The Universe – Oscillation

Question

But if the universe is locked in a perpetual cycle of formation and dissipation than the question becomes ‘within’ what does the universe form and from what does the universe dissipate?

Introduction

It could be a time-honored philosophy of Eastern gurus—the view that time has neither a beginning nor an end, and that the universe is locked in a perpetual cycle of formation and dissipation. But it's the latest scientific model of the cosmos, and it comes from top theorists in Princeton, New Jersey, and Cambridge, England. This new, cyclic model of the universe offers an appealing alternative to the prevailing theory, according to Paul J. Steinhardt, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University. "It predicts all the features of the standard model, using fewer ingredients," he said. Steinhardt and his colleague Neil Turok of Cambridge University proposed the new model in a report posted April 25th on the Science Express Web site of the journal Science. (Universe Reborn Endlessly in New Model of the Cosmos, Ben Harder, for National Geographic News, April 25, 2002)

Analysis

One may suggest that the universe forms within ‘nothingness’ and when the universe dissipates it leaves behind ‘nothingness’ but such an argument suggests that ‘nothingness’ is the essence from which the universe origninates. Such an argument is both rational and objective if one places ‘nothingness’ within an existence of an ‘acosmic’ substance such as knowing, consciousness, the intangible, and abstraction. To suggest that ‘nothingness’ is the ultimate form of existence, however, is both irrational and self defeating for our  specie and for ourselves as unique individuals.

The total argument regarding the functionality of nothingness, creation of ‘something’ from ‘nothing’, symmetry leading to nothingness, nothingness through symmetry leading to something, ultimate reductionism of physical symmetry, and more can be found in detail within The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception, Volume II, Tractate 10: The Error of Heidegger.

Basically  Tracate 10 outlines how it is that the universe may evolve from nothingness and as such nothingness lies at the heart of physicality or I suppose one may logically suggest that nothingness lies ‘outside’ the physical while being the medium within which the physical forms and dissapates. While it may be rational to suggest nothingness may lie outside the physical it is not logical to argue that nothingness does not have a ‘location’ of its own. In fact when one reads Tractate 10, one gains a clear understanding that the location of nothingness has its own ‘universal’ fabric within which it forms. The ‘universal’ fabric can be rationally argued to be the intangible/abstraction/timelessness void space. But why do time and space become elements of the universal fabric found outside the physical rather than being infinites (finite infinites: see The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception, Volume I, Tractate 2) of the acosmic? Why do time and space become innate characteristice of a physical universe rather than the acosmic? The answer to this question can be found in Tractate 8: The Error of Einstein found within The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception. It is Einstein who formulated the famous equation: Energy equals the product of mass times the speed of light squared and speed in turn is the quotient of distance squared divided by time squared. In short ‘e’ over ‘m’ equals ‘t’ squared over ‘d’ squared. Time and distance are innate characteristics of a physical universe and thus comprise the ‘universal’ fabric of the physical rather than comprising the ‘universal’ fabric of the abstract within which the physical is found to oscillate to and fro, oscillate from expansion into contraction into expansion, into contraction, endlessly or perhaps only for a specified number of oscillations but oscillating nevertheless.

Remarks

Science is the rationalizing of the observed. Philosophy is the observing of the rationalized. Science observes then explains what it is one has observed using logic, rational analysis, reason. Philosophy rationalizes first then tries to support what it has rationalized through the process of

observations. When philosophy is unable to reinforce its rationality through direct or indirect observations, then we find philosophy begins a journey of self-doubt and second guessing itself. Why it is philosophy finds it reasonable to grant science the fundamental principle wherein science is allowed the license to define scientific principles as best then can and then move on from there while not allowing itself such a license I cannot understand. If philosophy would allow itself the license to state a truth and then move on from that point, philosophy would quickly establish ‘three first truths’ and then move on from there. The ‘three first truths’ would be:

1.       You exist

2.       The universe exists

3.       An ‘outside’ to the universe exists

Such a perception defines panentheism. Once having established the ‘three first truths’ philosophy would then have no choice but to acknowledge that not only do the parts comprise the whole but philosophy would have little choice but to acknowledge that not only do all parts of the whole exists but that all parts of the whole have a function/form of interaction with the whole – symbiosis. The net result is a metaphysical model best labeled: symbiotic panentheism – the being of ‘being’ being ‘Being – the existence of the individual acting within and having significance to God.

Mysteries of Existence – Beyond the Obvious: Fundamental Ideas – Energy

Copyright 1988 by the Theosophical Society in America, Fourth Printing, 2004.

