Toward an Antidote

[Dave Toast]

"Hawking and Hartle's No Boundary Proposal" (that reads like a mere kids essay to me)

Of course, you'd prefer to go into the maths in depth eh Jimbo.

It is a transcript of a public lecture for the layman and was written to engage that audience. Here's the important part though:

"James Hartle of the University of California Santa Barbara, and I have proposed that space and imaginary time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary. They would be like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. The surface of the Earth is finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundaries or edges. I have been round the world, and I didn't fall off.

If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.

The no boundary condition, is the statement that the laws of physics hold everywhere. Clearly, this is something that one would like to believe, but it is a hypothesis. One has to test it, by comparing the state of the universe that it would predict, with observations of what the universe is actually like. If the observations disagreed with the predictions of the no boundary hypothesis, we would have to conclude the hypothesis was false. There would have to be something outside the universe, to wind up the clockwork, and set the universe going. Of course, even if the observations do agree with the predictions, that does not prove that the no boundary proposal is correct. But one's confidence in it would be increased, particularly because there doesn't seem to be any other natural proposal, for the quantum state of the universe.

The no boundary proposal, predicts that the universe would start at a single point, like the North Pole of the Earth. But this point wouldn't be a singularity, like the Big Bang. Instead, it would be an ordinary point of space and time, like the North Pole is an ordinary point on the Earth, or so I'm told. I have not been there myself.

According to the no boundary proposal, the universe would have expanded in a smooth way from a single point. As it expanded, it would have borrowed energy from the gravitational field, to create matter. As any economist could have predicted, the result of all that borrowing, was inflation. The universe expanded and borrowed at an ever-increasing rate. Fortunately, the debt of gravitational energy will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe.

Eventually, the period of inflation would have ended, and the universe would have settled down to a stage of more moderate growth or expansion. However, inflation would have left its mark on the universe. The universe would have been almost completely smooth, but with very slight irregularities. These irregularities are so little, only one part in a hundred thousand, that for years people looked for them in vain. But in 1992, the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, COBE, found these irregularities in the microwave background radiation. It was an historic moment. We saw back to the origin of the universe. The form of the fluctuations in the microwave background agree closely with the predictions of the no boundary proposal. These very slight irregularities in the universe would have caused some regions to have expanded less fast than others. Eventually, they would have stopped expanding, and would have collapsed in on themselves, to form stars and galaxies. Thus the no boundary proposal can explain all the rich and varied structure, of the world we live in. What does the no boundary proposal predict for the future of the universe? Because it requires that the universe is finite in space, as well as in imaginary time, it implies that the universe will re-collapse eventually. However, it will not re-collapse for a very long time, much longer than the 15 billion years it has already been expanding. So, you will have time to sell your government bonds, before the end of the universe is nigh. Quite what you invest in then, I don't know.

Originally, I thought that the collapse, would be the time reverse of the expansion. This would have meant that the arrow of time would have pointed the other way in the contracting phase. People would have gotten younger, as the universe got smaller. Eventually, they would have disappeared back into the womb.

However, I now realise I was wrong, as these solutions show. The collapse is not the time reverse of the expansion. The expansion will start with an inflationary phase, but the collapse will not in general end with an anti inflationary phase. Moreover, the small departures from uniform density will continue to grow in the contracting phase. The universe will get more and more lumpy and irregular, as it gets smaller, and disorder will increase. This means that the arrow of time will not reverse. People will continue to get older, even after the universe has begun to contract. So it is no good waiting until the universe re-collapses, to return to your youth. You would be a bit past it, anyway, by then.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now."

Show me the kid!

[Dave Toast]

Broken: Understanding C&E the way David has it has no consequence. It is in this way inconsequential. It is even folly to discuss it. This is purely the result of accepting that C&E must apply everywhere, at all times, without exception, and always has.

DT: What else has applied everywhere, at all times, without exception, and always has, in your experience?

Broken: Nothing!

DT: Not even perception?

Broken: This culd be a semantic difference, but I have experienced deep (non REM) sleep, and remain totally unaware of any perception during it, if any.

In trying to come up with an answer, you're missing the point. Have a think about it anyway.

[Ataraxia]

I always find these surface of the earth analogies in regards to boundlessness deeply unsatisfying.They account for the x and y axis, but not the z.

