(Click title above)
MATHEMATICAL GROUND OF BEING:
.
Re: The Augur’s Words --- see http://www.dailywritingtips.com/words-for-telling-the-future/;
http://redassmoderates.blogspot.com/2008/12/mathematical-ground-of-being.html.
.
Absolute Moral Imperative by which to escape moral irresolution: Pursue empathy for the ongoing Source of the good!
.
Free Thought Experiment:
Conceptualize a Mathematical System of interacting, algorithmic laws, such that, in respect of such System --- EXCEPTING That Which Creates And Animates Such System ---such laws are: complete, consistent, continuous, consecutive, connected, competitive, cooperative, cohesive, coherent, and constant. That is, the laws interact in respect of controlling (finite) parameters, even though their number of possible permutations may be infinite (unbounded).
Now imagine “YOU” (a somehow conscious identity of indiscernibles), in appreciation of such system, could choose or be coaxed to “individualize yourself” by “jumping into” and making yourself mortally subject to such mix of laws. Regardless of “where,” “when,” or how often you jumped into the fray, you would perceive yourself as the central, mortal protagonist. All other protagonists you therein perceived as accompanying you would also perceive, and be perceived, as being subject to the same system of laws to which you thus became subject --- even though each may experience a unique perspective.
The being’ness of each would be interdependent upon, and empathetic of, laws motivating all. The very existence of each perspective of such system would be contingent upon that Potentate which potentialized, created, and animated that which avails the perspectives of all.
While accepting mortal subjectivity to such system (i.e., declining suicide), no subject thereto could comprehend the Potentate --- which authors and remains exceptional to such system.
On the other hand, howsoever the Potentate may comprehend each such mortal, such comprehension may consist, or be mathematically leveraged, in ways or means beyond the system availed to its mortalized participants.
Yet, conscious empathy may accompany all, in “mathematics directly intuited” --- beyond illusions of physicality. In humble, mutual awe of such Potentate, meaningful competition and cooperation may be inspired among all --- in symbols and signs of “physics” --- regardless of whether more specifically articulated in words reaching to transcend illusions of physics.
The superior, moral, and meta-meaning would be in empathy, suggesting our self-chosen illusion of freedom in individuality is valued enough to be worth its price.
.
Neither "space" nor "time" exist independently in themselves, and "space-time" is more a construct for calculational purposes than a physical thing that can actually be grided or sensed in any absolute sense.
Thus, any effort by a particular form or state of being to relate its sensations in respect of either space or time to space-time becomes inherently and ambiguously unstable, dependent upon frame of perspective and mind state of purpose.
Thus, regardless of where in space or when in time Consciousness may interpret or sense itself in relation to any frame of reference, space-time will not present to its range of senses, however augmented, as an unambiguous void.
No particular perspective of Consciousness that is self aware will ever be presented with any unambiguous sensation of approaching a pure void. Rather, all will experience and sense themselves as being surrounded by “physics.”
.
I conceive that the real “Ground of Being” is not constituted in fields of physics, but in fields of math.
Imagine a mathematical niche that has no independent reality in itself, but finds expression only in derivation from a “Mind-for-Math” (God).
Every perspective of consciousness of Mind-for-Math that happens to find expression in respect of such niche shares its niche with every other such perspective.
None of these perspectives exists “physically” apart from their mathematical niche, which functions as their shared universe, even though such universe has no independent reality in itself. Because physicality is not real in itself, neither are space, time, matter, or energy.
Rather, our separate perspectives are “real” only in derivative respect of a capacity of Mind-of-Math to compartmentalize consciousness of mathematical perspectives of matrixed sequences. (Of whether God keeps meta-time, meta-chronology, or meta-learning, what particular perspective can conceit to speak?) Among themselves, perspectives do not reconcile any independent, physical reality, but only a shared mathematical reality, which is availed by “grace” of Mind-for Math.
Every particular “perspective” (whether conscious, subconscious, unconscious, recording, sensate, reactive, or emerging) must experience the derivative (illusory) “physicality” of its experiences as being consistent with the mathematical rules it happens to share with other perspectives.
For each such perspective to obey and relate consistently to the mathematical parameters which happen to be shared among perspectives made to seem to occupy separate physical loci, the mathematical rules must avail differential marking (broken symmetry) among loci (space-time). Each perspective must relate consistently to the mathematical universe being shared, even as it experiences relative differentiation (in kinds and degrees) from its perspective. Each, in respect of its own relative locus of perspective, must reconcile parameters for the commonality (whole) with the differentiation (parts).
