Reality Defined by Physics - The Truth is Obvious - Only on ATS! The Mirror Revealed.

What makes one think, that 'he' DOES answer questions. And IF there is anyone answering questions at all (on theist premises), why is it Jahveh and not Brahma, Zeus, Woden or the flying spaghetti monster? The 'design' answer is from a rational perspective as filled with holes as a swiss cheese, and it's significant, that it presently has a short renaissance on ATS (it's some months since it last was picked to pieces). In any case most religions/semi-religions can use it (some considerably better than the abrahamic religions), not bringing us closer to 'reality'. How IS cosmos a 'divine' picture? It can with greater truth-probability be claimed to be a hologram, a mis-perceived 'nirvana', the interference of a demi-urge, the dreams of a 'sleeping BrahmaN'. Or with the abrahamic reasoning method the great noodle-master having fun. Mankind actually has more than five senses. Somewhat besides the point, but just for the record. Seeking answers is a praiseworthy, natural and legitimate activity. And the method based on observations leading to answers, is far better than the one with pre-determined answers having 'adapted' facts to 'prove' it.

reply to post by bogomil


He has answered my questions so I assume he will answer yours too.

Your Spaghetti Monster didn't die for YOU. Maybe that is why he is and others like it/him/her is not answering them as they did not ask one to seek THEM nor did they die for anyone.

By MY studies of the cosmos it is a PERFECT recipe for life. To me it is Divine in nature. Think what you may....so be it.

Based on my observations and the methods I have used my conclusion is indeed different from yours. Whether you deem it praiseworthy is totally up to you, however I deem it necessary to not only come to a personal conclusion of my existence but also to share it with others who seem to think we exist for no reason at all. I observe myself, therefore I am real. Ok....well that is based on what I think I am observing and from I observe with.

What is reality to you may not be for me and so on....

We can agree to disagree. My opinion matters maybe only to me but as I see it we are all entitled.

I would like to share with you a book you may want to read to further your understanding of God in regards to physics. It is called, "God is not Dead". By, Amit Goswami

Here are some words that may relate to this topic....

Amit Goswami's "God is Not Dead" is an interesting read, even as a less noteworthy contribution compared to Goswami's "The Self-Aware Universe." Goswami's treatment springs from his understanding of quantum mechanics, the quantum wave function, and the wave function's collapse. He (page 22) writes: "Quantum possibilities are possibilities of consciousness itself, which is the ground of all being. This takes us back to monistic idealism.... Our looking is tantamount to choosing, from among all the quantum possibilities, the one unique facet that becomes our experienced actuality." Looking collapses the wave function, as much as we can tell from quantum mechanics. Goswami (page 23) writes: "We don't choose in our ordinary state of individual consciousness that we call the ego the subjective aspect of ourselves that the behaviorist studies and that is the result of conditioning. Instead, we choose from an unconditioned, objective state of unitive consciousness, the non-ordinary state where we are one, a state we can readily identify with God." Goswami writes (page 23) the following. "Our exercise of choice, the events quantum physicists call the collapse of the quantum possibility wave, is God's exercise of the power of downward causation. And the way God's downward causation is this: for many objects and many events, the choice is made in such a way that objective predictions of quantum probability hold; yet in individual events, the scope of creative subjectivity is retained." Goswami writes (page 24): "The quantum signatures of downward causation are discontinuity (as in our experience of creative insight), nonlocality (as in the signal-less communication of metal telepathy), and circular hierarchy, also called tangled hierarchy (as sometimes experienced between people in love)." Goswami expands on the tangled hierarchy, a structure introduced by Douglas R. Hofstadter. Goswami writes (page 30): "The paradigm shift of our science now taking place is revealed in depth psychology and transpersonal psychology and the branch of medicine that is called alternative medicine. The paradigm shift is also revealed in the work of organismic biologists who see causal autonomy in the entire biological organism, not merely in its microscopic components. Some evolutionary biologists even see the necessity of invoking `intelligent design' of life to break the shackle of Darwinian beliefs. The practitioners of these branches of science have penetrated the camouflage to some extent. With the help of quantum physics, the penetration of the camouflage is much more extensive. " Goswami's book provides evidence for the reality of God, and he gives (page 34) an early outline: "In view of quantum physics, the vast data on life after death, and alternative subtle-body medicine, it is considerably more difficult to refute the ideas of downward causation and subtle bodies. And who in their right mind would try to refute the importance of virtues and values in our lives? Clearly, the religious have a more plausible theory of virtues and values than the biologists who claim they evolved from Darwinian adaptation via chance and necessity."

