Notices
Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: God is in the universe

  1. #1 God is in the universe 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    25
    God is the organizer and controler of the universe.First push of the universe refers to the ability of automatic organization,automatic motion,automatic reaction and variation,automatic cognition and thinking,autonomous action of it.First push exists within universe systems.God is also the first push of the universe.So,God is in the universe.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: God is in the universe 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by tianman32
    God is the organizer and controler of the universe.First push of the universe refers to the ability of automatic organization,automatic motion,automatic reaction and variation,automatic cognition and thinking,autonomous action of it.First push exists within universe systems.God is also the first push of the universe.So,God is in the universe.
    you could take that a step further and say that god is the universe


    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known" - Frank Herbert
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    where or what was god before the universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: God is in the universe 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyLennigan
    you could take that a step further and say that god is the universe.
    Well I certainly disagree with this. You see I think the whole reason for the universe was to create a basis for existence independent from and separate from God. I can well believe in an emergent collective life and intellegence of the universe. But calling this God is little different from calling yourself God, because this emergent being is assurredly a fairly primitive life form itself and inferior to human life. As a result, this is very little different from saying there is no God, meaning there is no greater being which man is accountable to or should be grateful to. this is not to say that we are not accountable or grateful as we are accountable for and grateful to the earth, but it is from a superior position of caretaker and nurturer. The universe is by and large pretty hostile to life of our sort and I cannot think that it cares anything about us in the least bit.

    And now for my own idea quoted from a different post, so you can take pot shots at me too.
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    As a christian my viewpoint could be said to be somewhat christian. But since I am proposing a theory and christians today seem a bit adverse to theorizing you might question whether this theory is christian at all. On the other hand the assumptions made here are many and largely spring from a somewhat Christian world view. Well, you can decide for yourself.

    My theory begins, like Aristotle, with some kind of Unmoved Mover, some what like the Christian idea of God as all powerful, all knowing, infinite and perfect in knowledge and being. Now the christian believes that such a being created the world, but I would like to stop before this, and first consider the question of action. If a being like this should act, from what fountain of motivation does his action spring? In other words, why do anything? Apparently this being is complete and sufficient of himself and it is inconceivable that he would act out of need. I suggest that the only conceivable motivation is a desire to give from that overwhelming abundance which is his being to another. But if this is the case, then to whom or to what shall he give. In this initial state of unlimited omnipresence and power, is there anything or anyone which is not him that he can give anything to? I think not.

    Therefore if this being should act at all it must be to create something other than himself and because this creation is intended to receive, it must be animate to that extent. Now consider what kind creation seems likely? Something that would receive only a little that he has to give or something that could eventually receive all. It seems to me that the second is only logical for the first would quickly become obsolete - a mistake. But if something animate had the capacity to receive all that this infinite being could give then does it not seem to be infinite itself in some sense? It must have infinite potential, so that the more it receives from this creator, the greater its capacity to receive grows to become. Now what do you think this thing would be, this animate being of infinite potential separate from its creater? Now some of you might assume, ok right, here it comes, he is going to say ... man... right. But you would be incorrect.

    No, what I have in mind is something that springs a bit more directly from the requirements outlined above. Consider what this being must do to acheive his end. To be something apart from himself this thing which he creates must have its own substance and this substance must take shape and act on its own, apart from the direction of his will. Consider that he might acheive such an end with a substance called energy which takes shape and acts according to mathematical laws which are not 100% deterministic but which leave the smallest indeterminacy through which he can exert some influence if he chooses to do so. Often simple rules can lead to a neverending increase in complexity which can surprise us especially if the process is not completely deterministic. Considering his objectives, the rules or laws he would choose would have a potential for unbounded complextiy. But more importantly it must have the capacity to support something of infinite potentiality. What could this thing be? It must be something with ability to become more than it is. It must be able to increase itself in every way conceivable, to grow, to learn, to adapt, to evolve. It seems obvious, to me at least, that what we are talking about is life.

    For me it is a logically inescapable conclusion that if such a being as described above were to act, then it must be to create life. And the universe is nothing more than the cradle or egg in which he can bring life into being. Life is his perfect compliment - infinite potentiality to go with his infinite actuality. Life is something to which he could give endlessly in care and guidance to cultivate and to teach. So after creating this cradle of life he would naturally continue helping life to grow and help it to become more and more able to receive everything which he has to give. We are certainly a part of this because we are alive. But considering how vast the universe is I think we can discount the incredible arrogance of man in supposing that the success of God in any way depends on this particular mote of dust we call the earth.

    But this is a far cry from saying that he is disinterested. Here is life, and in it is all potentiality for which he created the universe. Consider that one way or another everything we are comes from this creator. In us he cultivated the love and care we feel for each other. In us he grew the beauty that we see in each other. In us he raised the minds that judge the value we perceive in our fellow man. Is this a product of fantasy or delusion or could this be only smallest hint of the love and care that he feels for us, and the beauty and value that he sees in us. The fantasies and delusions of man are legion, but there is a foolish and childish feel to them. The foolish and childish things all seem to come out when we fail to care for and love each other, when we fail to see the value and beauty in other human beings (or rather in any other living things for that matter).
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    where or what was god before the universe?
    Where was Richard Branson before Virgin Records, George Forman befoe his burger maker??

    Jan Ardena.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    i don't know everything, but i'll take a crack at it. Richard branson was drunk in a bar in London and George Forman was sitting his fat ass on a couch trying to lose weight.

    hence why i asked a question which remains unanswered.

    untill the day it is i will have to asume that tianman32 doesn't know either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    i don't know everything, but i'll take a crack at it. Richard branson was drunk in a bar in London and George Forman was sitting his fat ass on a couch trying to lose weight.

    hence why i asked a question which remains unanswered.

    untill the day it is i will have to asume that tianman32 doesn't know either.
    God was in His Abode, enjoying.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: God is in the universe 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    ...And now for my own idea quoted from a different post, so you can take pot shots at me too...
    the single problem with your hypothesis (otherwise its a very good combination of biblical teachings with science) is that a supreme and perfect being would have no desire to do anything. this being would require some flaw or imbalance, however miniscule, to feel the need to create. in other words, there would have to be something missing or a feeling that something is not right for god to create the universe.

