The concept is found in other texts as well but I'll just use what I know. Is it possible that the fundamental truth about everything and how it is 'constructed' was already presented to us before the discovery of the Wave-particle phenomenon? -This just dawned on me, I don't know if anyone else has ever looked at it this way- The Word and Creation- The method of creation as described is by the 'Word'. "'Be' and It is" (Kun fayakun) (Quran) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kun_(Islamic_term) The Wave-Particle Wave- 'Be'- the spoken word which is a wave as is any sound. Particle- 'It is'- the word 'Be' spoken before becomes manifest and so it comes to being- if something physical came to being that would mean particle. Quantum Wave Function So the beginning of everything is a wave (The Word), and that wave has the potential to create (Creation). Interesting, no? Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Perhaps you should learn some background of Abracadabra- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abracadabra This one is also interesting: Article on Abracadabra Seems to me of religious origin, and particularly used in Jewish culture- isn't really used as 'be and it is'- but it certainly is being used as 'words' having 'power'- Where did this word come from is an interesting question? If its origin was thought to be God's- which could be why Jews used it- then that actually just means that they believed that God's "Word" have power to do certain things- and in which case it would be like I said. As for Presto- I think its just a redone modern version to use as a comedian as even Abracadabra is used in a similar fashion now days. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I said same thing didn't I? Magicians love itPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If I ask a theist how they know God exists and the replay is "because....." then can I say this is absolute proof of God?The reason being that I can take the two syllables and do exactly what you're attempting. Be..... the command to exist Cause.... God Therefore am I to conclude that the word because is proof of the Almighty?
I interpret it in a more psychological way. The Tao Te Ching says, "Naming is the origin of all things", which I interpret to mean- things aren't recognized as separate things until we name them, thereby placing an artificial frame around a discrete portion of the universe. I think it evokes the introduction of language into our species.
One is entertainment while the other has more leaning towards spirituality- I don't see them one in the same even if you do call them 'magician'. The reason they would being with 'because' is because (as you see) this is conventional use of language. Not because they are proving God's existence by using that word. There is a difference between using a word as a method. Do you think they will end with 'because'. Do you think they will say that God exists just 'because' of the word because? There is clearly a difference, if you are trying to avoid.. When God wants to make something he says 'Be' and then 'It is'- which is clearly emphasizing that this is how God creates. When some says 'because'- they don't end there- they go further to explain the 'be' and 'cause'- meaning that what they explain further will be 'Be' and that will lead to a 'cause'- but it is the 'be' that they further describe that will be what is causing the 'cause'. So one is a use of word while the other is clearly describing how one thing is created by simply the command of 'Be' which causes something to come to existence (It is). Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And if you still insist then we can look at the Biblical verse stating: 1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Indicating the 'cause' of lights existence is the spoken "Word" of God- His Command. "Because" is not a command which 'causes'- it is a transitional word after which precedes the explanation of what 'causes'. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
786, A fancy way you explain "speaking it into existence". Seems science would love to find that belief actually working somewhere.
This is an interesting thought, but clearly this is not what is happening here.... I think the Genesis story clearly differentiates the processes of "Commanding" (Word) Creating (through the Word) and Differentiating (Naming). For example from Genesis: (I've split it up to show the three things) The COMMAND: (Word) And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." The Creation: And it was so. The Differentiation (Naming): God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. Another example: COMMAND : Word And God said, "Let there be light," CREATION and there was light. 4 DIFFERENTIATION: (Naming) God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning So what you say is partially correct- that naming is important- but clearly the commanding of "Be" here is not naming, it is actually creating. Naming follows after something has been created so that there is a way to identify the creation. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well if speech is a wave- and everything has indeed come from that wave- It is 'speaking into existence'- The question is where did that 'wave' come from? So I would think that quantum mechanics has shown that 'wave' (speech) leads to 'existence'. But none of us has the ability to produce the same type of 'wave' to be able to create by speech. And what I was trying to show is that quantum mechanics show how 'wave' leads to the physical existence... which is similar to how God's Word (a wave) manifests into actual 'existence'... That is the fundamental construction of everything is through a wave. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
786, Did you mean to say: "the beginning of everything was a wave" I am not an Atheist or theist, btw.
I think we're going to the question that can something exist prior to language? I think it can- the fact that we can not think outside of language is another story. If I make a painting and then call it Mona Lisa- there is a difference.. Sure you will know identify the painting as Mona Lisa- but it existed before it ever had a name attached to it... And anyways I've already shown through the Genesis story that the process is separated. God created and then gave it a name to distinguish his creation- otherwise there is no way to communicate it- I think this is why language was invented- to describe that which already exists (not create). Peace be unto you; )
Yes.. The beginning of everything was the Word of God- which is a wave- and so we came from what was a wave- but we still retain the 'wave' aspect of of creation. So it is also 'is' in a way. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Existence as we know it comes from the brain. When we name something we start to control how we percieve it. When we named the Mona Lisa, we start to internalize that the figure is the important thing, as opposed to the backround. The Quran copied Genesis and gave it it's own cultural spin, so maybe the bible was copied from earlier myths that gave more importance to the emergence of language as a formative force for our perception of reality.
Lets not go philosophical.. Things existed even before there was a brain. A Brain only allows us to experience the existence. I believe fundamentally things exist regardless of the brain knowing they exist.. There were jumping gene before scientists found there were jumping genes. I differentiate perception from existence. Perception to me is subjective while existence is objective. If something exists, it exists. Or that it truly did happen simply through speech, knowing that the God is deemed to have power capable of doing it. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I dont understand the wave part. Seems like you are latching onto the Quantum Wave term which is just a term.
Even though it is a term, that same term applies to sound. If you change one term the other must also change. Regardless of what 'term' you give to the quantum wave that term would equally be true to the 'term' of sound. You can change to x-particle (x replaces wave) behavior, but that x will also be applicable to sound. We can look at string theory- 'vibrating strings'? Is sound not a vibration? Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
