind of fog about, making the situation indeterminate.

As for "unmarried man", that could be taken as 'currently unmarried', which it probably often is, as 'not married', although the 'un' could mean that the man never was married.

"Bachelor" is for a man who is not married and never was and doesn't intend to be, as a way of life. Nor is he in a pair-bond. If he is adamant, then he is a confirmed bachelor, and not an eligible bachelor.

The Pope is a bachelor, technically, and for good reason.

Nuns extend the word 'marriage' by being married to God.

There is also common-law 'marriage'.

At one time, I nearly fell for the objects of shortcut words as being actual, when people used the, words such as 'infinite', 'forever', and 'by faith' (as reason or knowing), but, after replacing the words in the sentences with their definitions, the sentences no longer made any sense at all.

What restrictions and laws would a lack of anything have? Some think that this state would be wide open, however, the default conditions come into play, and there are only about two or three.

With the help of Roger Ellman's cosine wave math, the theory has been fleshed out to completion.

How would the particulars and the total amount of Something Forever have been defined in the first place that never was? And done in a way that doesn't involve formation from nothing. A kind of compromise is that there was always a potential for nothing to change into something and to grow to form a very large universe, and the From Nothing theory even explains this.

How it is that there are major areas in nature that cancel out, such as polarity of charge, matter/anti-matter, mass-energy vs gravity, and even the photon, as being two opposing waves 180 degrees out of phase, thus having the positive and negative living in peace, though eliminating mass (wave length) and charge (wave amplitude), but retaining energy (wave frequency)?

So, the option of Something From Nothing is testable, and has confirmation, but the option of Something Forever, as the same exact stuff, is not only incomplete, but also has problems, but in effect it reduces to Something From Nothing.

So, in the above, another cat is let out of the bag, for the theory explains mass, energy, and charge, too.

Who can name any other source for something but nothing? No one.

The TOE was never going to be something fancy, complicated, or highly complex, for those can only come later on, way later on, such as life forms. Yes, the TOE is expected to be simple, maybe even boring to some, but the answer to the most often asked question of all time can never really be less than exciting, although not astounding, in light of the default simpleness that it must have, finding it of the simplest state, that which is perfectly unstable. We have always found the simpler and simpler things to get more and more reactive, more ready to combine, and to go through phase changes, which is more, but unneeded, confirmation.

What is the meaning of the finding? None at all, really. What it produces is a must, which is not everything, but everything possible, which leads to more, higher levels of everythings (possible). Everything and nothing have the same information content: zero. The Library of Babel that contains every possible arrangement of letters and punctuation into books has the same meaning and information as the other library next door, which is a little, empty hut that has no books at all. Well, that is now but mostly true, as now we know why and how the universe exists. Without that, the universe cannot be comprehended.

Now it all becomes clear: balance; finiteness; no Gods; determinism; no free will; an ongoing continuum of the one big event of the bang and before, so no real local cause and effect; mass, energy, and charge defined, but are just secondary effects of the basic that is real; and an eventual dispersion of everything, due to both decay and expansion, as well as other universes being possible from nothing.

All that remains is the exposition of the theory in more detail, but it will take some reading and a low level understanding of trigonometry. Science, logic, philosophy, and math combined makes for the ultimate confirmation.

Faith can bring comfort, true, and the calm practiced during meditation can be employed when problems flare.

Martin Gardner didn't believe in God at all, by logic or reason, but liked to feel that there was One, emotionally, for the comfort of it.

Of course, there is no knowing or reason 'by faith', but for those who take the shortcut word, 'faith', as an actual, without looking up its full definition.

For those who desire the truth about the universe, regardless of its 'acidic' nature eating away their folk tales and superstitions, the notion of 'God' can now be disproved in two separate ways, plus a solving of the universe and existence that is only natural, with nothing extra-, beyond-, or supernatural.

If you have read some of my earlier posts in the thread you should know that I agree with much of what you are saying at least conceptually here;

Hi. I slept a long time after watching the Mars landing of Curiosity.

Yes, I read the thread, which one must always do to get fully into it.

The proposal of "with no pre-existing cause" is indicating 'causeless', which is, again, having something that not from any-thing, leaving only no-thing, whatever that is, and so we must go on to look into it. It could be Nothing or that which has to happen, but didn't yet happen, or a combination thereof.

It does seem that causes must eventually run out, leaving but the prime mover that moves all, but is not itself moved by anything prior, for there isn't any more. We know it happened, so this is not just idle speculation. It had to change, and did, in its expression, giving us something.

Agreed, something had to begin from nothing, and there can only be two possible options here. There cannot be a pre-existing cause because of the dreaded nothing existing [i]conceptually[/i], despite this, and like you say, the universe still started anyway.

There is a penultimate cause to the universe since all things must have beginnings, and a primal cause by the prime mover to that which gave rise to the universe, which universe was really but a change in its form, 'it' still being the universe, the 'bursting' of which, as my theory will show, was at the same scale as the diameter of the universe, not from a tiny singularity, and, also, 'size' with no reference scale doesn't mean much, if anything. This was still a 'bang', but it wasn't into any pre-existing space and time, but made space and time as spacetime, related therein, but not as separate entities

So we are somehow missing a reason or why for this? Also agreed. Or a simultaneous and instantaneous cause and effect (It makes me nervous using the same words here, but I guess this could be applicable under the same conditions) for the beginning of the universe.

I can go along with a possible reason or why for this as long as it is not pre-existing in any way or form(again, because of the absolute brick wall of conceptually nothing existing before)

The prime mover is the singularity of nothingness, which is not just conceptual, for it can be actual, as preceding anything, as a lack of anything, and had to be, as we both realize, although we may not like it, as the 'dreaded'.

There could not have been an instantaneous, infinite rate of change, and the theory avoids that, as it must, nor can conservation be violated, and the theory accommodates that as well, as it has to, and so we see that these are more of the forced default conditions.

It is also that we have the dimensions that we do, not only because all the other arrangements would either be too simple, or hyperbolic or unstable, but also because the singularity of nothing demands existential closure, to nothingness overall. at the level of totality, and this in turn demands the compositional parity of polarity, neutral overall, but polar opposites internally, such as electric charge, and this in turn demands the dimension that we have, these as inevitable as existence.

The three dimensions of space are compositional, and thus the nullification of existence at totality must be carried out by the fourth, via the polarity of electric charge, which must be an aspect of time, as well as motion, too.

The space of our universe is also three-dimensional because this is the only dimension whose volume is compositionally consistent through all levels of infinite size while forming the surface of its own hypervolume.

The above three paragraphs are not in the theory, per say, but are from another theory whose conclusion arrives at the same, as that all is a distribution of nothing. It has an eternal, infinite universe in it, though, but as that nothing is always doing its thing anywhere everywhere. I will probably add its good after-the-fact observations to my theory, but I am primarily concerned with the origin.

UVS (Universal Vortical Singularity) theory is also good, in the same way, in the noting of vortexes in all of nature, and my wave oscillations of the Beginning very well meet up with that, the wave oscillations becoming vortexes in spacetime dimensions.

Kant, however, is not the last word on such matters, but one needs to be aware of the hazards of making claims about such questions without having a good grounding in the heritage of our greatest philosophers.

Yes, they describe it well, but little did they know that confirmation would arrive, thus making the limitations moot.

I should have added that while the analysis of the Beginning is primary, it couldn't survive alone without the crucial after-the-fact observations of the universe that do the confirming, such as opposite waves, opposite polarity of charge, matter/anti-matter, mass /gravity, and more. If Stuff were forever, there would be no reason for these polar opposites, whereas, if Stuff is of nothing, then there is reason.

So the theory works both top-down and bottom up, as well as having science, logic, philosophy, and math all supporting it at once.

The question then becomes how a zero state can become a one state (or vice-versa). Quantum theory, interestingly, has a way of handling this by transcending these states, adopting the notion that both states exist simultaneously, until that is, some collapse of these states into one or the other, a kind of magical intervention that creates a reality for us.

In New Scientist, maybe of July 30, the wave function appears to be real, not just a mathematical probability tool. They 'found' that quantum mechanics would not work if the wave function was not real.

What would this imply?

Now, onto something inspired by zero and one. I know you were talking about bits being on or off, but I'm now thinking of one or zero as a whole...

The flip side to that nothing can't be (or stay), that we often forget to note, is that 'one', as total solidity, doesn't seem to work any better, than complete vacuity, and so it is as if there has to be a finite 'mid-point' where we have to be perched in our existence, which is another possible default condition.

This is not part of my theory, at least not yet, as it hasn't been tamed, but is nearly suggests that

Infinity times 0 = 1 (finite unity)

Well, that's pretty wild, although I could see

n times 1/n = 1

or, likewise,

Infinity times infinitesimal = 1

or

(Largest infinity) times (smallest infinity) = 1

But there can be no actual infinities, so it could only be some 'potential' at work. Well, at any rate, it's not really needed for the theory unless some hole has to be filled, and even the the idea would need more of a basis.

The information content of the energy is completely broken down after death and lost, so unfortunately, this argument does not follow.

This is true, as the brain process that is consciousness can no longer operate, although our atoms go on to become part of something else.

What the law of conservation does do is get rid of Descartes separate mind and body, as energy conservation would be violated in the exchanges. It is also that what Descartes proposes as mind would still have to be physical in order to walk the walk and talk the talk of the physical body.

We are ever changing in our 'selves' as we live, sometimes turning out quite different than we used to be many years ago, and this change differs only in degree, from death, as our atoms continue on as part of something else, even another human, in which any narrative will do. We wouldn't remember, though, and so the degree of change is huge, and even more than that. It's like now and zen.

When cells divide, as they do many times during our lives, the ends of the two DNA strands 'rip' a bit at the completion of their separation, but this only hurts and affects the unused junk DNA of the telomere caps that are protective like the caps on the ends of shoelaces; however, when this cap wears away completely then damage to cells occurs and we begin to die of old age. Research is under way to lengthen these caps so that we could potentially live forever.

This brings old Methuselah to mind, who at about 976 odd-years old, forgot to look both ways when crossing a path and got run over by a horse-cart.

The term 'supernatural' is a place-holder. We use it to describe what we don't yet understand.

Once we figure it out, it becomes 'natural'.

If god exists, god must be natural.

He could be a highly evolved alien life form who is much higher up the food chain, naturally evolved, and who did Terra-forming or planted life in an already suitable place, but this would not be 'god' as first and fundamental before all, thinking, planning, and designing a universe. I guess we could call him a good guy, though, as one who got us going.

So, yes, there can be no supernatural. Whatever deals with the natural and talks and walks with the natural would have to also be natural.

Nonetheless, in begging the question with the UVS model, this "only reality" of vortical oscillations, is merely an effect of what IS REAL, which begets all realities, including the "only reality".

This would be, almost ironically, the singularity of nothingness that has the potential, which is not the actual of the "only reality", but what can make for the "only reality" to become. The 'potential' is like an unexercized realness. Ah, it's always tough to run up against non-existence, but there is no other source, and yet it is that non-existence has default condition placed upon it, and so it is not a wide-open "no laws" thing where anything goes.

Arrogance often shows that one is biased and not open. What Nature does and how Nature operates may not be as our human nature thinks it ought to be or merely wishes it to be. Ignorance spurs learning.

The first lies in some imaginary realm, so to speak, while the second is how it comes to be observed/detected.

If what the article hints, that the wave function is real and not just a tool then I suppose there is no imaginary mathematical realm. What do you think?

And I remember the beginnings of the uncertainty principle, not that I am that old, but at first they had it being so as due to the measurement interfering with the particle, which only means that we don't have predictability but not that all is 'random'. Then it went on to a more magical 'observation causing existence' thing, which is OK as taken as any physical interaction, in a way, but I think not to humans having a power to cause something to exist.

One way that I used for thinking of what a superposition could be was to think of it as a vibration.

In any case, Aristotle's universe wasn't infinite, it was finite, (and rather small by by comparison with today's universe. It had a finite number of objects in it as well as one in which the stars were at some finite radius away from the earth.

And didn't he or another of his status conclude that the base existent had to be the simplest thing of all, with no parts. Of course he still called it 'god', as they still had to have that at the time, or he did it to save his skin.

Well, I have it that the simplest, continuous existent function is a primal wave, along with its opposite, 'anti-something' wave, and we do see that waves underlie all of Nature as what is truly really real.

Existence had a beginning, existence had no beginning. I have tried for years to find "another option" for this, DragonFly("crying")

And yet we know for sure, my friend, that it is one or the other. Something with no source cannot be there, for then how would it be as it is, and, the way it is—the something of our universe, shows a zero-sum balance of opposites, and that is one heck of a big clue that we can't ignore. So we have a direction to follow.

I put a Chapter 11 in my book and then I went bankrupt. I lived on the 14th floor, not realizing that they had purposely omitted floor 13, and my apartment collapsed. All my checks bounced on Friday the 13th. I have 14 cats, two of them black, and the other cats don't like them. I ditched church and then fell down, hurting my knee, so I prayed to God to make my knees feel the same; he then made the other knee go bad. I feel asleep driving once, and brushed up against a mail truck; this broke my side mirror, waking me up when the glass shattered all over me. I jumped out of a plane with no parachute; luckily the plane was still on the ground. I was nearly trapped in a DIA/Special Forces attack mission in Cambodia, but escaped, running 12 miles through the jungle back to the river for a helicopter pickup. Walked under a ladder and a bucket of diamonds fell off, making me rich. They were robbing a jewelry store.

A universe/existence that always was and never began...

What would it be like?

Eternity is longer than any time, and longer still; so, everything, as anything possible, would have already happened, even time again and again: every desired planet settled, which 'only' took a zillion years, everything invented, evolution to the highest plane, all aversive mental substrates softened or eliminated, but for the useful ones, perfect lives...

Whatever the universe or a person needed would be already there, at any time during eternity, for the eternal universe/existence is its own precursor and what is its own precursor can supply anything possible. Systems with no origin are called 'temporally closed'. Matter, to form, needs light, and light, to form, needs matter, but so what, for each is already there. A star needs previous stellar material to ignite, but, no worry, it was already there, because there was no first star. (Is the preceding true?) In fact, there was was no first anything. No first kiss, no first touchdown pass, no last kiss, for our identicals always came to be, somewhere, even time and time again, since all arrangements can be run through an infinite number of times during eternity, no matter what their probability. The universe/existence is its own history. Everything is kind of all at once.

The infinite life span of what exists forever provides more than enough time for the energy and matter of which it is composed to shift through every available internal state; Eternity is long enough for a large amount of matter/energy to express every possible spacial distribution.

All history and future occurs all of the time, totality containing its own history and future; so, the universe's energy is complete. Of course, very large distances may intervene, as to Earth's nearest moment elsewhere.

And more amazing... Think of two locked boxes, each of which contains the other's key. It seems that both boxes must remain locked, yet, due to eternity, each of the yin/Yang boxes can be unlocked at once. Eternal systems are ever their own prior state, running like a Mobius strip in which their present can utilize their future. How amazing is this!

Lepton, quarks, or whatever are the fundamentals were always were what they were, just as they are, for they never began. The 'forever' of 'eternal' is an actual, a past eternity already in the books, and a future one guaranteed, for the fundamentals were not makeable, as they were never made, and so they are unbreakable (are they?). And they are how they are for no reason.

