Mystics and Zero

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/09/2000 5:12:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,

ivanf writes:

 

<<

It appears that the scientific discoveries, postulates and

statements of modern physicists are now beginning to resemble the

intuitions and revelations of mystics of all ages.

>>

I believe on a Jewel list, I wrote recently: If mystics

had the language of physicists, we'd have had the laws

of physics centuries ago, having both helps one to

understand this is not a postulate but a fact.

 

Here's a question: In the manifestation - demanifestation

as spoken of are we at Earth - Water - Fire - Air - Aether or

Earth Water Air Fire Aether ? I had a lengthy discussion

with a scientist~spiritual person tonight. One of us believed

that the big bang created the gases, the other that the gases

and air existed and collated into the dense masses needed

for a bing bang by the black hole.

 

So, what do you all think?

 

van der ZeroZon going zzzzs as it's late :-)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/10/2000 11:14:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,

mark.otter writes:

 

<< Dear Bo,

 

I love you, but I object to your comments here. As a trained physicist

and an untrained mystic, I wonder why you feel the need to separate

human beings into two camps and postulate that one is smarter/faster

than the other based on completely speculative reasoning? The language

of physics was created by careful systematic observation, and you may

well be right that if mystics had done similar careful systematic

observation, they may well have done it faster, but how can you know

that? Why compete in this way? >>

 

Hi Mark,

 

This was not meant as a competition, perhaps your question

is why is that your perspective? What was meant is that, in

response to Ivan's post, yes, Mystics touch the field of unification,

we see it. So, the GUT theory doesn't need to answer

the question of why do the equations of gravity fall apart

when they meet the equations of quantum theory. Gravity

applies to a smaller system. Grand Unified Theory applies

to the whole, so, as mystics see this if they had the systematic

language as you call it, of mathematics, then it could be

described because the mystic doesn't think it, the mystic

knows this to be true.

 

Between thinking and knowing is the breadth of a hair,

and the breadth makes all the difference, and your hair dresser

doesn't know for sure *g*.

 

There is no competition, one is a collection of information

and knowledge of mathematics and the study of laws, the

other is a known ingredient of touching the face of God.

 

Much Love and Light,

Rainbows playing in Leela to you

[Guest guest]

Dear Bo,

 

I love you, but I object to your comments here. As a trained physicist

and an untrained mystic, I wonder why you feel the need to separate

human beings into two camps and postulate that one is smarter/faster

than the other based on completely speculative reasoning? The language

of physics was created by careful systematic observation, and you may

well be right that if mystics had done similar careful systematic

observation, they may well have done it faster, but how can you know

that? Why compete in this way? I propose (as someone who regards

himself as both a physicist and a mystic) that we celebrate the language

and strategies of physicists and that we also celebrate the love and

honoring of the mysterious evidenced by mystics and join ranks to make

use of these two quite divergent skills and knowledge bases, giving

credit where credit is due, rather than making unfounded claims about

who's process is faster or slower.

 

Rainbolily wrote:

> In a message dated 11/09/2000 5:12:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> ivanf writes:

> If mystics

> had the language of physicists, we'd have had the laws

> of physics centuries ago, having both helps one to

> understand this is not a postulate but a fact.

[Guest guest]

Rainbolily wrote:

>

 

Hi Bo,

 

Mark again... (I hope I clipped the right parts of the previous message

to indicate I was meaning to reply to your reply to Ivan, not to Ivan's

post directly... well anyway.) If I understand your question below, you

are asking a group of mystics to pontificate on whether the widely

accepted (albeit still tentative as are all scientific theories) picture

of the universe coming into existence in a "big bang" is correct versus

a model in which the universe already existed prior to its existence?

Is that what you mean by the phrase "One of us believed

that the big bang created the gases, the other that the gases

and air existed and collated into the dense masses needed

for a bing bang by the black hole. "?

 

Physicists very carefully avoid trying to extrapolate backwards to

before the singularity which is called the big bang. May I try to

clarify what I mean by this? As I understand the big bang theory, what

we observe in the universe today is something called a red shift, which

is thought to be caused by the Doppler effect. (yeah, some

clarification, huh? bear with me....) My Father used to enjoy startling

me by swinging his electric razor past my ear. Luckily I never lost any

of it, so once I calmed down, what I noticed (with prompting from Dad

the teacher) was that while the razor was moving alarmingly quickly

towards my ear, it sounded high pitched, and while it was moving away

from my ear, and I was recovering from first chakra activation, it

sounded lower pitched. Well the same thing happens with light, so that

things moving towards us have color that looks more blue (analogous to

higher pitched) and things that are moving away look more red. Well,

just about everything we see in the universe (stars, etc) look more red

than the would if standing still with respect to us) So, the "obvious"

conclusion is that the universe is expanding. (imaging a loaf of raisin

bread in the oven. As the bread rises, all of the raisins are moving

away from each other) Once this conclusion is reached, it is not too

surprising that physicists want to imagine runnning the "film"

backwards, and while you can imagine that the universe is a pretty big

place, if you run the film backwards long enough, without altering the

speed at which things are shrinking (because we are imagining the

expansion going backwards, remember), eventually they get really small

and disappear. Now that's as bold as physicists in general get. And

remember that we are talking about running the film backwards in our

mind's eye, but that's just to try to understand where we all came from,

and the universe is really running forwards, so it's expanding. So the

standard picture is that at some time in the past (still arguing about

when, of course), out of nothing suddenly something exploded and when I

say exploded, I really mean EXPLODED. It's thought to have been way hot

in the first seconds - way hotter than the sun, which is pretty warm.

In the early part of the universe it was so hot that only light existed

(according to the big bang model, of course) Then after some time, the

light cooled down and some of it became matter (gas - hydrogen to be

precise) which eventually cooled down enough to coalesce into big chunks

of hydrogen, called stars, in which all the other kinds of matter

(helium, oxygen, iron, etc) was created.

 

Okay, so now to your question. The Big bang model just talks about from

the explosion forward, so nothing into light into hydrogen, into the

universe as we see it today. But, many folks love to ask what will

happen in the future? This is an interesting question with 3 possible

answers. The answers depend on how much stuff there is. If there is

only a little stuff 9cosmicaly seaking of course), the universe just

keeps expanding, everything gets cold and the whole thing gets boring.

If there is precisely a specific amount of stuff, it basically does the

same thing, only the expansion gets slower and slower until it is

expanding so slowly that for all intents and purposes, we call it

static, but that's also cold and boring. If there is more than this

much stuff, at some point, the whole thing reverses and the universe

starts collapsing and then we can keep on running the film forward and

it will all collapse into a point. Some folks like to think that this

is what will happen and that this is what has already happened an

infinite number of times, so that the universe explodes into existence,

expands for awhile, creating all sorts of interesting life forms,

collapses back into nothing and then does it all over again. I like

this idea and I would propose we change the laws of physics each time it

explodes, kind of like turning the wheel on a kaleidescope, but who

knows for sure? I don't think even my hairdresser really knows...

 

 

Love, Mark

>

> Here's a question: In the manifestation - demanifestation

> as spoken of are we at Earth - Water - Fire - Air - Aether or

> Earth Water Air Fire Aether ? I had a lengthy discussion

> with a scientist~spiritual person tonight. One of us believed

> that the big bang created the gases, the other that the gases

> and air existed and collated into the dense masses needed

> for a bing bang by the black hole.

>

> So, what do you all think?

>

> van der ZeroZon going zzzzs as it's late :-)