The ghost universe… a circular paradox.

[_Z_]

Hello everyone, I am new here so I thought I would post this little idea I have been thinking about lately – I am relatively new to forums so be gentle!

If there are similar threads I apologise.





The ghost universe… a circular paradox.



The ‘place’ before the universe existed is the same as the place after existence, thus if you were [in metaphoric terms] ‘god’ & existed in that ‘place’ then you would know everything that is going to happen because it would have already happened! But you would not be able to change anything because it has either happened or has yet to happen at once? Depending on your time directional perspective.
So the universe viewed from an external perspective is both dead & unborn yet eternally alive within it’s own circular paradox!



Perhaps prophecy is possible, because in the original self/primal place – everything is history & ‘known’ so to say.

Omniscience & prophecy? What do you think people? I believe that we can access this source of wisdom & knowledge through meditation [as it is not in linguistic form!]. If god exists [or ‘is’ without existing] then he knows too!
Note: the end of universe knowledge would not be all knowledge as such, rather the resultant knowledge of it all i.e. wisdom + the understanding of principle.





Ok so the first argument I thought of about this is that, as I believe there are no divisions between things [in absolute terms], thus there is probably no actual beginning or end! Then there is the idea floating around that the universe may be infinite and that the singularity ‘appeared’ on an infinite plain. Either way I still believe in a primary nature/ultimate nature – the common unifier within the multiplicity, this is the source of all things including the physical universe [whatever its shape/type], infinity and the spiritual universe, together I will identify as – if I may – the omniverse.



So what do you think ladies n gents?

[I, Brian]

It's an intriguing premies, and I have to admit it's something I've thought about a lot myself - I love the whole Free Will vs Predestined argument and personally find that the further away from the individual perspective you move, the less independent personal behaviours seem to be.

[_Z_]

Hello I, brain, yes it’s a complex argument, I am all for free will – yet this surely must operate within certain parameters as like the rest of existence. I believe that destiny is like a guide rather than a rigid line of development i.e. we do this then that like a computer program without realising. Prediction cannot therefore be absolutely accurate – yet we may perceive a path or set of paths along which one may travel. I am also questioning the very idea of ‘paths’ though! As this would suggest that there is a ‘way’ that an individual treads. I like to think that there are no ‘ways’ either defined or pre-defined, I have just re-read the Tao Te ching [I last read it some 15 years ago], and I am even considering if there is an unwritten way! Would this still not have similar pitfalls as a defined way [linguistic – based on dualistic conceptualisation]?



Still I am sure you have many threads around concerning the Tao, so ill head back to the idea of prophecy. If we could see the future from a historical perspective, then we could perhaps know what is going to happen! If e.g. we then told someone that such and such is going to happen, then this would effect causality [for want of a better term], meaning that there path would have been written – which it cannot! Thus we could only ‘see’ that which is non-personal or non-effectual? Yet just through intellectual deduction one can make presumptions about where things are heading in someone’s life, thus this plus the ‘vision’ of future history may perhaps be combined as what we term ‘prophecy’.

[InLove]

Hi Z, and Peace to All Here--

Originally Posted by Z

The ‘place’ before the universe existed is the same as the place after existence, thus if you were [in metaphoric terms] ‘god’ & existed in that ‘place’ then you would know everything that is going to happen because it would have already happened! But you would not be able to change anything because it has either happened or has yet to happen at once? Depending on your time directional perspective.
So the universe viewed from an external perspective is both dead & unborn yet eternally alive within it’s own circular paradox!

Call me crazy, but to me, this makes total sense. I have not much problem with the idea that there is One who is uncreated. And I have no problem understanding that time to this One belongs to this One alone, and that this One's creation has not yet fully understood this time, or this timing. This One has reason--and within this One, we may have some reason as well, but we do not yet fully comprehend.

Re: what you mentioned concerning linguistics: Language does get in the way, but do you think we should all stop speaking? (LOL--sometimes I think so) I believe that all the confusion that comes from language is merely a big part of the equation--an equation that is solved, but yet misunderstood.

InPeace,
InLove

[Silverbackman]

If I understand this theory correctly it is basicly trying to explain God, Time, and the Universe? That God himself is either the creator of this universe which he has already has already for seen because he exsists outside the laws of time or that he maybe the universe himself. Or perhaps God is also a servent to time, even though he created the universe he still is apart of the universe which has already begun.

These concepts of god, the universe, and infinite time is very hard on the human mind.

[InLove]

Hi Silverbackman (interesting screen name)--

Well, I cannot speak for anyone else here, but it seems to me that what you are thinking about it all works out just fine in the end.

InPeace,
InLove

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Unfortunately, from a physical point of view, this is not possible. Nothing can have existed before the universe because 'before' is a function of time and time is a dimension of the universe, so anything which did exist before the universe would have had to exist in a very different form to what we, today, call existence. A non linear existence, without time.

However, as I am writing this, it occurs to me that this information actually supports the theory. If 'God' witnessed the universe the last time around then he would have seen everything that happened from his vantage point outside of time, then he could have actually caused it to be based on what he had seen. The universe he had created would have been the same universe that he would later witness, which in turn he would again create.

Is this the sort of thing you were talking about Z?

[_Z_]

Hello inlove: thanx for the interesting reply. I think we have to be a little crazy to understand the omniverse, then again perhaps ‘normal people’ are the crazy ones! The uncreated one; yes if the ultimate nature/primordial being [whatever we want to call it] has infinity within its belly – so to say – then it cannot be created, it is simply always there.

Linguistics can get in the way, but we can get past this by not taking things to literally. Words can be specific in holistic terms [& relative to apparent finite things], but when we are talking about things that are universal, spiritual or infinite & eternal then metaphore is a the only way to arrive at some kind of understanding imho, I think of things in terms of ‘envelopement’ rather than spcifics. We cannot define the ultimate nature yet we may say what it is not – highlighting what it may be.



Silverbackman: hello! If ‘god’ is universal then ‘he’ ‘exists’ throughout space-time & infinite time [if I may], although I don’t think of god in traditional terms. For me the spirit is singular, plural, universal & omni-present! Thence we have these qualities as we have spirit, so that would make ‘god’ a part of us & us him! This is why I believe that we too can tap into what I call the book with no name [similar to the akashic book of records - a Hindu notion of universal memory & all knowledge. I agree that once created/manifest of its own volition, then the great spirit would have to act in accordance with the laws and principles of that which is manifest. In eternity [imo] things can be created and un-created as needs be thus spirit has its freedom there.


Awaiting the fifth: hello, nice to meat you! yes I have heard this argument before [my brother is a physicist], I had hoped that I got past it in the original post! Infinite time [timelessness – paradoxically being a form of time] is an expression of omni-time just as quantized time is – imho. Not that time is the only thing involved here, as we are talking about universal spirit/being too. It is in this context that you understand what I am saying in the context of ‘god’ as an external entity if you will – so glad that you all understand me – no one else seams too!



Ps. I may not explain what I mean too well – I must try and keep away from science, its far too boxed & you cant put spirit in a test tube eh!

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by _Z_

when we are talking about things that are universal, spiritual or infinite & eternal then metaphore is a the only way to arrive at some kind of understanding imho

With the cruel irony being that when the meaning of the metaphor is lost, it will eventually be understood literally and often have assigned to it the very opposite of its meaning.

[_Z_]

Abogado del Diablo: hello!

That is so true! In history religion began as philosophy without language, then ends up as dogmatism! A sad decline whilst ascending imho. Perhaps it has all gone around in a big circle and it will end up similar as it began – but with hindsight.