Quotessence
Home / Books / ABSOLUTE

ABSOLUTE

Book by Dejan Stojanovic · 50 quotes · Dejan Stojanovic, Absolute, Universe

Filter quotes by topic

ABSOLUTE Quotes

“Everything or anything before the Big Bang does not obey the laws of physics and is not necessarily compatible with our understanding and views of the world. We do not mean that there is nothing before the Big Bang, but that we can hardly understand what is hidden before it (we can only use our abstract thoughts to imagine it). As we explained in other parts of this book, we cannot look at time in the same way from the perspective of the “physical” world as from the perspective of an immaterial world. Neither space nor time exists in the nonmaterial world. Space and time are categories we deal with only in the “physical” world.”

“We may accept the idea that natural laws govern everything in the Universe and that these laws are in some way absolute. Still, we cannot hide behind scientific laws before explaining them. According to Hawking, scientific laws may be enough for our understanding of the World. His implicit message is that the Creator is not needed. Such statements could have been valid if scientific laws were absolute and scientists, including Hawking, resolved the mystery of existence, the Universe, and the origin and future of everything. Since that is not the case, no scientist can replace the idea of the Creator just by insufficient scientific knowledge. Only a scientist or scientists (or anybody) with absolute knowledge can dethrone the Creator if there is such complete knowledge (scientific or otherwise), proving that there is nothing beyond the “point” where time stops. Unfortunately, this kind of knowledge and understanding does not yet exist. The purpose of science is not to push the Creator out of the picture but to improve, define, and redefine scientific laws in its pursuit of truth.”

“Humans free themselves from conceptual traps by freeing themselves from paradigms that close horizons instead of opening them. Language is the supreme instrument of thought, but a number is a word, too; without a word, there would be no number. Every number corresponds not only to the graphic symbol but also to the linguistic one. Conceptually, numbers and words are different because words represent or name things and phenomena, while numbers represent the quantitative or numeric value of things and phenomena. We understand the function and the role of numbers and words. Through words, others know what we think or want to say. However, even a bird knows what the nest is by feeling it intuitively. A dog, thrown away ten miles from the house where it lived, will find it. Animals often communicate among themselves.”

“A word had to predate the number. As a graphic sign, the number is the graphic expression of the word that predates it. Both words and numbers are linguistic expressions of thought. The purpose of words is to express and explain the essence, and the purpose of numbers is to express quantity. Words are qualificators, and numbers are quantifications.”

“We will start with Hawking's few quotations. “The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to spacetime and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of spacetime at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for spacetime. One could say: ‘The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.’ The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.” Or, in the same manner: “There ought to be something very special about the boundary conditions of the universe, and what can be more special than the condition that there is no boundary?” Also, he stated, “According to the no-boundary proposal, asking what came before the Big Bang is meaningless—like asking what is south of the South Pole—because there is no notion of time available to refer to. The concept of time only exists within our universe.” The “no-boundary proposal” is a classic example of a device called in Latin, Deus ex machina—God from the machine, invented by the ancient Greek dramatists Aeschylus and Euripides. The primary purpose of the device was to resolve the irresolvable. The question of what came before the Big Bang is not meaningless. We cannot accept that our Big Bang is the beginning of all existence. Since there is "no notion of time available to refer to," that does not mean there is nothing to refer to. This reasoning is a logical fallacy based on the idea that there should be nothing to refer to if there is no time to refer to it. This kind of reasoning falsifies reality to fit the argument. For this statement to be accurate, there must be proof that there is nothing to refer to, not "no notion of time to refer to." The lack of notion of time to refer to or its availability is not proof that there is nothing to refer to, but only that there is no notion of time to refer to and that it is not available. The lack of availability is only proof that something is not available to someone but not proof that nothing exists beyond the “point” where “time” stops. If Something, the Being, the Universal Source of Everything, is not available or approachable in any way by some particular scientist, that does not mean that the Universal Source of Everything (the Absolute) does not exist beyond the physical world. In this sense, the no-boundary proposal is a boundary proposal of a different kind. Since it is impossible to speculate about abstract concepts or ideas, such as God, Absolute, or Universal Source, it is easier to invent some trick (pardon my language), with all due respect, to compensate for the lack of understanding of the most abstract ideas and to compensate for the limitations of a frame of mind of any particular scientist or philosopher. In this case, the no-boundary proposal precisely serves the purpose of a boundary—to limit the world to the point where “time stops” and declare that there is nothing beyond because time stops there. That should mean that the laws of nature and science stop at this artificially produced boundary. But what do we have as proof that this is true? Precisely like in religions, we have words that sound seductively beautiful and convincing. Also, to a large extent, these words are supported by scientific knowledge and investigation. Yet, they are just words, and in no way do they prove that there is no immaterial Universal Source beyond the “point” where time stops.”

