Quotessence
Home / Authors / Dejan Stojanovic
Dejan Stojanovic

Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

Poet

Filter quotes by topic

Famous Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

“If there is only one Universe, like ours, it is too small and does not allow for exercising the highest possible, absolute potential at a given moment. For the highest possible absolute potential, viewed through infinity, to be exercised, there must be not only an infinity of possible worlds (universes) at different points (times) but the highest possible number (in this case, quantity is the main quality) of worlds at the same time at any time. Suppose there is no highest possible number of worlds (not only in variations but structurally). Under such conditions, the highest possible potential at any given time would be impossible because the chance, the main source of a potential infinity, would be unable to function and exercise itself to the highest possible potential.”

“Chance is the source of potential infinity and the primary source of real meaning in the manifestation (Universe) of the Absolute. Regardless of the unlimited potential for variations in quantity and quality within one universe as we understand it, such a world would still be limited in its manifestation and meaning if it were not a part of the Omniverse.”

“For the fine-tuning to be accidental, there would have to be a multiverse and an “infinite” number of universes. Nobody has yet measured the level of fine-tuning in objective and absolute mathematical terms. This idea would imply calculating everything on every level, micro and macro, in every direction and combining everything with everything. Most likely, this would show that only the “infinite” number of universes would provide the real source for such a possibility because the level of fine-tuning in the existing Universe is so fine that it would require almost an infinite number of combinations to organize one in such a manner. At the same time, similar fine-tuning can happen in some other universe. The vast potential goes far beyond the human scope of comprehension, understanding, and observation. However, infinity as such is impossible mathematically or logically. Infinity only exists as a potential.”

“How is this universe possible if infinite variations are needed? The whole meaning and beauty lie in the fact that it is possible and finely tuned. However, it can only be new in a new birth or rebirth to secure an infinite development and meaning of existence and life through chance—the source of infinity or endless potential. Otherwise, it would always be the same or a wholly programmed different universe without free will, but our Universe has free will. Chance itself is the source of infinity and the potential for variations.”

“• The absolute “number” of possibilities is the Absolute itself because it contains this potential. • The absolute “number” of possibilities is infinity itself. • The absolute “number” of possibilities is needed not for infinity but for any particular manifestation of the Absolute in the form such as the Universe. • Any such universe, or the manifestation of the Absolute, requires the absolute number of possibilities to exist meaningfully as a high complexity. • The absolute number of possibilities is absolute potential. • The potential of the Absolute is both infinite and eternal. • The absolute “number” is infinity. • Absolute “number” is numberless. • Infinity is nonexistent. It is zero. • Zero is a gateway. • Zero is the Wormhole from the Universal Mind to the “Material” World-Universe. • Possibilities are possible only when they are not zero. • Passage through the Zero is the birth of possibilities. • The present is an eternity. • The victory of the finite possibility over infinity is the birth of life and existence. • Victory over eternity (absolute time or space) is time's birth. • Victory over the infinite space of zero is the birth of space. • The Finitude of the Being makes infinity. • Infinity in itself is nothing. • Infinity of the Being is a never-ending process, never-ending life or existence.”

“If we try to answer the questions relating to God, we will again be faced more with our inherited ideas about the Universe and God than with the reality and essence these terms should represent. Therefore, we should try to enrich and redefine these and many other terms we use. We, human beings, decided that the word (term, idea) God means, and should mean, something inherently different from the Universe. We also decided that the Universe means and should mean something different from God. But, if we, somewhat arbitrarily, determined not only the destiny of these terms and ideas but, based on them, our very conception and perception of what these ideas and terms are supposed to represent, one may ask how much closer these ideas and reasoning have brought us to the truth.”

“The statement that either God is the ultimate cause of the Universe or that the Universe appeared from nothing contains falsity because there is a third modality, which is that the Universe may have created itself. But, if the Universe has created itself, it had existed before its creation. If it existed before, what would be the difference between this Being and God, or would it mean that this Being is something we traditionally have chosen to call God?”

