User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 139

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    5w6 sx/so


    Quoted articles taken from the below post in Infinite Bubble's "The universe and other nonsense" thread:

    Originally posted here. This part hypothesizes and assumes that God does not exist as a real entity in reality outside of the human mind, rather, treats it as a subjective concept created and maintained in the human psyche. (Later parts will contain speculation revolving around the premise that God exists in objective reality, in whatever form that may be.)
    Perhaps God as depicted in the Bible is our own construct, but there could be other beings out there that may qualify as having God-powers.

    Oh, and if anyone has any thoughts on anything written in any of the posts, I would be very interested to read them!
    Well, I'm about to give you some right here.

    God fills an emotional role when humans feel backed into a corner. Their conscious or subconscious longing for help within their situation transforms the concept into a sentient being capable of understanding and with the ability to help. Humans’ instinct for safety and desire of easily of getting through difficulties gives God the powers it is known to have, which are incredibly idealistic. At such a point where the human asks for Gods help, the instinct is pushed to the limit, and so wants help with no effort on their part, because at this point they feel helpless. God is a form of idealism which means that not only is our desire for security fulfilled, but also that there is an objective reason for existence; because the fact there really isn’t one unsettles us from the need to know why things happen (evolutionary trait).
    I think that higher intelligences exist, but they guide us in very indirect ways; sages and mystics would simply tune into their messages, but whether we take action to follow our visions or feelings is up to us - God can only open the door.

    This “God effect” is a concept routed into the subconscious. The experience explained above would in fact dictate action towards securing back equilibrium, but this is not on Gods part. The subconscious often takes up action to subtly gain the individuals desire, in a minute way. This comes quickly or slowly, depending on the individuals mind. The Placebo effect sometimes takes a role in this, particularly with prayers. Action is taking in the physical realm, usually subconsciously, to solve the problem. The end result is usually attributed to God (if the subject is believer).
    I won't deny that many perceived miracles could have purely natural explanations that we falsely ascribe to a divine being, but we still shouldn't rule out the possibility that some miracles have God's hand as at least a partial cause.

    The concept of God itself comes from an astute awareness gained from intellect that we have been created and are in existence. Reality in human perception dictates that we follow the laws of cause and effect, and with the habit of anthropomorphism, together make up a view that something akin to ourselves (which is essentially what many conceptions of Gods are – an all-powerful superhuman) must have created the universe. We are, after all, creative beings ourselves.
    Under a linear view of time, this idea would work; causes would transform into effects in a never ending chain for infinity. However, that's just time and causality as we know them. Perhaps there's so much more to the ways of evolution across space-time than we can even begin to comprehend. As such, I don't jump to conclusions regarding what is and what isn't possible, what can or can't be caused.

    Here is a recent theory I thought of not too long ago, which does well to tie in to the above, but may explain more about the core elements of why God is a concept in our minds in the first place, rather than describing the effect it has:
    Of course, why would God be invented if he couldn't give us some blessings?

    God is a fundamental concept of the human mind, something deep-rooted ever since a certain level of intelligence was reached. Created originally as a side-effect due to our intellect, the concept of God is our projection of evolutionary perfection, and because of our sufficiently advanced minds, we are conscious of this (but only as it coated as God, rather than the underlying perfection, which is unconscious).
    God then is an end, and we're trying to build bridges to reach that divine platform, even if we never arrive; the value is in the journey of expansion and evolution.

    The first thing to address would be, what is meant specifically by "evolutionary perfection". After all, surely perfection as a concept in itself is subjective. But in this case, it is not - or, as a different perspective, it is a collective subjectivity (which may very well be synonymous to objectivity). Human beings have certain universal traits, one which covers every single one of us in existence. And this is unavoidable, until a large amount of time has passed and large mutational catalysts occur to change the underlying state of each human (perhaps at this point it would be more appropriate to not name them Homo sapiens at all, but a new stage of development).
    I see perfection as something that has all promise, can fulfill any wish. I say this because what we each see as perfect is different, so if something can give us anything, perhaps it could get closer towards qualifying as "perfect".

    Over time, we have been able to map out the evolutionary processes of the animals on Earth. From this, we can see that the main "aim" for life is to survive. This primary instinct may stem from a natural disposition that cells have, to remain as cells. That is - they want stability; to remain in the same state, and to not break apart and be inanimate once more. Perhaps this is a repulsion against the universe's natural operation of constantly changing its state and being in flux indefinitely. It's almost as if the product of that first reaction, that created life, was "aware" of the fact that it had just a little extra free-will than the inanimate forms that lay around it. Is a state of animation fundamentally greater for matter than inanimation? Reproduction is first priority, as it is essentially copying itself, and that means that "itself" will remain alive, and thus remain stable and nonfluctuating. Perhaps a fundamental trait or law of this universe is that matter "wants" to stay in the same state for as long as possible, until a force acts upon it. Although now I feel I've wandered from the main point slightly, so let's get back to that.
    Of course life fights to survive, and that's the law of the jungle; but what if the natural order is corrupted, something we need to rise above and purify? Surely evolution would be a means to achieve this end, assuming my theory is true and can be transcended.

    So - to survive, is to defend against opposition. To be powerful, to never be overcome by rivaling forces. Complete control over the environment. From this, we can define evolutionary perfection as a life-form being maximally powerful and being in thorough control of its environment. A life-form that will never die, that has no rivals to fear. That first cell's desire would be finally met - an eternal state; an eternal state without opposition, and with the highest amount of freedom that the universe will allow. As said before, Humans are naturally creative beings - it's what has made us so successful and separates us from other animals. So what would be the ultimate in controlling the environment? What would assure that nothing would ever escape our sight and be our downfall - something we could understand on all levels? It would not merely be being the most successful creatures in the environment, but to actually own an environment. By this, I mean, to create our own. And here, the essence of God lies. Only by creating a universe of our own, would we be able to be completely immune to all dangers; because we'd know everything there is to know about it.
    Keep in mind that our greatest achievements may not only be in controlling our objective contexts, but also in exploring our subjective realities, namely inner space and metaphysical transcension.