[Leyla Shen]

To my mind, the z axis is implicit in them.

http://evankeane.files.wordpress.com/20 ... d_line.png

[Ataraxia]

Interesting Leyla

The Z is labelled 'Time'.So then what axis is the 'height' in that diagram? (obviously I'm a 'layman' on this)

[Leyla Shen]

Well, I haven't thoroughly read all the posts to this thread (and am not as eloquent on the subject as I'd like to be), but in relation to the picture I posted; the x and y axes are Einstein's spacetime fabric, which can and should be considered distinct from, but at the same time giving rise to time, for me to understand it. Of course, the z axes whilst being labelled time, is also a series of these spacetime, x y hypersurface disks, so to speak.

It really represents the complete package of time and causality, from the viewpoint of an observer, extending in 4D. Best 4D diagram you'll find anywhere, really. *Not to mention the beauty of its boundlessness!

[*Edited in]

[Leyla Shen]

PS: you might find this video snippet useful, Spacetime

[sue hindmarsh]

Leyla,

I like how you described your sense of time/space as, "the beauty of its boundlessness". I also get that same sense when thinking of the eternal nature of each and every moment.

Is that what you were thinking of as well?

[Ataraxia]

It really represents the complete package of time and causality, from the viewpoint of an observer, extending in 4D. Best 4D diagram you'll find anywhere, really. *Not to mention the beauty of its boundlessness!

[*Edited in]

Yes,it's a good diagram.Helpful.

But I still have trouble relating it into the overall picture presented above because the diagram is lacking one of the dimensions.The height one.Space is represented in only 2 directions,rather than 3.There's no way of really getting around it as a drawing.

The same problem arises with the wrap around earth analogy in Daves post.I can't 'visualise' that missing dimension.When I do relate it to the analogy, it's bounded. :(

[Leyla Shen]

Leyla,

I like how you described your sense of time/space as, "the beauty of its boundlessness". I also get that same sense when thinking of the eternal nature of each and every moment.

Is that what you were thinking of as well?

Yes! Same thing, really. :)

[Leyla Shen]

It doesn't really leave height out, Ataraxia, as height is a phenomenon within the 4 dimensions; you just have to figure out how height in particular manifests itself within the diagram through understanding the notion of spacetime and its relationship to objects.

I'll see if I can word it differently to better explain.

In the meantime, I found another video snippet that might be useful.

Newton v. Einstein

[Leyla Shen]

You could imagine, for instance, there being various lumps and bumps in the x-y hypersurface (rather than a flat hypersurface) representing solid objects of varying mass in x-y spacetime.

[Dave Toast]

But I still have trouble relating it into the overall picture presented above because the diagram is lacking one of the dimensions.The height one.Space is represented in only 2 directions,rather than 3.There's no way of really getting around it as a drawing.

Have you ever tried to visualise objects with 4 spatial dimensions? There are only a few people able to. Reducing dimensions is a common representational device.

The same problem arises with the wrap around earth analogy in Daves post.I can't 'visualise' that missing dimension.When I do relate it to the analogy, it's bounded. :(

View the earth from orbit and it's clearly a 3D object. Land your spaceship and you're on a 2D surface with no boundaries.

Think of the Mobius Strip and transformations.

[Ataraxia]

Good link, that transfrormations one, Dave.Cheers.

I actually have the hypercube as my avatar at another forum.

[Jamesh]

View the earth from orbit and it's clearly a 3D object. Land your spaceship and you're on a 2D surface with no boundaries.

It has the boundary of just being 2-d, it has the boundary of not being all there is. It actually has the boundary of not actually existing. There are no flat planes in space, or anywhere for that matter. There cannot be, as such a flat plane would have to be caused by something that could induce flatness.

I guess it all depends on how one looks at the word "dimension". It is actually a delusionary word, as most words are. There is really only one physical dimension, as caused by two non-physical dimensions. All the dimensions people describe are just significant degrees on the existence pie chart. These significant degrees stem from crossovers in ratio of the fundamental duality, as it flows from positive to negative. Two dimensionally this is just like North, East, South, West. When North is not absolute North, it becomes either Northeast or Northwest, and so on. Drive around this pie chart and one gets to absolute East, which then becomes Southeast. Even this wording signifies a truth in nature - as in North and South being the primary key, one does not say Eastnorth or Westsouth. Both are worded to the primary causal duality (compasses point North-South), they relate to the more significant reality.

