In the beginning there was A... (conclusion to "Why?")

In the beginning there was A (point/thing).

This point split in two, which created time, and is time itself.
Thus there were two existences/entities (room/space in/through time), and one identity (distinguishnes).
(The future would create new identities, within this global equalising identity, and new existences, which came and go to reach always new forms of identity).
… and thus the universe began, because time started, by taking A/the first step.

And with this splitting, life came into existence, and started to live, because time started.
So life is the point, the equality, the uniting element (otherwise they wouldn’t know of each other, because there wouldn’t be a uniting thing (so there is very likely a multiverse, but we will never know, because if we would, it wouldn’t be a multiverse anymore)).
And time is the freedom; the process of life, this process is called living.
Everything else is a logical consequence, out of the differencing effect of time…

… my favourite consequence is fraternité … the consciousness of these entities, that they are at some point equal, and thus react like brothers in theire, social, economical, cultural, political, scientifical, religious and environmental contexts, with characteristics like love ([for identity?]) and believe ([for existence?]) as types of the fraternal solution, to the great complexity that the differentiation has created.

The only quest left, is; what is time (the process within or with the point) and space (the point).
But even more interesting is, why is there time, why was a step taken?
For us this may be unimportant for solving any next step, because of time, thus freedom, no step is more important than the other, it is your own identities constitution and your own existences solution/consequence.
The question is not for space, because, only with time another thing came into existence, which we can relatively relate to. So before time, there didn’t exist anything, because only by time you can define something, otherwise you can’t relate to anything, not even to the question or assertion/assumption, that there is something existing.
So maybe there was something before time, before the separation. But defining that is maybe not useless for the understanding, as is the question (because without that we couldn’t reach consciousness in the form of fraternité), but it is not important to time, thus the process, the living of the universe (but for its life, because we constitute it’s life), because you couldn’t differentiate anything, before time, thus you could say that there was nothing or that there was everything (as it is done in astronomy and physics, with the status before the big bang).
But maybe this assertion/assumption, of these two kinds of views, were the reason for the creation of time?


For us humans, the delicate topic is fraternité, becoming aware of these facts, our consciousness, our cognitively, our understanding, the try to understand the world around us, from the moment of our birth, the try to understand it, and then being able to set in relation to the others, and their understandings, their realities, their awareness.
With the ultimate goal to become one again, to be able to die, to let go, through completeness, through global, awareness, cognitivity, connectiveness, through consciousness of equality and thus freedom. (see Isaac Asimov’s short story about entropy)

Trying to prevent death, is trying to keep differentiation, thus freedom, thus life, thus time. Because without stopping the entropy, the erosion, the total equalling, the death of time, thus death itself, the big freeze or new big bang is the only solution.
So we have to decide between total equality or part-equality & part-differentiation, thus freedom, thus the circle of life, to be able to keep living.

But to keep living, partial death, thus partial equality is needed.
So total equality is good as long, no big freeze happens, because only with a new concentration of everything, to one total equal dense mass, a new differentiation is possible...
(As I said, see Isaac Asimov’s short story about entropy)

So what will our decisions, our ways be?

You decide for yourself, what to believe and then to do, to love...

(...for forever or over and over again?)



Wieso:

Einfach so im Laufe vom Nachlesen über interstellar Nebel und Science Fiction als Teil des Entwicklungs Diskurses (siehe “prime directive - ...” Bookmark Folder), und beim Nachdenken über meinen “Why?” (13.04.2008) Blog Eintrage.

Dark nebula, the Horsehead Nebula.

Well, well, well, I hate-love the internet & criticism!

So, this world is a too complex world to understand, but it always surprises how beautiful it is, in all its chaos.

So one of my blogs more serious readers, which I do not personally know (and those are few), raised my attention, and showed me some new ways to look in a critic way on to the world.
With some things I cannot fully agree, and some I can, but that is the great thing about this chaotic world, you can find a common ground, but never be completely the same.
So here is the link to one of her blog entries, rethink your critic view on the world, and judge yourself... (here)

For that matter, enjoy this American comedian, which I discovered, also though that blog (great critic):

"George carlin nails it"
"George carlin on critical thinking, wage labor, politicians and their pockets, etc...."