    the reason i said that god could be the universe is because it would be the only way (that i see) to have a perfect being that is somehow related to our universe and us. the very universe would be god's mind, as would all life. for every postive, there is a negative, in an ever increasing, seemingly infinite entity.

    perhaps this entity was flawed and then (somehow) became complete, marking the beginning of the universe, or the big bang. perhaps god knew how to attain perfection, knowing what would come of it (life in our universe), and in doing so he gave up his conscious self in order to create the ultimate entity; the universe. he knew that the universe would develop life.
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known" - Frank Herbert
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: God is in the universe 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyLennigan
    the single problem with your hypothesis (otherwise its a very good combination of biblical teachings with science) is that a supreme and perfect being would have no desire to do anything. this being would require some flaw or imbalance, however miniscule, to feel the need to create. in other words, there would have to be something missing or a feeling that something is not right for god to create the universe.
    Not a problem as I see it, but as far as logic is concerned perhaps it is a postulate. How could we know what a "perfect being" would or could desire, one way or another. You believe that all motivation is ultimately selfish. Christians believe otherwise. The Christian conception of "perfect being" includes the idea of selfless love. Those which are honest know that it something which they do not have, but it goal that they sometimes aim for.
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyLennigan
    the reason i said that god could be the universe is because it would be the only way (that i see) to have a perfect being that is somehow related to our universe and us. the very universe would be god's mind, as would all life. for every postive, there is a negative, in an ever increasing, seemingly infinite entity.

    perhaps this entity was flawed and then (somehow) became complete, marking the beginning of the universe, or the big bang. perhaps god knew how to attain perfection, knowing what would come of it (life in our universe), and in doing so he gave up his conscious self in order to create the ultimate entity; the universe. he knew that the universe would develop life.
    I do not delude myself that such things can be meaningfully debated, so it is enough for me that we have shared our different points of view.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: God is in the universe 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Not a problem as I see it, but as far as logic is concerned perhaps it is a postulate. How could we know what a "perfect being" would or could desire, one way or another. You believe that all motivation is ultimately selfish. Christians believe otherwise. The Christian conception of "perfect being" includes the idea of selfless love. Those which are honest know that it something which they do not have, but it goal that they sometimes aim for.
    i'm saying that a perfect being cannot desire. desire is not a product of [what we view as] selfishness, but rather a product of incompleteness. i do not believe that all motivation is selfish, but rather a feeling that something is missing, either from the person, or from what they think the world around them should be like (directly affecting the person). This is not necessarily due to belief, but the nature of consciousness. i am saying that a perfect being cannot be conscious in the way that we think. the perfect being does, he does not think about it, because his actions are thought, his thought is action. he cannot make mistakes because he is perfect. selfless love would be like that, it would be to know what must be done, and actually do it. it is unattainable (at least to us) but we are always trying to reach it nonetheless.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I do not delude myself that such things can be meaningfully debated, so it is enough for me that we have shared our different points of view.
    agree to disagree. but i agree with some of the things you say, i'd just say them differently. its hard to convey meanings with a language that can be interpreted so widely.
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known" - Frank Herbert
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: God is in the universe 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyLennigan
    i'm saying that a perfect being cannot desire. desire is not a product of [what we view as] selfishness, but rather a product of incompleteness. i do not believe that all motivation is selfish, but rather a feeling that something is missing, either from the person, or from what they think the world around them should be like (directly affecting the person). This is not necessarily due to belief, but the nature of consciousness. i am saying that a perfect being cannot be conscious in the way that we think. the perfect being does, he does not think about it, because his actions are thought, his thought is action. he cannot make mistakes because he is perfect. selfless love would be like that, it would be to know what must be done, and actually do it. it is unattainable (at least to us) but we are always trying to reach it nonetheless.
    Yes but now you are saying that the perfect being can act, only that he acts without desire. I can go along with that. But I still say that such a being would would create life. It is the most natural expression of his being. And I think that creating life (and free will) is more difficult that we might imagine. I think it is the reason for the universe being the way it is. I don't believe in magic. Magic is a concept for someone who has his wishes interpreted and actualized by a superior being. Magic is a conception of power without awareness of how the power functions. Therefore I don't go for the image of a God who snaps his fingers and things just appear. It is childish.

    Quote Originally Posted by RoyLennigan
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I do not delude myself that such things can be meaningfully debated, so it is enough for me that we have shared our different points of view.
    agree to disagree. but i agree with some of the things you say, i'd just say them differently. its hard to convey meanings with a language that can be interpreted so widely.
    It is nice to talk to someone who knows the limitation of language. Some people give me the impression that they only see the words and nothing of the meaning behind them. People like this who take everything you say in the most literal way imaginable make me a bit tired.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: God is in the universe 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Yes but now you are saying that the perfect being can act, only that he acts without desire. I can go along with that. But I still say that such a being would would create life. It is the most natural expression of his being. And I think that creating life (and free will) is more difficult that we might imagine. I think it is the reason for the universe being the way it is. I don't believe in magic. Magic is a concept for someone who has his wishes interpreted and actualized by a superior being. Magic is a conception of power without awareness of how the power functions. Therefore I don't go for the image of a God who snaps his fingers and things just appear. It is childish.
    i see that my first post might have been a tad misleading. i meant that a perfect being did not act because of desire, but rather because of necessity. but to me, that creates a paradox, because a perfect being would not need to do anything. i can't seem to get my head wrapped around the idea of a perfect being. possibly a being that was made perfect by creating something, but i think a pefect being that does anything has automatically made himself imperfect. bah, i do get tangled in interpretation.

    perhaps the pefect being is a being that is imperfect, but can do whatever needs to be done to make perfection (not necessarily its own perfection, but a perfection in something else, such as the universe).

    as for creating life, i don't believe that god himself shaped the beings that make up this world. i believe evolution shaped those beings. but god created evolution knowing what would be developed through it. he created the universe such that it would harbor life. perhaps he set the first strand of RNA on earth, or perhaps he just set the motions up so that life developed from actual events in the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    It is nice to talk to someone who knows the limitation of language. Some people give me the impression that they only see the words and nothing of the meaning behind them. People like this who take everything you say in the most literal way imaginable make me a bit tired.
    exactly
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known" - Frank Herbert
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Mitchell and Roy, you have between you managed to unearth the inevitable paradox at the heart of any concept of a Supreme Being.