    This is why God is universally ladled with human traits - because God is us. What we want to be. But like the previous section stated, we use it for guidance and help, and again - stability. We want love and acceptance, the reassurance that we aren't alone, and that something is beyond death. Humans naturally want other humans for support. And God, the ultimate human, is our ultimate help. It has an infinite amount of powers and can do anything for us, and keeps the optimism alive that something is beyond death - that someday, we (our genes; future generations) will progress to that stage. A parent of all parents.
    There's no way to say the Ultimate God of the Universe is a person, a force, a mind, a metaphor for the laws of nature, or whatever else we can think of; I think your point here makes sense - one thing I disagree about is your lack of faith and your intense focus on pure rationalism. I'm very much for those concepts, but I also think that they alone are incomplete. Surely there's so much more to our world than this mechanical matrix.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    5w6 sx/so


    The universe might be finite in spatial extend but unbounded, an overall topology of a closed surface, spherical or a donut (torus) in shape. Which topology is correct depends on the average curvature of space. Positive curvature is a sphere, flat curvature is a torus, and negative curvature is a saddle with infinite possible topologies. A spatially infinite universe cannot be a self-contained system, but rather is part of a larger system taking in information from boundaries infinitely far away, the space outside being explicable by what comes in from the world beyond the boundary.

    The different possibilities as to the shape of the cosmos:
    1. Open and Infinite (Saddle - Negative curvature)
    2. Finite and Closed (Sphere - Positive curvature)
    3. Digital and Flat (Torus - No curvature)
    4. Multi-directional and Eternal (Toroid - Revolving Curvature)

