Friday, March 12, 2010

1 Before the Beginning...

Before the beginning, before space and time, there was nothing but pure consciousness. And consciousness had neither pattern nor form, only awareness. Then consciousness had a thought which unfolded into countless dimensions. This multi-dimensional metaverse still lacked space and time but it now quivered with limitless mathematical potential.

Then consciousness had a particular thought. In a twinkling, our entire universe was imagined in the fullness of its complexity, from the tiniest quanta through the greatest astral body; every animal, vegetable, and mineral; every element; every thing. At the moment this thought occurred, the metaverse vibrated with every organizing principle needed to shape and sustain space and time, energy and mass.

All was in ideal balance. Every system was theoretically in tune; every function perfectly performed; the consequence of every action anticipated, understood, and plotted to the nth degree. And it was all good.

Having had this thought, the metaversal consciousness focused inward, and that concentrated thought became a singular point of limitless energetic potential—enough to seed our universe. On this day that time began, consciousness wrapped itself around the expanding space of our universe, forming a border between us and infinity. God’s mind took on a shape.


21 comments:

  1. Process Note: For me, the Simple Explanation always begins at the cosmological level, with this creation model. This is because, the way I see it, all else proceeds deductively and inevitably from this original source. I say "deductively" because when I consider the world I see around me and how things work and what their relationships are, my mind calls up an image of a 3-D torus in dynamic motion which I extrapolate out onto or superimpose upon what I am observing or pondering. The resultant narratives are all thusly deduced from this cosmological creation model. And I say "inevitably" because, while the starting point may precede the origin of the universe, the ending point is here and now and the observation close at hand, thus the outcome is inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You will notice that the story of creation told here sounds familiar. Readers who believe in God will ascribe this creation to God, The Creator. Readers who would rather not believe in "God" may ascribe this creation to the great Unity, or call this the Ground of Creation or some such. And readers with an exclusively rational bent may prefer to not believe in any entity behind the matter and simply call it the Big Bang. If I'm right about the Simple Explanation, it shouldn't matter what meme you happen to hold concerning God or Creation, the model will still work for you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Time presents mathematics a job; to correlate present and past. But, what is done and what is to be done seem not respective of either: as present is not to be done and past is not done while present is to be done and past is done.

    Given time, proximity, and intensity in one instance, such as one observing this product of another, two perspectives approach; one from the theoretical future, and one from the empirical past; just as one and another of us view the comma at the end of this phrase, and the two arcs of either perspective coincide… so that they cancel each other or resonate around the period at the end of this sentence.

    Now, as if two ships on an ocean passing in the night, the echoes of that coincidence could be plotted in mutually receding arcs: thus through common arithmetic and measurement, representation of the coincidence resolves in figure what is past with what is present.Viewed as whole, the graph in one instance appears as if two arcs overlap.

    That may be why I imagine numbers are shaped like footballs. And not hard to imagine, numbers and words together are toroidal.

    Thank you for the opportunity you have given to express.

    No URL: greg hope (gregarithm@hotmail.com)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nicely put. In Sanskrit terms we might call the toroid that expresses the numbers and words "chit" for consciousness/pure knowledge. I think this chit is the substance the toroidal shape is "composed" of, and it carries the fractal formula for our universe. It sounds as though you are considering how to truly measure and formulate time and interrelationships.

    ReplyDelete
  5. i think perhaps "God(dess)" put a very precisely similar notion in my head. To me it seems the Eternal ever present past present and future, seems to the ordinary mind as a series of moments in a time continuum. because if you project multidimensional reality onto the three dimensions that we ordinarily perceive then each "moment relativistically speaking appears to evlolve and devolve in an unstable way from the previous in the direction that it is pushed by the inertial of the past,... but in fact all possible moments exist like god (dess) examining him-merself inside an endlessly self reflective mirror box...

