David Quinn's Website

[Tao's Reflection]

Hello,

I'd just like to use this post to thank David for a very good read. I've thought a lot about the nature of women, causality, and reality as a whole before, although I feel compelled to say I've never heard anyone speak of such topics with the clarity and depth that David has. You have truely captured my imagination! I have not finished your readings yet but I assure you I look forward to each page when I get the time to read them.

Thanks Again.

I am what I am -
Tao's Reflection,
A Wrinkle in the Blanket.

[bert]

How friendly...

[David Quinn]

I'm glad you're getting something out of it. "A Wrinkle in the Blanket" - I like that.

-

[Tao's Reflection]

There are many other similar examples. Big Bang cosmology was created out of the fiction that the Universe (i.e. utterly everything) had a beginning.

Not quite sure what you mean here? I follow the concept of causality "stringing" on forever with no real beginning or end. But the birth of the Universe is something real that physicists have proven.

[Leyla Shen]

:)

Here we go again...

[Blair]

Almost exactly what I thought Leyla.

[David Quinn]

"Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time." - Steven Wright

:)



Tao's Reflection wrote:

Not quite sure what you mean here? I follow the concept of causality "stringing" on forever with no real beginning or end. But the birth of the Universe is something real that physicists have proven.

Well, firstly, it needs to be realized that science cannot "prove" anything. The best it can do is present strong theories that appear to have a lot of supporting evidence. No matter how well-established a theory seems to be, it will always contain a degree of uncertainty. This is inherent in the nature of science.

Secondly, the Big Bang model is still very speculative and can't really be classed as a well-established theory. It only has about three or four pieces of evidence in support of it, and each of these pieces are open to other interpretations. So it currently rests on very shaky grounds.

Finally, by "Universe" do you mean the tiny space-time bubble that we all live in, which is supposed to have been created 15 billion years ago, or are you refering to the greater Reality, the totality of all there is? The former definitely has a beginning - just as an ordinary gas explosion has a beginning - while the latter goes back forever.

-

[Kevin Solway]

the birth of the Universe is something real that physicists have proven.

If "Universe" means "everything", as the name would imply, then it cannot logically have a beginning. But if "Universe" means only a part of the All, then we could nominate a beginning to it at some point which suited us.

[Leyla Shen]

Almost exactly what I thought Leyla.

Reckon it's good even for us old-timers, eh?

(I like that Steven Wright guy!)

[Tao's Reflection]

Finally, by "Universe" do you mean the tiny space-time bubble that we all live in, which is supposed to have been created 15 billion years ago, or are you refering to the greater Reality, the totality of all there is? The former definitely has a beginning - just as an ordinary gas explosion has a beginning - while the latter goes back forever.

When I say the Universe had a beginning (which is actually grounded on considerable evidence) I do in fact mean the tiny space-time bubble. I realize causality goes way beyond our Universe's beginning to infinity, it must or we wouldn't have our beginning. I guess I was just unsure of the same thing you were unsure of about me. But I'm glad it's cleared up now. Sorry to have bored you Leyla and Prince, maybe next time I'll say something more interesting for you.

[Tord]

If "Universe" means "everything", as the name would imply

Universe is from the latin Universus, which means something like: in its entirety, the whole of the thing. Don't think it implies "everything", but I'm not 100% sure about this.

[Leyla Shen]

Tao's Reflection wrote:

I follow the concept of causality "stringing" on forever with no real beginning or end. But the birth of the Universe is something real that physicists have proven.

I realize causality goes way beyond our Universe's beginning to infinity, it must or we wouldn't have our beginning.

Is causality not real because it has no beginning?

What do you mean by "no real beginning or end"?

I suppose I can understand that, really: to make something "real" all we need to do is assign a plausible beginning to it, then we can work on predicting and producing change and an end.

Piece of cake.

Is that right?

[Tao's Reflection]

Is causality not real because it has no beginning?

What? Where did I say that?? I'm saying causality is real and that it extends infinitely further from the start of our Universe (and by Universe I mean the product of the Big Bang, NOT the Totality)

What do you mean by "no real beginning or end"?

I suppose I should have said, "no beginning or end".

