1. There was love.
2. Love made 2.
3. The 2 made a machine that makes universes. This machine is not sentient, however it can generate randomness.
4. The 2 become the unknown number (maximum sentients possible). This number is even.
5. A universe starts, and then repeats, according to the machine. The laws of physics in the next universe are not necessarily the same.

See, I have a wonder side.

sounds a little like the poetry you love to bash

So much for Atheist! There was love????!!!
1.Your equation starts-off wrong with number 1.

2. the 2 out of 1 (what you call love) makes more sense

3. This is possible. The machine is some kind of quantum structure.

4. I like the "even" number. This is true. Maybe love begings here? But what was it before? It was there in number 1!

5. I can live with this. The laws of physics are not necessarily the same? I like that too. It's possible

Cool. What do you meant starts-off wrong? Love can exist as a prime mover, right?

I like the "even" too. This means that nobody will be left lonely. Remember, 2 is of course even too.

I put the thing about different physics because we are starting to see how arbitrary some physics is.

Where was love before sentiens in a godless world? What kind of force was it then?

Someone else somewhere mentioned that "randomness" could be a prime mover. It's interesting to think of. So you get something like:

1. There was randomness.
2. Randomness made the random amount of sentience.
3. Random makes a random universe (but still has to create sentience).
4. Repeat 3.

Implicit, importantly, is that we are all immortal. We have no beginning, and no end. Even the "random" version.

Great stuff, man! How did you come-up with that?

Uh. Does this mean you don't want to beat me up anymore? I hope it does. .

It is kinda cool.

"We are all immortal. We had no beginning. We will have no end."

So this is because you have an endless loop. It is endless both ways. No end, and no beginning. So saying that 1-4 existed does not mean they happened a particular time. Pinning it down is like trying to say what 1/x trends to as you approach zero from the right.

You're alright, Cybert. I removed the comment I made earlier which led you to your question here. Such comments have no place here at BM.

Yea but, wouldn't this endless loop somehow be made-up of 2? The left and the right, the mystic and the rational. Good and evil. The key to the mistery is in the 2. How they came about and how the meet again and again and again? And what is the nature of the 2 that lead to the start of a new universe? Am I asking the right questions?

Apology accepted. I'd call it testosterone poisoning but, you know...I'm sure you deal with it somehow. All men have to!

Hmm. I think of the two as exactly equal. Yeah, you end up with male and female in diecious (most animals) species. But one could imagine sexual threesomes on some distant planet. Any bio people know of this? I know there are hermaphrodites and certainly budding off or asexual division. You'd have to have some sort of triploid for a threesome.

I don't think there has to be male and female. Also, most dichotomies are false (thus the term--"false dichotomy"). Upon singularity, gender will be the first to go. It just won't exist as a concept.

Remember--there are more than 2 people in the world. There is more than black and white.

The 2 programmed the machine. The machine starts the universe. The machine is in charge. There will never be a way of standing back and looking at this machine. Most importantly. It can never be stopped. Ever.

I agree, and I wasn't thinking in those terms with my post. What do you make, for instance, of Alain Aspect's 1983 experiment where he claimed to have prove that particles in the universe are aware of each other, despite of the distance? http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15499&hl=
And what do you make of the proposed quantum-consciousness connection? http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penros...amentality.html
Just wondering...

Quantum entanglement is well known. What has never been demonstrated is usable communication at faster than light-speed. Yet.

That quantum-consciousness looks good. Do avoid the "law of attraction". Sometimes flogged as "The Secret" (a movie). A bunch of scammers who say that by thinking of things, we make it happen. It's complete and utter bull. Keep your radar up. I think this stuff is for real, though. Penrose is a solid guy. Reading the "Road to Reality".

I came across that along time ago, I think its basis is good, but its explanation of how things are accomplished is wrong. Universal law of attraction.. (throws out the window, glass shatters, ect.) Now if we were to look at the concept of thinking of what we want not as some universal power of singularity but rather as the goal-striving mechanism in each persons sub-conscious, then we would be getting somewhere. I have read Maxwell Maltz Psycho-Cybernetics which is essentially a look at how the brain works as a goal striving cybernetic organism (in other words a machine) he notes that consciousness itself is certainly not a machine but rather we have machines within our subconscious which we use to achieve goals. These can be set to either success or failure depending on the emotional feelings towards the goal, whether we think I want to do this or I hope I dont do that. Whatever goal we think of, our sub-conscious will attempt to achieve that goal for the human brain is a goal striving mechanism, the reason for failure lies not in the fact that we did not try but that we may have thought of what we did not want to do rather than what we wanted to do. Example: You are walking on a sidewalk, someone says; dont look down.. whats your first inclination? Same thing were to happen if you were to think constantly, I musnt fail, if I do I will be so ashamed, rather than I know I can do this, I can see myself achieving this goal.. whatever you think of and surround with strong emotional feelings, youre sub-concious will attempt to achieve it.

So if you were to think about failing and surround it with strong feelings of worry, youre sub-concious would literatly try to fail.

That's hilarious! Where can I get this movie? Comedy Central? Seriously, though. You touched a cord with the 2 in your equation. Really, where did you get this stuff from?

Here's the best summary:

http://betterhumans.com/blogs/cemiess/arch...Attraction.aspx

You'll see my attacks on it there. Just worthless.

Revision to your creation story. a farely good explanation of item number one: The Vortex Theorem

http://www.usa-int.com/SDAILABS/AVT.html

What'd you think? Stinking cool, huh?

That whole site is giving me a huge crackpot vibe. The bad kind of crakpot. We need to keep our minds open, but also wary.

OK mister smart-ass! You didn't like anything in it at all?

I don't have anything hard against it. I did some google searches and didn't come up with much. Hey, they may have something here. I can't say either way at this point.

Something! You'd better read up on it a second time, Cybert. It's got the kind of stuff that dreamers like us only dream of (pardon the redundance).