Talk:Ayin and Yesh

Name

I screwed up a bit with the spacing of the parentheses and then screwed up some more trying to fix it. Administrator intervention is needed now. Sorry,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification request

There's a request for the clarification added after those words :"In Chapter 2, Mishnah 6". Well, it was taken directly from the source and they could have taken it from here although I cannot find the exact text.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. In this case it means chapter 2, paragraph 6 of Sefer Yetzirah. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you by any chance meant chapter 2, paragraph 6 of Mishnah? --Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No, chapter 2 paragraph 6 of Sefer Yetzirah. The source uses the word "Mishnah" in a more generic sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking?

I think the last paragraph about The Grand Design shouldn't be here. I couldn't see anything in the ref that links what Hawking is talking about with the concept of Ayin. As it stands now it's WP:SYNTH. Yes they both speak of nothingness, but one from a specific philosophical/religious point of view and the other a strictly material one. Not to mention that the reference is a blog written by the husband Jim (sic), which is obviously not an WP:RS. I'm going to remove the passage, but feel free to continue the discussion here if you don't agree. Yazan (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be there. Here's only one source that link The Grand Design, quantum physic and Kabbalah.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that links the two. But I wouldn't object to quoting this paper. My objection was that you are associating Hawking with this, while there is absolutely no association whatsoever, none mentioned in his book (which I urge you to read) or by him or by this paper, where the writer does not attempt to associate him with Ayin. In his opinion Quantum states are in harmony with this philosophy, fine. Just because the two are mentioned in the same paper it doesn't mean they are connected. Cheers. Yazan (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course I read his book. Hawking talks a lot about Ayin, but of course he calls it "nothing". Here are only few quotes: "Hawking, 68, says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. ";""Gravity and quantum theory cause universes to be created spontaneously out of nothing," Hawking told Larry King.";"That's because if there are many universes, one will have laws of physics like ours -- and in such a universe, something not only can, but must, arise from nothing, Hawking says."--Mbz1 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1, unless he specifies "Ayin" then you are making the connection between the two, which is Original Research. Yazan (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

One cannot not expect Hawking to use the word Ayin. Kabbalistic Ayin means nothingness and nothingness Hawking is talking about means Ayin. There's absolutely no differences between the two.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the definition of WP:OR. You can not be the one who connects the two, you either need to have a secondary source that says this is specifically what Hawking meant, or Hawking himself declaring it. Nothingness is an extremely wide-meaning word. Could I just assume that Startre's nothingness is also Ayin? Yazan (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course "Nothingness" as BTW "Ayin" for that matter have many meanings, except in this particular situation they have absolutely the same meaning. Both Hawking and kabbalists are talking about the Universe that created out of Ayin(nothingness)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(indent) Mbz1, Wikipedia has very strict, and very clear rules for this, you can not make the jump between Hawking and Ayin, unless you have a source that supports it. I urge you to read WP:RS, and WP:SYNTH again. You need a reliable source that connects the two, otherwise it is original research. If you still disagree with this, feel free to invite other editors to weigh in. Yazan (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are only very few books that compare the theories discussed by Hawking in his books to the ones discussed by kabbalists "One reads Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time, perhaps a sign of things to come, and the affinities with Kabbalah are striking.";[1] [2];[3];[4].--Mbz1 (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a problem with these citations. If you include the second the link you listed, then you should be fine. Cheers. Yazan (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I understood you right that you do not mind adding back the piece you removed using new sources.So, I added it back together with 2 new sources linking Kabbalah and Hawking, and some new info.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. It looks good now, except for one thing, you re-added the first source, the blog (citation no. 11). You should easily be able to find a reliable source for that quote (it's a very famous one). Wikipedia does not accept blogs as RS, and you should replace it ASAP. I did some copyediting, feel free to revert. Other than that it looks good. Cheers. Yazan (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

'The concept of Ayin-Yesh in literature and science' - weak

Wooly, no flow, no expertise demonstrated. Can someone quote R. Kaplan, for example? Leegee23 (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Creation. Creation is the activity which involves change and evolution. To create means to call to existence something that did not exist before. For example, if at some moment ‘now’ there is in existence plurality ‘c’ and in the next ‘now’ the plurality is (c+1) then somewhere during the change from the first ‘now’ to the second ‘now’ a transformation occurred of the unit ‘1’ from non existence to existence. Since our consciousness is limited to only the ‘now’ the boundary between the two ‘now’ is the medium which is outside observer's consciousness. The ‘1’ joined the plurality of ‘c’ within that boundary. This does not mean of course that the ‘1’ did not exist before. It was the observer who made it exist. The change of the ‘1’ from non existence to existence may occur quantitatively without transformation when the boundary between the two ‘now’, or between the non existence ‘0’ and existence ‘1’ is not an interval of time of transformation large enough to be observed as 'now'. The second 'now' can contain the first 'now' with its contents together with the difference between the contents of the two ‘now' when the two ‘now’ are seen in one ‘now’. The first ‘now’ exists but it does not have to be in the second ‘now’. When in the totality of change, along some interval of time from ‘0’ to ‘1’, there is infinite (oo) plurality of units (0<1) of consciousness the transformation is perfectly continuous and change from '0' to '1' or change from '1' to '0', is the identity of the static quant (0<1) as identity of the duality of existence non-existence. Every type of transformation through the plurality (oo) has the beginning in ‘0’ and the end ‘1’. Continuous transformation is the constant state of dynamism initiated by the observer. Wholly static state is only at the beginning ‘0’. Change from non existence to existence is one-directional from ‘0’ to ‘1’ or from ‘1’ to ‘0’. The limited plurality ‘c’, within (oo), can have any value (0<c<oo). The medium of (oo) consists of of two parts. One part is the medium of Nothingness ‘0’ and the other part is the imperfect, dynamic medium of existence ‘1’ of the unit of consciousness (0<1). The non-existence is not the same as Nothingness. The first applies to the duality of the observer while Nothingness applies to all the observers. This can be shown as;