I am just an observer in this reality coming into my own skin and defining who I truly am.

I also think some are so biased they refuse to let answers in that continue to beat the door down. I am showing you there are many intellectual beings out here who do think there is a Master Designer/Creator/God.

To refute Him/It just seems naive to me, but again, I am observing and learning.

To believe in such you think is naive. So be it.....Time will tell.

www.amazon.com...

reply to post by MamaJ


You wrote:

["He has answered my questions so I assume he will answer yours too."]

With all respect, your assumption is wrong. I find my 'answers' elsewhere, from a basis including the syncretism the thread-author claims, but hasn't yet demonstrated.

Quote: ["Your Spaghetti Monster didn't die for YOU."]

It's not a part of my criteria or premises, that anyone has to die for me. That's YOUR system.

Quote: ["Maybe that is why he is and others like it/him/her is not answering them as they did not ask one to seek THEM nor did they die for anyone."]

How can you possibly have any opinion at all about whether anyone has 'answered' me (or other people)?

Quote: [" By MY studies of the cosmos it is a PERFECT recipe for life."]

It would be. The life manifested here is adapted to the initial conditions of this cosmos.

Quote: ["To me it is Divine in nature. Think what you may....so be it."]

No worries. You are gracious enough to let me think, what I may. I'll return the courtesy of 'live-and-let-live' principles without interference.

Quote: ["Based on my observations and the methods I have used my conclusion is indeed different from yours."]

A perfectly sane, sound and recommendable statement, cut very short to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" or 'we all have private reality-tunnels to some extent' (whichever you prefer).

Quote: ["Whether you deem it praiseworthy is totally up to you, however I deem it necessary to not only come to a personal conclusion of my existence but also to share it with others who seem to think we exist for no reason at all."]

I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you in any way need my 'approval' for anything in your private life. An issue could though be, HOW you 'share'. Christian 'sharing' is a debatable point; ...... from the inquisition to misuse and degradation of scientific principles.

Quote: ["I observe myself, therefore I am real."]

I have no problems with Cartesian philosophy (which is where a 'reality'-approach COULD end), because the option of solipsism seem rather 'constructed'.

Quote: ["Ok....well that is based on what I think I am observing and from I observe with. What is reality to you may not be for me and so on...."]

You know, this is actually quite a 'deep' comment. It's very seldom anyone goes beyond fixed positions (of whatever kind) and take the step out into epistemology, however small that step can be. For 1½ year I've been waiting for a theist to so-to-speak take such a perspective from the limit of human understanding.

Quote: ["We can agree to disagree."]

There MAY not even be a need for that. Generally I'm not especially vicious towards 'egalitarian', non-invasive theists.

Originally posted by MamaJ
I would like to share with you a book you may want to read to further your understanding of God in regards to physics. It is called, "God is not Dead". By, Amit Goswami

Here are some words that may relate to this topic....

