Vibrations: Science and Being

If in the future the majority of open minded men of science and of religion begin to develop common grounds of understanding, it will be IMO the direct result of a greater understanding of the nature of vibrations and how it relates to our “being”.

Explaining the existence of the first impulse or God in the context of the highest vibration followed by an descending scale of frequencies of vibration forming the levels of creation will bring clarity to the scale of “being” in which Man plays a part and even consciousness as it relates to “being” and more specifically, Man’s evolution itself.

Our advances into quantum physics have revealed more of the nature of vibrations and it does appear as though men of both science and religion like Basarab Nicolescu are demonstrating that there does not have to be a divide between science and religion. The fact that it appears so is just proof of our ignorance. It does however require becoming open and expanding our horizons to which there is incredible resistance by many claiming to be either people of science or religion

I don’t know if this subject is of interest to anyone so rather elaborating on it, I’d rather post a basic article explaining some general concepts. If there is any interest, perhaps we can discuss some natural ideas that will arise.

altreligion.about.com/library/te … alion9.htm

yeah it requires those of an atheistic stand point to become open minded about the possibility of god. The fact that they can’t do this, shows IMO that they’ve locked themselves into a belief of the lack of god.

There’s no rational reason for it.

Hi Scyth

Yes it does appear challenging for an Atheist. For one thing, Newton’s first law of motion is often stated as:

Without a first cause, what is the impulse that causes vibration to begin with? Cold cannot generate heat. Some mention this idea of “void” but this is misleading since stillness or nothingness for us is just a frequency of vibration beyond our ability to experience. It becomes much more reasonable to view the universe has having begun at such high vibratory frequency or spirit in matter, and voluntarily having slowed down first as light (conscious intent) and than heat (first friction of first creation) and continuing to manifest in ether creating matter at lawful descending levels of material density and vibratory frequency.

The universe itself is alive and "being"is more than just existence as compared to non-existence, but instead it is the various levels of existence taken as a whole and comprising the scale of being itself.

“Human being” can be defined within this scale by what stands below and above it. The relativity of “human being” and consciousness can be verified if one has objective knowledge of vibration and is willing to experiment for the purpose of self knowledge. In this way I believe it has the possibility for those emotionally open to unite religion and science.

Carpathian

What I get is that you do not understand vibration. What you define as "outward"is actually the appearance of groupings, fractions of a larger whole, of slower vibrations. I know you don’t know what I’m referring to but if you are interested or for others reading this thread, here is some info on “vibrations.”

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … =vibration

Read the link in my first post. It explains a great deal

Kris

Time doesn’t exist as you think it does but instead there is “only the totality of the results ensuing from all the cosmic phenomenah present in a given place.” We define time by comparisons of these phenomenah.

So there is no such thing as waiting long enough and existence will appear by itself with no impetus.

Well atlest you took your toys out of my thread… goodday :slight_smile:

LMAO in response to Carpathian’s reply.

To yours Nick;

I had posted some of reasons for time on one or two other threads I will hunt them down because I don’t remember which ones and i really don’t want to retype too much. I hate redos, things get lost because your total memory may insert a cross meaning word or rather an apparent cross meaning word then you spend so much time addressing that, becaause your opponent researches and decides to bomb you with this pissant change, it then becomes off subject. truly annoying, give me some time to search, will ya.

(Toys/labeling)…The usual attitude for many when something new for a person cannot be immediately classified under their usual preconceptions.

I haven’t followed up the links yet, but are we essentially talking about the notion of a prima causa here? If yes, then IMO it’s obvious that neither science nor religion can insert one. Anyone who says god can provide “the first whatever” has merely deferred the issue.

ChimneySweep: =D> =D> =D> :sunglasses:

What caused the first cause?

If nothingness is a frequency of vibration, then nothingness exists. Humans can’t here very high frequency sound waves, but they still exist. Which presents a paradox. How can you say that nothiness, THE LACK OF EXISTENCE exists?

Also, aside from the logic problem there, you’ve got an epistemic problem. Supposing that nothingness exists as a frequency of vibration beyond our ability to experience, then how do we know it exists?

Science and religion can’t be brought together. Science tries to describe the universe, what exists. It cannot picture why or how the universe exists. That’s religion’s job. Science and religion don’t travel together.

