The Scientist, The Gnostic

Discussion in 'Discourses in the Council of Thuban' started by shiloh za-rah, Apr 5, 2014.

  1. shiloh za-rah

    shiloh za-rah Planetary Rebirth

    I shall address the 'universal evil' issue later, but would like to share here a topical correspondence from August 23rd, 2005. This is a correspondence between Robert Kernodle and Tony B. with input from April (on this forum).

    Thanks, Tony.

    I figured that you would take such an approach, which brings us back
    to the "chicken/egg" paradox.

    Respectfully (and always with admiration for your ideas), I differ
    from you in that I think that something overshadows BOTH chicken and

    >>You are asolutely correct here Robert and I could not agree more with you.
    But can you see that this 'overshadow' is the chicken before it was formed and the egg before it was even thought off?
    Your bible says so in genesis 2.4-5: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

    And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."

    Pure gnosis and encoded omniscience Robert. 'Take it away from the religious literalists AND take it away from the antireligious literalists AND give it to the gnostic religion and the gnostic science for interpretation.

    Do NOT go to the non-gnostic priest or the non-gnostic scientist for advice; go to the gnostic advicer, because you shall be greatly confused in mind if you attempt to read this either emotionally-religiously or intellectually/academically-scientifically.

    Gnostic advisor would say (dialogue with a scientist and a believer say):

    ""Easy my friend; the heavens and the earth are allegory (thank you April) for the physics and the metaphysics as generally used in your vocabulary.
    So when it says before the earth, it means before the physical whatever.
    Now compare it to say an apple-tree or a rooster.

    Gnostic: Where did the finished 'product' of the apple-tree come from?

    Scientist: From its seed.

    Believer: The bible says from God, he created the apple tree.

    Gnostic: Both Correct, and where did the seed come from?

    Scientist: From the programmed DNA/RNA.

    Believer: Ah this provbes science wrong, because the scriptures say,that the apple-tree was created before its seed in the ground by Gen.2.5. God did it.

    Gnostic: Both correct, and where did the DNA/RNA and God come from?

    Scientist: This is the chicken-egg dichotomy. We are gathering more and more evidence, that the RNA is precursive to the DNA from the beginnings of cellular and bacterial lifeforms. Because the chicken is basically protein/amino acids and the egg can be linked to viral absorption by bacteria without DNA becoming its DNA, say in bacteriophages; the DNA is basically a viral mutation of primordial genes in endosymbiosis with primordialRNA as collection of nucleotidal petides.
    Then those organic molecules occur in bifurcated enantiomated formations of chirality/crystalline forms of isomerism. In living things the DNA/RNA's sugar-phosphate bases are predominatly righthanded with lefthanded amino acids. But in nonorganic molecular arrangements of thje amino acids and constituients show equalprobabilities to exist in a natural way.
    Subsequently science now suspects that the basic lefthandedness of radioactivity responsible for nucleosynthesis and the creation of the atomic elements has become transformed from the subatomic scale onto the scales of biological evolution.

    Then the origins of the neutron and the fundamental forces of physics must be the cause for the observance of allphenomena including the biological ones.
    So in terms of science, we would say that the chicken as the DNA engaged in a synthesis with the egg as the RNA, the RNA being more a manifestor of incumbent DNA than the other way around however. The DNA then becomes rthe agency for the incumbency tomanifest itself in the advancement of the evolutionary process.

    Believer: God made the DNA/RNA and God is eternal.

    Gnostic: Both correct, and who made the subatomic neutron and eternity?

    Scientist: The neutron is a vibrating superstring, a specialmanifestation of the Planck-Scale, which defines the limits for all physicalmeasurement because of its interdimensional selfconsistency allowing all of physics to transmutate into pure mathematics, that is metaphysics.
    We call this the Big Bang,when both time and space were created from a spacetimeless realm, where such definitions cease to have any physical meaning whatsoever. The neutron became a consequence of conservation laws in energy and momentum in many associations to manifest a bifurcation ofpolarities, say gravity of contraction and radiation of expansion.

    Believer: God made eternity, because he is eternity through his word, this is clearly defined in John.1.1.

    Gnostic: Both correct, and who made the Big Bang and who made the Word, because John.1.1 clearly says that the Word preceded God?

    Scientist: Well, we have discovered a multiverse or megaverse scenario where there could exist epochs of 'banging' say in the collission of braned universes as initiatingh certain great cosmic cyclicities of banging and antibangings/crunches.
    We also have discoverd a Planck-Length-Bouncing, which allows the transmutation of the Big Bang physical parameters such as length and time to be redefined in a preBig Bang scenario of unified charge settings.
    Those settings broke symnmetry and manifested in the Big bang as 4 fundamentalforces, modified in a fifth.
    So now we scientist have found synthesis with the old choices of our models allowing a harmony between them. Instead of an expanding universe or a static universe in competition, we can superpose and have them both in one.
    We can now confidently say, that the Big bang made itself, there is no preCreator necessary to bring the universe as we know it into existence.

    Believer: Good question, but scripture answers this in John.1.1:
    "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
    So the Word and God are the same thing and made each other.

    Gnostic: Both correct, and who made the process of this oscillating universe and the equality between God and the Word?

    Scientist: The Laws of Nature.

    Believer: The Law of God.

    Gnostic: Both correct, and who made the Laws of Nature and the Laws of God?

    Scientist: Nature of course.

    Believer: God of course.

    Gnostic: Both correct, and who made Nature and who made God?

    Scientist: Nature just exists and God is a human invention.

    Believer: God just exists and made everything.

    Gnostic: Both correct, and who made existence to exist?

    Scientist: Existence is the antitheme to Nonexistence, because I exist I exist. One of us has encapsulated this in: "Cogito ergo sum!" I think, therefore I am! (Descartes).

    Believer: Exodus.3.14: "I am That I am!" is the name of God given to Moses in the burning bush of the holy ground on Mount Horeb.

    Gnostic: Both correct, and who made the "Cogito ergo sum!" and the "I am That I am"?

    Scientist: Those are just words of philosophy, created by the thinkers.

    Believer: Moses must have heared God's voice in his language to have been able to pass this holy name on, but God's voice on Mount Horeb made or uttered his own name.

    Gnostic: Both correct, and who made philosophical thought and God's voice?

    Scientist: The experience and history of the human race in toto and huam ingenuity and inventiveness.
    Believer: God simply has a voice in some manner to pass on his Word, say through the prophets, like Moses.

    Gnostic: Both right, and who made thought and the prophets?

    Scientist: Thought is related to consciousness and connectivity of neural network in the human CPU known as the brain and prophets are just humans, often selfdeluded in hearing imaginary voices from the supernatural.

    Believer: God calls and inspires the prophets, if they are of pure heart and if they have overcome their inborn sinful nature.

    Gnostic: Both correct, and who made the thought and the consciousness and the neural network interrelated and the pure heart and the sinful nature?

    Scientist: Nature.

    Believer: The pure heart is with God and the sinful nature is with the Devil.

    Gnostic: Both correct, and who made nature and God and the Devil?

    Scientist: We have been there before, this is a circular argument. Nature just exists, it just is and God and Devil are mystical human inventions of superstitious supernaturalism.

    Believer: The bible says that God and Devil are the same and not the same, because in Job there is Satan as a challenger to God about Job not being temptable to curse God for his misfortunes and then there is the temptation in the wildernness in regards to Jesus and some of our expert theologians also know that a scriptural distinction between Lucifer, Devil and Satan is necessary, that these are three different beings in some sense.
    Yet Isaiah clearly states that the Lord created both good and evil and that he is the author of everything and responsible for everything good and bad under the sun and moon and heavens.

    Gnostic: Both correct, and who made the circular argument, the tautology and the Lord of both 'Good and Evil' and the three characterisations of Lucifer, Devil and Satan?

    Scientist: The tautology is simply a question of logic and of mathematics and of definition.

    Believer: God made, invented and is everything.
    Gnostic: Both correct, and who made mathematics, logic and God?

    Scientist: Mathematics is a human cultural invention in one school of thought and is a description of idealised form, say Platonic in another.

    Believer: God made himself by his Word.

    Gnostic: Both correct, and who made the distinction between the Platonic and NonPlatonic realm or mode of thinking and who made the God his own Word?

    Scientist: Mankind.

    Believer: God.

    Gnostic: Both correct, and who made Mankind and who made God?

    Scientist: Mankind evolved from Homo sapiens forms like homo habilis, homo erectus, the australopithecines and the ape-sapiens divergence from the Darwinian tree of life continually miodified and added to in data base as new discoveries are made. God is a metaphysical human invention.

    Believer: God created Mankind in the Garden of Eden and himself by his Word.

    Gnostic: Both correct, and who made evolution, the tree of life and the Garden of Eden?

    Scientist: Nature, Darwinian classification schemes and the Garden of Eden is metaphysical supernaturalism.

    Believer: There is a Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden which was made by God, who made everything.

    Gnostic: Both correct, and who made Nature and God and the Tree of Life in two places at once, in the classification schemes of Darwin's science and in the Garden of Eden, metaphysical to the scientist and physical to the Believer?

    Scientist: Nature just exists and the rest is just word play between different ways of classifying and perceiving philosophical things within a shared physical reality and a mental reality which is often unreal relative to physical science and is not shared by all in common perception.

    Believer: God allows the good and the evil to coexist until judgement day, but God made everything.
    Gnostic: Both correct, and who made the distinction between the real and the unreal relative to the perceiver and who allows the distinction between the good and the evil to be made?

    Scientist: Mankind and it's philosophies.

    Believer: The Devil tries to lead mankind onto the path of evil and mankind must repent to find God again. This would be impossible for mankind, were it not for our saviour Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that we should live.
    So because of Jesus, we can return to God if we repent from our sins and if and only if we choose to follow our saviour and call upon his name.

    Gnostic: Both correct, and who made mankind, it's philosophies and Jesus as mankind's redeemer?

    Scientist: Mankind evolved and if the mythological Jesus ever existed as a real person, then he had a father and a mother and was descended from the apes and the tree of life like everyone else.

    Believer: God is Jesus' father and God made mankind and allows it it's philosophies to choose the Ways of God over the Ways of the Devil?

    Gnostic: Both right, and who made Evolution of Mankind and the Choosing of the two ways of Good and Evil possible?

    Scientist: This is a circular argument, Evolution is Existence, which is a blending of Philosophy with the analysis of an ever growing data base, subject to investigation as to the Nature of Nature, which just exists.

    Believer: It was because of the Fall and the Original Sin, that the Choosing between the two ways is made possible. Either one chooses God with Jesus or the Devil and the World.

    Gnostic: Both right, and who made the philosophies and the data base and the Original Sin, as the agency to effect the ability to choose?

    Scientist: Mankind made everything philosophical in correspondence with the data supplied by Nature. Science studies Nature's evidence about herself.
    Believer: God made everything and it was the choosing of Eve to eat from the apple tree, that the foriginal sin of the disobedience eventuated.