      (0101010101.....c....(oo))    (a)  

The interval which has static end ‘0’ and the second end ‘1’ which is dynamic, applies to all the elements of the reality, namely the existence, the non-existence and the difference between them. The existence '1' may be reduced to the existence of only the observer and Nothingness. Then only the duality of the observer exists. When non-existence is '0' the observer fully exists.

 	The duality of existence non-existence may exist partly when the difference is located somewhere on the spectrum (0<1), in which case the observed smaller transformation on the interval (0<n) inside (0<n<c), has the value ‘u’ in (0<u<1) when u = n/c. The difference is largest when the existence is nearest to the whole ‘1’ and the non- existence is nearest to ‘0’. The same applies to the non-existence, and to the difference between them, because both of these elements are subject to the same differentiation between minimum '0' and maximum '1'. In relation to the spectrum (oo) all the three elements are the identity despite the fact that each one of them is different and independent. When the difference is ‘0’, existence and non-existence difference is located somewhere on the spectrum (0<1). In which case the observed smaller transformation on the interval (0<n) inside (0<n<c), has the value ‘u’ in (0<u<1) when u = n/c. The difference is largest when the existence is nearest to the whole ‘1’ and the non- existence is nearest to ‘0’. The same applies to the non-existence, and to the difference between them, because both of these elements are subject to the same differentiation between minimum '0' and maximum '1'. In relation to the spectrum (oo) all the three elements are the identity despite the fact that each one of them is different and independent. When the difference is ‘0’, existence and non-existence are identical. This happens when each one of the two compared elements contains half of the other element. When the difference is maximum ‘1’ then both elements are perfect, so that the non-existence non-exists and it is  contradiction of itself which means that it is existence  The three existing elements of our reality, namely existence, non- existence and the difference between them, when seen as ‘1’ whole, are static and free of change. The ‘1’ is eternal because, when there is no existence, there is only the exiting observer, and when there is no non-existence only the existence of the observer exists. The ‘1’, as the observer always exists and only exists without non-existence. Observing the reality as ‘1’ whole the observer is the identity of that reality since there is nothing else. This one reality exists as the duality of identity and at the same time of contradiction. From the beginning ‘0’, existence is not perfect because one part 1/c of the plurality ‘c’ of the parts 1/c, is the observer ‘1’ who is independent of the remaining plurality of (c-1) and its organisation. That which is outside the observer ‘1’ in the space (1<c) is reflected within ‘1’ in (1/c<1). The observer ‘1’ is static and invariable because he remains without change during observation of each part of (c-1) parts and each organisation in that space. The observer, as ‘1’, is the duality of Nothingness ‘0’ of his I, which is the limit‘0at the ‘beginning’, and his ‘now’ which we mark as ‘i’ located in (0<i<1). The I, being Nothingness of the limit, does not add or subtract anything from that which it limits. Each point (0<1) on the spectrum (a) shown above, is the observer’s variable ‘now’, and it is depend on ‘n’ in (0<n<c). As the static ‘0’, the I limits the unit ‘now’ and the observed picture in the ‘now’. When motivated, I changes position within the plurality of ‘c’. The duality of inside-outside of the observer '1' who is the centre of the system, can be called the ‘universal system of coordinates’ and it can be noted as:
   (0 <1/c < u < [1] < n < c < oo)))        (b)

The observer is conscious of his duality of existence non- existence and the difference which is in the unit of standing time ‘now’. The unit ‘now’ is independent from the observer’s I and it is an element of the reality inside the whole of existence ‘1’. Observing the plurality of 2, which are the two halves of the reality, the existence ‘1’ and the non- existence ‘0’, the observer reflects in himself the external plurality of 2 in the ‘now’. Therefore because of the observation and the way the observer sees it, the plurality is 4. To change from 2 to 4 there must be two ‘now’, both existing as standing time. The change from 2 to 4 is dynamism manifesting itself as the flowing time arising out of addition of the two ‘now’. Therefore it is the observer who creates flowing time. What is more, the view of the plurality of 2, in the first ‘now’, becomes memory and the past despite the fact that the first ‘now’, with the plurality of 2, together with the new plurality of 4, is contained in the current ‘now’. Within that second 'now' there are three elements, the first 'now' with its contents, the current plurality of 4 and the difference between the two observations. The lack of equilibrium between the two observations motivates the observer. Observing the plurality of 4, the observer creates the plurality of 8. This dynamism cannot be stopped. Repetition of observations caused by the motivation increases the plurality. When the observation number ‘n’ changes to observation (n+1) the plurality doubles. If the unit of plurality, which is observer’s ‘now’, is constant then the plurality of the medium grows as 2n with the result that there are created two different media. One medium consists of identical units within the plurality 2n of parts, and because they are identical they can be only one next to another creating magnitude which is static space. In the second medium, every unit in the plurality of 2n is different so that the units 2n can be one within another, without magnitude. This creates differentiation, density and dynamism manifesting itself as rotating point and flowing time. KK (86.161.198.176 (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC))