The Endless Mystery of Existence Itself

[Natus Videre]

From Langan's CTMU (The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe):

The currency of telic feedback is a quantifiable self-selection parameter, generalized utility, a generalized property of law and state in the maximization of which they undergo mutual refinement (note that generalized utility is self-descriptive or autologous, intrinsically and retroactively defined within the system, and “pre-informational” in the sense that it assigns no specific property to any specific object). Through telic feedback, a system retroactively self-configures by reflexively applying a “generalized utility function” to its internal existential potential or possible futures. In effect, the system brings itself into existence as a means of atemporal communication between its past and future whereby law and state, syntax and informational content, generate and refine each other across time to maximize total systemic self-utility. This defines a situation in which the true temporal identity of the system is a distributed point of temporal equilibrium that is both between and inclusive of past and future. In this sense, the system is timeless or atemporal.

What if the "generalized utility function" that the universe tries to maximize is a function which perpetually seeks to restore balance?

Q: (Galatea) Is it possible to harness good-luck energy?
A: Not in the sense you mean. The universe is about balance. There are no tricks or cheating.

 

[mkrnhr]

The subject is endless and it's fascinating to think about it. There is however a tangential issue that comes to mind, which could or could not be related. One is the framing of the question "why is there something instead of nothing": There is perhaps an assumption here that the default state is nothingness from which emerges somethingness as an anomaly. Can we conceptualize absolute nothingness? Maybe not, since even if we think about nothing as a concept, it's already a thought, a concept, and a thought about a concept. It is something in itself at a most fundamental level. Or maybe absolute nothingness exists and we just don't have the capacity to conceptualize it, in which case it's something that exists... Or maybe we can just postulate that existence is a given, a default over which other question can be formulated. OSIT

 

[Natus Videre]

Can we conceptualize absolute nothingness?

I would say that nothingness is the container of all falsehoods. In our realm of existence, we've created a label, a meaning for it, so we could reference it in a creative fashion.

Q: (L) Next question on the list: How do consciousness, information, and matter relate to each other?

A: Different concentrations of truth.

Q: (L) So I'm assuming you mean that matter would be one concentration, and consciousness would be another, and information like maybe pure information would be the purest form?

A: Not necessarily, information arranged by a truth becomes consciousness. That is why truth and objectivity are so important. Without it, consciousness and individuality fractures and disintegrates.

When a being progressively loses its sense of objectivity, it 'scrapes off' the truths that were attached to its consciousness. In other words, it injects lies into itself at a faster pace than it injects truths. It fills itself with falsehoods. This is why believing lies is so damaging, because it ultimately leads to nothingness.

 

[happyliza]

While out on my walk this morning I was thinking about all this again. Two things actually.

The first is about 5th density. I have read that once the past life review is complete, some souls that love physical materialism can't wait to jump back into the ring and start a new life. Others might take a long time before returning to 3D. But what does that even mean when the concept of time is non-existent in the upper densities? That just confounds the problem for my understanding. I assume that if one is on the path of ascending the ladder, that one will ultimately choose going into another 3D life to progress. But can you hang out in 5D indefinitely? And if there is no time then what would define indefinitely?

The second thing is this. If it is a possibility that there are an infinite amount of experiences to be had forever in our universe, and we just continually cycle through all the densities for this reason, is it possible for us at some point to traverse to another one of the infinite universes and cycle through all the densities in a different life form other than the human body?

That to me sounds interesting and MAYBE more appealing than going round and round in our current universe. Or maybe I'm just stuck on not liking 3rd density so much. Anyway, just my thoughts.

Are not all, and every, lifetime we have / are ever experienced/experiencing simultaneous?
Just to add to the complexity of the subject lol.

 

[axj]

This is why believing lies is so damaging, because it ultimately leads to nothingness.

It seems that there are two different kinds of nothingness:

1) The absolute nothingness as opposed to beingness or existence itself. As @mkrnhr mentioned, it may not even "exist" (not exist) as such.

2) The end of the road for the STS path leads to a kind of nothingness, but it is more of a recycling of consciousness into 1D according to the C's, so it is still "something".

 

[axj]

Are not all, and every, lifetime we have / are ever experienced/experiencing simultaneous?

Well, that is the question of whether there is any kind of equivalent of time in 6D or beyond the manifested spacetime-multiverse. We talked about this a lot in this thread.

