The universe contains everything

If you are talking about the universe or the ALL you are no longer talking about particulars but the forest. It is also relevant that there is a sentient YOU talking, and thinking, about the universe. Thus, the universe also contains a mind, at least YOURS, that thinks of and talks about the universe. That is not a possible “what if”. Thus any “what if” “there were no you” sort of question is not only not interesting.

1) The universe contains everything so nothing is left over from any of that to be a quality of the universe.

2) The "laws" that govern anything cannot apply to the universe as all such "laws" are part of the universe, or are trees in the forest, and do not apply to the universe itself. Hence, there is no "end to" nor "beginning of" the universe as all spaces and times are parts of the universe and are not nor can be descriptive of the universe.

3) When YOU are talking about the universe it is also true that you [and your talking] is a part of the universe.

4) There can be no extrinsic geometry for there is no intrinsic geometry, universally speaking: there is no inside for there is no outside either and there is no time nor space left over for the universe itself.

5) The ultimate questions about the universe require not a bunch of phantasmal "what ifs", as fun, interesting, and instructive in their contemplation and play though they may be: we must ultimately deal with THIS universe and not another for there is no other. And the one includes the thinking and talking about the universe and includes YOU and all who think and talk.

6) Any realistic contemplation of the universe by the very statement entails a sentience to contemplate such a thing: it is in fact THE one characteristic of the universe as universe that I can guarantee is real and provable: sentience. This holds for any phantasmal speculation as well. YOU reading this is such proof.

7) Therefore, any speculation about the universe entails that the universe has sentience.

Any “What If there is no intelligence in the universe” is thereby a nonsense from the first by immediately being self contradictory. Any “What If intelligence ceases to be” as a possible scenario for the ultimate or fundamental end-reality of that which is in the universe is similar. For if there is no sentience there then is no “what if [anything]”. It is what might be called a brutal fact that “I” entails “I am”. To even think absurdly about the world just shows that there is a thinking entity. No monkey and no bug can say “I” and for monkey and for bug there is no reality and no sentience and no thought and for such creatures there is nothing there. If no such world-fate can be shown it is as if there is no such thing.

I understand the idea people speak about of a dead-end-world such that maybe it really is the fate of the world to end in a blah of inactive stuff and the end of all causes having generated an end of all reactions to yield an all used up energy state of dead with no there anywhere anymore forevermore, amen, and all that such that there is no you, me, nor any I left nor possible. Well, then, “DUH!” to you too.

If anyone shows that such is the fate of sentience then I and no one else could have anything to say. Since nothing is so shown then what I have said stands loud and clear.

If there is an alternate universe or even one other than the one I write about that we cannot know about then that is as real as anything else non-existent, and there is no there for that there for real.

THE UNKNOWN OR UNKNOWABLE IS JUST THAT: NOT REAL, NON-EXISTENT.

LaRouche Webcast Wed02-11-2009

February 11, 2009 Webcast
LaRouche Webcast Wed02-11-2009 for 2hr38min43sec
Audio playable in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian
Audio downloadable in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian
Video playable in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian
Video downloadable in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian
++++++++++++++
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2009/02/11/larouche-webcast-february-11-2009.html

I have my angers about LaRouche et al. But here he does what he does best. Here he explains economics, political economy, the current financial mess, the need for the new president to act with the appropriate advice, and relates his knowledge to the current gambling debt fiasco we are burdened with right now.

Believe it ... or not !!

Science is not a rejection of Religion. Science is not a rejection of God. The notion of our human physical origin from other life forms is derived from the fact that we are made of the same stuff, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other atoms, and are made of living cells, and so on, that we do physically require substenance, and that we can reproduce our selves. It is not based on a belief in that. Since we were not always here we must have started somehow and what of but out of the material we are made up of. If God stuck us here fully formed then God made us all made up of that same stuff all other life is made up of. Now I really do not care, personally, if "God did it" or if "it" was a result of "nature" or "something else". We are made up of the same stuff.
We act rather differently than other life forms. And other life forms act differently from each other which is how we know there are different forms of life. But we are physically made up of the same materials.
God is not made up of any of that stuff. That is why science can not study God as a physical thing. God can be studied only as a study of beliefs, as a study of one out of the very many beliefs human beings have. Since God is not made up of atoms and not made up of any physical "stuff" we cannot study God as if God was a frog in dissection class.
I do not know how we got here except as a phenomenon of one of a variety of sexual acts, the several that leave male sperm in a female vagina, although, actually, sexual action on the part of the human participants is not necessary: all that is required is the introduction of sperm and egg and that THEY join. God is not involved in any of that. God is not necessary in any of that.

Believe it or not!

Teaching evolution is useless in the teaching of physical reality. Seeing animals fornicate and knowing that such behavior is what human physical creatures also do is shocking enough. "WOW! That is what mommy and daddy did!"
The evolutionists are not "wrong", just irritating. The God made us people are not "wrong", they are just not useful. And: who, really, cares, anyway? Is it evolution that f'd in the bedroom or the back seat or was it God back there f'ing around? Sorry folks, neither one works. "God wasn't there and there were no apes! Honest, honey, it WAS mommy and it WAS daddy!"

What does love have to do with it? That's another story.