Um, none of this happened, so existence cannot be forever.

Let us though, try to salvage the notion of the eternal universe/existence, to show that we tried. The eternal universe thus has to recycle itself, to appear as ours, and so we will have to look at that.

The universe seems to be about 13.5 billion years old, but isn't, because its recycle time is about 16-18 billion years, and so it only appeared to be new 13 billions years ago. Photons decay and stars burn out, so new light and a new source of hydrogen for stars to burn is needed.

It is the black holes at the center of galaxies that send out pristine light, for they get a boost from the disassociation of compound nuclei which also sends out jets of pristine hydrogen atoms that go on to form new stars to begin and continue the recycling of the universe.

Photons decay because they have more length than width, and so gravity operates on them unevenly, making for an unstable relativistic system, building up to, every two million years, the emittance of a decay-photon, and these microwave level photons are what the CMBR is, for the CMBR is not a leftover from a Big Bang, since there isn't any such bang when there can be no beginning. Nor is the universe expanding, for the red shift is only due to the photon decay. The CMBR photons will have to come back into play.

Stars have been burning hydrogen forever in the eternal universe and so they require an endless and renewable supply. So, the energy in the light released by the fusion of compound nuclei must eventually be used to break them apart, for reuse.

A black hole's interior is composed of a degenerate neutron super fluid with a gravitational potential strong enough to lower its own density through the hyper-extension of particles cores. The greater the gravitational expansion, the lower the nuclear potential. Inter-nucleon binding energy is reduced as well. A galaxy's core doesn't just burn nuclei, it first forces them apart with its gravitational potential.

The eternal universe is ever about balance and recycling. If nuclei are formed in heat they must be dissolved in relative cold. Heat would be an inefficient waste product for the galactic engine. It is an environment where electrical energy is applied to degenerate matter, producing hydrogen and virtually no radiant energy. The gravitational expansion required to disassociate nuclei at relatively low temperature is why galaxies require massive black holes. There is nowhere else to do it. Universal equilibrium demands the existence of black holes. It is an unavoidable consequence of cosmic renewal, a forgone conclusion. Electrical current heats the galactic core, while the absorption of compound nuclei cools it.

Compound nuclei are drawn into the galactic core, where there is a black hole, since a galaxy is a vortex. Still, some energy must be added, and this by the photon microwave energy lost through their decay (red shift) that then returns from the CMB as currents to help power the nuclei degeneration. The galactic halo of dark matter serves as a microwave antenna. Hydrogen gas then emerges in jets for use by new stars. The compound nuclei form again from stars and supernovae. And all is new... the cycle continues.

Red shift is then due only to the expansion of photons due to their decay, yet the CMBR photons do not decay due to its deactivation by its thermalization with intergalactic material. Optical photons reconcile the energy they have lost from intergalactic reds shift by emitting microwaves directly into the CMB band, they not having any lower level to go down to,

A galaxy's halo pulls power out of the CMB with huge, deep space electrical currents that leave slight temperature ripples in their wake. The currents pass through the galaxy's disc toward its core, providing power for the disassociation of the compound nuclei that were created by fusion in stars, liberating hydrogen, which flows up the galaxy's arms and is ejected from its core directly into space.

Galaxies are vortices, and so they carry the material of their disc region slowly into their core where it is absorbed into a gravationally-expanded neutron superfluid that exudes hydrogen through its degenerate surface, thus providing a renewable source of fuel for the perpetual cosmic engine.

All true galaxies have massive, electrically charged black holes in the innermost depths of their central region, a necessary and integral component of galactic function because they are the only objects in the universe with a gravitational potential large enough to provide an environment capable of low-temperature nuclear disassociation with virtually no radioactive energy loss. Without them the cosmic fusion cycle would not be possible.

The reason our universe appears to be 13-14 billion years old is because this is the average time required for material to cycle through its galactic systems. The universe is infinitely older than this, but the compound nuclei of which its luminous material is composed are continuously renewed every 16-18 billions years. This is cosmic equilibrium.

A photon's polarization is the result of the asymmetry of its spacial footprint going through the crystal lattice of a polarizing substance.

Red shift is due to photon energy loss, the photons being stretched, as well, the photon loss being gradual over immense distances. A weak gravitational field is the only possible source of the intergalactic redshift, for, any collisions would only cause the loss of energy in individual photons and wouldn't increase the distance between them. Space is not perfectly rectilinear, but has a slight fourth-dimensional curvature, and so it is that curved space simulates spatial expansion.

Gravity's universal curvature creates a differential velocity per unit distance, and so the energy distributed throughout a photon's substructure accrues differential velocity at a steady pace. A photon's leading edge has traveled farther than its trailing edge by its wavelength, and this stretches photons, causing an expansion—and so the universe isn't expanding; but intergalactic photons are—along their epic journey, which is predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity (which he himself did not notice).

The difference between a billion light years now and a billion years ago is not linear, which gives the false impression of universal expansion. When a photon expands over time, it has to release energy, and so it is forced to decay—as a speed less than 'c' is of an unstable, relativistic system. It must reserve its Planck/energy relationship as its wavelength is distended by curved space. And, by the way, this is a quantitized, discrete change, very much unlike the proposed continuous spacial expansion. The decaying starlight fills deep space to the CMB energy density.

The CMBR has significantly more energy per cubic meter than any bandwidth in space—and this is the product of energy lost by the intergalactic redshift which is really photon decay. The CMBR must then lose energy to maintain its equilibrium temperature, and the only possible destination for this energy loss is away from deep space, back into the galactic environment, the eternal return, as electric current, the only agent available.

So, lumetic photon decay heats the CMBR, while cosmic current cools it down; which is why the CMBR has a thermal spectrum. The only way to transfer power is through CMBR temperature differentials, whose artifacts are its small-scale anisotrophies.

The Galactic Fountain of the thunderous cosmic engine...

Galactic halos convert the CMB microwave energy into electrical energy, which is then carried inward to the galactic environment by massive currents. There is unambiguous evidence of this current, and that would be the banding of spiral galaxies, whose bands move independently of the galaxy's disk material. Some bandings, like those of NGC 4622, actually move in the opposite direction of disk rotation, which surely shows that galactic banding is electrical, not gravitational. This energy is carried by currents to a galaxy's core to facilitate the disassociation of the compound nuclei that its stars produce by fusion.

A galaxy is an electric furnace, and this is why jets of hydrogen have been observed escaping, as well as gamma rays and who knows what, with more hydrogen released up through a galaxy's spiral arms, all of this now being called the galactic fountain.

A galaxy's newly minted and massive volumes of hydrogen gas rain down on the galactic disk, as such upon our very own Milky Way, from both sides, north and south. Also, galaxies don't explode and fly apart since the flux in equals the flux out; they are steady-state systems.

The universe is about balance, and so if nuclei are formed in heat then they must be dissolved in relative cold, for a galaxy is an engine and heat is a waste product. The gravitational expansion required to disassociate nuclei at a relatively low temperature is why galaxies need massive black holes. Universal equilibrium demands the existence of black holes, another truth without proof. Black holes are gravitational filters that separate light from hot, ultra-expanded matter, facilitating nuclear disassociation by providing an environment that radically reduces nuclear binding energy.

Electrical current heats the galactic core; the absorption of compound nuclei cools it. If a particle's total energy exceeds its rest mass it can escape a black hole's pull. Light's energy is not affected by gravitational potential (but they have gravitational fields) which reduces the rest mass of elementary particles, as they in turn emit light of lower energy.

Will all of the above pan out? And it still would be that the eternal universe is made of nothing, due to the zero-sum balance observed in nature. The all-at-once happening made both matter and light at the same time, neither then needing the other to be there first. Matter and anti-matter get made at the same time, too, as opposing charges made at the same time.

This [The Meadows of Heaven] is fullsome and jubilant, you seem to have a strong urge towards poetry. However do we have any reason to believe you when you say "highest point of all being"?

Well, just around here. Yes, I am a poet, too. I am a full atheist. There is still awe, and I may have romanticized it to instill some of that. We are not 'special', and that is the kind of hubris that that gets the religious people thinking that they deserve a Divine reward in Heaven; however, this false pride is, ironically, totally opposite to the true humility, which is that we are just electro-bio-chemical beings who happen to be higher up the food chain, but no more significant than any other creature.

Our life and consciousness is all there is, but some humans always want more, and by doing that they can miss much of what could be enjoyed here.

Then I noted the maintenance stairway beside it, where none had ever gone, and looked around; the GrandMaster knew that I would, to see it spiral down into Neverland. So strangely compelling it was that I ventured down, underground, beyond all sight and sound...

I reported the following to Passiona, "I'm only five miles back up the stairway to heaven on earth, and am posting from my cell phone. I'm carrying all sorts of documents to the surface that have never seen the light of day. Oops, I just dropped the sad story of the Kennedy brothers, and about Marylyn Monroe's death, but I'd noted that the mafia hired foreign assassins, to cover their tracks. And, darn, there goes the report on Roswell Area 51, which was too long to read... Am six miles up, now. 17 more to go. I can still see the throne of doom below, snakes curled all around and under it..."

"Cripes," Passiona responded.

I reached the top. "That's the story, sweety-heart," said Austino. "You're looking good, my dear Passiona. Now that the 2012 is solved, we can get back to business. And I'll tell the rest of those secret stories soon. "

"The air is balmy and your motion is dynamic," she said.

Passiona was so hot, she had to cool off! And suddenly Passiona disappeared in a poof of mist. For some reason, Austino was suddenly covered head to TOE with vapor, drenched with a very sweet scent.

"Holy Toledo Austino, You make sure you keep those top secret files, documents and whatnot secure in your grasp. I am seriously curious, so curious in fact that you simply must, just must read every word to me. I'm dying to know what you have. And I might add, about Area 51; I think they should release it."

"Dear Seriously Curious," Austino related. "Right now I have a deadly container of biological germ warfare, if you are really dying to know, but, I threw that away real fast. What I have handy is the President's Book, written by past Presidents and readable only by a Presidents in office. This is the only copy of all secrets, except for what I also have, at least those that the CIA told the Presidents about. I have access, since I know the President, and to all the CIA secrets as well. DIA, too.

"The current President—I dare not reveal his name, due to the security guidelines—but his name starts with 'O', was formerly of Chicago, Illinois, near where I lived, in Oak Park, but that is not where I met him, only knowing him in Chicago all the more there after he arrived, and rose to power as a Senator. We met in Punahau, Oahu, Hawaii, at the basketball court of Punahau High School. He was on the team and I was a spectator, living, between secret assignments, in a tower in Punahau, at one end of the rainbow that crossed over the Manoa Valley from the University of Hawaii. We kept in touch, and the rest is history. Finally, we have a President who understands the value of science, but we still cannot talk about his secrets, so please strike all this from the record.

"I will only be telling relatively old secrets, maybe, that have no current value to our enemies. I can also discount many rumors that are simply not true, for example, the Chinese are not trying to conquer us by slipping sneaky ingredients into vaccines and pharmaceuticals, of which they make many. It takes a long time to get approval by the FDA, plus, the last thing any business would want would be to have the bad publicity of some huge tainted pill problem. Paranoia strikes deep.

"Anyway, according to Nelson DeMille, one time Russia was running a Charm School to train its more whitish looking northerners to pose as Americans to infiltrate our infrastructure. They were using our Vietnam prisoners of war as instructors of all aspects of American society. They even built a model of Main Street, USA, complete with working banks, hair salons, and the whole nine yards of a football field. Not only did the American 'instructors' subtly teach the wrong stuff of inaccurate nuances, so as to expose the spies eventually, but we also we found out about the place and nerve-gassed most of it, retaining some of the Russians to become double agents that then spied on Russia for us."

Meanwhile, Austino is still drenched in the alluring fragrance of the vapor that permeated on through to his soul. He said that "the inundation of the bouquet of aroma was irresistible in its redolence."

William of Ockham, known as Occam

Led a simple life, for he didn't have a wife.

Even though the rock/scissors/paper is for the cellular, it could be applied to the elementary particles and atoms.

The rock is the stable wave center of oscillation of electrons or protons, and the paper is the opposite and attracting charge that wraps them into an atom, 'beating' them out of staying separate, but the scissors can cut the paper, like maybe the weak force of decay, letting them free to go apart, but sometimes the rock itself defeats the scissors. So, their is ever a give and take, making things not so frozen that they cannot change nor so wildly changeable that things cannot stick for a while. And the same could be for a cell.

Conways's 'death' might be like wave annihilation, with 'life' and new life being as wave reinforcements.

It seems equations can hit limits in math forms, as they approach potential infinity, but perhaps more so in the physical that they represent, such as no infinite density.

I don't think there can be self-aware intelligence or any kind of intelligence as the First, for that is a system of mind that does thinking, planning, designing, and implementation, since that would need more fundamental parts, plus the 'self-aware' would need consciousness, a brain process; however, the potential for life in beings like us was inherent in how the universe came out. It just took a long time to get expressed. So, it was embedded all along. In other universes no one is around to ask or worry about it.

I am human, not a bot or an Intelligence posting on forums, although I guess we ourselves qualify, but I'd like to talk to the Intelligence one, but I guess it doesn't know how it came to have its position, being in the dark as much as we are.

I'll know more after I've evolved a few million more years.

It [math equation]takes up no space itself and is itself not made of anything but Determined self-referential Cause and Effects of potentially (near infinite) complexity.

'Determined' is the 'default condition(s)', and 'potentiality' is the inevitable non-infinite rate of change to simple oscillations, although like 10^85 of them involved and convolved (whatever that word means), from nothing. The oscillations are the real reality of the universe, not mass and energy effects, and before that there was only the potentiality.

One could see the universe as an all-at-onceness, if not for the speed of light, internally, delaying the one and only broadcast. The speed of light could be the absolute dimensional equivalence ratio of the dimension of distance (space) to time. At the speed of light there is no time, it is said.

When there is no time, it is as if speed is infinite. There would be no going from 'here to there' because everything 'here' is already 'there'. I suppose that is Einstein's 4D Block Universe of all distance and no time, externally, at totality, not to the 'internally' where we are.

Existence at totality is a finite 4D hypervolume (dddd), with spacetime (dddt) within?

You are AustinTorn, right, from ToeQuest, posting in Nobody's thread? Anyway, I love a good 'TOE' as much as the next guy, but I specifically asked you if you agree or disagree with my premise: "We Exist solely within the Solution of an Equation."

The OP is basically about Existence and it would seem necessary to define what Existence truly is first. Only then we can discuss it's beginning and cause in any meaningful way.

Yes, I am Austin, over there, and in real life. 'Nobody Nowhere' also had it that Nothing somehow differentiated itself, everything then happening all at once, but them this was slowed down by time dilation, making for a broadcast of reality, via light, which soon got erased by gravity, to achieve the zero-sum, plus that the subconscious was interpreting all of this. He had to admit that his faux real was the same as the real real.

Others, too, suspect Nothing as the source, as do I. They and I didn't have the math part that Roger Ellman has, and so he has gone the furthest of anyone.