Amit Goswami's "God is Not Dead" is an interesting read, even as a less noteworthy contribution compared to Goswami's "The Self-Aware Universe." Goswami's treatment springs from his understanding of quantum mechanics, the quantum wave function, and the wave function's collapse. He (page 22) writes: "Quantum possibilities are possibilities of consciousness itself, which is the ground of all being. This takes us back to monistic idealism.... Our looking is tantamount to choosing, from among all the quantum possibilities, the one unique facet that becomes our experienced actuality." Looking collapses the wave function, as much as we can tell from quantum mechanics. Goswami (page 23) writes: "We don't choose in our ordinary state of individual consciousness that we call the ego the subjective aspect of ourselves that the behaviorist studies and that is the result of conditioning. Instead, we choose from an unconditioned, objective state of unitive consciousness, the non-ordinary state where we are one, a state we can readily identify with God." Goswami writes (page 23) the following. "Our exercise of choice, the events quantum physicists call the collapse of the quantum possibility wave, is God's exercise of the power of downward causation. And the way God's downward causation is this: for many objects and many events, the choice is made in such a way that objective predictions of quantum probability hold; yet in individual events, the scope of creative subjectivity is retained." Goswami writes (page 24): "The quantum signatures of downward causation are discontinuity (as in our experience of creative insight), nonlocality (as in the signal-less communication of metal telepathy), and circular hierarchy, also called tangled hierarchy (as sometimes experienced between people in love)." Goswami expands on the tangled hierarchy, a structure introduced by Douglas R. Hofstadter. Goswami writes (page 30): "The paradigm shift of our science now taking place is revealed in depth psychology and transpersonal psychology and the branch of medicine that is called alternative medicine. The paradigm shift is also revealed in the work of organismic biologists who see causal autonomy in the entire biological organism, not merely in its microscopic components. Some evolutionary biologists even see the necessity of invoking `intelligent design' of life to break the shackle of Darwinian beliefs. The practitioners of these branches of science have penetrated the camouflage to some extent. With the help of quantum physics, the penetration of the camouflage is much more extensive. " Goswami's book provides evidence for the reality of God, and he gives (page 34) an early outline: "In view of quantum physics, the vast data on life after death, and alternative subtle-body medicine, it is considerably more difficult to refute the ideas of downward causation and subtle bodies. And who in their right mind would try to refute the importance of virtues and values in our lives? Clearly, the religious have a more plausible theory of virtues and values than the biologists who claim they evolved from Darwinian adaptation via chance and necessity."

I am just an observer in this reality coming into my own skin and defining who I truly am.

I also think some are so biased they refuse to let answers in that continue to beat the door down. I am showing you there are many intellectual beings out here who do think there is a Master Designer/Creator/God.

To refute Him/It just seems naive to me, but again, I am observing and learning.

To believe in such you think is naive. So be it.....Time will tell.

www.amazon.com...

edit on 14-7-2011 by MamaJ because: to add link

Unfortunately the 'quantum-religion' interpretations are far from the scientific mark. It's simply a high-jacking and 'adaption' of some scientific experiments, where the procedure and the philosophical implications sadly carry the stamp of theist ignorance of real science.

What possibly will surprise you is, that I am a metaphysicist (not an atheist), and I would LOVE to have rational support for my methaphysical speculations.

But I can't, in the name of intellectual honesty and my own self-respect, lower myself to a level of twisting material so as to find 'confirmation' of my hoped-for metaphysics.

I appreciate your friendly presentation of the material. Thank you.

reply to post by bogomil


You can take every sentence I type and analyze it to suit your needs.....so be it. Makes no difference to me.

You can call me a Christian, however I do not wish to be labeled but you seem to assume I am ...so be it.

You can deny the existence of an Energy Force I call God all you want....so be it.

You can ask a question, but it seems as though your ego answers it for you. This is what I am assuming, I realize that but your words are nothing but a calculation of non sense that appears to be ego driven. Again, I am assuming. Just like I assume the Universe and everything in it was not a coincidence. That imho is illogical. Maybe this conclusion is not based on my ego but rather by listening once I have asked.

You cannot learn anything new when you assume to already know. Ask a question....sit back....and listen.
This is a great way to learn.

You seem to be intellectually inclined, although common sense seems to be out the window. I see this often.

Reply to me this and then answer it........

There is a creator....how did he do it?

reply to post by bogomil


No I would say it is just like it says it is......going back to Monistic Idealism.