    Ventrilo conversation on this subject that I got permission to post:
    RaptorWizard: case closed, anyway, i was reading about different geometries for our cosmos yesterday
    RaptorWizard: do we have a finite or infinite, closed or open, negatively curved saddle, positively curved sphere, or flat torus
    RaptorWizard: shapes for the universe
    RaptorWizard: the negative saddle to me looked the most interesting
    RaptorWizard: it opens up many more variables and is open to other spaces outside this one
    RaptorWizard: thoughts?
    superunknown: i just remembered i never finished the video on turning spheres inside out
    superunknown: do you think the universe is closed or open?
    RaptorWizard: that whirling graphic is interesting
    superunknown: yeah
    RaptorWizard: i want it to be open, and i have faith it may be, but the evidence amy later say its closed
    RaptorWizard: i should make a thread on that actually; how is our universe shaped
    superunknown: yes, you should
    RaptorWizard: i guess one piece of evidence in favor of istj over istp for you is your focus on well, evidence - mingularity, istp goes by logic even if there could be counter-logical discoveries made
    RaptorWizard: he doesnt want the universe to have a metaphorical shape for instance, because its too inconsistent
    RaptorWizard: from a rational standpoint
    RaptorWizard: anyway, just my opinion, ill get to that thread
    superunknown: yeah, i really like the concept of irrational functions
    superunknown: rational functions are tethered
    superunknown: unaccommodating
    superunknown: though i may be that irl, my unconscious self
    RaptorWizard: Shape of the Cosmos - is that a good title, or is there an improvement
    RaptorWizard: and poll options: negative, positive, flat
    RaptorWizard: negative is infinite, positive is closed, and flat - is that the torus?
    superunknown: i'm not sure about the flat/torus one
    RaptorWizard: how would a flat universe be shaped
    superunknown: reading now
    superunknown: i wasn't doubting you, i was saying i personally don't know, fyi
    RaptorWizard: i dont know either, why i asked - more information is needed
    superunknown: ah. yeah, reading now
    RaptorWizard: ^ supposed evidence for the saddle
    superunknown: a flat universe means theroretical parallel can be drawn through any point in space, space doesn't "curve" like einstein predicts
    superunknown: I don't know if I buy literal curvature of space
    superunknown: i think the universe is flat and digital
    RaptorWizard: perhaps so, could negative curvature be a metaphor (and if it is, what kind of metaphor)
    superunknown: i think the saddle shaped universe is manifest in the torus
    superunknown: the middle piece is like a chunk taken out of the inner wall of a torus
    RaptorWizard: hmm, good point, the torus kind of mixes the flat/digital with the saddle
    RaptorWizard: thx, saved the image
    superunknown: i know for a while i liked the concept of an eternal, closed universe
    superunknown: in constant flux
    superunknown: rehashing itself over and over
    RaptorWizard: i think thats how nietzsche saw it
    superunknown: makes sense, given his conclusions
    RaptorWizard: eternal recurrence in never ending cycles
    superunknown: i think that's how eastern religions see it also
    superunknown: perpetual rebirth
    RaptorWizard: is there a way to mix the rebirth, the saddle, and the flat with the torus (or something else)?
    superunknown: one sec, i saw a cool pic
    RaptorWizard: ^ that may be the answer
    superunknown: that's what i thought, for a while
    superunknown: condensing to maximum density, exploding, condensing, etc
    RaptorWizard: it whirls around in cycles, it can move forever, it has a closed system that can be calculated, it has the saddle source for the bang
    superunknown: or that idea of a new universe being born every time a black hole is created
    superunknown: yeah
    superunknown: it makes a bit of intuitive sense, for a system to work that way
    RaptorWizard: whats this design called
    superunknown: doughnut theory of the universe
    RaptorWizard: i think ill argue for that one, but changes can be made along the way if new things emerge
    superunknown: i will argue for a similar concept, only flat
    RaptorWizard: how would flat donut work
    superunknown: i really dislike the concept of geometry being the purest form of reality
    RaptorWizard: literal donut?
    superunknown: yeah, something like that
    superunknown: it'd be like a radial burst from a centralized location
    RaptorWizard: what makes geometry incomplete (it could be, why so)
    RaptorWizard: the nexus of size
    superunknown: yeah. but what exists between sizes?
    superunknown: i remember thinking....
    RaptorWizard: bathroom
    superunknown: ya, brb
    RaptorWizard: im posting this conversation into the thread if thats okay
    superunknown: yeah, that's cool
    superunknown: i was thinking about the wave/particle problem in quantum mechanics
    superunknown: i can't remember the thought i had about it, but it was cool...
    'TheStarchDefenders' has joined the chat.
    RaptorWizard: how does contingency (like in QM) connect with the shape of the cosmos?
    superunknown: i have a feeling we simple aren't equipped to probe that level of existence accurately yet
    superunknown: hello starch
    RaptorWizard: true, QM may be seemingly contingent just because we cant see the causes behind it
    superunknown: that, or there is a duality to nature that is irreconcilable
    superunknown: but that's been said a dozen times over in science
    superunknown: i have faith we will figure it out
    Mane: gloves
    Mane: the answer is gloves
    Mane: sort of
    superunknown: metaphorical gloves?
    Mane: it's like the thing they have in labs where the gloves are within the walls of a glass box
    Mane: to handle materials you can't touch
    superunknown: ah, yeah, i remember this
    Mane: we need to use the space of our universe like gloves
    superunknown: i know the theory of quantum uncertainty has been disproven with a thought experiment
    Mane: what thought experiment?
    superunknown: something involving two people with boxes that will randomly generate a red or blue cube inside?
    superunknown: it's been a while since i read it...
    Mane: if we had that - we could "feel" what is outside of our universe, we could possibly even grab something which isn't part of our membrane and manipulate it, possibly even build a probe of sort
    RaptorWizard: mane, i want permission to post this entire discussion in a thread, is that okay?
    superunknown: maybe the upcoming quantum age will give it to us
    RaptorWizard: when do you foresee the QM age coming
    Mane: sure
    Mane: didn't the QM age start when the universe emerged?
    Mane: or you mean in terms of our capacity to manipulate?
    Mane: i suppose the stone age started when we manipulated stone..
    superunknown: yes, like the atomic age, iron age, etc
    superunknown: i think around 2025 is when it's gonna be "mainstream" technology
    superunknown: quantum watches, cell phones
    Mane: i think we've already had quantum watches
    Mane: maybe i am wrong on that one...
    superunknown: it'd be interesting if we did, but i haven't heard of it
    Mane: what is the watch that they placed on setalites to test the theory of relatively?
    superunknown: i know of only one commercially available quantum computer, made by D-Wave
    superunknown: atomic clock
    Mane: oh right
    superunknown: my watch syncs with an atomic clock in georgia daily
    Mane: well you have variations of quantum computing that are disputable
    Mane: like the google thingy
    RaptorWizard: Shape of the Cosmos ~ Understanding the Architectures of our Universe - hows that for a full title
    superunknown: i like it
    Mane: my watch syncs with the mind of a hippy thinking what time it feels like
    superunknown: i didn't hear about that, mane
    superunknown: lol
    Mane: their where articles over it all over awhile ago
    Mane: wired, popsci... those sort of sites
    superunknown: yeah
    Mane: i do remember D-wave claiming it is not a real quantum computer
    superunknown: darn
    Mane: but i wasn't sure if its nitpicking about not fitting for a specific theory of how quantum computation should work, or if it's actually in a sense of not having the properties of a quantum computer
    Mane: i think the google thing used a more basic binary state system or something like that?
    Mane: not sure
    Mane: its being awhile ago
    RaptorWizard: - Big Bagel Theory
    superunknown: i'm not sure, but this year, NASA and Google both partnered with D-Wave to study what they're doing right with their computers
    superunknown: Prior to announcing this partnership, NASA, Google, and Universities Space Research Association put a D-Wave computer through a series of benchmark and acceptance tests which it passed.[6] Independent researchers found that D-Wave's computers can solve s
    superunknown: solve some problems as much as 3,600 times faster than particular software packages running on digital computers.
    superunknown: there's more though, still reading
    Mane: i think initially it's going to be like an added hardware piece you shove in server clusters
    superunknown: yeah, for weird problems
    Mane: not really weird problems
    superunknown: i guess i meant nuanced
    Mane: i heard that search sorting algorithms can work better in quantum algorithms.
    Mane: that's not that weird is it? its one of the most common problems we have to solve
    RaptorWizard: The different possibilities as to the shape of the cosmos:
    RaptorWizard: 1. Open and Infinite (Saddle - Negative curvature)
    superunknown: no, not weird
    RaptorWizard: 2. Finite and Closed (Sphere - Positive curvature)
    RaptorWizard: 3. Digital and Flat (Torus - No curvature)
    RaptorWizard: Multi-directional and Eternal (Toroid - Revolving Curvature)
    RaptorWizard: ^ 4
    RaptorWizard: are those good poll options
    superunknown: yes, i think so
    RaptorWizard: cool, ill post the thread now
    Mane: wait wasn't it the other way around
    Mane: problems with small data sets but large processing run times
    Mane: so not search algorithms...
    Mane: ok i am clearly not remembering this right

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    5w6 sx/so


    The quoted articles were written by Infinite Bubble in the following post:

    Perhaps God as depicted in the Bible is our own construct, but there could be other beings out there that may qualify as having God-powers.

    What would constitute as a God-power? Would this be merely something perceived as beyond our capabilities, much like the Homo sapien mind is to a gnat or a slug? So then are we Gods, relative to a gnat; or simply more intellectually complex mechanisms? It was in fact under this paradigm of perceiving things beyond us that we did not understand, that God was invented - to fill in the blanks of our understanding. Science progresses and God's influence lessens. Is God then, another entity subjugated to the laws of relativity? And under these terms, is "God" really a relevant descriptor? Perhaps we should give this concept a new label.

