First in English so in russian and chinese!!
WELCOME TO THE PAGE OF AUTOGENISM.
The Autogenism is “The One who forms the Many to be as
one” or selfcreation. The Autogenism is my way of thinking God as “The universe
looking at itself through creations like us”. So, the Autogenism, is a
pantheistic view of reality. The One is one single spacepoint moving with the
speed of light or decribing the nullgeodetic path, from here inertiogravitation
emerges, and by meeting itself (coming from the future) in time, multiplicate
itself exponentially by this selfentanglement to be the expanding spacetime
continuum, harbouring the energy that becomes mass and forces, particles,that
become the Many. From the Many, we emerge as creatures capable to look at the
Many, the universe, and then think that this is the universe looking at itself
through us and from this the triadcomplex emerges. By this, the Many or the
universe, becomes as Zeniverse. This spacetime Zeniverse has a geometrical
structure like the surface of a doughnut, so one day in the future it will
reach its maximum entanglement and from then on, it will begin to unentangle
itself until it once again becomes the single spacepoint, the One, that by
meeting itself (coming from the future) in time....
The Zeniverse is the Autogenism, the eternal
recurrence of the same. By this, our life in Autogenism becomes the eternal
recurrence of the same, our death is our birth, what we was before birth is
what we will be after death, nothing that we can expirience as part of our
lives. So we only live one life but this life is eterenal AND we do have our chance
NOW, to create our future by living in harmony with others and ourselves.From
this, the individliberalism emereges.
Stig Amadeus de Lange.
3.Autogenism as a multiverse.
I have so far described Autogenism as an universe that
creates itself. Now we shall look at an Autogenism that can be a multiverse, a
ring of several universes that as a whole creates it self. Let’s look at an
Autogenism of two such universes A and B. Then the process of A culminates by
creating the universe B and the process of B culminates by creating A. In an
Autogenism of three such universes we have the syclic creationprocess A creates
B that creates C and C creates A. We can call this a closed loop of universes,
autogenism as a multiverse.
------------------------------------------
2.Pantheism
the doctrine that the universe conceived of as a whole
is God and, conversely, that there is no God but the combined substance,
forces, and laws that are manifested in the existing universe. The cognate
doctrine of panentheism asserts that God includes the universe as a part though
not the whole of his being.
Both "pantheism" and
"panentheism" are terms of recent origin, coined to describe certain
views of the relationship between God and the world that are different from
that of traditional Theism. As reflected in the prefix "pan-" (Greek pas,
"all"), both of the terms stress the all-embracing inclusiveness of
God, as compared with his separateness as emphasized in many versions of
Theism. On the other hand, pantheism and panentheism, since they stress
the theme of immanence--i.e., of the indwelling presence of God--are
themselves versions of Theism conceived in its broadest meaning. Pantheism
stresses the identity between God and the world, panentheism (Greek en,
"in") that the world is included in God but that God is more than the
world.
The adjective "pantheist" was introduced by
the Irish Deist John Toland in the book Socinianism Truly Stated (1705).
The noun "pantheism" was first used in 1709 by one of Toland's
opponents. The term "panentheism" appeared much later, in 1828.
Although the terms are recent, they have been applied retrospectively to
alternative views of the divine being as found in the entire philosophical
traditions of both East and West.
Pantheism and panentheism can be explored by means of
a three-way comparison with traditional or Classical Theism viewed from eight
different standpoints--i.e., from those of immanence or transcendence;
of monism, dualism, or pluralism; of time or eternity; of the world as sentient
or insentient; of God as absolute or relative; of the world as real or
illusory; of freedom or determinism; and of sacramentalism or secularism.
The poetic sense of the divine within and around
mankind, which is widely expressed in religious life, is frequently treated in
literature. It is present in the Platonic Romanticism of Wordsworth and
Coleridge, as well as in Tennyson, Emerson, and Goethe. Expressions of the
divine as intimate rather than as alien, as indwelling and near dwelling rather
than remote, characterize pantheism and panentheism as contrasted with
Classical Theism. Such immanence encourages man's sense of individual
participation in the divine life without the necessity of mediation by any
institution. On the other hand, it may also encourage a formless
"enthusiasm," without the moderating influence of institutional
forms. In addition, some theorists have seen an unseemliness about a point of
view that allows the divine to be easily confronted and appropriated. Classical
Theism has, in consequence, held to the transcendence of God, his existence
over and beyond the universe. Recognizing, however, that if the separation
between God and the world becomes too extreme, man risks the loss of
communication with the divine, panentheism--unlike pantheism, which holds to
the divine immanence--maintains that the divine can be both transcendent and
immanent at the same time.