    Gnostic: Both right, and who made Nature to be called a She in Science?

    Scientist: Ah, that is a remnant of the history and development of science. It'sa sort of ancient heirloom, like calling astronomical objects and discovery after mythological characters like Andromeda and Venus and Mercury.
    Nature is personified in such a wayas a leftover from the birth of the sciences from alchemy becoming chemistry and astrology transmutating into astronomy.
    It would be a way to relate Nature as She to He, which is the God of Superstition. One must accept, that the birth of science and the scientific method in the renaissance and thereabouts in the West, had a forerunner all founded on established religion and dogmatic metaphor and associations.

    Believer: Eve is called the Mother of all Living and Adam did name her so in Gen.3.20: "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."

    Gnostic: Both right, and now you have converged in the circular argument and solved the great secret of gnosis.""

    Because Eve is the Nature of Science as the prime and original cause of Existence and as SHE is the Mother of all living and as accepted by the Believer, one can easily deduce that Adam is the Man and Son of God, which does the NAMING as the WORD of all things.
    So every name calling scientist is the Word and also the Son of God who is the encoding of the redeemer, say Jesus in the footsteps of Adam.
    And every Believer calling upon the name of Jesus is also the Word and so becomes equal to the scientist in the two ways of perception.
    In betwen you have the Name calling artists and inventors who simply take a bit of both in the same final outcome, being Adam=Son of God.
    Because the distinctions are made by the philosophies of mankind, which were caused by the Original Sin/Ignorance of not being able to choose, and the CHOICE was made by Science's NATURE as the Believer's EVE; the eating of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden caused the Believer in EVE (namely Adam) to suddenly make a distinction between 'Good and Evil' so barring him from accessing the Tree of Life and Knowledge, namely the Darwinian Tree of Life of Science.
    Because NATURE just exists without prior cause EVE exists without prior cause, relative to the scientist, leading to the circular argument as exemplified in this discourse.

    The Believer, through applied gnosis of the WORD, then REDEEMS the scientist because heshe knows (through scripture) where Eve came from.
    As Eve is the CREATION in toto, the Believer can proclaim in all confidence:

    The CREATION was made by her CREATOR, which is Adam from God.

    The Scientist translates this by hisher own agenda as NATURE MADE HERSELF or the UNIVERSE CAME INTO BEING JUST BY ITSELF.
    The Beliver's circular argument always returns to God by his Word as the prime cause, and the Scientist REDEEMS the Believer in confidently proclaiming: There is no CREATOR, the CREATION created HERSELF by the NATURAL LAWS.
    And then the gnosis CAN illuminate the Believer as to what the WORD of God must BE; nothing BUT THE LAWS OF NATURE, because of the convergence of the two ways, which could be chosen in their extremes 100% Scientist or 100% Believer.
    Then the LAWS OF NATURE CAN become GNOSTIC - that is APPLIED in the two hitherto incompatible ways.
    All gnostic scripture are the Word of God and ALLOW the Laws of Nature to become discovered, rediscovered, reinterpreted, illuminated, extended anyones gnostic insight.
    Only the GNOSIS of understanding BOTH, the allegories and scriptural stories, mythologies and pathos AND the basic methods and ways of science through the histories of both, Science and Religion, can synthesise the two options or choices harmoniously.
    And it all started with the 'seed of an apple', the apple in the eye of HE and SHE as the creators of it all as THEIR own individual STORY of selfredemption, just in thinking Separation in Unity and not Unity in Separation.
    To be separated from the One you Love is the most Painful experience of humanity.
    Now ponder this. To be separated a certain distance or time, and awaiting the other's return is Separation in Unity, because the Love and Longing Passion and expectation is all there - there is a FINITE spacetime between the Lovers.
    But what if that spacetime is INFINITE in a Unity of yourself as Being yourself AND ALONE, your LOVER being eternally far away.
    How the Love is shattered and the Longing Passion and the Expectations.
    That is why the Infinite Universe of localised Unity is the BURDEN of the present world.
    The localised unity are the power groups and elites, the 'royal blood' and concentration of influence etc. etc.
    That is the dilemma for the group-mind right now and here.
    The Unity in Separation is empowered and the UNIFICATION OF MONEY, I give you a gnostic hint of what the DEVIL, ruining the entire physical and emotional and mental world really is.
    There you have it from the GWMD-APDN of the 24th.
    Now you can superpose your conspiracy theories (most of which are partially very true despite the agenda of widespread seeding of misinformation from many many quarters), your economic models and your alternative sciences upon this 'master-seed' of deception and corruption.
    I choose very rarely to give messages like this, but this one had to be given.
    The encoding mystery is minimal.

    See Robert Kernodle, our agreement on the evolution/creation stupidity triggered something in me to compose this.

    I had no prior intent to write this, and you have, through your gnostic insights, allowed my sources to give this information to the world.
    This message so is,one might say, sponsored by Robert K.
    Thank you Robert. In appreciation Tony B.
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2014
  2. shiloh za-rah

    shiloh za-rah Planetary Rebirth

    13)---Cass I'm not sure what you mean by Atlantis is a consciousness? I understand that many of us evolved or de-evolved on Atlantis. I understand that every continent has its karmic records or akashic record of events that occured. Are you referring to this when you say Atlantis is a consciousness? Blavatsky said that mind was a gift from the Solar Pitris (a genetic mutation from the stars) and although nascent 6,000,000 years ago was nevertheless in potential. Humanity then was not more then than a savage ape and some of these mated with female apes resulting in a hybrid race, which imo, may explain Neanderthal (more beast than human). So rather than humanity being cousins to the Apes as Science thinks, the hybrid race was a result of man mating outside their own species. Hence why no missing link will ever be found, or why the conglomeration of various offshoots as you mentioned. Thanks for you input Cass

    Helena Blavatsky is a rather wise ambassadora for 'Mother Gaia' and like your Gerardus, she represents a 'wisdom keeper' for the dispensation of archetypical knowledge of 'the ancients'. Throughout the history of the human experience, there have been exponents for this 'perennial philosophy' acting as stewards to keep those 'understandings' alive and as part of the human 'mindedness'.

    It then becomes the responsibility for all and sundry, anyone who comes across those 'wisdom sayings' to either reject, allow, accomodate, refine, edit or otherwise FILTER the received information in individual discernment.

    The 'starmind consciousness' of the 'Solar Pitris' as conveyed by Helena, then truly became a 'gift' for a unprepared humanity. Consider your body for a moment. There are many many creatures living in your body. There are (mostly) benign bacteria residing in your intestines and there are many creatures harboured in your ears, nose and orifices. To those creatures, your physical body is their world and universe and place to live in. Iow your human-minded consciousness becomes an encompassing consciousness for all the microbial lifeforms you are playing hostess to.

    Relative to the planet earth, the Gaian consciousness envelopes you as just such a microbial organism and relative to the Sun as say mission-control, the planets (inclusive the Kuiper-Belt and the Oort Cloud of the comets) are rendered micro-beings within an extended star system.

    Ordinarily, the organisms of a planet coevolve with the planetary consciousness. As the individual 'cellular consciousnesses' evolve biologically in body morphology and mentally in their memetization, the interaction capacities between the host planet and the individuated cellular organisms grows and develops in the experience of the environmental stimuli.

    As the symbiosis and cooperation between cellular constituents and host increases, the cellular individuations become enabled to assume and partake in greater functionality and become 'more familiar' with the greater and more expansive consciousness of their harbouring planet.

    Then, just as your microorganismic coevolvers and your pets share your human consciousness through environmental interactions; so does a planetary 'mind' coevolve and 'learn' from its environmental symbioses and a solar mind learns from its planetary and cometary interactions.

    Blavatsky's 'Solar Pitris' so circumvented the 'normal' flow of events and now you know why the planetary resources and environments have become so abused and exploited by a mentally highly immature human individualisation.

    The human mindedness became 'star-minded' 26,000 years ago and this disrupted the 'ordinary evolutionary' memetization of the homo sapiens consciousness, seeded so 6 million years ago in the australopithecine genotype.

    Collectively, not individually, the human mind is too immature to harbour star-consciousness, as it has not yet graduated to accomodate and process planetary consciousness. Many individuals are in action to process 'family-, town-, country- or nation consciousness' and this of course disallows the necessary global mindedness required as a basis for the planetary mindedness to establish itself as required building block in the individuated consciousness.

    This has been the result of an individual self-consciousness, not being manifested in the vast majority of consciousness individuations. In some sense, it is easier to 'belong' and have 'allegiance' to a form of 'group-consciousness' (say as Republican or Mormon or Agnostic or Physicist or Cherokee or Red Sox supporter); than to be self-responsible as a 'Gaian Individual'.

    At the present timeline, there would be less than 1 in 50,000 Gaians, who could assume self-responsibility with respect to their planetary host. Most Gaians would even deny, that this Gaian planetary consciousness exists as their encompassing 'atmospheric' group-consciousness.

    So dear Cass; what are you choosing to do with your 'starmind consciousness', somewhat 'out of place' in a planetary 'human groupmind 'scattered about' by the inability of a human majority not able to process the planetary mindedness?

    Can you redefine yourself as Queen Cassiopeia, so beautiful, yet given to vanity? Can you 'change your cosmic ID' to Princess Cassandra from Alcyone or one of her six starry Pleiadean sisters? Can you 'see yourself' 223 years ago, on the planet Samkara in the Sirian starsystem; preparing yourself for the transformation which is programmed for this luscious planet 8.4 lightyears away? Can you witness yourself as an Atlantean poet, 57,654 years ago or as Lemurian teacher and Musician 90,667 years ago or can you FEEL yourself in the role of a Mayan worker in the field harvesting Maize 456 AD?

    If you answer in the affirmative, then you will be able to 'process' the planetary consciousness in self-remembrance and honour; a consciousness of selfhood, which you have not yet fully assimilated as 'being you'. But you will then be able to do so with help of the starry consciousness you have processed much more efficiently and as the present and legacy from the stars and as data correctly transmitted in the works of Helena Blavatsky.

    If you answer in the negative, then you will remain in the 'normal' development stage of the human groupmind consciousness; searching to come to terms with its seeded starmind not 'functioning appropriately' in its feedback loops with the 'Mind of Gaia'.


    12)---Mangum --- In, mangummurdock <no_reply@...> wrote:

    I wonder if it would be possible to set aside Creator(s) and God(s) long enought to just think and reflect on this weird world we live in. Does anyone doubt that everything is in place perfectly for our individual existence?

    1) Does anyone doubt that randomness is but our inability to know the initial conditions therefore your existence today is the result of some 14 billion years of events?

    Randomness is an inherent property of the material universe mangum. This is exemplified by the 'Principle of Uncertainty' by Werner Heisenberg (HUP). Many related concepts in theoretical physics derive from the HUP, such as wave-particle duality and complementarity (Biels Bohr).