    How can a Supreme Being be incomplete? It is All-powerful and All-knowing. It therefore has no need. It therefore has no desire.

    But if it has no desire then it is de facto incomplete! Since there is an abstraction that is yet something which definitely exists, which is not part of the Supreme Being. The Supreme Being is therefore not Supreme. (However, I'm not postulating this as an insurmountable paradox. I think God can be incomplete in some ways.)

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Consider that he might acheive such an end with a substance called energy which takes shape and acts according to mathematical laws which are not 100% deterministic but which leave the smallest indeterminacy through which he can exert some influence if he chooses to do so.
    I'll assume that you are referring to the Uncertainty Principle. The thing is, the Uncertainty Principle is not a happenstance of the Laws of Physics (like the values of h or G for example). It's an immutable result from mathematics that cannot be avoided simply by creating a new Universe with different physical laws, any more than God could create a different Universe in which the value of pi is precisely 3.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Consider that he might acheive such an end with a substance called energy which takes shape and acts according to mathematical laws which are not 100% deterministic but which leave the smallest indeterminacy through which he can exert some influence if he chooses to do so.
    i was thinking about this and, it could be that god created the universe as it is so that he would not have to exert influence, the universe would be exactly the right way so that it would produce what he wanted without his own interference after it started. time would be meaningless to this being, so he would know the end product from what he created without having to create it. so he creates the universe with just the right properties for it to achieve the intended purpose without his aid thereafter.
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known" - Frank Herbert
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    How can a Supreme Being be incomplete? It is All-powerful and All-knowing. It therefore has no need. It therefore has no desire.
    A being without purpose could be defined as incomplete, as well as one without need.

    I don't know that I will accept the premise that an omnipotent and omniscient being has no needs.

    power
    NOUN:
    1. The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively.

    This definition implies a desired effect; how can a being be all-powerful without desire?

    I think you might be anthropomorphising here.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: God is in the universe 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyLennigan
    perhaps the pefect being is a being that is imperfect, but can do whatever needs to be done to make perfection (not necessarily its own perfection, but a perfection in something else, such as the universe).
    Oh I did not have any illusions about the logical difficulties involved in defining a "infinitely perfect being". I took it as a postulate that there was some logically consistent way of interpreting what the phrase "infinitely perfect being" could possibly mean without trying to actually define it myself. If you question the meaningfulness of such a postulate and suggest that any conversation based on this postulate might be complete nonsense, I fully concede.

    Yet I still find it interesting to make this postulate for argument sake. Perhaps I can make it more meaningful my adding sufficient caveats, like suppose there is a being who could be considered infinitely perfect in some sense, such that this being does not derive any motivation for action out of anything lacking within himself. Then I would conclude that such a being might instead be selflessly motivated to initiate a relationship where he or she can give instead.

    You might say that this derives from the idealization of the motives of a parent. It is easy to see all kinds of motivations which fall far short of this ideal in parenthood. We see cases where the parent tries to live out his or her dreams through their children. We see parents who like cute babies to play with but find teenagers intolerable. But there is an ideal of parenthood which is not about the needs of the parent but about the needs of the child.

    Quote Originally Posted by RoyLennigan
    as for creating life, i don't believe that god himself shaped the beings that make up this world. i believe evolution shaped those beings. but god created evolution knowing what would be developed through it. he created the universe such that it would harbor life. perhaps he set the first strand of RNA on earth, or perhaps he just set the motions up so that life developed from actual events in the universe.
    I don't believe that creating a living creature the way a potter makes a vase is possible even for God, because it contradicts what being alive is all about. Traditional ideas of creation have taken their metaphors from examples of people creating things which have no life, like watches. I believe that if the ideas of creation shift their metaphors to more appropriate examples like farmers, shepherds, teachers and parents, then they will take the first step towards healing the philosophical breach between creationism and evolution.

    But I also think that the theory of evolution has the same problems, because it reduces living creatures to mechanistic and deterministic processes which are just as alien the the essential nature of living things as the bad metaphors of the creationist.

    I would use the following characterature of their debate. Upon considering the tomatoes in a grocery store the creationist claims that these were produced in a factory according to the specification of a very talented engineer, who thought them up and devised a means by which the factory workers and or machines could put them together. The evolutionist claims that the tomatoes came into existence by themselves as a result of a mixture of happenstance and the matematical laws of nature. The truth is that the tomatoes are produced by tomato plants which are alive. They grow by themseves but like all living things they require constant interaction with their environment which happens to include intellegent caretakers who are almost wholely responsible for their existence.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    But if it has no desire then it is de facto incomplete!
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    I'll assume that you are referring to the Uncertainty Principle. The thing is, the Uncertainty Principle is not a happenstance of the Laws of Physics (like the values of h or G for example). It's an immutable result from mathematics that cannot be avoided simply by creating a new Universe with different physical laws, any more than God could create a different Universe in which the value of pi is precisely 3.
    No. The uncertainty principle is not a result of pure mathematics. It can be described by mathematics or even derived by means of mathematics from a certain context which is based on observations. But there is no way you could convince me that it is inevitable, unless it is by some anthropic principle. I have already implied that I do think it is made inevitable by the by the constraint that life be possible in the universe. Considering the history of science (and the reaction of physicists like Einstein) I would say that it is far easier to imagine a universe without the uncertainty principle than with it.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyLennigan
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Consider that he might acheive such an end with a substance called energy which takes shape and acts according to mathematical laws which are not 100% deterministic but which leave the smallest indeterminacy through which he can exert some influence if he chooses to do so.
    i was thinking about this and, it could be that god created the universe as it is so that he would not have to exert influence, the universe would be exactly the right way so that it would produce what he wanted without his own interference after it started. time would be meaningless to this being, so he would know the end product from what he created without having to create it. so he creates the universe with just the right properties for it to achieve the intended purpose without his aid thereafter.
    This is the difference between a creator of life and creator of dead things. When you create dead things there is no reason to interact with them after you create them. But the creation of living things is an inherently interactive process. You not only create them so that you can interact with them but you create them by interacting with them.