The physical oneness however, is not two dimensional, nor or is 3-4-5…. dimensional. What you need to realise is that it is not even there. It does have an intrinsic existence in the sense that that which causes it, is intrinsic, but in being caused, what one is not seeing is realness-in-itself, but the relationship between that which is fundamental. Form is just relativity relationships. Duality is just opposite relationships, but both Form and Duality can be observed because that which is fundamental has both ultimate form and is the only true co-dependent duality.

And so it is too with dimensions. They are the key points in which the balance changes. 1 And -1, Now and What-Was-Now, or whatever. Between each though, there is a point where zero forms. Midway between 1 and -1 there is Zero, midway between Now and What Was Now there is a point where the Now changes to Not-Now. The flow of time is permanent, and in permanency there is no true break, however what there is, is an impossible-to-exist-point of perfect inbetweenness where the existence is both equally Now and Not-Now. This is why the totality exists in the first place! If there is some individual thing then it is impossible for that something to be everything, but at the same time it is impossible for its opposite, nothingness to be everything. Absolute dualities of total existence are impossible, except if what is time is absolute. Expansion is Now time, while Past Now Time, is contraction. The two as a combination form existence, but fundamentally physical existence does not exist, it only exists to us because we can observe the relationships of now and the past. We are only ever seeing the infinite array of points of perfect balances between the past and the present.

The hard part is explaining why there is not a single perfect balance.

The reason for this is that every nearly occurring instance of Now-becoming-Not-Now, creates a layer of relativity, with all other such past layers of relativity. The thing is though that the relationship of the ex-Now of one millisecond second with the ex-Now of say 5 billion years ago, is different to that of the Now of only 2 seconds ago.

Why should a string be the most finite form of existence? The fact is that it is not. A string is still an evolved thing - but note that all evolution or change is one of continual flow into something else.

This concept of time as Now and Not Now, is why things are dualistic, but it is also why things exist in imperfect spectrum (all spectrum of like contain shifts - just like the colour or sound or electromagnetic or recognisable matter spectrums - these shift points are the explosions of shifting like relativities. Redshift or the doppler effect are a perfect examples). Every so often certain major individual relativities, being related to the whole of the infinite past, form a new stronger or weaker link, outside of their present sets of most direct to most indirect relativity links. The big bang may have been such a relativity shifting event in relation to the observed universe, but then so too is all conversion of matter. The whole of physical existence is constantly in a state of relativity shifting - this is the power source of causality.

Nothingness could not cause a discontinuous spectrum. The whole idea of total nothingness is a joke.

The way I see it is that if a fundamental duality merges, as it must for its very existence, then it cannot wholly merge. In fact it does not truly merge at all, but the two do create inbetweenness. This inbetweenness is the two dimensional plane you are referring to, in the example of a spaceship landing on earth. Now if one of these balances forms (almost anyway, it cannot truly be a perfect balance in all possible ways), well then this almost-balance becomes causal in itself. Within the most balanced area time effectively slows - the power of the fundamental causes on either side are equalised by the other. Considered from this perspective, then this actually becomes the flowing nowness we experience and call time. Because a balance is a causal outcome, then it has a different form of existence than that which is on either causal side. It is a total unity compared to a partial or non-unity. So we have the fundamental differentiation, now a secondary differentiation. As, however, fundamental causal existence does not exist as a flat or pure linear plane, we now have something that can be relative to the duality that caused it all the way up to its almost absolute levels. By this I mean the 50/50 becomes 100% directly relative to the entire range or purity of the cause on either side, not just to the 49/51 or 51/49 ratios of unity existentially adjacent to it. Note however that these other "not as balanced" ratios, are also directly relative in the same fashion, but they are automatically less relative than the almost perfect balance is, by dint of having more of one type of power than the other.

[Jamesh]

The Beginning of Time

In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end.

What an inane question.

All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.

Not by me. If there are multi-verses then I do not believe they are causally disconnected, so therefore there is only one universe.