The C's mentioned that they are also working towards 7D, which implies a "before" and "after" in 6D or some kind of time. For example:

November 13, 1999

Q: The reason I have gone into these lines of thought are that I want to understand a bit of the BIG picture. Understanding motives goes a long way to understanding our world/reality. I would like to try to understand our motives for being here. So, he wants the big picture: why are we here? Why does ANYTHING exist?

A: This cannot be understood from your perspective. But no need. Patience, please. Lessons are learned sequentially. And, of course we can make errors. After all, we are still learning too, Ken!

This different kind of time may be what they referred to as the "expanded present":

Session 18 October 1994

Q: (L) Can we say that all that exists in the material universe is, say, "x" number of years old?

A: No. It is the eternal now. Not only did happen, is happening and going to happen. The expanded presence.

Session 16 October 1994

Q: (L) What is the "expanded" present?

A: The real measure of time.

 

[mkrnhr]

Maybe another way to look at it is that existence is all there is, and "within" this existence are two poles of being (or qualities) that are non-being (equivalent perhaps to 1D or zero consciousness) and absolute being (7D or infinite consciousness), and a third element analogous to "becoming" that connects these poles, and which at our level or point of view, is perceived as choices and events in time?

 

[Natus Videre]

It seems that there are two different kinds of nothingness:

1) The absolute nothingness as opposed to beingness or existence itself. As @mkrnhr mentioned, it may not even "exist" (not exist) as such.

2) The end of the road for the STS path leads to a kind of nothingness, but it is more of a recycling of consciousness into 1D according to the C's, so it is still "something".

Then how do we reconcile this with the fact that 7D is "all that is, and is not"?

Q: (L) What emerges from what?
A: The beginning emerges from the end, and vice versa.

Q: (L) And what is the beginning and what is the end?
A: Union with the One.

Q: (L) What is the One?
A: 7th density, i.e.: all that is, and is not.

Q: (L) Where does the energy go that gets sucked into a black hole?
A: Inward to total nonexistence.

Q: (L) Well, if a black hole continues to suck stuff in, is it possible that it would eventually suck in the entire creation?
A: No.

Q: (L) Why is that?
A: Universe is all encompassing. Black holes are final destination of all STS energy.

Nothingness is contained in existence?

Maybe another way to look at it is that existence is all there is, and "within" this existence are two poles of being (or qualities) that are non-being (equivalent perhaps to 1D or zero consciousness) and absolute being (7D or infinite consciousness), and a third element analogous to "becoming" that connects these poles, and which at our level or point of view, is perceived as choices and events in time?

That would make sense. Then nothingness could be a kind of portal, i.e. a transition from a form of existence to another form of existence.

 

[axj]

Then how do we reconcile this with the fact that 7D is "all that is, and is not"?

Good finds. It seems that the topic of "nonexistence" may be more complex, if 7D encompases both existence and nonexistence, and black holes lead to "total nonexistence". It may be one of those topics that is impossible for us to grasp at this point.

 

[John G]

It seems that there are two different kinds of nothingness:

1) The absolute nothingness as opposed to beingness or existence itself. As @mkrnhr mentioned, it may not even "exist" (not exist) as such.

2) The end of the road for the STS path leads to a kind of nothingness, but it is more of a recycling of consciousness into 1D according to the C's, so it is still "something".

From the 12/10/1994 session:

Q: (T) What is the difference between the Prime Creator
and "God?"
A: None. As long as you exist, you are of the Prime Creator.
Q: (L) Now, this stuff that goes into Black Holes, that goes
into non- existence, is that, then, not part of the Prime
Creator?
A: Correct.
Q: (L) How can Prime Creator lose any part of him or itself?
A: Prime Creator does not "lose" anything.
Q: (L) Well, then, how would you describe this energy that
was in existence and then is no longer in existence because it
has become or gone into a Black Hole?
A: Reflection is regenerated at level 1.
Q: (L) So, this energy goes into a Black Hole and... does it
come out on the other side?
A: No.
Q: (L) Does it become like a primal atom?
A: No.
Q: (T) Does it go back into the cycle?
A: No. Reflection regenerates as primal atoms.

It is still "something" as in a "reflection". Physics-wise it might be some kind of non-causal reuse of information. Maybe consciousness can follow along with the reflection process even if it's non-causal physics?