    Clearly you believe in mechanistic determism. So tell me. When you make a post to this forum do you feel that you are simply observing a flow of events which are beyond your control. Do you feel that you are somehow the author of what you write, or are these words which appear on the screen something which just happens.

    Put aside your preconceptions about what is possible and your ideas about cause and effect. Try to feel the nature of your existence.

    It seems to me that in a deterministic universe the cause of all event precede me and that I am a irrelevant. I just cannot fathom why I should think there is any self at all if everything is an inevitable progression of cause and effect. All my sense of being derives from the sense of being the cause of certain events which I call my thoughts and actions. But in deterministic universe I cannot see any reason why I should consider any events as being my actions any more than any other event. If this feeling I have that I am responsible for some events and can call them my actions - if this feeling is a delusion, then I cannot for the life of me imagine why I should have such a delusion.

    Determinism contradicts my experience of reality on the most basic level imaginable. It would seem easier to believe that all of science is a fantastic story imagined and told by a clever enertainer than it would be to belive that my actions are not really mine.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    This is the difference between a creator of life and creator of dead things. When you create dead things there is no reason to interact with them after you create them. But the creation of living things is an inherently interactive process. You not only create them so that you can interact with them but you create them by interacting with them.

    Clearly you believe in mechanistic determism. So tell me. When you make a post to this forum do you feel that you are simply observing a flow of events which are beyond your control. Do you feel that you are somehow the author of what you write, or are these words which appear on the screen something which just happens.

    Put aside your preconceptions about what is possible and your ideas about cause and effect. Try to feel the nature of your existence.

    It seems to me that in a deterministic universe the cause of all event precede me and that I am a irrelevant. I just cannot fathom why I should think there is any self at all if everything is an inevitable progression of cause and effect. All my sense of being derives from the sense of being the cause of certain events which I call my thoughts and actions. But in deterministic universe I cannot see any reason why I should consider any events as being my actions any more than any other event. If this feeling I have that I am responsible for some events and can call them my actions - if this feeling is a delusion, then I cannot for the life of me imagine why I should have such a delusion.

    Determinism contradicts my experience of reality on the most basic level imaginable. It would seem easier to believe that all of science is a fantastic story imagined and told by a clever enertainer than it would be to belive that my actions are not really mine.
    i see what you are saying. a lack of free-will would be extremely hard for anyone to accept. there's a part of me that thinks the universe is deterministic just because anything else would seem illogical. this is when i'm in an analytical mood and i'm not feeling anything one way or the other. but there is also a feeling that this can't be, or else, why would anyone do anything? it seems i'm constantly arguing internally as to which is true, neither belief ever winning out. i wouldn't call (from a deterministic POV) free-will an illusion but rather ignorance to what is really going on. the only point to it would be to keep our simple minds going. but on such a complex level such as the universe and our minds, i think the main ideas of determinism break down. free-will would be virtually possible. also, i'm not nearly naive enough to suggest that your idea of god and the universe is without credit. free-will would involve a constantly interacting creator. or at least a guardian of some sort.
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known" - Frank Herbert
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyLennigan
    i see what you are saying. a lack of free-will would be extremely hard for anyone to accept. there's a part of me that thinks the universe is deterministic just because anything else would seem illogical. this is when i'm in an analytical mood and i'm not feeling anything one way or the other. but there is also a feeling that this can't be, or else, why would anyone do anything? it seems i'm constantly arguing internally as to which is true, neither belief ever winning out. i wouldn't call (from a deterministic POV) free-will an illusion but rather ignorance to what is really going on. the only point to it would be to keep our simple minds going. but on such a complex level such as the universe and our minds, i think the main ideas of determinism break down. free-will would be virtually possible. also, i'm not nearly naive enough to suggest that your idea of god and the universe is without credit. free-will would involve a constantly interacting creator. or at least a guardian of some sort.
    But there is a very real indication in the development of modern science that the deterministic world view is an antiquated product of Newtonian science. When you put together the inherent indeterminacy of the quantum wave collapse with the way that nonlinear systems require the specification of initial conditions to an infinite degree of precision in order to be determined, the universe does not look like it is completely determined anymore. It may still be 99.99% determined but even a single undetermined event recreates the universe as the causal chain expands at the speed of light. I believe the amplification of the quantum indeterminacy by non-linear dynamics is an integral part of the process of living things. And the cool thing is that Bell's inequality experiments show that this indeterminacy is not a matter of knowlege, but that there is no hidden variables which determine the results of a quantum wave collapse. Initial conditions to an infinite degree of freedom are not only unknown they really do not even exist.

    You may think that the replacing the determined universe with the uncaused or random universe is no improvement. But I don't think so at all. It merely requires a shift in thinking about causality. I propose that there is another kind of causality which I call self-causality. Unlike the usual scientific causality where cause precedes effect, in self causality you could say that cause and effect come into existence at the same time, or you could say that the cause and effect are one and the same.

    This may sound pretty strange but think again about your fundamental experience of reality. Consider what happens when you make a choice. Afterwards I could ask you why you chose this and not that. So you might say that some reason you give me is the cause of your choice. But was that choice inevitable? Often you will have considered reasons for a different choice, so that if you made that other choice then those reasons would be the cause. I think that when you make a choice, you choose your reasons at the same time. This is the idea of self causality, because both cause and effect are chosen simultaneously. The choice is in some sense a cause of itself.

    This is entirely consistent with the experience of self. The self exists before the choice and yet recreates itself in the process of choosing. It is the choices it makes that defines the self, and therefore the self is something which grows. This choosing process can be modeled mathematically as the bifurcation process in chaotic dynamics. This makes it something which is actually quantifiable, even though it may not be completely measurable. It is well known that measuring something in quantum mechanics interferes with the state it seeks to measure.