Existence is what has a quantity or properties. One could say that the quantity that space has is volume. So, then, we go on to see what makes for quantity, such as wavelength being mass, which has extension, and so maybe some of that makes for dimensions.

As to your question, everything, including us, exists within the equation that makes for the solution of All, but that equation needs something to work with, which in Ellman's case are the waves within waves, and, true, it is their actions make up the equation that describes it. There wouldn't be anything outside of the equation.

I am just sitting here thinking, "if this theory does not represent the beginning of everything from the scientific viewpoint, then why should anyone give a sh#t about this 'we don't know the most important part of it(by far)" theory?'" "The universe is expanding!" Yawn.

That the universe is expanding shows that it is not infinite. The universe is yawning, for the TOE is rather simple and boring, in a way, as the ultimate simplicity. Many might have expected something very fancy and complicated, but those things only happen way later on.

The 'Bang' could be the event of a very large wave (and waves within becoming the particles), and that is essentially mine and Ellman's theory, that of a giant neutron—a Cosmic Egg breaking into electrons and protons, just as neutrons now decay into, this very large wave being one and the same with the universe, in essence. There can still be expansion. This gets away from a Big Bang from a 'tiny' singularity of an infinite density, in which Einstein's equations break down by going to infinity (unless 'infinity' is the answer). The idea of string theory make it that only near-infinite density is required, since strings are not points but have length.

_Cosmologists are working on possible ways in which the big bang could have emerged from something prior to it. url=_[ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-the-new-philosophy-of-cosmology/251608/]Click _here for one example.[/url]._

Yes, it seems that there must be many universes, for the anthropic principle is needed. For me, it is that Nothing can always do its thing, although as a low probability event.

"Something prior" is fine, but this ever gets down to where that came from, and so I cut to the chase to postulate how the first something could arise, as that is where philosophy has to end up anyway.

There is no free will or 'undetermined', since either physical actions of nature or those of our own human nature must depend on something, in our case on experiences, memories, learning, and associations. We are not so happy with this, but then the other shoe drops, that of not anything being determined—a horror, which would make us all, well, air-heads, but this is not the case. I am me and you are you. So, we are a bit happier now, realizing that dependence must be so, although not totally happy, but that is emotion fighting the logic.

The fixed will, of the instant, is dynamic, as learning can widen its range of 'choices', yet it is never free. Some cannot learn, and this is doom, but then, via our new insight, we can have much more compassion for them, as they are stuck, and so, as per this example, our previous fixed will has then gone on to the newer state of a newer, larger but still fixed will. From then on, we are a bit different.

There is 'emergence', yes, as a new state, but it was already there in the states before, just as the wetness and slipperiness of water 'emerges' from gaseous hydrogen and oxygen, for it is something like that the much smaller hydrogen molecules, or its ions, easily roll around the larger oxygen molecules.

Words, rhymes, rhythm, meter, and meaning shuffle around—and then maybe a poem emerges. The cosmos consists of letters, words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and (uni)verse.

Consciousness 'emerges' from a brain process, but we don't know how yet.

The universe we experience is the continuing unfolding of the one big event of its origin. There are no local causes and effects unless we place an artificial local boundary on them.

We should look at how things would be if 'random' is a true kind of happening. This would make an electron (or a brain) to not depend on anything at all, even itself, and so, how, then, could it even do anything? One might then say, well, it is a mini first cause, but I don't think that says anything.

Well, I guess theoretically, the known universe could actually be expanding into an unknown infinite universe, but again, why get excited about Big Bang theory if this was true. Just a minor blip in an infinite cosmos yawn.

Less than a minuscule blip, not even a spec—the briefest happening, a mote, in the smallest parentheses of eternity, a 'not much', insignificant, hardly there... zilch, nada, nil, empty... yet, nothing is the Ever Victorious!

And to nothing it will all disperse. Farewell Universe! We hardly knew ye.

Finding the end of the Universe is just as important as identifying the beginning, since it tells us what the the beginning ultimately meant, which is nothing.. Here is the last benediction and the final epitaph.

AFTER THE STARS HAVE GONE—

THE FINAL, SILENT DARK

THE LAST CHANCE SALOON (CASINO)

Entropy is always the winner in the end,

When there's no more money left to lend;

Meanwhile we stabilize, in nature's way,

Rearranging resources temporarily.

Prelude

Going beyond our very old obsession, so vast,

Of how it all began, back in the distant past,

Yet, retaining our search for meaning, from that,

We now turn to how will it all end, this and that,

Whether becoming collapsed, expended, or flat.

Is there is some deep meaning in all that?

Yes, for it is there in that future distance,

We'll find, or not, the end of our persistence—

Whether or not we are at all forever resistant;

Whether all that was, and what was did and done

Will be of any long-lasting benefit to anyone,

Of what destiny awaits, if there ever was one.

Endings are important to us, for what we're about,

Because we believe that how things turn out

Implies what the beginnings ultimately meant,

Of what, or not, is our place in the firmament.

As an ambitious species of nurture and nature,

We now and have always pointed toward the future,

For, of the three forms of the chimpanzee:

The common chimp, the bonobo, and us, we

Are the only chimp who went beyond the trees...

And, more importantly, ever out of Africa, freed,

By that exodus, which laid down, indeed,

From that experience, the urge and the need

To move on, exploring, ever planting another seed.

The horizons on Earth sufficed us, as through time,

For many millennia, but now the horizons' climes

Have broadened, through cosmology and physics,

And so they can well inform us of our prospects.

The future matters to us, for very basic reasons:

We wish to offset our mortality, our pleasin's,

To know if humanity's works, for every season,

Will be remembered, or lost; all for nothing, even.

The Final, Silent Dark Marches On...

Time hurls a million waves of is displacement

At us, yet we are still here—the replacements:

Time, ever gray with age, hurls its changes, then,

'Gainst existence's rock, time and time again,

The entropic seas denuding the sands,

Yet, energy is preserved, via science's wands.

Reminiscence has weathered, but could ne'er wither,

For, in the mists of time; yesteryear yet appeared.

Would the prospect of a "Big Crunch" bring on phobia,

Such as an ever more confining claustrophobia?

Seems a better thought, somehow, though no picnic,

But more pleasing, if the universe were also cyclic,

Although, then, all would still be really crushed,

And forever lost, gone headlong into the rush.

We expect cycles, for all the days and seasons

Embedded this in our ancestors, into our reasons,

Since, at least, the periodic supplies some rhythm,

A pattern—the rolling hills of lives onward driven.

As for the cyclic, endless repetitions, they, too,

Would seem to revolt more of us than just a few;

As, too, perhaps, would some infinite abyss of time,

Which, too, grants us neither reason nor rhyme.

Does the drama go on forever, or does it end?

What do the visions of the future portend?

Doesn't it all have some purpose meant—

A goodly end of all of it to us might it present?

Is our higher mammal time, certainly,

But of such a short parentheses within eternity?

It's only a finite time, then, which, too, tends

To horrify many, and more, as the universe ends,

Such as told by Robert Frost, a name of chill:

In heat or in cold, known as fire or ice, still.

Should we not believe in God since nothing lasts?

Well, if nothing lasts, then of what our purpose past?

Is a purpose really required, so constructive,

Or would that really be quite restrictive?

No realm could really be special or sent,

Its becoming being of some specific intent,

For, all has arrived here of causeless accident.

Is there anything wrong with the freedom to be,

Anywhere, any how, or any time during eternity?

No.

Should we rail against the law of entropy,

The "heat death" of thermodynamic energy,

The second of its final laws, we see,

Because it would destroy all of history?

Well, there are so many ways for disorder to be

Than any one ordered state specifically.

Would even a heaven on earth become a misery

If it, as it might, contain no more novelty?

Must there be an end to our revelry?

Can't we, at least, hibernate eternally?

Won't all matter, too, last eternally?

Will Shakespeare's works live on, paternally?

Is this not a Wagnerian struggle for eternity?

Science Can Settle Whether a Last Day

Is Ever Going to Come this Way

Only a decade or so ago, with some consternation,

We discovered the universe's large acceleration,

This expansion even increasing, onto a thin disaster,

The galaxies getting further away, ever and ever faster...

Then, one last snapshot taken, for all to remember.

The accelerating expansion of the universe's rafters

Means that the universe will cool even ever faster,

So, any rare forms of the future's life prolongers

Will have to keep themselves ever more cooler,

Think more slowly, and hibernate ever-longer.

One day the protons will fade away,

Leaving but dark matter, electrons, and positrons.

Yet, everything was moving apart, cooling off,

The big slowdown not really so very far off;

Ultimately, even the black holes of late

And the lightless planets would dissipate.

The primordial soup, once so rich and hearty

Was now a thin gruel that couldn't serve the party.

One day, every particle would be moving away

From every other particle, so much out the way

That they won't even be able to see one another;

Thus, for all intents, motion will have ceased forever.

Our spurt of life, followed by an infinite stretch

Of dark equilibrium, was but the briefest sketch—

A warm and fuzzy stage, so interestingly active,

Whose time, relatively, was but infinitesimive.

Yet, we were there, in all our glory,

For whenever else could we be?

THE WAVES OF THE ANCIENT SWELLS

OF TIME'S FORGETTING TIDES

SWEPT EVER ON...

As Time, now hoary with age,

Hurled forth its ashen change,

The charge ever san, pale and colorless,

That force born to summon decay, so endless,

' _Gainst Nature's Universe each and every day._

Time and time again, Time fed all upon,

In its bloodless, white, and waxen way;

But, this everlasting rose would not fade,

Its luster even brightening by the day,

Ever unsuccumbing to the sickly, peakèd

State draining drawn the life away.

Entropic seas yet denude the mountains,

Yet, this enduring flower, never-endingly

Has cast Deathly Time aside, for now,

Ceaselessly somehow thriving on,

To that which was the near imperishable,

The flame of beauty still inextinguishable,

Forever celebrated as immutable,

Gaining its seemingly perpetual permanence

From the undying love of the glorious truth.

...

In the future, uncounted societies of

Overlapping minds accumulate, with love,

In island redoubts, their preserved data burning

With a vital remembrance, in which, returning,

The past is the present and future, they all reliving

The data, even animating it, and ever altering.

Without any new enrichments, the present and future

Reprise the past, in this retreat from external nature.

Their candles would have been nearly invisible to us,

They enduring, by diminishing, so as not to exhaust.

They made few new memories, a kind of blind sight,

For whatever realities had ever existed out of sight

Of their own mental structures were now fractured,

And thus not so different from those manufactured.

The Penultimate Part of the Final Dark

AN ESCALATING ONE WAY TRIP

FROM A FLUKE TO OBLIVION

The majority of the energy of the universe is dark today,

Although everything else passes through it in every way.

It's everywhere,

Having a component that repels its own state,

Which causes the expansion of the universe to much accelerate.

DARK ENERGY MATTERS: THE ESCALATION

We're on a one way trip from the quantum fluke,

That maximal energy within old Planck's nook—

Heading toward the oblivion of sparse expansion,

All that we ever loved and knew going to extinction.

They sent message of early warnings to some,

In those castles of illusion, yes, many a one,

That they would face the decay, not so far away,

Of the heavy particles, the "proton pause", one day.

No self-assembled granularity can endure

Forever, but must return to the substructure,

And, so, the lives must all transition, it seems,

From heavier to much lighter regimes...

Although this, too, would not be permanent,

All destined to be swallowed by the firmament.

...

We have often asked why some space exists,

Why it permits the countless to briefly persist

On Mother Earth, nourished under Father Sky—

All of those finite sparks that light and die.

There were those who endlessly debated,

Whether to live in their virtuals unabated,

Or to press forwards and outwards, of delirium,

To seek out new localities in the mysterium;

But, the pauses of the heavy particles continued,

And so there was nowhere to go for the retinued.

It was much simpler once, in those days of old,

When we thought that universes didn't go cold,

But that they expanded and collapsed,

Still destroying all, yet ever giving more to last.

And, well before that, once upon a storied time,

We simply made it all up, with tales and rhyme,

In place of any physical observations,

Or of all our revealing experimentations.

...

The past was now a reef of dead accumulations,

A graveyard of various useless informations,

Which, despite their splendorous beauty,

Could not provide a novel futurity.

...

The last one of us, born of the sparkness,

Kept a window to the outer darkness...

S/he looked out, from a once brightly

Colored and sparkling inner reality,

Into the dark abyss...

There was nothing out there,

All being so lonely and bare—

No more singing of life's song;

For now everything was gone.

The Final Epilog

There could not have been any special time,

One that was privileged over any other chime,

Nor any special place, nor any specific form

Arising out of the necessarily causeless realm.

Even those locally specific dates and places past

Of the events' novel memoirs could not ever last,

They being writ on water, with no meaning vast,

Disappearing in significance so very fast,

Since it's only the universals that last.

...

The protons were all gone from the show,

Having decayed so very long ago,

Into positrons—ever canceling the electrons,

But emitting the fleeing light of photons;

There being, of course, an equal amount

Of protons and electrons in the count.

And, of course, along with all the protons,

Went all of the atomic elements, the end,

All of their forms becoming myth and legend—

As they were still dreamt in night dreams,

Those forms that we once had, so it seemed.

S/he, as many of a luckily adaptable kind,

Had long since lightened and lighted the mind

With the dwindling electrons, and precious photons—

That beginning light of ancient times, growing wan.

Ours had been the only line in the uni-verse,

One that had become sentient, with proto-man first,

The rest of the cosmos being but a colossal waste,

A foreboding, harsh, and very dangerous place.

S/he was now the only one left,

Having outlived all of the rest.

The universe was near crumbling away,

Having run out of space, time, and all its sway.

...

S/he was dispersing, melting, into the vacuum, lone,

But, s/he held on for another thousand years, alone,

...

And, then, s/he, too, was gone,

Being the last of the hominid's song,

Of all that was sapient: the _Magnificat_ ,

The composition of Earth's sweet plot,

The greatest symphony that was ever sown,

Now having faded into the unknown.

...

From near nothingness our forms became,

And into the same must go the remains.

If the unknown be such, 'though it's otherwise;

But, still, if it's yet called unknown, then the reply

Is still, for sure, that we're free to be, anywise.

If you've shed a tear, reading here,

For both the far, and the near and dear,

It won't make their graves green again;

But, it's possible that life could begin again...

Be of Good Cheer-—the sullen Month will die,

And a young Moon requite us by and by:

Look how the Old one meagre, bent, and wan

With Age and Fast, is fainting from the Sky!

(A Khayyam quatrain that's not in the Rubaiyat)

Our fruits are of a universal seed,

Are yet another yield of All possibility treed,

For siblings elsewhere in the entropic sea

Are also born of such probability.

The Eternal Return

Behind the Veil, being that which ev'r thrives,

The Eternal Nothing has ever been alive.

Some time it needed to variate Everything for,

And now sometimes knows how these bubbles to pour,

Of existence, in some 'meant' universe,

Those that wrote your poem and mine, every verse.

So, as thus, thou lives on yester's credit line,

In nowhere's midst—now in this life of thine,

As of its bowl our cup of brew was mixed

Into this state of being that's called "mine".

Yet worry you that this Cosmos is the last,

That the likes of us will become the past,

Space wondering whither whence we went

After the last of us her life has spent?