I love Metaphysics!!! So .....then .....would you not agree we have our own perception of reality then?

reply to post by MamaJ


You wrote (concerning quantum-religious interpretations):

["No I would say it is just like it says it is......going back to Monistic Idealism."]

It would have, if the original scientific material had been, what theists use. This is not the case. I can, without a 'loud volume' take it up in detail. It's about time this is done (again) in the context of the author's pseudo-scientific claims.

Quote: ["I love Metaphysics!!! So .....then .....would you not agree we have our own perception of reality then?"]

It's a quite extensive subject; if you can relate to a compressed answer....? Epistemologically I'm a philosophical scepticist, though not of the most extreme type, as I'm quite convinced of the functionality and even 'reality' of 'relative realities'.

E.g. are 'cosmic laws' (natural laws) ALMOST 'true' in a cosmic context. No-one defies gravity (except in myths and a few claimed cases).

I use the Jain concept of 'approximate truths'. So in a 'total existence' (overall existence greater than cosmos), the mahayana-buddhistic model Samsara = Nirvana (Illusion = Reality) could be true in a holographic universe. Experienced 'reality' depends on perspective. That there only IS perspective, not ONE single 'reality'.

A fascinating idea, very unchristian.

Hope I didn't skip to many steps on the way. I'm so used to thinking in these terms, that I don't know, if I'm intelligible at all.

Hmmmmm....ok. So you believe in God, just not God as the Creator?

This to me is illogical although I am not downing you but simply would rather you collaborate on how you came to this conclusion.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You have come around...you can also learn of the Seals which are being opened on Revelations: the secret of life, as revealed to John by the Only-begotten Light.

Peace be with you!!!

reply to post by bogomil

In a context of free speech, you can present as many self-proclaimed 'absolutes' as you want, and the result (in a context of free speech) will be reactions such as mine.

I don't mind you sharing your worldview, you have the problem with me sharing mine. That's something you need to work on. I'm not ashamed of mine, if that's your purpose you've failed.

If you feel a preaching of the basically same theist claims, met by the same counter-claims, as constructive (in any sense of the word), it's your choice and no regrets on my part. The more clear the self-proclaimed 'absolutes' of missionary christianity are presented, the happier I am. I LIKE clear positions.

How narcissistic. You're not the only one reading my posts. I'm not altering my worldview to appease your wishes. Haven't I gone over this several times with you already?

It appears, that I after all have to relate to the post presented as OP on this thread once more (it has been used partly identical elsewhere, where I commented on it).

Quote: ["Light is where it starts."]

In scientific cosmogonic models, 'it' starts with the emergence of space/time and matter/energy; concepts which secondarily relate through the interaction of the variously manifested components of each category. Light, the observable result of photons, isn't a primary cause, but one of several ingredients.

Later in the OP the following turns up:

Quote: ["Genesis 1:1 In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy)."]

Which is self-contradictory to the first claim of: " Light is where it starts", and in any case is a rather trite observation, as it is included in several cosmogonies, of both religious and rational origin. Not to mention that 'the man in the street' is aware of time, space, matter and energy.

It 'proves' absolutely nothing, except that the bible includes commonplace knowledge.

Quote: ["The early universe was in a high state of order and low entropy."]

An asymmetric order (very likely super-imposed on an underlying symmetric order), which from square one contains entropy-potential.

Why this is mentioned is not obvious; possibly to give OP a sheen of 'authority'.

Quote: ["If our reality is designer made, then what process was used?"]

Yes...."IF".

On the assumption of this "if"....

Quote: ["The LOGOS put reality into form as a story (John 1). Logos is the master story teller. Read the Wiki on Logos. This Word that was used to put the universe into motion permiates the universe as the laws that govern and bind it together."]

Which suddenly and without any justification switches the approach from (pseudo)science to theist mythology.

Any possible reference to 'vibrations' as a primary cause in this context (a common theist direction), can only be vague and very symbolic interpretations, as sound per se is far from the initial state of cosmos.