Such parameter-reconciliation (between wholes and parts, field-waves and particles) entails a differentially stretched experience or relational interpretation, by each perspective, of the sum of the “physics” of all others. This entails that each perspective will experience all others as aging at different, albeit reconcilable, rates. Thus, each perspective will experience its own chronological reconciliation.
At collapsed loci (points of shared intersection), interpretations of sequences of events will be shared. Among non-intersecting perspectives, sequences need not necessarily be interpreted as having occurred in the same order. After all, “physical events” do not independently exist in themselves, but only in virtue of their having collapsed to the measurement of some “perspective” (whether of consciousness or unconsciousness).
Perhaps, the “Twin Paradox” of Relativity is “resolvable” in respect that each twin’s derivative experience of collapsed physicality (aka, “mathematical field of reference”) never intersects in exact completeness with that of the other twin; rather, their experiences intersect only in partiality, which synchronously and continuously necessitates mathematical recalibration and reconciliation.
Neither twin has a “real age,” nor a “real physicality.” Rather, each is an experience of a different perspective of the consciousness of a Mind-for-Math. In respect of fundamental rules of math that are assigned or associated to each perspective, each twin will only interpret his/her apparent age, relatively.
Each twin will happen to share in an encompassing field of math, in respect of which each one’s experiences are synchronized. In respect of such common frame of mathematical reference, one twin will be interpreted, in relation to movements of the other, to have traversed more of that which translates into aging.
Thus, “I,” as a perspective of consciousness, lack reality independent of God. I have free will and moral worth, but only derivative of the grace and will of God. Even though we are derivative of the one Will-to-Math, or, perhaps because we are so derivative, I can empathize in moral respect of the pleasure, pain, motives, rationalizations, and awe of my fellow perspectives.
Holistically, during the tenure of a “universe of math,” the rules of math for the “physics” that are fundamental to such universe need not change. However, particular chronological perspectives of such rules do change, even “die.”
What would be our condition, were we ever to receive access, at will, to all the fundamental rules of our mathematical field of existence (as well as, perhaps, to all their implications)? Would our Ground of Being be dead? Or alive?
.
“THE WORLD”:
To the extent Consciousness is superior to physics, it cannot be completely explained in terms of physics. And, to the extent Consciousness has capacity to identify or split in respect of different compartments or perspectives of illusions of physics, it cannot be completely explained in terms of one particular perspective of physics.
A particular mortal perspective cannot communicate or represent its perspective of consciousness or of physics or of “the world” to any other perspective, except in trivial or incomplete and figurative terms of personal emotional content.
By establishing and acting in respect of each intersecting relationship of communication, each participant, sequencing in time and space, can get an intuitive or “empathetic flavor” for the other’s emotional experience.
But, there is no “real world” or “physical existence” or “particulate reality” or “experience of consciousness” that could be represented or signified between them because (1) to begin with, there is no “world” or “physical existence” that exists in itself, and (2) each perspective, to the extent it has been conceptualized to be different, is, by definition, different.
Excepting communication of tautologies, trivialities, and commonly governing mathematical relationships, we do not communicate External Content about “the world” to one another. Rather, by our verbal acts for attempting communication, we only act out our imprecise, emotional, empathetic, Internal Content (“feelings”) --- which does not diminish “communication” of intuitive, empathetic, non-trivial values that are possible between us.
While we cannot communicate “the world” between us, we can work together to discover measureable laws that limit the system of mathematical functions and parameters with which our perspectives in common participate and press their “wills.” That is, we can discover, “bookmark,” measure, and communicate the relationships that govern the system of mathematics with which each of our perspectives happens to have become identified.
Regardless, to discover such mathematical laws that may in common govern our illusory experiences of “physics” is not to discover or communicate any actual physical thing or “particle” that really exists in any common “world.”
Even the mathematical laws that we do share in common only “exist” derivative of a truism: That this is the mathematical system our separate perspectives of consciousness, for whatever reason beyond discernment in physics, “just happen” to have in common come to identify with and interact with.
.
.
Challenge to Logical Positivists --- coordinate consistent, non-trivial definitions for: morality; alive; conscious; physical; random; evolution; existent; nothingness.
