jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (142 posts)

What is the 'Ultimate' Building Block of the Universe

  1. God shet profile image59
    God shetposted 2 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/11924435_f520.jpg

    What is the smallest 'thing' in the universe, currently? Well, it's 'quarks'. Now the question is:  What are 'quarks' made of?

    Is it true that 'quarks' are made of even smaller particles? Then, what are those particles (that are smaller than quarks) made of? And where would this chain of the quest for the 'smallest of smallests' ~ end?



    What is the 'ultimate' building block of our grand and beautiful universe? I have full awareness of the fact that you don't know the answer. Because 'you' are the 'answer'!

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      How do you know?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Good question.  There may be other intelligences in the universe capable of making their own private universes.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          ...what do you mean by "intelligence?" Am I one? If so, I am not a creator, of universes anyway…
            or am I?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Perhaps you are a creator.  Do you have a flower garden?  A pet?  Even a bowl of spoiled food in the fridge?

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              ...are those universes?

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Sure!  Your bowl of mold and germs would be an entire universe to the bacteria there.  And the garden one to the flowers planted; they can never move, just look about at the far off blooms and green unknown of the grass.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  A universe is a matter of perspective and proportion?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    How would we know?  We occupy the only universe we know of - it could be put a single "atom" of a larger one, or not.  Although a great many people will tell us there is absolutely another one.

      2. God shet profile image59
        God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        'Awareness'.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Did you ever come across a book called Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda? There is a movie playing in theaters near me called "Awake" about him and his line of gurus.

          1. God shet profile image59
            God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            He looked like a girl! Anyway, I had googled him a while ago while I was trying to broaden my understanding of 'Indian spirituality'. They have some really fascinating figures out there. Someone named Shankaracharya (Adi Shankara) who formulated 'Advaita Vedanta' ~ struck me the most. He said something like this: "Everything is an illusion" ~ which is quite true from a certain viewpoint.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Yogananda is considered an avatar of love. You might want to check out his book. Very insightful.

              1. God shet profile image59
                God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you. I will.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  How do you figure that we are connected to the universe? or that we are the building block... My guess is through consciousness. Is that what you mean? or what?

                  1. God shet profile image59
                    God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes.



                    I find this interesting: If 'quarks' were conscious - of what material would that consciousness be made of?

                    It seems pretty clear to me ~ when I connect this question with all the experiences that I've had in my life ~ that consciousness is the 'ultimate stuff'.

    2. lone77star profile image90
      lone77starposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The core building block of the universe is Love.

      This is the desire of the Creator to Bestow pleasure.

      And the ultimate pleasure is to be like the Creator, bestowing to others. It is an unquenchable hunger, because it comes from an infinite source and feeds an infinite need.

      Every pattern in nature is built on this -- quarks, mu mesons, electrons, protons, chemical molecules, evolution, time and space.

      Finding parallels in nature and parallels between physical reality and spirituality has been my life's quest. Pattern recognition has been a part of my former professions -- Hollywood artist and software engineer. It has also led me to a number of discoveries, including the mechanics of creation.

      Yet, I have so much more to learn. When you remain humble and hungry, the universe is full of delights to discover.

      1. Jomine Jose profile image79
        Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Reification fallacy.

        1. lone77star profile image90
          lone77starposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Jomine Jose, only because you are blind to the spiritual world. The spiritual world is far more "concrete" than anything in the physical. Pull the plug in the spiritual and the physical disappears. That makes all this "stuff" that you hold in high regard pretty flimsy.

          1. Jomine Jose profile image79
            Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Do you know the meaning of any of this terms(spirt, physical,  concrete) you use?

      2. God shet profile image59
        God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Excellent!

      3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        lone star77wrote: "Finding parallels in nature and parallels between physical reality and spirituality has been my life's quest... It has also led me to a number of discoveries, including the mechanics of creation."

        This is a good example of direct perception. I surmise that intuition was involved here. Calmness and serious inquiry is the precursor of telepathic perceptions.

        IMO

        PS Perceiving God directly will tell us a lot about love… and logic as well. (Hint: Love without logic is dangerous.)


        More Personal Opinion... (based on experience.)

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          But that's easy!  All you have to do is find a truth in physical reality and, like everything else "spiritual" declare that it spiritual as well.  Presto!  A parallel.

          The problem occurs when physical reality doesn't match with what has been declared to be a "spiritual truth" - as we can't prove such things we can only accept the reality as the only truth.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            There, however, is a link between energy and spirit.

            1. Righteous Atheist profile image62
              Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Show me. wink

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                - one proves the other.
                Take it or leave it.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  And the sun proves pink unicorns.

                  I'll leave it, thanks, if all you can provide is an unfounded statement that one proves the other.