    Supposedly the classic powers would be those considered "outside" the realm of the material universe, with the ability to manipulate its contents - its effects being within but the cause being outside, and the cause is of course attributed to God. So god is something that is on the "outside". Beings are, as far as we know, are a property of the "inside". Is it fair to call God a being, then? Unless the universe mirrors the structure of God, but then we have to wonder why God is that way and not another, similar to how we question the universes order.
    I think that higher intelligences exist, but they guide us in very indirect ways; sages and mystics would simply tune into their messages, but whether we take action to follow our visions or feelings is up to us - God can only open the door.

    It would certainly be a monumental surprise to find out that no intelligence greater than ours existed. If we are talking about other material life-forms, e.i. extraterrestrials, then I think they do not care about us or have not noticed us at all. Around 98% of our DNA is shared with chimps. But there is seemingly a huge difference between our intelligence and theirs. So from this, two conclusions can be inferred: either our intelligence has origins in a reason other than genetics, or that the difference between our intelligence is simply not that great. What exactly do we have to preserve our notion of being intelligent creatures - only contrast with our fellow earthlings. By a standard, we might potentially be still primitive creatures. We share many, many traits and habits with our fellow Earth life-forms, yet we brand almost every one of them primitive ourselves. And if we are reasonable primitive, why would more intelligent creatures care about interacting with us, or even conducting a sort of communication. How often do we try to establish a meaningful relationship with a fly batting against the window?

    If higher intelligence in this context equates to a divine force then okay, it seems reasonable that they might be effecting us in some way... it's conceivable to believe that such a force could effect all things simultaneously. But it should be noted that intelligence's importance is quite inflated by humans on a whole. Is high intelligence not simply an evolutionary device, an adaptive trait, like gills on a fish, hollowed bones in a bird's wing or thick layers of fat on a penguin? Why elevate it to such a status that intelligence is the be and end all of existence - it is basically the factor that we separate "superior" beings, and lower beings with.

    And on the subject of God being considered a being of the highest possible intelligence: what is intelligence? The ability to understand. It is a property of living creatures for them to be able to understand and survive in their environment. So intelligence was developed in creatures because their are unknowns needing to be known to survive.

    For God to have the highest possible intelligence is paradoxical. God created the universe, therefore has no need to develop such a thing to survive. So why would God have this property called intelligence - the ability to understand its environment? Unless intelligence or the mind is something separate and not created through complex particle interactions.
    I won't deny that many perceived miracles could have purely natural explanations that we falsely ascribe to a divine being, but we still shouldn't rule out the possibility that some miracles have God's hand as at least a partial cause.

    If God exists on such an intimate level, then it could well even be playing us like puppets.

    Miracles, and the effects of a prayer are two separate things, although not mutually exclusive. The effect, or answering, of a prayer doesn't have to be spectacular or seemingly against the workings of nature, so can easily explained by the unconscious. The concept of God is, I believe, a direct manifestation of the unconscious. Religion is a manifestation of the collective unconsciousness's fears. So the effects of a prayer can be explained away on a fairly rational basis.

    But you speak of miracles here. What is perceived as a miracle is coming from either a lack of understanding of the process of it coming into being, or indeed something beyond the laws of known physics. A miracle is almost unanimously described as a "good" event, in the religious sense at least, that enables betterment of its beneficiary. That automatically promotes humans, their ethics, and values, above everything else in the universe. Because what we perceive as good is subjectively good and therefore not a benefit for rarely anything but us.
    Under a linear view of time, this idea would work; causes would transform into effects in a never ending chain for infinity. However, that's just time and causality as we know them. Perhaps there's so much more to the ways of evolution across space-time than we can even begin to comprehend. As such, I don't jump to conclusions regarding what is and what isn't possible, what can or can't be caused.

    Indeed, but that particular passage pertains to subjective human experience, which I'm sure you'll agree is played out in a linear cause-effect fashion.
    Of course, why would God be invented if he couldn't give us some blessings?

    If you believe in God, why use "invented", or do you now think it's a human construct? Once again, unless you encompass every other living being in the universe (which hardly anyone who believes in this actually does), God giving us "blessings" (whatever that is) elevates our status above others, which I do not agree with. Does God give blessings to all the bacterium, antelopes, dung beetles, sycamores, and harriers? Or are we "above" these lifeforms? Does God give blessings to all the tapeworms, for them to be able to inhabit their host and grow 30 ft in their intestines without struggle, or even for the Human immunodeficiency virus to swiftly propagate itself with ease? So as you can see, we either elevate human ideals and ethics to be of utmost importance in the universe (or on this planet), which is wholly arrogant, or accept that the universe is utterly neutral (unless you want to go with the idea that there is a God for every life-form that goes against all others, which is ridiculous). If God exists, I believe it is neutral.
    God then is an end, and we're trying to build bridges to reach that divine platform, even if we never arrive; the value is in the journey of expansion and evolution.

    Not an end, since evolution isn't a progression in the sense that there is a "finishing point" of near-perfection or advancement; evolution is merely adaptation to the current environment that'd enable the most efficient survival. Not really current level -> superior level. Just whatever fits. The features that come about through the next adaptation may be what we perceive as either better or worse than the current model. For example, there are studies that show humans are getting less intelligent (which would be perceived to be worse than the current condition) because of environmental pressure, and there are some studies that show the opposite. My point is that either could happen, and neither is necessarily better or worse.

    That said, God being a projection of the unconscious based on "evolutionary perfection" is from the direct correlation between environmental control/domination and evolutionary success through natural selection. It's the qualities that we value that evolution could give us in the greatest of circumstances for the ultimate environmental control. I don't think we'll get anywhere near it to be honest. Not enough control -> more external factors affecting us unwittingly -> suppression and/or sharing of control -> less control.
    I see perfection as something that has all promise, can fulfill any wish. I say this because what we each see as perfect is different, so if something can give us anything, perhaps it could get closer towards qualifying as "perfect".