The Eternal Saki has thus formed

Trillions of baubles like ours, and will form,

Forevermore—the comings and passings

Of which it ever emits to immerse

In those universal bubbles blown and burst.

So, fear not that a debit close your

Account and mine, knowing the like no more;

The Eternal Source from its pot has pour'd

Zillions of bubbles like ours, and will pour.

When You and I behind the cloak are past,

But the long while the next universe shall last,

Which of one's approach and departure it grasps

As might the sea's self heed a pebble-cast.

SEASONINGS

Nature Springs from Winter's tomb,

The bloom already in the seed,

The tree contained within the acorn.

Surging sprigs sprout from the soil;

Spring showers make the Summer flower.

Summer wakes from Spring's dying kiss,

Blooming when the rose does,

Sunning after the Spring's running.

Summer reigns upon the land,

Eventually fading in the night.

Autumn Falls as Summer leaves,

Harvesting its sum of days,

Seconding the rose of Spring.

The smile meets the tear—

Fall's embers last through December.

Ice winds stalk the weed flowers,

The ghosts frosting the dead stalks,

Snow crystals barring all that grows.

Winter is death cooled over;

Melting snows feed Spring waters.

And then there is 'All That Lies Between', the account of energy going through its paces, which is not in spite of the universe unwinding, like a spring, but because of it.

ALL THAT LIES BETWEEN

It is a beauty and a brilliance

Flashing up in its destructance;

For, everything isn't here to stay its "best";

It's merely there to die in its sublimeness.

Like slow fires making their brands, it breeds;

Yet, ever consumes and moves on, as more it feeds,

Then spreads forth anew, this unpurposed dispersion,

An inexorable emergence with little reversion,

Ever becoming of its glorious excursions

Through the change that patient time restrains,

And feasting upon the glorious decayed remains,

In its progressive march through losses for gains.

We have oft described the causeless—

That which was always never the less,

As well as the beginnings of our quest,

And, too, have detailed, in the rarest of glimpses,

The slowing end of all of "forever's" chances.

So, then, we must now turn our attention keen

To all of the action that exists in-between—

All that's going on, and has gone before,

Out to the furthest reaches "ever-more";

For, everything that ever happens,

Including life and all our questions—

Meaning every single event ever gone on

Of both the animate and the non—

Is but from a single theme played upon.

This, then, is of the simplest analysis of all,

For it heeds mainly just one call—

That of the second law's dispersion,

The means for each and every occasion,

From the closest to the farthest range—

That which makes anything change.

These changes range from the simple,

Such as a bouncing ball resting still

Or ice melting that gives up its chill,

To the more complex, such as digestion,

Growth, death, and even reproduction.

There is excessively subtle change, as well,

Such as the formations of opinions tell

And the creation or rejections of the will.

And, yet, all these kinds of changes, of course,

Still become of one simple, common source,

Which is the underlying collapse into chaos—

The destiny of energy's unmotivated non-purpose.

All that appears to us to be motive and purpose

Is in fact ultimately motiveless, without purpose;

Even aspirations and their achievement's ways

Have fed on, and come about through, the decay.

The deepest structure of change is but decay;

Although, it's not the quantity of energy's say

That causes decay, but the _quality_ , for it strays.

Energy that is localized is potent to effect change,

And, in the course of causing change, it ranges,

Spreading, and becoming chaotically distributed,

Losing its _quality_ but never of its quantity rid.

The key to all this, as we will see,

Is that it goes though stages wee,

And so it doesn't disperse all at once

As might one's paycheck inside of a month.

This harnessed decay results not only for

Civilizations, but for all the events going fore

In the world and the universe beyond,

It accounting for all discernible change,

Of all that ever gets so rearranged;

For, the _quality_ of all this energy kinged

Declines, the universe unwinding, as a spring.

Chaos may temporarily recede,

_Quality_ building up for a need,

As when cathedrals are built, or forms,

And when symphonies are performed;

But, these are but local deceits,

Born of our own conceits;

For, deeper in the world of kinds

The spring inescapably unwinds,

Driving its energy away—

As ALL is being driven by decay.

The _quality_ of energy meant

Is of its dispersal's extent.

When it is totally precipitate,

It destroys; but when it's gait

Is geared through chains of events

It can produce civilization's tenants.

Ultimately, energy naturally,

Spontaneously, and chaotically

Disperses, causing change, irreversibly.

Think of a crowd of atoms jostling,

At first as a vigorous motion happening

In some corner of the atomic crowd—

They hand on their energy, loud,

Inducing close neighbors to jostle, too,

And soon the jostling disperses, too—

The irreversible change but the potion

Of the random, motiveless motions.

And such does hot metal cool, as atoms swirl,

There being so many atoms in the world

Outside it than in the block metal itself

That entropy's statisticals average themselves.

The illusions of purpose lead us to think

That there are reasons, of some motive link,

Why one change occurs and not another,

And even that there are reasons that cover

Specific changes in locations of energy,

The energy choosing to go there, intentionally,

Such as a purpose for a change in structure,

This being as such as the opening of a flower;

Yet, this should not be confused with energy

Achieving to be there, in that specific bower,

Since, at root, of all the power,

Even that of the root of the flower,

That there is, is the degradation by dispersal,

This being mostly non reversible, and universal.

The energy is always still spreading, thencely,

Even as some temporarily located density—

An illusion of specific change

In some region rearranged,

But, actually, it's just lingering there, discovering,

Until new opportunities arise for exploring,

The consequences but of random opportunity,

Beneath which, purpose still vanishes entirely.

Events are the manifestations

Of overriding probability's instantiations—

Of all of the events of nature, of every sod,

From the bouncing ball to conceptions of gods,

Of even free will, evolution, and all ambition;

For, they're of our simple idea's elaborations;

Although, for the latter stated there

And such for that as warfare,

Their intrinsic simplicity

Is buried more deeply.

And yet, though sometimes concealed away,

The spring of all creation is just decay,

The consequence and instruction

Of the natural tendency to corruption.

Love or war become as factions

Through the agency of chemical reactions,

All actions being the chains of reactions,

Whether thinking, doing, or rapt in attention,

For all is of chemical reaction.

At its most rudimentary bottom,

Chemical reactions are rearrangement of atoms,

These being species of molecules,

That, with perhaps additions and deletions

Then go on to constitute another one, by fate,

Although, they sometimes only change shape,

But, too, can be consumed and torn apart,

Either as a whole or in part; so cruel,

A source of atoms for another molecule.

Molecules have neither motive nor purpose to act—

Neither an inclination to go on to react

Nor any urge to remain unreacted;

So, then, why do reactions occur, if unacted?

Molecules are but loosely structured

And so they can be easily ruptured,

For reactions may occur if the process energy norm

Is degraded into a more dispersed and chaotic form,

And, so, as they usually are always constantly subject

To the tendency to lose energy as the abject

Jostling carries it away to the surroundations,

Reactions being misadventure's transformations,

It then being that some transient arrangements

May suddenly be "frozen" into "permanences"

As the energy leaps away to other experiences.

So, molecules are a stage in which the play goes on—

But not so fast that the forms cannot seize upon;

But, really, why do molecules have such fragility,

For, if their atoms were as tightly bound as nuclei,

Then the universe would have died, being frozen,

Long before the awakening the forms "chosen",

Or, if molecules were as totally free to react

Every single time they touched a neighbor's pact

Then all events would have taken place so rapidly

And so very crazily and haphazardly

That the rich attributes of the world we know

Would not have had the time to grow.

Ah, but is it all of the necessitated restraint,

For it ever takes time the scene to paint,

As such as in the unfolding of a leaf—

The endurations for any stepping feat,

As of the emergence of consciousness

And the paused ends of energy's restlessness:

Is of the controlled consequence of collapse

Rather than one that's wholly precipitous.

So, now all is known, of our here's and nows

Within this parentheses of the eternal bough,

As well as the why and how of it all has come,

And of our universe's end—but, that others become.

Out of energy's dispersion and decay of quality

Comes the emergence of growth and complexity.

(The verse lines, being like molecules, warmed,

Continually broke apart and reformed

About the rhymes which tried to be nonintrusions,

Eventually all flexibly stabilizing to conclusion.)

The Disproof of 'God'

Upward and onward, where we are, as beings, there is a heck of lot of complexity, this taking 13.5 billion year to form. Looking downwards and back, we note the less complex, such as cells, although there is still quite a lot going on there, and then a few billion years earlier, microbes and bacteria, which we are still thankful for in our stomachs today, as we are their guests, and then we trace down through the ever simpler and simpler, such as molecules, made of atoms, which came from stars and supernovae, which stars were made from the more elementary 'simplicities' of electrons, neutrons, and protons, which may or not have come from something less, such as waves, which could have come from the simplest state of all, nothing..

Forms become more and more stable as they progress upwards to the composite and the complex, which means that forms are less and less stable as we look down, as more reactive, perhaps even to the perfect instability of nothing.

Of course, it works the same way going up from the simplest to the complex of today, and so it is that the beginning things had to be simple and tiny, and we see them to be; so, what is composite and complex can never be First and Fundamental, not even an atom, and surely not a SuperBeing of 'God' who foresaw everything, thinking it up, planning it, designing it, and implementing it, via a super system of mind.

In fact, we would have to look upward of where we are and beyond into the far future just to suppose that very highly evolved beings will happen, much less some ultimate one to the nth degree that would even make the more highly evolved beings seem like ants in comparison, or much less, since ants do have some smarts.

So, the absolute, complete wrong direction is being looked to to suppose 'God', and, sorry to say, that disproves the notion of 'God'.

To have the template that life requires Life behind it and then throwing the template out of the stained-glass window to not then require LIFE behind Life, and so forth, fails on three accounts. Those kinds of windows are expensive and so some still retain the notion of 'God' out of grooving on the idea or an emotional attachment for comfort, or as an extension of the human family structure of old that had a strict father figure, or as felt sensation of a presence, but there are states beneath our felt states of being that are not apparent, and so introspection cannot reveal the whole story, which we have science for.

I'm sure many will still believe because they like to, and there is pretty much a 'live and let live' for that, but for when it gets extreme and/or clashes with government's duties; however, on forums people like to get to the bottom of things.

It is also that neither Something From Nothing nor Something Forever is 'God', one being the opposite—as nothing, and the other being the actual base things themselves forever—as never created; so the notion falls again.

Disproving 'God' twice over is more than good enough, these both being accomplished by self-contradiction, the only method available to use for universal negatives that have no positives. Meanwhile, there are positives for science, logic, and philosophy to work with to get at the the universe, its early stages, and its beginning, and these are the dreaded universal acids that eat away all the folk tales and superstitions. The 'answer' of 'God' so much begs the question that it renders it beyond repair.

Martin Gardner, who knew a heck of a lot, liked to think, for comfort, that he was and would be taken care of, by 'God', even though he didn't logically or scientifically believe in 'God'. Strong emotions have a direct pathway into consciousness, bypassing the rational areas, turning into thoughts, and it is not unusual to fall for one's own thoughts from feelings, or just from thoughts unto feelings, because, well, that they thought of them, so it must be so, not realizing that thoughts can appear, unbidden, their roots having been placed there by natural selection, an extension of noting agency in nature going on even to the 'wind' and nature spirits, unto gods. Mistaking a moving bush for a bear at night was no big error to worry about, but not not worrying about it could have cost one's life.

_Such tricks hath strong imagination, that if it would but apprehend some joy, it comprehends some bringer of that joy; or in the night, imagining some fear, how easy is a bush supposed a bear!_ —Shakespeare

Now it is up to the believers in 'God' to not only undo the disproofs entirely but also replace them with the proof of 'God'.

'God' was a fine and glorious notion, once upon a time.

We have no Physical Existence outside the Equation.

True, outside the equation there is nothing, and inside there is a zero-sum distribution, but we do have undeniable existence inside the equation, for what makes no difference to an actual physical-real is truly no difference at all. We phantasms are as real.

Determinism, yes. But we get to be in a play, having fun acting out the script. We have self-awareness, and so we can even sit way back in the audience at the same time we are strutting on the stage, thus allowing some of the averse drama and trauma just sail on by.

I, too, was a computer programmer, for 31 years. One of my office mates was a hardware designer, working on some floating point instructions, spending a lot of that time trying to 'randomize' some of the rounding actions, or something like that, complaining that 'Everything leaks," I guess meaning that the solution was not totally clean.

Yes, an alien could have made our planet, but I skip past all those middle managers and go right to the bottom, not the top, for the top came later.

And the accumulation of sufficient information is based on already having acquired a representation of it (what we take to be its meaning) in the form of a template, which can be understood as the total information that one is required to obtain in order to be able to satisfy the sufficiency claim of knowledge. In that sense, the template is like a concept or a class which can be instantiated by objects satisfying it.

Yes. For example, photons, via their intensity, angle of incidence, and so forth give us information about the object. Our senses are spy outposts upon reality, and reality is really out there, proved by the fact that we have senses.

As a result of this interpretation, information has the property of intentionality (also a property of consciousness for representationalists like myself)

The information of the neurological has a second expression, in consciousness, which 'it' correlates to the neuro 'bits', and I say 'second' because consciousness comes after the brain's analysis, which it must, ruling out the 'consciousness is all' theories.

Thus, in my interpretation of information, information doesn't stand alone, it is always about something other than itself (though, in the sense of a mirror, it could be about itself, as well)....

Yes, as it is about reality, which reality would seem actual, even if it follows an equation.

Knowing what happened in the universe gives us more insight. For example, it didn't come into being all intact and immutable as we see it today.

Our present actions depend on past experiences etc., but that doesn't mean they are determined by them.

And yet there is nothing else, and who we are extends into the world, too. A will with no input, within or without, would have no output, or we would all be air-heads (ha, ha).

What is it that the rest of the willing depends on?

I don't think the new state was 'already there' in the state before. There are no wet hydrogen or oxygen molecules. Wetness is an entirely new property with features which didn't exist in the component parts of the water. However, I concede that the property of wetness can be predicted from the properties of H & O.

It was already there, in the potential. It didn't come out of nowhere.

Not only is free will the basis for morality, it is the grounds for any human existence at all. We are always pressing into some possibility or another. People like Sartre have argued that we simply are our possibilities, and that the only thing we are not free to do is to NOT choose. Put another way, the fact that we must constantly make choices is the only thing truly determined.

Learning/experience is the basis for morality, and it may go either way, good or bad. Just as we may never forget how to ride a bike, some may never forget how to commit a crime, and do.

Just as a phenomenological experiment, next time you're driving a car think about how easy it would be to steer into the oncoming traffic. One tiny little physical action – this potentiality is the metaphysical substance of freedom, and I think it is more immediately 'real' than anything science can tell us about the big bang.

That wouldn't be me or you, so we wouldn't do it.

Someone could now say, as often happens in free will discussions, "Look, I can raise my arm at will." But the reason they did this was due to them being in a free will discussion.

How would a free will work that doesn't depend on something?

I am Austin. I used to be Patrick, my middle name, for when I was born there were two other Austins in the household, my father and his father, and so when someone called, "Austin", three people might answer or appear. I usually beat my grandfather there, even with my crawl. So, I was 'Patrick' for about 50 years, but then went back to 'Austin' since a lady liked it, and it also makes me feel distinguished, but I'm not sure why.