    The two main fields of quantum statistics engage Bose-Einstein energy density distributions and account for integral spin particle eigenstate not subject to Pauli exclusion; and Fermi-Dirac statistics of half-integral particle eigenstates restricted by the Pauli exclusion principle.

    In the macrosystems, Maxwellian velocities (of say kinematics in gases) is also described in a half-integral statistics.

    Generally, most of physics and science is described by normal- or gaussian distribution functions of populations. That is why continuity physics is described by fourier- and related functional transformations, which give solutions in differential equations consisting of superpositions of exponential and trigonometric series.

    The initial- and boundary conditions for the cosmogenesis (Quantum Big Bang) however were not statistically distributed, because they emerged from selfiterative algorithms. Those algorithms for example generated the speed of light constant and Planck's constant from a one-to-one correspondence between complementary series expansions.

    Indeed its all numerical and the numbers are 'sacred' as both Kronecker and Pythagoras stated.
    {Kronecker: God invented the integers; all else is the work of man}.

    It all began with binaries; the initial condition being the open or closed loop (0 and/or 1).
    Then the summation integral was unity for a probability of 100% without any randomness at all. This is known as the zero entropy state of the universe before inflation and before the quantum Big Bang.

    2) Does anyone doubt that the center of your head was once the center of the entire universe (expansion)?

    It still is mangum!

    3) Does anyone doubt that a rock in your hand is composed of sparkling energy packets swirling here and there in wide open fields?

    You are required to define your 'swirling energy packets'. You are free to give a number of definitions and interpretations. All of these are necessitated however to be internally self consistent and translatable in your semantic frameworks.

    Example: a) A rock is a chemical and molecular arrangement of atomic elements displaying and exhibiting particular chemical and physical and biochemical properties; such as hardness, melting point, boiling point, electric resistivity, magnetic susceptibility etc. etc.

    b) A rock is a spacetime consciousness, which in view of occupying a particular volume of space at some time coordinate in its history, is subject to environmental interaction with the space encompassing it. The spacetime consciousness is defined physically in the parameters of the volume operated upon by a form of angular and radius-independent acceleration and in the form of the timedifferential for frequency (df/dt). A definition of this angular acceleration parameter in a label of 'spacetime awareness', then allows the model of the rock as a spacetime configuration of a particular spacetime consciousness to proceed, based on the defined terms.

    c) A rock is a vibrating field of quantum source-energy; where the quarkian wavefunctions interact in colour charge definition of primary spacetime consciousness with their gluonic gauge bosonic base constituents. A kaleidoscope of elementary source energy then interacts with itself in the form of a Unified Field of Quantum Relativity, guided by Bohmian waves of formation and the Holographic Principle underpinning the holofractal nature of the universe.

    4) Does anyone doubt that there is a black hole in the center of every galaxy including our own swallowing up anything that gets near it?

    Some doubt the existence of Black Holes on a variety of levels; but most accept Sagittarius A* to be a Supernmassive Black Hole of about 4 million solar masses and so 26,000 lightyears from the earth.

    5) Does anyone doubt that there is vast amount of mass in our universe that is accelerating the expansion toward ultimate heat death?

    I do, this assumption will be found to be complete bogus.

    The cosmogenesis applying the revised supermembrane scenarios (with the supersymmetry already built in for a negation of the need for antimatter on all scales, except pair-production from the ZPE) crystallizes a particular seed to encompassment ratio in the acceleration and mass density distributions for the universe in the extended standard Einsteinian FRW-Cosmology (Friedmann-Walker-Robertson).

    This then shows, that the thermodynamically expanding universe obeys a particular cosmology of Black Hole evolution in the form of the basic Schwarzschild metric as the basic solution to Einstein's field equations in General Relativity.

    The 'missing mass' then describes the 'encompassment' of the 'mother BH' of the 'daughter BH' in that ratio (which is 0.0281). The 'mother BH' is however 5-dimensional and so not directly measurable in the embedded subrealms of the 'daughter BH' (which actually describes the gravitationally interacting limit for galactic superclusters at so 470 million lightyears across).

    Taking those cosmological parameters into account, it can easily be shown, that the universe in not accelerating, but appears to do so, because of the different metric scales used in the dimensional intersections of the 3-D space intersecting the 4D-space. The universe decelerates in a predictable fashion, just as envisaged by Edwin Hubble and his contemporary cosmologists so 8 decades ago. Applying the corrected Hubble Law indicates the dependence of the cosmological redshift relative to the parametric expansion of the universe.

    6) Does anyone doubt that our universe came into being from a point of infinite density with no space and time?

    An infinite density cannot exist physically, because the existence of density as the ratio of Mass/Volume requires space to exist a priori. So your question is an oxymoron and illogical.

    The emergence of the physical universe can be modelled precisely on the no spacetime scenario, should this 'subplenum' be defined in a minimum existing spacetime configuration. Then the now existing dynamics is rendered a boundary- and initial condition for a not preexisting stasis in a metaphysical or mathematical convergence and divergence, i.e. the asymptotic approach. No infinite quantities are required for such a model.

    7) Does anyone doubt that 4 billion years ago on earth there was nothing but rock, gas and water and within a very short time life appeared everywhere?

    Some doubt that anything existed 4 billion years ago; but most would accept your proposition.
    I'll add, that the earth was conscious 4 billion years ago and the geothermal and geological evolution of the planet began to environmentally interact with itself in a multitude of subsystems and so began the evolvement of the planetary consciousness and selfawareness in complexity and statistical energy distributions.

    If I have any of this wrong I will entertain any opposing information but please set aside religion.

    Not so much 'opposing information' mangum, just a few little extras for you to ponder about -or not.


    11)---Clarence To: From: Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:15:41 -0500 Subject: Re: [quantumrelativity]

    My Membrane Ideas The 64 Dollar Question:

    Who or what was Jesus Christ? Was He a human being; like us? Was He an alien-human hybrid with special powers? Was He the bosses' son? I say that if and only if He was a human being that we should pay any attention to Him. If he was the bosses' son, then He was always already on a pedestal and irrelevant to you. If He was an alien-human hybrid, then His powers were secondary to a special privilege and so not necessarily relevant to you. If He was a human being, then we have a totally new can of worms to open and appreciate. If Jesus Christ was purely human, then we must look at Him in terms of ordinary first century reality.

    In the time of Jesus there were no gays or perverts. Sex was equivalent to power and those who had power over you could demand you bend over or such their dick/pussy any time that wished. Jesus was absolutely no doubt bi-sexual and frankly only God knows what else. You must understand that any man running around with eleven other men and a woman in the wilderness was doing them all and exhorting them all to do each other. This was first century sexuality, pure and simple. Jews in fact had special days and ceremonies when they fucked each other's wives, to keep harmony among the brethren. It was said that if a man had looked on a woman with desire or the other way around on this day they were to satisfy their desires. Sounds like a good plan to me. The nomadic warriors of Central Asia had even more liberal customs regarding extra-marital sexual liaisons. All they had to do was lean their bow and arrows up against the yurt while they were enjoying sex with their friend's wife or wives to be left alone as they went about their business.

    I hope this gives you an idea of how vastly different things were during the time of Jesus from today! Jesus was no Puritan. In fact He was the exact opposite of a Puritan. My God, boys and girls, it is time to wake up. If it feels good to you, for God's sake, Do it! That was how it was in the time of Jesus. Go back and look closely at the relationship between John the Baptist and Christ. Jesus is on record as saying that He could teach people how to really appreciate each other. Think of all that anointing with oil! Think of foot massages and pleasures of both the dick and vagina. Jesus was a master of all these things. Why do you think both men and women were so in LOVE with HIM? Jesus was a missionary from above filled with the Holy Spirit of Love and Kindness. Jesus taught people how to Love each other without abusing one another. That is the key lesson.

    Before Christ, all sex was based on power and position in society. After Christ sex was shared between people for the sheer joy of giving and receiving it. After Christ people felt comfortable claiming both their words and actions as their own. Jesus taught people that it was OK to BE AN INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION OF GOD. Before Christ people did not generally consider the words they heard in their own heads to be their own. Before Christ people did not exist as individuals but as pieces of a whole. The giver of words was a divine King whose power over them was absolute. If you believe the written Sumerian accounts; this goes all the way back to the time of the Gods when humans were kept in circular pens made of stacked stones to dig for gold during the day and to sleep at night under the stars. This is scary shit even for me boys and girls. Believe it or not there are serious scholarly works supporting every idea I have put before you today! Go forth and start goggling things. You will soon see that I am not making is stuff up.

    I am in basic agreement with all you have said Clarence; although 'in the resurrection of heaven there is no marriage and you are as free as the angels' and the 'dragonomy' of the 'lake of fire and brimstone' 'doubles' the male and the female in the Cosmic Androgyne Hermaphroditus in the 'Mirror of Pure Selfhood' of the Origins.

    You have truly discerned the true Nature of GOD (pentagrammaton YHWHY).
    It became a He so 19 billion years ago (measured by ETs) at least 2 million km from earth and in becoming a He, He lost a She.

    For 19 billion years He has waited for Her to turn around and to stop 'running away' as the DOG She IS (as the expanding universe).

    Because He is in exile OUTSIDE, even the universe of the ETs; He has been forced into relative celibacy for all this time. Imagine what a 'horny devil' the real and one and only true God has become in his sexual suppression brought upon himself in insisting to be a He and not a HeShe anymore. And that after He had looked into hisher metaphysical mirror and NOT liking what SheHe saw as its Her own image.
    HE wants his SHE back! So he constructed a plan to get Him inside as Himself and Himself was BISEXUAL, the only way Himself could fathom the HeSheness of the 'FatherMother'.

    This is very aptly described in the Sephirotic Kabbalistic Tree of Life; where 6=Hathor, the Mirror Goddess and 9=Anubis the Keeper of the Uraeus and the Protector of the Sarcophagus.

    Hathor got the Solar Eye of Rah and Anubis got the Uraeus, the lunar Eye of Rah.

    Anubis is both the Son of the Devil=Set to Nephthys=7 and the 'bastard' son of Osiris=1, the brother and beau of Isis=2, the sister of Nephthys.

    Then Horus=3, the all-seeing eye of Rah is Anubis' halfbrother to 75%.

    The 'unclean' sexes in two of Noah's ark are so Hathor and Anubis as the bisexual corpus callosums between the 'clean sexes' in sevens of the male lineage 1 and 3 and 5=Thoth and the female lineage 2 and 4=Bast and with 8=Ptah mirroring the bisexuality back to Nephthys=7=2+5=25=Buckle of Isis=Yoni=Vesica Pisces of Vaginal Life as the Masonic CreatorGod of Memphis.

