**Note: I just woke up abruptly in the middle of the night and had an incredible urge to type this out. I apologize if none of this makes any real sense. Anyway, back to bed**

There is a fabric of perfectly balanced positive and negative energy which are synchronized and harmonious. This can be envisioned as a straight line. This fabric is infinite in nature. Time is irrelevant.

Suddenly there is a shift in either the positive or negative energy which creates an imbalance. But imbalance cannot exist, thus, the fabric counteracts this imbalance with equal and opposite energy. Suddenly a wave is formed which continues on for infinity.

When a wave is created, it experiences its own rate of time which depends on the total displacement of energy from the neutral point (fabric).

In essence, the infinite existence of a wave is due to the infinite supply of borrowed energy from the fabric of the universe (as long as the conditions of balance are met- no energy is created nor destroyed).
NEGATIVE ENERGY HAS TO EXIST.

What drives this spontaneous disturbance in the universal fabric?
Well, human beings create by harnessing our energy (whether it be physical, mental or spiritual) and set it to motion. Energy in motion. E-motion. Feeling. Awareness. Consciousness must somehow split this fabric.
But what is there to be aware of in an eternal void of infinite potential?

I think I've got it. Consciousness is the infinite potential, it isn't separate from the fabric. It is the fabric. This makes sense to me because Salvia Divinorum showed me that inanimate objects can be conscious, just not in the same way we are. A consciousness that doesn't really do anything but just be/exist. That is the core of consciousness and that is what surrounds us and connects us.

I sound like a raving lunatic.

So in your idea then, there would be no "waves" in the "universal fabric" until consciousness came into existence. The fabric would be totally balanced up until this point, so one could not differentiate between positive and negative energy since there is nothing to cause a change.

Assuming that this is what you mean, it would imply that "negative energy" only exists once there is a consciousness that is able to "harness their energy" and set the fabric into motion.

I see this is as basically meaning that evil doesn't exist until there are beings with free will who are able to conceive of morality.

This also implies that you believe that other creatures (at least those on earth) don't have this energy. But I would argue that if there is such a thing as "spiritual energy", then plants and animals would have it. So are you then saying that other creatures just can't harness their spiritual energy?

I can agree that "negative energy" is caused by human consciousness if this is analogous to the idea that evil is a construct of the human mind and that creatures without enough intelligence can't be evil because they can't understand the idea of evil.

But I don't think that I would agree that there is a force that pervades the universe causing a balance of "positive" and "negative" energies. I don't think that the consciousness of humans is enough to set the energy of the infinite universe into motion.

There are waves of probability or potential energy...and this is maxed out to infinity. Waves are temporarily imbalanced in a point in space and time but as a whole they are not if that makes any sense.



Yep that's what I was thinking...



I have not mentioned evil. Negative energy is just the opposite to energy, not something sinister.



I never said that. In fact, I now believe that everything is conscious or aware to a certain degree because it lives and interacts with the matrix.



I used humans as an example for my thought process. But I disagree with your statement. Where does imagination stem from? Does it have boundaries or is it infinite in nature? Thought is an act of creation.

Thoughts are an act reconstructing stored data. No creation. I'm pretty sure.

Where is this data stored? That could quite possibly be true in the sense that everything that has existed or will exist does exist when time isn't a factor and that thought stems from accessing this.

I would have thought imagination was a form of creation, but both ideas are plausible.
I appreciate the discussion.

OINOS. Pardon, Agathos, the weakness of a spirit new-fledged with immortality!

AGATHOS. You have spoken nothing, my Oinos, for which pardon is to be demanded. Not even here is knowledge thing of intuition. For wisdom, ask of the angels freely, that it may be given!

OINOS. But in this existence, I dreamed that I should be at once cognizant of all things, and thus at once be happy in being cognizant of all.

AGATHOS. Ah, not in knowledge is happiness, but in the acquisition of knowledge! In for ever knowing, we are for ever blessed; but to know all were the curse of a fiend.

OINOS. But does not The Most High know all?

AGATHOS. That (since he is The Most Happy) must be still the one thing unknown even to Him.

OINOS. But, since we grow hourly in knowledge, must not at last all things be known?

