G-d Spoke

#beg/emc2

In the beginning, Ain Sof Aur spoke: “$e=mc^2$” were the words. There was no one to hear him, and even if there had been, the language of mathematics had not yet arisen. But there were the Elohim who understood, and, as their will was one with the Creator, Ain Sof Aur, something arose out of nothing… the miracle of existence.^beg-Emc2

These files contain references to Einstein’s equation.

Evolution

Atoms and Molecules

Priest

This is the expression by which the universe came into being. Though the text is written in the future tense, it is taken to be referring to the past. In actual fact it is both. For it is expressing an eternal moment, one that contains both the past, that produces this moment, and yet speaks of a future that has already occurred.

Just as that is one of the enigmatic statements on creation, $e=mc^2$ is truly the most succinct and complete expression of creation, although in mathematical terms. In this essay, I will attempt to show you why this is.

Digressing a moment, we might have used the word sang, instead of spoke. Although in its essence, all speech is musical and in that way we are constantly singing our song(s) to one another. The Australian aborigines believed we sing things into existence. The Jews sing their weekly portion read from the Torah. Rumi says we should spend our life singing to G-d.

Back to our initial statement: “In the beginning… God sang the world into existence.” Whatever energy is behind this magnificence, as long as the song “remains the same” this manifest universe will continue.

It is also said that “Bet”, the first or primary, was the beginning of creation — another way to translate b’reishit. However that may be, “In the beginning”, refers to the beginning of time (as we know it). Time begins at the beginning — what the mathematicians refer to as $t = 0$ or sometimes donate it by the point $t_0$, the first, or beginning point, a point that anything that lives in time can never reach. Only when something occurs in the universe, something “begins”. And, as soon as something begins, we can “time” it. So this “in the beginning” refers to the beginning of Creation, and thus, to the beginning of time, or, where/when time begins. And if there is a beginning, there is, in terms of human consciousness, a story. All narratives begin at the beginning…

Thus, there is indeed an initial “point”—remembering that this is a mystery in itself, for even a point can only exist in space. This is an example of looking backwards, from a place in which time and space are fundamentals. This point arises out of an initial state–and this initial state is equivalent to the word, G-d. This state, referred to as Nothing, $0$ – zero – is such that there is no other state beyond it, as such this is the root state, from which even the alpha state emerges. In this place, there is no beginning and no end. It cannot even be described as a state.

In this primordial state, Perfection reigned. All was balanced, in peaceful harmony. Where, and how, could this other state – the one in which we are conscious – have arisen? Accepting the fact that we have described this State of all states, and that this state cannot exist outside of the previous primordial state, we must be in it, completely contained in it.

Every event story takes places in both time and space, we say. However, perhaps a better way to express this is that every event needs space to manifest, and time to occur. Thus space and time are intimately connected, always intermingled. In Zoharic language, one could say that they are constantly copulating. It has been shown that, on the quantum level at least, they are truly bound together, and one cannot exist without the other. Are they perhaps also connected on other levels — the emotional one, for instance?

Note: This comes up when dealing with dimensions. Are time and space the same, having the same characteristics, in the 4th dimension as the third. We know that the spacial characteristics of the 4th are different to the 3rd. The question is, is time the same in the 4th dimension as in the 3rd?

Factory

Light transforms the energy into matter. In fact, Light is the very energy that transforms into matter.
$e = mc^2$ is the factory of creation, the equation of the creation of form.
$e$ - energy, $m$ - mass, $c$ - light, the speed of.

We think of our existence, the Creation, as continuous, and experience it as such. Yet it is obvious to our science, that it is non-continuous, but emerges in “particles”, discreet bundles. It (existence) exists in time, whether due to the background of rhythmic actions (breathe in, breathe out; sun rises, sun sets) or due to the very finiteness of its very existence. Even as we go deeper into the matter, we still find that even the smallest particles of energy that we can identify, is itself, discreet. In essence, we see a pixalated universe.

We can never tell whether it is the same quanta that manifests or not. All we know is that it pulsates, as does everything in the universe. Here one moment, gone the next, only to reappear an instant later.

When they appear, they take on form, what we refer to as particles, which make up all matter. Upon being bathed in light, they are transformed into matter. The strength or depth of the transformation is relative to the depth of surrender to the transformation.

Now there is this energy that has not been transformed by the light “hanging” about, plus the energy that was not completely transformed, the excess energy. These quanta now lack the light, so they become more and more dense.

$e = mc^2$ is the popular version of the solution to Einsteins’s equation. It is actually $m = \frac{e}{c^2}$ which paints a different picture. []

First Cause

May, 2017

The first cause is unknowable.

#infinity
Knowing of the existence of the finite, it becomes obvious that there are, in fact, many “finites” around us. If one accepts the infinite, then one can agree that if there is a finite, then all that is not that finite, is, to all intents and purposes, infinite.¹

At this point, the question becomes whether you can assume an “original” finite from which all other finites emerged? One is still left with the question of how did the original finite then emerge?

Infinity is another term for the unknown.

Infinity doesn’t only imply largeness, or manyness. It, in fact, implies an horizon over which you cannot see. For, as soon as you “step out” and cross that border, you have ventured into the unknown, stepping into the realm of the potentially infinite (unless this particular finite is contained in a finite that is larger that it) or the infinite potential. There are no tools available with which to measure anything that is unknown – whenever and wherever this “unknown” is encountered. However, your mind will try and “ground” this new experience in concepts that it can grasp.

If infinity exists, then one can only conclude that every finite emerged from that infinity, rather than think that this infinity arose from the infinite evolution of finites—simply because that would take an infinite amount of time. Everything that exists must have a beginning, but if it has a beginning, does it have to have an end? Of course it does if it is finite. But not in an infinite universe. However, our experience (and our science) is pretty conclusive that everything that (we know) exists will eventually “die”, even the universe itself. Though, the cosmological time spans are so distant, that it makes little sense to speak of them.

Line Exercise

#infinity

Let’s explore this idea for a moment. Think of an ordinary line, and begin to stretch it as far as you can. Can you imagine it stretching any further? Can you imagine it “encountering” infinity, i.e continuing endlessly?

I suppose I could. Would that not be a beginning with no end? Well, somehow that is not correct. For in this exercise, one encounters one of the paradoxes of infinity, in that this straight line, stretched infinitely – in both directions – becomes a circle. It begins and ends at the same place – infinity.

If the line does not stretch infinitely in both directions, you would be plucking a line out of the infinite line, just as when you choose a number, you have plucked it out of the infinite set of numbers. Thus you have either removed a portion of the infinite line, or alternatively, chosen a line from the infinite set of lines. Whichever it is, it has had no effect on the infinite line (or set of lines)

Footnotes

Footnotes

1. This is a huge topic. Is it easier to identify a finite object or an infinite one? Because finite requires a number that is “expressible”. Whereas to show that a measurement is infinite, it has to be proven that it is either endless, or larger than anything we can measure (or give a number to). This breaks down naturally into three categories: the (obviously) finite; the (proven) infinite; and the rest. Either they cannot be show to be either, or they cannot be measured, or…. ↩︎