        2. lone77star profile image90
          lone77starposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Kathryn, interesting points.

          Calmness and serious inquiry can be two of the required ingredients, but there are more, as far as I've found. Humility (a lack of self-concern) is one. But "serious?" Serious seems a bit too "heavy." When I've experienced direct control over physical reality there was a definite sense of "lightness" or "bliss." There was, however, a fearless confidence that might be mistaken for "seriousness."

          Another critical ingredient was a selfless love of others with no need for reciprocation. And finally, there was a perfect, 100% responsibility for the actions of others. Something quite remarkable happens when you take such complete responsibility (not negative "blame") for someone else and their needs. First of all, you can no longer be a victim; there's no room for being one. Second, forgiving the other person any crimes against self becomes effortless. Suddenly, Christ's teaching about turning the other cheek makes sense. And third, with such perfect responsibility and wishing for them everything that they desire, you cannot help but love the other person, even if they are your enemy.

          You say, "Love without logic is dangerous." I understand that you have your own limited experience. I have mine. Perhaps our definitions of love differ. If you're talking about the needy, selfish love that most humans use, then yes, love without logic is indeed dangerous. But selfless love with no self-concern is superior to logic for it is pure spirit. There is no danger in the spiritual world. From the spiritual world all physical reality is built and controlled. All foundations of logic are established. This True Love (from spirit) doesn't need logic and will never suffer any danger.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for returning.
            - logic depends on facts… or truth. If we do not know the facts of science and nature, we may not use love rightly or only according to our own limited understanding. God has the Facts. We need to confer with wisdom: God's.
            According to me and my thinking, based on mistakes I have made.

            1. lone77star profile image90
              lone77starposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I agree Kathryn. Logic does depend on these things, but, of course, it is not these things. As a mathematician, computer scientist and college professor, I have used logic a good part of my life. It is an essential tool on some levels of existence.

              The more I learn about spirituality and science, the more apparent it is to me that book learning -- knowledge, facts, etc. about reality -- has no effect on using Love correctly. Self-awareness is far more important in this regard.

              If we are truthful with ourselves and doggedly scour our feelings for our intent and attitudes, then we can know if we are receiving anything for our own selfish benefit. We can feel it.

              When we give with complete altruism, then a doorway opens. We can see more than we can with our own human eyes. We can see creation and manipulate it. When we return to selfishness, then this doorway closes. The spiritual blindness we experience is directly connected to this separateness or self-concern-centeredness.

              Mistakes? I've made my share, too. I don't know it all. Far from it. But I know what True Love tastes like and nearly everyone doesn't do this. Very few can really turn the other cheek with a clean, loving attitude. Usually, I don't. But I've been there and I know what it feels like. Logic had nothing to do with it. In fact, most every aspect of it was counterintuitive. Perhaps this is spiritual "logic" of a sort, but it isn't intellectual; it's more at "feeling."

              One example of the counter-logic aspect of my most powerful experience: When I took perfect, 100% responsibility for the actions of other drivers which had nearly caused 6 consecutive accidents within 2 minutes, there was no logical reason for doing this. It simply felt right. When I did this, a series of miracles ensued.

              Thank you for discussing this. It gives me another opportunity to learn and to share. I find new distinctions in the experiences I've had.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I hear what you are saying, lone77star. Unselfish love should do the trick, but I still say knowledge is necessary, especially when you consider that unselfish love is exceedingly RARE!

                Logic is always a good thing wouldn't you say?

                Love must be balanced with logic and logic must be balanced with love. The two go hand in hand.
                like yin, (love,) and yang, (logic,)
                  like
                female and male,
                mother and father
                negative and positive,
                democrat and republican big_smile
                - as far as I can tell…

                1. lone77star profile image90
                  lone77starposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks for the continued discussion.

                  Knowledge is something else entirely. Yes, of course it's necessary. Without knowledge (awareness) we have only emptiness and nothingness. Without it we may as well not exist at all.

                  Unselfish love rare? Absolutely. And that's one reason to be unreasonable about it -- to help nurture it away from rareness toward abundance. If we get reasonable, then we give wrong instruction.

                  Analogous example: As a kid, Joe saw his father make the television work better by giving it a thump on the side. He figures a hammer might be more efficient and is puzzled why his new television stops working altogether. Oops!

                  Such knowledge and logic can help us understand the difference between the shallow, selfish love of physical reality and the True Love of spirit. But that's only to correct our misconceptions. Using logic in the application of True Love only gets in the way and sometimes breaks it altogether.

                  Example: When someone harms us, logic says to avoid or to fight back. This blinds us to True Love and makes it impossible. True forgiveness cannot happen in an environment steeped in such logic. And True forgiveness depends on True Love.