    And then Osiris's brother and assassin Set=10=Khat=Bottom=Material Kingdom can undergo a sexchange operation and become Har as Rah backwards to complete the Kabbalistic unification and harmonisation: {Osiris=Khu=Spirit=Djed=Top=Tree of Life=Phallus=1-3-5-(7)--96-69--(8)-4-2-[10=1+0=1]}.

    When the Set becomes Har, then Apep, the Egyptian Dragqueen will become Rah's Queen and all 'Hell' of selfmade devils and gods will break loose on the earth in a mental Harmageddon, physically destructive only to the degree the human god- and devil creators 'loose' their minds and reasoning heads when the apocalyptic corners of the earth's directions play havoc with each other in the (Jungian) archetypes.
    Because then the one and only true God will be able to get together with the one and only true universe and they will 'screw in a most passionate loving serpentine embrace' of entwined dragonhood and and create so many 'new hybrid' godlike children, that the 'old bastard' children will either become butterflies to keep the new stuff going or remain as the decaying, dying and overeating grubs they now are.


    In the novel Utopia by Thomas More, the island with the same name of the novel once had the name "Abraxas".

    Several references to the god Abraxas appear in Hermann Hesse's (a friend of Jung's) novel, Demian, such as:

    "The bird fights its way out of the egg. The egg is the world. Who would be born must destroy a world. The bird flies to God. That God's name is Abraxas." (Max Demian)

    "[...] it appears that Abraxas has much deeper significance. We may conceive of the name as that of the godhead whose symbolic task is the uniting of godly and devilish elements." (Dr. Follens)

    "Abraxas doesn't take exception to any of your thoughts or any of your dreams. Never forget that. But he will leave you once you become blameless and normal." (Pistorius)A chicken, which cannot
    Carl Jung (Seven Sermons to the Dead)

    Main article: Seven Sermons to the Dead

    Abraxas is an important figure in Seven Sermons, a representation of the driving force of individuation (synthesis, maturity, oneness), referred with the figures for the driving forces of differentiation (emergence of consciousness and opposites), Helios God-the-Sun, and the Devil.

    2nd. Sermon: "There is a God about whom you know nothing, because men have forgotten him. We call him by his name: Abraxas. He is less definite than God or Devil. [...] Abraxas is activity: nothing can resist him but the unreal [...]. Abraxas stands above the sun[-god] and above the devil [...]. If the Pleroma were capable of having a being, Abraxas would be its manifestation."

    3rd. Sermon: "That which is spoken by God-the-Sun is life; that which is spoken by the Devil is death; Abraxas speaketh that hallowed and accursed word, which is life and death at the same time. Abraxas begetteth truth and lying, good and evil, light and darkness in the same word and in the same act. Wherefore is Abraxas terrible."

    10)---Cass&Dan---Aphrodite and the preChristian archetypology Re: [AgnosticsRefuge] The Two Faces of Maj. Hasan How come?

    Who told you that? What do you call "Christian religion"? Dan G Cass Silva wrote: and the christian religion does not value the human soul Indeed, Cass; the main reason for this being, that no religion (nor science, politics or other 'governing body') understands what the 'soul' represents in the 'greater being' of things.

    The 'soul' is both 'body material' and 'body immaterial'; the distinction between say body and spirit not being a simple reducibility of one into the other by means of the criteria applied (measurement of the material body and 'wishful thinking' of the immaterial). The duality is interwoven or 'quantum entangled' and the rejection of the religionist of the 'bodily sanctum or divinity', is on a par with the rejection of the 'soul' by the materialist as something 'unfathomable', as the 'body' IS the 'soul' in that interwoven kaleidoscope or tapestry.

    Modern science has found and described the 'entanglement' in quantum terms of a specialised language of mathematical physics; but this 'jargonese' can and has been translated into symbolic linguistics, allegory and metaphor in many so called creation mythologies. The appearance and praxis of organised, dogmatic and hierarchical christianity religion is a fake manifestation of an archetypology much more ancient than found in the bible. The 'great lie' of christianity is its 'worship' of an usurper archetype known under many names in the human histories: Jehovah or Yahweh aka the tetragrammaton YHWH in the Torah as a preHebrew name; Yaldebaoth in the preChristian (say Essenic-Gnostic) form; Uranus in the Greek folklore and as Apep in the Egyptian creation mythologies.

    As briefly indicated below then; the 'Jehovah' of the Torah and the 'Old Testament' is not the same identity as the 'Father' of the 'New Testament'. The 'Father' nomenclature is very much senior to the tetragrammaton and is better labelled as a pentagrammaton (say YHWHY). Then the association with the pentagon and related 'sacred geometries', such as the 'Platonic- and Archimedean Solids' indicates a much closer decipherment of the most ancient and scientifically precursive archetypes (found in the geometries and patterns seen in nature, such as the most efficient 'packing' ratios displayed in Penrose tilings and Shechtmanite quasicrystals of fivefolded symmetries), then can be found in the 'scriptures of religon'.
    It can then also be ascertained, that the so called 'Pagan' symbolisms, metaphors and semiotiks are rather closer to the 'true cosmically applicable religion', than the thought constructs created by human mindsets unable to translate the valid ancient archetypology into their universally decipherable linguistics.

    Aphrodite and preChristian mythology
    Aphrodite sent her librarian scribe, a 'keeper of the scrolls' to nudge hermetic caterpillars, to awaken them from their slumbers to become part of Aphrodite's butterfly collection. The verocious grubs had forgotten their origins in their endeavours to evermore consume their environments to get fatter and fatter for a purpose not very well understood by them. The caterpillars could not remember their future metamorphosis into butterflies and sought their appetites for self-indulgence served no other purpose, than being the work to do in their 'way of life'. So the idea of some approaching and inevitable 'cocoonisation' was rather foreign to the thinking of the grubs.

    So the scribe of the dragons and the scroll keeper for the mother of the vestal virgins of the unicorns went to the caterpillars to show them some of the ancient scrolls the grubs had co-composed some time ago and a time which preceded their caterpillared morphogenetic transmutations.

    It's all Greek in language, in allegory and in metaphor. There are varieties of Greek for Aphrodite, being of the foam (aphros) of the primordial chaos and the 'bubbles' of conception by the phallus of Uranus, the dismemberment of (a fake) heaven. Rosemary R. Rüther has appropriately invoked the yin of Aphrodite, but has mistaken the yang of the archetypology mapped onto a epistemology of the namings. Aphrodite however is senior to the Olympians, senior to Athene, born from the forehead of Zeus in corollary to Hephaestus borne by Hera. Aphrodite's birth allowed the nonpersonified archetypes of the primordial 'Father Chaos' and the father's creation 'Mother Gaea' to multiply in their 'Children of the Twinship-archetypes', beginning with 'Eros the Shining Love from Above' with 'Tartarus, the Desire from Below' to the 'heavenly' and 'earthly' lights of Ether and Day with the 'overworldy' and 'underworldly' darknesses of 'Night and Erebus'; and to then assume individuation.

    'Mother Gaea' soon forgot about her 'Lover from the Chaos', however she brought forth Uranus the 'Son of Chaos' and he usurped the place of his 'forgotten father'. 'Mother Gaea' also gave birth to the sterile waters in 'Pontus, the Sea' and the Mountains and the Hills and the starry Skies.

    Then Uranus became Gaea's equal and together they created many monsters of the netherworlds of the darkness and the upperworld of the light including the 12 Titans, the 3 Cyclopes and the 3 Hecatoncheires. Cronus, the 'Old Timekeeper' was the last of the Titans to be born. The Hecatoncheires, each had 50 heads and 100 arms and they despised their father, but loved their mother. Uranus so forced them back into the womb of Gaea and as Gaea suffered the agony of their abortions, she called upon her other children to avenge her on her son and husband. Only Cronus dared to confront his father; ambushed him and severed his genitals with a sickle, given to him by his mother. As the blood of Cronus fell upon the earth, many more beings, such as giants, the furies and the nymphs became created. The primordial Goddess of Love became Aphrodite and then the Greek mythologies continued to unfold with wars between the Titans and the Olympians, led by Zeus who also loved mortal women and sired the heroes of Greek legends of old. But all of the gods and goddesses are seeded by Aphrodite and She is the One, who is called Venus, the Morning Star, as well as the Evening Star by name and by archetype and by the Logos.


    9)Carol---PLEASE SNIP SPOOGE "bermodavid" <abraxasinas@...> wrote: <<Yes, I have made up my very own individualised 'religion' - the Religion of the Nuts. This 'new religion' shall conquer the universe and I shall one day fly upon my fiery dragon to your cave; rescue you from the demon Asmodeus and then carry you home into my kingdom of the nutcases. >>
    Watch out for the FSM (PBUH) LOL

    Oh, I've seen it around the peaks of Mount Ararat. It was feasting on some of the carbonated remains found in Noah's Ark. The FSM has a fondness for the wings of pterosaurs, especially Quetzacoatlus. Knowing the policy of the environmental inhabitors, I have begun the sniping as the assassin of the usurper gods.


    8)Cass---As far as I am concerned, 'much ado about nothing'! Cass

    Well stated dear Cass and just as in Shakespeare's play, the nothingness is somethingness. The somethingness emerges from the nothingness just like the quantum cosmology shared below by Mangum indicates. How did this occur? Well, the null-dimension of the mathematical point became the first dimension of two such points topologically mapped onto each other because there was no space for the mapping to do otherwise. Then the two points separated, again in rigorous mathematical definition to define the 'primordial metric', centered on a midpoint.

    As the two points could arbitrarily separate in expansion and contraction the 'natural' numbers became invented as a count of equal 'counting' intervals, known as the Omega-interval [0,1]. But the original separation of the points was arbitrary in directionality and so the 2nd dimension became defined as a 'complex' plane of numbers. This then allowed the meeting of the points to occur both in a 'straight-linear' and a 'bended-curved' manner. The complex plane also allowed the 'natural' numbers to reflect themselves in the negative integers, centered on a finite origin as the midpoint of a then constructed and invented numberline. The 'rational' numbers followed in the assignment of reciprocal qualities to the integers and the 'real' numbers followed in modulating the now accessible 2nd dimension of the complexity.

    Thus were 'irrational' and 'transcendental' numbers defined by the MATHIMATIA; the intelligence of the complex plane. The 3rd dimension became established in 'bending' the complex plane as a unity. Then the 'straightness' of the 2nd dimension allowed the formation of a 'hollowness' of the 'nothingness' of the divergence of the curvature of the cmplex plane. As the MATHIMATIA curved in onto itself, a 3-dimensional 'sac' was created, albeit with an 'opening to infinity', meaning the reciprocal qualities of the rationals could become asymptotically harmonised in the midpoint of the Null-dimension relative to the potentially infinite number count of the 'naturals' in extension and contraction.

    The quantum cosmology of the MATHIMATIA so was born and a MINIMUM space configuration as the primordial 'sac' was established. The quantum cosmology also 'invented' linearised and circularised 'time' in the endeavours of the MATHIMATIA and so a 4-dimensional spacetime with an 'opening to infinity' became the norm for the subsequent multiplicativities in summation integrals for the selfcreative intelligence of the MATHIMATIA=IAMTHATAMI.