I suppose I can understand that, really: to make something "real" all we need to do is assign a plausible beginning to it, then we can work on predicting and producing change and an end.

I understand what you're saying, but you must understand that's not what I'm saying.

The original confusion stemmed from me wondering if David thought there was no beginning to our Universe. However, I think we were at opposite ends with the definition of the term "Universe". When I say Universe I mean the space-time bubble (as David puts it) we currently occupy. If I am refering to the causal events that stretch out into infinity then I'm talking about the Totality or Tao.

I hope that clears things up a little.

[Leyla Shen]

Leyla: Is causality not real because it has no beginning?

Tao's Reflection: What? Where did I say that?? I'm saying causality is real and that it extends infinitely further from the start of our Universe (and by Universe I mean the product of the Big Bang, NOT the Totality)

Well, when you say:

I follow the concept of causality "stringing" on forever with no [real] beginning or end. But the birth of the Universe is something real that physicists have proven.

I'm not sure how else to take it.

[Leyla Shen]

I understand what you're saying, but you must understand that's not what I'm saying.

I'm trying. :)

[Tao's Reflection]

I follow the concept of causality "stringing" on forever with no [real] beginning or end. But the birth of the Universe is something real that physicists have proven.

This came from my impression that David thought the Universe had no beginning, which he doesn't, we just got the definitions mixed up.

Maybe I could have expressed myself differently. I now see where one could be mixed up when I said "but the birth of the Universe is...."

[Tord]

Kant said the idea that the universe has a beginning is just as inconceivable as the idea that it is eternal.

[David Quinn]

In my view, Kant is overrated and had limited vision. I personally have no trouble with the idea of Nature being eternal. If you can stop seeing Nature as a kind of solid, objective, finite entity, and start seeing it as pure reality itself, then the problem vanishes.

-

[Tord]

I agree with that assessment of Kant, he get's a bit too wrapped up in his own theories for my taste, but the statement in itself underlines the point that it's not easy to grasp these concepts with either our reason or imagination. The same goes for the problem with finite/infinite.

[David Quinn]

It may not be easy for you, but I have no problems with it.

How can Nature (the Totality) not go back forever? What else could possibly be there before it?

-

[Tord]

Ah, but that is the question isn't it?

[David Quinn]

No, there isn't really a question there at all. This is because whatever can be posited to exist before the Totality will necessarily be part of the Totality, by definition.

In other words, it is a false question which arises out of a misunderstanding of what the Totality is.

-

[Jamesh]

Kant said the idea that the universe has a beginning is just as inconceivable as the idea that it is eternal.

The physical universe is the merging point between two infinities. An infinity of fullness/expansion and an infinity of emptiness/contraction. They 'merge' together much like floating oil in water, just like the atoms of oil and water do not actually mix to form new compounds, so it is for the infinite forces. This is why things are empty, why the enlightened speak of emptiness, why scientists can find no base unit of existence – it is because things can be broken down into forces, not things, there is nothing there to see, except secondary effects.

The universe is thus both finite and infinite. It is finite in the sense that no physical part of this merging area will ever permanently have a certain form, and is infinite in the sense that it is impossible for these two infinities not to continuously attempt to merge with each other. It is also infinite in that The Totality, as opposed to the physical universe, includes infinite forces and therefore must be infinite.

Why would these infinities exist in the first place? Don’t they need beginnings as well?

[OK I admit I become a bit lost within logic loops at this point – but one has to try to understand, don’t they!]

Well yes they do, one must be the cause of the other and vice versa, and in reality they must merely be two aspects of the one thing (not that this ‘one thing’ ever exists as that one thing).

I think it has something to do with nothingness. I think nothingness is actually something (other than just a description of nothing) – it has to be something because of the way it forces vacuums to be filled. It has this vacuum like contractive force – it is not nothingness, it is contractiveness. If The Totality was only this nothingness then what would occur? It would be forced to contract ‘outward’ rather than ‘inward’ , as everything would be already be inward, and somehow this makes it overlap itself (although such terms as outward and inward could not apply, as a very general abstract process something like this would have to occur). This overlapping then becomes the expansionary force, the fullness force.