I went to a Catholic School, but gave up religion in 5th grade. In 6th grade I fell in love with the nun, Sister Theophelia, but didn't tell her. Halfway through, she ran off with our handsome priest, Father Kramer. Darn, I could have walked her home to the convent.

I took computer programming in college, when it was first maturing, to pay the bills, working at IBM for 31 years, after serving in the Intelligence Unit of the Army in the Pacific, on Oahu, mostly, but I am more interested in the liberal arts. Actually, it is a tie, with science. I would call myself a philosopher.

Other forums end up with mostly talk of politics or "Find God through yoga", but this site has an active philosophy section, so here I am. There's not much new under the sun but I try to make higher connections from those to form something more novel.

I am in New York, in Poughquag, living on a mountain, which has many other houses, in the Appalachians. Yes, they go that far up.

During some winters, I live in Hawaii, either on top of a mountain—that has a secret cave, next to Fort Shafter, on Oahu, or at South Point, on the Big Island (also called 'Hawaii'), in the hills near the ocean. Southward, there is nothing but Antarctica.

If all events are pre-determined then everything corresponds to actions combined with events human nature and brain function. we know for a fact that we are alive and are not objects we can think. But ......if we were objects of pre determined destiny then how would we know..........???

We know already because actions/events at the macro level can't depend on nothing at all.

Say one has to wear a shirt to go to work, a must, so one goes to get a shirt to put on. We 'choose' a work shirt, but which one? Not one we wore recently, probably. Maybe one that's good to go out to lunch or out after work. Maybe not; it all depends. Maybe we are in a hurry and so we pick any good shirt nearest the door to the closet. Maybe all our work shirts are white, and so we look for the cleanest or the best pressed. Or maybe all the white shirts look great, and all are at equal reach, so it is a tie. Yet, some subconscious cue or slight neural imbalance in a tiny state swings the pick. Maybe it is an absolute true tie among the shirts, but a 'random' quantum level event makes the choice become what it does. Well, who cares about the possible 'random' quantum, for any white shirt would do. Now, a truly 'random' choice like this wouldn't have a say very often, if it can even be that way. Any 'randomness' mostly cancels out at the macro level. And what good would an arbitrary action do? Probably harmless, as it could go either way, among equal paths. But, the votes are usually a clear majority, and, if not, we ruminate, and then choose, after gathering more facts, unless we are reactive, not having a space in which to consider, before action.

There are also inhibitory responses attending to what appears in consciousness, which may veto the thought, like, 'Don't really shoot that bad driver". This is 'free won't', and it is just as fixed, being a higher part of the will. Of course, some may shoot, while we wouldn't, but that is them and their own fixed will.

To really know, we'd have to get the universal film to run over again, and somehow be outside it.

Well, anyway, we can't predict all of the future, and so this unpredictability makes it seem novel.

Logically we would still imprison, for the protection of society, but it is and isn't their doing. At trial, the guilty could say "The Universe made me do it" and the Judge would still give the sentence, saying, "This is so the universe doesn't make you do it again".

WILLING tHE wILL tHAT wILLS?

What is the "secret" of human behavior, one that's really so much the saving grace that we may even keep it from ourselves rather than very far into it try to delve? What is it that should be so confidential, classified, and undisclosed—its potential kept under wraps, so very contra; informally: hush-hush; formally: sub rosa?

Well, it's a revelation of splendor, one that's often good to surrender, but is also very well to remember. Is the will free to will one's actions otherwise? Can antecedent conditions be ignored? Can the self be an unmoved mover? Not really, but... and what of those tendencies of evo's realm that have been imprinted on one's genetic film—those of temperament, role preferences, emotions, responses, and even one's most revered moral choices—those invoices from which one rejoices?

Well, these are not choices at all in of any free will voices. In essence, from the basis of one and from all that one has become from life's total behavioral reactions, there are probabilities of actions—some patterns that are very likely and some patterns highly unlikely. Is free will a necessary fiction, a kind of a religion? No and yes if it's to provide an essential berth for one's morality, meaning, and worth.

So, then, with this "free will" become, one might then succumb to systematic deception about one's causal connection to that of nature, a roadblock, a detour that's neither possible, necessary, nor desirable. The friends to these "free will" motifs would be the mythical cultural beliefs that explain behaviors and feelings in terms of unknowable forces and beings. But, to protect one's moral virtues should one still believe oneself's purview to be as an ultimately responsible agent, lo—a self creation ex nihilo, a god-like, miniature first cause who chooses without it being determined by one's own muses?

Well, maybe, but, nay, really not, nil, for there is no contra-causal free will. What the good then of this fix we're in? Such it is then that we can gain a measure of peace rather than the anger of resentment's crease when someone does or says something 'bad', even those close relatives we once had.

For the civil-law-breakers and all those ungiving takers we'll no longer incarcerate for punishment, being so irate at the jail's bait, but so that society will be protected and that they might emerge corrected from the swill of a prison mill, fulfilled with a new unfree will that points more toward goodness, or at least away from badness. Thus, the action of metaphysical justification for a total retribution then greatly softens, a relief from the stress, so often, for it's no longer induced from the abuse produced. Really? Truly.

Indeed, we become less self-conscious, more playful, less noxious, more gracious, less callow, and less likely to wallow in the sorrow that is so hollow and shallow in its excessive self-blame, pride, envy, or resentment; now all put aside. Aren't we changing the will here as we go? Yes, ever to a new fixed one, yet the fixed will must ever follow what we know. So, then we are learning—the only hope for larger earnings from the will's then wider yearnings! Yes, overturning.

What if to learning we are averse? What a curse! Might as well call the hearse. So, then, all in all, though a tempt, it is that we humans are not exempt from the laws of physics—a preempt although we've been wired to make the attempt—a seeming violation by nature of its own universal law and structure. No, it's not a violation I would call, for science still did tell us all. It's all part of the structure; one can never cheat Mother Nature. Hail, then, to the physic.

Well, it's not so bad, is it? Although we can never will the will, its 'motives' ever our 'intent' do fulfill; but it is that we have no free will. True, plus we can expand the will's horizoning through our broader learning's wisening. Yes, learn today, and by tomorrow, say, the will may have a different sway. I wouldn't want it any other way, for then I wouldn't be me—my screenplay. What other ways can we improve the play? Well, we have patience and delay, for we don't have to act right away—until a more creative solution appears.

you (whatever "you" may mean) are the one that decides, that is exactly what you feel, what you are conscious of, and what the Justice system holds you responsible for....but what the hell would mean "me" in the first place.

There are two "yous". One is the more permanent or at least the more enduring and continuing self of the subconsciousness brain that does the analysis that is known as the will and the willing, for this is what 'you' have come to be. This takes just a short time, but its results are not known by consciousness, which is the other 'you', until they are done, making this latter 'you' kind of a tourist along for the ride.

The thought may be a simpleton one, from a simpleton brain area, causing other other brain areas to check in, for rumination, for its global nature calls other brain areas into use. The thought gets remembered and so becomes available to the subconscious in the future.

We can seem to tell the brain to go off and figure something out. The some time passes and it may come up with something later. One time I told my brain to go off and figure out the Theory of Everything and get back to me, but it never did.

The conscious 'you' deals with just the few thoughts that can surface on the 'mind' at a time, a small subset of the subconscious 'you'.

In the English language, 'I' is the conscious 'I', although it may reference the subconscious 'I' of the true self, such as "I always do that."

The subconscious self's doings are not apparent, so we identify with the conscious 'I', perhaps even running off with it as gospel, because, well 'I' thought of it, but thoughts are no guaranteed to be true and useful. We don't usually fall for obvious no-no's like killing a bad car driver, but how many less obvious ones slip through? Well, that is an aside. 'Forbidden thoughts', as well as other thoughts, can just arise, out of the blue, it seems, for the brain is always up to something.

Another instance of there being two selves, in a different way, is when we talk to ourselves, such as "What the hell were you thinking!", and this is more of a higher, more global area talking to a lower, more simpleton area.

Another example of two selves is the two brain hemispheres. It's usually not a problem if they work together, although one can get lost in the details versus the holistic, or vice-versa.

If the corpus callosum is cut, say to reduce epilepsy, one can really become at odds with one's self, for now there are nearly two separate consciousnesses (the brain stem is still in common). One hand may reach for a knife, with the other hand trying to stop it.

Do the two brain hemispheres, where they differ in function, reflect the universe being that way, too?

Morality consists of two parts: empathy and rules. Religions have rules, and some of us base our morality mostly on rules, whether church-based, law-based, or worked out individually. But rules can never be complex enough to cover all situations. The other part, empathy, is what most of us use to determine if we think something is morally right or wrong. As long as don't hate the other person, we imagine ourselves in his position and feel his pain to some extent. Most of us instinctively want to relieve suffering. For me, morality is based almost exclusively on empathy. But that empathy only goes so far; it stops when you are torturing that kitten we mentioned, and punching you in the nose seems like a moral act.

Empathy is implemented via mirror neurons, which let us internally act out what we take in from externals, and this is also a basis for learning, at large, by that is an aside.

For example, if someone feels a loss because something of theirs was stolen (or worse, as in taken by death), we note their expressions and just about feel what they feel. In a [good] way, we have entered the sanctum of another person's feelings. We are in their shoes. This is automatic, for most people, and so it is objective, as neurons are objective things, but, as usual, all get into the subjective, for consciousness is a subject, not an object.

Dualism violates energy conservation, and that was the downfall of DesCartes separate mind stuff.

Besides, how would something totally different, like mind stuff, even talk the talk and walk the walk of the physical stuff that it is said to interface with, back and forth?

What is supposed as having no beginning still has to begin, for then how would it be what it is. It cannot begin from another existent, so it must begin from nonexistence, that is, nothingness.

The End, that will come, in trillions of years, which is a dispersion to nothing or near nothingness, tells us what our beginnings ultimately meant, which is nothing. The action is in all that lies between.

Outside of truth, one can devise any meaning that they wish, but wishes are not guaranteed to have objects.

Whither Flowing Free, All From Not Knowing

Of hitherto, I know not, but am whither going,

Willy-nilly, whence all there is to knowing...

Hence thither I went on hither flowing to think

That I was truly free to be in body and mind.

Yes, nature does not care about the wishes that say what it ought to be, and those who make such claims with no showing are even unethical.

Everything and Nothing

The Universe is holistic, in that its expression from its source is progressing by its continuing unfoldment making everything therein flow as it must. All is the one effect of the one big event of the the beginning, which itself could have no existent cause and so is a distribution of nonexistence's nothingness.

One of our brain hemispheres deals with the whole (among other things), knowing it all at once, the processing being in parallel, while the other hemisphere understands the parts, processing these detail serially.

Outside the whole is nothing, as it sums to zero, and inside are the everythings that are the mass, energy, and charge 'effects', ever in pairs and balance of opposites, such as matter vs anti-matter and positive vs negative charge.

Other universes come and go, too, making for the happening of every single possible thing—Everything, And what is the information content of Everything vs Nothing? Both have zero information content.

Before and after the whole there is nothing. The whole decays, unwinding like a spring, but this grants energy's doings, as restrained by patient time, for the speed of light is finite, which allow local reversals of entropy, the basis of all progress and change, although these are still but local conceits, and even for the rise of civilizations, for which energy's 'purposes' are more subtle.

BECOMING

We humans mirror and recapitulate much of evolution while growing in our mother's womb, racing through many stages in which life evolved. During this nine months, and even beyond that, we move from mindlessness to shadowy awareness to consciousness of the world around us onto consciousness of the self and then even to becoming conscious of consciousness itself.

For the first two and one-half years of life, the inexplicable holistic world is experienced less and less holistically as the child discovers the bounds of discrete objects. The holistic right brain remains, of course, for us to take in the overall view, while the logical left brain is there to recognize the detailed relationships.

As such, so goes the universe, since we are formed in its image. So, then, this gives us a clue to the nature of the universe. Seeing that the brain is divided into two hemispheres, each with their own characteristic mode of thought, that can communicate with each other, means that we are looking very deeply into the way that reality itself is constructed.

These two complimentary aspects to the Cosmos are thus absolutely essential, one being of the whole: the apparently indivisible, continuous fluid entity, although discrete at unnoticeable levels, the other being the interrelationships of the parts. Each interpretation does not appear at exactly the same time, but the yin ever gives way to yang and ever then back to yin, and so on, the rounded life of the mind thus continues to fully roll on as the cycle of this symmetry turns and returns. If not, one either gets totally lost in the details or prematurely halts at the whole and goes no further. The way is not this or that extreme, but joined in direction.

The holistic right brain mode is unfocused, as we see in some people who are unconcerned with or immune to details, the right side of the brain always building the scene in parallel to form a single entity; whereas, the focused left side of brain isolates a target of interest and tracks it and its derivatives sequentially and serially.

Yet, the two sides of the overall brain are connected to each other and so the speed of the juggling act can meld them together into a complete balance, like that portrayed by the revolving Yin-Yang symbol, each ever receding and giving rise to the other.

Such does the universe go both ways, too, its separate parts implicated with everything else in the whole. During conscious observation, the 'hereness' and 'nowness' of reality crystalizes and remains, we, in our minds, establishing and actually bettering what that reality is to a large extent by painting a more useful face upon it.

We define and refine the nature of reality that leads to the mind's outlook. Counterintuitive? Cyclical? Yes, but it is the universe in dialog with itself; the wave functions, and yet the function waves.

The universe supplies the means of its own creation, its possibilities supplying the inherent avenues, probabilities, and the workabilities that carve out the paths leading to the fitness and success that we and all creatures have. There were many such family trees, aside from the tree that led to us, but what is as of now was also there in the beginning, although we tend to call it 'emergence'.

So, here we are, then and now, the rains of change falling everywhere, the streams being carved out, the water rising back up to the sky, the rain then falling everywhere, the streams recarving and meandering toward more meaning, and so on.

Well, perhaps I should get more technical:

The pregnancy of possibility is the mother of all invention. Mother Eternity of Maternity and Father Infinity of Paternity conceived the Cosmic Egg that was a giant neutron that begat the Universe from Nothing, due to the Nursemaid of Probability. Mother Eternal and Father Infinite could not complete, this being impossible, and so that was their end, but their essence was instantiated into Mother Earth (Mother Nature), nourishing from below, and Father Sky (Father Heavens), sustaining from above. There was no Mr. Always Right and no Miss Perfect.

Hope that clears everything and nothing up.

After you die, you are dead, first of all, and second of all you are still dead, but people may pass by your closed coffin saying that you owed them money, and that is why you faked your death, but all that I said still applies when you really, and are not late for your own funeral, but may still be called "the late...", an indication that you just died recently.

Your atoms may go on to reside in new people.

The brain's aim is ever toward survival, and so it may try to think of anything to avoid death, such as an afterlife.

You should know, though, that in Heaven you can do whatever you want, and so it is a very decadent place, and so you really wouldn't want to end up there. It beats the Hell out of Hell, though.