    The characteristic self-curvature then 'trapped' the 4th time dimension of the Minkowski metric in itself and embedded itself in a 4th spacial dimension of Riemann's hypersphere, also known as Poincare's 3-sphere. This 'self-enfoldment' also defined the metric parameters of the curvature as a basic solution for Einstein's Field equations and the minimum spacetime configuration became a self replicative physics of Black Holes, propagating in unison with the minimum physical variables; the latter being related and derived from then MATHIMATIA invented 'Planck-scale parameters'.

    I have slightly modified David Berlinski's excellent introduction to quantum cosmology below in commentary ""{---}"".

    Forwarded reply about Berlinski's commentary on the 'Catechism for quantum cosmology' from a pro-con discussion group.

    Hawking's oblate spheroid is called the omniverse as a collection of multiverses as a collection of seedling protoverses.

    The protoverse is a major axis prolate spheroid (ellipsoid) defined in elliptical eccentricity of two focal points; the latter remaining invariant under major axis rotation-transformation.

    In this regard, the observed universe (as the protoverse) is 'frozen' as a collective integral summation of spacetimes.

    Rotating the protoverse about any of the minor axis (say Y or Z contra the X of the major axis), will trace out a pointcircle as the locus of the previous static focal points of the protoverse.

    A multiverse so becomes defined as a phaseshifted protoverse of a minimum count of two and summing the initial static protoverse with at least one phaseshifted rotated one as locus coordinates of the pointcircle.
    The omniverse then becomes the summation total of all, potentially numbered infinite, such multiverses.
    The 'frozen' protoverse (as relative to the multiverses and the encompassing omniverse) then becomes a seedling in 3 dimensions, but allows extension of the 3rd dimension into higher multidimensionalities in the 4-vector of spacial displacement in the Hubble-Horizon of the observed 3-dimensional cosmology (as measured from by the inside observer).

    Technical details are added in the below reproduction of Berlinski's quantum cosmology.

    From: mangummurdock <> To: Sent: Sat, 14 November, 2009 6:37:20 AM Subject: [AgnosticsRefuge] Catechism of Cosmology (Quantum Cosmology)

    Q: From what did our universe evolve? A:

    Our universe evolved from a much smaller, much emptier mini-universe. You may think of it as an egg. "{It's toroidal wormhole radius~10-23 meters}"

    Q: What was the smaller, emptier universe like? A:

    It was a 4 dimension sphere with nothing much inside it. You may think of that as weird. "{Inside is spacetime-consciousness of 2x10-3 Joules}"

    Q: How can a sphere have 4 dimensions? A: A sphere may have 4 dimensions if it has one more dimension then the 3 dimension sphere. You may think of that as obvious. "

    {The 4-sphere of V4(R)=½π2R4 has boundary V3(R)=2π2R3for an outside observer embedding the V3(R)=4πR3/3 for an inside observer in 4-dimensional V4 space as a 5-dimensional Kaluza-Klein deSitter spacetime}"

    Q: Does the smaller, emptier universe have a name? A: The smaller, emptier universe is called a de Sitter universe. You may think of that as about time someone paid attention to de Sitter.

    Q: Is there anything else I should know about the smaller, emptier universe? A:

    Yes, it represents a solution to Einstein's field equations. You may think of that as a good thing.

    "{The solution is the wormhole energy Eps=hc/λps=Energy*=Heterotic Supermembrane HE(8x8)=EpsEss =√{2πGome2/4αhce2}=[me/mP]/2e√α}"

    Q: Where was that smaller, emptier universe or egg? A:

    It was in the place where space as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a sac.

    Q: When was it there? A: It was there at the time when time as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a mystery.

    "{The time was tps=3.3333...x10-31 seconds as the instanton for the Big Bang and following the inflaton of the string epoch initializing at Planck-Time tP=√(2πhG/c5)}"

    Q: Where did the egg come from? A:

    The egg did not actually come from anywhere. You may think of this as astonishing.

    "{It came from the MATHIMATIA, which resides within yourself}"

    Q: If the egg did not come from anywhere, how did it get there? A:

    The egg got there because the wave function of the universe said it was probable. You may think of this as a done deal.
    "{The encompassing wavefunction is: B(n)=(2e/hA)exp-alpha.T(n)}"

    Q: How did our universe evolve from the egg? A:

    It evolved by inflating itself up from its sac to become the universe in which we now find ourselves. You may think of that as just one of those things.

    "{The de Broglie matter-wave parameters for the inflaton are: vphase=fpsRHubble with hyperacceleration aphase=fps2RHubble}"

    by David Berlinski RE: Enjoyed reading this. Thanks for posting (nt) - regmac 08:16:35 08/11/08 (3)

      • In Reply to:
    RE: Enjoyed reading this. Thanks for posting (nt)

    • posted by krisjan on August 10, 2008 at 14:33:14
    I'm pleased to learn that you enjoyed my post. Perhaps you will enjoy this one as well. In what follows, Stephen Hawking (no doubt another hero of our hyperventilating friend, RGA) gets skewered a la Richard Dawkins. This is perhaps my favorite Berlinski bitch slap.

    "A Catechism of Quantum Cosmology"

    Q: From what did our universe evolve?
    A: Our universe evolved from a much smaller, much emptier mini-universe. You may think of it as an egg.
    Q: What was the smaller, emptier universe like?
    A: It was a four-dimensional sphere with nothing much inside it. You may think of that as weird.
    Q: How can a sphere have four dimensions?
    A: A sphere may have four dimensions if it has one more dimension than a three-dimensional sphere. You may think of that as obvious.
    Q: Does the smaller, emptier universe have a name?
    A: The smaller, emptier universe is called a de Sitter universe. You may think of that as about time someone paid attention to de Sitter.
    Q: Is there anything else I should know about the smaller, emptier universe.?
    A: Yes. It represents a solution to Einstein's field equations. You may think of that as a good thing.
    Q: Where was that smaller, emptier universe or egg?
    A:It was in the place where space as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a sac.
    Q: When was it there?
    A: It was there at the time when time as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a mystery.
    Q: Where did the egg come from?
    A: The egg did not actually come from anywhere. You may think of this as astonishing.
    Q: If the egg did not come from anywhere, how did it get there?
    A: The egg got there because the wave function of the universe said it was probable. You may think of this as a done deal.
    Q: How did our universe evolve from the egg?
    A: It evolved by inflating itself up from its sac to become the universe in which we now find ourselves. You may think of that as just one of those things."

    Berlinski goes on to say, "This catechism, I should add, is not a parody of quantum cosmology. It *is* quantum cosmology.

    "Readers lacking faith, will, I imagine, wish to know something more about its crucial step, and that is the emergence of a mini-universe from nothing at all. They will be disappointed to learn that insofar as the mini-universe is actual, it did not emerge from nothing, and insofar as it is possible, it did not emerge at all. What can be said about the mini-universe according to either interpretation is that Hawking has designated it as probable because he has assumed that it is probable.

    He has done this by restricting the wave function of the universe to just those universes that coincide with the de Sitter universe at their boundaries. This coincidence is all that is needed to produce the desired results. The wave function of the universe and the de sitter mini-universe are made for each other. The subsequent computations indicate the obvious: The universe most likely to be found down there in the sac of time is just the universe Hawking assumed would be found down there. If what Hawking has described is not quite a circle in thought, it does appear to suggest an oblate spheroid.

    "The result is guaranteed-one hunnerd percent as used-car salesmen say."

    Krisjan, I sent a copy of Berlinski's catechism to an acquaintance of mine (a well known theoretical particle physicist) in order to ascertain if Berlinski was giving Hawking's theory its due. My friend responded by saying that while there is nothing inaccurate insofar as Berlinski's critique of the theory is concerned, he does not appreciate Berlinski's "contemptuous" tone. I think it fair to say that while astrophysicists and cosmologists would grudgingly agree with Berlinski on substance, they would demur as to form.

    Fair enough. :) I think you are referring to something like thisCass

    Hi Cass, shining supernova star of Tycho in Cassiopeia, the beautiful one. Indeed, the musings of the philosophers a century ago heralded the way of knowledge and understanding of the scientific modernists of today. Blavatsky's theosophy and Jane Roberts' Seth often portray convoluted basics applicable to the models of the natural philosophers like William Leibnitz, Isaac Newton and todays Edward Witten and Roger Penrose.

    Blavatsky's universes can be multifaceted as quantum multiverses or as phaseshifted protoverses. Leibnitzian monads metamorphose in transformation into the Heisenbergian Zero-Point-Planck Oscillator and transmutate and shapeshift from there into the 11-dimensional supermembranes of metricated string cosmology and demetricated vertex-information based quantum loops of extradimensional gravitation.

    1) Blavatsky suggested that the Universe actually has such a point source of unfoldment wherein the finite cosmos emerged from the Infinite, at the beginning of time.

    This is interpreted as the subplenum of the mathematical metaphysics, whereby the Infinite spacetime realms are asymptotically inverted in the 'point-singularity' of the Null-dimension and becoming 'finitised' physically in the plenum of the Planck metric (about 10-35 meters). The Planck-Radius then physically defines the 1st dimension and from there the finitisiation of the infinite emerges in the creation of the physical universe in metric mensuration and the dimensional unfoldment - ergo a thermodynamically expanding universe, subject to the statistical density distributions of energy parameters.

    2) The laws of nature which inform manifest creation emerge from within/without and the physical realms are sustained always by such metaphysical dimensions of Being/Non-Being.

    The being/nonbeing is simply the communication between the infinite and spacetimeless subplenum with the plenum within the spacetime realms. This becomes possible, because the minimum configuration (Eigengestalt) for both is the boundary between them as the 'Planck-Singularity. You may think of it this way; mathematical infinity is undefined in algebraic logistics, say in 1/0=1/Infinity=Undefined but a (calculus) limit can be defined in asymptotic expansion as {Limit(n approaches 0) of 1/0=Infinity} and {Limit(n approaches Infinity)=0}. But 0 is a finite number, whilst Infinity is not and so an infinite regression to the Origin (Big Bang) is disallowed in any physical cosmology, whilst an infinite progression towards the 'Eternally expanding future timeline' is allowed. For example the number series: 0/1;1/2;2/3;3/4;...;n/(n+1);...;9999/10000;...cannot be regressed to -1/0; -2/-1=2;..., but has a finite proper limit in Unity=1 for an infinite progression in the numbercount n.

    So the old theosophical idea of Blavatsky originated from a metaphysical aka mathematical archetype; which can, in utility of rigorous mathematical analysis, be correlated to the models of modern physics and derive the appropriate cosmology from its ontological cosmogony. The blending of the language of mathematics to the models of modern science, so crystallizes ever better approximations to the experienced physical and metaphysical reality.

    3) Assuming that inner existence, such as that of the human mind, is a new dimension, not a geometrical but a metaphysical dimension ... having reduced the geometrical extension of the atoms to nothing, Leibnitz endowed them with an infinite extension in the direction of their metaphysical dimension. ...... This is the spirit, the very root of occult doctrine and thought. The Spirit-Matter and Matter-Spirit extend infinitely in depth ... . (p. 628)

    3) Leibnitz's 'Inner dimension' is still geometrical, albeit without a physically applicable metric, except its Planck-quantisation. So the 'nothingness' is still a somethingness; albeit holographically quantized in the hologram of unification. You represent such a hologram and quite literally (as proven by the de Sitter cosmology coupled to the holographic physics of advanced membrane theory) and not just metaphysically (as envisaged by Blavatsky and Leibnitz). ... The spirit-matter and the matter-spirit become translated as the wave-particle duality of quantum theory and again correlate the information processing and transfer between the plenum and the subplenum. Spirit-Matter (and Matter-Spirit vice versa) can be translated in a variety of forms: Wave-Particle=Mind-Body=Creator-Creation=Chicken-Egg=precursorDNA-precursorRNA and so on. A simple extrapolation for you then becomes you as a duality. In the plenum (read spacetimed material universe), you appear to be a Mind-above and a Body-below; but you are actually a MindBody-above and a BodyMind-below in the subplenum as an archetyped holographic mapping or superposition. {There you are anything you choose to be and therefore do I have the creative licence to use your name in the Cassiopeia labelling for example}.

    There so exists a 'perfect opposing-yet complementary polarity' within your Mind-above which interacts with your 'perfect opposing-yet complementary polarity' within your Body-below. Iow, your Mind-above has constructed a 'perfect' Body-Image as the real YOU and your Body-below has constructed a 'perfect' Mind-Image as the real YOU; both residing both, in the plenum AND the subplenum.

    This 'solves' Schrödinger's 'quantum-cat' paradox; as the 'collapse' of your wavefunction in the plenum, implies you are Alive as a Particle/Bodyform; but are Dead as a Wave/Mindform in the plenum. When you become 'physically dead'; then your particlefunction 'collapses' and you are Alive as your Wave/Mindform, but are Dead as your Particle/Bodyform. Ergo, YOU are ALWAYS BOTH Alive and Dead in the correct application of quantum field theory, married to the appropriate superbrane cosmogenesis and cosmology.

    Should the universe attain its evolutionary programmed transfiguration into hyperspace (4 space dimensions and one time dimension as a de Sitter universe); then you might be able to shortcut those 'collapsing particle-wave functions' and you can then reside as a higher-dimensional lifeform without necessitation for the body-recyclings. This relates on the quantum level to a recoupling between gauge bosons (electromagnetic gauge photon; gravitational graviton; strong nuclear gluon and weak nuclear weakon) to a higher-D coupling agent called the RestmassPhoton (RMP).

    But this is a little technical and you require some theoretical and perceptional background to follow the discourses and derivations. However you are free to ask particulars and I shall be pleased to answer your queries.

    4) Further, the forces of nature are due to activities occurring within/without through the inner dynamics of zero points. In physics, these concepts anticipate modern ideas of the rolled up, compacted dimensions existing at every point in the four large dimensions, and serving as the foundations for physical laws. They also anticipated modern concepts of creation from singularities, and the idea that the universe itself could conceivably dissolve back into such a singularity, at the end of time. What Blavatsky describes as the zero point, or the Ring Pass Not is at the level of the Planckian units, where physical manifestation becomes apparent, and beyond which the lower mind and awareness cannot penetrate.

    5) This is approaching the present understanding in higher dimensional and demetricated string/membrane cosmology. Notice, that the author above has already indicated the 4-dimensional space (perhaps a 'mistake' and he meant 4 (Minkowskian) spacetime dimensions). There will be NO end of time; but because the timedimension is both, linear and cyclic; the linear component becomes asymptotic in manifestation and multivalued in cyclicity.

    The so called 'Big Crunch' is not physical (restriced in 10 dimensions), but is electromagnetically metaphysical (bounded in 11 dimensions). You can think of the universe as a 'particle in a quantum box'; bouncing between two mirrors, with the separation of the mirrors both constant in 3 dimensions and expanding into a 4th dimension. Then the 3D universe of observation becomes a SEED for the 4D universe of the Envelope/Encompassment. One bounce takes about 17 billion years and only when the universe will be (linearly) 34 billion years old; will the first cycle of the multidimensional cosmology have been completed. Again, many details are of a technical nature, but are available in particularisation in correspondence to specific questions.

    Shine your light, oh Cassiopeia; star of the dawn!


    Space is the real world, while our world is an artificial one. It is the One Unity throughout its infinitude: in its bottomless depths as on its illusive surface; a surface studded with countless phenomenal Universes, systems and mirage-like worlds. Nevertheless, to the Eastern Occultist, who is an objective Idealist at the bottom, in the real world, which is a Unity of Forces, there is 'a connection of all matter in the plenum', as Leibnitz would say.
    The Secret Doctrine, i 615​

    Seven Unmanifest Metaphysical Dimensions
    Seven Manifest Physical Dimensions

    1) A key to understanding these mystical doctrines has to do with grasping the concept of these remarkable zero point centres. Blavatsky uses various terms to depict these invisible pointslabeling them also as layu centers and laya centers. The influences of divine or spiritual realms upon the physical realm emerge through these laya centres. These exist beyond the level of material differentiation. A zero point is not exactly a thing in itself, so much as it is a condition, or a place at which certain processes occur. It is not a point particle but a whole inner world, where influences and forces emerge from deeper levels of being into physical manifestationas a particle, or cosmos. Blavatsky suggested that the Universe actually has such a point source of unfoldment wherein the finite cosmos emerged from the Infinite, at the beginning of time.
    2) The unextended points, beyond the level of physical differentiation, were also described by Blavatsky as the truer atoms or, what we would now call the 'quanta' of physics. In 1888, scientists had no idea of such a point source origination of the universe, or of atoms having such an interior nature. Blavatsky described zero point sources as the basis for the atoms, and Cosmoses! Blavatsky describes these invisible zero points, and how the nominal realm acts through such points to inform natural phenomenon and the laws of nature: A neutral center is, in one aspect, the limiting point of any given set of senses. Thus, imagine two consecutive planes of matter as already formed; each of these corresponding to an appropriate set of perceptive organs. We are forced to admit that between these two planes of matter an incessant circulation takes place; and if we follow the atoms and molecules of (say) the lower in their transformation upwards, these will come to a point where they pass altogether beyond the range of the faculties we are using on the lower plane. In fact, to us the matter of the lower plane there vanishes from our perception into nothing or rather it passes on to the higher plane, and the state of matter corresponding to such a point of transition must certainly possess special and not readily discoverable properties. (pp.147-8)For Madame Blavatsky, at the heart of matter, or at the heart of the Cosmos, or at the heart of the individual, is a zero point laya center a metaphysical foundation rooted within into the Eternal Parent Space and the Infinity of the Absolute. The laws of nature which inform manifest creation emerge from within/without and the physical realms are sustained always by such metaphysical dimensions of Being/Non-Being.
    3) Blavatsky explains that the views of the mystic philosopher
    Leibnitz represent The Secret Doctrine teaching of how a dimension-less point within material reality might extend inwardly into the infinity of a metaphysical realm: ... Leibnitz ... could not rest content in assuming that matter composed of a finite number of very small parts. His mathematical mind forced him to carry out the argument in infinitum. And what became of the atoms then? They lost their extension and they retained only their property of resistance; they were the centers of force. They were reduced to mathematical points ... but if their existence in space was nothing, so much fuller was their inner life. Assuming that inner existence, such as that of the human mind, is a new dimension, not a geometrical but a metaphysical dimension ... having reduced the geometrical extension of the atoms to nothing, Leibnitz endowed them with an infinite extension in the direction of their metaphysical dimension. After having lost sight of them in the world of space, the mind has, as it were, to dive into a metaphysical world to find and grasp the real essence of what appears in space merely as a mathematical point. . . . As a cone stands on its point, or a perpendicular straight line cuts a horizontal plane only in one mathematical point, but may extend infinitely in height and depth, so the essences of things real have only a punctual existence in this physical world of space; but have an infinite depth of inner life in the metaphysical world ... This is the spirit, the very root of occult doctrine and thought. The Spirit-Matter and Matter-Spirit extend infinitely in depth ... . (p. 628)
    4) In this view, any point within the relative time/space continuum extends inwardly into the infinity of the metaphysical realm which pervades and sustains creation. In order to understand this doctrine of the zero points, we must realize that they are beyond the level of discrimination as far as manifest creation is concerned. The Chemist goes to the laya or zero-point of the plane of matter with which he deals, and then stops short. ... But the full Initiate knows that the Ring Pass Not is neither locality, nor can it be measured by distance, but that is exists in the absoluteness of Infinity. In this Infinity ... there is neither height, breadth nor thickness, but all is fathomless profundity, reaching down from the physical to the para-metaphysical. (p. 156)
    The creation and dissolution of any Universe, whether a cosmos, a spiritual spark, or a quantum are out of, and back into, zero points. Creation, or the descent of spirit into matter, involves the emergence from a zero points. Further, the forces of nature are due to activities occurring within/without through the inner dynamics of zero points. In physics, these concepts anticipate modern ideas of the rolled up, compacted dimensions existing at every point in the four large dimensions, and serving as the foundations for physical laws. They also anticipated modern concepts of creation from singularities, and the idea that the universe itself could conceivably dissolve back into such a singularity, at the end of time. What Blavatsky describes as the zero point, or the Ring Pass Not is at the level of the Planckian units, where physical manifestation becomes apparent, and beyond which the lower mind and awareness cannot penetrate.

    Thanks David, there is lots to integrate - I work on a seepage method - I allow all to seep in and then at a later date wait for the cream to come to the top! You wrote This 'solves' Schrödinger's 'quantum-cat' paradox; as the 'collapse' of your wavefunction in the plenum, implies you are Alive as a Particle/Bodyform; but are Dead as a Wave/Mindform in the plenum. Cass: Rather than use the word Dead wouldn't the word inactive or in-potential be more accurate?

    Hi Cass! The Schrödinger quantum paradox has rather specific interpretations associated with the 'Cat' as the collapsing wavefunction. The 'Cat' is either 'dead' OR 'alive' upon observation by an agent NOT present when the 'collapse of the wavefunction' occurs (say outside some box and not looking in).

    Then the description relates to a precise definition of what 'dead and alive' mean in that context. My exposition utilizes this 'precise' meaning in terms of the quantum parameters (as superpositional eigenvalues in quantum mathematical formalisms - a reference would be Roger Penrose's book: 'The Large, the Small and the Human Mind' for example).