    That makes sense.
    Of course life fights to survive, and that's the law of the jungle; but what if the natural order is corrupted, something we need to rise above and purify? Surely evolution would be a means to achieve this end, assuming my theory is true and can be transcended.

    Isn't corruption really just a dissonance against the order that we like to impose on the world? If the universe is in a state of what we'd classify as "corrupted", then that is simply the way things have turned out from the previous conditions - there isn't anything inherently wrong with it (except we perceive it so). I'm not sure what you mean exactly by rising above and purifying something. I don't - as you probably have gathered - agree with the idea of universal ethics, which this idea lays its foundation upon. It would be incredibly interesting though, if it was found out that there are universally objective ethics.
    Keep in mind that our greatest achievements may not only be in controlling our objective contexts, but also in exploring our subjective realities, namely inner space and metaphysical transcension.

    That may be the next level so to speak - to eventually transcend the perimeters of the physical. After all, it could be said that the physical universe is merely a single perceptual vantage-point. If "physical" is just sensory impressions, which don't actually exist as pure forms, then physical reality isn't reality anyway. But then we can ask, "what is the real reality?" And that's one question that is fundamentally unanswerable to us, in this state (if the mind is actually separate from the body, it's plausible to consider that all vantage-points would be eradicated in favour of "pure" existence. It may even transcend existence.
    There's no way to say the Ultimate God of the Universe is a person, a force, a mind, a metaphor for the laws of nature, or whatever else we can think of; I think your point here makes sense - one thing I disagree about is your lack of faith and your intense focus on pure rationalism. I'm very much for those concepts, but I also think that they alone are incomplete. Surely there's so much more to our world than this mechanical matrix.

    This is true I guess. Like I said before, I think God has to lie outside, or have a sort of disconnection from the direct universe, to be classified reasonably as a God. If God is part of the universe itself, then God should be replaced by a more appropriate concept. So if God is a force, it should be called a force of some description; if it is a metaphor for the laws of nature, call it the laws of nature. After all, in the past people thought the sun and moon where gods. I just think God as a term is unnecessary, considering its religious roots and implications. If God is a person, then it'd imply that humans, or life as a whole, is of greater importance in the universe than other structures (which is a biased assumption that should be avoided unless evidence necessitates its truth).

    I don't lack faith, it's is just religious faith that I lack. I have faith in science, the human race, and the beauty of the universe as it is, without the need of a creator. Rationalism is limited, but it's the best we can do from what we have currently been given to understand the universe with. Perhaps other methods will prevail with more intellectual advancement. But until then...

    Maybe there is more to our world than simple mechanical interactions. But I think it makes people uncomfortable to think that it is purely mechanical. That is really why religion still persists. But I personally think it would be elegant to be that way, with no intervention from "mystical forces".

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    5w6 sx/so


    Originally Posted by alcea rosea
    In my opinion, certain roads are determined but choice between the roads is given to us. So, I think people have certain amount of free will and freedom of choice but there are also coincidences, things that happen no matter if you want them to happen or not. These coincideces could also be said to be things that are determined for us. So, I believe some things are given to us and some things we can decide.
    This makes a lot of sense. Maybe we can't choose our contexts quite so much as we can choose what we do within those contexts, at least at our current level.

    Originally Posted by Scheherezade
    free will is not real, to be blunt, but if you consider free will the commencement in the brain of the process of a decision that you consider to be an expression of your free will, then indeed it is free will
    Okay, so I guess you think that our own mental actions move us, even if those operations were determined by a prior cause.

    Originally Posted by Infinite Bubble
    No, it is most likely illusory. Mechanisms in the brain are based on particle interaction through electrochemical processes. As such, like Hawking states in the quote below, we are governed by the laws of physics just like every other object in the universe. Sense of free will emerges due to the vast amount of factors that impact any given situation or state, most of which are not perceivable directly.
    Indeed, it is too complex to map out, but that doesn't mean it's all destined beforehand to go absolutely one way with 100% conclusiveness.

    The laws of physics are already determined. All that is needed now is a set of previous conditions that will influence the next state. We cannot know all the many parts of the previous condition, which is why it feels like we are free, when in actual fact the previous conditions determine the next event in a very specific way which is inevitable.
    Keep in mind that knowing the fundamental laws of the universe doesn't mean we can apply them for a case study of every object in space, but it could give us very accurate clues as to the overall structure of the entire cosmos and where it's destined on a broad level to evolve.

    An individuals personality, exact placement of particles in the brain, and millions of environmental factors all play a part. It feels like choice, but it's really the sheer amount of factors that go into the initial (previous) state that add together to create the exact outcome. If you are outside somewhere with a cricket ball, for instance, and you wonder whether to throw it across the field or not, it isn't really your choice. If you do throw it, that's because many conditions triggered that response, and if you don't, it's because of the same reason. Even the thought that predicated the "choice" was created through physical/electrochemical interactions, subject to other external physical systems.
    I think you're right about purely physical systems being entirely determined, but that doesn't mean there aren't "meta"-physical systems out there that may act under different laws that are perhaps even subject to alteration. Perhaps metaphysics may play a part in what physical forms we assume upon our incarnations (if you believe in that stuff).

    There's just so many factors that are incorporated into the initial state. Think of science experiments. They are overly simplified and isolated in comparison to an entire present state, but it's the same principle. If the setup is exactly the same each time, the end result will also be the same. (Not taking into account outside influences such as air humidity etc.)
    This is because we can count on the same precedents applying in every case; that's why we can formulate laws. Of course, I've always seen laws as something to be broken (and then reconstructed into new forms). That's philosophy however, and not physics as we currently know it.