AGATHOS. Look down into the abysmal distances!-attempt to force the gaze down the multitudinous vistas of the stars, as we sweep slowly through them thus-and thus-and thus! Even the spiritual vision, is it not at all points arrested by the continuous golden walls of the universe?-the walls of the myriads of the shining bodies that mere number has appeared to blend into unity?

OINOS. I clearly perceive that the infinity of matter is no dream.

AGATHOS. There are no dreams in Aidenn-but it is here whispered that, of this infinity of matter, the sole purpose is to afford infinite springs, at which the soul may allay the thirst to know, which is for ever unquenchable within it-since to quench it, would be to extinguish the soul's self. Question me then, my Oinos, freely and without fear. Come! we will leave to the left the loud harmony of the Pleiades, and swoop outward from the throne into the starry meadows beyond Orion, where, for pansies and violets, and heart's- ease, are the beds of the triplicate and triple-tinted suns.

OINOS. And now, Agathos, as we proceed, instruct me!-speak to me in the earth's familiar tones. I understand not what you hinted to me, just now, of the modes or of the method of what, during mortality, we were accustomed to call Creation. Do you mean to say that the Creator is not God?

AGATHOS. I mean to say that the Deity does not create.

OINOS. Explain.

AGATHOS. In the beginning only, he created. The seeming creatures which are now, throughout the universe, so perpetually springing into being, can only be considered as the mediate or indirect, not as the direct or immediate results of the Divine creative power.

OINOS. Among men, my Agathos, this idea would be considered heretical in the extreme.

AGATHOS. Among angels, my Oinos, it is seen to be simply true.

OINOS. I can comprehend you thus far-that certain operations of what we term Nature, or the natural laws, will, under certain conditions, give rise to that which has all the appearance of creation. Shortly before the final overthrow of the earth, there were, I well remember, many very successful experiments in what some philosophers were weak enough to denominate the creation of animalculae.

AGATHOS. The cases of which you speak were, in fact, instances of the secondary creation-and of the only species of creation which has ever been, since the first word spoke into existence the first law.

OINOS. Are not the starry worlds that, from the abyss of nonentity, burst hourly forth into the heavens-are not these stars, Agathos, the immediate handiwork of the King?

AGATHOS. Let me endeavor, my Oinos, to lead you, step by step, to the conception I intend. You are well aware that, as no thought can perish, so no act is without infinite result. We moved our hands, for example, when we were dwellers on the earth, and, in so doing, gave vibration to the atmosphere which engirdled it. This vibration was indefinitely extended, till it gave impulse to every particle of the earth's air, which thenceforward, and for ever, was actuated by the one movement of the hand. This fact the mathematicians of our globe well knew. They made the special effects, indeed, wrought in the fluid by special impulses, the subject of exact calculation-so that it became easy to determine in what precise period an impulse of given extent would engirdle the orb, and impress (for ever) every atom of the atmosphere circumambient. Retrograding, they found no difficulty, from a given effect, under given conditions, in determining the value of the original impulse. Now the mathematicians who saw that the results of any given impulse were absolutely endless-and who saw that a portion of these results were accurately traceable through the agency of algebraic analysis-who saw, too, the facility of the retrogradation-these men saw, at the same time, that this species of analysis itself, had within itself a capacity for indefinite progress-that there were no bounds conceivable to its advancement and applicability, except within the intellect of him who advanced or applied it. But at this point our mathematicians paused.

OINOS. And why, Agathos, should they have proceeded?

AGATHOS. Because there were some considerations of deep interest beyond. It was deducible from what they knew, that to a being of infinite understanding-one to whom the perfection of the algebraic analysis lay unfolded-there could be no difficulty in tracing every impulse given the air-and the ether through the air-to the remotest consequences at any even infinitely remote epoch of time. It is indeed demonstrable that every such impulse given the air, must, in the end, impress every individual thing that exists within the universe;-and the being of infinite understanding-the being whom we have imagined-might trace the remote undulations of the impulse- trace them upward and onward in their influences upon all particles of an matter-upward and onward for ever in their modifications of old forms-or, in other words, in their creation of new-until he found them reflected-unimpressive at last-back from the throne of the Godhead. And not only could such a thing do this, but at any epoch, should a given result be afforded him-should one of these numberless comets, for example, be presented to his inspection-he could have no difficulty in determining, by the analytic retrogradation, to what original impulse it was due. This power of retrogradation in its absolute fulness and perfection-this faculty of referring at all epochs, all effects to all causes-is of course the prerogative of the Deity alone-but in every variety of degree, short of the absolute perfection, is the power itself exercised by the whole host of the Angelic intelligences.