Putting an age on the universe is like saying. Well if the universe has an age, there might just be a God. No wonder the failing Catholic church accepts the big bang.

We are not yet certain whether the universe will have an end.

If you proposes a start then one must by default include a finish, or one is dishonest.

When I gave a lecture in Japan, I was asked not to mention the possible re-collapse of the universe, because it might affect the stock market. However, I can re-assure anyone who is nervous about their investments that it is a bit early to sell: even if the universe does come to an end, it won't be for at least twenty billion years. By that time, maybe the GATT trade agreement will have come into effect.

Shallow joke.

The time scale of the universe is very long compared to that for human life. It was therefore not surprising that until recently, the universe was thought to be essentially static, and unchanging in time. On the other hand, it must have been obvious, that society is evolving in culture and technology. This indicates that the present phase of human history can not have been going for more than a few thousand years. Otherwise, we would be more advanced than we are. It was therefore natural to believe that the human race, and maybe the whole universe, had a beginning in the fairly recent past. However, many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning, because it seemed to imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe. They preferred to believe that the universe, and the human race, had existed forever. Their explanation for human progress was that there had been periodic floods, or other natural disasters, which repeatedly set back the human race to a primitive state.

A mumbo jumbo of disparate concepts.

…But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time.

That is actually what I am saying, as well, if you understand what I am pointing to. That is, it does if related to a thing like the observed universe, but in terms of the totality, no it does not. Both disorder and order increase and decrease over time. "Disorder" is another funny word, it really just means "significant changes in existing balances".

Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning.

Impossible. That would be a break down in causality.

Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature.

No, that is false logic. It is dependent on firstly falsely assuming both a beginning and a finite universe. Our universe did not evolve from a big bang, that has it partly the wrong way around - it is evolving everywhere within, from both the fundamental creationary causes creating, and a spectrum of almost-big-bang explosions (significant relativity shifts). Should there be multi-verses, and logically it follows that there is, in all dualistic directions, namely both linear (parallel, like one atom is quite similar to another) and non-linear (universes inside universes - like electromagnetic energy, strings, quarks, atoms, compound things, planets, galaxies, and compound galaxies…), then as order forms at one level or universe type, then disorder will occur at another. It is a simple causal chain.

In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun. The only way of avoiding this problem would be if, for some reason, the stars did not shine before a certain time.

Rubbish. Dark energy and matter is why the sky is black. Not some boundedness or nothingness outside of the observed universe. This is not to say that the observed universe does not have a spherical form or have a kind of repulsive shell much like an atom - this shell is the point of causal balance between one parallel universe and another. It is not finite though, it is just has a different form of existence.

In a universe that was essentially static, there would not have been any dynamical reason, why the stars should have suddenly turned on, at some time. Any such "lighting up time" would have to be imposed by an intervention from outside the universe.

Again this is coming from the perspective of a not a static universe, but one with a beginning. The stars shine because of relativity shifts. Everything moves because of relativity shifts.

The situation was different, however, when it was realised that the universe is not static, but expanding. Galaxies are moving steadily apart from each other. This means that they were closer together in the past. One can plot the separation of two galaxies, as a function of time. If there were no acceleration due to gravity, the graph would be a straight line. It would go down to zero separation, about twenty billion years ago. One would expect gravity, to cause the galaxies to accelerate towards each other. This will mean that the graph of the separation of two galaxies will bend downwards, below the straight line. So the time of zero separation, would have been less than twenty billion years ago.

It is expanding because we are developing better and better tools to view the past. Whenever we look at distant galaxies, we are seeing them as they were ex billion years ago. We are expanding our consciousness of time. An enlightened person, by default would expand this to be all time. Distance is always a observational descent into the past. Observing any form of Thingness itself is an observational descent into the past.

Even so, it may still be expanding, but only if those universes that surrounds it are compressing. Within the timelessness of time, however, this expansion is an illusion - expansion and contraction are relativity shifts, nothing more. Both are still only truly expanding timewise.

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down.

Whenever people make statements like this, they are signifying that they do not understand causality. The laws of physics are mere causal descriptions from a fixed perspective. Only the logic contained within such laws is reality.

This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang.

Rubbish. See what I mean, only a person who does not understand causality would say that.

