[lsega77]

swwwiiiiiiiif.... cough.. cough....

hoooooo......



I consider this to be the model of the universe for the finite mind (meaning us). Our minds find it easier to consider the universe to be an encapsulation in which things, intangible or otherwise, exists. Let us call this existence... "IS-ness." That which "IS" perceivable, be it the intangible idea or the tangible object/person, does exist and therefore "IS" part of the universe. Now here's the problem...

swwwwiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiff.... cough..... haaack....

damn....

the problem comes in with the concept of what we consider a 'god' to be (or at least how some of us consider a god to be - speaking strictly in the monotheistic sense). The underlying characteristic of God is that God is 'limitless','unconstrained', that is to say,'capable of all things.' Since the universe is considered an encapsulation then the above diagram belies the concept of God because in our finite mind, God is percieved by us (in a contemplative or experential manner), is known to interact with us and is therefore in the universe and thusly constrained to exist (or have "IS-ness") in the encapsulation of the universe. Ergo, God is limited to exist within the universe. Since God is limited to exist in the universe then God is not 'limitless' and therfore not truly God afterall...

swwwwwwiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiif..... hack.... oshit.... heee heee...

The if we consider the origin of the universe, with God being constrained to exist therin then God would have, spontaneously created God's self (our minds won't accept this). Now let's take God and place God outside of the encapsulation of the universe.



Now God is placed outside of the encapsulation of the universe and therfore out of the envelope of existence. God is in the realm of non-existence which we can not accept as finite beings because to be in the realm of non-existence means that God lacks "IS-ness." Yet this can be the only case if God is truly responsible for the creation of the encapsulation which we call the universe because it is easier for our minds to grasp the concept of God create the universe from without than it is for our minds to accept God creating the universe and God's self spontaneously out of sheer will. So in essence God must have "IS-ness" in the realm of non-exitence in order to be the creator of "IS-ness." Our minds won't accept this either.

swwwwiiiiiiiiiiiiiif.... swiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiffff.... hack.... ooooooooh.... the colors....

Yet perhaps there is a third diagram... one that is even further unfathomable... consider this diagram...





What if God "IS" the encapsulation which we call the universe? What if the "IS-ness" and "non-IS-ness", existence and non existence are all derivative of God? Now God is not within the realm of non-existence, nor is God limited by the realm of existence. God transcends all this to the higher state of "Always Being." As the encapsulator of existence itself the non-existence is not possible since God would always "BE."

swwwwwwiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifffffffffffffffff.....

yeah baby....

This introduces a scary consequence. Perhaps we don't exist. Perhaps the universe, science, religion, love, hate, sanity and madness are all merely concepts in the mind of this God in the state of "Be-ing." Perhaps we are nothing more than a momentary thought.... a daydream of a "Be-ing" that we can not fathom? Perhaps the Big bang is/was nothing more than the synaptic firing of an idea in the brain of this "Be-ing." Perhaps we are nothing more than the inner dialog of the "Be-ing" attempting to define it's "Self"....


swiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiffffffffffffffff..... hack..... cough..... hack......

yo chris... take a hit a dis man...... and pass me the Doritos......


Luis


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Maxer]

Luis that was one of the best explanations of how God may operate that I've ever seen, nice work man!

[thomas lacroix]

fun explanantion but still concepts

[jdp]

trying to explain god is quite difficult, and in western culture has been proven to always fail.

if god and universe are the same thing (pantheism), then you have 2 options: a. we are part of him, therefore he is something different from universe containing (or trascending) the universe itself, which falls in scheme B invalidating scheme C, or, b. trying to avoid this paradox, we must say we are god (as a whole, no matter if knowing it or not); again the cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) paradox: the only thing letting you know "you are" is because you think you are, which is absolutely not demonstrable and constitues a logic jump. This is more likely believe it or not, so the demonstration in my opinion fails. but it was indeed happily explained.