 

[NCfugee]

I'm re-reading C G Jung's 'Memories, Dream, Reflections' again, as it's such a stimulating read by a brilliant, wise mind, and I came across the following in the chapter entitled, 'On life after death':

"Our concepts of space and time have only approximate validity, and there is therefore a wide field for major and minor deviations...

"Unfortunately, the mythic side of man is given short shrift nowadays. He can no longer create fables. As a result, a great deal escapes him; for it is important and salutary to speak also of incomprehensible things. Such talk is like the telling a good ghost story, as we sit by the fireside and smoke a pipe.

"What the myths or stories tell about life after death really mean, or what kind of reality lies beyond the, we certainly do not know. We cannot tell whether they possess any value beyond their indubitable value as anthropomorphic projections. Rather, we must hold clearly that there is no possible way for us to attain certainty concerning things which pass our understanding.

"We cannot visualise another world ruled by quite other laws, the reason being that we live in a specific world which has helped to shape our minds and establish our basic psychic conditions. We are strictly limited by our innate structure and therefore bound by our whole being and thinking to this world of ours. Mythic man, to be sure, demands a 'going beyond all that', but scientific man cannot permit this. To the intellect, all mythologising is futile speculation. To the emotions, however, it is a healing and valid activity; it gives existence a glamour which we would not like to do without. Nor is there any good reason why we should." (London, 1995, pg. 331)

 

[happyliza]

Well, that is the question of whether there is any kind of equivalent of time in 6D or beyond the manifested spacetime-multiverse. We talked about this a lot in this thread.

The C's mentioned that they are also working towards 7D, which implies a "before" and "after" in 6D or some kind of time. For example:



This different kind of time may be what they referred to as the "expanded present":

I love this discussion and am following it with great interest. It is good to stretch the mind as much as we can.
We may even find new aspects to ask the C's. Even if they say 'no dice' at our current comprehension level.
I am still intriguedby this 'time' and how the glimpse into all our simultaneous lives 'event', qualifies in 'time' or not.
It must be an 'instance' in the present that is normally hidden from 3D entities. Yet takes place simultaneously nonetheless?
Totally intrigued.

 

[bozadi]

Regarding "time":

Q: (RS) Is it true that the universe has equal amounts of matter and anti-matter as seen from level three?

A: Yes, all others as well.

Q: (RS) Then it is true that the total time in the universe is null?

A: Yes.

…

Q: (L) What makes the physicality variable?

A: Awareness of link between consciousness and matter.

Q: (L) What is the link between consciousness and matter?

A: Illusion.

Q: (L) What is the nature of the illusion? (T) That there isn't any connection between consciousness and matter. It is only an illusion that there is. It is part of the third density...

A: No. Illusion is that there is not.

Q: (L) The illusion is that there is no link between consciousness and matter.

A: Yes.

Q: (T) The illusion is that there is not a link. In third density... (L) I got it! (T) Don't disappear on me now! [Laughter] The relationship is that consciousness is matter.

A: Close. What about vice versa?

Q: (L) Just reverse everything. Light is gravity. Optics are atomic particles, matter is anti-matter... just reverse everything to understand the next level... it can't be that easy. (J) Wait a second: gravity equals light, atomic particles equals optics, anti-matter equals matter? It is all about balance. (L) And the answer must always be zero.

A: And zero is infinity.

Q: (L) So, you are saying that it is not that there is a link, the illusion is that there is separation. There is no difference, they are the same?

A: Yes.

When we consider LINEARLY that we are "3D beings on our path to 7D", then this creates an issue of distance and time (between 3D and 7D). I think the interesting NON-LINEAR (circular) fact is that we're not strictly 3D. Some part of us is in 5D all the times and, as the C's say about 7D, "There is no time, you dwell there eternally."

The travel from A to B is balanced by a travel from B to A, simultaneously. Total time is zero. All is one. Unified field.

 

[bozadi]

Since we're STS, we have difficulty in thinking, believing, or sensing that "we're one with the one". Hence our difficulty in understanding timelessness. We tend to attribute absolute reality to "parts", therefore we end up having to attribute distance & time between parts. When all parts are seen as "one", no time/distance remains.

 

[axj]

We tend to attribute absolute reality to "parts", therefore we end up having to attribute distance & time between parts. When all parts are seen as "one", no time/distance remains.

It seems that the state of absolute Oneness is 7D, which implies that even 6D is not in a state of absolute Oneness and that there may be something like time in 6D. The C's comments about them also still learning in 6D seem to imply this too (learning requires a before and after, or some kind of "time").