                  Logic is not knowledge, naturally, but I wouldn't have made a career out of logic if I didn't appreciate it a bit.

                  But I disagree with you about balancing logic and love. If you're talking about physical love, then I would agree with you. But True Love is above logic and above all dichotomies. Balancing the two would be like taping an ice cube to a Saturn V rocket (the kind that took man to the Moon) -- balancing cool with heat. The rocket is all about movement, not heat, though it may use heat to produce that movement. The tiny ice cube isn't an adequate counterbalance. Logically, they're not even opposites.

                  Physical love is not the building block of the universe I was talking about. Physical love comes only much later in the sequence of events. Physical love is blinded by selfish need. We need not view it as bad or evil. It simply is what it is. Logic, used there, is a good thing to keep passion from going astray.

                  But True Love is so far above logic, dichotomies, Demopublicans versus Republicrats, and the like, that it's not even in the same universe. It's above the universe. It stands outside of time, too.

                  These are some of the things I've learned from my own lifetime of experiences with spirit, science and miracles.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, some people do not know when to love and when to stop loving.
                    For instance:
                    When too much love is spoiling their kids.
                    When too much love is robbing a child of his ability to be independent and learn to do for himself.
                    When too much love is killing the will of a partner to even live because of a smothering effect.
                    When too much love is dolling out money by the govt. and creating dependance amongst the people who would otherwise learn to work for their own bread.
                    Maybe we need to define love. Altruistic love is also very rare.  However, what is truly good for oneself ends up being good for others, luckily.

                  2. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry, you are not making much sense here, if something seems unreasonable it's simply unreasonable. For example if your love for people of your own religion tells you to kill those who are not of your religion to protect them and don't rely on reason to tell you you are wrong, then you are not doing what is right or loving.

                    Wow, what kind of logic tells us to avoid or fight back against someone who is harming us and what kind of logic tells us the best thing to do to someone who is harming us is to forgive them. Logic gives us the right thing to do here in this example as well, (stop the person from hurting you and call the authorities so that they will be prevented from hurting anyone else. That's the love we are talking about right. An unselfish act to protect others that we may not even know.

                    It appears you haven't learned anything of value if you are willing to put love for humanity above logic, because logic tells us when our love is misguided. Groups like ISIS think they are doing a good for humanity and are throwing logic aside just as you described.

  2. Deanna nuzzalo profile image59
    Deanna nuzzaloposted 2 years ago

    Everything is made from the stardust that the Big Bang created right? I'm eager to know what relation quarks have to star dust. Honest question. (Probably stupid question;)

    1. lone77star profile image90
      lone77starposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Quarks are merely one of many kinds of particles. According to physicists and their current theory of matter, quarks are a fundamental particle from which other particles, like protons and neutrons are built.

      Stardust is merely a metaphorical term for all matter generated from the theoretical Big Bang and from the explosion of stars. The Big Bang created a universe filled with hydrogen and possibly a little helium. Stars convert hydrogen to helium and heavier elements, depending on the mass of the star.

      Stars are massive balls of gas. Our own sun is so massive it is equivalent to 333,000 Earths. All of that weight pressing on the gas causes it to heat up. The heat collides the hydrogen atoms so forcefully that they combine to form helium. But stable helium weighs slightly less than two hydrogen atoms. This little extra mass is ejected as gamma radiation (light energy).

      When a star runs out of hydrogen at the core, it collapses to force helium to combine and this causes the star to mushroom out as a red giant. The combining helium produces other elements like carbon and oxygen. More massive stars go through several stages of nuclear fusion and finally produce iron which is a nuclear energy pit. Iron acts as a cold block of ice, causing the star to shrink rapidly. This results in a supernova explosion which spews the guts of the star across the region and will include many elements above iron, including gold, lead and uranium.

      All of this stuff is part of "stardust."

  3. Deanna nuzzalo profile image59
    Deanna nuzzaloposted 2 years ago

    That makes sense! Thank you!!

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    ...one aspect of false love is as you mentioned:
    "sympathy which is highly destructive."

    But, not all sympathy is destructive. I guess it all boils down to intent. Self concern vs others concern. But even others-concern can be part of self-concern.  *Self* is not bad … especially when open and inclusive of life, joy and others.
      But, a closed up Self is no fun.

    1. lone77star profile image90
      lone77starposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Good, Kathryn. Your description shows us the difference between compassion (empathy) and sympathy.

      Certainly, self is all we have to work with. To condemn self or suppress it only strengthens the separation from others -- increasing Ego. Even suicide does this.

      I used to think that suppressing Ego and attempting to eliminate it was a good thing, but I've since learned that increasing Ego while converting its desires to those of altruism may be the best way to resolve the dilemma of suffering.

 
working