conception of the universe

[Rosie]

The human being starts off as a single celled zygote. Thirty six hours after conception, the zygote begins to rapidly divide. Soon, the cells divide into specific organs and begin to take on different functions, and eventually something that resembles a baby is formed.

It makes you wonder, how could one cell possibly turn in to a human being?

Perhaps the entire universe started off as one point of energy, that eventually transformed in to more and more energy. Quantum mechanics, and it's unpredictability would be the answer to the creation of the Universe. Since energy can’t be created or destroyed, it would exist for all of time, and would have the possibility of creating an infinite amount of universes.

If this incredibly powerful being created the world, wouldn’t it make sense for him to model the conception of a human after the conception of the universe?

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by Rosie

Perhaps the entire universe started off as one point. Infinity would be contained within that one single piece of energy.

That's basically a summation of the big-bang theory of the creation of the universe.

Originally Posted by Rosie

Since energy can’t be destroyed, it would exist for all of time, and would have the possibility of creating infinite universes.

Well, no. An infinite number of universes would mean an infinite number of you, an infinite number of monitors that you're looking at, an infinite number of NotesMaeve's cakes, an infinite number of motorcycles in my infinite number of garages (that would be SWEET!)... There wouldn't be room for an infinite number of things or an infinite amount of energy even in an infinite universe.

The number of universes might be massive - in the googlezillions (if that's a number... I figure you get the point) - but it can't be infinite.

[Rosie]

I said that it has the possibility to create infinite universes. I never said that it did.

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by Rosie

I said that it has the possibility to create infinite universes. I never said that it did.

Perhaps I misunderstood.

My bad.

[ixmatus]

The more fundamental question, I think, would be: What is 'the' conception of the Universe?

In answering, my conclusion has always provided a model for how my consciousness is moving, evolving, and shifting; and is less of "Huh, I was made in the image of Gawd." I know you didn't 'say' after the image of God, but technically the Universe IS God nonetheless, hence my assumptive statement.

Your question (as I am interpreting it), therefore, has a much more subtle motif underlying it; an inquiry not so much concerned with whether "the conception of man was made after the conception of the Universe", but, about whether the Being (self-aware and autonomous) that is you is modeling its conception of self - or - whether its conception of self is modeling the Being that is you.

In that conception, lies the model conception of the Universe and everything else that is possibly conceivable by the conceiver, even the conceiver is capable of conceiving its self. So, now the whole inquiry is muddled with complexity which is a sure indicator that we are trying to conceive of more than we need to be.

My simple solution? To keep on inquiring.

[Rosie]

Yes it is pretty much a summation of the big bang theory. I didn't realise it until you said that. None the less, it does make a lot of sense, and is the most probable (atleast from my perspective) model for the conception of the universe.

[torilink]

Originally Posted by Rosie

Yes it is pretty much a summation of the big bang theory. I didn't realize it until you said that. None the less, it does make a lot of sense, and is the most probable (at least from my perspective) model for the conception of the universe.

In Kabbalah they call this unfurlment - the process of one center source (Creator God) dividing into the male/female duality (adam kadamon) then giving birth to all that exists (allthatis).

I too think that there is a center source from which all extends. But, I also think that this unfurlment - this extension of source energy (no matter how vast the extension) is still contained within source.

Or I should say that no matter how vast the unfurlment, all things contained within it are source energy. Nothing leaves its source or the creation doesn't exist outside the creator.

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Rosie

Since energy can’t be created or destroyed, it would exist for all of time, and would have the possibility of creating an infinite amount of universes.

If this incredibly powerful being created the world, wouldn’t it make sense for him to model the conception of a human after the conception of the universe?

Most people place creation outside of themselves. They want to use laws to attract stuff, but don't want responsibility when it comes to being god. If you can create one thing in your life, why not everything and why not the whole thing.

I consider that the entire universe is very small compared to the perception of it. We're always look outward for answers and solutions, but we create most of them inside without realising it and on purpose through focus and attention. I don't buy the 'god/something out there doing it all' model, it places control and responsibility outside. We might as well be puppets and/or victims.

For years I've been seeking and inquiring, but no model outside of self seems to make sense and to be reliable and workable.

Max

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Rosie

If this incredibly powerful being created the world, wouldn’t it make sense for him to model the conception of a human after the conception of the universe?

Perhaps. However human development involves intake of nutrients from the environment around the fertilised egg. What's the womb of the universe?

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

There wouldn't be room for an infinite number of things or an infinite amount of energy even in an infinite universe.

Think of a group of 5 numbers. Then think of a group of 5 different number. And another 5. Now assume you could keep thinking of 5 different numbers indefinitely (i.e., you'd never die). Would an infinite set of numbers ever run out of "room" for sets of 5 numbers?

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

The number of universes might be massive - in the googlezillions (if that's a number... I figure you get the point) - but it can't be infinite.

Why not?

[Jennihul]

That's what the old Hermetic saying "As above so below; as below so above; as within so without; as without so within..." refers to.


Everything that exists is holographic...

Jennifer

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Jennihul

Everything that exists is holographic...

Created by lasers?

[ixmatus]

@Mark: lol, I almost posted a very similar response till I refreshed and saw yours.

@Jenni:

That book, "The Holographic Universe" has bestowed the word "Holographic" with undue misinterpretation. There is nothing holographic about 'space' itself, punch through a wall and you will find that out.

However, counter-space being the inverse of space may have a more appropriate relationship to the idea of 'energy' or 'vibration' constituting the formed attributes of space (holography is still an inappropriate connotation to these concepts, however). The torsion fields (interactions) between these two regions, in varying degrees of complexity, produce the Being and other entities we find difficult to reproduce on a singular physical level.

That's my take on it, anyways.