The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

No, it is because what creates the universe, continues to create the universe, the past universe.

That will do. I'm tired.

[brokenhead]

Ataraxia and Leyla:

Dave's post sums it up. Visualizing 4D space is something even Hawking cannot do, but it doesn't matter. The calculus extends seamlessly into any number of dimensions, and it is the algebraic formulation (complex numbers and the symbols) as opposed to geometric (topological) representation that scientists work with.

In another post - I'm not sure which thread - I made the analogy of a circle with its boundary and one without. The area of each is the same. Curved spacetime is obviously in 4 dimensions as opposed to 2, but what Hawking is saying is that the volume in this hyperspace need not include the space's boundary for all the operations within it to hold. No boundary means no singularity.

[brokenhead]

Broken: Understanding C&E the way David has it has no consequence. It is in this way inconsequential. It is even folly to discuss it. This is purely the result of accepting that C&E must apply everywhere, at all times, without exception, and always has.

DT: What else has applied everywhere, at all times, without exception, and always has, in your experience?

Broken: Nothing!

DT: Not even perception?

Broken: This culd be a semantic difference, but I have experienced deep (non REM) sleep, and remain totally unaware of any perception during it, if any.

In trying to come up with an answer, you're missing the point. Have a think about it anyway.

The "in your experience" part is what I wasn't getting, mainly because it is really a different topic. Indeed I was missing the point, and I still intend to unless you could give me a good reason not to.

Think about my answer, Dave! I have experienced surgery under general anesthesia. Perception is the rule during conscious periods only.

[brokenhead]

The attempt to posit God as the creator or cause of this uncaused first cause is irrational.

It is a case of wanting the first cause to be both caused and uncaused at the same time.

I am not positing God as the creator of the First Cause. I am positing God IS the First Cause. The First Cause is logically consistent with the Law of Cause and Effect. It necessitates Consciousness being primal, not a thing that is caused. Positing an infinite past with no first cause is less intellectually fulfilling, at the very least. As Totality proceeds from the First Cause, it follows the law of C&E without exception. Universes come into being via Consciousness. These Consciousnesses in turn arise from the First Cause, the Universal Source and Center.

[Sapius]

I am not positing God as the creator of the First Cause. I am positing God IS the First Cause. The First Cause is logically consistent with the Law of Cause and Effect. It necessitates Consciousness being primal, not a thing that is caused. Positing an infinite past with no first cause is less intellectually fulfilling, at the very least. As Totality proceeds from the First Cause, it follows the law of C&E without exception. Universes come into being via Consciousness. These Consciousnesses in turn arise from the First Cause, the Universal Source and Center.

So what you are saying is that the First Cause is Consciousness (the Universal Source) itself, but then how do you define this (Universal) Consciousness? Does it need something to be conscious of? Is that which it is conscious of, just the same as Consciousness itself or something other that IT?

As far as I can see; things (other things) cause other things (any thing, including things like us), and we are caused to think up Totality, so the thought “Totality”, or “Totality” (as defined) itself, necessarily depends on ‘things’, and so would any “First Cause” for that matter, so how is it the “First” in any case? If you say Consciousness is fundamental for existence to be what it is, I can agree, but then so are things that Consciousness (or the First Cause) is necessarily dependant on.

I question my self; why should there be “something” (or say ‘not a thing but YET it is’, or it is ‘not nothing whatsoever’) absolutely independent of “thing-ness” when Totality itself (as defined) is BUT THING-NESS itself? So "Totality" is necessarily dependant on 'things'.

In my opinion it is all but an egoistical hope of desperately holding onto something “absolute” in the face of desperately thinking that one is lacking something, whereas not realizing that the Totality or absolutely anything is nothing without things being dependant on consciousness AND vice versa. Do I think this is absolutely true? Yes. So what’s for dinner?

[Sapius]

Have you ever tried to visualize objects with 4 spatial dimensions? There are only a few people able to. Reducing dimensions is a common representational device.

Dave, I tried building that and was somewhat successful. I used hollow collapsible and extendable telescopic tubes with tension springs inside, connected by semi-solid sponge balls at the joints, and it works. Each time one of the cubes is pushed inside the center, the opposite edges of the inner cube expand, and the closer ones of the bigger cube collapse, and so on.

