When Did Matter Make Its First "Choice?"

reply to post by Itisnowagain


In your context, at what point did "food" become relevant? That would be getting closer to the presentation of the OP.

Serdgiam
At what point did matter make its first "decision?" And what was the process that enabled such a movement?

We see many things, including us, that are bound to the laws of nature. However, even a child can defy gravity by jumping, even if only for a moment.

There had to be that first moment where a collection of matter decided that it would go in a different direction than the overall laws of physics would have suggested up to that point.

On a different scale, it would be like a planet suddenly going out of orbit. It seems to me that it would be a defining event for creating the universe and world as we know it. Yet, I do not see it approached specifically. It is more of a "given" through whatever ideology is supported by the exploring individual.

But, when did a collection of mass decide to go out of its "orbit?" What size would this mass be, and what do you think was the process leading up to that first momentous occasion?

This notion is founded on the the process that governs matter and not on the matter itself. In Hebrew, matter would be mater / matter / material / mother. This is Aleph mem, or strong waters. Hydrogen would be the best root to this understanding. Hydrogen has one proton and one electron in balance. The early universe was a high state of order and low entropy. One huge hot cup of coffee. The aspect of creation that manages the electron and proton is the Neutron.

The strong nuclear force in nature is the Neutron and Proton in union. The electron is free. Compare this to the Father (Strong House / Aleph Bet) and the Son (Bet Nun). Aleph is strength. Bet is house. Nun is seed.

The Alphabet (Strong House) represents the letters of creation (information). The Son (House of Seed) represents the Word.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

---That long passage describes the hologram (image) that we are inside as a creation of God. This image reflects God Himself. A hologram is information (letters / words) with a light shined on them. This relationship between Father and Son creates the Strong House, or strong nuclear force in nature. As the Bible outlines, the Father is greater than the Son. As this points out, God is in closest relationship with the Father. No one has ever seen God apart from Jesus, who is himself God. What this indicates is the trinity relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Mother) as Elohim. Genesis 1 is Elohim creating mankind and the universe as the image. Genesis 2 is the LORD creating Earth and the garden with restrictions. Adam was a creation of the LORD and mankind is a creation of the Trinity. We are chiral. Below, we are Adam. Above, we are mankind (Angel).

Matthew 18

10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

This is somewhat like the Matrix (Womb / Mater / Mother / Matter). You are connected to your higher self above. Below, you create this nature above.

For anything to combine in nature, there must be a mirror. Chirality is the understanding that all things in nature have a right and left hand. Coalescence is the process of two becoming one new thing. Like a Father and Mother, when combined, they create a Son. In physics, this is known as the catalyst. Water is the catalyst. Your notion that matter made the decision to combine is only part of the process. Matter is the catalyst that allows the other elements to be formed around the Neutral.

The truth of this is beyond the process.

Serdgiam
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

In your context, at what point did "food" become relevant? That would be getting closer to the presentation of the OP.

Food is just energy (a form of energy), energy is constantly moving and appearing different.
Energy has never not been relevant - it is all there is and goes nowhere - it just looks different constantly.

EnochWasRight
For anything to combine in nature, there must be a mirror. Chirality is the understanding that all things in nature have a right and left hand. Coalescence is the process of two becoming one new thing. Like a Father and Mother, when combined, they create a Son. In physics, this is known as the catalyst. Water is the catalyst. Your notion that matter made the decision to combine is only part of the process. Matter is the catalyst that allows the other elements to be formed around the Neutral.

I never suggested that matter made the decision to combine, I am speaking of a different event. Though, by saying it as such, you did clarify what may be one of the points of confusion amongst thread participants. Thank you for that!

The truth of this is beyond the process.

The process and the moment would only be a part of the truth. But, it is what I am speaking about nonetheless.

reply to post by Serdgiam

As I said, I am not looking for "answers," I am looking for exploration and discussion. Does that make sense?

It does. But it sounds like you're looking for an end-all solution that no one here is equipped to provide.

Itisnowagain

SuicideBankers
Even here on earth we have sea creatures that can choose to go in any direction. Not just left or right. Not just up or down but truly in any direction desired. Nature is limitless and we are just a small, small speck in her far larger and grander scheme.

The creature does not choose.

“The field is the sole governing agency of the particle.”
Albert Einstein.

Could the field be considered nature? My opinion is nature is variance or change. It is also my opinion that Einstein had no clue as to what is in the field. I picture the field full of life and even though the speck may not be able to choose its path it is my opinion that the speck most certainly chooses how it will endure that journey.

Serdgiam
I never suggested that matter made the decision to combine, I am speaking of a different event.

I think you are asking 'when did free will of the particle happen?'

The answer is - it didn't.

Itisnowagain
Food is just energy (a form of energy), energy is constantly moving and appearing different.
Energy has never not been relevant - it is all there is and goes nowhere - it just looks different constantly.

Which is why I stated "food/energy" in one of my posts.

In this presented context, I am putting "food" as a type of energy. A planet does not seek to "feed" in the same respect as, say, a fish. It can grow, and change due to energetic exchanges, but it does not seek them.

