That makes sense

Random thoughts on existence.

Science can only discover what was already there.

The forces of the cosmos maintain perfect balance in existence.

Mass and energy are derivative from the dark matter that has always been.

Consciousness gives us perspective and gives existence life. We are one with existence.

Time gives existence a story to tell.

Existence is forever before and forever after and begins and ends now, with you.

Existence had to start where it will end. This is the only possible explanation for its perfection.

Top three things scientists will never fully understand (so their jobs are safe)

1. The universe, the foundation of existence.
2. Consciousness, the foundation of thought.  
3. DNA, the foundation of life

It’s not just proximity that makes these out of reach, it is their inherent complexity. Within these lies the cause. The simple explanations though, are forever the realm of their effects, the truth that we experience every day. We don’t have to understand it to live it. The desire to know though, is a meaningful reason to live it. We can all wonder. Without wonder what would existence be?

Without want there is no wonder.

“Man’s reach should exceed his grasp or what’s a heaven for.” Robert Browning

Science and religion both profess faith that the truth will prevail. The difference is that one doesn’t accept the truth when the other doesn’t care. Now try to guess which is which.

We must think beyond what we already know or risk getting stuck. Creativity is after all a human aberration. Let’s take advantage of it.

There is mass and there is energy. They are in balance and equal in existence. There is no mass without energy. There is no energy without mass. Add Mass + Energy and you get the motionless, empty dark matter void that is omnipresent in existence. Whether there was a big bang or the big hand of God that created the coalescence of mass and energy from dark matter that became our universe, its truth is our truth for now and evermore, amen.

The question was asked, “why are we here?” I answer: “Your consciousness posed the question, is it not also the answer?” Sometimes it is easy to dismiss the obvious.

So then

“What are we here?” A living, breathing, thinking organism with a singular, subjective consciousness.

“When are we here?” Now. However, time is relative and relevant only to us; it does not exist otherwise.

“How are we here?” A unique, deliberate coalescence of matter and energy without peer or prejudice.

“Where are we here?” At a point and perspective that has a singular awareness of a universe of existence.

“Who are we here?” The embodiment of God. Our consciousness is the creator of our existence. Without us there is no existence. Without us there is no God.  

So, let’s suppose that you are God. There is nothing you can’t have, nothing you can’t know. You are without peers. How do You wish Your world to be? Dependent on Your every whim and direction, or resplendent of independent thinkers with free will to find their own way and make their own existence? A world of individuals with creative thoughts, different appearances, with various abilities and talents; or clones of You? To wonder why You have allowed them to have frailties, bad thoughts and bad experiences, or to know that Your master plan is for Them and Them for You? You too may be a God of hope, not of despair, a God of love not of hate, a God of acceptance not of prejudice; a God who encourages all to be Gods like You. In Your likeness is a world of good and meaning. In your likeness there is a world of Gods like you.  How would You be, God?

Not mine, Yes, definitely. The universe makes foolish the “wisdom” of the world. Intellectuals for all of history have been fundamentally mistaken about everything, and the present moment is no exception. The more you learn about the universe, the more you learn that humans know approximately nothing, and the greatest fools are those who profess to understand while being in a state of ignorance. The more we think we know the less likely we will learn anything.

The universe provides everything for you. It is sustaining you right now. It’s been churning through various states for billions of years, with unbelievably powerful forces working together, and it’s finally reached the point of producing you at this present moment. It’s responsible for all your positive and negative qualities. To the extent you learn, it’s always teaching you a lesson. To the extent that you are conscious, then the universe is conscious. To the extent that you love or are loved, then the universe loves. These truths seem profound to me. I believe this is the beginning of a rational theology.

Dark Matter is non existing by our definition of that which has dimension or detectable energy. Dark Matter is the potential for existence and the ether that suspends the cosmos and controls it with empirical constants. If all matter and energy were combined the result would return to a Dark Matter state from which it came. That is, Dark Matter is the beginning and end of any existence, ours or any other or any to come.

