Quotessence
Home / Authors / Dejan Stojanovic
Dejan Stojanovic

Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

Poet

Filter quotes by topic

Famous Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

“If we imagined “space” before any universe came into Being, there would be only an absolute vacuum. Absolute vacuum is not “contaminated” by anything; no matter, no energy, everything is pure because only nothing can be completely pure. Primordial vacuum, as we know, is not space because where every imaginary point is the same, there is no point and no distance from anything to anything; this means there is only a zero.”

“If this something is only the Universe we are able and capable of experiencing, or if we imagine the Universe, which is, most likely, the real, much bigger one, the space would still bear the characteristics and “colors” of the one we can experience. Beyond this realm, there would be no other point of reference (Universe), and this Universe would be only a speck in the realm of nothingness. Even if this Universe emanates some of its fundamental forces into the realm of nothingness, this would still be of minimal reach regarding the potential “vastness” of “space” (vacuum) outside that universe. With one Universe like this, there would still be no distance between it and anything else and outside of it (or, precisely, after some point outside of it); time and space, as we understand them, would not exist.”

“Regardless of how far or how close any hypothetical point in space and time would be, it would still be the same point because nothingness is the same everywhere. The only point of nothingness is nothingness itself. There is no real space beyond nothingness and no real-time. The only way for nothingness to “survive” or “outlive” its nothingness is to live with the Being and move into the Being. The symbiosis of the Being with the Nonbeing is the source of life and space and time (space-time continuum).”

“If there is only one small Universe, as ours is, in comparison to the vast potential of the Being and the Nonbeing, then this Universe would be smaller, in comparison to this potential, than quark is in comparison to our Universe. At this point, we will bring in Einstein’s Cosmological Constant (“biggest blunder”) to clarify and present this idea within the context of dark energy and the Macro-Universe.”

“Suppose we use cosmological constant interchangeably with dark energy. That leads us to conclude that this kind of a universe, like our own if limited to our perception of it, would not be a sound basis for explaining dark energy or cosmological constant within the realm of the Absolute or its potential. The real meaning of the Absolute is not the Absolute itself but its potential. Its potential is both in the Being and in the Nonbeing.”

“Not only the “infinitesimal” Universe like ours (from the point of the Absolute) would not meet the standard of the cosmological constant, it would not explain the dark energy, but it also would not meet the standard of nothingness or the absolute vacuum concerning their potential respectively. Our Universe does not even remotely reach the unlimited potential as one manifestation of the Absolute.”

“There are two absolute potentials of the Absolute: Absolute potential for particular manifestations and absolute potential for infinity. No specific thing can be infinite, and no particular thing can be absolute. Nevertheless, any thing can possess absolute value within and serve the system. The absolute potential is not in its infinity but in its potential for infinity. Within the realm of the Absolute, if we exclude the material universe, there is no space and time, and our concepts of infinity or finitude are mostly related to our view of space-time relations.”

“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.”

“If we calculated the possibility of a googolplex possible accidental universes (created somehow just of themselves) as ours is and divided it by the needed level of fine-tuning, we would find out that any imaginable number would not be enough to organize and sustain itself to the level of fine-tuning required for the Universe as ours is or any similar universe. In other words, its complexity, fine-tuning, or structure almost borders infinity. Any imaginable number of universes would not be enough to account for all possible variations needed for only one finely-tuned Universe.”

“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.”

“The pursuit of truth (which must imply God, among other things) must lead to God if it exists. Nothing can be beyond the truth. If God is the ultimate principle, then this principle is the truth itself. The truth is independent and indifferent to the name or word we use to describe it, whether it be the Ultimate Source of Everything or God. If we look at God in this way, God equals the truth. But what spoils or may spoil our inquiry about God or truth, regardless of our sincerity, is not God or the truth itself but our distorted knowledge of both. (Also, the problem of language.)”

“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? If there was Something, the Being, before the world's creation, the Being was uncreated. This uncreated Being is traditionally called God. The uncreated Being is the source of all creation, with the help of emptiness or absolute void. In that case, the Universe itself would be the Self-Creator, its own God.”

“Nobody measured, and nobody will ever be able to precisely measure the “spot” from which the Big Bang started because it is a “spotless spot.” Everyone knows that this spot is infinitesimally tiny. We claim that this spot is the zero spot (immeasurable) of the ultimate essence on its way into existence. This spot is immeasurable because it is zero. This “spot” is the spotless spot of absolute density and zero size.”

“We consider only the Universal Mind as the one possessing the primary quality, the essence of Being, which quality is not detectable by senses or indirectly by any means except by imagination and metaphysical speculation or thoughts. This immaterial Being, or “mind” (Universal Source), possesses the power to create through recreation and emanation of itself into existence. The requirement and essential elements of reality (as we see and perceive it) in the Universe are matter or energy.”

“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?”

“If we would, hypothetically, explore the idea of the universe's contraction, the result would be similar to the black hole. Regardless of a much bigger mass of the whole Universe, as ours is, the absolute contraction would lead to the same point at which the black hole reaches maximum density. The point of maximum density is Zero, at which point the Big Bang happens (or the Universe disappears, which is less likely). In this sense, from the point of the result, expansion or contraction of the Universe would lead to almost the same result.”

“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.”

“For argumentation, we can imagine there is only this Universe we are aware of, and we can treat it, along with black holes, as if there is nothing beyond it except absolute nothingness or absolute void. This world would be Einstein’s space with the curvature of space. Beyond it, there is a “spaceless space” without curvature. But without the uncurved “spaceless space,” curved space is impossible. This spaceless space is nothingness, and only a void provides room for the creation of space. The only real space is the spaceless space or absolute vacuum, and this spaceless space cannot be curved. What is curved is the creation that took “one part” of the primordial void, to put it that way, to create the World—the gravitational field and the spacetime continuum. But the primordial void, or the only real space that there can be, is not curved and cannot be curved.”

“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.”

“The Absolute can only create and recreate itself if it transforms into something “less absolute.” This “less” absolute Being manifested through many beings is not only the Absolute's creation or recreation but is also its only life. In absolute Oneness, there is no real life. Division is the source of life. The secret to life is plurality. Oneness without plurality loses meaning. Plurality in Oneness is the source of meaning and purpose.”

“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.)”