    Of course none of this proves anything about whether an interactive creator exists like I have supposed. I don't think that proving that is possible. But I do argue that the idea is not as unreasonable as antiquated science has made it seem.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    But there is a very real indication in the development of modern science that the deterministic world view is an antiquated product of Newtonian science. When you put together the inherent indeterminacy of the quantum wave collapse with the way that nonlinear systems require the specification of initial conditions to an infinite degree of precision in order to be determined, the universe does not look like it is completely determined anymore. It may still be 99.99% determined but even a single undetermined event recreates the universe as the causal chain expands at the speed of light. I believe the amplification of the quantum indeterminacy by non-linear dynamics is an integral part of the process of living things. And the cool thing is that Bell's inequality experiments show that this indeterminacy is not a matter of knowlege, but that there is no hidden variables which determine the results of a quantum wave collapse. Initial conditions to an infinite degree of freedom are not only unknown they really do not even exist.
    it is indeterminate to us, but might not be to a being as superior as god would be. i am not saying what you explained is illogical, but it is possible that everything, even quantum events, can be simplified to predictable events. my current belief of the nature of the universe is that its complexity is virtually infinite. it might not be in actuality, but to us it is. we might figure out a way to show order in quantum events, but then i'd wager that we'd find an even more chaotic makeup of the universe at an even smaller level. this might go with your thinking in that, if the universe were infinitely complex (or seemingly so) then it would be possible for a god to interact, unnoticed, with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    You may think that the replacing the determined universe with the uncaused or random universe is no improvement. But I don't think so at all. It merely requires a shift in thinking about causality. I propose that there is another kind of causality which I call self-causality. Unlike the usual scientific causality where cause precedes effect, in self causality you could say that cause and effect come into existence at the same time, or you could say that the cause and effect are one and the same.
    i view everything as a probability. whether or not it happens, there is a probability that it will. if enough is known about the system, then the probability of something happening can be accurately predicted to almost certainty. now i wouldn't say that this invades on free-will, but rather estimates what the outcome will be. in my eyes, an ultimate being creating the universe would know [almost] everything about that universe, and because of that, could make an accurate prediction of the events to unfold. in doing so, he could modify the state of the pre-universe such as to yield what he wanted. as near an ultimate being as we can know, he would be able to forsee a great percentage (say 99.99%) of what was to come. this god could create the universe as he saw fit for it to bring about life and how he wanted that life to be, yet these people would act however they would act. there still leaves some indeterminancy left, though most is forseen.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    This may sound pretty strange but think again about your fundamental experience of reality. Consider what happens when you make a choice. Afterwards I could ask you why you chose this and not that. So you might say that some reason you give me is the cause of your choice. But was that choice inevitable? Often you will have considered reasons for a different choice, so that if you made that other choice then those reasons would be the cause. I think that when you make a choice, you choose your reasons at the same time. This is the idea of self causality, because both cause and effect are chosen simultaneously. The choice is in some sense a cause of itself.
    i've read in a few articles before that most of the time a person's conscious will create a reason for doing something after the act is done. this reason does not always line up with the actual reason. the subconscious acts without inhibition and with the quickest reaction. it acts on predispositions of a person's experiences and psyche. but there's also a strange electrical influence in a person's decision-making. the brain emits and interacts with an electromagnetic field. most of the time these EM frequencies are just a mirror of the person's thoughts (i like to think of it as the soul) but sometimes brain activity is actually affected by the field (or so evidence shows).

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    This is entirely consistent with the experience of self. The self exists before the choice and yet recreates itself in the process of choosing. It is the choices it makes that defines the self, and therefore the self is something which grows. This choosing process can be modeled mathematically as the bifurcation process in chaotic dynamics. This makes it something which is actually quantifiable, even though it may not be completely measurable. It is well known that measuring something in quantum mechanics interferes with the state it seeks to measure.

    Of course none of this proves anything about whether an interactive creator exists like I have supposed. I don't think that proving that is possible. But I do argue that the idea is not as unreasonable as antiquated science has made it seem.
    i completely agree with you here.
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known" - Frank Herbert
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyLennigan
    it is indeterminate to us, but might not be to a being as superior as god would be. i am not saying what you explained is illogical, but it is possible that everything, even quantum events, can be simplified to predictable events. my current belief of the nature of the universe is that its complexity is virtually infinite. it might not be in actuality, but to us it is. we might figure out a way to show order in quantum events, but then i'd wager that we'd find an even more chaotic makeup of the universe at an even smaller level. this might go with your thinking in that, if the universe were infinitely complex (or seemingly so) then it would be possible for a god to interact, unnoticed, with it.
    But the interesting question is whether this Infinitely Perfect Being can create something which is not predictable. Isn't this something that even people like to do? I don't know about you, but for me Star Wars III was a real waste of time. I just couldn't get into a movie where I already knew everything that was going to happen. Suppose this being creates something predictable, then for him, isn't it just a static four dimensional object? What would be the point? Art? For who to admire? Us? That would be like making a painting with the people to admire it already in the picture so you can keep it stored away in a closet. Convenient but meaningless. I think making something unpredictable would be the only thing worth making for such a being. Of course, doing this would be difficult. The logical difficulties alone in the idea, of an infinite all powerfull all knowing being creating something he cannot predict, gives me a headache. But just supposed that the universe you see around you is the anwer. Quantum mechanics, chaotic dyanamics, everything just to make something which is independent and unpredictable.
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyLennigan
    i view everything as a probability. whether or not it happens, there is a probability that it will. if enough is known about the system, then the probability of something happening can be accurately predicted to almost certainty. now i wouldn't say that this invades on free-will, but rather estimates what the outcome will be.
    But probability only predicts on a large scale. You can predict the relative frequencies of die roll results in a large number of rolls but not the result of a single die roll. Now the die might have hidden variables so that if you could measure them you would know the result of a single die roll. But a quantum wave collapse has no hidden variables. Einstein could not accept this so if you cannot accept it either you have good company.
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyLennigan
    in my eyes, an ultimate being creating the universe would know [almost] everything about that universe, and because of that, could make an accurate prediction of the events to unfold. in doing so, he could modify the state of the pre-universe such as to yield what he wanted. as near an ultimate being as we can know, he would be able to forsee a great percentage (say 99.99%) of what was to come. this god could create the universe as he saw fit for it to bring about life and how he wanted that life to be, yet these people would act however they would act. there still leaves some indeterminancy left, though most is forseen.
    I agree absolutely. I think this is a large part of the solution to the problem of evil. God must place strict limitations on his interactions because the smallest interference would be overwhelming. If you have read the Dune books it describes the trap inherent in being able to predict the future. With God's knowlege of this world he could solve all our problems (at least as we see them) with tiniest interference, simply because he would know exactly what to do, the perfect solution. But then all the unpredictabilty, and what we call our free will goes up in smoke. Ands so I think that, as the power of our choices has expanded the power of his intervention has retreated. It would be like teaching a child to ride, where you start by holding the bike, but eventually you keep you hands off because it would interfere with the childs sense of balance.
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyLennigan
    i've read in a few articles before that most of the time a person's conscious will create a reason for doing something after the act is done. this reason does not always line up with the actual reason. the subconscious acts without inhibition and with the quickest reaction. it acts on predispositions of a person's experiences and psyche. but there's also a strange electrical influence in a person's decision-making. the brain emits and interacts with an electromagnetic field. most of the time these EM frequencies are just a mirror of the person's thoughts (i like to think of it as the soul) but sometimes brain activity is actually affected by the field (or so evidence shows).
    In your example, when the reason does not line up with the actual reason, wouldn't we call this a type of delusion?