Philosophies are monistic if they show a strong sense
of the unity of the world, dualistic if they stress its twoness, and
pluralistic if they stress its manyness. Pantheism is typically monistic,
finding in the world's unity a sense of the divine, sometimes related to the
mystical intuition of personal union with God; Classical Theism is dualistic in
conceiving God as separated from the world and mind from body; and panentheism
is typically monistic in holding to the unity of God and the world, dualistic
in urging the separateness of God's essence from the world, and pluralistic in
taking seriously the multiplicity of the kinds of beings and events making up
the world. One form of pantheism, present in the early stages of Greek
philosophy, held that the divine is one of the elements in the world whose
function is to animate the other elements that constitute the world. This point
of view, called Hylozoistic (Greek hyle, "matter," and zoe,
"life") pantheism, is not monistic, as are most other forms of
pantheism, but pluralistic.
Most, but not all, forms of pantheism understand the
eternal God to be in intimate juxtaposition with the world, thus minimizing
time or making it illusory. Classical Theism holds that eternity is in God and
time is in the world but believes that, since God's eternity includes all of
time, the temporal process now going on in the world has already been completed
in God. Panentheism, on the other hand, espouses a temporal-eternal God who
stands in juxtaposition with a temporal world; thus, in panentheism, the
temporality of the world is not cancelled out, and time retains its reality.
Every philosophy must take a stand somewhere on a
spectrum running from a concept of things as unfeeling matter to one of things
as psychic or sentient. Materialism holds to the former extreme, and
Panpsychism to the latter. Panpsychism offers a vision of reality in which to
exist is to be in some measure sentient and to sustain social relations with
other entities. Dualism, holding that reality consists of two fundamentally
different kinds of entity, stands again between two extremes. A few of the
simpler forms of pantheism support Materialism. Panentheism and most forms of
pantheism, on the other hand, tend toward Panpsychism. But there are
differences of degree, and though Classical Theism tends toward dualism, even
there the insentient often has a tinge of Panpsychism.
God is absolute insofar as he is eternal, cause,
activity, creator; he is relative insofar as he is temporal, effect, passive
(having potentiality in his nature), and affected by the world. For pantheism
and Classical Theism, God is absolute; and for many forms of pantheism, the
world, since it is identical with God, is likewise absolute. For Classical
Theism, since it envisages a separation between God and the world, God is
absolute and the world relative. For panentheism, however, God is absolute and
relative, cause and effect, actual and potential, active and passive. The
panentheist holds that, inasmuch as they refer to different levels of the
divine nature, both sets of claims can be attributed to God without
inconsistency, that just as a man can have an absolute, unchanging purpose,
which gains now one embodiment and now another, so God's absoluteness can be an
abstract unchanging feature of a changing totality.
Panentheism, Classical Theism, and many forms of
pantheism hold the world to be part of the ultimate reality. But for Classical
Theism the world has a lesser degree of reality than God; and for some forms of
pantheism, for which Hegel coined the term Acosmism, the world is unreal, an
illusion, and God alone is real.
In those forms of pantheism that envisage the eternal
God literally encompassing the world, man is an utterly fated part of a world that
is necessarily just as it is, and freedom is thus illusion. To be sure,
Classical Theism holds to the freedom of man but insists that this freedom is
compatible with a divine omniscience that includes his knowledge of the total
future. Thus the question arises whether or not such freedom is illusory.
Panentheism, by insisting that future reality is indeterminate or open and that
man and God, together, are in the process of determining what the future shall
be, probably supports the doctrine of man's freedom more completely than does
any alternative point of view.