Fundamental Ideas

• Reality is not limited to that which is perceived by the five senses, or by extension that which is detected by the instrumentation of contemporary science.
• Energy is indestructible
• Consciousness can exist independently of the physical body.
• Skeptics have found no irrefutable proof that consciousness terminates at death while there is a significant body of evidence that it continues.
• Life is an ongoing process of growth that takes place over vast periods of time’. Each human being has the inner potential to create for himself or herself a future whose splendor has no limit.

Page ii

If modern and ancient religions alike are correct in implying the universe was ‘created’ and if Einstein is correct that matter and energy are interchangeable in form then one must conclude that energy was not only ‘created’ but is capable of being ‘uncreated’/destroyed.

The Theosophical Society had it correct for Blavatsky’s time in history but the Theosophical Society has little choice but to update their terminology.

As such, ‘energy’ now needs to be replaced with ‘consciousnesses’.

The above then would read:

Fundamental Ideas

• Reality is not limited to that which is perceived by the five senses, or by extension that which is detected by the instrumentation of contemporary science.
• Consciousness [as opposed to ‘energy’] is indestructible
• Consciousness can exist independently of the physical body.
• Skeptics have found no irrefutable proof that consciousness terminates at death while there is a significant body of evidence that it continues.
• Consciousness [as opposed to ‘physical life’] is an ongoing process of growth that takes place over vast periods of time’. Each human being has the inner potential to create for himself or herself a future whose splendor has no limit.

Separating consciousness from energy would then reinforce bullets 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Updating the terminology brings theosophy back into line with modern scientific, religious, and philosophical advances.

The metaphysical model of symbiotic panentheism reinforces the second set of fundamental ideas whereas the first set of theosophical fundamental ideas are in stark contrast to the metaphysical model of symbiotic panentheism since the metaphysical model of symbiotic panentheism provides the rationale supporting religious perceptions that ‘The Unmanifested’ (Theosophical concept)/God (religious concept)  is capable of ‘creating’ energy - matter/physical universes and does so with a purpose in mind.

Definition:

Hedonism: Altruistic

The doctrine that altruistic pleasure is the only good and proper goal of moral behavior.

Definition:

Hedonism: Physical

The doctrine that physical pleasure is the only good and proper goal of moral behavior.

Images - Idols

Question

If the ‘outer limits’ of reality are composed of matter, energy, space, and time how can altruistic (intangible) concepts ever supercede the desire to ‘accumulate’ the physical. One may argue that power would exemplify the intangible overriding the tangible but would not the desire for power be simply the desire to find the means to ‘accumulate’ and ‘acquire’?

Introduction

Pagan idols are of silver and gold: (Amos 9: 7 - 9)

paganism: 1. heathen; 2.  one who has little or no religion and delights in sensual pleasures and material goods: an irreligious or hedonistic person (Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary – Tenth Edition)

Analysis

Since symbiotic panentheism establishes the rationality  (Shepard, Daniel J, The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception, Vol. II, Tractate 9: The Error of Russell, Caution 2 – This section is intended only for the religiously inclined, Global Academic Publishing, Binghamton University SUNY, Binghamton, New York) that God, the whole is not composed of the tangible. Symbiotic panentheism establishes the rationality that God is composed of the intangible. In addition, symbiotic panentheism establishes the rationality that the physical universe is found within God, establishes the rationality that the physical universe is found within the whole. Since silver and gold epitomize the ultimate of physical attainment, any form of the physical including idols of silver and gold cannot symbolize God. Therefore any symbolic representation of a god using the material of silver and gold or matter and energy is a pagan idol rather than a representation of  ‘the Lord’ that is the ‘one’ God specifically referred to in the Judaic texts.

Remarks

As regards the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary inclusionism of sensual pleasure and material goods within the definition of paganism: Hedonism typically is considered as the desire to attain material wealth and physical pleasure.

With the advent of symbiotic panentheism, hedonism now finds itself divided into two forms: (Shepard, Daniel J, The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception, Vol. I, Tractate 2: The Error of Kant, Part II: Resolving the paradox (of Cartesianism) - Introduction, Global Academic Publishing, Binghamton University SUNY, Binghamton, New York.):

The desire for the tangible:          Physical Hedonism

The desire for the intangible:       Altruistic Hedonism

Paganistic idols thus become representative of a ‘false’ god for the physical/the tangible is simple a part of the ‘greater’ whole, a part of the intangible.