    Yes well of course there are more complex situations, we do often delude ourselves, I never meant to imply different. But it is reasonable to look at the simplest choices in order to understand their basic nature. But if every reason for every choice really has nothing to do with true cause of our actions then all choice is a delusion. And what I fail to see is what the purpose of the delusion could be. Why would we have this delusion that we have choices and a self apart from the universe. Since all cause in a deterministic universe ultimately flows from the initial conditions of the universe (if there is such a thing) then is that not our true self? In this case a united sense of being (like the Borg in Star Trek) would make such more sense, for individuality would be pure nonsense.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    How can a Supreme Being be incomplete? It is All-powerful and All-knowing. It therefore has no need. It therefore has no desire.
    A being without purpose could be defined as incomplete, as well as one without need.

    I don't know that I will accept the premise that an omnipotent and omniscient being has no needs.

    power
    NOUN:
    1. The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively.

    This definition implies a desired effect; how can a being be all-powerful without desire?

    I think you might be anthropomorphising here.
    I was in the middle of explaining the dichotomy, the irreconcilability of Complete and Incomplete. I myself am of the same opinion as you.

    Just saw this from before my previous post:
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    But I also think that the theory of evolution has the same problems, because it reduces living creatures to mechanistic and deterministic processes which are just as alien the the essential nature of living things as the bad metaphors of the creationist.
    No, there are deterministic elements to the development of life (obviously, quite a lot of our normal biological functioning has to be deterministic), but evolution itself relies on probabilities and accident in a way which is the opposite of deterministic.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    the Uncertainty Principle is not a happenstance of the Laws of Physics (like the values of h or G for example). It's an immutable result from mathematics that cannot be avoided simply by creating a new Universe with different physical laws, any more than God could create a different Universe in which the value of pi is precisely 3.
    No. The uncertainty principle is not a result of pure mathematics. It can be described by mathematics or even derived by means of mathematics from a certain context which is based on observations. But there is no way you could convince me that it is inevitable, unless it is by some anthropic principle. I have already implied that I do think it is made inevitable by the by the constraint that life be possible in the universe. Considering the history of science (and the reaction of physicists like Einstein) I would say that it is far easier to imagine a universe without the uncertainty principle than with it.
    Well, you started off there as if you knew better than I did, and then it transpired that you would need "convincing" - in other words that it is your opinion. I'm not certain on what basis you make your statement about Uncertainty, but it certainly is derived entirely from a mathematical understanding of the nature of absolute values such as h, Planck's Constant. You say that it is "easier to imagine a universe without the Uncertainty Principle". But what kind of Universe are you describing? One of stars, gases, rocks? By a totally deterministic Universe you are imagining a Universe of billiard balls. But billiard balls do not exist. Stars, gases and rocks do not exist. They are merely the gross metaphors which enable us (as entities of a particular scale within the Universe) to act in a beneficial way. There is no actual solid matter, there are only quantum fluctuations. There can be no energy or matter without the quantum (otherwise you run into infinite energy output and mathematical contradiction) and you cannot therefore have a Universe of matter and energy without Uncertainty, which derives irresistably from the fact of the quantum.

    Your answer will be of the nature of, "Well, stars, gases and rocks are necessary to Life which proves my point that you need the Uncertainty Principle to create a Universe with Life in it." But there is no way, in fact, of creating any kind of Universe without quanta and consequently Uncertainty. But of the infinite ways of creating Universes with those basic elements, the vast, vast majority of them are inimicable to life. My belief is that any and all of those myriad Universes have existed and do exist, but we only know about this one because this is one of the few that contains Life that can even recognise the Universe for what it is. (This is the weak Anthropic Principle).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    But the interesting question is whether this Infinitely Perfect Being can create something which is not predictable. Isn't this something that even people like to do? I don't know about you, but for me Star Wars III was a real waste of time. I just couldn't get into a movie where I already knew everything that was going to happen. Suppose this being creates something predictable, then for him, isn't it just a static four dimensional object? What would be the point? Art? For who to admire? Us? That would be like making a painting with the people to admire it already in the picture so you can keep it stored away in a closet. Convenient but meaningless. I think making something unpredictable would be the only thing worth making for such a being. Of course, doing this would be difficult. The logical difficulties alone in the idea, of an infinite all powerfull all knowing being creating something he cannot predict, gives me a headache. But just supposed that the universe you see around you is the anwer. Quantum mechanics, chaotic dyanamics, everything just to make something which is independent and unpredictable.
    personally, i dont believe in an ultimate being. i am of the opinion that any free-willed entity will always be able to improve itself. by saying that god was not perfect, you can see that he might not have predicted exactly how the universe would develop, but he could predict enough to know that life, and what kind of life, would come to be. the point of such a creation would be even harder to figure out than the nature of god, for you would have to know the nature of god to find the purpose. this goes back to our conversations on desire. a [slightly] unpredictable universe would be more desirable than one that is certain. when i talked of determinism and the underlying structure of the universe, i was saying that a being such as god could understand the patterns and predictability of quantum mechanics (possibly) and so, to him, it would be deterministic, but to us it wouldn't. but on the other hand, quantum mechanics could be tied to the unpredictability of our own thoughts, and could be that portion of the universe which god cannot predict.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    But probability only predicts on a large scale. You can predict the relative frequencies of die roll results in a large number of rolls but not the result of a single die roll. Now the die might have hidden variables so that if you could measure them you would know the result of a single die roll. But a quantum wave collapse has no hidden variables. Einstein could not accept this so if you cannot accept it either you have good company.
    with our knowledge of probability, it only predicts on a large scale, but the more you know, the more you can narrow that scale down. with enough knowledge (or perception), you could predict the roll of a die. i don't know about quantum events though, they are extremely unpredictable. when i read about einstein's reactions to those new theories, i thought he was stubborn and behind his time. yes, even the great einstein could be wrong. but i can see why he was like that. he was stuck in the mindset that all his mathematics supported; that the universe could be simplified to equations and that they could almost always predict the outcome of an event.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I agree absolutely. I think this is a large part of the solution to the problem of evil. God must place strict limitations on his interactions because the smallest interference would be overwhelming. If you have read the Dune books it describes the trap inherent in being able to predict the future. With God's knowlege of this world he could solve all our problems (at least as we see them) with tiniest interference, simply because he would know exactly what to do, the perfect solution. But then all the unpredictabilty, and what we call our free will goes up in smoke. Ands so I think that, as the power of our choices has expanded the power of his intervention has retreated. It would be like teaching a child to ride, where you start by holding the bike, but eventually you keep you hands off because it would interfere with the childs sense of balance.
    The Dune series is one of my favorites. All i have to say is: exactly.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    In your example, when the reason does not line up with the actual reason, wouldn't we call this a type of delusion?

    Yes well of course there are more complex situations, we do often delude ourselves, I never meant to imply different. But it is reasonable to look at the simplest choices in order to understand their basic nature. But if every reason for every choice really has nothing to do with true cause of our actions then all choice is a delusion. And what I fail to see is what the purpose of the delusion could be. Why would we have this delusion that we have choices and a self apart from the universe. Since all cause in a deterministic universe ultimately flows from the initial conditions of the universe (if there is such a thing) then is that not our true self? In this case a united sense of being (like the Borg in Star Trek) would make such more sense, for individuality would be pure nonsense.
    for the more complex situations, our mind usually makes up justifications independant of the original reason for which we did something. i think the overall purpose is to have a variety of people and a variety of action. i view organisms as being part of a whole. i would see humans as all the same, but their mental limitations cause them to differ. the predisposed instincts and conditioning that causes one person to act to a situation differently than another. i think that, by breaking these bonds, these limitations on our minds, we could be our true selves, but we would all be the same. we could do everything (mentally) better, but we would be able to do it to nearly the same degree. so that sort of brings up the question of "what is our true self?" well, i think that would depend on your definition of "true self".
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known" - Frank Herbert
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyLennigan
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    But the interesting question is whether this Infinitely Perfect Being can create something which is not predictable. Isn't this something that even people like to do? I don't know about you, but for me Star Wars III was a real waste of time. I just couldn't get into a movie where I already knew everything that was going to happen. Suppose this being creates something predictable, then for him, isn't it just a static four dimensional object? What would be the point? Art? For who to admire? Us? That would be like making a painting with the people to admire it already in the picture so you can keep it stored away in a closet. Convenient but meaningless. I think making something unpredictable would be the only thing worth making for such a being. Of course, doing this would be difficult. The logical difficulties alone in the idea, of an infinite all powerfull all knowing being creating something he cannot predict, gives me a headache. But just supposed that the universe you see around you is the anwer. Quantum mechanics, chaotic dyanamics, everything just to make something which is independent and unpredictable.
    personally, i dont believe in an ultimate being. i am of the opinion that any free-willed entity will always be able to improve itself. by saying that god was not perfect, you can see that he might not have predicted exactly how the universe would develop, but he could predict enough to know that life, and what kind of life, would come to be. the point of such a creation would be even harder to figure out than the nature of god, for you would have to know the nature of god to find the purpose. this goes back to our conversations on desire. a [slightly] unpredictable universe would be more desirable than one that is certain. when i talked of determinism and the underlying structure of the universe, i was saying that a being such as god could understand the patterns and predictability of quantum mechanics (possibly) and so, to him, it would be deterministic, but to us it wouldn't. but on the other hand, quantum mechanics could be tied to the unpredictability of our own thoughts, and could be that portion of the universe which god cannot predict.
    I think like a pragmatist inspired by Charles Sanders Pierce. I use imagination and reason to hunt for the truth. By imagination I can generate many possible senarios and by logic deduce the consequences and compare them to my experience of life. When I imagine a deterministic world the conclusions do no match my experiences. I have said "what if" a lot in this last post and previous ones, and that is my imagination at work, putting forth a hypotheses. What if there was an infinitely perfect being, what would he do? Could he create something even he could not predict? What kind of world would result? Does this match my experience of life?

    Quote Originally Posted by RoyLennigan
    when i read about einstein's reactions to those new theories, i thought he was stubborn and behind his time. yes, even the great einstein could be wrong. but i can see why he was like that. he was stuck in the mindset that all his mathematics supported; that the universe could be simplified to equations and that they could almost always predict the outcome of an event.
    What bothered him was that there were events completely without any determining cause in the intitial conditions. The position of an electron is described by a wave and a probability distribution. If you use a device to measure the position of that electron the wave collapses unpredictably except that it conforms to the probability distribution previously mentioned. He kept trying to think up ways that would produce a contradiction. He thought that quantum physics was incomplete, because there must be hidden variables which would explain the results of measurements. He thought that the probabilistic nature of quantum physics was about knowledge just like a die roll which you could predict if you knew the parameters of its motion. But the experiments to test John Bell's inequality have proven conclusively that Einstein was wrong. The electron really is a wave and it precise position really does not exist. There are no hidden variables which determine the result of the measurement.