And as with space/time and matter/energy, the bible has no 'copyright' on vibrations as a primary source. It's better and more precisely put in context by asian religions (not that I suggest asian religions to have THE ultimate answers either).

Quote: ["As stated by Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanical wave equation, we must realize that our universe is parallel to another universe in opposite. Our matter is anti-matter to this mirrored universe. The event horizon between these two represents the projection point of both."]

The Dirac equation isn't as unequivocally applicated to 'intuitive' existence (what we percieve). The only certain conclusion is, that there exist differently charged polarities (socalled 'dualism').

So the following claim:

Quote: ["As suggest by Dirac's equation, we are on one side of the tree of life (our universe) as God creates the other using our choices to define the other side."]

Is simply a postulate, constructed by adding mythology to otherwise legitimate AUTHENTIC science.

And

Quote: ["God says in the Bible that if any man were to look upon Him, they would be instantly consumed. This is what happens between matter and anti-matter."]

Which is a false (reversed) fake-logic conclusion, a continuation of an assumed interpretation of Dirac's equation, 'processed' with inductive ('similarity') reasoning and adding another sprinkle of mythology. From a real scientific perspective, a proper use of scientific physics, this is absurd.

Quote: ["Dirac's equation suggests this: Changes that are made here are also made in the other universe. We are on the manifest and passing side of creation while God creates the true reality in perfection with no entropy."]

Christianity-alternative religions/semi-religions have considered this from considerably more sensible perspectives (and more in accordance with contemporary science). It would be too extensive to present all the optional positions and possible conclusions on this, but compressed the initial argument would be, that without an asymmetric creation, there would be no entropy.

But at best this is just a theist speculation, neither relating directly to any scientific methodology, nor relating to any scientific conclusions.

Such theist postulates as the one above is a variation of the: 'God of the gap'.

From the platform of this hijacked pseudo-science, the author continues with a small sermon, which has no interest in the context of searching reality through scientific physics, and then returns to pseudo-science:

Quote: [" Your turn. Think of your version of the laws that govern the universe. Where do they originate? How do we explain the irreducible complexity of it all in support of living matter? How do we explain living matter? How do we explain complex information in matter?"]

by rehashing the 'designer' argument. That the designer-argument convincingly (from a rational perspective) has been demonstrated completely invalid, doesn't seem to bother the author. If anyone wants to take it up here in detail, instead of finding it elsewhere in its myriad manifestations, I'll be around.

Some paragraphs repeating earlier claims on the OP, and then:

Quote: ["If we face the truth given to us in the Bible, we realize that we are an artificial reality and artificial lifeforms to God."]

This OP set out with the intent of 'proving' some truths with the help of physics. This is not done, consequently it's just a piling of further assumptions on top of the first ones.

Quote: ["These three persons are described by the trinity of creation.

Father - Light, both particle and wave.

Son - Logos / Programming language of creation. Wave to form.

Holy Spirit (Consciousness)"]

Again a symbolic interpretation of bible-concepts, done with the help of 'similarity'-based false identification.

Quote: ["To understand this fully, you must understand partial wave duality. Do some research on how consciousness changes the duality of light. Research the double slit experiment."]

This is a basic misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the double-slit experiment, which for some un-explainable reasons has become an established part of pseudo-science. I have a standing offer of considering the details of this to anyone interested. Sofar not responded to on scientific terms.

Well, the rest is more or less an enforced syncretism based on the initial pseudo-science claims in OP, including some more mythology in sermon form. This is besides my interest and my points here.

Originally posted by MamaJ

You can deny the existence of an Energy Force I call God all you want....so be it.

Why call it "God" when it already has a label? Energy Force.

reply to post by Hydroman


Because this is my way of allowing others to possibly see Him/It in a different kind of Light.

We have been conditioned over the years to believe a certain way and that way is mostly of this world (Earth) which is not what WE ARE.

