You probably won't like this. (dumb stoner post)

[Sir Comrade Kenan]

Yup. In the end, I guess that's about all you can do.

By changing yourself, you can change the world. Really, you are the only person you have complete control over.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Yup. In the end, I guess that's about all you can do.

By changing yourself, you can change the world. Really, you are the only person you might have complete control over.

fix

[LMNO]

You can say that "being does not come from non-being."


But then you have to ask yourself what the fuck you're talking about.


Perhaps, like physics says, energy cannot be created or destroyed,  However, it can change forms very quickly and easily.  Since some energy (and mass, since Einstein linked the two) is easier to see than others, you may very well experience something as coming from apparently nothing.

There's a huge difference between what "is" and what "appears to be".

[P3nT4gR4m]

You can say that "being does not come from non-being."


But then you have to ask yourself what the fuck you're talking about.


Perhaps, like physics says, energy cannot be created or destroyed,  However, it can change forms very quickly and easily.  Since some energy (and mass, since Einstein linked the two) is easier to see than others, you may very well experience something as coming from apparently nothing.

There's a huge difference between what "is" and what "appears to be".

Doesn't explain how it got here in the first place. Plus particles have been observed appearing, out of thin air as it were.

[LMNO]

1.  Just because the answer currently is "we don't know" doesn't allow for the creation of some world view to fill the gap.

2.  What you're calling a "particle" is not related to any commonly used definition of the word "particle".

[P3nT4gR4m]

1.  Just because the answer currently is "we don't know" doesn't allow for the creation of some world view to fill the gap.

2.  What you're calling a "particle" is not related to any commonly used definition of the word "particle".

K I have to admit to being ignorant to the scientific terminology but I remember them all getting quite excited about this discovery. Dunno if it was molecules or atoms or what but one of these just materialised, prolly in a vacum or something.

It all comes from ayin via soph and aur. The human brain baulks at it  -it's inconceivable. But if you try real hard you can come real close and a whole lot of other shit falls into perspective.

[Triple Zero]

2.  What you're calling a "particle" is not related to any commonly used definition of the word "particle".

uh vacuum energy (or was is vacuum pressure)? that's one particles and one anti particle (i forgot what kind of they usually are) appearing out of nothing, because of uncertainty and then usually they just meet eachother and mutually annihilate as if nothing happened.
but they can also interact with other particles before they get destroyed or something and this is sometimes used in certain equations to "borrow energy" in a certain way. (well ok i have to ask some of my friends how this exactly works again, but that was the general gist of it afaik)

now there's probably a good reason why our current existence is NOT a result of this "borrowed energy", probably something like that the chance would be immensely small for anything remotely resembling existence appearing out of vacuum, i think.

i kind of think the ain soph aur incomprehensibility principle is probably correct. not that there's any way of proving it but i would say that there is not much as fundamentally incomprehensible as non-being.

[Sir Comrade Kenan]

1.  Just because the answer currently is "we don't know" doesn't allow for the creation of some world view to fill the gap.

Hooray for you being cool!

Just because something has a cause we can't observe or identify doesn't mean it didn't have a cause.

i kind of think the ain soph aur incomprehensibility principle is probably correct. not that there's any way of proving it but i would say that there is not much as fundamentally incomprehensible as non-being.

I don't know what that is, really. I even googled it. From what I can tell, it's essentially the same as the whole socrates thing. (True wisdom is knowing that you can never really know anything.)

Thats cool. I can get behind that.

You can say that "being does not come from non-being."


But then you have to ask yourself what the fuck you're talking about.


Perhaps, like physics says, energy cannot be created or destroyed,  However, it can change forms very quickly and easily.  Since some energy (and mass, since Einstein linked the two) is easier to see than others, you may very well experience something as coming from apparently nothing.

There's a huge difference between what "is" and what "appears to be".

I agree. that statement is a bit broad.

And there is all sorts of sciencey stuff that you can throw into the works.

Does it mean anything? Maybe. At this point, very little can be proven, so I try not to put all my eggs in one basket.


CK,

Loves to use the same metaphors old people use.

[LMNO]

CK, the "ain sof aur" bit is from Kaballah.  There are 3 levels of Nothingness before you reach the first Sipharoth, Kether.  Here's a basic introduction:
http://www.byzant.com/Mystical/Kabbalah/Veils.aspx

[Jenne]

LMNO...did he just call you old? 

I get your point, CK...but I think all LMNO is pointing out is that part of the science that we DO "know" is the fact that matter changes form.  This can go a long way to explaining shit that we don't understand too well, esp when trying to do what you are suggesting.  Moving forward with what we know, instead of making up what we don't just to satisfy the "can't be known" factor (something that bugs us know-it-alls to no end).

[LMNO]

1.  Compared to some on this board, i am old.

2.  I'm gonna take CK's first response as non-sarcastic.  Just because.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Loves to use the same metaphors old people use.

[Mangrove]

i just added this to the SSOOKN archives, not read too much of it yet but, in the interests of physics and kabbalah....

www.lettherebelightbook.com

[Sir Comrade Kenan]

CK, the "ain sof aur" bit is from Kaballah.  There are 3 levels of Nothingness before you reach the first Sipharoth, Kether.  Here's a basic introduction:
http://www.byzant.com/Mystical/Kabbalah/Veils.aspx

Wow. Didn't know that.

My first response was to simply dismiss this as a bunch of Madonna-style bullcarp. (yes, carp.)
But, being the sort of fellow I am, I read the thing.

Turns out, I was right. Its not like I can't respect someone's religious views, its just that unless you can prove something to me, I'm not going to believe it.

Hell, you can believe there's an invisible unicorn named Gerald on the moon for all I care. unless you can prove he's there, I'm going to think you're a nutjob.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to think that when i die something special is going to happen, and i'll be surrounded by "God's love", all the people I cared about that died, and my old dog. I'd even be happy with the whole lake of fire thing.

But.. Thats just crazy talk. Truth is, (or at least what I think it is) Man invented the idea of "God" a long time ago so that the species wouldn't self-destruct. If you had the thought that someone is always watching what you do, you'd be less inclined to do bad things.

But that doesn't answer the question of why (or how) things came into existence.

Should that question even be answered? wouldn't that take the fun out of life?

CK,
Ironically not from Missouri

[Cramulus]

Proof is a two dollar ho. The rational are her pimps.




and that biatch owes me some money