God inspired this book. God is perfect. You cannot question or critisize God. You cannot listen to anything opposite to what you’ve been told already by God.
^
Example of dogmatic God retarding forms of change.

That’s the divide…

ChimneySeeep

Have you considered that perhaps we cannot appreciate prima causa because we exist as an effect?

I know that is a rough one to take but what is the beginning of a circle? Perhaps the prima causa does not have a beginning but always exists as the consciousness behind the laws governing creation? From this perspective there is no beginning as we view time but just a source, the continuance of “now” continually manifesting as results of the involutionary flow of life forces into creation and their evolutionary flow back in the direction of their source. Naturally there is a large overlap and like the waves of the sea matter is continually breaking down and becoming part of a reformation moving in one direction or the other.

theonefroberg

Nothingness exists as a limit of our perception. When I contemplate existence beyond our perception I have to make a hypothesis and determine how if possible to verify it.

Suppose there is a sound of a certain pitch that raises in pitch as its vibrations increase. It reaches the point that even our subtle instruments cannot detect. Do I assume that no vibration is possible because we cannot detect it or rather that it exists beyond our ability to detect it. I choose to believe in the latter hypothesis and attempt to verify it.

We cannot know it exists but we have a choice to believe that somehow vibrations began on their own which refutes Newton’s law or that vibrations were intentionally designed to lawfully slow down due to friction amongst other reasons. It makes more sense to me that vibrations slowed down into our field of perception rather than initiate from nothing. You may prefer questioning Newton.

I disagree. Science may discover universal laws. If religion explains their purpose, where is the conflict? To me they are complimentary. Of course both open minded scientists and men of religion are necessary for it to remain complimentary and I will concede that this is rarely the case.

Dan

You’ve limited religion to some form of dogmatic secularism which is not the issue.

I don’t think Dans talking about relegion as a concept, Nick. Just a particularly annoying aspect.

This is a weird idea. And I think there’s a a problem with it. From what you’ve said, it seems to be you’re saying everything in the universe is some form of vibration at a certain frequency. But vibrations don’t happen in vaccums, there must be some sort of medium that exists for the vibration to travel through. You see God as the “first impulse”, which started this great big vibrator we call the universe. Well, the problem here is you’ve presupposed the existence of a medium in which God (the First Wave) can vibrate. You’ve presupposed the existence of something before the first cause. Which is a contradiction. Furthermore, does this mean we get to go back to scientific theories based around The Ether?

Also, you’re pretty much saying that every effect must follow from a cause. But what caused this first cause? You say it’s a first impulse, but no vibration can be caused without a movement to start the vibration. Guitar strings need to be picked or strummed, they don’t just start moving on their own. Bertrand Russell in his “Why I am not Christian” speech had a good refutation of the first cause argument, you should read it.

No. According to Mr. Kant, we perceive things through our “forms of pure intution”, space and time. So according to one of the most brilliant modern philosophers, we can’t perceive anything outside of our conceptions of space and time. Now, since you can’t perceive anything outside of space and time, you can’t make a hypothesis as to what’s beyond space and time and there’s no way to verify it.

Mr. Wittgenstein had a similar idea about the limits of thought:

Thus the aim of this book is to draw a limit to thought, or rather – not to thought, but to the expression of thoughts: for in order to be able to draw a limit to thought, we should have to find both sides of the limit thinkable (i.e. we should have to be able to think what cannot be thought). - Preface to Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

You can’t say anything about it. You cannot know whether the vibration is possible because you can’t detected. You say you will believe the pitch exists and will attempt to verify that. That means you must make some sort of observation to show that your vibration actually exists. But in the beginning of the passage you said that the vibration cannot be detected. That means you cannot make an observation to verify your claim. Thus, there is no data to support it or refute it. It is neither true nor false. It is non-sensical

I’m not questioning Newton. There either was a first cause, or their wasn’t. But there is no way to empirically verify that claim. We cannot perceive anything outside of space and time. To know the first cause of the universe means to know something outside of space-time. The first cause cannot be part of the universe that it caused. Thus, again, there’s no way to verify your claim that there was a first cause. It’s a nonsensical claim.

Mr. Wittgenstein had a great quote you should take to heart: “Whereof we cannot speak, we must pass over into silence.”