    I should also mention that just because free will is an illusion, it doesn't mean that the universe is completely determined. Even if God plays dice, we are still not in control of them. Or perhaps it is determined, and the whole universe was set out to go precisely in a single direction from the initial state of the BB, but QM makes this unlikely.
    It's good to see you considering alternative possibilities here; it seems like you think it's possible that random quantum events can allow for a bit of contingency, but that it still operates independently of our wills - and since our wills can't (under your view) control them, then we might as well just say that we don't have free will, as we can't determine events, let alone self-determine our own actions.

    This quote is in regards to quantum mechanics, not free will. Even in the seemingly free-will-accommodating paradigm of QM, we are still subject to the laws of it, which are so minuscule in its effects relative to our scale that it is almost irrelevant on most occasions. Hawking actually believes that free will is nonexistent. To quote from The Grand Design:
    Yes, I remember reading the Grand Design 3 years ago. Both of those fellas seem to have similar views and ways of thinking to yourself.

    Originally Posted by INTP
    Lets put it this way, if during the big bang something would had been just slightly different, at least some particular atom somewhere wouldnt had formed like it did. So that small difference which one atom has isnt that relevant during that time when it happened to the overall picture of things. However that small difference of one atom would most likely had made something different because the atoms interaction with other atoms would had happened differently. Basically the whole thing is just one big chain reaction that spreads wider and wider, and even subtle differences to some of those reactions at one point might get amplified over time and one difference of an atom might cause whether the star had formed where all the gold in our known universum is from was ever formed or not and without gold there might not even be earth as we know it(since there is quite a lot of gold in our planets core which most likely has at least some small effect on earths magnetic fields and our whole civilization would had gone differently is that gold wasnt there).
    As I've said before, your logic often overwhelms my mind. I think though that you're depicting the "Butterfly Effect" (small changes lead to big consequences) in detail.

    So if something would had gone even slightly differently during the big bang, at least something in our current world would be different. Even if there are some form or multiverse thing going on, that wouldnt rule out the fact that everything which now exists, exists and is the way it is because things were as they were during the big bang or some multibang or what ever. Even if there is some big bearded guy over the clouds who knows magix, the reasons for it being are caused by similar chain reaction which i explained.
    Your big bearded guy, or "God" you seem to think is also subject to laws above his own powers, that of course (in your view) predetermine what God determines to do with our universe, which in turn predetermines what we want to determine with our own willpower.

    TLDR version: yes all your thoughts are physical reactions to begin with and the physical reactions which caused your thoughts were dictated by the big bang.
    But we don't know if the brain is the sole source of our life force; I know that we can stimulate the brain to make us do things, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of say a spirit in negative matter or whatever giving our brains (receivers) commands. Just like technology can be a controller for the brain, so to could our "higher selves" be guiding our brains.

    Originally Posted by superunknown
    The quantic dyanamicism of the human mind broke the universe free of its tether!
    This view sounds more promising; you're allowing for the idea of "breaking chains" (a possibility the above posters were more closed off from).

    I used to like that concept, that the universe was open to future possibility but closed once past - that was my zipper of reality theory.
    I myself still subscribe to this theory (even if you don't anymore), but I'm not sure a zipper is the best metaphor; maybe it's more of a "multi-faceted crystallization".

    Originally Posted by Saturned
    In regards to humanity: We have free will. Saying otherwise is rationalizing away blame and consequence of actions. "The universe made me do it!" Etc
    Yes, it would seem more rational to act as if we do have free will, regardless of whether or not (or at what level) we actually have it.

    If you want to talk about the free will of physics... Then no.
    Physical mechanisms by themselves are in bondage, but perhaps metaphysical forces could act on the physical.

    But as always there are obvious cause and effects. Become a magical vat of pudding and the only outcome is to be consumed by gluttonous forces.
    Your reference to "pudding" (which can be shaped) may actually capture much more than you think it does. It's like there's a formless material before ourselves, some kind of wishing well or pool that can transform into any entity imaginable (and substances like this aren't exclusively solid; they can take other states and assume more "floaty" forms).

    Originally Posted by Nicodemus
    I talked about it a while ago with the late erm: here.
    Okay, well I guess I can springboard this to the idea of whether or not the past is determined. Maybe reality has various "save files", kind of like how in video games they can be repeatedly accessed to get different results upon directing the game with alternative commands. That's just a random idea; I'm not saying it has any basis in reality - but then again, we really don't know!

    Originally Posted by JAVO
    Everyone has free will except those who have relinquished it by limiting themselves to predeterminism, whether ordered or chaotic.
    This simple statement is fairly elegant - willpower is all about tenaciously handling ideas that we envision and seizing the moment to mobilize new actions made immanent, transforming old worlds and making new ones spring into being. Of course, to move mountains, we have to believe that it can be done, even if it takes eons for its accomplishment.

    Originally Posted by mingularity
    Disclaimer: I didn't read anything written above, except the thread title.
    Freedom used with little effort and full honesty is better that little effort and no honesty - at least under the former, there is promise for improvement and a respect for truth.

    That said, we know we don't know enough to know whether or not we have free will.
    I am in complete agreement with you here. We're still way too ingnorant to have definitive conclusions that can actually describe our cosmos with full clarity of vision.

    That said, would you do anything differently either way?
    Well, if we did actually discover the existence of free will at any level, surely we could harness some tricks in its arsenal, whereas if we went on ignorant about it and/or free will were nonexistent, then our horizons will remain clouded.