OINOS. But you speak merely of impulses upon the air.

AGATHOS. In speaking of the air, I referred only to the earth; but the general proposition has reference to impulses upon the ether- which, since it pervades, and alone pervades all space, is thus the great medium of creation.

OINOS. Then all motion, of whatever nature, creates?

AGATHOS. It must: but a true philosophy has long taught that the source of all motion is thought-and the source of all thought is-

OINOS. God.

AGATHOS. I have spoken to you, Oinos, as to a child of the fair Earth which lately perished-of impulses upon the atmosphere of the Earth.

OINOS. You did.

AGATHOS. And while I thus spoke, did there not cross your mind some thought of the physical power of words? Is not every word an impulse on the air?

OINOS. But why, Agathos, do you weep-and why, oh why do your wings droop as we hover above this fair star-which is the greenest and yet most terrible of all we have encountered in our flight? Its brilliant flowers look like a fairy dream-but its fierce volcanoes like the passions of a turbulent heart.

AGATHOS. They are!-they are! This wild star-it is now three centuries since, with clasped hands, and with streaming eyes, at the feet of my beloved-I spoke it-with a few passionate sentences- into birth. Its brilliant flowers are the dearest of all unfulfilled dreams, and its raging volcanoes are the passions of the most turbulent and unhallowed of hearts.

But if you reconstruct stored information in the wrong order, you get new information. With only two pieces of information, "1" and "0", I can reconstruct any other information that could ever possibly exist.

And by this logic, positive energy doesn't exist either until this consciousness exists.


So then what is this positive and negative energy? The only thing that I can think of where the consequences of conscious actions are thought of in dichotomous terms is morality, which deals with good and evil.

If this is not what you mean, then what sort of action would cause a wave to begin as negative energy? The only way I can see your idea as being coherent is if you mean an evil action will cause subsequent actions of good, which will then cause an evil act. Each proceeding act would then cause a fluctuation of lesser magnitude, until the waves dies out, sort of like an attenuated sine wave (look it up if you don't know what this is).


So then could you give an example as to how an animal might cause a wave of positive and/or negative energy? And what is the basis for deciding whether the energy is positive or negative?


Imagination is seemingly infinite, but only within the boundaries of the mind. But the only way to prove that the mind is infinite is if you could imagine ever thing that is possible. Since no one has time to do this, there is no way to be sure that the imagination is infinite. Plus, the mind alone cannot exert any force on external reality. So imagination isn't truly infinite and doesn't create anything in reality until it can be directed through a physical conduit.

No displacement in energy exists until consciousness makes a shift. So yeah.



I'm not entirely sure what this energy 'is', I just think it is opposite in nature (dualistic), for example the flow of energy in terms of direction may be opposite. Pure consciousness doesn't utilize judgement when there's nothing to judge therefore I don't see it creating through morality. But this is mainly speculation.



But what 'evil' or 'good' can be done in an infinite void? I don't know.




The very animal's existance is creating all sorts of waves, heat, electromagnetic, air, sound. I use positive and negative because energy must be conserved and balance at all times and therefore any energy will have it's opposite counterpart.



So without time would imagination be infinite? I think so. There is no way to be sure that the imagination has limits.

'Plus, the mind alone cannot exert any force on external reality'- quantum physics disagrees. The very act of observing alters the results of scientific experiments and this is well known (ie. double slit experiment). Placebo effect- the very act of believing something will help you with a certain ailment has been shown to do exactly that (not 100% of the time of course) but enough to be statistically significant.

And I'm going to have to question what you think 'physical' actually means? As if it's more real than the mind?

The mind isn't really doing anything in either of these examples. If there was no body, you couldn't observe and electron or have a placebo effect. The mind can influence the body, but the physical body exerts all the force in the end. And the "mind" doesn't even totally control the body. The brain generally does, but the conscious mind has little control over autonomic functions.

I would have to say that the physical is more real than the mind. The mind might only be a result of the the physical configuration of the brain. The conscious mind might be reducible to no more than neurophysiology. And then is the possibility that the mind doesn't actually control any of our actions and that our actions are predetermined by the interaction of neurophysiology and the environment.

If you're idea is not meant to be metaphysical and includes heat, and electromagnetic waves, and such, then what is the point of it. Conservation of energy and the dualistic nature of many things in the universe are concepts that are well known.

If you are trying to say that there is a unifying energy in the universe that is not metaphysical or paranormal in nature, then this seems like something that would have to be supported by scientific evidence.

Hopefully you realise when I talk about 'mind' I'm referring to 'consciousness', or the essence of your being. I've had an out-of-body experience where I was definitely not in my body and was something else.

I am referring to the metaphysical but there's absolutely no reason why science cannot explain the metaphysical. You're looking at things in a relatively physical point of view, but sir, physicality is an ILLUSION. It is a result of infinitesimally small strings which vibrate. The things you learn in school or college are only half of the picture.

With your viewpoint it seems you believe we're just a predetermined machine of brain function and environmental factors. Doesn't that seem a little dull?
Today I went to the gym, and I normally choose the same car park spot every time because it is the most convenient when I enter the car park (I drive straight forward). Today I CHOSE to enter another parking spot that was a little less convenient, simply because I wanted to break the pattern for the sake of it. I doubt my neurochemistry or the environment had anything to do with that conscious decision.

'If you are trying to say that there is a unifying energy in the universe that is not metaphysical or paranormal in nature, then this seems like something that would have to be supported by scientific evidence.'
That is exactly what I'm saying. Science is not truth, it is just an agreed conjecture based on results. The underlying structural fault with science is that it does not attempt to look at its discoveries as a whole. It isolates and analyzes when it should be discovering, connecting and expanding. Science needs to look at reality as a whole, including the consciousness that observes it. This is the key

Anyway I'm just rambling. It's healthy to have these kinds of discussion.

'The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.' - Albert Einstein

^ That is you and I

I actually don't think that all our actions are predetermined by neurophysiology and environment, but I recognize that this is a distinct possibility. This idea and the idea that that the physical is an illusion are both unfalsifiable as far as I can tell.

You can't prove that you consciously chose to park in what ever spot, but I can't undeniably prove you didn't. Though there have been scientific studies that show that specific brain activity precedes our actions before we actually consciously decide to perform these actions.

I personally think that reason and logic are the best way to understand the universe, so I lean toward the scientific. Science as humans understand it may not be "truth" (I personally don't think that anything at all can be totally proven, so truth doesn't exist), but there are underlying scientific concepts that seem to be truth in the universe that scientists strive to understand. And real scientists never claim to actually prove anything. This is evident in the fact that gravity and evolution are "theories".

Do you think gravity and evolution by natural selection are just conjecture? Are these isolated concepts? Is space exploration not a complex task that requires vast understandings of the connections between many subjects and that makes discoveries that have only been possible after 100's of years of expanding knowledge?

Without reason and logic, we are just making random pointless claims that cannot be proven. This leads to disagreements that can't be settled and ultimately to the formations of factions and violence.

If I had to choose, I'd rather believe in an approximation of truth that has strong supporting evidence than random ideas that can't be proven. But I don't have to choose between the two. I just choose to put more "faith" in reason.

I understand what you're saying. You prefer to use your left side of the brain (the rational, analytical)- as do I. But all knowledge and understanding is incomplete without the other perspective.
I don't consider intuition as random but it definitely is hard to prove. I'm convinced spirituality and science can compliment each other and reach new levels that either could not do alone.

Peace brother.

I totally agree with this. And most good scientists believe this to some extent as well. To scientists, trying to understand the inner workings of the universe is a spiritual experience in itself. Some scientists may completely deny the existence of anything beyond the physical, but the profundity of science still has no less gravity to them than a religious experience for the spiritually inclined.

And it's not like science and spirituality are completely separated anyway. Many scientists and philosophers actively seek to reconcile these two concepts.

Despite my more rational mindset, I am a very spiritually inclined person. I just find that the Nexus can sometimes lean too far to the new agey spiritual side. I like to add some rational thought to the discussion in order to create mild conflict and force people to question and reconsider things. It makes for more interesting discussion.