God=mc2

[Fausto Intilla]

a)The Jungian Theory of Syncronicity, is a clear demonstration that
everything in this Universe is predeterminated.The Heisenberg's
Indetermination Principle comes from the human ignorance
(we cannot see the reality in its totality)...so only an ignorant,can believe in Free Will.

b)Matter is a complex form of energy; Energy
is a complex form of Information; Information...is God's Thought.

The Universe is God...so we are parts of God.

c) Every kind of "human desire",is followed by a Chain of "Electron wave
functions collapses" (in agreement with Schrödinger's Theory) which will not
follow ours expectations! ...So the paradox is: if we want to get hold of
something,we shouldn’t have to search for it. (Men stay still,and the mountains move...).
A curiosity: The connection between the electron
wave-function and the human intent has to do with the fact that
experiments have proved that the intentions of the operator of a radio
transmission facility, directly and instrumentably alter the
"footprint", the radiation pattern of the antenna. It has also been
shown that the intent of the human being causes a divergence in
the quantum field (which is the information field).
Any divergence in the information field results in
alterations of "probability", which directly influences
the outcome of any system which contains any element
of chance, directly influencing the resulting observable
events. (See the work of Princeton Engineering Anomalies
Research at http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/).

Notes:

"In agreement with Henri Bergson's thought (see the last pages of "Entre
le temps et l'éternité" of Ilya Prigogine ,Librairie Arthème Fayard,Paris),
we can accept the idea of a "Space-time absolute value", where
all the "Space-time relativ values" are incorporated (in agreement with Einstein’s
theory of relativity); the conclusion is that there is only one Real
Matrix of the Universe...so every other possible /potential parallel
"event/dimension/future" it's only a human illusion.

All the other parallel Universes (or Multi-Universes,as Phd. Everett said)
can only exist in our minds...perhaps whilst dreaming.

Unfortunately several physicists are conditioned by Heisenberg's Principle of
Indetermination...which, as you will know, is enough explain the
existence of Free Will.

Well, the Principle of Indetermination is hardly bound by the limits of
observations made by the human brain.

(We cannot see the reality in its totality...Bohm taught).

If we accept the idea that our Universe really is God,well,in a infinite
Caos of Energy too, there must to be a logical (but not for human
brain),exact,specific,and perfectly organized ...Plan.

How many significant (important) coincidences can happen to a person in his
life,living in a unorganizated and stupid Universe?...I think no-one.
Every synchronism in our life, is like an open-eyes-dream (Jung
taught)...and we can thank the fine intelligence of our Universe...if
they happen."

Fausto Intilla
(Inventor-scientific divulger)
http://www.oloscience.com

[PeSla]

It has been awhile since the early days of Pear Inc. where we got and tested some of the software and it seems to really work as to the influencing of what of two pictures resolved from the screen by "thinking about it doing so"

Welcome to philosophy, I suspose the idea of the universe being God or god as energy is really a question of philosophy. I do not see how the idea of synchronicity can be reduced to any rigid idea of determinism or chance, that would perhaps be physics.

I do however like the idea of the macromolecules and memory, but the theory was long ago and a lot of research has happened since then. I think in fact that all ideas which toy with some model of quantum understanding alone of what the mind is overdue on one hand but far from complete enough to describe the mental world.

Let us leave God beyond the pale of lesser ideas of metaphysics. If god is universe then universe is simply universe and perhaps the idea of time or god or universe just accidentally coming into existence is quantum clever and an interesting idea but not enough to solve the delimmas of fundamental physics.

I do not find the idea of two poetic terms like god and energy more than a less than convincing metaphore of equivalence. That said, what is the ultimate code similar to a genetic code is a question I asked for space itself and it comes off as the structures involved as if the codons, and the logics of space, and particles such as the logic of what is the theories real such a quarks.

But all this does not give us the deepest ground of memory which for me is the uniqueness or reflefction on the null or empty dimensions - it is not enough to say it is chemical (therefore quantum) or neuronetworks, or some for of even electromagnetic induction. Such myths of which we have not gone beyond is the religion and certain science of our day and will one day seem empty in words and content.