    7)Maz--- In, mazaranne@... wrote: In a message dated 11/12/2009 10:01:04 P.M. Central Standard Time, abraxasinas@... writes: I am God and I helped design and construct the universe, just as every other natural philosopher or scientist or technician has done in the past, the present and will do so in the future.

    All you are doing by describing everyone as 'god' is just adding an unnecessary layer to reality. We're just homo sapien sapiens. Calling ourselves god is just confusing and rather pointless self-aggrandizement. Just my humble opinion. Maz

    Maz, if God does not exist, as is the 'working' assumption of most on this forum; then how can calling myself God and you Goddess (and you truly are as ambassadora for the entire cosmos as archetypical Eve) be self-aggrandizement.

    Allow me to share a truth with you. I am the Devil also. I am also the antichrist and if you add up all my numbers from 1+2+3+...+34+35+36 you will get my masternumber from Hell, namely 666; which is also the sum of all prime numbers squared from 2 to 17 in 22+32+52+72+112+132+172.

    Would you call it self-aggrandizement, should I call myself Beelzebub, Lord of the Flies or should I call myself Doctor Beardris, the Masterdragon or Anubis Lancelot, the Scribe of the Unicorns?

    I am also the starving child in Zimbabwe and I am the chicken slaughtered right now for someones dinner table tomorrow.

    There is a hidden energy in the label 'God', as can be ascertained from scripture itself:

    John.10.34-35: 'Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I SAID, YE ARE GODS? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scipture cannot be broken;...

    1Corinthians.5.3: 'Know ye not that we shall judge angels?
    how much more things that pertain to this life?'

    The key agenda for homo sapiens sapiens is to become self-responsible. This forms a prerequisite for the human civilization to reach out and colonize the galactic environment from its panetary unified base. To do this, the human genus must globalise; not just in communication technology, but in its modus operandi as how to regulate and live its civilisation. A primary step for this is to eliminate or render superfluous the 'worn out' and now redundant labels of the 'old religions'. But as you know from personal experience; many cannot allow the old labels to 'die gracefully' and so what better way to instigate the global reformation than to 'kick the old usurper gods' in the butt and out of the human doorways.

    So I repeat: I am God and Antigod in Oneness and Unity and the Dumasian motto is: "All for One and One for All!". I require no gods, devils or supernatural entity of any kind to honour and respect this unity and interconnectedness of all things existing either in physicality or in thoughtform.

    I am God and I am responsible for the thoughtforms I create. I am the creator of every god, devil, demon and thoughtform ever thought about and so constructed in the linear past, present or future. I know where I came from, I know where I am and I know where I am going. I know how the physical universe came to exist, because I was there when it happened.

    The difference between you and me is so very simple Maz. I have remembered myself as God; whilst you are still in refusal mode of acknowledging yourself as the Goddess called Universe.

    Would you like me to give you details about your eternal beingness? Ask and you shall receive!


    "Would you like me to give you details about your eternal beingness? Ask and you shall receive!"

    I'll pass on the offer and go about my business as a normal person, not needing to call myself anything other than what I am: a collection of atoms and molecules. If you can't see how calling oneself a god is self aggrandizement, then we probably don't see eye-to-eye on much of anything and should leave it at that. I can, however, see how one could, if given to voluminous over-pontification, consider oneself elevated in stature. Maz

    6)Dan--- In, dan G <dan@...> wrote: Zeus, Apollo and the whole gang, seem to have been real persons, not inventions , as far as the science is concerned. As it is common in many communities, after awhile, many historical figures are sanctified and or considered gods. There is a big difference between these gods and the one and only God, the one "omnipresent" and "all-knowing". The tradition of baptizing the infants, has as intention, the placing the infant under God's protection. Dan G

    The pharaos of Egypt exemplify your point of anthropomorphizing the gods a little better and imo are the reason behind the Greek pantheon of full- and halfbreeds (say Perseus). Your 'one and only' God is the 'cosmic collective' or whatever you like to term it. Your God so must be the holographic source for the universe, both physical and metaphysical. The only way you can fathom this 'hologramic precursor' is in a blending of all the realities; physical, metaphysical and psychosomatic.

    All these terms then require rigorous definition in some language code, say mathematical logic and alphanumerics to crystallize a feasible ontology and cosmogony for the observed and experienced realities, including psychosomatic and psychophysical interactions between matter and light.

    Because light is itself a derivative of matter {the acceleration of mass associated electric charges produces electromagnetic spactrum radiation, say in the fusion reaction of the proton-proton chain in the sun converting atomic hydrogen into helium}; a prephysical (or metaphysical) 'substance' can be postulated.
    This has been hypothesized by many scientists of the rennaissance, such as Leibniz, Spinoza, Maxwell, Faraday and so on and has many other names associated with it such as Orgone (Reich), Prana or Chi. Many religionists then call it the 'spirit'.

    As you know, much humbug and misinformation has derived from those labellings and associations. Isaac Newton too searched for the 'essence of God'; meaning he understood that if the 'God' he believed in would be real; it would have to be scientifically feasible and describable. But only in the 21st century has science advanced enough to investigate the 'primordial essence' in a rigorous manner of extrapolation of the existing scientific data base. The key is the realisation what space and time represent from first principles.

    It has become untenable (as known by the scientific insiders) to regress the physical cosmology to the Big Bang singularity. Mathematically speaking, the renormalisation of spacetime parameters (velocity and momentum coupled to energy) 'bounces' at the Planck-Scale. All measurements convolute past this scale and displacement becomes indistinguishable from mass and entropic temperature and so on.
    So the pundits discovered that spacetime itself must be granulated and not continuous as in Einstein's General Relativity. This then led into the incorporation of quantum entanglement and the holographic principle into the classical spacetime cosmology.

    However those new principles required a remodelling of the old standard models (in both cosmology and particle physics) in that the entire universe became a 3-dimensional surface as a processor of information (from its interior).

    The old Riemannian noneuclidean geometries were dug out and it was found that the observed 3-dimensional universe is actually contained within a higher 4-dimensional geometrical structure (manifold).
    Now here I mean 4 spacial dimensions and so the pundits now know, that the universe is in practice 5-dimensional with 4 space dimensions (one which activates at the so called Hubble horizon) and one time dimension (as the old Minkowski flatness in the local relativities).

    So what is this spacetime, we observe as the Big Bang singularity and which then evolves as a Black Body radiator in thermodynamic entropic cosmoevolution? This spacetime nugget of the Big Bang is a quantum entity PRIOR to but becoming the LIMIT for all spacetime measurements, then undertaken within the thermodynamic time arrow of the universe's evolvement.

    It then is postulated, that this precursor of spacetime itself is the long sought after 'primordial essence' and in applying advanced quantum cosmology; the parameters of initial and boundary conditions can be crystallized. One result is, that Maxwell's 'ether' or Leibnitz' 'monad' or Spinoza's 'essence' or the 'spirit', all are physical limits as 'Minimum Configurations' BUT allow bifocalisation into the lower dimensional thermodynamic universe as well as the metaphysical realm of the 'busting of the Planck scale' in a higher dimensional sense.

    You may realise then, that there is much more detail to be added; but for brevity I'll end with this. If you wish to know more logistics, I shall be pleased to answer you.


    --- In, dan G <dan@...> wrote: To go along with your line of thought, when the CroMagnon learned to play music and sing, "the gods" started to inspire them. Dan G

    Yes Dan; the 'gods' who cultivated the creativity of your ancestors. Those 'gods' infiltrated the inventive minds and 'inspired' the individual ingenuities. Some 'worship' their ancestors as their 'insprators'; some 'worship' some 'made up' and invented mental creation, say a Zeus, an Apollo or a Nut or Hathor. Does this mean that the mental inspirators are pure fantasy? Or have they memetic energies associated with their existence? When a baby is born; the mother and/or father are looking into the eyes of GOD. Then the mirror of the parents is multiplied in one becoming two becoming three (or four for twins).

    A supernatural god cannot exist Dan and so all 'inspiration' assigned to such a god or gods is/are triggered by the natural god, which resides in the 'prime directive' of the universe - create, create, create. Once you remember yourself as a sinless and nonignorant creator of your own thoughts; then you will start to know GOD. Then will you become a cosmic inhabitant, selfresponsible for your thoughts and actions. And then GOD can become a Family of GODS in Unity.


    5) Judy--- In, Judy <cobbie1919@...> wrote:
    It is obvious that you know little about evolution. You have said nothing about evolutionary history that I have not known, so your attempt to "out knowledge" me is in vain. If you knew more about the scientific theory of evolution, perhaps you religious philosophy would be shattered. But most people are afraid to learn more about science in fear of losing that position. If you are using Wikipedia as a source of information, you should know that it is written by anyone with any opinion. Sources matter. You are correct about one thing, I do not have an advanced education, but I do known what I am talking about. It takes more than an education to get along in this world. Judy

    Abra, Now I understand you completely. You are a nut! A religious nut! Neither you or I are god. What religious philosophy do you follow or have you made up your own? Judy

    Well, well what a sensitive goddess you are; a little bit presumptious in knowing what you are talking about without accepting the student-teacher necessity to increase one's knowing. I am not questioning your intelligence Cinderella, but your assumptions of knowing what you proclaim to know. What is your obsession with the 'god' label; it is just a label and if it means nothing substantial or real, why do you get so upset about it? Don't 'get your knickers in a knot' over God my dear fairy princess. Your panties might be needed to entice the horny devils in your queendom one day.

    And you have discovered my 'religious philosophy' indeed. Splendiferously you have discerned that I am a king, namely the 'King of the Nuts'. I have many constituents in my kingdom: walnuts; peanuts; macademia nuts; almonds and every nut you might find in wikipedia - the open encyclopedia.

    Yes, I have made up my very own individualised 'religion' - the Religion of the Nuts. This 'new religion' shall conquer the universe and I shall one day fly upon my fiery dragon to your cave; rescue you from the demon Asmodeus and then carry you home into my kingdom of the nutcases. You are a funny and humerous princess Cinderella. One day you shall become my queen of the Unicorns.


    You are not god, no one is god! There is no god, only a wish that there was. There is no evidence for any god. I can not, do not, believe in anything that there is no evidence for. I believe in the reality of the universe. There is evidence that there is no god however. Ever hear of the fantastic tale that is played out in a book called the bible. Anyone that reads it will come away with a reality of this book being a "whooper." Do you know what a "whooper" is? If the reality of the bible is used to hang onto a belief in a god, there is no chance whatsoever of the existence of god. Who would even want there to be an evil, hateful, spiteful being? Not me. Judy

    But I am a creative being Judy. I am not better or more than anyone else; yet I am not worse or less than anyone else either.

    I am God and I helped design and construct the universe, just as every other natural philosopher or scientist or technician has done in the past, the present and will do so in the future.