“Hawking’s insistence on scientific laws hides the desire to transform the current scientific laws into the ultimate and absolute knowledge of everything, physical and metaphysical, of this world and the outer world. According to him, we are on the verge of declaring, with almost absolute certainty, that we have solved the whole enigma of existence and gone down to nearly the deepest end of science and scientific laws. Although he expressed many ideas in a simple, popular, and often funny way, there is a little bit of unjustifiable scientific conceit (to call it that way) behind some statements. If we were to imagine the creative force capable of creating the Universe, this creative force would be out of time or eternal. The Eternal Being is not contingent or affected by the boundaries of the physical world. The no-boundary proposal is accurate in that there are no boundaries we can apply to the Eternal Being. Still, the Universe, as the Being with its beginning, is bounded by time. The first point of the Universe is its first limit; it would have no limits if it were a timeless Being. Even if there were a series of births and rebirths, these would still be limited creations or recreations of something eternal that creates or recreates itself through the creation of universes. The creative power of the Eternal Being is the ultimate force that keeps the Eternal Being alive. The only way for the Eternal Being to exist with meaning is through its creative power to rejuvenate itself in new ways and myriad forms constantly. The Creator is its creation, and the creation creates the creator in a deeper sense. Without creating, the Universal Being loses its purpose and becomes meaningless. Meaning is only possible in plurality. The World, or Universe, gives the Universal Being meaning and purpose. The world is its salvation.”

“The nonmaterial world is the spaceless "space" and timeless "time." In the nonmaterial world, there is no time and no space. Paradoxically, no time means eternity, and no space means infinity. No boundary proposal is a proposal about an everlasting world and everlasting time. Everlasting means time with a beginning and no end. The concept or idea of eternal implies no beginning and no end. The concept of the everlasting Being, or time, or space, as an ultimate principle is shaky because we cannot use our limitations in thinking to argue against reality as it is and not as we say it is. If we do not understand the idea of time in its totality, we cannot talk about time from the point of superior “knowledge.”

“Whatever has a beginning is not eternal. What is not eternal must have come from "somewhere." The worst thing is to try to prove something, counting on the idea that it came from nothing. It is also as unscientific as it can get. No chaos theory can prove this reasoning, and no "butterfly effect" can prove it because nothing is only nothing and cannot be anything else except nothing. Nothingness cannot move the Nothing or create from nothing.”

“The idea of infinite regress is absurd. The question of God cannot be reduced to a cosmological argument either. The ultimate question of reality is if there is something or not. If we agree that there is something, then the question is if that something can come into existence from nothing. Wouldn't it be more logical that there is just nothing? But just the idea that there is nothing implies, at least linguistically, that nothing is something; otherwise, we would not use the words ‘there is.’ Again, language demonstrates how limited it is.”

“We should conclude that this Nothing is eternal. To prove that Something is not eternal, we would have to prove that this Something just appeared from nowhere and became something. The burden of proof here lies on atheists to demonstrate how something came into existence from nothing. This burden is the same one Bertrand Russell tried to impose on theists, deists, or any believer. Why would believers be burdened with the burden of proving God and disbelievers get away without proving how Something, whatever we choose to call it—God, Universe, World, came to be?”