In your perspective, at what point did matter begin to seek energy in the form of food? And what led to this moment?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


So, in your perspective, the process of a shark hunting its prey is *precisely* the same as a planet collecting mass, with no difference whatsoever?

akushla99

Serdgiam
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

I want to see and understand how others see and understand. I already have my own answers, ever-growing and ever-moving.

"True seeker" does not apply.

 

I am bringing up a subject which, in my experience, is dualistic whenever people talk of it. It either "always has been" or "never has been," or same variance between that crest and trough. Though, I have yet to see it discussed specifically. It is always something that is somehow answered by discussing some grand universal truth, in a myriad of ways.

I can see now that because of that, most are not able to even understand precisely what the OP was all about. Which is quite intriguing in and of itself.

The topic could quite simply be responded to much like me asking "when did you start eating dinner last night and what made you eat?" Its not really any "deeper" than that. But, the maze of the mind is quite the labyrinth. Mine has cookies at least.

You got 2 posters giving you an explanation that is specific...but, you replied with the 'that's not where I want to go'...

Å99

I've met just a handful of people in my lifetime, who actually
want correct answers. Now I'm a little sheltered, granted.
Hopefully there are millions who are this way.. I've just not
met them.

In general, people want mind twaddle which will make them
feel secure in a world where they can't be secure. This observation
fits all kinds of people.. from hardcore materialist to the most freak
new agers and all the flavors in-between.

I myself am not immune of course.. I've built my sense of self on
something non-verbal, so I'm mostly immune to other people's
twaddle.. and also to most of the twaddle I have no choice but
to generate, as I'm not all-knowing. I'd like to think that my
observational models have a certain merit, but most of them
need testing, and that is a tall order. So I don't let it worry
me when I'm proven wrong about something.. it's just learning
and I welcome learning.

A very high percent of the content on ATS is used for the purpose
of building and defending "self models". Humans are self-building
machines. It's what we do... it's often not about "starting good
discussions" or "getting to the truth", except as a secondary
goal. You can in fact just give someone an answer.. an answer
which is overwhelming proven by a billion proofs.. say gravity
or evolution.. and it wouldn't matter. Twaddle is what humans
live for, not the pursuit of truth.

Now do some people rise above this tendency to seek comfort
above reality? Yes, of course. Plenty I hope.

Just an observation.... feel free to call my observation twaddle
if it comforts..

KPB

reply to post by Serdgiam


By saying choose, you are referring to the observer. Collapsing wave function requires the quantum observer to change the states of matter. This is tied to dimensional theory. Again, not dependent on matter at all. The wave in superposition is collapsed by the observer. Matter is the catalyst for this to happen, which is simply energy and information.

Quantum Mechanics of Faith

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear


Out of curiosity, which camp would you put me in?

reply to post by EnochWasRight


So, when do you think was the first collection of matter/organism/observer|action/etc that actively sought out an exchange of energy in the current timeline of our material universe?

The way I see it, it was most likely a very simple "organism" that in the search for food/energy went against the current (free will or not). In doing so, it changed its trajectory, or pattern, according to its own needs rather than to the forces at play with other collections of matter.

reply to post by Serdgiam


I have often pondered this question and this is what I have come up with so far:-

ndeed I believe this could quite possible be true, I use the term singularity and see the process of division undertaken by that singularity emulated in the first stages of embryonic life. I see this process of externalization as a way for the singularity/prime creator/God to know itself. Imagine if you will being the only being. The deep loneliness this would produce. This then created the original wound and the motivation or impetus to divide , to separate parts of self all containing the spark of the original singularity , but with its own self hood. Now I believe the process works this way. These individual self hoods or souls form a matrix of like polarized energies ( A Unique morphogenic field) . These then begin or emulate the original process and divide again into soul matrix's. These souls have a connection to the source but are independent and are journeying through realities ( manifested by them) learning and experiencing , so that they will return to the prime creator/singularity/God. Bringing with them the knowledge and experiences of their journey , thereby not only expanding the singularity but entertaining it as well, which results in the singularity of never being alone again. I also believe that original wound still abides in all souls and is the motivation for completion.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Serdgiam
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

So, in your perspective, the process of a shark hunting its prey is *precisely* the same as a planet collecting mass, with no difference whatsoever?

Where does the planet 'collect mass' from?

Serdgiam
reply to post by KellyPrettyBear

 

Out of curiosity, which camp would you put me in?

Well I've noticed that when I put any effort into responding
to a post, it often 'kills the post'. That is starting to make
me consider leaving ATS.

As for your particular case, I'm not familiar enough with you
yet to make a good analysis. Also I tend not to make such an
analysis, as I'm not your mommy or daddy.. well in a certain
sense I suppose I might be.. but let's not pursue that topic.

I did notice, that you started a very lofty post, and then
repelled all sorts of good feedback. That would be evidence
of which strategy you are using.. but again.. I don't care
to judge anyone on an individual basis.. I DO make nasty
sounding comments about groups of complete assholes
sometimes.. but you don't fit into that category.

What's more important; what do you think about yourself?