“So where did Dark Matter come from?” Dark Matter doesn’t exist. It is the potential for existence. It didn’t come from anywhere. It is nothing more than the net value of all existence. All matter, all energy is in perfect balance, always. One doesn’t exist without the other. Their ability to exist is made possible by each other. Which came first is an illogical question, since they must exist simultaneously. Cosmological constants are established when Dark Matter becomes matter and energy. The rules of the cosmological structure are inherent in the bond between matter and energy that is necessary for them to exist in their combined Dark Matter ether. There is no volume to Dark Matter. There are no defined limits to the matter and energy that can exist in the ether because the sum total of all mass and energy is zero. “Can new mass and energy get created in the either? Can it disappear?” Consider the Big Bang and Black Holes. We can’t, from our perspective, fathom how in the one case the whole universe was created in a massive event, a singularity from nothing. And in the other how incalculable amounts of mass and energy can be swallowed in a singularity of existence of infinite mass and energy. Dark Matter has no physical limitations of volume or mass or energy. It is dimensionless. So, it simply explains these two phenomena. It is the only concept that allows both an infinite amount of mass and energy and an empty void. The physics of the how, when, and where this can happen is perhaps discoverable. We already know some of the constant forces at play because they are in fact the same forces that allow our existence to be, and we can measure them.

“Can an existence exist with different cosmological constants?” As stated, before the net result of all the forces in existence is a perfect balance that resolves to nothing or equilibrium. But it is also reasonable that any other combination of forces that meet the net zero balance may yield a different kind of existence, perhaps one that can self-sustain and expand or one that would devolve back to its neutral state in Dark Matter. Perhaps there were or are other universes with different existence models, or perhaps ours is the only one that was able to propagate and avoid dissolution. All we know for sure is that our combination of cosmic forces has been around for Billions or years, which at least from our limited longevity perspective has been a successful coalescence.

“Does this disprove the existence of God?” Good God no! We should thank God for finding this perfect (as far as we can tell) coalescence. I certainly didn’t come up with it, and I am eternally grateful for the opportunity for me to exist. Your vision of God may not be best described in the same sentence with Dark Matter, but if Dark Matter is the answer, then I am sure God would approve. In fact, maybe we should rename Dark Matter to gain greater acceptance for this simple yet profound notion. Any ideas?

“But why?” your consciousness has posed this question, perhaps it is also the answer.

I am troubled by the vehemence of some who will lambast religion as an afront to the logic of science, and too by others who are threatened by a science that would undermine their beliefs in God. While there are contradictions aplenty in the creation of our existence and evolution of man, the truth is shared by all. Regardless of how we got here, we share the reality of our existence now and are equally constrained and empowered by all it has to offer. The fact that scientists are willing to change their beliefs as new facts are discovered is used as a cudgel by others to justify their skepticism. In fact, it tends to further entrench their faith in a mysterious benefactor who cannot be challenged; that somehow the absolute divinity of God has a chokehold on man’s need to investigate this universe of His creation. Scientists will never find anything that wasn’t always there. There is not a new truth to be had. This universe is sacrosanct. This is a fact that I think both extremes agree on. So, chill already.

When this universe was several billion years old and nearly 240 generations ago after our relatives began to walk on two feet, a woman gave birth. Thus began a process of procreation from one generation to the next for over 6000 years, that despite all odds, wars, famines and diseases, produced a unique consciousness that will never be duplicated. That profound consciousness then began a journey to inform a perspective that to this day has no peer. The knowledge and understanding of the universe from this unique perspective is complete, the vested power to act on this universe is absolute and the point of presence is now. Any act by this singular being will bring everlasting change to the whole of existence by a web of connectivity that links all living organisms. So, tell me your worship, what do you have in store for us today?

Is it possible to know it all?

We can learn about and understand only that which we can relate. We can read about it, hear about it or see it firsthand, but if we can’t compare it to what we already know, then it can’t exist. It has no meaning. Our senses are the only pathway to our brains where thoughts can be evaluated. Once information is in our brains, we can invent alternate realities from those which we can sense. We call this creativity. But even then, these alternate realities are derivatives of what we already know. Even for science fiction writers who conjure new realities, these “realities” must have a foundation on what we know, or we will not be able to relate to them. All new scientific discoveries must relate back to what is already accepted as fact. Any new hypothesis is an aberration of an existing precept. If we can’t relate it back to a known truth, there is no basis for further understanding it. We prove hypothesis by repeating a cause to receive an effect both of which have a relation to a known fact. If you think about it, the learning process is built on a foundation of what you already know. It’s like building a brick wall. Without a foundation the next brick row won’t stand. If you can’t relate it, it has no meaning to you, there is nothing to learn.  

So, what we know, and the more we know, the more intellectually constrained we become. All future discoveries must have a basis in known fact. It is very likely that the more we know the less likely we are to discover the ultimate truth. We are limited by what we already have learned. This may be the cruelest catch 22 for intelligence.  

What if there are universal constants that we can’t relate back to what we already can understand or calculate? Is it possible to prove a hypothesis that cannot be so related?  Even quantum physics is constrained by our base level of understanding of such known constants. Even if our consciousness has the capacity to understand some new foundational reality, does it have the ability? How do we think beyond what we know?

What if there is another pathway to understanding beyond our 5 senses. A transfer of logical thought that transcends normal learning mechanisms. What if someone has received this information. How will they ever be able to relate it to anyone else? How will we ever become aware of it if we can’t relate?

On the other hand, if we can’t relate to some existing phenomena then what is the point of knowing it? Still, you must wonder.

The universe is in perfect balance. Our awareness of it leads to our acting on it. Every action we take is immediately neutralized by the constant forces that preside over our universe. This is both enabling and restricting. What we do, what we discover will have no impact on our universe, but it can and will alter the consciousness of ourselves and others. How we interact impacts the whole of existence, but it doesn’t fundamentally change it. The universe is the palette and pigments. We are the artist.

When the building blocks of existence allow natural selection, then survival instincts become the intelligence drivers.

Infinity is the same in either direction. The concept of cyclical events is pervasive i.e. orbits, seasons, the indestructibility of matter and energy, karma. The circle closes the loop on infinity thus resolving this major conundrum.

Memory is the critical part of consciousness that gives meaning to that which our senses perceive. We develop opinions and reactions to various sensory stimuli based on our prior experiences vis a vis memory. Because we each have a unique history of sensory experiences, we develop a subjective understanding of any new sensory experiences. It is reasonable to conclude that the actual stimuli are not subjective i.e. each person who experiences it within the same proximity, view etc. is experiencing the same thing. So, if we have a multitude of people that have the same recollection of a particular stimulus we can say that we have arrived at an objective conclusion or truth about that stimuli.

If we didn’t have memory, we wouldn’t understand anything. There is no innate diagnostic cerebral tool that has imbedded algorithms to rationalize the meaning of stimuli. However, there is an innate memory passed on from our parents that is part of our DNA called instinct. It is partially muscle memory, or nerve impulse memory that allows us to breathe for instance. We learn due to sensory feedback though our nervous system. Most all living organisms have this instinctive innate understanding that begins the learning process.

I like ether. It allows the consciousness to perceive a state of existence that surrounds the realty that our 5 senses can’t detect. Call it anti matter or dark Matter e(i)ther will do.

A rationalization of the existence of God

If God has created us, it has yet to be proven.

True, but God must exist.

Because we exist.

And, we cannot prove any other source of our existence.

And, some need to pay homage for our existence in the absence of any other proof.

And, some need to have a higher purpose for our existence beyond ourselves.

But here is the thing.

We all need a code of behavior beyond simple survival instincts.

We all need this code to be impartial and not self-serving. It needs to be universal. God is omnipresent.

We have created God in the interim of science as a necessary deterrent to human depravity.

It helps the universal cause if God cannot be disproven. By this definition He is omnipotent.

God is the reservoir of all knowledge science has not yet discovered. He is omniscient.

God serves our needs, and we serve his. A perfectly amicable arrangement.

That is why God must exist.

I joined this group to help in my understanding of existence and our place in it. The science is way beyond my ability to know but from what I understand, relatively speaking now, no one is close to fully understanding it. And while I am not willing to find any easy answer in a spiritual explanation, faith that the truth will prevail is a common view that I think we all share. While I accept that we will never find the ultimate answer, I do think that there must be a rational or logical foundation for existence that can find general acceptance and help quell the need to be in constant conflict. I enjoy the feedback from the many posts here even the mean spirited snipes, so please let me know how you really feel.

I humbly submit the following.

A theory of logic- A laymen’s guide to being.

In the beginning is the end and it is dispassionate.

There ( the beginning), is no good or bad, no far or near, no sooner or later, but there is harmony and the universe is objectively neutral and at peace.

There are positives and negative charges that spawn from this peace, each is equal in its influence because neither can exist without the other. This proliferation is instantaneous because the universe is neutral and all positive and negative charges in their totality being in equal shares are also neutral, so there is no time lapsed in this proliferation.

Because the universe is balanced, there is no limit to this proliferation. Positive and negative charges inflate in this balanced universe, some coalesce to form protons, neutrons and electrons, forming atoms each with ionic charges; and from atoms, molecules and from molecules, compounds, and from compounds, organism and from organisms, an adaptability and intellectual acuity that has a consciousness that is aware of its own existence. Regardless of the level of entropy in this proliferation, balance is maintained, the charges, positive and negative, are in equal measure.

Within this process of proliferation these positive and negative charges interact in a universe controlled by inherent forces that maintain order and balance. Some of these known forces are gravity, electromagnetism, large and small nuclear forces. These forces work in concert and govern the multitude of existence each counterbalanced by the others such that these forces emulate the same neutral state as the universe when taken in their totality. These regulatory forces are not created before or after positive and negative charges proliferate, but inherently of them and with them. There is no before and after in existence. These forces govern the limits of existence and all its forms.

The limits of this creation are not defined nor predicated by the neutrality of the universe, that neutrality being the only and ultimate prelate of existence. The cosmological constants regulate the ultimate and sovereign balance of the universe. The speed of light is one such constant born of these balanced charges. It is necessarily a constant, as any variance would be inconsistent with the balance that is formed with it. The limits of the proliferation of existence are likewise regulated by these constants for maintaining balance. The absolute values of these constants provide the form, function and stability to existence and are established with the proliferation and inform our understanding of the laws and science of existence. Any other proliferations within this neutrality are possible but not known by our consciousness. Any differing values for these constants would carry different form, function and limits within neutrality which is sacrosanct. Any other absolute values of these constants may cause their existence to devolve back to a neutral state, or it is also possible that other universes survive their own proliferation under different cosmological constants. They too would be perfectly balanced to survive but, if they survive, they cannot interact with our own existence as they are not compatible. These constants, that we are subject to, maintain and limit our existence. It is also probable that countless iterations of values of balanced cosmic constants initiate from neutrality, but only ours survives. The perfection in the balance of our existence seems to suggest that this is true. In any case, these constants are ours throughout our existence and they cannot change as this is inherent in the balance of the sovereign neutrality. Time, as we perceive it, is not a factor in this existence or any other. The universe is in the beginning as it is in the end, in a state of equilibrium no matter the proliferation of positive and negative charges. So, taken in its totality, nothing changes. Being an organism of consciousness, we experience cause and effect relationships in our proliferation. These events are differing states of existence within the universal neutrality. We logically, and for our convenience, place the cause before the effect which establishes a before and after timeline sequence that allows us to create a purposeful and progressive narrative to existence. However, in existence there is no before or after, only differing states of being, each equal to any other. We have devised the concept of time to organize this proliferation that is our existence, but all “moments” in existence are the same, thus any “time” between them is instantaneous. If something is the same in elemental parts before and after, then no “time” is lapsed, only different states of coalescence of proliferation. Time is also our reference to distance and is relative to our view of our place in the whole of existence. Distance like time though is relative to the observer. We assimilate distance as how long away something is from us. All existing coalescences are simply present in existence with no difference in time or place.

That all existence is propagated from neutrality and that it is instantaneous is consistent with a Big Bang concept. That it emanates from a singularity is also plausible as there is only the proliferation and its capacity is limited only by the cosmological constants that preside. It stands to logic that if the right balance of cosmological constants is present and allows the coalescence of charges to proliferate then a common point of creation seems reasonable.

It is possible also for the proliferation of existence to devolve back to neutrality. Black holes then are likewise consistent with the proliferation because there is no volume or capacity limits to neutrality so the consumption of an infinite existence of positive and negative charges is a viable option. But as this happens the end is the beginning. As perfect as a circle. The neutrality remains omnipresent.

Existence is not at a particular time or a particular place. It is simply a state of being. Though there is an entropy factor in this coalescence that we experience, there is a logical connection, an orderly construct between this and any other coalescences in our proliferation. Our consciousness is perpetually curious about this connection. But for this existence to be, there is always a factor of randomness in its formation. In fact, it is through this entropy that balance is found in the inflation and proliferation of charges and constants that would otherwise be in a neutral state. We may feel that entropy is waning as science advances, but it will always leave us in the dark. For entropy to vanish, so must our existence.

This explanation may seem simplistic and belie the inherent complexities of existence, but fundamentally it is rational and not inconsistent with known scientific facts nor is it at all inconsistent with the concept of a singular moment of divine inspiration. That we exist now is proof of either and both.