We have many directions and threads here to discuss these things and some original ways to do so. I shall review your ideas more deeply- still, what is your take on entanglement? Surely you cannot mean that God is mere information without meaning? Where does the meaning go into say- black holes?

This sense of uncertainty I may feel about some ultimate theory does not undermine my ability to think and understand. It is the false certainty that we have to get around (i suspect). My ground is as good as anything and I do not need false gods nor pink unicorns to give my life (what there is in the worth of it) meaning.

[chaoticcomplexity]

I think the universe is caused by God, and God seems to be above and beyond existence. It seems that existence is not all there is. What we experience seems to be a part of existence, but existence seems to be a part of 'is' and God seems to be beyond 'is'. 'Is' and existence are not identical. God is not a being, but caused all beings including the universe...

[Oceanic01]

Throw all possibilities on the table and maybe one is right.
A. There is no god
B. He made it all like a droplet of water and the ripples are his movie
C. We're being tested
D. We're in the middle of 2 or 3 forms of existence

Ok start thinking other variations

[Fuqin]

This will be fun
E. we are God
F. we are the process of Gods birth
G. we are the result of Gods death
H. the universe is God
I. the universe is Gods birth
J. the universe is Gods death
K. God is us (a centralized voyeur)
L. God is the process of life
M. God is the process of death (God eats souls) we are spiritual cattle

[GetWise&Realize]

Whats to say, we are God and our powers is locked in the brain. We only use about 20% of our brains, some where around there right? I do not know exactly but I'm truelly sure we ain't using 100%, thats fact. One thing though, I have noticed my dreams coming true. They say dreams are highly intensified images that the brain can not tell wether it's real or not, true or false? I believe many dreams have come true, fairy tales do happen gentlemen. So it only leads me to ponder more of the brain's power. I have been able to alter my dreams as I'am in them. I think most of you don't know what I'm talking about, many who I've told haven't. Besides that, I have altered my dreams. So imagine if we had complete power of our brains? We'll probally be flying around like superman, far fetched as it sounds.

That sounds like alot like desire, don't it? As for knowledge...it leaves me to think. You can't know nothing without knowledge. The more you know of something, say a game, your job, a hobbie, etc..the better you become to the subject. Alright, you guys should know the rest.

Also, religions says theres a part of God in everything. So maybe there is a God, or there are many Gods.

[Paul Anthony]

This will be fun
E. we are God
F. we are the process of Gods birth
G. we are the result of Gods death
H. the universe is God
I. the universe is Gods birth
J. the universe is Gods death
K. God is us (a centralized voyeur)
L. God is the process of life
M. God is the process of death (God eats souls) we are spiritual cattle

One more...

God is an adolescent high school student, and we are his science project.

Well, it certainly explains his behavior as noted in the Old Testament! :-)

[GetWise&Realize]

God is an adolescent high school student, and we are his science project.

I have thought on this theory, so say we are his project. All projects are to gain more knowledge of the subject, am I correct? So that makes me connect this theory to the whole power thing. I believe we have so much power invested in us that some entity wants to get a hold of it. Knowledge is power after all.

[PeSla]

Well, quite aside from the fact that this idea of only using a part of our brains is another Urban Legend. In sense we use all of our brains where it is appropriate at the time or function. I you mean then that as in the topic God is a form of energy then it is clear that there is a balance or trade off in the use of energy to think. We do not think as effeciently as possible due to a need to balance the cost in energy of thinking.

I suspose God then as energy is subjedt to limits to the capacity to do work and even He cannot go beyond the bounds of entropy - although you might say He is a conserved quantity as eternal in the sense he cannot be created nor destroyed.

But God can just as well then be seen as mind, or some sort of what we think is intelligence. Thus it is clear that if God is the Intelligent Designer He was only using a small part of his brain as we as His image or He as a projection of ours seems to be the case. I suspose then you say that it takes time for anyone, including god to learn enough to become an expert at a certain percentage of His brain and capacity to think or do work (thinking takes a lot of calories).

Perhaps we are perfect in our dreams where we can indeed fly and have no fear of falling (unless you take this affront to God and we in knowing are as the fallen angel. Clearly we can know something with no knowledge (that is with but a hint or a bite of the whole apple.) to try to make sense and get wiser and realize what direction your sentence winds up in with all the double negations.

From this you ask me to conclude there is a part if not realized of my brain (as God) in everything so not knowing it all 100% you say there is the possibility of one God or many (do you mean parts here?)

I hope this bit of wisdom brings you to the realization that one might want to light up a few more brain cells if you want to begin to comprehend and add something more than given to the debate, especially if you see we need to use more than all of our potential brain capacity to think. :-)

Perhaps we are a science project and it is the run of the mill volcano - we desire we know not what yet save it is a great illusion or delusion as a secret we feel inour bones with certainty. and the project is an image of our self conceptions with thoughts and feelings ready to explode as certainly as the little boils, blackheads, and zits on our face.

The idea God is a child that plays with us is an old theme of the science fiction genre. But adolescent? (where was that quote from anyway?) That age should be one of exploration and prepration for nesting and for the work of real life and not the boundless lack of care or worry of what one will be in the larval rat race where their free fantasies are shot down. Thing is, fifteen year olds are under the delusion they are immortal.

[GetWise&Realize]

Please do excuse me for all the confusion. I guess the whole religion thing caught you off track. I'm basicly saying God is power or energy like some would say. Now hold that, take your mind off that and act like your just a young kid believing what religion says. So when you heard me, you sayed thats not the truth. It's basicly the counter part to the philosiphy. Hopefully I made some sense...


15 years old do think like that, but they do not have the knowledge. You see many kids becoming criminals and when someone tells them the real facts, like top to down. They would simply nod their heads up and down. They comprehend every little word you say, but the thing is. It's feeling that connect those words. When someone says "Knowledge is power," I bow my head stiffly because I understand why knowledge is power.

[Paul Anthony]

Pesla, for your edification: the quote was made in jest. The complete quote is as follows.


"God is an adolescent high school student, and we are his science project.

Well, it certainly explains his behavior as noted in the Old Testament!" :-)

[DarrenLO]

Another thought on the multiverse theory. Perhaps our universe is part of a multiverse. If that is true, then it seems plausible to me that each component universe of the multiverse has its own god. Maybe there are a Great God and Great Goddess who rule over all, the lesser gods being there offspring. As anyone who knows a family with many (an infinite number of?) children can tell you, there is always at least one jackass in the crew. Maybe that could explain Yahweh! ;-)

God is an adolescent high school student, and we are his science project.

It has also been suggested (in another thread) that I "want to be a little demi-god (sic)". Maybe I AM god and you are all a dream! (Wow, I have vivid dreams!)

Darren

[chaoticcomplexity]

It seems that the universe is a part of 'what is' as our perception, a universe in itself, a part of the universe. Existence it seems is limited to the universe and existence is also a part of 'what is'. 'What is' seems to be greater than existence but also includes it. Beyond 'what is' is God. So God, if there is God, then God must not exist nor non-exist, for both are not applicable to God. God is who God is as God said to Moses, "I AM WHAT AM". God is not a supreme being for God is not a being in the first place. It seems that God is greater than what God caused and therefore greater than the universe. Unicorns and fairies do exist at least in one's mind, but God does not exist, not even in one's mind. Any existence in the mind seems to be a representation and that represenation is not God, but representations. The word and the concept God do exist in one's mind or as they are articulated...but what they stand for does not exist in the universe nor even in one's mind.

[meaning]

b)Matter is a complex form of energy; Energy
is a complex form of Information; Information...is God's Thought.

The Universe is God...so we are parts of God.

Look very closely at what you are saying. By the principle of economy, we should postulate as less as possible. Do we really need use the word "god", when we know full well the connotations that it represent? You can very well substitute the word for nature, and the sentense wouldn t make a difference.

[Paul Anthony]

b)Matter is a complex form of energy; Energy
is a complex form of Information; Information...is God's Thought.

The Universe is God...so we are parts of God.

Look very closely at what you are saying. By the principle of economy, we should postulate as less as possible. Do we really need use the word "god", when we know full well the connotations that it represent? You can very well substitute the word for nature, and the sentense wouldn t make a difference.

Ah, the atheist argument!

Here's why substituting "nature" doesn't work: Nature connotes those things that exist within our reach and within our understanding. With science, we are able to gain knowledge of how all the things in nature work - everything from photosynthesis to atomic fission and everything in between. The word "God" is used to denote those things we cannot weigh, measure, analyze and quantify.

If all that we can perceive is contained in the universe, the universe itself is contained in "God". For lack of a better term, we are trying to describe something bigger than everything we can see. But, there needs to be a better word, since the word "God" can easily be confused with the definition used by the Abrahamic religions - that of a personal entity that tucks you in bed at night after you dutifully say your prayers.

Deists prefer "First Cause" to mean that which caused the universe to exist and also that which proscribed the Laws of Physics that control the universe. This First Cause is not presumed to be micromanaging the universe (or our lives). It set something into motion that is self-perpetuating, and we are along for the ride. Only if that is true, can it be said that we have free will (up to the limitations set forth by the Laws of Physics).

[DarrenLO]

I think "Nature" can still fill the bill quite nicely. If our universe is contained in something that we cannot weigh or measure, how does it follow, logically, that this "something" has any of the attributes usually associated with godhead? It may perfectly well be a part of Nature, but a part about which we have NO knowledge. We (so far) can only weigh, measure, and sense attributes of our own local region of 4 (or 11, or whatever) dimensional spacetime. Why should that which is beyond our ken be assumed to be supernatural?

Darren

[galatomic]

Excellent point DarrenLo. I'll be looking forward to the responses and the reasoning behind them.

galatomic

[Paul Anthony]

I think "Nature" can still fill the bill quite nicely. If our universe is contained in something that we cannot weigh or measure, how does it follow, logically, that this "something" has any of the attributes usually associated with godhead? It may perfectly well be a part of Nature, but a part about which we have NO knowledge. We (so far) can only weigh, measure, and sense attributes of our own local region of 4 (or 11, or whatever) dimensional spacetime. Why should that which is beyond our ken be assumed to be supernatural?

Darren

By "supernatural", I'm assuming you're referring to something akin to the usual God-like attributes, i.e. He (why is it usually male?) created us with a reason (HIS PLAN), that we are special to him, He created everything else just for us, etc.

If I'm wrong about you're meaning, I apologize. That is what people usually mean by supernatural. I don't think God can be super-natural if everything in nature is a part of God. All matter is composed of basically the same stuff. Matter may be converted energy. God is that energy. Therefore, God is "natural".

Remember, I'm not claiming to believe in a God that in any way resembles a person, or is in any real sense an "entity". There is all the energy and matter that we can identify in the universe, and then there is...whatever energy that caused the Big Bang. First Cause. God.

[DarrenLO]

Yes, that is what I meant. What I meant by "supernatural" is a being that is outside of what we normally consider to be the universe (or multiverse if you are so inclined). That is, a being who transcends nature and is not subject to the laws of nature (conservation of mass/energy being the most important). I haven't thought of it this way before, I guess I would say that an actual god (as opposed to Prime Mover, or First Cause) would not be subject to the laws of thermodynamics (hence her creative capacity). I would consider such a being as supernatural, whereas I would consider a being constrained by physical laws to be a part of nature (even if she is not detectable in our little corner of spacetime). Such a being would be considerably less powerful than the traditional conception of God in the Judeo-Christian mold.

Totally off point: When the Hebrews borrowed Yahweh from the Canaanites, why did they leave Ashira, his consort, behind?

Darren

[Paul Anthony]

Such a being would be considerably less powerful than the traditional conception of God in the Judeo-Christian mold.

Just the opposite, I think.

Unlike early religions, which divided all the powers of the world among a group of gods and goddesses, modern religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all believe in a single God. This entity is credited with the creation not only of man, but the creation of the entire universe – for mankind. Well, since you or I couldn’t do that, isn’t it reasonable to believe in the existence of intelligence greater than our own?
Unfortunately, we still can’t comprehend a God who doesn’t share our limitations.
We get mad, so God must sometimes get mad. We seek revenge, so God must be vengeful. We want to love and be loved, so God must love us (when He isn’t getting mad or vengeful). We want to be good parents who protect our children, so God must care about each and every one of us personally. He must be watching over us day and night, vigilantly protecting us from the evils of the big, bad scary world.

We want to be children forever, free from responsibility.

The bible says God created man in his own image, not the other way around. Let’s stop creating an image of God that resembles mere mortals, with all our warts.
God created the universe. God is not a product of the universe. God is not mortal. God is not physical. Think bigger.

Do not limit God.

Before God “created the Heavens and the Earth” (or before the Big Bang), nothing existed, except God. So, what did God use for building materials? Everything in the physical universe must be made up of “God”! (This is where the Big Bang theory actually makes sense!)
We are taught that God is “infinite”. Do you understand what that means? With no defined borders or boundaries:
All-encompassing.
If the page you are reading was the entire universe, and you found one word – even one comma – that was not a part of God, then God would be finite, not infinite!

God is everything!

Yes, that means that you are a part of God, and so am I, and so are the trees and the sky and the oceans – and so is this page. Every atom and every molecule is a creation of God and a product of God.

[Fuqin]

Totally off point: When the Hebrews borrowed Yahweh from the Canaanites, why did they leave Ashira, his consort, behind?

I don’t think originally they did’ in fact I believe the word holiness was derived from divine harlot.
“asherah” in the old testament is translated as grove , the sacred grove represented the goddess genital “ birth place of all things”
The Hebrews did have a matriarchal beginning note that there lineage was taken via the matriarchal line ,
they worshiped the goddess in groves mentioned in (1kings14:23) later cut down by patriarchal reformers who burned the bones of there priests (2 chronicles 24;4-5 ).
Athirat, Athra, Athyr, and Hathor were all variations of the same
I think it would be safe to say that women appeared to hold the miracle of life,
most ancient cultures began with a goddess creator , that was just natural ‘
why patriarch religion got going I’m not sure perhaps the world has always shifted between male female powered and some times violently

another thing to consider is that in the 2 separate creation myths of the OT one creator is Elohim and the other is Yahweh, Elohim is a plural word ,'the gods' and ill give it a cheeky interpretation here the ‘goddess' and the 'gods’
in hiding this the goddess the Patriarchal scribes conveniently made her to be merely a thing that god works upon not a person she is transformed into the primordial darkness the dark and watery chaos that the spirit would move upon, but if you look at the other mythologies it becomes clear that this dark and watery place was in fact the womb of the goddess.

[DarrenLO]

I don't think they did originally either. There are several passages in the OT that are not really consistent with strict monotheism and/or imply the belief in a Mother goddess. I have a feeling that the later versions of the Books of Moses that have been passed down to us have been "sanitized" of the Mother. 2 Kings 18 says that when Hezekiah became king of Judah, "He removed the high places, and broke the pillars, and cut down the Asherah" (which is, again, usually mistranslated as "grove"). The passages that actually use the name Ashira (in Exodus 30:14, and several verses in Deuteronomy, Judges, 1 Kings, and 2 Kings) call her a false god.

Judaism is still matrilineal, but that is usually ascribed to the fact that you "always know for sure who the mother is", whereas paternity is not always so certain.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the OT says anywhere that Yahweh claims that he is only god, but commands the Hebrews not to worship any others.

Athirat, Athra, Athyr, and Hathor were all variations of the same

Ishtar, also.

(Perhaps this should be split off into a new thread. We seem to be straying rather far afield of the topic)

Darren

[DarrenLO]

Paul,

I would say that an actual god (as opposed to Prime Mover, or First Cause) would not be subject to the laws of thermodynamics (hence her creative capacity). I would consider such a being as supernatural, whereas I would consider a being constrained by physical laws to be a part of nature (even if she is not detectable in our little corner of spacetime). Such a being would be considerably less powerful than the traditional conception of God in the Judeo-Christian mold.