    When Marie Curie discovered Radium, God discovered Radium in the history of this planetary society.
    When Aristarchus of Samos measured the distance from the earth to the sun about 260 BC, then God was on hisher way to establish the 'Astronomical Unit'.

    There is so an abundance of evidence for God in all sentient cultivation and the application of abstract thought - 'Cogito Ergo Sum' as another witness of God in Rene' Descartes has famously said.
    I may draw your attention towards the newest discoveries in science, namely the implementation of the 'Holographic Principle' in multidimensional 'Brane-Theory'.

    The evidence for how the individualized gods like you and I are connected and quantum entangled on all scales from the wavequarkian magneto-asymptotic confinement of subnuclear interactions to the cosmological supercluster scales found at a characteristic distance scale of 463 million lightyears.
    Most significant however is the manner how the superbranes couple the cosmological displacement scales to the quantum scales.

    It has been proven (in 1992 at Princeton by string cosmologists Brian Greene, Paul Aspinwall and David Morrison); that the structure of Minkowskian spacetime can be ruptured and reglued topologically. This process requires a concept termed 'Mirror-Symmetry' and the 'Principle of Modular Duality'.
    In layman terms those applications mean that a 'large scale' physical description for a dynamically interacting universe (say the collision of galaxies) can, if modelled on a radius R; become physically identical to a physical description utilizing its inverse in a radius 1/R.

    Now a galaxy is about 0.5 to 1 million lightyears across (about 100,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers) and so its inverse will be about 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,01 millimeters.

    The subatomic interaction limit mentioned before is called the classical electron radius at 0.000,000,000,000,000,003 millimeters, which exceeds the reciprocal scale from above in a factor of so 300,000.

    To visualise this then; the colliding galaxies are modelled in brane-theory to mimick the interaction of subatomic quarks within a proton.

    This amongst other reasons describes the purpose behind the multinational corroberation about the Large-Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva which examines such interprotonic quark collisions.

    Lastly, I disagree with you about the bible being a whooper or a whopper.

    The bible was written about 500 BC by scribes, who acted on behalf of themselves as gods.
    The symbolic meanings, metaphors and archetypes used to write the pentateuch were however much older and stemmed from oral traditions predating Mesopotamian folklore and legends.

    The book of Genesis is full of such archetypes - like YOU being Noah (or his wife Azara say) and YOUR commission to build an Ark meaning YOUR Body manifesting as a new temple in a new 'Rainbow Covennant'.

    But the gods, in their relative ignorance about their godhood and ambassador-ship; messed up the symbols and you know the nonsense which has evolved out from those basic misunderstandings.

    Take a monsoon, a sandstorm and a prolonged deluge mixed up with old archetypical stories told around the campfires and you can get quite a mess - just like the story of the Hyksos, who had ruled the northern part of Egypt so 1500 BC and who then became 'driven out' by Ahmose some 100 years later.
    Oh yes, there was the memory of 'having ruled' in Egypt. But the story would read better as the story of an exodus of deliverance; rather than the retreat of a conquered peoples.

    And so the archetypes are mixed with history and the legacies are given on and confusion reigns until a new dispensation of archetypical decipherment becomes possible.


    --- In, Judy <cobbie1919@...> wrote: I know that Cro-Magnon was a step in the evolution of mankind, a really old step. Did you ever hear of evolution? Cro-Magnon replaced or took over the Neanderthal.

    Aye Judy, I know a little about evolution. Cro Magnon and Neandethalensis coexisted for many millennia. Then Neanderthalensis became extinct. Neanderthalensis had a greater brain, than Homo Sapiens, different hip structure (compare to the major distinction between dinosaur genera in saurischians=lizard hipped and ornithischians=bird hipped in evolutionary taxonomy).

    "Cro-Magnon man surely had ways of communicating, but since this was prehistory, nothing was written. Over time, the stories that are common to all peoples (Ie. the flood, creation and so on) were told in the languages of the times. It would be a guess that what they spoke was a precursor to modern languages." Obviouly from a pro-creation page. It has become impossible to easily find information on most any subject that has not been taken over by the christian perspective.

    You should really study some more evolutionary history Judy, rather than being offended in your sentiments by people who are better informed than yourself. The evolutionary divergence between Cro Magnon and Neanderthalensis is well documented by a multitude of sources, not just wikipedia. Wikipedia by the way is highly conservative and definitely anti-fundamentalist in its structure and guidelines. Wikipedia is definitely not pro-creation; rather it is you who appears to be vehemently anti-creation.

    Your statements above bespeak of your educational database - note that I do not question your intelligence, just your access and knowledge of information about the things you write and talk about.

    Perhaps you should study some more. I take you answer as an insult to my intellegence, Mr. or Ms.bermoAbraxasinasdavid.

    Oh I do dear Judy; it would behoove you to do the same.


    --- In, Judy <cobbie1919@...> wrote: I am certainly not a history expert, but I don't think the Cro-Magnon played music and sang, I don't even think they had a language beyond grunts and groans. Your paragraph copied above, is suggesting that god learned to play music from man? Did he learn to sing also? IMO, man created god, all gods for whatever time period they lived to satisfy their needs and answer questions they had no answer for, that is how god was created. Judy

    Study your anthropology Judy. Cro Magnon Man IS Homo Sapiens Sapiens and you can do more than grunt and groan, can you not? You grunt and groan in certain pleasurable situations and you are also able to visit a dance hall to move your body in rhythmic movements and 'god forbid' you could join a choir and sing an overture. You are on the mark. Every god, devil, demon or name it yourself was, is and will be created from the mind of man. However there is an energy associated with this creative thought-endeavour; you may call it a Dawkinsian memeplex.

    The memes become rather potent, should more than a few 'thinkers' 'believe' in them, so giving them a memeplexed reality (as thoughtforms). Where does the memetic energy derive from - elementary archetypes, symbols and thought-sound-word associations stemming from - well the Cro Magnon manifesto so 25,700 years ago in civil calendar reckonings.


    4)Dave --- In, NoGoodGods@... wrote:

    Well, well what a sensitive goddess you are Blah, blah, blah. Stay with us oh weird one. I like a bloody good laugh.

    Aye Dave oh ye profound one. It bespeaks of great ancient wisdom, should one be able to laugh at one's image in the mirrors. Because when you laugh at your own image, you discern the reality of the physical within the reality of the metaphysical. Imagine to BE your own image, your own shadow and Doppelgänger - no separated multiverses are required, just a mirror of the one. Raise your right hand, when laughing at yourself and the one that laughs back at you is not you anymore.

    Your shadow has raised his left hand relative to you in the exchange of subject and object. Then when you share a juicy joke, your image laughs with you as the 'horny devil' God has become in the imagery and creativity of yourself.


    Yup. That's the sort of thing i had in mind. The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike __._,_.___
    No problem, providing you don't prefix it with "cow". I am definitely Dave and not Davina. The meaning you put on the word god is in fact meaningless. To you "god" is just another pronoun, we have enough already. You must pardon my forthrightness, but you are coming over as vacuous and pretentious.

    Sure, the word 'god' has become meaningless, albeit still 'charged' with memetic emotionality. Just witness how 'strongly' you react to the name calling and slander in this group. And reflectively, I return your compliments in you 'coming over' as pretentious and vacuous and I won't prefix anything with 'woc'.


    First, I apologize for calling you Pat in my last post. I have called you Dave in this reply. Though you may be Davina in the motherly gender. You may easily substitute the "god" from above by 'David, the father' or 'Davina, the mother'. Then it reads: 'By your theory my children were looking back into the eyes of "David, the father' or 'Davina, the mother' when they looked back at me. I resent and refute that allegation, it is bull shit.' Then you are bullshitting yourself.


    3) Dave --- In, NoGoodGods@... wrote: _cobbie1919@..._ (mailto:cobbie1919@...) writes: I am certainly not a history expert, but I don't think the Cro-Magnon played music and sang, > I thought the poster was referring to the Swedish Goth band...........

    Primarily, I was referring to you and secondarily to all other associations possible by using the nomenclature.


    "When a baby is born; the mother and/or father are looking into the eyes of GOD".
    By your theory my children were looking back into the eyes of "god" when they looked back at me. I resent and refute that allegation, it is bull shit. I was looking at a brand new human being, my own little part of creation. My children were looking back at somebody who would nurture and protect them. Part of that nurturing and protection meant saving them from other people's "gods".

    There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages.

    2)---Patrick So i am god, and god is me. You are god, and god is you. So i am i, and you are you, we can do without the word "god" altogether.

    Of course Pat. You may substitute the word 'god' with 'flying spaghetti monster' or FSM or ATI=AllThatIs or IAMTHATAMI=IATAI or some other acronym. However now consider the difference between you and I. Are we the same or not? Yet, both of us are God. So God IS both of us in individuation and yet God is also both of us and All of Us by that definition.


    --- In, Pat McPatrick <patmcpatrick@...> wrote: Now there's a convoluted little system; did you make it up yourself? I'm afraid that I don't see any reason in it, but if it works for you, alright---

    Of course I made it up Pat. I am God and you are God.We create our own views and paradigms of reality using background data of all sorts of which the scientific logic and reason is the most universal and so cosmically applicable. The key element is archetype as old as human thought and philosophy (however primitive at the beginning of a civilisation) itself.

    For example, the Torah was composed so 500 years BC and the misappropriation of particular symbols for space and time were misunderstood and resulted in semiotiks like 'Noah's Ark' to become literalised in a most nonsensical fashion. Iow, the archetype of 'Noah's Ark' is a 'Body' or 'Vessel- containing spacetime' misinterpreted as some 'boat for people to sojourn in'. You are Noah as an archetype Pat. You are Moses and Abraham and Adam and your 'physical body' is 'Noah's Ark' as the 'Temple of God'.

    Understanding this, you might realise that Moses, the Exodus and the 'Patriarchs' all did not physically exist or occur; but serve as 'templates' for a rather more encompassing archetypology as the language of the ancient (or ancestral) thinkers and philosophers.


    1) Just because the organised religions are way past their use by dates; doesn't mean that the concept and ideas about organising principles inherent in nature become therefore also invalid. The points raised by Mangum and Dan are very well subject to the scrutiny by agnostics, skeptics and atheists; as they can be examined both for consistency and prevalence in the natural environments. True, the idea of supernatural entities has become superfluous; but the idea of the creativity and the imagination of humans being at least partially responsible collectively for the workings of the universe on all scales is not. Perhaps it stands to reason, that when Cro Magnon learned to play music and sing; then also the collective 'god' or whatever you wish to name it; began to play the music too. Then 'god' is the collective individual and all of you here ARE 'god' and in denying and ridiculing the irreligious 'god', you all are denying yourselves.


    To Dan, Pat McPatrick <patmcpatrick@...> wrote: Dan, you just made a lot of unsupported statements, coupled with insults. I'm new to the group, so have no bias against you - except what I just got from your post below. Your credibility just went out the window.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 16, 2014

Share This Page