“We believe it is more likely that there is not only one Big Bang but multiple Bing Bangs at different points in the Universe of Universes or Multiverse. Let’s suppose there is more than one universe. In that case, we cannot talk about any of them independently of the rest, except hypothetically, because there would be no absolute void beyond one universe or Big Bang. In that sense, the Universe of Universes would be unaffected by anything beyond it except the Universal Mind or Absolute itself. All we state in this sense applies to the unknown or unknowable Universe exceeding our perceptive powers and scientific instruments.”

“The most unscientific idea in the history of humankind is that something came (or can come) into existence from nothing. Yet, since the Absolute is nothing without its emanation (manifestation in plurality), it must create Something to be Something. Absolute is not nothing just for being nothing but because it is an absolute something at its "highest point," at which there is no need for further movement, and all meaning and purpose are lost. The moving of the same thing to a different same point is no movement at all and is pointless.”

“Life is not perfect. Almost nothing is ideal in the strictest sense, and we humans are not perfect in the strictest sense. But what is perfection? Even if a human being, or anything else, could have been perfect, would that "perfection" be desirable from an absolute point of view? Regardless of our debates about the intelligent design of the Universe or accidental appearance or always present matter and the always present Universe, the question remains—what is perfection (or absolute goodness), and how much do we know about perfection (is perfection perfect)?”

“It seems reasonable to believe that, regardless of the number of possibilities and universes, the Universe (Omniverse, Macro-Universe, Multiverse) would still be nothing more than a dead thing. What is it that powers the Universe? We see and recognize motion; we recognize the four main forces (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear force) of the Universe, but we still do not know or fully understand these forces or the Universe itself. We recognize the Universe; we can feel it, touch it, think about it; we can describe it and its forces, but do we understand it? If we admit that we do not understand it fully, we must acknowledge that we do not fully understand perfection. Suppose we realize that we do not fully understand perfection; we must shift the subject of discussion to a higher level, which is not necessarily a higher level of understanding but a higher level regarding our approach.”

“We may win and still be wrong or partially wrong. We may win based on the merits of a superior thought at any given moment. But would we have won if there was a thought superior enough to challenge the winning thought at any particular moment? We would fail if there were a superior thought at any given time to challenge us. Would even the more superior idea be nobler or only superior in terms of the truth? Countless questions always arise and follow any serious inquiry.”

“How do we know our thoughts are the best and, simultaneously, the noblest? How rigorous is the inspection of our thoughts and merits? Are we satisfied more with winning or knowing? Do we enjoy victories and fame more than the truth itself? Our motives are driven more by winning than by finding the truth. If when this is the case, the winning "truth" or personal "triumph" can be more devastating, not only to “progress” but also to knowledge and the truth, than if there were no such "truths" and such thoughts at a particular moment. Some ideas may temporarily open some doors but close others in the long run. (Features of this kind in human nature are most apparent in politics.)”

“Considering all these elements, the context and frame from which we try to think or place ideas become more extensive and cannot be easily simplified to fit the purpose of a "winning" argument or idea. For example, the concept of intelligent design is, in a strict sense, a religious concept, but must it be strictly religious? To answer this, we must first ask what intelligent design is. And then, what may this design be from a metaphysical point of view, from the point of view of creation or recreation? How much do our particular human ideas about design enslave us, and can we even think about the design outside of our strictly human context and place it in an extraordinary context of the Absolute, God, existence, essence, matter, and Universe?”