    Quote Originally Posted by RoyLennigan
    for the more complex situations, our mind usually makes up justifications independant of the original reason for which we did something. i think the overall purpose is to have a variety of people and a variety of action. i view organisms as being part of a whole. i would see humans as all the same, but their mental limitations cause them to differ. the predisposed instincts and conditioning that causes one person to act to a situation differently than another. i think that, by breaking these bonds, these limitations on our minds, we could be our true selves, but we would all be the same. we could do everything (mentally) better, but we would be able to do it to nearly the same degree. so that sort of brings up the question of "what is our true self?" well, i think that would depend on your definition of "true self".
    So do you think the Borg in Star Trek were heros? Were they not creating a superior state of existence in doing away with the delusions of individuality and creating a conscious which was much more in touch with nature of reality? Have you read Alan Dean Foster's A Call to Arms?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    So do you think the Borg in Star Trek were heros? Were they not creating a superior state of existence in doing away with the delusions of individuality and creating a conscious which was much more in touch with nature of reality? Have you read Alan Dean Foster's A Call to Arms?
    no, the borg weren't a true single conscious (if you remember they had a definite leader) they were more like a hive. i think that humans are evolving towards a community state where there is less and less individuality. i compare this to the evolution of single celled organisms to multicellular. they do it for a greater chance of survival. humans started out living in small groups and those groups have gotten larger and larger. i think for these groups to work better, the human mind will have to adapt to a more communal attitude. when the individuals become just a part of the community, the community itself becomes a being. i think this is the next evolutionary step for life.

    i haven't read 'A Call to Arms'.
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known" - Frank Herbert
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyLennigan
    no, the borg weren't a true single conscious (if you remember they had a definite leader) they were more like a hive. i think that humans are evolving towards a community state where there is less and less individuality. i compare this to the evolution of single celled organisms to multicellular. they do it for a greater chance of survival. humans started out living in small groups and those groups have gotten larger and larger. i think for these groups to work better, the human mind will have to adapt to a more communal attitude. when the individuals become just a part of the community, the community itself becomes a being. i think this is the next evolutionary step for life.
    i haven't read 'A Call to Arms'.
    Well the Borg changed in the later films and epsodes until they were no different from any body else but this is a flaw in Star Trek, where they tend to make all aliens more and more human as the series and movies go on.

    In the first three episodes the Borg were one communal mind, therefore if there was a leader then they were all the leader. Of course the Borg had flaws, but were they not working in the right direction? They were doing away with the delusion of the individual self, weren't they? Did they not go from world to world rescuing sentient beings everywhere from the limitations of individuality? Would you aid the Borg or resist them? Why?

    I would argue that the cells in the body have more individuality than single celled organisms. All single celled organisms with the the same DNA are pretty much identical but the cells in our body have the same DNA but there great diversity. See my post which starts the topic "The next stage of human evolution" under biology. There I argue that the relief from genetic pressure for individual survival, which is caused by the protection of the community for its weaker members is a simulus for a great increase in variation and begins a next stage of evolution.

    I think that human kind is evolving toward more individuality not less. And that individuality is an enormous strength not a weakness. I agree that a more communal attitude is a part of that development. But a movement towards the destruction of individuality and diversity (of which I think both fascism and communism were examples) is in the direction of communal death rather than life.

    When the community becomes a being in its own right do the members of the community become more or less? Do they have greater freedom or less? It is true that the community requires policing, just as white blood cells attack members on antisocial rampage (cancer). But does the policing decrease the freedom of it members or increase it. When the policing works well individuals feel safe and healthy, and with freedom from fear, they can do so much more than they could do doging predators by themselves. Understanding the truth that there is so much more freedom in the community is an important part of developing that communal mind you were talking about. And more freedom means more individualty not less.

    The communal mind of a true comunity is nothing like the Borg for it cherishes and protects diversity and individuality. Which is the greater computer, the one with a single fast processor or one with billions of processors. And among multiprocessing computers which would be the more powerful, one where all the processors worked exactly the same way on a problem (although dividing up the work), or a computer where the processors tackle a problem from many different direction using many different techniques and skills? The Borg was evil because it was destroying life. The destruction of diversity is a destruction of life. The destruction of individuality is a destruction of life.

    A true communal mind is something like the scientific community. It is full of disagreements and disputes but there is also a general consensus. The diversity of opinion acts as a check against error, for every theory must endure the testing and disputes by its diverse members. And through this process we have discovered demonstrable truths about the universe like nothing else. This process makes the scientific community more intellegent than its individual members.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    39
    i guess individuality was the wrong word to choose. by individuality i meant having different goals; that not everyone was on the same page. i agree with what you were saying in that having many differnt kinds of people working on the same thing is better than many similar people working on it. the first multicellular beings were identical cells throughout, but began evolving as those that had identical cells didn't live quite as long as those that had specialized cells. complex organisms with specialized tissues evolved because they were far superior and worked more efficiently with greater survival probability. i think that could be related to how communistic governments seemingly worked well for a short period of time and then just completely imploded. they tried to make everyone the same, except for the people leading and it didnt work. and everyone is not the same, there must be differentiation and cooperation. that is freedom; when everyone has the same goal in mind, but strives for it in their own way.
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known" - Frank Herbert
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29 Re: God is in the universe 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by tianman32
    God is the organizer and controler of the universe.First push of the universe refers to the ability of automatic organization,automatic motion,automatic reaction and variation,automatic cognition and thinking,autonomous action of it.First push exists within universe systems.God is also the first push of the universe.So,God is in the universe.
    Hello tianman32,

    How can I start answering your belief?Your mother gave you a first push
    when you were just born. When did you start being aware?

    GOD DOES NOTHING, HE DOES NOT "DO". "HE" IS NOT A CREATOR, ONLY MAN CREATES.
    BELIEVING IN GOD, IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT . YOU ARE TAUGHT THAT "HE" IS,

    WHEN YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAUGHT WHO YOU "ARE".
    (WHY YOU ARE HERE, IS AN UNANSWERED QUESTION)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    where or what was god before the universe?
    You are quite clear in your words Wallaby.
    That is a question also, but the most important is US.

    We should be more aware of life, which we are not.
    Why are we here? What is our purpose?
    "IT" made it quiet, so you can be at ease, "IT" made it tastefull so you can eat, "IT" made it real good so you can make a lot, and make your blood boil, so you can simmer down.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I think that human kind is evolving toward more individuality not less.
    Agreed. If we can fight off intrusive government, stifling beaurocracy, Big Macs and Aaron Spelling TV productions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 Re: God is in the universe 
    Forum Freshman genep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by tianman32
    God is the organizer and controler of the universe....So,God is in the universe.
    How can "he" or "it-god" be when I AM the universe and everything else in it. (Advaita 101)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •