Sunday Stream (201) ~ Excerpts from a Dialogue

[mtmynd]

Excerpts from a Dialogue
adjusted to make a singular
Essay on Hu'man Limitations
~or~
Knowing the Unknowable
by
Transcending Understanding as it is Presently Understood
_______

I view this concept of Omnipresence as the full awareness (knowing) of what we accept as infinity exists, including every thing and no thing (the conditions of the finite)... Omnipresence as an unlimited (infinite) awareness from which every thing and no thing have come into existence.

___________

If some laws are indeed without error then the First Law of Thermodynamics (energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms) would include the universe as an infinite (endless) reservoir of energy, would it not?

Infinite in size would be irrelevant in this situation, i.e. energy which 'powers' the entire universe would be energy within what either the universe is at the moment or what the universe was before all visible signs of such were (somehow) evaporated back into solely pure energy. (!) I can't visualize size in this assumption on any scale. Which leads me to question: What is size in relation to the vastness of empty space that occupies the distances between all matter and beyond? Infinity has no limitation but occupies all which is limited by dimension or even imagining.

We're defining 'empty space' not only as without matter, per se, but including the absence of any thing, including light, gravity, etc., which certainly be about as empty as anyone could conceive. However, let's say one room in your home has no furniture, no carpeting, not any decoration on the walls or elsewhere... you get the idea - the room is empty for all practical purposes. The same analogy would apply to what we call an 'empty parking space'... there is room for a car to be parked. When I mention the enormity of empty space between matter, I obviously didn't include such infinitesimally tiny particles of space dust which is (apparently) inclusive in all the 'empty space' between all matter. Add to that your mention of light and gravity and ,of course, that would rule out true and absolute emptiness. If we went beyond the area we fondly refer to as 'the universe' ... that dark and frigid space that encircles all of the known universe, far past the outer edges of the expanding universe of matter, can we agree that area is 'empty' ? If it wasn't truly empty there would be no additional space for the expanding universe to enter into, would there? This empty vastness is far greater than this universe or multiples of universi . One could use the analogy that as many words (re: matter) that have been both spoken (re: seen) and written (re:theorized), the silence (re: emptiness) between them all far outweigh the level of sound (re:every thing) these words (all matter) have produced.

__________

*Question: Why are there laws at all?

My immediate answer is that we (mankind) wrote the laws. Of course the laws were written after serious observation, but never-the-less, they were written by man. Without any of these observed laws I would think the universe (what we know about it) would behave in an anarchic manner rather than a precision we would give the clock.

But that still doesn't satisfactorily answer the question. To continue - if we recognize our mind's ability to organize information and use it for furthering our knowledge we may be approaching what it is that answers "why are there laws at all?" If we demand answers that make sense... at least touching upon what we call (a) truth, we would project this knowing onto every thing including the universe and the laws we have attributed to various observed behaviors... we project the way our mind perceives onto all that we observe. This would presume an answer to your question only because there is a pattern of connection to it, i.e. answers, in order to be as factual as we can make them, have to connect to other answers in the same category or subject matter that are assuredly/presumably unquestionable.

*Question/comment: if I understand you correctly are you talking about the idea (which I think originated in quantum physics) that observation itself can affect the outcome of an experiment, and the behavior of sub-atomic particles?

Let me try this - laws come from observations and theories (based upon what should occur given exact circumstances). Scientists that do the observing and calculating base these laws not only on what is observed but more accurately, how mind interprets the observations. Our mind seeks answers and in so doing all answers must (1) have logic behind the question, and (2) be relative to how mind works, and (3) connect with what mind already knows. Mind works (a healthy, inquisitive mind) logically using the reason it has gained and the assimilation of knowledge that is relative to that which is being asked.

When we ask questions our answers must be able to connect to that which we already know... a continuum of knowledge... a climbing of a ladder of knowing where each step leads to another. If we don't have reason to know the answer to that which we find to be an unknown, that unknown will remain unknown and unknowable until such time we have a need to know the answer.

Our personal observations of the universe have produced laws based upon those observations. Initially it was our mind that created the questions, as mind is prone to do. Those answers which mind asks satisfy mind, which in turn satisfies ourselves once answers are found. Until there is an answer, we are not content. Our answers must follow reasoning and logic... that's the way we hu'man beings are. We have to find connections in our discoveries... links to keep our collective knowledge together. It's very important for us... as a matter of fact, it's vital. We would be unable to gain knowledge if what we know didn't lead us to what we don't know... a harmony of knowing /not knowing, each assisting the other.


cecil
4.12.09

Pic of the Week:

Downtown
looking up


Photo: Cecil (Camino Real Hotel - El Paso)

[Artguy]

I will expand on this later as I need to chew on it ...but the cold blue warm brick contrast...wow...yes there is this towering composition towering off into infinity...but the contrast...wow!!!

[Arcadia]

it´s a too abstract writing for me for this moment of the day but I connected with the last two párrafos!

and the photo! yeah... wow!!!!: it´s like seeing a glowing-iceberg making an irish building to grow up!!!!! I like the sensation!!!!!!!

gracias for the stream & saludos, Cecil!!!!!!!

[mtmynd]

Thanks for the replies, Kurt and 'V'... and I'm happy to see that pic did something to you!

As the Stream goes (I had written it originally in a Stream manner), perhaps too confusing or not clear enough..? Taking a dialogue and picking and choosing between this and that maybe loses the intent. Although the last part (thx, 'V'!) seemed to be pretty clear, eh?

But hell, it's all experimental and experience. How do I write about infinity and the finite, the universe and beyond, how they relate and how these questions come about.. where is the origin of the quesiton and why question these things? Wild ride... better than chilled watermelon summertime.