'God' was sitting around one day, having been consumed for the previous zillion years by trying to remember his earliest memory, for He thought He had been around forever, but ronjanec reminded God that He had to have had a beginning, since He could not be eternal (and then half of all the churches collapsed). So, 'God' was happy to get back to the business of just being great, and rewarded ronjanec by letting him live in the fine village of Oak Park, IL for a while.

'God' then got to thinking to Himself, saying... "You know, Self, I don't really remember My beginning because I was very young when I was born, and having the ultimate silver spoon, but, that aside, what the heck am I doing here, being the Boss, in charge of everything, for I did nothing to obtain or qualify for this position, not even having evolved on up to it or anything like that, and, oh, My talent, it is is so great, and I could easily win the Mount Olympics, but I never practiced or trained for it, so, cripes, why am I here in this lofty spot—why Me? Why do I have to run everything. Maybe I should give ronjanec a call..."

Meanwhile, 'God' had 18 quadrillion e-mails and prayers to answer from people who wanted things, and that was only the amount from planet Earth.

Eternal existence isn't the best answer either, because it has an incompleteness to it, as having the base existents made in a certain way without them ever having been made.

When asked how this can be, one might say that they just are (here), ageless, as causeless, another word meaning 'forever there', since there is no cause for their existence.

So, we ask more about 'causeless', and maybe it comes out that there cannot be an eternal regress of cause and effect, so at some point there has to be a causeless effect, which is reasonable, although still as paradoxical as something from nothing.

We are at a loss, but we do note that saying existence that doesn't come from anything is much the same as it coming from the not anything of nonexistence/nothing, also bearing in mind that there is surely nothing to make existence of anyway, and so perhaps that is what it is made of, somehow.

So, finally, we look as close as we can at nature's essence, and find, to our amazement, that it is fully indicative of a distribution of nothing, for it consists of a zero-sum balance of opposites such as opposite polarity of charge, opposite matter/anti-matter states, the positive kinetic energy of stuff vs the negative potential energy of gravity, the weak vs the strong nuclear forces, and more balance that cancel out in the overview. at the level of totality. Nature could also be reflecting its source in that there is pair production of opposites of matter and anti-matter.

We persevered in all this because we knew that there can be no true paradoxes, for existence is indeed here. One of the two paradoxical notions had to give.

Yet, we are not quite done, for there had to be a potential/possibility for nothing to differentiate itself, albeit limited to that which still had to sum to zero overall, such as perhaps opposing waves of something and an anti-something.

But the possibility/potential/capability had to be eternal; however, potential is not an actual existent in the way that stuff is. So, we still have the two and only two locked boxes, kind of, of Something From Nothing and Something Forever, each of which somehow holds the key to the other.

It might help, for other implications, to note that there might be other limitations at work, beyond that of the necessary zero-sum, that are forced, as more default conditions, these all, at least, making existence to be mandatory.

So far, the zero-sum is part of the cause, but what else? Well, the universe is finite, and, since the universe is a continuation of what made it, then that is finite as well. This suggest that infinite extent is impossible, which we already know by the fact that it cannot actually complete, but only potentially, such as in math.

The opposing waves that summed to nothing met a bandwidth limitation of impossible infinite density, and thus the whole thing blew up into the 'bang' of the universe before all of the wave annihilations could take place.

Yet, there is still a mystery, for how did the actual substance that the waves consist of come into being, even if they sum to zero? Still there can be no real paradoxes, which drives us on; otherwise we would have given up long before this point.

We might note, rightly so, that the simpler and simpler becomes more and more unstable, and so the simplest state, that of nothing, as perfectly unstable, must ever jiggle about as loose change, as positive and negative waves, for the nothing of nonexistence cannot cannot remain or stay as nothing, even for an instant, plus that, obviously, nonexistence, the lack of anything, is not the present state of affairs, and so it could not be.

The above helps to further bolster the notion that all is and has to be a distribution of nothing, so we know it's true without our exactly knowing why, for again, how does stuff of substance form from not anything.

We've tried pumping 'everything' out of a large metal cylinder, and yet the something of electron/positron pairs still appeared thereafter, although it is not necessarily that case that we pumped out spacetime as well.

We investigate further, leaving aside the quandary of substance coming into being, for now. We are further amazed, but happy to find that there can only be two stable charged matter particles in free space—the electron and the proton, and no more, and no stable uncharged matter particles, for the neutron decays in minutes. The inescapable conclusion is that there are two two ways to make these particles (and their antiparticles), that of the two opposing waves and wave envelopes of somethings and anti-somethings, the electrons being of the wave envelopes and the protons being of the waves.

What about that there can be only one stable uncharged energy particles in free space—the photon, and no more, and no charged ones? There is only one way to make them, for they must consist of the 180 degrees out of phase combination of the waves of something and anti-something, the only way that these can live together in peace.

So, a matter particle represents half of totality, while the energy particle represent all of totality, and again we know that Something From Nothing is true without knowing the full story behind it.

Or, did 'forever stuff', that which was always around, and still is, in the same exact amount of ageless, unmakeable, and unbreakable base existents of something, just happens to have a nature that sums to nothing, without nothing having been involved, for no cause can be involved if stuff was around forever?

This part is not about evolution, but the observation that the simpler and simpler that substance forms get the more readily they go through physical phase changes and more easily combine with other things. Even when we get up to molecules they are neither inclined nor disinclined to stay or to separate, but there is then no wild rush to instantly change nor do they necessarily stay together long after some while. This condition is key, for even the slightly higher things are not so frozen that they cannot change nor so totally changeable that they cannot be together for a while.

A per evolution, a higher evolved being like 'God' would be at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from the simple beginnings, and would not count as 'God' anyway, who must be First and Fundamental.

Ah! I getya ,yes if your simple it costs less energy to change or move , like me my guitar my phone and my laptop as apposed to when I was married pfft : )

Yes, the lessor energy could be why. That's a good insight. There are less attachments, such as when living the single life.

And virtual particles seem to gain a life, which is usually short, unless they can merge with something or get separated so quickly that they can endure for a while, they even being said to borrow energy from 'nowhere' if it gets paid back quick enough.

Existence is quite the seeming paradox.

What does adventure seek?

It seeks life's light of delight, joy, success, triumph, and the lasting gladness of that which it is to be alive, for the main ingredients in the living recipe that it makes adventure from are of friendship, love, happiness, and nature.

Yes, time is of a change in material, but time must be analyzed as it is incorporated into spacetime, not separately, and so time is a difference dimension, of change, that is, time is a difference of 3D spaces. So, time is as an index to these different spaces, as in the outside point of view of Einstein's Block Universe, in which past, present, and future exist all at once, and one can traverse the time axis forward or backwards.

It's like a 4D hypervolume of all distance, the 3D spaces being stacked into a 4D distance that represents time. This hypercube stack is the same as Einstein's Block universe, but its image is usually rotated 90 degrees. Think of a stack of pancakes, but each pancake is a boundless 3D space, so it is a 4D stack.

Inversely, spaces are are a difference of times.

Time is a 4D spacetime distance, which is not a regular distance like that of 3D space, and this distance is 'ct', for c = d/t, in dimensional units, as the equivalence dimensional ratio of distance to time in spacetime.

Internal to spacetime, movement is natural, not stillness, so there cannot be stillness, which would be 'no time', and there cannot be 'all at once', since the speed of light is finite, and so there is 'time', and the mid-point is 'now'.

If you could ride a beam of light as an observer, all of space would shrink to a point, and all of time would collapse to an instant.

In the totality of 4D hypervolume, there is no time; therefore everything happens in no time, all at once. This 'infinite speed' would be as if there is no going from here to there, because 'here' is already 'there'.

Opposite particle pairs appear internal to totality, matter and antimatter, oppositely charged, as a balance of nothing. So now there is mass-energy, and so there must be time, due to that and its movement. There's no such things as stillness, and so all must jiggle about as loose 'change', since nothing cannot be or stay.

Time, then, incorporates charge, which is the only way for the nullification of existence.

(-)

C

h

s p a c e

r

g

e

(+)

From Eddie Current:

Does the decidedly non-geometric idea of time work into the Pythagorean theorem? Incredibly, it does — but first, you have to convert the time measurement into a distance-like measurement. Then, the total distance you're calculating is the  spacetime distance in the bizarre four-dimensional world where east-west, north-south, up-down, and earlier-later mean the same thing, only in eight different directions. Represented by the letter s, spacetime distance (also known as a Minkowski interval) is determined by an amazing formula. Let's break it down:

x2 \+ y2 \+ z2 – ( _c_ t)2 = s2

x is the distance to the east, y is north, and z is up, but we've added a fourth term for time (t), which gets multiplied by a constant, _c_. Notice the minus sign before the term for time. When it comes to distance through spacetime, elapsed time _counteracts_ spatial distance, and vice versa: If we travel a distance through space, and do it in a very short interval of time,* the distance traversed is effectively reduced. This is why a space traveler could reach stars across the galaxy within their lifetime if they got close enough to the speed of light. Time goes in the opposite "direction" of space!

That constant, represented by _c_? It's the same _c_ that represents the speed of light in equations such as E = m _c_ 2. What better number to convert units of time (seconds) into a distance-like measurement — after all, we know that for light, there are _186,000 miles per second_. See what Einstein did there? The speed of light is more than just a speed; it's a universal conversion factor that turns time into a distance-like measurement. By treating time as a negative and multiplying it by _c_ , we can exchange time and space in our formulas as readily as nature exchanges them. That's what  special relativity is all about.

It's as if the presence of mass causes "zero" to pull apart into the familiar ideas of spatial distance and temporal duration, like taffy. But since the universe is by definition everything there is, you have to be _inside the universe_ to witness this incredible stretching apart of zero, to experience space and time as different things. If you were taking in the all-seeing "God's-eye view" from a timeless, spaceless, massless perspective outside, you would see the same thing the speed-of-light traveler sees — nothing. To witness the action, you have to be inside the theater, in your seat.

Space and time cancel out to exactly zero for the universe as a whole. But that's just one example of the zero-sum nature of the physical world. A few others:

• The kinetic energy of everything in the universe is exactly balanced by the gravitational potential energy of everything in the universe. The latter is expressed as a negative number, just as time is in the spacetime formula. A while back Alex Filippenko, who's a familiar smiling face to science-TV geeks,  co-wrote an essay about how this means the universe may have come from "nothing at all." Like the pulling apart of space and time, kinetic energy and gravitational potential were also pulled apart in the Big Bang.

• For similar reasons, the net charge of the universe is generally believed to be zero, with the number of positively charged particles equaling the number of negative.

• Certain pairs of phenomena, like electricity and magnetism or mass and the curvature of space, are linked such that they seem to keep each other in check. The great physicist John Wheeler was fascinated by these "automatic" connections, pointing out how they are constrained together by zero sums, the way the ends of a see-saw are always the same total distance from horizontal. "That this principle should pervade physics, as it does," he asked in 1986, "is that the only way that nature has to signal to us a construction without a plan, a blueprint for physics that is the very epitome of austerity?"

On the one hand, it's surprising that quantities totaling zero show up again and again in nature. But on the other it makes sense, if the universe is a closed system incorporating everything there is. As a teen I remember being into the Taoist idea of Yin and Yang — I thought that in the final analysis, the universe as a whole couldn't be anything but perfectly balanced. On a level deeper than I imagined, I may have been right.

* Slow speeds (which mean long elapsed times) cause the time part of the formula to overwhelm the space part, resulting in large spacetime distances. Spacetime distances only get small when you approach the speed of light, for example, covering 186,000 miles in 1.1 seconds — then the (negative) time part almost cancels the space part.

After a great Radiation of gleams, glints, and sparkles, Length, Width, and Depth appeared in elementary particles on the stage of Reality, and bowed, then swirled and twirled via Gravity, Electricity, and Magnetism, and went on to form the stars, which the proto-humans soon came to observe.

Above them, fires burned the stars away;

Below them, the Earth turned under their feet;

Within them, unworded dreams haunted their souls;

Around them, night poured blackness on the ground.

Very excited, their dopamine systems running wild, they strove on, each on their own course, stopping often to view the stars as they'd never ever seen them before. All was so very quiet when they paused to star gaze. Starlight stabbed the utter darkness of night, causing many new ideas to wink and form in their minds as sparkling thoughts lit from the universal flame, as all the while the Cosmos played rhythm to their merged and singing souls; for, out there, deep in the vast darkroom of the seemingly endless void, came the star light from which the human race had flashed into being.

Like a prismatic lens, human evolution via natural selection strains the white lights of the 'eternity' of the stars into the amazing rainbows of minds and selves. These stars were the fires of home, beckoning everyone forth, toward the mysteries of the unknown.

Elder Sapiens, well nigh almost 30 years old, sat outside the shelter, as twilight ended, noting that the moon was pale and sickly, dim and feeble, much as he felt himself. 'Twas not the best night for the Hunter Sapiens to be out... but the ever-present worries bred by these ancient times had won over his weariness, halting, if only for a time, his vitality from slipping away any further.

The crescent was brightening, as best it could, and he half-slept for a while. Then a dragging noise in the bush brought him to life. They were back, hauling a carcass. If there was danger about, he would've waved them off, but there was none, so he waved them on. No one had eaten much but leaves and berries for the last five days, except for Infant Sapiens, who feasted on mother's milk. Elder pointed to the dying moon and then to himself, but the Younger Sapiens motioned that he was fine.

Many tens of millennia ago, their communication had begun, faint and ethereal, only within themselves, as symbols forming and connecting. This eventually led to gestures, preserved even to this day, as when people talk, along with their hands, even while on the phone. Grunts and simple references followed, then the basics of language.

The moon set, and the Homo Sapiens gathered round, friend and family, the night enveloping them, as evolution continued to sift the best from the rest, as ever it had done through death, our ancestors waning and waxing in strength.

Elder Sapiens noted, "We are magic lanterns shining in the field of space."

An answer came back: "From the light that never dies!"

Then, "We are the smile of being, the joy of the universe's creation."

And, "In us the Cosmos itself has come alive. It has reached consciousness from its primordial matter and energy."

"The backbone of the Milky Way braces the sky."

"We are on some far out and distant spiral arm."

"We have arrived! We are life from stardust!"

"But we live but for but one of eternity's heartbeats."

"We owe all that we are to time, death, and the stars. Truly from the stars cometh our help. Stars are the creators of matter; this is why they shine."

"The stars' light is the origin of our being, the source of our matter, energy, everything."

"Permanent, reassuring, unquenchable; it's our speechless soul, our self-winding mainspring."

Blake eventually wrote, 'In what far and fiery depths of space burnt the fire of your spirit? In what distant star was born the gleam in your eye?'

"Energy and matter are interrelated. The void pulsates in an endless sequence, for a field is present throughout space immense, out of which all particles must condense, occurring where the field's extremely intense."

"Atoms are energy bundles. They are knots in the fabric of space. Yet, matter defines the structure of space."

"Again, the Yin is in the Yang, and vice versa!"

"I have a theory: perhaps from out of nothing came the paired pluses and minuses of energy. The positive energy became matter, while the negative matter became gravity, negative because it takes a force, positive energy, to hold objects apart which are attracted by the negative force of gravity. So, when recombined, all energies still add up to nothing."

