[MD] FW: Quantum weirdness

[Case]

 [Case]
On the other hand this did get me thinking about how such quantum weirdness
might relate to the Big Bang. I have not really looked into this so it is
probably nonsense but one thing about the Big Bang has always bothered me.
If all that matter had all that gravity pulling in into a point how could it
get loose? If you have all of the matter in the universe compressed into a
Euclidian point and all of the force of physics had achieved symmetry and
gravity fluctuated for even the tiniest fraction of a second, imagine the
explosion that might result. 


[Ron]
That's where my thought was headed with the "oneness" concept, in physical
terms this interested me most, Absolute symetry, it almost had to have been
pure energy because all that gravitational mass could'nt possibly escape
itself with our understanding of physics, therefore it must have been more
vast than it is now and all pure energy. But, Once you head down the path of
absolutes with "oneness" you get a dichotomy. Therefore the theory of the
universe as a system process seems to work best, no beginning no end All
revolving into itself in a thermodynamic way constantly refreshing and
degrading.  
So it would seem "oneness" rests in a dichodomy not in an absolute source.
In this way you would term "source" as the process of everything, not so
much a beginning point. Source then loses it's meaning as well as oneness in
it's absolute sense.

[Case]
Physics and cosmology are not areas I even pretend to understand well. But
disclaimers aside my speculation about the Big Bang is that all matter and
energy were originally compressed into a single point. It was infinitely
dense and infinitely small. Matter, energy and forces were all one.
Physicists talk about symmetries breaking at lower energy levels. The forces
of nature became distinct from one another as the energy of the universe
dissipated. One of the hold ups in physics seems to be integrating quantum
mechanics with gravity. I was merely speculating on how a quantum
fluctuation in gravity might affect an infinitely small but infinitely
massive Euclidian point.

This primary source of all we see is interesting in that is sets up the
range of possible successive events but seems to me to be of questionable
metaphysical significance. The universe since that instant of initial
symmetry breaking has been more characterized by emerging differences and
individuation than by oneness. Nor does that Euclidian point seem to me to
have much impact on ongoing events beyond having set the initial ground
rules.

I am increasingly attracted to Whitehead's notion of reality as process. I
think his characterization of the fundamental units of reality as occasions
or events is much more on target that the pragmatic view of experience as
fundamental. I would see experience as a subset of events. Some events are
occasions were inorganic constituents knock about without awareness.
Actually Whitehead characterizes this as a form of awareness, in that it is
the universe experiencing itself. 

The notion of process is captured well by the Taoists. The Tao is "The Way";
the path of life. Life is a journey full of movement, relationships and
change. I have expressed despair several times that this aspect of the Tao
is given short shrift when Pirsig focused on Quality are the central aspect
of the Tao. 

Taoism in my view captures the idea that reality can not be defined, not
because of some abstract rule of nondefinition but because the future is
uncertain. The path might change directions. Any definition or rules you set
right now may prove useless in the future, very Humian I would say. Static
and dynamic (Yin and Yang) are not forever distinct from each other. Each
thing in the world is a mixture of both, each in proportion to its kind. The
active and passive roles shift with time and circumstance and so the
labeling of any thing is always provisional. I suppose this indoctrination
to Taoism has made me suspicious of any noun modified by the adjective
"absolute".

I can not attest to the validity of this page but I find it very
instructive: http://www.chinesefortunecalendar.com/yinyang.htm  

But I do not know all this relates to the no beginning and no ending
business. That would seem to be an open question. After all there are
several possibilities besides a universe with no beginning and no end. The
universe could have a beginning and no end or no beginning and an end or a
beginning and an end. These are not questions that can be answered at this
time. Speculation is inevitable but I find Weinberg and Hawkings
speculations far more relevant than Wilbur and the mystics.