The funniest thing about the whole blog entry of her is, that I didn't know of that day, some few days ago, and I liked the idea... and then some days afterwards, I already get some critics, from some Indian fellow student.
That’s the way of the internet, and communication of as many views on reality as possible!
Thanks.

And in case my comment on that blog entry, isn't published, here is the copy:

Hmmm, this discussion is quite interesting.

I am myself an environmental engineer, studying international development, but what does that mean anyway...

...well in the end, I believe, and I think it is a question of non-religious-organisational believe, because no one can understand such a complex system as society or nature, in a whole, so science is just a tiny but good try to understand it, so we can work with it, but it is no end-solution, or final answer to any of those questions.

Never the less I love logic, thus I know that I will never achieve absolute wisdom, thus I must always look around me and try to Co-exist with as many entities as possible, no matter if you call it nature, bees, Germans, Chinese, Muslim or Aliens, it doesn't matter who. Because if I don’t support diversity, I will one day become intolerant, and thus venerable to error, because I don’t see the whole spectrum of reality anymore.

Nature is the best example, that this world is too complex, to fully grasp.

But what I stand for (also as engineer) is trying my best, to Co-exist, with as many other entities as possible, as long my own live is not limited (at which point I am limited, is each ones personal decision). Because that is the same question as environmental protection,... which life-form has more rights?

I think no life-form has any rights. So because, no one has any rights, we become equal in the fact, that we don’t have any rights, thus we have to be treated equally.

So there is no difference, between you and me, animal and human, etc., we all do not have any rights, but we would have equal rights, thus we have all the equal rights to live (namely none, but equal).

As George Carlin put it very nice in that video, nature produced humanity.

So in the moment, when live comes into existence, it has no rights at all, because no one said there are laws (at least if you don’t believe in some sort of god).

But as I said, all other life forms have none too, so they have to be treated equally... and if nature, or humanity doesn't want any more or any humans at all, nature or humanity should have prevented humanity to reproduce any more of its kind, in the first place.

PS: Great article & Blogs, I love ground shaking critics, even if they are sometimes too critic, but I like people more who are over critic, than fanatics and ignorant people!

But I have to agree with you and George Carlin, many of the environmentalists are self righteous and hate humanity, but humanity is a product of nature, of this universe for that matter.

Keep the great work up; fill the world with realistic critic.

And thanks for your comment on my Blog, and for raising my attention on your topics.

Have a nice day,

Nsae

Why?

Why?
Because there is the question "Why"?
If there wouldn't be the question, I wouldn't seek the answer!
The question is as useless to the universe, as the the answer.
So why shouldn't the universe, us, me; try both/all of them... question(s) and answer(s)?!

...

Why is there life?
Because there is the question, for the reason of life!
Because no-life would be as useless as life!
So why shouldn't I try them both?

...

Why am I living?
Because you ask!
Because not to live is as useless as to live!
So why shouldn't I try them both?

...

Why should I keep going on?
Because there is the question to keep on going!
Because not going on would be as useless as going on!
So why shouldn't I try them both?

...

Why, development & exploration?
Because the lifelessnes or stagnation is as useless as a frontier filled with life!
So why shouldn't I try them both?

...

If there wouldn't be life, life wouldn't have a purpose.
But because it is there, it has A purpose...

Which doesn't matter in the end, because both/all sides of the question are equally useless!
It only matters to you, which one you decide on!

... my dear friend, create your world, your reality, decide, what is for you less useless?
What is your most optimal, dream world, amongst the useless worlds, all worlds, all realities...

Start being the Big Bang of your world... of your reality!


...

"My God, it's full of stars!"
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

... try all those possibilities...
... be your own "Star Child"...

...

"ALL THESE WORLDS
ARE YOURS EXCEPT
EUROPA
ATTEMPT NO
LANDING THERE
USE THEM TOGETHER
USE THEM IN PEACE"
2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984)