Is your sense of self based upon ancient memes which have
infested your brain? Have you more defined yourself due
to the pain you have experienced in life, and your struggles
to make sense of life in a hostile world, or not?

Only you can answer those questions for yourself.

KPB

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear


I'll be the first to admit KPB that I include my own as twaddle, specifically as it relates to amorphous questions of another (whether couched as strictly questions or discussion that I should have nominated as answers of belief)...rocks falling off a cliff are moving in a direction...is thier movement choice related, or not?

Twaddle comes in all flavours...

Cheers

Å99

KellyPrettyBear
I did notice, that you started a very lofty post, and then
repelled all sorts of good feedback. That would be evidence
of which strategy you are using.. but again.. I don't care
to judge anyone on an individual basis.. I DO make nasty
sounding comments about groups of complete assholes
sometimes.. but you don't fit into that category.

Much like Akushla, I consider most of what I post to be twaddle. I just posted this to have a discussion about something which I rarely see brought up in any arena whatsoever, but it is answered using the same responses as any other thread. It would be like posting a thread about model rockets and having everyone post with "I like turtles" as the response. I mean, I think turtles are pretty neat, but its just not quite how the thread was intended. I do take my own responsibility in lack of communication clarity. My biggest mistake was probably posting it in this forum, which I requested it be moved after a few posts in (well see if that happens or not).

There is no life-altering proposal here. There isnt some enlightening punchline or individual perception taught as all-encompassing universal truth.

I guess another way to ask the question is; When did organisms start to consume food and why? The issue with asking that way is that it is too colored by my own perspective, which is why I tried to make it vague. I suppose that was a mistake as well.

I have already found all that I need in "life." I did not intend for the thread to be "guru hour," but a basic discussion between beings on when stuff starting seeking out other stuff to eat (essentially).

Serdgiam

KellyPrettyBear
I did notice, that you started a very lofty post, and then
repelled all sorts of good feedback. That would be evidence
of which strategy you are using.. but again.. I don't care
to judge anyone on an individual basis.. I DO make nasty
sounding comments about groups of complete assholes
sometimes.. but you don't fit into that category.

Much like Akushla, I consider most of what I post to be twaddle. I just posted this to have a discussion about something which I rarely see brought up in any arena whatsoever, but it is answered using the same responses as any other thread. It would be like posting a thread about model rockets and having everyone post with "I like turtles" as the response. I mean, I think turtles are pretty neat, but its just not quite how the thread was intended. I do take my own responsibility in lack of communication clarity. My biggest mistake was probably posting it in this forum, which I requested it be moved after a few posts in (well see if that happens or not).

There is no life-altering proposal here. There isnt some enlightening punchline or individual perception taught as all-encompassing universal truth.

I guess another way to ask the question is; When did organisms start to consume food and why? The issue with asking that way is that it is too colored by my own perspective, which is why I tried to make it vague. I suppose that was a mistake as well.

I have already found all that I need in "life." I did not intend for the thread to be "guru hour," but a basic discussion between beings on when stuff starting seeking out other stuff to eat (essentially).

edit on 2-11-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)

That makes heaps more sense, cheers for the clarification...

Å99

akushla99
reply to post by KellyPrettyBear

 

I'll be the first to admit KPB that I include my own as twaddle, specifically as it relates to amorphous questions of another (whether couched as strictly questions or discussion that I should have nominated as answers of belief)...rocks falling off a cliff are moving in a direction...is thier movement choice related, or not?

Twaddle comes in all flavours...

Cheers

Å99

I completely love honesty, thanks for your honesty.

Now for some of my twaddle:

it took me 50 years to come to the Everett-wheeler all
paths exist right now at a minimal state observation.
Actually there's a lot more to it than that.. but nobody
cares for another's twaddle.

What I can't tell you, is how from a limited perspective
everything works. I have big chunks mapped out, but
I can't tell you why an individual rock moves or does
not move...

Now of course from a limited perspective everything
is just a dynamic process interacting with other
dynamic processes.

I suppose the question is, how deep does this dynamic
process go? Is the quantum level deep enough? Is there
a deterministic layer behind the quantum level?
(hidden variables). Are there multiple dimensions
involved? Are we actually in a simulation?

I suppose if I were pressed hard, and had to give my
best explanation of individual transactions or save
my life, I'd say that we just THINK that there are
individual dynamic transactions between real
entities.

However the only thing that in fact 'changes' is the
'pointer' of 'awareness' which chooses to light-up
dormant patterns in the field of all that is possible
and thus give a sense of limited existence, for the
enjoyment of the One observer.

Sometimes the 'lit-up' pattern responds to the pointer
of awareness and identifies with it.. thus feeling
'enlightened', but for the most part the pointer of
awareness will just light up big clumps of pattern
which isn't in fact aware of it's place in things...
some of those clumps generate twaddle and
melodrama and all the excitement inherent
with thinking that one is a being with free will.

Even God watches sitcoms.

Now, is there a scientific, non-anthropomorphized,
non-mystical way to say what I've said? Yes.
I just don't have the brainpower and enough scientific
background to put that in strictly scientific terms.

KPB