Bottom line intuition: That which is most morally meaningful or inspiring cannot be expressed apart from metaphor or free of logical ambiguity. This is because Our Ground of Being may be mathematical, for which the Source exists not in independent physics, but in an ambiguous, metaphysical “Mind of God.” This often frustrates those who wish to learn how to be God, but less so those who stand in awe of God. Among them, for scientists, moralists, and poets, there need be little frustration.
********************
Quotes by Max Planck:
Religion belongs to that realm that is inviolable before the law of causation and therefore is closed to science.
The history of all times and nations teaches us that exactly in the naïve, unshakable belief, furnished by religion in active life of believers, originate the most intense motives for the most significant creative performance, not only in the field of arts and sciences but also in politics.
Under these conditions it is no wonder, that the movement of atheists (Gottlosenbewegung), which declares religion to be just a deliberate illusion, invented by power-seeking priests, and which has for the pious belief in a higher power nothing but words of mockery, eagerly makes use of progressive scientific knowledge and in a presumed unity with it, expands in an ever-faster pace its disintegrating action on all nations of the earth and on all social levels. I do not need to explain in any more detail that after its victory not only all the most precious treasures of our culture would vanish, but -- which is even worse -- also any prospects at a better future.
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
*****
As John Scotus Erigena put it to Frankish king Charles the Bald in the year 840 A.D., "We do not know what God is. God himself doesn't know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."
******
MIND OF GOD: Leibniz had arrived at a radically different understanding of the universe and the things found in it. According to his Monadology, all things that humans ordinarily understand as interactions between individuals and all things that humans ordinarily understand as relations among individuals (such as their relative positions in space and time) have their being in the mind of God but not in the Universe where we perceive them to be.
*******
Matter, energy, space and time are made manifest, interdependent, interrelation-al, perceived by awareness’s, and harmonized within limits made manifest in rules of inertia. We seem unable to know, in a direct perceptual sense, whether such harmonization of manifestations exists independently, or whether it is “caused” by some kind of un-seeable, metaphysical mush, beyond our abilities to scientifically measure or predict. But, we can, and do, sense identity, animation, drive, spirit. We cannot exist without experiencing purpose. In so sensing, we “know” we have moral goals; that there is more to existence than directly meets our abilities to see, hear, feel, smell, or taste. So sensing, it seems not a great leap to intuit, envision, or receive revelations regarding, a more perfect, guiding, harmonizing, comforting spirit. That spiritual “oneness” is what Jesus melded into.
******
Perhaps the “real distance” between my compartmentalized perspective of Will and yours may be nothing more than such imagery as is required in order for each of us to resonate in respect of an “anthropic illusion” of separateness of experience of the other.
Each preserves his experience of separateness of identity or perspective only so long as every aspect of his “physicality” coordinates in resonating respect of such illusion.
******
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4287680.html?series=60:
"The first real AI would be something that we don't even understand," says Wright, "because we didn't program it. It will be more dissimilar in the way it thinks, than we are to a mouse."
******
See also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZj9Qps8H6M;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8Aurpr68uE;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg5us8isW7M;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnvM_YAwX4I;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG9FO7JGWq4;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dq454iFp2c;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6D6gO6CGdU;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny3GBVbh8hg;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzMEAkI-yrQ;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgg2tpUVbXQ;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9feXeL-3XA;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrMVous0Ac;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCkCMcEs5dw.
12 comments:
Interesting response from Ranger Joe, snipped from http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/false_pride_and_the_liberal_im.html:
Dlanor....thanks for the acknowledgement. Made my day! The links you provided are nothing short of amazing. All have been favorited. Great reading for my Saturday as I watch the 'Army-Navy' game. An old buddy of mine was an SDS agitator back in the day (still an immature delusional commie-zombie at 60) and we used to have some 'heavy' conversations whilst in our cups. His wild-eyed evangelical zeal was persuasive to this befogged mush brain. I remember him morphing Descarte's elegant "I think therefore I am" into "I think I think therefore I think I am"....a clever Marxist/Chomsky mind trick to discombabulate the already muddled thinking of a smarty pants know-it-all 19 yr old pseudo-intellectual goofball. A perverted subversion of the fundamental God given affirmation of the self by subtly re-programming the inner dialogue....our precious malleable description of the world. In Emerson's sage words: "Life consists of what a man is thinking all day long." The lovely inspirational sweet whispering within gets shouted down by the absurd distorted nonsense of manipulative agenda driven sub-human bastards.