“That the matter originated just by itself or was always "there" in the form of "energy" and organized itself into superbly sophisticated organisms forming the Universe borders on insanity. We can, perhaps, all (both atheists and those who believe in a higher source) agree that there always was Something. The question is how we define this Something. It is much easier to prove that the Something always existed than to prove the opposite. Scientists can deal with this Something more easily because, moving back, step by step, scientists will come to nothing. When they come to nothing, the "spotless spot" before the Big Bang, they will have to scientifically explain how all the reality, the whole of what we think the "Universe" is, was contained within an immeasurable "spotless spot." Once they find the answer, they will understand that this "spotless spot" from which everything originated is immaterial and spaceless. This immaterial Being is the Creator of all reality and is the reality itself. Plotinus would call this reality intelligence or mind.”

“We provided the frame from which scientists can prove that matter is a construct, program, and “instruction” of the Universal Mind and that the same program predetermines our perception. Our understanding of the world is contingent upon our experience, cognition, and perception (tertiary quality in my system of thought), which is contingent upon the secondary in my system of thought (originally, primary quality) since there is no matter as we perceive it or conceptualize it. There is no matter as such.”

“Religious thinking is more accurate in realizing there can be no creation without the mover. Zero point is the "first" point. This zero point is something. It did not come from nothing. The World, as a "physical reality," has its physical and temporal beginning, but the force empowering it, the Universal Mind, is out of time, so there can be no notion of time to refer to before the Big Bang.”

“The comment about the South of South Pole is a logical fallacy because it presupposes nothing existed before the Big Bang. The Entity before the Big Bang is not comparable to what is south of the South Pole. The idea that we do not understand that there is something "North, South, East, and West" of the Big Bang does not mean that these "North, South, East, and West" do not exist in a way incomprehensible to our limited cognitive powers, senses, and based on limited scientific discoveries. That which lies beyond time and space and is the source of everything we see cannot be referenced only by the too-simplistic and sometimes semi-humorous means. Our language and words or terms describing the sides of the “physical world” are limited if we want to apply them to the metaphysical, immaterial realm beyond space and time. In no way does this kind of reasoning or “arguments” prove that the Universal Source of Everything does not exist. I have chosen to call this Source of Everything, known and unknown, the Universal Mind. In our sense of the word, there is no space before the Big Bang, and there are no sides of any kind, not to mention sides of the World. South of the South Pole is just Nothingness from a physical point of view. There are no sides of the world in the primordial Nothingness or the Absolute Vacuum. At the same time, this Nothingness “hides” immaterial Being, the Universal Source of everything.”

“No Need for Time Before the Creation of the World Here is one more quotation representative of the way Stephen Hawking thought: “The role played by time at the beginning of the Universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a grand designer and revealing how the Universe created itself. As we travel back in time towards the moment of the Big Bang, the Universe gets smaller and smaller and smaller, until it finally comes to a point where the whole Universe is a space so small that it is in effect a single infinitesimally small, infinitesimally dense black hole. And just as with modern-day black holes, floating around in space, the laws of nature dictate something quite extraordinary. They tell us that here too time itself must come to a stop. You can’t get to a time before the Big Bang because there was no time before the Big Bang. We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in. People want answers to the big questions, like why we are here. They don’t expect the answers to be easy, so they are prepared to struggle a bit. When people ask me if a God created the Universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang so there is no time for God to make the Universe in. It’s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth—the Earth is a sphere that doesn’t have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.” In its absolute state, beyond the World, the Being is immaterial, and the Nonbeing is an absolute vacuum, nothingness, or emptiness. In the primordial state of the Absolute, the Being and the Nonbing become the same—the Nonbeing. There is no time or space in the absolute realm beyond the World. Timeless “time” is the potential for Eternity. Eternity is beyond time because it is all time, past and future. Spaceless “space” or nothingness is the infinite potential for space. Infinity is beyond space because infinity is all space, past and future. Creation or recreation of the World (Universe) activates the two poles of the Absolute. Creation of the World is the salvation of the Absolute. Absolute is absolute potential. The activity of the Being enveloping the Nonbeing (Nothingness) transforms the Being and the Nonbeing into the World (Universe). When the Absolute transforms into the World, the Being becomes positive, and the Nonbeing becomes negative. The Being is positive “energy.” The Nonbeing is negative “energy.” Zero is the point of equilibrium between the Being and the Nonbeing. Zero is the passage (wormhole) between the primordial state of the Absolute and the World or Universe. Before the spacetime continuum, plus and minus are the same: + = – Before the creation, Absolute is 0 (+ – = 0) At the point of the World Creation, the Being envelopes the Nonbeing: + 0 – The Being cannot envelop the whole of the Nonbeing because Nothingness is infinite in its potential. The Being is infinite in its potential, too. (+ [plus] is the Being; – [minus] the Nonbeing; 0 [Zero] is the Absolute) The primordial state of the Absolute is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless. The primordial state of the Absolute is absolute potential. In its potential, the Absolute is infinite and eternal. Absolute can only exercise its potential and power in the infinite number of possibilities and universes or worlds it can transform into.”

“Universal Source and universal potential are always beyond space and time and do not abide by human scientific laws. Still, this does not mean that, potentially, humans may not acquire abilities to solve the biggest mysteries within the boundaries of the existing Universe we are aware of or of the much larger Universe this one is only part of. Even the secrets hidden beyond the “point” where time stops may be potentially solved, at least by abstract thinking, which can be a vast and valuable source for the further development and enrichment of scientific laws and humans as a species.”

“To state there is no need for a creator or God if there is no time is meaningless. Because the Absolute is beyond time and space as we know them. Absolute is the Source of time and space and, therefore, does not need time to create or recreate itself through the World. Such statements are not scientific; they are presuppositions and intellectual constructs that serve as fillers for the lack of accurate understanding or a fundamental theory explaining how reality, which is almost incomprehensible to the human mind, functions.”

“There are laws of nature. We may describe the laws of nature but still not wholly unravel and understand them to pronounce that scientific laws are equal to natural laws or that they are an absolute representation of natural laws. Scientific laws did not yet cover, describe, and explain all natural laws, mysteries, and secrets.”

“We cannot hide behind science nor talk in the name of science while proclaiming statements that are not scientific. Such statements are that there is no creator if there is no time. However, this is only a statement a scientist (Stephen Hawking) uses, not a scientific argument or fact with scientific validity. The same goes for the south of the South Pole because such a statement is a logical fallacy based on the presupposition that there is nothing south of the South Pole, meaning there is absolutely nothing beyond some point of the material World, which is only a presupposition and not a scientific or natural law. Such statements may sound like analytic or logical propositions. Still, these are not analytic or logical propositions but methods or tricks to cover up the loopholes of scientific knowledge and understanding with dogmatic statements.”

“There is a universal reservoir, the source of all knowledge, which is the same for the arts and sciences as for philosophy and religion. In a way, science is an art. In some ways, religion is philosophy because philosophy and religion often deal with the same questions—with the first and the final causes, among others. Religious people a priori “bet” on God, whereas philosophers may bet on God or not. The difference in approach toward God between religion and philosophy is that religion imposes and prescribes God, and philosophy offers the freedom of thought and choice. Religious prescriptions of God are not proof of faith or God’s existence, but rather the opposite—they prove that philosophy is more “religious” than religion because it doesn’t steal God from people but offers freedom.”

“Canonization, limitation, and reduction of God to a “few” sentences are inconceivable attempts to kill and expel God from people under the excuse that God is doing that. There is no weakness in science and language as instruments. There is no excuse. There is only human power and weakness. Understanding depends on the balance between human strengths and weaknesses.”