I don’t see how this is supposed to be a 4-SD though, and what are the reflective elements in each square? Could you please explain that?

BTW, I also don’t see anything being possibly existent without 3-D + time, including an assumed 2-D or even 1-D except through abstract concepts or our limitations of sensual perceptions. Nor do I see a possibility of a 4-SD + time object.

[Ataraxia]

Why should a string be the most finite form of existence? The fact is that it is not. A string is still an evolved thing - but note that all evolution or change is one of continual flow into something else.

I've been thinking about this along similar lines lately too, James.

Science is forever trying trying to break 'things' down to ever small smaller constituants.Then atom,and so on,down to the 'string'.But how can even the string be the final 'substance'.It's an infinite regress.

Physicalism ultimately seems to disprove itself.Some type of idealism must be true.

[David Quinn]

The attempt to posit God as the creator or cause of this uncaused first cause is irrational.

It is a case of wanting the first cause to be both caused and uncaused at the same time.

I am not positing God as the creator of the First Cause. I am positing God IS the First Cause. The First Cause is logically consistent with the Law of Cause and Effect. It necessitates Consciousness being primal, not a thing that is caused. Positing an infinite past with no first cause is less intellectually fulfilling, at the very least.

Interesting. So in order to quell your feelings of intellectual unfulfillment at the thought that we live within a beginningless entity, you posit the existence of a second beginningless entity as a way of nullifying the first one. Somehow, the beginninglessness of the first entity is a problem, while the second one isn't.

Trying to divide Reality into two (e.g. God and the Universe) as a way of dealing with this issue isn't a solution. It doesn't address the core logic of Reality's beginninglessness overall.

Brokenhead: You can make a God who is also a person out to be a crutch with no proof or validation or necessity. It doesn't affect me one iota, because it is a living concept which I find I require to function optimally in a living world. I have to be as honest and open-minded about it as I know how to be.

DQ: Psychologically, you need such a figure in your life. That is the honest reality.

Brokenhead: Thank you for being honest about someone else's reality. You do not know me, you are not a psychologist or trained in psychology. Perhaps you should stick with analyzing your own psyche.

I can only go by what you write.

You did say that God is a "living concept which I find I require to function optimally in a living world". This suggests even you're aware that believing in a God is a psychological need on your part.

You're going to have to face up to the possibility that the lack of fulfullment you are feeling towards a beginningless Totality isn't intellectual in nature, but emotional.

As Totality proceeds from the First Cause, it follows the law of C&E without exception. Universes come into being via Consciousness. These Consciousnesses in turn arise from the First Cause, the Universal Source and Center.

The Totality is everything, by definition, and necessarily includes your postulated Consciousness thingy, assuming that it exists in the first place. Trying to negate the beginninglessness of the Totality by carving a portion out of this Totality and making that beginningless doesn't resolve anything. All it does is procrastinate, at best.

-

[Dave Toast]

Science is forever trying trying to break 'things' down to ever small smaller constituants.Then atom,and so on,down to the 'string'.But how can even the string be the final 'substance'.It's an infinite regress.

Physics doesn't deliberately set out to look for smaller and smaller things, rather it looks for more and more elegant, all-encompassing theories which necessarily involves more and more fundamental considerations. Strings are as fundamental as it gets because they are supposedly in the order of the Planck length and 1D. They offer more elegant theories, like some of the Superstring theories, which can unify General Relativity and QM.

[Dave Toast]

Broken: Understanding C&E the way David has it has no consequence. It is in this way inconsequential. It is even folly to discuss it. This is purely the result of accepting that C&E must apply everywhere, at all times, without exception, and always has.

DT: What else has applied everywhere, at all times, without exception, and always has, in your experience?

Broken: The "in your experience" part is what I wasn't getting, mainly because it is really a different topic. Indeed I was missing the point, and I still intend to unless you could give me a good reason not to.

The point I was trying to make was that the 'inconsequentiality' you see in the all-encompassing nature of causality is actually its consequentiality.

This is why it is the key to all of creation. Or as David puts it in your quote from WOTI, 'the Kingdom of Heaven'.

Don't look for causality, infinity, totality, et al - 'out there'.

Take another look at that quote.