We are ....in truth....self-defining energy beings on an inter-dimensional pilgrimage. These revelations have guided our greatest scientists to deep profound transformational revelations about the mysterious laws of nature. Newton humbly dedicated his 'Principia Mathematica' to the search for evidence of God in nature.... his simple math proving you can keep a 200 ton space station in orbit indefinitely with enough energy.
The academic left deliberately exploits the rebellious insecure doubt of the young....then fill the donut hole with their weird irrational empty calories of Marxist/Atheistic hedonistic BS. Listen to the seductive music of the Dark Side children....let us define you. Be the defiant Hollywood scripted existential anti-hero who believes in jack-squat nothing....like Bill Ayers' smarmy mug-shot. Pssst....dude....'God is dead - everything's permitted!'....YEEEHAAAA! Rehab or an early grave here we come! It's like opening an innocent friendly appearing e-mail from the global gangster network and letting loose an insidious all consuming virus that enslaves your computer for their ends. Hey....I'm a dumb kid....if you don't know any better....you don't know any better. Easy effortless pickings are on the sapling's low hanging branches.
It brings to mind Planck's statement that minds aren't changed by strong persuasion....the old obsolete minds must die out and be replaced by the new ideas. Coincidentally....the long term strategy of the Marxist death cult. Impatient Lenin....however....hastened the dialectic process with mass starvation and firing squads. Someone once said that one generation's heresy is the next generation's dogma. (Hans and Franz said: "Hear me now....believe me later.") Your noble references are flaming arrows for the Socratic/Rabbinical educational dialogue with angst ridden self loathing 19 yr old knotheads. Set their flimsy wooden brain-walls aflame with logical critical thinking that they unleash upon themselves. As Max averred....the universal mind of God dwells deep in our personal cellular connection to the sub-atomic quantum energy field within! It's why the observer's observing paradoxically changes the experiment. The truth is shy and elusive.
Give the young the precious cerebral skills to self-purge the surreal toxic cultural crap magnetically adhering like pond scum to their vulnerable psyches! Their reward is a solid comfortable secure fresh sense of self....the golden gift of genuine faith and belief. Planck stated that every scientific researcher should have 'Have Faith' emblazoned above the doorways to their labs....like a cross above a monk's cell. Planck's lesson for achieving mental health is that we are awash in generous spiritual treasure by the simple virtue of just being here and being conscious of that miraculous fact....most still choose addictive secular sparkly tacky bling-bling distractions for meaning. Rant over.
God Bless ya! A pleasure communing with you. Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Divad,
You missed the word play and poetry! :)
But, then, one man's poetry is another man's pee pee.
"Newton was actually pretty silly as an alchemist (lead to gold); I'll bet your friend didn't know that."
Nah, that's common knowledge in this day of cable tv.
I thought the Planck reference was interesting insofar as (confess!) everyone leans on ad hominem arguments.
When Planck says something, regardless of whether you agree, you are less likely to credit it as the raving of a fool. (Not to mention the number of atheists who take pride in the number of Nobel prize winners who take pride in asserting their atheism.)
"Does it really add value to their cause?"
Define value. Scientific value, no. Poetic value, maybe. Social value, I think so.
It helps inspire civilizing cooperation when citizens share bases and beliefs about what endeavors are valuable.
No matter whether a moral basis is conceived to be "God" or "the greater good for all" or the "biggest and longest high," it is not going to be empirically measurable or logically proveable.
So, do you believe in poetry?
"he seems to think an atheist must be left-leaning and is subverting future generations"
Maybe. But, from reading other of his posts, I suspect he likes atheistic social conservators of traditional family values. (Personally, a vaunted atheist who defends civilizing values is enough of a "believer," at least to my satisfaction, notwithstanding protests to the contrary. If he believed in nothing, on what basis does he verbalize in defense of civilization?) (BTW -- do you know you are an atheist, or only believe you are? :))
I think "Ranger Joe" only abhors the militant so-called atheists ("sub-human bastards," in his vernacular) who want to normalize everything by insulting and burning away all boundaries of civilizing decency.
"In my world, God has nothing to do with what's permitted (self responsibilty)."
That can work, so long as one has no desire (or emotional investment) to assist in the continuation of civilization (basis for assimilating shared values). To me, "God" is that basis ... whatever that basis is.
CUT TO THE CHASE --- here is what I found fascinating: Planck seemed to believe particles (physicality) have no reality in themselves, but that their reality is derivative of a physical-less "matrix" --- sort of like being derivative of nothing more than mathematics. That is, something like a "Higgs Boson" may consist only in a mathematical equation. The "God particle" may just be a trace of Mind-of-Math, "thinking" in math functions.
Obviously, that is not subject to empirical testing. Apart from empiricism, I remain unsure whether such a notion may, in any consistent way, be modeled in math. But, neither will any postulation of any scientist who tries to model ultimate reality ever be subject to empirical confirmation or completely satisfactory modeling.
Either way, we have no choice but to make choices, which we may rationalize after the fact --- even though the basis for our moral rationalization will never be completely satisfactory, either in empiricism or in math.
I suspect you have as much taste for word play as I have for math play. Either way, "the (symbolic) play is the thing." (I inserted "symbolic" because "physics" does not really exist. :))
Cheers!
THINKING MAKES IT SO:
Hamlet Act 2, scene 2, 239–251 :
Why then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or
bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.
QUESTION: Of what are separate perspectives of consciousness derived?
HOLISM is myself subsumed into all of Being’ness.
HOLOGRAPHY is what I sense of the rest of Being’ness, APART from my perspective of myself.
Each perspective of holography, being apart from holism, is incomplete, made so by its own definition.
Being incomplete, each perspective is necessarily less than entirely consistent and coherent, but flits from focus to focus, collapsing perspectives, but not reality.
I do not “approach” Holistic God.
I merely relate to God from different flits of perspective, in respect of differently sequencing metaphors, models, and holographies.
One can choose to look at one’s place in the universe in indifference, or in awe.
If in awe, one can look in fear or love, or at evil or good.
One may choose to interpret as if all of experience were evil, mostly evil, evenly evil and good, mostly good, or all good.
When one interprets goodness, one may ask: Goodness in respect of WHAT?
To considerable extent, one’s conscious choice of attitude carries self-fulfilling properties.
Thinkers may unite to facilitate civilization;
Or, Anti-Thinkers will unite to impose anti-civilization.
Thinkers need not instigate crusades, for crusades will come to them, as Anti-Thinkers, subordinate to Mind-Slavers, instigate anti-crusades. Had Charles the Hammer not withstood the Moors, free thinking had been annihilated.
Except derivative of mathematical choice, physics does not exist.
Except in derivation of Nothingness, Somethingness does not exist.
Except in derivation of Somethingness, Nothingness does not exist.
We have no choice (“un-choice”) but to make choices.
Ommmmm.
R.I.P.:
Why does life seem so complex and demanding, as if to deal everyone a “cross as big as he/she can carry?” There seems to be a tendency for those whose wills care in the same orders of magnitude to share in companionship, cooperation, and competition in such a way that their present CARES will always closely balance with their then CAPABILITIES. Our interpersonal interactions seem to excite expectations high enough to keep us caring to peak capacity. The more one cares, the longer, harder, and faster one runs in order to compete with like minds. R.I.P.?
FIGURATIVE POINTS OF VIEW:
Being’ness cannot take a point of view of itself, except by abstracting its point of view from itself. And when IT does, what IT perceives from such point of view will be less than what Being’ness really is, insofar as no point of view can fully view itself (because every partial view of itself simultaneously changes itself).
Every point of view will be limited in respect of how it is abstracted, in order to perceive (figuratively) the now less than whole that remains of Being’ness. And so, Being’ness comes to “navel-gaze” at itself through a mathematically abstracted infinity of possible perspectives.
Question: Apart from each separate perspective, may Being’ness, as a whole, enjoy a meta-perspective that encompasses and subsumes all separate perspectives or points of view, thus allowing IT to manipulate different perspectives into experential states of existence that are derivative of ITself? IF so, then Being’ness may as well be considered to be “God.”
Regardless, so long as we are alive and separate, we can neither know, nor avoid believing, doubting, and acting --- as if in an ambiguous “limbo.”
See comment at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/worshipping_the_weather.html:
Except in self-conceit, how can one "reasonably know" of one's Will to withhold belief in one's moral responsibility (personal freedom), while any less "knowing" the Source of Will by which to withhold it?
Except in self-deceit, how can one reasonably "solve" personal responsibility for one's choices by banishing God and punting to Leviathan Collectivism (Socialism or Sharia)?
"Luke, look to The Force" (the still, quiet voice).
Don't mistake "Weather Theology" (or any other Collectivist Orthodoxy) for individual responsibility to pursue the True Source of Empathy (aka "God").
Comment on http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/worshipping_the_weather.html:
TO Elcapt (“As an atheist, I reject all forms of mysticism ….”)
Well, as an atheist, do you accept forms for choosing how you should live your life? Surely, you do not require a complete empirical analysis before undertaking each and every move. Rather, you no doubt often rely on tried and true habits, rituals, unspoken (perhaps even unconscious) beliefs.
Obviously, it is important to your sense of self for you to consider yourself an atheist. So, I mean no disrespect and I do not begrudge that. Nor do I consider you any less good on account of the way you prefer to label yourself.
Likewise, I hope you do not begrudge me if I consider that, from my way of thinking, you are likely “less atheistic” than perhaps you think you are. (I certainly do not begrudge you for considering that my theistic preference is flawed.)
I suspect many may consider “religion” as consisting in such organized or orthodox dogma, methods, and/or rituals as are intended to help us appreciate how we should, without being forced (except in respect of law), go about living our lives in respect of a higher Source of purposefulness. (Under that (my) definition, a code for justifying Islamofascism would be less a “religion” than a mind-enslaving virus.)
********
TO bipolar2:
Regardless of whatever may be my preferred definition, are you recommending some sort of historical definition for “religion” (or “institutional religion”) that was in use and intended at the time the founders of our Constitution wrote the “free exercise” and “establishment” clauses for our Bill of Rights?
If so, do definitions for our Constituton “live” (and slide?) for justifying the reigning in of rights to bear “arms,” but not for the reigning in of “religious practices” that amount to crime, sedition, outrageous forms of forced mind-enslavement, or non-scientific attacks on expressions of traditional religious rites and values?
But, do not preachers of Global Warming and of codes of Secular Humanism intend to relate dogma and/or rituals, in order to help us appreciate how we should, regardless of law (or science), go about living our lives in respect of a higher Source of purposefulness? I doubt (?) you would advocate that new (i.e., non institutional) religions must be favored, so that the government CAN establish them.
Do not advocates for Atheism, when they attack specific religions, often confuse and mix empiricism to argue against that which is mainly meant figuratively (non-literally)? To argue sensibly against religious metaphors, must not Atheists argue based on their own metaphors for denying a Source for how we should go about living our lives? In resorting to non-empirical based metaphors for arguing against a Source of moral purposefulness, are they not making religious-like arguments against the specific religion they are attacking? Were they to argue that we should not seek to respect a higher Source of purposefulness, would they not be invoking their own religious, non-scientific, faith-based “shoulds” and “purposes”? How, then, are they not being “religious”?
To the extent preachers of Warm’ism, Humanism, and Anti-Religion’ism base their arguments more in faith than in empiricism, why should such preachers have preferred place in schooling over, say, study of platonic notions of God?
Is the difference in treatment to be attributed to ignorance, principle, or power? If only to power, why should we “up with it put”?
If physics, space, and time do not really exist, in themselves, except as illusions derivative of Something Else, then what is that Synchronizing Source (God?), in respect of which a common illusion is presented to us that we have sequenced ("evolved") out of space and time into existential Consciousness?
Charles Gordon ("What is absent from nature is justice.")
I think I take your point. You focus on justice; Lonnie focuses on reason. Your reasoning does not seem inconsistent with Lonnie's.
Regardless, I personally do not believe "pure justice-less nature" exists (at least, not in any meaningful sense).
Rather, I think nature exists and morphs only derivative of Something that is beyond nature, even beyond mathematical nature. I doubt Mathematically Consistent Nature should reasonably be said to exist, absent a Mathematician. My dualistic beliefs tend to lean in that respect.
I think you are saying "God" can make sense for us, even if "physics" does have some "non-illusory reality" (apart from pure mathematical conception in some Higher Mind). Your dualistic belief system seems to be in respect of a (1) physical universe which (2) includes conscious beings, while holding open a possibility that there may be other physical universes which may not afford a possibility for conscious beings. (Perhaps you believe there "really" may be a Higgs particle [God-particle], as opposed merely to a Higgs mathematical function?)
I don't tend to qualify my concept of dualism in that way, but I don't (yet) see any need to form a strong belief about that, either way. I guess our dualistic beliefs are dual. :).
Either way, for purposes of reason, justice, morality, civilization, or even herd-cooperation, "God" seems vital --- even if only appreciated on a dumb or unconscious level. Even a dog can know the difference between being kicked versus being tripped over.
I don't want to overstay Larrey's piece (or patience). If you care to explore this further, feel free to email me, at Dlanorrenrag@yahoo.com (though I may be traveling).
Best regards.
Ron.
Comment at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/worshipping_the_weather.html:
Laughing Man ("worshiping the Earth makes more sense than most. We are here in fact because it exists, and without it we die"):
Earth is constantly changing, absorbing meteorites, cosmic rays, subducting and erupting lava, facilitating new viruses, bacteria, bugs, technologies. In the not so distant future, challenges to earth will overwhelm human forms of intelligent consciousness. That is, if consciousness does not stay ahead of the curveballs that will challenge it.
Paganism did not usher us to nearly the explosion in intelligence as did Monotheism, particularly Christianity. If you define "sense" as unintelligent stasis, be happy with your Paganism. I prefer to think of "sense" as entailing a dance with a higher, pushing Consciousness, in ever-pursuit of new perspectives of meaning. The destiny of sense-consciousness is the stars --- and beyond. But you can get back to your dirt. Ho ho!
See --- http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/the_greatest_book_ever_written.html.
Comment at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/the_greatest_book_ever_written.html:
In the beginning was the Word.
But the symbolic value of "the word" seems also always to have held mathematical values.
Perhaps, the very ground of our "physical being" consists in "nothing but" interrelations among pure words, i.e., mathematics.
MATHEMATICAL GROUND OF PHYSICAL BEINGNESS:
The wave pattern of the ring of a bell exists and is sensed by all manner of sentient, sensate, reactive, recording, and receptive beings.
Yet, the ring does not produce itself nor is its existence independent in itself.
Rather, it is dependent and derivative of the relatively sensed motion of a bell hood and a clapper.
Remove either of those and the ring also is removed.
May not all of physics be conceptualized or reduced to patterns of waves?
Yet, are not all waves comparable to the ring of a bell?
In itself, what wave has independent existence?
Indeed, does Anything have independent existence, from which all of dependently reactive physics is derivative?
If so, in relation to IT, must not all of reactive physics reduce to nothing but (“nothing buttery”) non-physical, reacting, algorithms of mathematics?
Might IT be the Agent in respect of which particular reactions of algorithms happen to be “imagined, designed, or synchronized” to react?
Must such Agent be unknowable to reactive proof, but only felt or experienced in Direct Intuition?
Must even the Denier and the Doubter, by his actions, affirm such intuition, without which his perspective of Beingness could not even exist?
Perhaps we may not “know,” one way or the other.
If so, do not both the advocates of literalistic, fundamental religion and of atheism seem equally hilarious?
Without an Author of the words and mathematics in respect of which our "physics" seems to emerge, what would "exist"? Do words and math implicate an Author who is a Mathematician? I believe so. Yet, while one remains self-defined to deny any such implication, by such self-definition, mere piling on of more words and math will not necessarily persuade his formal consciousness that the mere existence of words and math, being in themselves incomplete, implicate an Author.
When a (Big Opportunity) system of mathematical laws reaches a sequence for being no longer amenable of supporting communications of histories among independent forms of self-awareness or of preserving such forms of self awareness, its “reason for being” may collapse like a Big Deflation (thus “physics” may only seem to collapse like a Big Crunch), and particular forms of self awareness may “wink out,” until they are again potentialized by a Mind Potentate.
The “time” in betweena Big Deflation and the next big Opportunity, to the extent unrecorded, may as well be the wink of an eye.
The eventual contraction (Big Deflation) of the illusionary physical universe may have less to do with laws relating to appearances of gravity than with laws of the system of mathematics no longer inspiring participation among perspectives of consciousness.
Leading up to such in-between “down time,” all consciousness may collapse towards an identity of multitudinous indiscernibles, into a single holistic Identity-Potentate.
Thus, a Big Sleep, until the next Big Opportunity knocks.
Post a Comment