    Originally Posted by Stanton Moore
    First off, I am aware of the research that states that ideas are formed around 300 milliseconds (or whatever the exact number is) before they reach consciousness, and I understand the concept of biological determinism.
    I understand that in terms of physiology we differ biologically from other animals only in the details.
    I also understand that recent research has shown that animals possess consciousness (although this is obvious to any human who is owned by a dog), and that our own self awareness can be seen as an extension of this naturally occurring phenomenon. Again, we differ from animals in degree.
    However, I find the ridged adherence to biological determinism to have missed the most salient point: that human consciousness is not only different in degree, but also in kind. The works of Einstein, Newton, Tolstoy, Michelangelo, Nietzsche, Curie, Schumann, Gandhi, Darwin, Beethoven, Verdi, Yousafzai, etc, etc, are not the product of biological processes directly, but of are merely underpinned by them. There is no biological necessity for the theory of relativity, or a symphony, or great works of kindness, or most other things that are uniquely human.
    As a person who can feel and think and is conscious, I also find biological determinism to be anti-social. It may feel comforting to sum up all human activity in this way, it may seem as if the unsettling vagaries of life and the world are somehow obviated by this kind of ‘willful’ (sic) reduction of possibilities to mere processes, but in the end, it produces nothing that extends humanity or enriches it, or increases understanding or civility. It is rather a call to Machiavellian self-interest, to dog-eat-dog politics and violence (which of course, we see as natural). I prefer to think more of my species and the individuals in it as more than animals with self interest maximizers at the top of our spines.
    Gratuitous smiley:
    This is a great testament in favor of having faith in higher causes, of acting with the force and feeling of our true character. This is the "I am that I am", the personal God of love. With the power of love on our side, anything is possible!

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    5w6 sx/so


    I think it's saying that the future is open to our alterations, but once acted upon, the initial choices remain set. In quantum mechanics, a similar spectrum of possibilities exists, but it becomes a definitive result upon observations, chosen out of many other factors that, under different chance results would have unfolded towards another destination.

    All future transformations are contingent with how the present shapes out, and free will gives us the power to direct its ultimate course. Free will, assuming we actually have it would be the random variable and the unknown factor which determines the future. Paradoxically, we could say that the indeterminate nature of free will can command what comes to happen and, with sufficient force of will could theoretically by the guidance of our determination make any event imminent.

    Perhaps this is the prime cause for all actions that happen everywhere, that they are moved by some kind of mind, maybe even by minds above our own. Under a system along these lines, any vision could become real, and the present would have all promise for those who seize it with the right tenacity to become anything. Ultimately, my personal conclusion is that everything is determined by free will.

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    5w6 sx/so


    I admit, many factors are determined, and it's good I think as you say how QM makes for more uncertainties, no matter how we (under our current methods) measure it out.
    I guess you think that even if there is some randomness out there in the QM, because we can't control its results, we may as well just say that it's determining our actions.
    Well, we can calculate whatever is in our scope with the equations, but it wouldn't work to know how everything would interrelate in physical systems all across the universe (unless you're God and can see everything).
    The brain is a purely physical system; it's just a sack of meat that acts as a sort of gateway between mind and body. I take the position that we have 3 bodies actually: physical, spiritual (negative matter), and energetic (a binder between the 2). I'm not saying that as fact, but I think this explanation may actually capture quite a bit. If you want my opinion on physics, I'll just say that it's both the most fundamental, and least significant of the cosmic systems.
    This is actually a very good question. As of now, like I mentioned, this idea exists pretty much as a philosophy. It just seems like there might be certain barriers out there that, if sufficient power were harnessed, could be surpassed. And from a higher vantage point, perhaps we could stop being chess pieces, and start becoming chess players. But right now, that idea is way ahead of its time (assuming it has any promise in the first place); the philosophical position is that we need to rise above our restrictions, become more free and able to see or do anything.
    If our minds were powerful enough, we may discover otherwise, but as for now, the quantum events control us.
    I think they have great ideas, but I also think that their ideas don't go far enough.
    It's a bit hard to follow your deductive chain here, but I agree that faith is a good connector between various contexts. It can give us proofs of higher truths and realities, but we have to catch those glimpses by intuitive means, not by rational means. It seems like we also put our faith into things that we love, into things which have good promise and strong evidence for future returns.

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    5w6 sx/so


    Human Knowledge Foundations and Limits -
    A New Integral Paradigm -
    Journey in Being New World -
    Transcending the Matrix Control System -
    Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe -
    Esoteric Science -
    World Mysteries -
    The Life and Teachings of Thoth Hermes Trismegistus -
    Ancient Knowledge and Wisdom of the Arcanum -
    Hermetic Source Info -
    Hermetic Philosophy and the Mystery of Being -
    Creation as Power -
    RaptorWizard's Youtube -
    RaptorWizard's Notebook -
    Last edited by RaptorWizard; 10-18-2013 at 10:54 PM.

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    5w6 sx/so


    1. I'm not sure our minds are at miniature levels, but they could have components operating within the quantum realm.
    2. I agree that our minds could form connections across vast distances, come to form a kind of universal "cosmic" consciousness.
    3. I think the "universal uploads" you mention are supported by findings accessed within the Akashic Records, but life I hold is a much better conduit for integrating these experiences.

    I'm very open to these kinds of mystical questions, but in regards to them, it's very dangerous to jump to conclusions.
    Many of the great rationalists from our past I know were also greatly interested in the paranormal and unexplained.

    Eva Brann: "If Heraclitus was a physicist, he, like Newton, was at the same time also a mystic."
    J.M. Keynes: "Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians."

    As for my opinion on past lives, they can very well be integrated into our present awareness, but our continuing development is a much better goal.

    What is beauty? Beauty as outlined at the following website is the quality of being pleasing to apprehend with the senses or contemplate with the mind.

    It seems that we may find exquisite beauty captured elegantly within the order of nature, or perhaps even displayed from programs of our own creation. So maybe it's connected to appreciating things that we perceive, using them as inspirations for rendering new things into being.

    To illustrate this idea in a simple metaphor, a man born blind would be a poor painter, though he may be particularly attuned to the wonders of music, and as such may have promise to compose fantastic symphonies. But we of course don't know the full spectrum of human perception, or how far it could possibly go. If we were to see further, then perhaps our old views of beauty could be completely revolutionized.

  9. #79

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    5w6 sx/so


    As Newton said, "You have to make the rules, not follow them."