“Since scientists have no answer to dark matter (except dark matter filament), the most logical explanation is that it is invisible. Some questions remain: 1. Can matter be invisible (or imperceptible by our senses and instruments)? 2. Even if matter could be theoretically invisible, is it possible that such a vast amount of matter, like dark matter, would escape all our knowledge and existing laws of physics and be unidentified until recently but wholly invisible and beyond our reach? 3. If dark matter is imperceptible, what makes it imperceptible? 4. Is it potentially perceptible but not perceptible to us as human beings? 5. Is there anything that would still avoid perception even if we possessed the absolute perceptive ability or technology with these abilities? 6. Or, is dark matter our way of explaining the unexplainable and offering a linguistic form to unknown phenomena? 7. Or, is it our inability to go beyond the spectrum, outside the existing frames, and try to decipher the unknown beyond the known frame of reality or what we see and understand as reality and the Universe? The answer to the first question is known; even atoms are invisible not only to the eyes but to microscopes. It is, therefore, theoretically possible that matter can be hidden and imperceptible. Still, it is hard to imagine that vast amounts of the mass of the Universe would stay unaccounted for within the realm of already advanced understanding of the laws of physics, instruments, and experiments. It would be possible to prove mathematically, based on what we already know about the Universe, the mass, the dispersion of energy and mass, and by these comparisons to conclude, without the CERN accelerator, that this is, most likely, impossible. This was a short answer to the second question. The third question is important because it would lead scientists in the right direction by avoiding the possible net of perplexed ideas. If we have already established that something exists, it would be better to define it as precisely as possible to avoid guessing only. In addition, how do we guess? We do not know anything about its nature, origin, or how it came into existence except that we came to this discovery almost accidentally by pure and relatively simple measurements and experiments. But what about us? How do we think? What methods do we use in experiments and the way we think? The answer to these questions could lead to better discoveries than only focusing on something we do not know and, even worse if we do not know where to look for it. Based on an accidental discovery, it is a good start to conclude that there is more mass in the Universe than can be detected. Still, it would be better and more productive to go beyond the Universe as we see it, beyond our existing knowledge and perception, not toward the stars we already know but toward another bottomless sky of darkness and the unknown. Although light is the source of life, darkness is also the source of light and life. Maybe the brightest “star” sleeps in the darkness and feeds the world from darkness. Is there only one Universe? If we start from the premise of the Big Bang theory, it would be logical to ask why there is only one Big Bang. It is easy to conclude that if there is a Big Bang at one point in “space” (nothingness), there can be another one at another “point,” past or future, although this may sound strange.”

“The source of 68% of the mass-energy density is dark energy. The Universe is one, even if we use the word Multiverse. If it is not one, then it is not a Universe. If what we understand as the Universe is not one, it does not mean that there are multiple universes but that our ideas about the Universe may need to be corrected or that they do not quite correctly represent reality. If this is the case, we should adapt the language to reality, not the reality to language.”

“If we accept a Big Bang (although our view would be the same regardless of this premise), we must accept the possibility of multiple Big Bangs anywhere else. We can imagine many more (some even bigger) Big Bangs and “universes” (like our own) than there are galaxies in our Universe. Now, we will name this Universe, containing all others, Omniverse (Omni-Universe) or Macro Universe. Dark energy is the “unmeasurable” energy of the Omniverse (Macro Universe).”

“Zero is the only thing endlessness and multitude do not want to possess. Zero is the only eternity—eternal sleep, but endlessness, the Absolute, wants motion and life. Eternity is possible only beyond perpetuity. Duration implies the number, endlessness, and space. Only Zero enslaves every number, every endlessness, and space; only Zero enslaves (captures) perpetuity (duration). Only enslaved perpetuity can be an eternity, and eternity can only exist (be) in the present. Every past is measurable and reducible to a number, and so is every future; only the present has no number. The only number of the present is Zero, and Zero is the “end of life.” Therefore, there is no life in the present, although it is the only life if we think from the point of view of life.”

“Only (the) Nothing can be infinite because the Nothing has no beginning, end, or limit. Nothing can fill in Nothingness. Only Something with its properties (and features) can enrich itself or accept features and properties, yet Nothingness is without any features or properties. The featureless “nature” of Nothingness is its uppermost value and “asset”’ because the Being, in the pursuit of creation and creating (recreating), needs precisely this featureless feature of Nothingness, its most potent Force, which is the lack of any force, the forceless force.”

“The only way for interaction and mutual influence between nothing and something is through the activity of the One we have chosen to call Something. This Something “colors” nothingness with its own colors. This Something envelopes Nothingness. Regardless of how strange it sounds, Nothingness is never full, not even a bit. The Immaterial Being envelops the Nothingness in the form of a “material” Being, the Universe, yet all the happenings of the Something (the Being, Universe) are immaterial “forces” transformed from its primordial stage based on the principles of interaction between the primary, secondary and tertiary qualities.”

