So I'm sure most of you have heard of the expression/school of thought - "as above so below". It is basically just saying that there is a striking similarity between things on different scales. So for example - an atom (or the dna double helix, either will suffice for the sake of this argument since both combine with similar sized things to make more complexed things) has a striking similarity to a galaxy. You can read some more stuff on this topic here: http://asabovebelow.com/ . It certainly makes sense, and is something that I believe to be not only true, but a great clue for us to find out more about the possibilities of the nature of our existence.

So I was thinking about this, and listening to a bunch of astrophysics lectures recently (from lots of good sources) talking about the likelyhood of a multiverse. I'm not a scientist, but suffice to say they sound pretty convincing. But when they talk about the multiverse, why do they always say "other dimensions"? If we follow the lead of "as above so below" , then our galaxy should be in the process of combining with other galaxies (like atoms or dna) to form something more complex. Or maybe it already has, who knows. Maybe our whole universe filled with galaxies (dna) is a big egg or a piece of sperm waiting to be merged with its counterpart to form something! Maybe our universe is not infinite and is somehow contained (we just can't see that far), and the other universes are not in some other plane of existence at all, they are just, outside our universe.

Anyway, I thought this might be a cool thread to generate some discussion about "as above so below" and its potential implications... so post your crazy suppositions here (and please feel free to talk specifically about my ramblings above^^^)

go!

Belongs in SMP, unless you want to connect it to religion, God or theology.

fair enough, if mods need to move it please feel free to do so...

but I would have thought this:

is related to RGT...

another way to summarize my ramblings above, maybe we need to look at "as above so below" and extrapolate from the behavior of what is "below", not just the appearance...

The following quotes are from John Lennox’s little book entitled “God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway?” (2011).

“What then is Hawking’s preferred answer to what he admits is the “apparent miracle” (of fine-tuning)?

“It is the multiverse…

“We note in passing that Hawking has once again fallen into the trap of offering false alternatives. This time it is: God or the multiverse. From a theoretical point of view, as philosophers have pointed out, God could create as many universes as he pleases…

“Of Hawking’s use of the multiverse in The Grand Design Penrose [Roger Penrose was Hawking’s collegue & they shared the Wolf Prize for scientist achievements] said: ‘It’s overused, and this is a place where it is overused. It’s an excuse for not having a good theory’…

“John Polkinghorne, another eminent theoretical physicist, rejects the multiverse concept:
‘Let us recognize these speculations for what they are. They are not physics, but in the strictest sense, metaphysics. There is no purely scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of universe. By construction these other worlds are unknowable by us. A possible explanation of equal intellectual respectability—and to my mind greater economy and elegance3—would be that this one world is the way it is, because it is the creation of the will of a Creator who purposes that it should be so’

“I am tempted to add that belief in God seems to be a much more rational option, if the alternative is to believe that every other universe that can possible exist does exist; including one in which Richard Dawkins is the Archbishop of Canterbury, Christopher Hitchens the Pope, and Billy Graham has just been voted atheist of the year!...

“Yet when one examines the arguments one can see that the intellectual cost of doing so is impossibly high, since it involves an attempt to get rid of the Creator by conferring creatorial powers on something that is not in itself capable of doing any creation—an abstract theory.

“Tim Radford captures this very cleverly in his review of The Grand Design:
‘In this very brief history of modern cosmological physics, the laws of quantum and relativistic physics represent things to be wondered at but widely accepted: just like biblical miracles. M-theory invokes something different: a prime mover, a begetter, a creative force that is everywhere and nowhere. This force cannot be identified by instruments or examined by comprehensible mathematical prediction, and yet it contains all possibilities. It incorporates omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence, and it’s a big mystery. Remind you of Anybody?’ [bold, italics, & underline is mine].