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not sure my first attempt to post this came through? Wow!!!!!! About forty years ago, having heard nothing of chakras or meditation, I had a dream in which i observed the most perfect spiral figure that looked almost exactly like what you show here, i likenned it to the head of a sunflower, in seed,...I HAD,... heard, that Edgar Casey described the basic fabric of the universe as three interlocking vortexes. a few years earlier. I have spent these forty years variously exploring mezzo american Shamanism, yoga meditation, and also my biggest interest in science, the description of the cosmos in terms of interelocking nested (recursive ) torus like shapes that are like a teseract in topological terms. See the mathematical cosmology of Garret Lisi. I have been filling notebooks with notes on these mobious strip. like, fourth dimensional "Bagels" and relating them to the current cosmologies including string theory for about 30 years. I was just telling a close friend, two days ago, that the mandala vision of thousand petal lotus of my dream (crown Chakra) also described by Lahiri Mahasaya (1800s), is probably the basic shape of the universe (four dimensional interlocking toroidal shapes,..I've been working out the details of for 30-40 years and apparently independantly co-rediscovered by Garret Lisi and also by you!!!!!
    Geoffrey Reed
    341 maplewood Ave Bridgeport CT 06605

    ReplyDelete
  7. That is very cool, indeed, Geoffrey. I'll bet you our research perfectly complements each other. We can learn from each other. :-)
    Can't wait to see what you make of the rest of the articles. You'll eat this up!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Didn't see my previous attempt to post, so I will try again. I share your belief that consciousness is inhernet to this universe. Physics admits that it cannot know the conditions prior to the Big Bang as the laws of physics do not apply. Why do you propose that "before" this universe, Consciousness had two thoughts (as opposed to one or many) that created this universe? What about other universes (multiverses are generally accepted by phycisicts today)? String theory is also very accepted. How would String theory affect your theory? What is the scientically accepted evidence for your simple theory of everything? Seems like you take spiritual beliefs and make them into scientific facts...like reincarnation (which I do not believe in). Christianity is not the only notable exception to a belief in reincarnation. Historically, reincarnation is only indigenous to religions born in India (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism). Outside that context there are no other historical religions that believe in reincarnation that I am aware of. It is in the minority. It is not found in Islam, Judaism, Taosim, Shintoism, Shamanism, ancient Egyptian religion, primitive/indigenous belief systems (like Animism) throughout the world, etc. Same thing with your belief in karma, which I don't share. I don't have a scientific grand unified theory like the one you propose. I'm simply not smart enough! I give you credit for trying!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Correction to above post. Meant to say that I agree that consciousness is intrinsic to the universe, which has not been proved by science. Obviously consciousnesss is inherent to the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Boy do I feel stupid Inherent and intrinsic mean the same thing!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Where is free will if, as stated in your first principle "Before the Beginning", "the consequence of every action was anticipated, understood, and plotted to the nth degree"? Sounds deterministic. I am a determinist and don't object. But it seems like you don't intend to be, because you speak of free will. And how can you speak of Consciousness focusing "inward" when there would be no inward or outward reference for pure Consciousness? And what would constitute the 'first' "thought" without language or objects or senses or perceptions or references of any kind? Use of the word "then" when speaking of pure consciousness having the 'primordial' thought implies time...before the thought and after the thought but before the creation of time as you tell the story!? God is an unnecessary word. It carries too much baggage...usually of an anthropomorphic type. Perhaps this should be read as a myth not as philosophy and science. All creation stories are myths in every belief system except to believers who take the story as fact! Anything prior to the Big Bang is conjecture at best. The following description could be equally plausible: "Prior to"(a figure of speech only)the Big Bang, Pure Consciousness(no subject or object), being pure potential energy, actualized its potential as a hot, vibrating, dense singularity of energy which began expanding as this universe of space-time-mind. This process could happen without beginning or end, creating multiverses with physical and mathematical laws potentially different from each other and potentially no interaction between them. The Omniverse would be all inclusive of multiverses. The Omniverse, being finite, would be contained in Pure Consciousness, which is infinite. One could only speak of science, philosophy, mind in terms of the laws of this universe. The rest is pure speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The Father of Post-Modernism and Deconstruction, Jacques Derrida, says, "The history of philosophy is a history of the search for a Logos, an originary source or presence which is pure and beyond the physical world." As Stephen Wolinski says, "Logocentric behaviour and the logocentric drive is a drive to find the center, origin, or cause of everything and is hardwired into the nervous system as a way to organize chaos, and hence survive." There is no source or logos outside of language and words which are a descriptive representation of nothing. All words refer to other words for meaning endlessly. This is referred to as "differance" by Derrida. It means there is no reference outside, prior to, or separate from language. Source is an abstracted representation of nothing, and therefore does not exist outside of language. Source is an illusion.