“The underlying reality is the illusion of space, energy, and matter. All we see is nothingness, untouched by the happening of the Being. Since nothingness cannot be curved, what we experience as the curvature of space is the curvature of the Being presented to us as energy and matter, yet immaterial. But, “immaterial substance” (Universal Mind), although immaterial, is still something. This something has the potential to appear as material in the modalities of transformation of the Universal Mind. That is the creative potential of the Universal Mind to secure its creation and, more importantly, the meaning stemming from the creative power of the Ultimate Source.”

“What we experience as Space is the most beautiful “illusion” filled with Nothingness. When we say Nothingness cannot be partially or fully full, we mean the opposite: only the Being may be full, not only partially but wholly full. The wholeness, fullness of the Being, comes from Nothingness. Without Nothing, Something is without the volume. Without volume, there is no “space.”

“Dimension, or something that has an extent, cannot be infinite like previously described nothingness. If this were possible, there would be two “infinities”—the infinity of the “Absolute” (God) and the Infinity of Nothingness. These two principles would not function in correlation and influence one another (servitude and dominance) as active and passive principles. As two absolute infinities, these principles would function as the active (or passive, with no difference) principle in both cases. Such a relationship would only lead to mutual annihilation, not coexistence and influence. These worlds would become so different that this absolute difference would merge and convert them into the same principle, regardless of how paradoxical this may sound. But this would be the death of both, and death is not possible in either case.”

“Since it is possible to imagine either one or the other concept theoretically, it is impossible to defend this “concept” even theoretically or as a hypothesis. Infinity is only a potential, not an actuality. The Being and Nothingness are “finite” as actualities and infinite as potential. Nothingness cannot have any potential per se, yet the Being cannot exercise its potential without the Nothingness with no potential. The lack of any potential of the One feeds the potential of the Other. The power of Nothingness is equally “forceful” as the power of the Being. Without Nothingness's “forceless” force, there would be no force of the Being or the possibility to exercise its power in creating the World (the Universe). Absolute passivity of Nonbeing is equally vital as the activity or dominance of the Being.”

“Being is finite, and only something “nonexistent” can offer infinity to the finitude of the Being. Being and Nonbeing are the alpha and omega of existence. They negate each other and support each other. They fight with each other and make love to each other. The result is a Living Being, a Living World. The lack of one is the death of the other. Without the absoluteness of nothingness, there is no absoluteness of the Being. The absoluteness of one is equal to the absoluteness of the other. The Being and Nonbeing, without the World or plurality, become one, and this Oneness is the negation of both or the transformation of both into nothingness without the attribute of absoluteness (the Nothing cannot be anything else except nothing).”

“Conditional absoluteness of the Being is, at the same time, proof of its relativity and the relativity of its antipode. This very relationship makes them relative. Absolute itself unites the Being and the Nonbeing. Lovemaking of the Being and Nonbeing results in the World’s birth. The world is relative because it comprises two “absolute entities”—Being and Nonbeing. It would not be able to exist without the Nonbeing as it would not be able to exist without the Being.”

“The power of the Being is not in its infinity, which is already “accomplished” in its finitude, but rather in its life. Its task is not to impress itself with its omnipotence and power but to preserve life. Its only purpose is life, and its only glory is manifested and represented by life. Being is a Phoenix and Sisyphus. The Nonbeing is Atlas holding the whole Universe on the “shoulders” of nothingness.”

“The One always remains the One. The division is appearance. The division and the life or existence of many is a phenomenon. One or Onenennes is Noumenon. Oneness is always present in plurality. Oneness is an underlying reality or Noumenon in action. For example, a universe like ours may have its birth and death, appearance and disappearance, while the universe as a totality, the sum of all, may still exist. In that case, Carlo Rovelli may be right in saying that “there is no such thing as a real void, one that is completely empty” (physicists have a consensus about this). Still, no universe, regardless of its size, can encompass nothingness or emptiness in its totality. All “space” beyond, not confined or affected in any way by any universe, is a real void. We cannot talk about a real void within the Universe, but beyond it, there is such a thing as a real void.”