    The ideal “box” should transform its own constraints in accordance with the context and what it contains, come to form a “best fit”.
    Existence began with a witness. – The witness made everything possible with the “word” (logos [reason]; the “codes” of creation).

    "I am Darth Revan, Dark Lord of the Sith. Those who use the dark side are also bound to serve it. To understand this is to understand the underlying philosophy of the Sith. The dark side offers power for power's sake. You must crave it. Covet it. You must seek power above all else, with no reservation or hesitation. The Force will change you. It will transform you. Some fear this change. The teachings of the Jedi are focused on fighting and controlling this transformation. That is why those who serve the light are limited in what they accomplish."
    ―Darth Revan's avatar

    "Love doesn't lead to the dark side. Passion can lead to rage and fear, and can be controlled... but passion is not the same thing as love. Controlling your passions while being in love... that's what they should teach you to beware. But love itself will save you... not condemn you."
    ―Jolee Bindo, to Revan, when discussing love

    Stronger than The Force, the power of love is!

    Power used correctly can actually be a wonderful virtue. It can make the world a new and improved place. That's a critical step in making us great it seems, having potential and unleashing it in the right direction.

    Yes, it's all about boxes. Various boxes operate under different laws with other contents contained within, and we can shift boxes in and out, come to "meta-perspectivize" the contexts.

    That might actually be a good thing in a way - seeing people in terms of who they are and how they present themselves rather than as absolutes.

    Time, at its most basic level, I believe reflects change. It gives things life, since if everything went static, then there would be no unfolding events to experience. But when viewed more philosophically, I can't even begin to grasp the true essence of time. Is time just an arrow extending infinitely in 1 straight direction, or is there something much more to it?

    Personally, I take the latter view. It could be seen as a river of sorts, changing speed, whirling in endless spirals, branching off into alternate channels, fluctuating through different depths, ever in motion, and so forth. Perhaps it's also like an acentric labyrinth, without any clear beginning or end, going into all kinds of paradoxical configurations.

    Ultimately, time may be so intricate, that even the wisest beings in existence cannot fully visualize what will happen. Maybe it's more like a web of contingencies, with all kinds of "what if" questions. I guess we need to see things in terms of questions, including time. Einstein after all says that everything relative. Time and its perceived changes must be determined by the shifting of contexts.

    It may be much like swapping boxes around, each with different laws and items of various designs. Presents come in literal packages, and the metaphorical packages just described also have within them a gift, the "present" time. If we can unleash the present, then there's no telling what wonders may be wrought undreampt of in our time!

    If we're talking about building constructs up to the heavens, splashing our paths with sparkling auras, and ascending up to meet the angels of gold, then sure, let's get started!

    The first task we need to accomplish is the advancement of universal enlightenment, making our program evolve to better levels and being able to integrate our many unique powers in peace. Of course, we should also be individuals with our own independent life purposes and personal fulfillment as well.

    We can even compete and unleash chaos to climb the mountains ahead. Keep in mind though that there's a fine line between open-minded explorations when we take on challenges, and blind aggression; the former can help us to see new things, while the latter leads to directionless destruction.

    You have to make the rules, not follow them; I tell this to myself almost as a ritual that I am the law! Have faith in your own powers, keep progressing, and believe that any heights can with the right determination and patience on our parts be reached. If we have enough faith and force of will, then we can accomplish the great and the impossible.

    It may be much like God as the chessmaster, moving the subjects within his game around as pieces, using them to achieve well-outlined goals. One day, if a man can conquer the mind of God, then we could overthrow this corrupt world system and forge all of the old foundations anew, become the masters of the game, free from all restrictions and able to do anything.

    Let's look at a quote from Nietzsche to sum much of this up, as taken from the following page at my website:

    "The will is a world architect and composer, the will is a world power and mover. The world is shaped in the image of our wills and by the power of our wills. Will has essentially the nature of a force. Like all forces, will has a magnitude and a direction, and just like things move in the direction of the strongest force, things move in the direction of the strongest will. Whenever you loose something, you faced a greater will and were overpowered by it. If you want something to happen strongly enough, if the world wants something to happen strongly enough, then it is going to happen. The will is a creator. Will is a living organism, it grows and develops along with the individual. Weak individuals are characterized by a weak will or lack of will. Ill people are known by an ill will or a destructive will. Hence the presence and development of will is absolutely essential for personal and spiritual ascension. The key to the higher and diviner life is a strong and healthy will, a will to improve, a will to exceed, a will to life, but most importantly a will to ascend. The seed transforms into a flower by a will to ascend in the instrument. The will to ascend is an elevator to the higher levels of being, a key to unlock the higher potentials of life and a power to manifest them. I do want to climb a high mountain today!" - Friedrich Nietzsche

    I don't ever wish to annihilate the powerful bonds that can be forged between a man and a woman, or even the essential connections between people in general. Good character and true love I believe give our world a life force to be cherished by all. As such, any kinds of operations meant to alter the basic foundations of sex I would be completely opposed to.

    Still, it might be interesting if the process of generating offspring were to be different, as it seems kind of gross to me that babies shoot right out of people covered in nasty slime, not to mention how long the process takes for the baby to grow, both within the body and upon being born. I sure as hell know that I don't want to give me penis any vasectomies, but we could explore alternative possibilities as to how we develop across our biological lifespans.

    There's something wierd about life, because much of it is suffering, yet we work so hard to preserve it. Perhaps it's because we fear the idea of death, of not being able to transform the world or improve our spiritual progression before it's too late. I guess we could deduce then that we need to unlock the secrets of life, of how we evolve and what we are meant to be. Many amazing adventures await our arrival!

Similar Threads

  1. Designing the ultimate program of self-improvement?
    By Lark in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-17-2017, 11:51 PM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-21-2013, 12:30 AM
  3. The Your Type Of Girl Test
    By FranG in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 03-22-2011, 08:35 PM
  4. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO