posted November 03, 2007 11:12 PM              

the holistic view is that
"the whole is greater than the sum of its parts"...
this is the synergistic view that supports the idea that things
like consciousness and self awareness
are 'emergent' properties of complex systems.....
and can never be determined entirely by genetics and environment....

this was never considered by spinoza when
he concluded that a pantheistic God
would not have any conciousness....

posted November 04, 2007 12:13 AM            

Technically everyone is always travelling together in time. And an object such as earth is not travelling around the sun in smooth space around the earth, but in a space-time warp (bend) due to gravity. If some one was to bake a cake in those areas, a cross section of it won't be perfect circle so to speak

The way our mind is supposed to perceive is that babies comes out first, becomes a toddler, becomes an adult, dies and then returns to grave and time continues to exist.

You are right big bang is the cosmology model of the universe and all theories must explain it. I mean every one knew in the early mid 19th century and even when hubble discovered much later that the universe is expanding. But what shocked me and a majority of the science community around 1998 was the extent of the expansion. Our universe seems to be expanding at a very very fast rate.

Dark energy seems to be supplying the necessary pressure.

I really admire Einsteins original brain. It seems scientists are going back and trying to play with his cosmological constant. Einstein was leaning towards the idea of a cyclical universe. He personally believed in an deterministic underlying priciple. BTW the hindus scriptures have said the same and Carl Sagan quoted from it. However its interesting to note that more and more scientists are not content with there just being one universe out there. Is there absoloutely only two universe as the below link suggests?

More than one Universe makes sense. This universe will expand forever and become empty at one time. This is what all observations are hinting at.
Even Hawking finally postulated that all matters that a black hole sucks appears in an parallel universe.
http://www.physorg.com/news68731082.html

quote:

---

But what if the universe is much older than it appears? Professors Paul Steinhardt (Princeton University) and Neil Turok (Cambridge University) have come up with a novel solution that gives the cosmological constant time to decay to its required value. Resurrecting a ghost of the cyclical universe, they propose that our universe is one of two embedded in the eleven-dimensional space of string theory.

The two universes are linked with a spring-like attraction, and so pass through each other (moving along one of the higher dimensions) periodically. Every time they interact, enormous energies are released and both universes fill with hot plasma—a new Big Bang. There is no Big Crunch, as both universes are constantly expanding. A trillion years or so after one Big Bang, when the universe is practically empty, another Big Bang occurs and the stars and galaxies can form once more.

The underlying cosmological constant, however, is unaffected by this process and has all the time it needs to decay to a small value. Eventually stars and galaxies will have time to form, and the same will be true of every subsequent cycle. In this modern version of the old cyclical model, the coincidence is resolved because only a few cycles are required for the cosmological constant to decay. The number of star-producing cycles following the decay, however, is practically infinite.

Either way, it is clear that our perspective has changed. A single universe is no longer satisfying, given the most unlikely nature of our own. To explain our existence, it seems we must imagine others.

---

All philosophical impact is for a later discussion. But a quick note on time travel implications. Its forbidden by scientists that allows a person to appear in two places at the same time. Its forbidden because they must travel at an infinitely large speed for that to happen. And yet the stories in NT about Jesus and even stories of Krishna talks about how how they appeared to their disciples in such a manner. Hmmmm interesting.

So are you imagining time to be a straight line (one dimension) and with a direction?

Cheers.

posted November 04, 2007 12:22 AM            

Heheh yes the veil opens to the other universe perhaps. Is this universe the same as the one these scientists are speaking of? May be may be not.

I am not supposed to say all this because I think words cannot describe it. And there are some people who misunderstand you anyways.

posted November 04, 2007 12:27 AM              

Who/what dies?

posted November 04, 2007 12:28 AM              

quote:

---

I'm tired of life!

---

That's one of the best places you'll ever be.

posted November 04, 2007 12:30 AM            

Heh 26T take it easy. No one dies really. We are all immortal.

posted November 04, 2007 12:54 AM              

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>in order to try and prove
>>>>jesus's pet theory.....
This seems tacked on,
just to imply another dig at my motives,
which you are in no position to judge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you said in the other post
that you believe jesus was trying to teach determinism....
he should have just come out and said it....

