Conversation about the universe (The universe did not arise - it was always there)

 

 

Since I've talked to countless people over the years about these topics, and their opinions have often found their way into my manuscripts, I call the dialogue partners here CP.

 

 

"Your postulate is that there is only one universe, this is limitless and eternal," said CP.

 

"Not that I'm misunderstood," I replied. "It's not about the content here, but about the space of the universe - which is boundless and contains everything, including the condition of empty spaces."

 

"That's why there is no limit," CP asked, "because a border always raises the question: and what's behind that limit?"

 

"There is no limit to the universe."

 

"And forever, because there are no other spaces, time, or energy that can replace or change the universe?"

 

"It's all included."

 

"Why should one differentiate between space and content?"

 

"To be clear that with 'content' one generally speaks only about the world that man can observe, not perceive, of the whole universe. Because the space is infinite, the content - because it is not infinitely multiply in the universe - is finite. Both are eternal, only the content is 'infinitely' variable. "

 

Instead of 'content of the universe' one can also say 'our world' here. Both express the same thing. "

 

"It fits in with the science's understanding that the total amount of energy in the observable world never changes," CP noted.

 

"Nevertheless, constructs are repeatedly invented to show how the universe came about," I regretted. "One should realize that one does not speak about the universe, but about its content or parts of the (human) world."

 

"How is that?" He asked. "Why do not people distinguish this?"

 

"For the science of physics, for example, there is virtually no 'before the big bang' because this cannot be defined.

 

People usually do not distinguish it, because otherwise they would have to admit that the big bang is not the beginning of the universe. So, they would not have a closed worldview anymore. The reason will also lie in the human experience, in the brain: everything has emerged from something. This is transferred to the universe. But neither the universe nor the entire content (as primordial substances) had a beginning. "And the brain is and cannot always ask again where the respective" beginning "came from.

 

"Which one could say, 'Where did it come from?'"

 

"People talk about everything having a reason, for example, that there is a first mover who has started everything.

 

Such a thing is not necessary because everything runs according to substances and laws that are inextricably linked. The substances, all of which ultimately consist of energies, and which can be called primordial substances, could move on their own in their virtual space. So, it does not need a first mover, because the reason lies respectively in the substances themselves, or in the environment. And these substances had no beginning, did not emerge, but were always there in the very core of the universe (as primordial substances). "

 

 

"How do you define 'substances' and 'laws'?" CP asked.

 

"'Substances' are elementary particles, structures, atoms, neutrinos, molecules, neurons, crystals, liquids, gases, cells, living things, brains, forces, facts, things, living things, ideas, ecosystems, stars, star systems, galaxies, etc.", he answered. "In addition, they are also considered as virtual substances in states of empty spaces (the vacuum in space)."

 

"So, everything?"

 

"Yes," I nodded, "invariably. Everything in the content of the universe is considered a substance: on a large scale, like galaxies - which are relatively tiny in relation to infinity - or on a small scale like elementary particles. And of course, everything in humans.

 

'Law' means that identical parts - or waves - always give identical structures under identical circumstances.

 

Laws are properties of substances that, viewed in isolation, are unchangeable unless something is added to or removed from the substances.

 

And that means that everything can only proceed in a very specific lawful form."

 

"Substances and laws belong directly and inseparably together?" CP suggested.

 

I nodded. "Yes, there are no substances without laws, you cannot separate or change them. The formula: substances = laws is universal. "

 

"Could you call it a world formula?" CP asked.

 

I considered. "In the sense that it is valid for the entire world? That would be considered.

 

Adding something to the substance or removing it will result in other substances that are subject to this formula. This can be seen very well in chemistry. "

 

"You mean that if something is added to the substance or becomes less, then a new substance with the corresponding laws results. The substances therefore run in each case according to the laws in them. "

 

"That's the same," I nodded. "Everything is going according to laws. In addition, everything organic runs in addition to the laws of midpoint-mechanics. "

 

"To come back to the word 'world' again," CP remarked, "you also say everyone lives in his own world."

 

"There you should distinguish between the entire world - the content of the universe - and our views of it.

 

It's the midpoint mechanics that make it possible for everyone to live in their own worlds: the midpoints, by their goals, bring man and the world into a structure that excludes everything else that does not suit them. Since ultimately everyone in his goals, which are midpoints, different from other people, everyone also lives in his own world. However, the more similar goals are with other people, the more similar are their worlds. This can also be seen very well in groups whose goals are more and more similar to, usually unconscious compromises, and thus create a corresponding world. "

 

 

"I would like to reiterate the Big Bang, which is seen by many as the beginning of the universe," said Philipp now. "If you ask, where did it come from, what was there, then it is said that everything came out of contracted energy - as a singular point. If you ask further, then usually no more answers. "

 

"Because people do not know what made the Big Bang," I nodded. Similarly, they do not know if this supposed 'singular point' actually originated from the entire content of the space of the universe. "To give an answer anyway, it's simply said, 'This was the beginning of the universe.'"