“The world was ready for greater discoveries two thousand years ago. (Heron of Alexandria is an excellent example of an inventor who invented the first steam engine, aeolipile.) There was a basis for it. Only the language to translate abstract ideas and symbols into the language of science was missing. The only obstacle to a human being is a human being himself. The only limitation comes from the inability to dream and pierce into the essence that permeates all that exists in the universe. There is the same law for a galaxy, for a man, and for an ant. Basic principles are the same everywhere; they never change and exist as long as the universe exists.”

“God is not absolute, and Nothingness is not absolute. If we come from these positions (postulates), we confront the inability of language to be precise. This inability reveals that the problem of understanding different phenomena is not so much in the phenomena themselves but in our failure to understand or present them linguistically in the best and most precise manner.”

“God, or to put it better, our idea of God, is a concept before anything else. The way God had been (mainly) understood throughout history leads to the idea of God as an entity beyond the world that creates the world and stays beyond the world but affects it. There is no proof for this, but the concept itself, by its nature, is a theoretical expression or view of a particular phenomenon. As such, applied to something invisible or tangible and visible, it is subject to change.”

“Many concepts and ideas become laws in time, like the laws of physics. In time, many of these same concepts lose validity in favor of new concepts that become new laws. These phenomena lead to the progress of science; otherwise, some concepts, which were previously laws, would always stay the same regardless of whether they were correct.”

“New concepts or laws would not be possible without the preceding concepts or laws. What we refuse today as incorrect is the basis for something we accept as correct tomorrow. Then the question arises—if the preceding concept was incorrect, how is it possible that the new concept, or law, that we think is correct can be based on the previous and rejected one? Something “incorrect” cannot be the basis for something correct. In this way, we conclude that even those laws (concepts) we reject today as incorrect contain the elements of a new law or concept or something that we think is correct or more correct. The world's universal nature cannot be wholly apprehended and observed by the human mind. All this happens while the laws stay the same; only our ideas and concepts about the laws change, not the laws or the truth (fact) itself.”

“Nothing in the world can be absolute except the Absolute itself. Everything else is contained and exists in relations. Relations can exist only through the division of the Absolute or God. Since no part is absolute, then no part can completely understand (including the human mind) or comprehend the whole of the Absolute. Understanding the “final” laws leads toward the end. If humans understood and empowered themselves with the knowledge of these laws, they would cease to be humans and become what they sought to find or understand. In that way, humans become either God or nothing. The ultimate beauty is the evolution of the world. Evolution in the animal world (individual species) can be horizontal without major changes. Still, in the development of humans, it can be pretty vertical (thanks to awareness and brain power). Regardless of the vertical evolution of humans as biological beings, this is still only evolution, and evolution is only possible if something new is acquired, for the lack of final knowledge, about the final causes and the ultimate essence of being.”

“That which we never question is the concept itself. But what is a concept? Is it necessary to put the idea of a concept itself, or the law, under the magnifying glass to better understand it because a concept is only a word or term it expresses? Even the concept itself, as an idea or term, can be a matter of discussion or scientific, philosophical, artistic, or religious discourse. Consequently, we may discover that something that slowed down the development of ideas and their formulations or understanding of laws is the impossibility of breaking up with concepts or paradigms that became a priori truths.”

“God is a concept more than anything else. The idea of God or about God, as it functions in religions, doesn’t deal with reality but with presuppositions based on revelations. Revelation, in itself, is arbitrary and can result from hallucination, among other things, which does not exclude the possibility that even hallucination may lead to some ways of truth.”

“From the point of established religions, God is conceptually the source of the world, something that creates the world but stays beyond the world as something absolute that influences the world. Not only is God understood in this way, but it is also appropriated in the main monotheistic religions. Therefore, from the standpoint of official religions, it is much more important to claim God understood in this manner and establish the right to God than the God itself (accurate idea and concept of God). That is how this strange ownership functions and obtains “legitimacy.”