[lsega77]

fun explanantion but still concepts

this subject in particular will always be... conceptualized

Luis

[lsega77]

trying to explain god is quite difficult, and in western culture has been proven to always fail.

if god and universe are the same thing (pantheism), then you have 2 options: a. we are part of him, therefore he is something different from universe containing (or trascending) the universe itself, which falls in scheme B invalidating scheme C, or, b. trying to avoid this paradox, we must say we are god (as a whole, no matter if knowing it or not); again the cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) paradox: the only thing letting you know "you are" is because you think you are, which is absolutely not demonstrable and constitues a logic jump. This is more likely believe it or not, so the demonstration in my opinion fails. but it was indeed happily explained.

Actually what I'm saying is that we perhaps "are not" at all. Nothing more than merely ideas in the mind of this "Be-ing". In other words, 'God thinks therefore we are.'

[EDIT] or.... God thinks you are but you really ain't cuz God's just thinking [/EDIT]

so cognito ergo sum... yo mama! (joking).

Luis

[misterasset]

I think your forgetting one thing; comets have a life expectancy of less than 10,000 years because they simply burn out or evaporate. If the universe is as old as it's supposed to be this comet shouldn’t be there.

Sorry for the slow response, I don't get back to the forum as fast as all of you. Of course it can be there. Things are constantly being created and destroyed in the universe.

[Maxer]

Ok, I can accept that other objects move into the solar system but I think the point was that all the original material that was present at the forming of the planets should all have been removed by this time.

[tom]

I think the only problem comes from we're not aware of we need to hack the current system first. IMHO, any other exploration will last forever and fail. Sad but true.

[Thomas An.]

Thomas I assume you are talking about the dynamo model, then how do you explain the Moon and Mercury which don't have molten cores like the Earth but still being able to generate a magnetic field? Also from what I understand the dynamo theory doesn’t adequately explain the origin of the magnetic filed or how it could it could feely fluctuate over millions of years.

There is always an explanation. (an obvious option being: These objects had a molten core once and retained a faint residue of the field once frozen; ferromagnetic) .
Besides, the earth magnetic field is under some rigorous observation (being much more close to us than anything else). There is a volume of information, both observation data and analytical models that verify to a good extent the decay and reversal of the magnetosphere as it relates to magma currents.

In any case, it seems you are still on a mission to advocate the existance of an N-1 conscience. This in itself implyies bias, as you are not open to other alternatives. A true researcher is impartial ... and as you can see from this discussion the option of an N-1 possibility is indeed being under consideration (but it is no more important than the other options or theories)

Again, your effort to focus solely in this aspect is not too useful. Such a conscience would still need to be composed of something. As such it still involves the chicken-egg issue. Meaning, that if there is N-1, then there is N-2 (the God must have a God too and so on).

[Maxer]

In any case, it seems you are still on a mission to advocate the existance of an N-1 conscience. This in itself implyies bias, as you are not open to other alternatives. A true researcher is impartial ... and as you can see from this discussion the option of an N-1 possibility is indeed been under consideration (but it is no more important than the other options or theories)

Again, your effort to focus solely in this aspect is not too useful. Such a conscience would still need to be composed of something. As such it still involves the chicken-egg issue. Meaning, that if there is N-1, then there is N-2 (the God must have a God too and so on).

Well I'm not a true researcher nor have I ever clamed to be so I can be as biased as I need to be in order to make my point. That means that I'm not bound by scientific analysis alone which is a good thing since science is quite often wrong. As far as being open to other alternatives goes I am perfectly willing to listen to any theory on origin but IMHO all of those questions hinge on where all of the initial material for the creation of the universe came from.

On the subject of the N conscience you are saying that it needs to be composed of something. As others have pointed out we are only aware of about 1% of what makes up the universe. I believe it is human arrogance to claim to know anything for certain much less to say there is no higher power considering the fact that the universe is for all intents and purposes unknown to us.

[tom]

...I am perfectly willing to listen to any theory on origin but IMHO all of those questions hinge on where all of the initial material for the creation of the universe came from.