Science is not about discovering universal laws. David Hume sure didn’t think so. Scientists make propositions explaining how and why the universe behaves as it does. They then check their models of explanations against the evidence from nature and see if their models agree with the data. If they do, part of the theory is verified; if not, the theory is refined. Scientists go on doing this, crafting better and better descriptions or pictures of how the universe works.

I don’t think final causes or purposes exist. Mr. Spinoza reasoned that purposes are merely wants. Houses are built because people want shelter. Cars are built to transport people, because people don’t want to walk. Thus, Spinoza viewed final causes or purposes as efficient causes. The house was built because the owner wanted it. The owner’s want caused the house to be built. Cause: Owner’s want of shelter. Effect: construction of house.

Saying that there is a final cause, or purpose to the universe thus presupposes the existence of an entity that wants something for the universe. That, in your system, is the first cause. I’ve already shown that it is impossible to verify the existence of this first cause. Thus, it is impossible to know the purpose of the universe, or its constituent parts. We can’t know if anything “wants” us.

So science isn’t pursuing universal laws, just better and better pictures of reality. And religion can’t explain the purpose of the universe. How the universe can exist is an unanswerable question. There is no objective answer, so in my mind, it all comes down to private, individual faith there (I believe in a God of some sort (nothing similar to yours, or anyone else’s for that matter), but I’m a fiedist, I go completely on faith). That’s religion for you. Science tries it’s best to be purely objective, whereas religion AT its best is purely subjective.

Hi theonefroberg

Nice reply. So often people become nasty and sarcastic with religious philosophy. It is nice to see you are not one of the many but prefer to calmly discuss.

As I understand it God doesn’t exist; instead God IS. This self contained condition of being is beyond time and space so has no beginning.

Existence begins in time and space and initiated at creation. Existence begins as creation which happens inside this life force of “being” we call God

These ideas may only seem weird since you are not used to them. Weirdness, like beauty, can be in the eye of the beholder.

The medium is “ether” Science has mixed feelings on it but how I understand it is seen in the initial article on vibrations:

altreligion.about.com/library/te … alion9.htm

So from this point of view, space isn’t empty though it may appear to our limited perception as such.

Actually this is a topic of its own and an intelligent paper written about this for a college course would knock the socks off of any prof… Kant’s assertion may have been incomplete. As witness, I’ll post this article by Jacob Needleman:

cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Needleman_93.html

Here is an appropriate excerpt:

Now this is a topic of its own but I believe he is right. To "Know Thyself"is to know ones inner world and it is this knowledge that can allow a person to appreciate a thing in itself. All the esoteric aspects of the ancient traditions have included this possibility of such qualitiesof consciousness. The pursuit of this inner knowledge requires specific inner efforts which is only of interest to a very few.

I can verify vibration within the confines of a range of frequencies. Outside this range I cannot verify. the question becomes is it morelogical to assume nothing exists outside my range of perception or if my range of perception does not include the complete vibratory scale of universal being. My hypothesis begins with the latter.

I am suggesting that there are two methods of reason in contemplating the universe and vibrations. I will post this excerpt to make it clear:

In our attempt to reconcile the inner and outer world, however, we do come up against a very real difficulty, which must be faced. This difficulty is connected with the problem of reconciling different ‘methods of knowing’.

Assuming first that it is quite logical that ultimate vibration exists and slows to many different frequencies creating what we see as the matter of creation is deductive reason. I don’t rely only on inductive reason but try and determine the application of universal laws in what we sense as life. So verification is a continuing process in this form of deductive reason. The more the resultsof deductive reason prove true, the better the possibility of the hypothesis or in this case: God.

True and as Simone Weil said:

The trick is knowing when and how to submit.

But a whole is more than the sum of several parts so to really contemplate the nature of the universe as a whole, or what the Buddhists call dharma, requires deductive reason as well.

But we can form a hypothesis and through deductive reason see if there is enough evidence to accept that their is consciousness beyond our comprehension that we can evolve towards. The study of the mathematics of vibrationsis is just such an attempt.

But possibly, as Jacob Needleman asserts, we can acquire such knowledge not through external verification but internal verification through the ancient process: “Know Thyself.”

From this point of view it is religion that is objective since it “Know Thyself” is the impartial experience of the entire inner human condition. Science on the other hand is suggestive since it seeks to verify only what is of interest to it.

This is not all that easy as it seems to be at first.