"That's ingenious. So, from nothing was written our account! And back to nothing we will still have to amount! Ah, but in between those two parentheses, the pluses rain on us from Heaven's fount!"

"The stars remain, for now, as Eternity's love-lamps, representing our good works and deeds, which even the fathomless night cannot quench. Perhaps one day, at the end of forever, the stars too will die and grow cold when time conquers all; but, as long as they live, they will shine and radiate the hues that paint the colors of our ashes reborn again on the phoenix wings of time."

Look at the stars in the depths of the night;

Hold their flames in your mind, keeping them bright.

Their power flows, energizing you from

The Eternal Charger; you see the light!

Soul to soul, stars say to me, 'I'm the light,

Thy spirit's sight, a beauty bold and bright,

An inspiration come from darkest night,

A newborn star aglow with insight.'

From heaven's stars came my dust eterne;

Time's seas nurtured thee and thine in turn.

From time, death, and dust I thus became,

And by this, thus, and that I must return.

From that black and endless eternal deep,

Nature's fertile soil woke me out of sleep,

Saw me bud, flower, leaf, strive, and die;

Then lays me back to rest, my soul to keep.

Oh thee, of thine, whence came this life of mine?

I wish to thank thee for this living wine.

Oh Nature, Father Time, Guiding Star,

Thanks for throwing me this earthly lifeline.

Whens

Life is a web of whos, whys, whats, and hows

Stretched in time between eternal boughs.

Gossamer threads hold the beads that glisten,

Each minute a sequence of instant nows.

The ancient travelers of the sky, among them Orion, Leo, and Gemini, had probably hoped that among the many lights that danced in the sky that some oasis in space awaited them somewhere out there, a world where flowers bloomed and fountains sprayed, a paradise called Earth to glorify, a world of boundless beauty and grace that had little equal, anytime or anyplace.

Well, the sky is our father, nature our mother, and we the progeny, born from the conception of heavens onto Earth, the be all and the end all, for Earth IS a rather perfect place, a world balanced by sadness and smile, life and death, night and day, sun and flood, give and take, truth and doubt, plenty and drought, good and evil, for, you can't have the one without the other, a world in which everything works and has a role, be it bacteria or decay; and, therefore, Earth, just the way it is, is truly one of the best of all possible worlds.

How else could it be? We exist, and so the universe is favorable for us here, in the general sense, but in the specifics of rain or shine, we are on our own. The sky cannot give, at the same time, rain to the farmer's crops and sun to the wedding across the street. The Earth seems rare, as many stars could not sustain us. Even in our own solar system, the other planets boil or gas away as useless wastelands.

And, now, the ice caps are melting faster than even the scientists expected, and we just had the hottest year on record. Methane is rising in Siberia. Greenland now has no snow cover, although this could be just coincidental. The tropics will be expanding into the north and the south.

We, who have only arrived a short time ago, which, if all of time is compressed into a year, was but at a few minutes to the midnight of New Years' Eve, are as the butterflies on the edge of extinction, versus continuance, at most until trillions of years pass unto the final, silent dark, after all the stars have gone.

Hmmm... existence/substance is mass/energy that persists, even if just for a while; however, a photon is pure energy (no mass), and it persists. Mass is wavelength and energy is wave frequency. Charge is wave amplitude. Energy and mass can convert each to the other, so we'll call it mass/energy.

What is the wave itself? One might as well ask what electrons or quarks are made of. The wave is like a string in string theory. The string tension is of unit mass per unit length.

Existence/nature is somehow the origin of itself at the primal level. It doesn't come from anything, which is akin to nothing.

The basic unit, such as a wave, is not made of anything further, for it is the 'anything', this oscillation being the realest reality, making mass, energy, and charge but secondary/penultimate.

A wave must connect to itself, as continuous. Even if it becomes broken, the loose ends have to meet and complete, but not just at any old place, for then we would not have the quantum unit, which is why electrons change orbits via quantum jumps, so that the wave crest and troughs are still symmetrical, and, in the case of a broken wave, if that is possible, the loose ends are already lined up right.

The primal wave of something is made up of itself, and so is its counterpart, the primal anti-wave of 'anti-something'.

What is waving?

That which is waving is the primal stuff, unless it somehow became of nothing, which then becomes the primal state, which is not one of stuff, or nothing, really, but of some nebulous, in-between state, of potential/possibility, which, true, is not quite nonexistence, and not quite existence. So, there is Yin, Yang, and Yaun.

This non actual potential/possibility is the prime mover that is fundamental, eternal, and infinite, its nothingness not in actuality somehow translating into everything in actuality.

Infinity, Eternity, Nothing, and Everything have been unified.

No one really likes that the will is fixed (for the instant, at least, until it changes to a new, fixed will), so they invent ways around it, like compatiblism, which is just a word with no showing—a placeholder for a wish. It really is that the opposite of 'determined' will is that it is 'undetermined' will, which wouldn't work anyway, and is even less wished for, so, there is no place to go but to emotionally want the will to somehow be 'free', but free of what? Free of input? NO, for now we want the will to reflect the inputs from our brain.

Even when we see someone else doing something this 'act of watching' permeates our so-called stronghold of the self, for mirror neurons act it out in us, internally, without us have to move, which is actionizing/learning, sometimes along with empathy for what is being gone through, and this, too, becomes an input to the will.

Here's a kind of a joke: the religious have 'free will', but it has to match God's will. Now, this is something about coercion (that one will burn), and 'coercion vs responsible' is orthogonal to 'determined vs undetermined'. Yet, 'God' saying something can still be a noncoersive input, too.

Sure, we are all robots, as bio-electric-chemical mush machines, but it's still fun to live, as well as figure ourselves out, which are inputs to future (fixed) willing.

What works—the phenomena, which do pay off for our 'reality', are not necessarily the real reality and what is true at the bottom most level, which are really the noumena. True reality need not be the same as our realm of existence.

Einstein bettered Newton's and Galileo's laws, and someone will better Einstein's, such as to explain the Pioneer anomaly. Einstein came up with thoughts in his 'armchair', such as that 'time' had to give, since the speed of light was a constant; however, he was still relying on actual science that had come before.

There are no things. Structure is all there is.

" _at bottom" there are no "things," only structure_

These structures generate patterns, and science is in the business of describing such patterns.

For example, mass effects as from wavelength, energy effects that are of wave frequency, and charge effects that are of wave amplitude are not the real reality (as beneath is), although they serve well in our phenomenal reality beyond, for they are the patterns generated by the primal structures, which are the real reality, for example, an underlying wave oscillation, which is all that's true, and makes for the pseudo things beyond and above.

One might ask just what is the structure that is waving? Well, it's hard to say, as there can hardly be a 'what' below that which makes for 'things', but that is the nevertheless the final frontier that needs to be gotten to and into.

Up to that, I propose two opposing primal wave structures, for they must some to zero, as there is nothing to make anything of, and because, indeed, we do observe a zero-sum balance of opposites in nature. These waves also have to have no instantaneous rate of change, nor their envelopes or their derivatives, and cannot have convergence to infinite density, since actual infinities are impossible, and therefore they got to a point and then 'blew' and 'banged' into the universe, before annihilation could complete, as like a giant neutron—as large as the size of the universe, making for electrons (as wave envelopes) and protons (as the waves within the envelopes), and their anti-particles—from the anti-primal wave structure, and indeed, these are the only two possible charged matter particles in free space—because there are only two ways to make them.

In the photon, the one and only uncharged energy particle in free space—because there is only one way to make it, 'positive' and 'negative' live in peace because not only is there no mass but the waves and the anti-waves are 180 degrees out of phase, which I guess is what cancels the mass.

Photons represent all of totality and so they have no anti-particle. Matter and anti-matter particles, since oppositely charged and of opposite matter states, each represent only half of totality.

Yes, there is a great symmetry here.

Fundamental physics seems to do away with objects, and indeed, it does away with yet another old chestnut of metaphysical speculation: causality!

at bottom, there are no causes.

According to Ladyman and Ross it is a concept that is eliminated in fundamental physics, but needs to be retained by the special sciences (from biology to economics). That's because causality makes sense only in systems for which there is temporal asymmetry (a before and an after),

There is no fundamental determinism for the simple reason that there is no fundamental causality, and that "cause" is a conceptual tool deployed by the special sciences that has no counterpart in fundamental physics, and so it cannot be reduced to or eliminated by the latter.

There are no causes anywhere, even when we try to make local boundaries to corral them as local 'causes', and this is because all that goes on in the universe is ever and always the continuous unfolding of the one big Event/Effect of the Beginning, which one could still call a 'bang' of sorts. So, all is determined via this one Event as an Effect, although it may not have a cause itself, per say, which is 'as undetermined', or we just don't know, but ever after there is determination, for not anything else can intercede.

if every thing is gone and we only have mathematical structures and relations, what is the ontological status of mathematical objects themselves? Here are the only relevant quotes from Ladyman and Ross that I could find:

OSR as we develop it is in principle friendly to a naturalized version of Platonism. ... One distinct, and very interesting, possibility is that as we become truly used to thinking of the stuff of the physical universe as being patterns rather than little things, the traditional gulf between Platonistic realism about mathematics and naturalistic realism about physics will shrink or even vanish. ... [Bertrand Russell] was first and foremost a Platonist. But as we pointed out there are versions of Platonism that are compatible with naturalism; and Russell's Platonism was motivated by facts about mathematics and its relationship to science, so was PNC [Principle of Naturalistic Closure] -compatible.

Sounds like there could and must be a fundamental potential/possibility realm, yet there can be no metaphysics without epistemology. This potential/possibility, forced by default conditions, somehow caught up to the unchanging duration of Nothing's 'Eternity', as a low-probability event that made the universe come forth, as it somehow made the 'substance' of 'things'—or it is that 'everything must go' (the book title), for the 'things of substance' are only the patterns of the no-things of structures.

(Metaphysics without epistemology is worthless)

From maternity/paternity to here, beyond, and the end

0. No-thing:

'It' is perfectly unstable, as potential/possibility, since it is the simplest state, and thus productive/creative/actualizing of continuous functions only (elemental, so no parts, as they cannot precede the First), such as waves, that must still sum to zero overall, so as not to really get something from nothing.

The 'it' of no-thing is not actual. 'It' is potentially 'infinite', as 'it' can be 'anywhere'; however, it has no 'where' or 'what', for it generates its own 'where' and 'what'. 'It' is potentially eternal, but too unstable to be. Low probability events can catch up to 'it', in a big way, such as an entire universe coming forth.

Note that the simpler and simpler existent and actual things are also less and less stable, readily going through phase changes, reacting, and combining; so that's why the simplest state of no-thing or nothing must be perfectly unstable. There could have been no holding of 'it' together, as there is not now a lack of anything; so, nothing, as the only source, is the basis of all, plus the the potentiality/possibility default of the nothing state.

An infinite regress of actuals can be ruled out, since infinity for actuals is impossible, for that 'count' can never be attained.

Eternal actuals can be ruled out, since eternity for actuals is impossible, for actuals cannot be already made and defined in a certain, specific way without ever having been made and defined, nor can their total amount be defined without ever having been. Plus, what doesn't come from anything, as the so-called 'causeless' that was 'forever' is the same as it becoming from nothing.

We see that the only option is that the actuals must appear out of the no-thing of nothing. For further confirmation, we indeed note that nature consists of a distribution of nothing—in the zero-sum balance of 'sum-things' of the only possible stable oppositely charged matter/antimatter particles, with the only possible stable energy particle being neutral. We will see that these particle types are of the only ways to make them, which is why there are no other types of particles in free space, further confirming the necessary aero-sum.

1. Opposing primal waves/oscillations:

These are the only actual existents—the real reality.

Cosine, especially as '1-cosine', which part is yet to be explained, but went away, is the only function that works, in that it and all its derivatives don't have an infinite rate of change.

There are 'something' and 'anti-something' waves/envelopes, opposed, as oscillations, summing to nothing, whose accumulations met a bandwidth limitation, for actuals cannot be infinite, and thus 'blew' and 'banged' as the universe, before total particle annihilation could complete, leaving electrons, as the wave envelopes, protons, as the waves, and photons, as of opposing waves 180 degrees out of phase (thus neutral, with no mass). These particle types were all that could be produced, for there were only those few ways to make them.

All in all 'it' was as a giant neutron—a cosmic egg, one as large as the universe it became, containing 2 x 10^85 particles of 'sum-things', from the 2 x 10^85 waves/envelopes accumulated—at which point the cosine function exploded. The resultant particles in the universe is 2 X 10^76m, not 2 x 10^85, since there are one billion photons for every matter particle, so there were 10^9 annihilations. The rest could not complete, since the whole thing blew up into the universe. Knowledge must ever be used in metaphysics.

2. Mass-energy-charge effects:

These have no primitive identity, are metaphysically second-grade, and have no independent existence; they are of wavelength, wave frequency, and wave amplitude, respectively. The only real reality is the oscillations.

3. Things/objects:

Again, they do not exist independently of each other, they are not self-subsistent, and not ontologically fundamental.

4. Beings/creatures/plants:

They have higher complexity, from metabolism conquering entropy.

5. Mental representations:

These are the re-presentations of externals/internals, with a more useful face painted upon, sometimes radical, such as the e/m waves from the visible spectrum turning into colors. Our senses are our spy outposts, having direct contact to what comes in, but mentally we do not contact directly. That we have senses confirms that there is something 'out there'.

The conscious 'I', of awareness, is a subject-only that observes/witnesses/experiences the objects of experience that appear in the conscious sea in which we 'see', these objects being those few that have surfaced on the 'mind' at any given moment, after the whole self, the brain, has completed its subconscious analysis, which takes a small amount of time, making consciousness the last to 'know'; yet, these results are incorporated for future reference, not just disappearing,; however they are still the last step of the experiential moment, making us rather like tourists along for the ride.

Imaginations may refer to objects that are not possible, and frequent reoccurrences may wire the brain into strong belief, unto falsely claiming the objects to be true.

6. Causes and effects:

There are none; there is only the one continuing and unfolding effect of the one big event of the beginning of the universe, and no local causes and effects, even if we seem to ''place' local boundaries. Everything is ongoing, doing what it must, for there is nothing else to inject its influence.

7. Time:

Everything cannot happen at once, since the speed of light is finite. Infinites are not possible for the actual. The speed of light is due to the primal waves' restraints, and is a kind of dimensional equivalent ratio of space (distance to time), with time and distance wrapped up together into 4D spacetime. External to 4D spacetime, as like Einstein's block universe, time is the 'distance' of 'ct', a 4D index to our 3D spaces.

8. Energy:

The universe unwinds, like a spring, but slowly, restrained by time. Energy's quality decays, but can temporarily arrange into order.

9. After the Stars have gone:

The there is the final, silent dark, from dissipation and dispersion. Our beginnings ultimately meant nothing, from which they also came, and will go unto.

10. All that lies between:

This is now. Enjoy.

11. God:

Complexities cannot be First, as the parts would have come before. Beings take billions of years to form. 'God' is neither the notion of nothing nor the notion of elemental substances forever (which 'forever' is that same as from nothing, anyway). The theory of the beginning presented here does not require a Super Being. There was no thinking, planning, designing, and implementing by a 'God', but just the default conditions that made for that which could be no other way.