While sleeping, do you also wonder where the initial material in your dreams came from? How can you be so sure what you're experiencing now is really a physically existing world? I am perfectly willing to listen to any theory on origin if someone can prove this first.

[Thomas An.]

While sleeping, do you also wonder where the initial material in your dreams came from? How can you be so sure what you're experiencing now is really a physically existing world? I am perfectly willing to listen to any theory on origin if someone can prove this first.

It is, (we have been through this )
If you go literaly, by medical explanation, the mind has the ability to memorise shapes (chartograph its 3d environmnent) and it also has the ability to virtualise (the same way you can draw an imaginary 3d object on 3dsMax). While you sleep this "generator" module of your mind is active during the REM phase.

If you assert that reality = dream then the question for you is "what drives the dream" ... what / where is the cpu that composes the dream scenarios, creates decisions/plots and enforces imaginary physics and consistency ? ... also what drives the "pixels" that compose the dream imagery ?

If you say that all this comes from nowhere, form nothing then you are basically postulating that 0=1 (in strict mathematical sense). At which point the theory is quickly becoming false.

[Thomas An.]

Just for the record. Tom, does have an interesting point in this discussion, but I believe the choice of his words and the examples he brings up do not do it justice.

What he is trying to say (I think) is basically an old simple theory (something we probably all think about when we are teenagers) that goes something like this:

• Imagine we setup a PC lab (a supercomputer).
• We develop software routines that establish parameters for a virtual environment. These parameters act as "physical constraints (for example a little sprite reaching the end of the screen is made to loop appearing from the other side (the screen is its universe).
• Code a virtual mixer (like a liquid simulator) within the confines of that screen. Use software routines to produce an initial amount of random seeds like virtual protein particles and place them in the liquid simulator. The virtual proteins follow certain rules on how to compine to form new and more complex shapes.
• Allow this simulator to run for a long time (indefinately) and observe the random combinations that are being generated.
• Suppose after a certain amount of time (a threshold) the shapes produced are complex enough that they actually have rudimentary functions.
• Also suppose that after yet another period of time in this virtual evolution simulator the individual objects are complex enough to finally devlop a sense of themselves (intelligence ... a form of conscience)
• Now the question becomes:
  These complex software entities exist in a completely virtual universe (the PC). The laws they obey are no more than software routines that we constructed. Their universe is no more than a display buffer. All their thoughts are being processes by a CPU cluster (this is completely transparent to them.. but they think they have individual personalities).
  • Will these software consciences ever be able to comprehend anything about the true nature of their universe ? Even if they theorise, will they ever be able actually see "us" (the lab technicians). They have no access to camera's, microphones, or anything that would bridge their world with ours. They can most likely understand the nature of themselves, develop sciences that explains their physics (which is in fact our software routinces)... but can they ever comprehend that they are no more than a mere electron flow inside a circuitry ?

[tom]

No, you're easily missing a point. If nothing is physically happening, you can't question if we have a brain to dream, too. This is the problem and it's not a paradox. Here "dream" doesn't mean nothing but something might be happening superior to physical existance. Therefore the brain you're looking for must be located in an upper shell. Say when you're sleeping until I wake you up, you think it is physical enough for your perception. You can't be sure there's no more shell above this level.

-edit: I've posted this regarding to your previous post. Your last post makes sense, thanks for helping me about it. Of course, it's quite hard discussing these with poor English. I still don't know how can I dare hehe...

Will these software consciences ever be able to comprehend anything about the true nature of their universe ? Even if they theorise, will they ever be able actually see "us" (the lab technicians). They have no access to camera's, microphones, or anything that would bridge their world with ours. They can most likely understand the nature of themselves, develop sciences that explains their physics (which is in fact our software routinces)... but can they ever comprehend that they are no more than a mere electron flow inside a circuitry ?

I'm afraid, no and this sets me desperate forever. So, I would rather be happier if I was a believer but sadly I can't deceive myself.