God has different meanings which others personalize. (Religions per say)

Energy has a non material meaning......a meaning we can relate to that never ends only transforms. So when I say Energy Force it then to some may be meaningful as it is to me.

I hope that makes sense to you as it does to me but I have found what makes sense to me may not make sense to others.

Let me know your thoughts.....

reply to post by bogomil


As per yorr reply, I suggest you read this LINK suggested by user Oilse. Very impressive writing and thought.

I missed this one. Good writing and thought. By Her, I assume you mean Wisdom/Truth? Here is something I wrote that relates. LINK

Originally posted by Olise
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

You have come around...you can also learn of the Seals which are being opened on Revelations: the secret of life, as revealed to John by the Only-begotten Light.

Peace be with you!!!

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by bogomil

 

As per yorr reply, I suggest you read this LINK suggested by user Oilse. Very impressive writing and thought.

Drowning a thread in links to material, where the answer is made on assumptions and premises constructed to 'prove' something circle-argumentatory, is a waste of time.

They have the same (what's basically preachings) rephrased. If something is questioned the first time, repeating it in other words, doesn't make it more true. Overusing such a method only results in people ignoring such links.

Anyway a debate forum should be between individuals mainly being able to carry their own claims. Not just being a passive directory to external sources conflicting with each other.

reply to post by bogomil


I think we should agree that Reality is defined based on individual perspective and the Truth to the Reality is the same. Only the observer can attest to if it is real to him or not.

For some....seeing is believing while others will base their truth and reality on what they sense in regards to their five senses (or how many you want to claim).

Peace and love to you and yours!!! xoxoxox

Jenn

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by bogomil

 

I think we should agree that Reality is defined based on individual perspective and the Truth to the Reality is the same. Only the observer can attest to if it is real to him or not.

For some....seeing is believing while others will base their truth and reality on what they sense in regards to their five senses (or how many you want to claim).

Peace and love to you and yours!!! xoxoxox

Jenn

Considered as subjective phenomena, I have no objections to this. That ofcourse also implies egalitarian status for all the individual 'realities'.

Trying to enforce anything into the 'objective' category is quite another thing though. Pseudo rational reasoning and preaching won't do it.

Pseudo rational reasoning and preaching won't do it.

reply to post by bogomil


Why not? Why can it not be up to the reality in which the individual relates in.If it is preaching then...so be it? I am just trying to understand your rationale as I cant mine.

I go soooooo deep sometimes I wonder where in my mind the "deepness" comes from. A sense? Not sure....but for the sake of argument I want you to explain yourself in terms I can better understand. I know where you are coming from but I need more specifics regarding the reality. Reality of the now is different for me as it is for you. So.....

If someone were to have a reality involving scripture to the Higher Creative Energy force and understand it in ways we do not perceive their reality is true to them and not for you or me..... This is what I understand to be "Reality".

reply to post by bogomil


Also.....we live in a Reality of illusions and delusions so to speak. The only way we will have the entire Truth in Reality is when we die or when Jesus comes back the second time as he promised to do and in this promise he states he will deliver the Truth as the first time he came he deemed "us" not ready to hear the Truth. Maybe we are ready now??? He (Jesus) made a promise that some believe will not come true because his Word was nothing or meant nothing to them. In other "Realities" it means everything because a trust was built for Jesus. With this trust Reality takes a whole leap of Faith and in this Faith is where some find Truth. When people of ALL faiths pass on.....they all see Jesus (MANY videos and stories to read or view). This to me is a Reality of others not based on their Religion but based solely on their perspective of Reality. When others share same Realities then there lies more Truth to them and even a confirmation of their own Truth of Reality as well.

We are not fit to judge our fellow man.....for we do not walk in their shoes. What we may consider is not forming an opinion based on their Reality. Find what information fits within your own and leave what you wish.take what you may and learn. None of us are ALL KNOWING....Not until we pass on and even then there will me mysteries we have yet to uncover before taking another leap at possibly another existence.