Some 600 years after Buddha, a new and more
speculative school of Buddhism arose to challenge the 18 or 20 schools of
Buddhism then in existence. One of the early representatives of this new
school, which came to be known as Mahayana (Sanskrit "Greater
Vehicle") Buddhism, was Ashvaghosa. Like Shankara (whom he
antedated by 700 years), Ashvaghosa not only distinguished
between the pure Absolute (the Soul as "Suchness"; i.e., in
its essence) and the all-producing, all-conserving Mind, which is the
manifestation of the Absolute (the Soul as "Birth and Death"; i.e.,
as happenings), but he also held that the judgment concerning the manifest
world of beings is a judgment of nonenlightenment; it is, he said, like the
waves stirred by the wind--when the quiet of enlightenment comes the waves
cease, and an illusion confronts a man as he begins to understand the world.
Whereas Ashvaghosa treated the world as
illusory and essentially void, Nagarjuna, the great propagator of Mahayana
Buddhism who studied under one of Ashvaghosa's disciples,
transferred Shunya ("the Void") into the place of the
Absolute. If Suchness, or ultimate reality, and the Void are identical, then
the ultimate must lie beyond any possible description. Nagarjuna approached the
matter through dialectical negation: according to the school that he founded,
the Ultimate Void is the Middle Path of an eightfold negation; all individual
characteristics are negated and sublated, and the individual approaches the
Void through a combination of dialectical negation and direct intuition.
Beginning with the Middle Doctrine School, the doctrine of the Void spread to
all schools of Mahayana Buddhism as well as to the Satyasiddhi (Sanskrit:
"perfect attainment of truth") group in Hinayana Buddhism. Since the
Void is also called the highest synthesis of all oppositions, the doctrine of
the Void may be viewed as an instance of identity of opposites pantheism.
In the T'ien-t'ai school of Chinese Buddhism founded
by Chih-i, as in earlier forms of Mahayana Buddhism, the elements of ordinary
existence are regarded as having their basis in illusion and imagination. What
really exists is the one Pure Mind, called True Thusness, which exists
changelessly and without differentiation. Enlightenment consists of realizing
one's unity with the Pure Mind. Thus, an additional Buddhist school,
T'ien-t'ai, can be identified with acosmic pantheism.
Indeed, although a mingling of types is discernible in
the Hindu and Buddhist strands of Oriental culture, acosmic pantheism would
seem to be the alternative most deeply rooted and widespread in these
traditions.
The humanism of the Renaissance included an enlarged
interest in Platonism and in its historical carrier, Neoplatonism, as well as
influences from Aristotle and from Kabbalistic sources. The view of man as a
microcosm of the universe was widespread. Marsilio Ficino one of the first leaders of the Florentine
Academy, found the image and reflection of God in all men and anticipated the
divinization of man and the entire cosmos. The humanist and syncretistic
philosopher Pico della Mirandola, also a leading figure in the Academy,
substituted for creation a Neoplatonic emanation from the divine.
The most famous scholar of the Italian Renaissance was
Giordano Bruno. Combining Copernican astronomy with Neoplatonism, Bruno thought
of the universe as an infinite organism with monads as its ultimate
constituents and world-systems as its parts. The universe, he held, is in a
continual process of development and is infused with the divine life. Accepting
Nicholas of Cusa's doctrine of the identity of opposites, he taught that
contradictory ascriptions apply equally to God in particular and that claims
concerning his immanence and transcendence are equally valid. More open to the
categories of relativity than Nicholas, Bruno, however, exemplified a neatly
balanced instance of identity of opposites pantheism.
The next great innovator of mystical religious thought
was Jakob Böhme, who, in developing the concept of the divine life, took a
decisive step beyond mere absoluteness. God goes through stages of
self-development, he taught, and the world is merely the reflection of this
process. Böhme anticipated Hegel in claiming that the divine self-development
occurs by means of a continuing dialectic, or tension of opposites, and that it
is the negative qualities of the dialectic that men experience as the evil of
the world. Even though Böhme, for the most part, stressed absoluteness and
relativity equally, his view that the world is a mere reflection of the
divine--apparently denying self-development on the part of creatures--tends
toward acosmic pantheism.