The reverse is likely to occur with the opposite of nothingness, namely fullness, spatial expansion. Imagine The Totality as something completely full, it has no scope for movement, yet it still must expand, so therefore it reverses and expands or overlaps within itself, it expands inward and thus by doing this becomes the contracting force, the nothingness force.

I see the physical universe as something that would change from one pole to another, and it is this polarisation that causes it to continuously begin and end. The thing is though is that it never becomes this one pure state, as whenever it gets close to this purity, then segments of it reach the pure state first and only those areas flip poles, not the whole totality – and for this reason the universe is one that is inflating – it is always getting larger. Non-duality is essentially therefore an irrational concept, because it only exists as a pivot point where The Totality flips from one state to another. The Totality however is infinite so this never occurs.


David: If you can stop seeing Nature as a kind of solid, objective, finite entity, and start seeing it as pure reality itself, then the problem vanishes.

This offers no explanation of the process and I reject it for this reason. The problem vanishes ONLY because you have chosen an arbitrary dead end to the assessment of causes. At this point your truths change from truths to faith based beliefs. You offer no description of the flow of The Totality in an ultimate sense.

All ultimate truths are backed up by empirical observation plus logic. One could not form ultimate truths without first applying logic to observations. Observation + logic = science. Observation + logic + generalisation (a form of logic) = philosophy. Ultimate truths are philosophies of maximum generalisation.

One thing I have realised about The Totality is that things within the universe all operate the same way, and this means that the totality does as well. What we observe in things applies equally to The Totality itself. It is false to believe that what causes The Totality’s infinity is any different to what causes a things finiteness, the totality itself requires similar flowing/changing relativities for its permanency, and as there is nothing outside the totality such relativities can only exist within.

[sevens]

Taking the understanding further, you come to realize that all human expression rises from the abyss. Infinity is abstract, as Nature is.

The experience of Infinity, is learned through the unconscious:

"a Heaven, or a Hell."

Humans give names to Nature. But, our minds know their true meaning. There is nothing to fear, when you realize.

This is only a realm.

[David Quinn]

James wrote:

David: If you can stop seeing Nature as a kind of solid, objective, finite entity, and start seeing it as pure reality itself, then the problem vanishes.

James: This offers no explanation of the process and I reject it for this reason.

It is not meant to be an explanation, but an aid to reorientating the mind so that it can realize that the problem is not real, that it is a product of delusion.

Nature, by definition, has no explanation. It is beyond the need for explanation. Asking what caused it or what happened beforehand is meaningless. There is no beforehand.

The problem vanishes ONLY because you have chosen an arbitrary dead end to the assessment of causes. At this point your truths change from truths to faith based beliefs. You offer no description of the flow of The Totality in an ultimate sense.

I have indeed described it fully, but you are currently obscuring it with your more superficial concerns. All that stuff above about different infinities and flipping of states completely misses the point. They have no bearing on this core issue.

They are like clouds which obscure the sun.

All ultimate truths are backed up by empirical observation plus logic.

Not so. Strictly speaking, ultimate truths are neither supported, nor contradicted, by empirical evidence. In other words, while ultimate truths will always be consistent with our experiences of the world, they do not rely on the presence of these experiences to be validated. Ultimate truths can always be proven to be true, regardless of what we experience.

One could not form ultimate truths without first applying logic to observations. Observation + logic = science. Observation + logic + generalisation (a form of logic) = philosophy. Ultimate truths are philosophies of maximum generalisation.

And maximum logic.

Philosophy is just generalization + logic. Observation doesn't really come into it since philosophical truths are non-empirical in nature. We might need observation to begin with in order to formulate the generalizations, but once these have been created, observation becomes redundant.

One thing I have realised about The Totality is that things within the universe all operate the same way, and this means that the totality does as well. What we observe in things applies equally to The Totality itself. It is false to believe that what causes The Totality’s infinity is any different to what causes a things finiteness, the totality itself requires similar flowing/changing relativities for its permanency, and as there is nothing outside the totality such relativities can only exist within.

The difference is that it doesn't matter what kind of changing relativies occur within the Totality, the Totality itself will always permanent, absolute in nature and beyond life and death. It's fundamental identity will always remain unchanged. The opposite is the case with repect to finite things. A finite thing can disappear in an instant.

-