“Divine Hiddenness Argument against God’s Existence Divine Hiddenness does not necessarily mean that the Ultimate Being hides; it instead means that our human powers are limited. The natural laws were secret (and still are) to the people before they learned to decipher them slowly. We may say that Newton's laws deciphered and formulated were hidden up to that point not because they were hiding per se but because our abilities were not on par with the laws of physics, which we have thought were “hidden.” It is a poor argument to use hiddenness as a legitimate argument against God or against anything else, of which, at some point, we do not have a proper or complete understanding. Hiddenness by itself is not proof that God does not exist. By using that logic, we may say that mosquitos are not aware of the existence of human beings. The argument that they are very “aware,” in some sense while sucking the blood of humans would not be sufficient because they are not aware of who and what human beings are. Certainly, microorganisms, without any desire to compare human beings with microorganisms, are not aware of the existence of human beings. What if animals used an argument, if they could, that there is no evidence that there are many galaxies in the Universe, or if any other animal could have used that argument? Would that be proof that other galaxies do not exist? On what basis are we sure that we possess the ability to experience God directly if it existed (although the world is one of the faces of God)? I am not trying to compare human beings to other animals or diminish human abilities. Still, I would like to emphasize that, regardless of how advanced we are, we may still be as distant from God, or more, as some animals are from us. To rely only on evidence is to limit the science, not to be scientific. What is scientific in limiting science to the frame that fits our capacity for understanding, learning, and comprehension instead of fitting the frame of reality and the truth? To be precise, we would need to redefine or make the idea of God more precise. Maybe God is not what we think it is. What if the World itself is God? What if the World, regardless of its beginning and end, is still a consequence of an eternal Being without a beginning and end? What if the world and matter as we know it are only the modes of the Universal Eternal Being from which everything originates and to which everything returns? Matter is not what we think it is. God is not what religious books say. Nobody has the right to God, a title to God. No prophet can tell other people that he (or she) speaks the word of God. Humans do the things done in the name of God in their name, not the name of God. Their hiding behind God is a form of manipulation, demagogy, and control of others.”

“The lack of understanding and some consensus about the question of God shows the fanaticism of both religious people and atheists who have become atheists more because of hate toward religion than because of “hatred” toward God. Therefore, they cannot understand the difference between God and religion. Curt Gödel (1906—1978) noted, '[I am] against religions but not against religion.' Without intermediaries and 'holy books,' real religion is the desire to reconnect (religio) to the Ultimate Source.”

“Greek atomists Leucippus, his pupil Democritus, and other metaphysicians knew that the world was not how people saw and perceived it. If they understood atoms even then, the indivisible particles, not modern new atoms, we must believe that they understood much more. If they knew that every sense and sensation is a convention, they could have understood that space and time are conventions, too. Regardless of not thoroughly understanding or elaborating on these concepts, they understood that the world must be something different from what is experienced by the senses or how the senses understand it. If Everything is by a convention of senses, then senses can represent things differently; that is why the eye watches, not the ear. If Everything is a convention, then Everything we experience by senses must be relative.”

“Maybe Democritus did not understand that matter, as a convention or the world of atoms that makes the whole Universe, including our brain, which “rules” the senses and cognition, is the same convention. However, an atom is a convention. The World is a Convention of the Absolute. The conventions must be relative; only the Absolute is unconventional, but only by and through conventions are the world and life possible.”

“Absolute” velocity happens when the primary quality of all existence or the Universal Mind shows its power in action, being everywhere simultaneously, not only faster than the speed of light but at the absolute speed, that means omnipresence. On this level, time is absolute, and there is no relativity. Relativity of time is possible within the “visible” realm of reality and not in the manifestation (action) of the primary quality of a Universal Mind, which functions within the realm of Zero, securing omnipresence in the always-present time. Relativity of time is possible only if there are the past and the future, not the present. The present is Zero, and Zero is absolute.”

“Absolute is infinitesimal, almost nonexistent “materially.” It is smaller than any conceivable shape or object, smaller than a quark, not even the size of the Planck length. In its volume, every divided world and Everything inhabited by emptiness is “bigger” than the Absolute. But only this nothing, emptiness, makes the life of the Absolute possible. If the One is undivided, it is without motion; the power becomes a weakness because it is without an exit.”