If you read what we have been doing, Bkuehlhorn, then you can see that all our wrangling has been about communication.
You desire communication one way; I desire communication another way.
We both agreed already that the material aspects of the universe are where we find the facts, that matter is a result, and that we are not going to get any data from the prior state.
If we declare the material aspects of the universe a room, then you are saying we must communicate inside the room and use just what pertains to the room. You want to close windows and doors.
I want doors and windows to be open because smelling the roses does not mean I am outside the room, but it does provide information about that outside reality. Smelling the roses, you do not want to do that, and when someone says to be smelling roses you actually ignore that information, even when I know by now you can smell those roses, too.
---
I think the analogies of the 3 options about how God did it are helpful. God created creation:
A/ From Nothing
B/ From the whole of God
C/ From parts of God
I am not a religious person myself. I am not a believer. I won't use the word God below.
Following these three basic models, we can have a look at the materialization process.
Version A
Indeed, a good number of scientists state that the universe came from nothing. It is not as popular anymore as it was in the 1980s (almost all claimed it was true back then). Version A still has its followers.
-- Of course, I reject it. Not as a model, but as it being realistic. It violates logical thinking to have something come from nothing. It reeks of people taking a short cut in their brains.
Version B
Most other scientists state that the whole of the universe is indeed all there is. It gets tricky to discuss this properly because the terminology, using the word whole in a contexts that includes also that what cannot be known scientifically, leaves us no clear delineation. But it is solid, since it includes the option that we ourselves have not captured all information that is or may become available to us. Hence, the option to discuss dark energy or Dark Matter, while still discussing the whole, leaving it whole. The essence of Version B contains the idea that all is ultimately connected to the whole.
-- I recognize this as possible. Definitively so as a model. But it is particularly with the starting up of the materialization process that I see people take short cuts and confusing deviations. Said differently how I view this in particular, if an entire prior reality (of unknown qualities) transformed 100% into the next state, I would expect it to fail. And I would expect it to fail rather quickly and not endure more than 13.8 billion years and ongoing.
The only option for success occurs when a fundamental threshold gets passed somehow somewhere, and that is in essence exactly what does not happen in Version B. In Version B, the whole becomes a different kind of whole. None of the declared separations is considered a universe-fundamental separation.
Version C
This version is very much the same as version B, but it incorporates a fundamental separation.
-- I have evidence for this, rejected by many that saw it. Rejected, because not understood.
The folks I communicated with refuse to talk about Version C. They cannot wrap their heads around it. They do not allow windows or doors to smell the roses. They were trained rigidly to close windows and doors, even when discussing the materialization process itself, which in itself should be recognized as some form of passage and not as a solid wall. While not allowing this for themselves, they are also not allowing it for others. They put their fingers in their ears and hum: Nah, nah, nah, nah.
For them, Energy is a closed system -- end of story. Their brains are not malleable to envision how a secondary closed system got birthed by the original closed system. This did of course not add any energy to the whole, but after the establishment we are then looking at two closed systems, and both are still closed from an overall perspective. The total amount of energy did not change.
Very few scientists have the ability to discuss this and not go into a stupor. I don't blame them for the knee-jerk reaction, I actually suspect it coming.
The mathematical evidence I have is spectacular because it shows that Version C is correct, but I was also not the first to show that Version C is correct.
Gödel is not appreciated much by scientists. They reject his information, while it is all we need to change Version B into version C.
You probably reject my mathematical information, too. It is about the basics of math, so it is about the walls of the room and not the contents of the room.
The simplest manner to see it is from the perspective that everything in the universe that can be described using the decimal system can be described using the binary system, too.
In the decimal system, 1 takes in a position of heightened importance. In contrast, in the binary system, 1 is an ordinary number, repeated many times over. There is no 1 like the decimal 1 in the binary system. For instance, unity is a word that can be described with the decimal 1. In the binary system, however, this would, for instance, be 11101001101. That number sequence can be declared unity, and from that moment on anyone accepting this decision will recognize 'unity' in that sequence.
This does not only mean that the human brain can think in different manners. It also means that following one system can trick us into thinking in a certain manner only. If we are not made aware of the structural set-up of our own thinking, then we are using our brains from the inside of an established egg only. We have to crack that shell to bake the omelet.
Bkuehlhorn,
All this is not that important in our daily lives. It is only when we walk ourselves back to the beginning of the materialization process that the way we organized our brains becomes a vital stumble block if we don't recognize what we did ourselves. If we think the universe is the decimal 1 and cannot see it any other way, then we closed one eye and see 2D only.
Version B is the decimal 1.
Version C is recognizing that both the decimal system and the binary system are different ways to describe the whole in numbers.
--
I have no qualms with the facts. I never had any qualms with the facts.
It is with theories, that the human brain set up structurally, that the problems can come about.
When we see a group of people on the beach, we may think they are all the same group. But when walking around the group we may see that there is a clear delineation in-between that was not visible at first. All our first ideas about this entire group (Version B) can get thrown out when we see that Version C is the better model.
We don't have to throw it out. We can take Version C and compare Version B to it, and vice versa. Both models can inform the other model. Our brain has no problem with that, except for those that have learned a specific system of thinking and who put that system at the highest level and do not allow any other form of thinking to get placed at that same level. They were brainwashed, not by learning that system, but by thinking that that system was the only possible way for their brains to tackle issues. Saying this one way is superior, that is the brainwash. When accepted, we put everything else down, even when we encounter another system of the same stature.
--
If you have other models how God could have created creation, I would love to hear that. I got stuck at three versions, but there may be more.
Thank you for not giving up. I really appreciate that.
Very few have come this far, Bkuehlhorn.