In the 17th century the foremost pantheist was a
Jewish rationalist, Benedict Spinoza, whose training in the history of
philosophy included both medieval Jewish philosophy and the Kabbala. He
championed a rational rather than a mystical pantheism, so much so that all
that remained of mysticism, in fact, was his concept of the intellectual love
of God. The rationality of the system is suggested by Spinoza's argument that,
since God is the infinite being, he must be identical with the world; for
otherwise, God-and-world would be a greater totality than God alone. Also,
since God is a necessary being and is identical with the world, the world must
also be necessary in all its parts. It follows from this that human freedom is
an impossible idea; and the sense that man has of such freedom is based on his
ignorance of the causes that have determined him. Spinoza distinguished between
God and the world in three ways: first, by stressing God's activity in the
active sense of natura naturans ("the nature that [creates]
nature"; i.e., God) compared to the passive sense of natura
naturata ("the nature that [is created as] nature"; i.e.,
the world); second, he related God to eternity and the world to time; and
third, he distinguished God as self-existing substance, the whole, from the
world, which he conceived as the attributes and modes of that substance. In
terms of the present classification, Spinoza represents a monistic pantheism
tending toward absolutism.
Goethe, the incomparable German litterateur, claimed
that he was a follower of Spinoza. In fact, however, his beliefs were rather
different inasmuch as Goethe championed man's individuality; opposed mechanical
necessity; and held a hylozoistic, or vitalistic, position in which nature was
organic, a living unity. His personalistic pantheism mixes hylozoistic and
Stoic types with a touch of relativism added to the mixture.
The 20th century marks a decisive break with
absolutism. In the first half of the century, panentheism gained in authority.
The position of the Russian ex-Marxist Nikolay Berdyayev, a religious
metaphysician, with his emphasis on divine and human freedom, is a manifesto of
panentheism. Even more impressive was the work of the eminent British-American
philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead. As in the case of Fechner, Whitehead came
to philosophy from science and held an organismic view of the structure of the
world. In Whitehead's view God has two natures: his primordial nature is abstract;
his consequent nature is concrete and includes within itself the total history
of the world. Whitehead was also a panpsychist and believed that feeling is
present in some degree at every level of the world process. Whether or not he
was, then, also a panentheist is in dispute. He held that the possible future
and the total past are in God--in his primordial and consequent natures; but
for Whitehead the present moment is relative, and contemporaries exclude each
other. In the present moment of any entity, since it is the present of that
entity, it is appropriate to say that God is in that entity, part of the data
on which it acts; thus the Stoic spark of divinity has here a modern
application. From the standpoint of God, on the other hand, all entities are part
of God; they come from him and return to him in the passage of time, but they
are not in God in the sense that their independence in the present moment is
prejudiced.
It was left to Charles Hartshorne, one of Whitehead's
followers, to provide the definitive analysis of panentheism. It is
Hartshorne's suggestion that the organismic analogy, present in Whitehead as
well as in many earlier thinkers, be taken seriously. For Hartshorne, God
includes the world even as an organism includes its cells, thus including the
present moment of each event. The total organism gains from its constituents,
even though the cells function with an appropriate degree of autonomy within
the larger organism.
---------------------------------------------
Authors: J. Richard Gott, III, Li-Xin Li
Comments: 48 pages, 8 figures
Journal-ref: Phys.Rev. D58 (1998) 023501
The question of first-cause has troubled philosophers
and cosmologists alike. Now that it is apparent that our universe began in a
Big Bang explosion, the question of what happened before the Big Bang arises.
Inflation seems like a very promising answer, but as Borde and Vilenkin have
shown, the inflationary state preceding the Big Bang must have had a beginning
also. Ultimately, the difficult question seems to be how to make something out
of nothing. This paper explores the idea that this is the wrong question ---
that that is not how the Universe got here. Instead, we explore the idea of
whether there is anything in the laws of physics that would prevent the
Universe from creating itself. Because spacetimes can be curved and multiply
connected, general relativity allows for the possibility of closed timelike
curves (CTCs). Thus, tracing backwards in time through the original
inflationary state we may eventually encounter a region of CTCs giving no
first-cause. This region of CTCs, may well be over by now (being bounded toward
the future by a Cauchy horizon). We illustrate that such models --- with CTCs
--- are not necessarily inconsistent by demonstrating self-consistent vacuums
for Misner space and a multiply connected de Sitter space in which the
renormalized energy-momentum tensor does not diverge as one approaches the
Cauchy horizon and solves Einstein's equations. We show such a Universe can be
classically stable and self-consistent if and only if the potentials are
retarded, giving a natural explanation of the arrow of time. Some specific
scenarios (out of many possible ones) for this type of model are described. For
example: an inflationary universe gives rise to baby universes, one of which
turns out to be itself. Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the
Universe to be its own mother.