    ReplyDelete
  13. re:anonymous comments June 28, 6:45 am
    Thank you for reading and taking the time to comment! I appreciate it. The theory needs discussion in order to develop properly.

    asked: Why do you propose that "before" this universe, Consciousness had two thoughts (as opposed to one or many) that created this universe?
    I'm saying that consciousness without thought/language is undifferentiated awareness. This condition is rarely glimpsed by us, imbued as we are in language and thought. It's the nil, zen state of no-thought.
    I don't mean that there were two thoughts. I asked myself what would be the result if an uberconsciousness did have a thought? One thought would be all thoughts. One thought would be an infinitely cascading series of thoughts. All possibilities imagined at once; all uncollapsed potentials imagined but not reified.
    asked: What about other universes (multiverses are generally accepted by phycisicts today)?
    Yes, all multiverses, all string dimensions, in uncollapsed potentiality. (contrasted with our limited 3-D/4-D universe of collapsed, instantiated space, time, matter.
    asked: What is the scientically accepted evidence for your simple theory of everything?
    Read the toroidal articles on this blog, particularly those concerning physics and astronomy. I'm proposing that the torus is the basic shape out of which everything arises. There are mathematicians and scientists who have published papers on toroidal shapes. I'll be reposting them as I have time.
    asked: Seems like you take spiritual beliefs and make them into scientific facts...like reincarnation (which I do not believe in).
    Yes, it looks that way. Although I'm not making up the scientific facts. I am, however, looking for them and collecting them.
    asked: Christianity is not the only notable exception...
    This comment on religion will take me more time to review and comment. Please be patient.

    ReplyDelete
  14. re: June 28, 1:40 comments.
    Yes, I use the word "God" for the primordial consciousness because of my own linguistic bias. But as the Simple Explanation has developed, I've taken to calling it "Metaversal Principles," more often than not. Read the post "Diagramming the Ineffable" for alternative words to "God."
    Also, please read the "Free Will and Quantum Foam" article, which I hope clearly explains my concept of free will and determinism.
    Then please read the articles "The Fractal Root of Consciousness" and "The Fractal Edge of Undifferentiated Consciousness" for an explanation of "inside" and "outside." You're right, there's no place in the undiffentiated field.
    Your creation myth sounds good, too. Doesn't contradict mine; different terms.
    Yes, it's all speculation. This is speculative philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. re: comments from June 29, 6:45 am.

    I disagree with Derrida and Wolinski here. Through wordless meditation and direct non-linguistic insight, it is possible to get out in front of language. The problem that arises is the translation of non-linguisitc insight into language in order to share it with others or to reconstruct it in one's own mind.
    Read my simple explanation of dreams article for more on meditative heuristics, including a link to a scholarly article of mine on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  16. No comments on the other postings about "Before the Beginning"?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes, I did post answers to everything you asked or commented upon! One and a half hours yesterday instead of the mountain of ironing sitting on the table, begging to be pressed.

    What a disappointment. I wonder what happened to those comments of mine, because they were definitely there.

    Now I stare at the ironing still to do and it must now be done.

    Basically, my responses pointed to other articles on the Simple Explanation blog which address your concerns--"Free will and quantum foam;" the two articles with "Fractal" in the title, and "Diagramming the Ineffable" for a slightly different creation myth. Sorry I can't write any more now. Must do women's work.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I use the word "God" due to my own theistic bent. This article was the very first ever written on the Simple Explanation. Since that time I have taken to calling it "Metaversal Principles" which is not anthropomorphic in the least. When speaking of the organizational principles "trapped" inside our universal space, I call it the Universal Unit of Consciousness.

    I'll comment more precisely on your other comments as time permits. Like after I do the ironing!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Aha! The comments were in my spam box. Rather ironic that my own blog thinks I'm a spammer! Thanks for asking where the comments were, or I wouldn't have found them in spam.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This is such a stunning blog, Cyd!

    I've almost read all of your posts! Love how you explain so many important things in such a simple way, that everyone can understand them! :)

    I've followed a lot of blogs and must say, this is one of my favorite blogs, with all the pictures and explanations! Keep it up! :)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Felix! Thank you for saying "stunning." What a lovely and powerful way to say it. Tell your friends!

    ReplyDelete