“A similar point had already been made by physicist Paul Davies: ‘The general multiverse explanation is simply naïve deism dressed up in scientific language. Both appear to be an infinite unknown, invisible and unknowable system. Both require an infinite amount of information to be discarded just to explain the (finite) universe we observe’(p 48-53).

OP, i feel it attempts to convey much more than just a striking similarity.
i believe it is meant to be understood quite literally, in the sense that what is manifest at "higher" degrees of consciousness, or dimensions, is equally manifest in its consequent "lower" degrees of consciousness.



the concept we speak of is most easily witnessed in nature's repeating patterns.
as above, so below..or as below, so above..
or what is seen, is merely a reflection of the unseen which causes it.
a tree for example, is very similar in the appearance of its flowering branches in relation to that which is not seen, its roots.





even in examining the leaf of the tree, we see the macro within the micro..
the entire tree's pattern and design is emulated through the veins and stem..
the very shape of the leaf emulates the overall shape of the tree itself in many cases..
Unity or the Whole is represented and manifest through its parts, as Unity or the Whole is reflected in each of those parts..
and to think..it all starts with that One little seed that contains the tree in its entirety..

although quite similar, no two trees, or branches, or leaves are identical..
it is possible that an entire forest originate from One seed..

one seed-->many roots
one tree-->many branches
one forest-->many trees

All from One.

-------------------

mostly, we only choose to see pieces of the patterns and note the differences..
when we look at the "big picture", we tend to see your perspective of "striking similarities"..
for others, such as myself, there is only Unity.
i assume this perspective only depends on how far we are willing to "zoom out"..

as far as the context of humanity and RGT and the nature of our existence..
well, it seems to me that we too emerge into this grand world in diversity, all originating from a single Source.

Thanks Enlightenedraise, that was a really really awesome post.

this is because both gravity and electromagnetism obey 1/r^2 dependency on the strength of the force given a distance. This similarity leads to elliptical orbits. However, the strength of these two forces are about as different as any other measurement in the universe. And the other two forces, strong and weak nuclear forces have different distance dependencies. As far as we can see right now, the large and small scales obey incrediably different physics and unifying those is the biggest project of the last century.

Anyways, careful, you are are getting teleological again...

no no, i insist, thank you.

This is related to the "Malkuth" or "kingdom" that Yeshua HaMashiach spoke about ( e.g., see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malkuth ) which is part of the "Tree of Life" in kabbalah.

Yeshua often used nature or parables concerning human beings to portray the "kingdom of heaven". Lewis Keiser has some interesting and thought provoking commentary on one of the "logions" of Yeshua in the Gospel of Thomas ( see logion 5, p.75ff at the link: http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=...page&q&f=false ).

very interesting read, mangler. thank you. time to dive back into some Kaballah texts for me!
much can be learned from that advanced soul, just as much can be learned from the astrological/alchemical implications of the philosophically hermetic principle at hand..
we should note that in the perceived lacking of a divine connection, it would make sense to take a proto-scientific approach to the nature of existence..therefore, Hermeticism..
there's a multitude of approaches to choose from in attempting to define the undefinable..

concerning that specific section you referenced...
imo, any concept has the capacity to allow discernment of moral and/or spiritual value.
beauty and ugliness both lie in the eye of the beholder..
one's perception is the crux of the matter here..
it's all just differing degrees of a glimpse in the reflection of All that Is.
i can appreciate the author's perspective, just as i can appreciate the Hebrew and Aramaic influence in the Scriptures.

----------------------------

i have always admired Yeshua, or Yehoshua, or Yahshua, or Y'shua, or Iesous, or Iesus, or Jesus..
most especially how he so eloquently conveys his message of Truth through parable...
i personally like "G-Zeus", as that seems to enrage the devout the most..

his teachings have only served to further prove for me, that Yeshua, or you, or myself..
are all Divine emanations of the One that Is..
on this plane of existence, we are the ultimate parables of Nature..
told in the deafening silence of Creation..
reflecting infinitely varying aspects of that Singular Divinity.