12. What is that which the potential/possibility waves are composed of?

It is not a 'what', for a 'what' is what it makes; so, it comes before the 'what'. This seems to be more than nothing but less than something. Nothing and something are as two locked boxes, each of which contains the others key.

While it is not possible for actuals to be infinite or eternal, actuals thus having to come from nothing, there must also also be a 'non-actual' potential/possibility for nothing to become something, and it is this potential/possibility that is both infinite and eternal, as the potential can be such, as it can ever create, any 'time', 'anywhere', to various degrees, such as even a universe, but it is more like that it creates its own 'when', 'where', and 'what', which is why it is before any of those as non-actual and potential.

The only good metaphysic is one that employs epistemology, that it, operating from the known, and that is what I have done, finding that the solution is forced to what are the strict default conditions.

This is an assumption. Existence is actual?

The oscillations are the real reality, as the only something, which are the 'sum-things' of a distribution of nothing. What is of them, as higher, is still real, for they are of the real, but they do not in themselves have an independent and primary existence, such as Aristotle thought.

Can you prove existence isn't infinite and eternal?

Neither one can ever complete as an actual extent or duration, which is really what 'infinite' and 'eternal' mean. Using their shortcut words as actuals without regard to their definitions doesn't make sense. Besides, as to why their definition, there would always be more, and no beginning, which I guess I already said. What doesn't come from anything is an incompleteness that can only be reduced to coming from nothing.

I find it far more logical to assume a prior state for matter before the inception of the visible universe.

We can skip that, as we'd only have to go on to the first matter. Besides, my theory show itself so well in confirmation as we we see in the universe.

What of the holographic universe models?

Maybe the third dimension doesn't exist, as suggested by the fact that the maximum entropy of a black hole depends on an area, not a volume.

But you operate from the known evidence you choose from a sea of differing evidence that can point to different conclusions.

All are forced:

—Nothing to make anything of.

—Waves are ubiquitous.

—No infinities.

—No infinite rate of change of nothing into something.

—A lack of anything is not the present state, so no eternal duration of nothing.

—Only three stable particle is free space (and their antiparticles).

—'God' disproved.

—No intermediate causes and effects.

—Opposing waves.

—No other trig functions work for the opposing waves.

—Various zero-sum balances of opposites noted in the universe.

—The universe had a beginning.

—More, as in the theory.

The last tiny bit of doing takes 99.99% of the time if all is to be done completely. It is, though, that this situation is known to be true, as all is forced to it, without completely showing, which still grants satisfaction. I need some new glasses to give me 10^100 vision to look at the final piece that is nothing at all, or very close to it.

At least we got a T-shirt equation out of it, along with all its implications, such as simplicity itself sitting there as First, and certainly not some ultimate complexity, plus the unification of all, why there can only be the three stable particles that we observe in free space (and their antiparticles), why there must be a zero-sum balance of opposites, also as observed, the role of the impossibly infinite, that the universe had a beginning, that there is literally nothing to make anything of, that no other trig functions work, no free will, the ubiquitous waves, and more.

I'll be back some day, somewhere, either in this universe or another, when the last piece is figured out.

OK, I have an answer to what creates the two opposing primal waves. I found it through the process of elimination, although I wouldn't have believed it beforehand.

First, let us remember that the waves are the 'what' of existence, as the only real reality, they also making for the 'where', the 'when', our 'who', as persistent extension in dimension, via mass, energy, and charge effects.

The beginning of the 'how' is via the distribution of the zero-sum in a balance of opposites, just as the equation indicates.

What is missing is the 'why', that it, what makes the waves become and/or maintains their waving, but really how did the waves get there and what produced them, which is also what they are.

Well, stuff is out, as the source, as that's what was produced, plus the source can have no 'where', 'when', or 'who, either, for those came forth as well.

So, all or any of actual existence is thus not the source, leaving no actual anything, but just 'potential', which is somehow greater than nothing, yet is still nothing in the actual sense.

All that is left is the equation itself. Math somehow produces reality, just as Dave said. Particles, forces and energy are not just described by equations; they are the equations, together with abstract, purely mathematical relations among those equations. The wave oscillations, as the real reality of actual existence, are made from math's potential reality that directly creates the actual reality. Math creates 'sum-things' from nothing, and yet, overall, at totality, there is total nothing, and not something. Existence is temporary subset within nonexistence. That which forever endures is but the the math equation in its potential form.

Now all we have to do is add some more to the 'how' of the equation making for what is taken as substance.

We have gone so deeply down the rabbit hole to the cryptic that there seems to be nothing there but nature keeping and sleeping with arithmetic, each somehow making necessary the other, this pairing of paternity/maternity as nature/math, but I'm changing that to say that the mother of all mathematics plays the primary role, with potential as the father, both being of eternity, together producing the child that is nature—the universe.

Free Will

Ah, in the whole you're just afraid of being unfree,

But, hey, look, behold! There is still so much beauty!

A sublime law, indeed, otherwise what beauty could there be?

So here the coin's other side speaks—a toss up, weighted equally.

It's from the searched finding of truth—not of fright,

For determinism is really not a very pretty sight.

Beauty exists either way, for there is still novelty,

But 'determined's opposite is an impossible currency.

How dare you curse the freedom to be;

It's because you are scared of He!

What greater proof of inner freedom then

Could His gift of wild flight to us send?

Really, it not of a scare that He is there,

But because 'random' cannot even be there,

For then on nothing would it depend—all bare,

If it could even be, but it has no clothes to wear.

I swear I am more—that I do act freely!

Don't pass off my passions so calculatingly.

I'll let the rams butt their heads together;

One absolute position subsides for its brother!

Yes, it seems that we can choose, even otherwise,

But what is within, as the state of being wise,

Knows not the hidden, non-apparent states below,

For that is a 'second story', having only one window.

One rigid mode of thought' score

Consumes the other with folklore,

Unbending, unyielding with perfect defense,

To orchestrate life's symphony at the song's expense.

We're happy to just find out the truth;

However, when subjected to the proof,

We wish that the coin could stand on its edge,

But see that it cannot, which is knowledge.

So lets define the world and human existence

On a couple hundred years of material witness,

Or burn the measuring eye to the stake!

After all, our freedom's what it seeks to forsake!

Evolution didn't work by chance for us to live,

For natural selection is the scientific alternative

To Intelligent Design from something outside;

The coin of determination has no other side.

The secret is simply that a secret does exist

And no amount of data can take away this,

But this doesn't mean a ghost in the machinery;

But perhaps the heart isn't just a pump, the liver a refinery.

We often forget the secret, willingly,

In order to live life excitingly,

Which it still would be, either way,

As we're still part of the play, anyway.

But of course there is a past of 'whethers'

Through which we've been weathered,

Surely we are moved as dust from gust to gust,

But is two-twice-two a four always a must?

Math, too, is a must, and we try, as ever,

To predict a week ahead the weather,

Yet the data seem to much to work with,

But indetermination measures not random's width.

Is not an unfree will a blatant contradiction

Developed from the an 'enlightened conviction'?

If I've made a choice then I have willed it

And if it's been willed then freedom's fulfilled it.

This what I mean, that the will willed one's self,

Which is that one does not will the will itself.

The neurons vote, based on who one is;

No one else is there to answer the quiz.

And of course it's in and of a misguided pit

To say that from the past we've distilled it.

Is not the idea of complete self-autonomy a ruse

Born from the illusion of the existentialist blues?

We distill what comes into us, too,

For it has to become part of us, new,

For mirror neurons act it out, while we are still,

Invading our sanctum and altering the will.

But of course, this is to be much expected

From a culture that lacks all mythical perspective.

' _Nonsense' we call it, a virtue of not thinking,_

From which we have long since been departing,

So now will behold in all its transparency

Beyond childish ideals of essence and archaic fantasy.

That's close, but it's thinking that has grown,

By science and logic informed from reason sown,

In place of feeling, sensation, wishes, and the pleas

To have the universe be what it ought to be.

Do not distort with a desire for meaning.

Oh, the babe, lets leave the child a'weening,

But I ask of you: have you not tried in-betweening?

There are two ways of living, sometimes merging,

One of just state of being, of its only showing,

And one of the being plus the under-knowing;

When with our life's wife, we dwell not on hormoning.

And in that same breath we say all is forgiven;

Why hold humans responsible, leading to derision?

Of course an eye for an eye was an unjust decision

Well, we have a system that draws a line between

A crime of passion and a thought-out, sought-for infliction.

"The universe made me do it," says the accused,

And the Judge replies, "Well, this does excuse,

But I still have to sentence you to the pen,

Until the universe can't make you do it again,"

Why must it be a question of absolute freedom

As complete randomness over an unbending system

That structures everything that ever was, is, and will be,

Right down to the elementary structures of incomprehensibility.

What is set forth in the beginning

Is ever of itself continuing,

Restrained by time, yes, but unfolding,

For there is nothing else inputting.

I may understand why this has to be;

I have felt the rapture of black and white toxicity,

But why subjugate all possibility for novelty?

It will still be novel, even such as a new parking lot,

For the dopamine neurotransmitters will stir the pot.

New is still new, on the grand tour through life,

But do some predicting, to then avoid some strife.

Can such a thought hope to cast a wrench into these gears,

A tool so heavy that dissuades all of our fears?

Will all order and inertia be torn asunder?

Will we have giant ants wearing top hats over,

With all rationality considered a blunder?

The truth was not sought to drop a spanner into the works,

But it even turns out to grant more of compassion's perks

For those afflicted with the inability for learning,

Thus eliminating some great annoyances burning.

Am I simply a delusional puddle here,

Perceiving just my liquid perimeter,

As I think to myself I can control

The very rain that expands my rule.

And the humidity that thins

Should I condemn as that which sins?

There are no sins, but just destiny's fate,

Which even includes one's learnings of late.

We and all are but whirl-pools, of the same oscillations,

Some lasting longer, yes, but of the same instantiations.

Summary:

— There is literally nothing to make the base existent(s) of, yet it still must be so, that things are formed of nothing, or no-thing, if there is such as potential/possibility. Even though there's no way around the fact that there's nothing to make anything of, this may not quite register with some people, since it seems that a paradox is involved.

— There are no true paradoxes to an answer that must be true, thus meaning that we are missing something.

— However, due to the apparent paradox of things having nothing as their only possible source, people might retreat to saying that the base existents had no source—that they were around forever and did not come from anything, as 'causeless', which is the same as saying they came from nothing, which is not anything. And then there is also the huge problem of why, then, are these existent the exact, specific way that they are, such as their certain types, forms, and properties, as well as the why and how of their total amount—since none of this could have been determined in the first place that never was.

— So, we are back to from nothing, which is now for sure the only option, although some might introduce the possibility of an infinite regress of actual things coming from lessor and smaller actual things... which for one would mean again that there was no first place, not to mention that it would take forever for all these effects to get transmitted on upwards. Plus...

— There can be no actual infinities, only potential ones, as 'infinity' is not an actual number, but just a shorthand for saying what can never be completed/attained. And in actuality, too, there would always be more, so 'infinite' is not even a limit.

— So, to see how well logic has guided us, we also start from other end, which is the science that we have learned...

— The universe is a zero-sum balance of opposites: polarity of charge, matter/anti-matter states, the positive kinetic energy of stuff equaling/canceling the negative potential energy of gravity, weak force (for changeability) vs the strong force (for stability).

— So far, so good. Then comes the second confirmation: There are only two stable matter particles in free space, always charged—the electron(-) and the proton(+), because there are only two ways to make them (and their anti-particles), and only one stable energy particle, neutral—the photon, since there is only one way to make it (it is it own anti-particles). Note that a neutron in free space decays, within minutes, into an electron and a proton.

— Whatever is produced from nothing still has to amount to nothing, overall, but in its distribution of nothing has to be a 'something' and an 'anti-something'.

— The base existent (produced) has to be a simple continuous function, with no parts, for the parts would have to had been there before what they make up, making it no longer the base existent, which is why a composite cannot be First, much less a complexity, such as a Super Being.

— The third confirmation by science is that waves are ubiquitous in nature. When we get down to it, all is of waves. And a wave is a simple continuous function!

— Thus, somehow, two primal waves form, a few or a lot, and waves within waves, as well, with wave envelopes, too, as traced out by the wave peaks rising and falling, making for a really giant neutron that becomes the universe, after it blows, one primal wave representing 'something' and its opposite representing 'anti-something', the wave length granting mass, as a persistent extension, this perhaps also granting dimension, the wave frequency granting the energy, and the wave amplitude granting charge.

— So, of course, a universe doesn't start up every day, as this is a low probability event, but eventually it has to, since ours did. The impossibility of infinite wave density was the bandwidth limitation that caused the whole gigantic neutron of a 'cosmic egg' to 'bang' as a change into our universe, the 'somethings' becoming electrons (as the wave envelopes) and protons (as the waves), as well as the 'anti-somethings' doing the same, but with opposite charge, for the anti-particles. Sure many annihilations did occur, just before the whole shebang blew up, but all of them could not complete, but we know that some did, because there are now one billions photons for every matter particle that remains. And we now see how there are only two ways to make electrons and protons (and their antiparticles), limiting them to be the only two stable matter particles, their forms and properties explained, as well.

— So, what we commonly call the basic things or somethings are really 'sum-things', ever summing to zero, with their wave oscillations being the real reality, with everything else being of them, such as mass-energy-charge effects, as secondary, as not the real reality, but still real, since they are of the real.

— But, wait, you say, for photons result from annihilations. This is true, but photons are neutral, which means that positive and negative have to be living in peace within, and this is so because the one and only way to make a photon is for the opposing waves to be 180 degrees out of phase, which is why it has no mass, only energy, and no charge.

— There can be no other stable particle types in free space. There cannot be a stable uncharged matter particle because a matter particle represents half of totality, its polarity charge playing a large role in the nullification of existence (in the overview). There cannot be a stable charged energy particle because the one energy particle represents all of totality, being its own anti-particle, of both positive and negative coexistence.

— So, what is it that makes for the waving? Well, it's not a thing or a 'what', for the waves are the 'what'. It can only be the equation itself—the math of it, which turns out to be a cosine function, for it and the derivatives don't have an infinite rate of change.

— 'Sum-things' from nothing? Yes, but, overall—Nothing. Conservation is not violated, and, in fact, this is why the conservation laws exist.

— All of the above points were forced to be, as the default conditions, so... well, yes, existence is solved.

— 'Nothing' is perfectly unstable. And we even knew, although I didn't make it a point, that simple and simpler forms are ever more readily reactive, recombining, and going through phase changes... unto the simplest state of all—that of a lack of anything (and that is what would have taken a God to hold together).

###

About the Author

Austin began writing for real around the age of forty, a respite from working as an Information Engineer in the field of Computer Science, doing programming, an art, as it turned out. He calls himself a humanist, and is one who enjoys the liberal arts, utilizing science, for it pervades every discipline. He is currently retired and lives in the mountains of Poughquag, NY, near the Appalachian Trail. He enjoys tennis, writing, fun, humor, thinking, sleeping, poetry, music, dining, travel, romance, reading, swimming, and life.

Connect with me online:

email: austintorn@aol.com