 

"That's right," Philipp nodded thoughtfully, "but cannot it be that the contents of the universe have actually united in this singular point? That it was just a change of state in the entire content of the universe? "

 

"Maybe you are right. This would solve the question of the origin of the singular point. It would also be conceivable, however, that the big bang only affected part of the content of the universe, and that there were, or will be, other singular points. "

 

 

We were silent. After a while, I continued, "I have often wondered why one does not see this truth."

 

"Maybe it's too simple and clear," CP suggested. "The reason will be the midpoints in which people live, and they will not let that answer be seen.

 

And if you would formulate it as you would? "He continued. "Our world began with the Big Bang."

 

"I would consider that a coherent statement," I replied. "Many speak of the Big Bang, the beginning of the universe, or it is said that there are multiple universes, or that the universe expands or contracts, etc. From the standpoint that there is only one universe, infinite and eternal, all these statements are pointless. They only make sense when you say, 'the beginning of our world' or 'our world expands'. But since these formulations are only human perspectives, but humans want to give universal answers, one will probably continue to use the term 'universe', although this is not appropriate for these statements. "

 

"Because you think you have expressed everything?"

 

"I think it only creates confusion about the truth."

 

"And - do you believe that people, when they realize that, will change their language?"

 

"Well, in this content of the universe, God would no longer have room with his alleged omnipotence. Because everything consists of substances that run according to laws and God does not have the power to change them. "

 

"So, because people could not live out their divine fantasies then?"

 

"I think that will be an important reason. Topics like Universe or God allow for all sorts of fantasies. People love fairy tales.

 

But anyway, no matter what facts you say, your fantasies will continue to live. "

 

"Believers say that God is the universe, limitless and eternal."

 

"Could he, in his omnipotence, change laws? The definition of laws is yes: Identical parts - or waves - under identical circumstances always result in identical structures. "

 

"They would say that he could too."

 

"Could he then change the universe, in this sense himself? Does not he also abstain from substances and laws like everything in the universe? Has one ever seen - and is it scientifically proven - that an almighty God has repealed laws? He would have had enough of the cruelty that happens on our planet every day. "

 

"You are right."

 

"That's what I meant when I said that the fantasy product 'God' with its alleged omnipotence has no place in the universe. And - if God is the universe, these people express at the same time that God consists of substances that run according to laws. "

 

"Others say God created the universe."

 

"Then God would create a universe where everything has to be done exactly as it happens."

 

"And in which there is no freedom!", CP concluded.

 

I nodded. "Because you cannot change laws.

 

Here I would like to quote Max Planck: 'The truth never triumphs; its opponents only die out.'

 

Ideological concepts, such as religions - for example: there is a God, freedom or a free will - stand the knowledge, the truth in the way. They are midpoints that do not allow that there is no God or ultimately no freedom.

 

It is impossible for these people to know the truth because they assume false assumptions. They see what they want to see. "

 

"Here, reason, intellect, intelligence hardly have a chance?"

 

"Absolutely none. Obstacles in the form of confusions and emotions trickle away everything. "

 

"Where do these obstacles come from?"

 

"Among other things from the developmental processes of childhood, from the magical phase:

 

The magical phase begins around the age of three and lasts about two to three years. Between the age of three and five, she influences the child's thoughts and actions. Especially what causes the primal structures in the brain. During this period, anything is possible in the childish imagination. Everything that the child desires and thinks, beautiful as well as terrible, could actually happen. What it thinks and does it see as an important cause of much that happens. At the same time, the child fears that other children and adults, but also witches, fairies and monsters could do something similar in the same way. Things and events are largely magically experienced by the child, and 'magical theories' try to interpret and explain them. Witches, monsters and ghosts, but also Santa Claus, Christ Child and Easter Bunny really do exist in the childish conception. '"

 

 

I continued, "We humans all go through this magical phase, and in each one of us, it lives on more or less until the end of life. Because experiences that we once felt to be important, often remain the whole life emotionally preserved.

 

This phase will be the main reason why fairy tales, myths and legends have a strong incentive and about God is considered a real being. And these fantasy templates are then further developed in the culture and with the views that prevail in society. "

 

"Can one explain with the magical phase that many adults still believe that everything is possible? Although it is not possible to change laws! "

 

"Yes, this should have a significant impact on adult thinking. One believes in mystical figures, such as gods, fairies, the devil. Here, superstition has its roots. "

 

"So, magic and religion have their origins first in the primal structures and then mainly in the magical phase," CP concluded.

 

"But people do not want to recognize, but project into the outside world.

 

Incidentally, all phases, especially those that the child goes through to about the age of 7, form feelings that are of crucial importance in the further life.

 

For example, the attachment behaviour: through the physical contacts, usually with the mother, strong positive feelings of the people and the world, which are stored in the infant or toddler and remain lifelong. The people would like to experience these feelings in their further development and adulthood and therefore seek closeness and contact with other people. "

 

"Often one hears the sentence: I have the feeling, God loves me," CP still remembered.

 

"Cannot it be a transmission of the feeling of being loved by the parents, especially in childhood?" I asked.

 

CP looked pensive. "You may be right."

 

 

After a pause I said, "But in fact everything is possible - in the brain. This can be seen, for example, in fairy tales that are believed to be true, to the fantasies of believers or what you perceive in your sleep. "

 

Philip nodded. "The brain is already doing strange things, especially in sleep."

 

"Because much that matters in the daily routine is degraded during sleep," I added. "The attention or consciousness does not send information to the brain; the midpoints are shut down while sleeping."

 

"They do not play the role then as in the waking state?"

 

"This cannot work because sleep would be disturbed by the midpoints.

 

Or vice versa: Imagine your brain acting like it is in sleep during the day. "

 

"You mean, if the goals, the midpoints, which are active in the course of the day, no longer determine the course?"

 

"One catastrophe would follow the other. That's why they put the brain in a certain structure whose main goal is survival.

 

As we sleep, we generally do not need the goals of survival, so they are largely shutting down. Unless something extraordinary happens. Then, of course, we will wake up immediately, and the usual midpoints again take over the direction.

 

The difference between wakefulness and sleep is among other things that in the former, the midpoints provide some structure, whereas in sleep they are partially reduced to zero. So, they have little impact on the brain, which therefore can conjure up the strangest images through associations, joins, and goals without midpoint mechanics.

 

Because if a midpoint generally occupies a person strongly, then this topic can also occupy him in his sleep, with the aim of finding a solution.

 

But this is less rational, but according to the laws that act in sleep. "

 

"When awake or asleep, the brain acts like similarities," CP repeated. "The difference between the states lies in the goals.

 

While in the waking state the brain serves as much as possible the goals of the midpoints of the day, so it looks for what suits the midpoints so that they reach their goal, these are usually as good as inactive during sleep. "

 

"Exactly," I nodded. "The dream spins out of a story another story, etc. Reality, as we know, does not matter. But one should not forget: in the dream, the sentence: 'Everything has the goal to form a structure according to the laws', not abolished. Neurons = laws. "

 

"It only works according to other laws!"

 

I nodded again. "By other compounds of the substances. Also regarding the goals of relaxation and integration of the experience during the day. They separate among other things. Important information from trivial ones and shift them from short-term memory to long-term memory.

 

And as I said: In the dream, the day midpoints lose their power, and are subject especially to the laws of creativity. "

 

"The dream is therefore so difficult to understand in the wake," concluded Philip, "because then you are back in the usual midpoints. Whereas in dreams these midpoints are dissolved, and may only act as targets. This ends immediately when we wake up. "

 

"Because the dream then usually has no value, is not important for the present," I underlined. "In sleep, associations, largely uninfluenced by the awake midpoints, can play their game."

 

Then I went on to say, "You can imagine the brain as a huge space filled with neurons, synapses, myelin sheaths, glial cells, dendrites, and axons that form nets."

 

"By that you mean the midpoints of the brain that run according to the laws in them."

 

"Exactly, there are endless possibilities for variation among each other, especially when strong midpoints, as in sleep, hardly play a role. The brain can in the dream among other things. Use all the experiences that man has made and weave them into bizarre webs. By the way: if it has not made certain experience, like a blind child, it will not use any pictures. "

 

"The brain works and works on it in a dream," CP concluded.

 

"Yes, to dream means among other things. to be creative. However, the stronger the midpoints are, and especially the complexes, that is encapsulated midpoints, the less they can be processed in the dream. "

 

"By 'complex' you mean an area in the human being that is inaccessible."

 

"Yes, he eludes change through other midpoints. He remains unaffected by the change in external circumstances. The complex still shows the behaviour and feeling as it had in the original situation.

 

Since the central point of life is adaptation, all psychic goals should be adaptable, changeable, with their midpoints. Complexes resist any kind of change, but affect other midpoints. But anything that is rigid can be an obstacle to the flexibility of the psyche. "

 

 

 

© It is permitted to use or reproduce this content without restriction on the condition of naming my website www.karlheinzhermsch.de and without changing or shortening the texts. (Please inquire about exceptions via my imprint.)