Just the opposite, I think....God created the universe. God is not a product of the universe. God is not mortal. God is not physical. Think bigger.

I think you misunderstood me. My point was that a god who is constrained by physical laws would be less powerful than the traditional transcendent, omnipotent God.

Darren

[Fuqin]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the OT says anywhere that Yahweh claims that he is only god, but commands the Hebrews not to worship any others.

No that’s correct! monotheism didn’t get a hold really until mosses ( the ten commandments)
There’s a lot more to but I won’t go into that unless the thread is split of.

[Paul Anthony]

There’s a lot more to but I won’t go into that unless the thread is split of.

Splitting a thread sometimes shifts parts that ought to remain in the original.

Rather than that, why not start a new thread? It is a topic all to itself that would probably gather a lot of interest!

[chaoticcomplexity]

It seems that God is not a supernatural being...for God is not a being in the first place. If there is God, then God caused ALL beings...including those 'supernatural beings' that trascends nature. Beings do exist at least in our minds, but God does not. Unicorns and fairies 'exist' at least in some form of imaginations or delusions, but God does not exist, not even in delusions nor imaginations. It seems that God is who God is.

What is beyond natural seems to contain what is natural. Beyond "what is beyond natural" seems to be God. It seems that "what is beyond natural" and natural is not applicable to God, but God is who God is. As God said to Moses, "I AM WHAT AM"...God has no beginning nor end, a being does have a beginning and an end...as set by God. A supernatural being therefore has an end, at least as the thinker of such an idea has an end, and that idea ends with him. A supernatural being do exist, at least an idea, an intilligible one...even the concept God and the word God exist, but not what the word and the concept stand for. What they stand for does not exist.

God cannot be what God created. The early definition that God is a supreme being seems to be contradictory to what God 'is'. That definition seems to be man's way of conceptualizing God, it imposes characteristics to God positively, as a supreme, a being. It seems that it is only God who can 'define' 'itself'.

[PeSla]

So, God is that difference mass x velocity of light squared? Which more or less is plancks constant of action x frequency (the two ideas of God as the capacity to do work, as energy are more or less compatible but not in a unified way. One mans idea of God as a falling is another mans idea of God as a force from some undefined idea of essence or of some existence as undefined source.

I suspose if you then understand God as mass energy it would follow that He could be nature, especially the first cause in Deism which makes Him but the universe which is then a dynamic universe where as nature no longer needs the idea of God to describe things - thus the end result of Deism. There may indeed be something independent of the totality of what we know as existence as nature which is realtively larger or different.

The problem with the quote above is not just substituting world of nature or universe or even dynamic physical laws for God (certainly of a much higher abstraction than the old tribal monotheistic ideas for the peoples of the Book.)

Matter is a complex form of energy; Energy
is a complex form of Information; Information...is God's Thought.

The Universe is God...so we are parts of God.

My objection is no so much the explained complexity of the forms of energy as God as much as a god would be a simple and among the simplest of axioms ot rest natural laws upon but

We should not then conclude even if nature is a complex form of information (as Hawkings as where does that information go into black holes) Information is the "Thought" of God. It would follow information-meaning is the unity of a living (if not necessarily intelligent) creator,designer. And it is perfectly logical to say meaning is the thought of God - living things to have a certain quality above and beyond the mere quantity of information as matter. Can we realy use a radically different concept of different complexity to define and ground things?

The last assertion is just ambiguous. We know we are a part of nature and even informational nature as mass-energy at least for some lifetime, but it could also mean we are a part of the meaning and spirit of the higher idea of God as at least an intelligent being. This disguised mystical assumption that we are a part of things, not with definite explanation of some source or even first cause, asserts all is nature and we are a part of nature since God is energy and nature. It is thus proving by its assumptions what was already assumed that there is no God beyond informational nature that is a higher quality and if mind or spirit or God = hv, a quantum sense that may just tunnel outside the boundaries of this universe (abstractly and metaphysically) all can be said a part of Mind just as well this idea of energy (which is not proven or assured to be conserved if the universe has extream regions or beginnings and ends in time- the maths break down so all bets are off as to energy conservatin.

Now, if god is like energy and he is conserved then He is of a universal symmetry- a physics idea which assumes in our understanding and perceptions God is or chooses to be subject to such laws of physics which makes him but information, some sort of finite abstract algebra. About all that can be said then is the most general property of this God so as to define him is that he gives the universal (thus perhaps illogical totality as Unity by perhaps default as a conservation by the symmetry of everywhere and every direction of when.

We can say that one persons reading of some (this quote above seems not clearly connected as say something like a syllogism but that is possibly a dim and barely perceived intrinsic fault of logic) would call such strings of sentences without information or syntax that has "meaning" while the same configuration by another person could be seen as to contain no meaning even with dealing with ideas or words or concepts that contain a great deal of this but little information.

God= mc^2 = hv God = Thus and Therefore and most likely somewhere in between, as perhaps our own perception and intelligence is so in between mezocosmicly. We are the C cleft between the bra and the ket of the bracket notation of quantum things, and so is a dynamic growing universe of logic and nature. We are not clearly a part of all it for we can be but isolated from it or isolated as a part just as well. What we see would be all of it and still be the illusion of a part of it - and where we are a part of all of it we are no longer in a place of nature as we can know or perceive it.

The ability of human thought to learn from the shadows of its former history is at once a falling or Thus and a superimposition of the Therefore as the source of perpetual motion and time. We could say this is some sub morphogenetic field but that would just be an abstract disembodied possibility, a new age atempt as what must as long as it is natural realte to the physical in itself, this ability is where we unify things as the real and that could include some sort of conservation or force of meaning which is also the informational or physical aspects of God as a reality.

The pseudo physics and the false philosophy of prophesy meet in this place of real and existential causation and this is where we as sentient creatures percieve and decide the truth of these aspect of what is solid physics and philosophy. It is not an either or question between the copenhaguen interpertation or not that - nor is it simple what some of us consider nurture and some natuire.

Meaning is at least as complex as any physical information. No theory of everything can be complete which will not probe the mystery of this or not allow it. The conservation of god is a redundancy of reduced and luxurious entropy that meaningfull decreaces - but the question then becomes one on a higher level to as if God is a Field of force - Is God the Thus or Therefore or something in between? In other words is he Chance or necessity, can he do otherwise or has an actual if not coincidental free will? If God so vanishes or grows, a superorganic thing evolving from limiteless or some beginning does this center of his own existential existence choose and find cause (and thus purpose in his lonely isolation) itself a general theory of a field of changes and there ask if it a Thus or a Therefore or....

[DarkArrow]

~*'.'*~

Probablistic

TQ360-88 [Abyss - Quantum Generator]




[img:240:189]http://upload6.postimage.org/359976/XI.jpg[/img]

Where X is a _Fusion Formula_
[img:240:218]http://upload6.postimage.org/360320/Pioneer.jpg[/img]

[chaoticcomplexity]

Why do we have to assume that reality has a totality? It seems that it is also possible that in the universe, there is ignorance and non-ignorance.

If reality has also no totality, that does not make us humans ignorant, but biologically lacking the capability to see other than what we see or experience.

[MSM]

Maybe I missed something here but I fail to see why we need a "god" or something along those lines to create the universe. Could it not just be a natural phenomenom that we cannot fully comprehend as of now? Everything NOT in any way "mystical" just something, for lack of better words, natural? No higher being or post-being / intelligence.


Flow of concsiousness:

Perhaps there NEEDS to be something, that the universe is a neccessity, and that there was once sheer nothingness, no time, no matter. But what would set this in motion? the non "existing" isness that is "god"? Could god just be a plan or system of organization? a universal DNA esque thing?

Ive reached a point where my ideas cannot be translated into words. I am going to think these over...