What you wrote is that I was
puposely distorting my thinking
so as to bring it in line with Christ's.

---

ha ha
thats not at all what i meant....
i dont believe jesus was teaching determinism..lol
i was saying the opposite
that you distort jesus's thinking
to bring it in line with yours

i just thought the idea
that jesus had a 'pet theory'
was pretty funny....:P

posted November 04, 2007 01:04 AM              

***********

"dearly beloved.....we are gathered here today for no reason....just a chain of atomic interactions over which even God has no control or purpose...."

posted November 04, 2007 08:38 AM            

Quite basic but it gets the point across.

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted November 04, 2007 09:45 AM            

HSC and I have debated Determinism/Necessarism/Fatalism at length.

We each came away knowing we do NOT share the same belief. In a mature sense, we each know our own faith and limitations while remaining respectful of one another.

My sense of humor may not please you but it will be understood by many

Is my laughter from God, from ego, or from finding joy in the interactions of others exploring our God and humanity?

Indeed, what causes one to bubble up in laughter?

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted November 04, 2007 10:12 AM            

quote:

---

Its purely from ego.

---

Perhaps.

There is no process that takes Us back to God (from a human experience), however, that exists without relating to the Ego. There is a little Godliness within that womb and from hence we may relate with the Great Angels of Love, Joy, Peace and many others.

posted November 04, 2007 10:23 AM            

Its purely from ego.

Is that assessment from God, your ego or from a joyous understanding of me ?

Do tell

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted November 04, 2007 11:37 AM              

I think that HSC does give a lot of food for thought. What he says is very much worth pondering over and discussing. Because he has given me a lot to think about.

Truthfully I admire those of you who are willing to take it on yourselves to ponder the mysteries of the universe. I personally can barely manage the little things in life.

Free will is such that the options or choices are always there. It is such that we do have the capacity within ourselves to change our lives and consequently the world. But the point that HSC has made in the past is a valid one. It kind of relates to Jesus' words that " the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." Do all of us really have the capability to exercise our free will?

These are points that I feel that HSC has tried to make. And I feel they are very valid points.

Lets take it from that point and exercise those thoughts. Not everyone has the inner capability to exercise their God given gift of free will. There are those people who are, through no fault of their own, born mentally challenged, handicapped from birth who do not really have the ability to form the thoughtful decisions that is required to exercise their free will of choice. Mainly because their choices are limited from birth. To even see what our choices are in order to exercise our free will we have to have the capacity to come to know what those choices are and then the ability to decide and follow through on it.

Depression itself in people born with normal and even above normal intelligence is crippling when it comes to exercising our free will due to it interfering with our seeing those options and choices and even when we do see them, depression can kind of freeze us to the point that we cannot gather up the will or strength to follow through and take the risks involved to change our lives or even move at all.

I have been there in my life when I was crippled due to depression and immobile from it. Frozen in time is a good way to describe depression I think. So what about those people who have mental problems such as bi-polarism and other illnesses that cause bouts of severe depression? Can they always exercise their free will? Well, not if the depression colors their world view and they don't even see the choices they might have coupled with the inability to even make the effort.

Haven't we all been there at one time or another in our lives?

So what about those people who plain don't have the inner ability due to no fault of their own but genetic inabilities? Cause face it. There is a lot of energy firings and transmitters in the human brain and any misfirings can create problems with our inability to reason, see our options in life and then make a choice and follow through on it.

So in summation my question is do we really all have the capability to exercise our God given gift of Free Will?

Also, just my thought on this, God has WILL. It is only humans who have free will. Our will is not at all the same as the WILL of God. It is the WILL of God that keeps everything in the universe in existance including us. Our free will is very limited in light of God WILL.

posted November 04, 2007 11:45 AM              

quote:

---

I doubt all cosmologists agree on anything.
Of course, anyone who doesnt want to be
laughed out of the Popular Science club
is going to pay lip-service to the theory of the day.
Then there is the proverbial scarcity
of truly original thinkers
working within the mainstream academia.
When you don't stay inside the lines,
you tend to end up in the margins.

---

you're right ....i should preface that by saying....all cosmologists who work within the severe limits of logic and materialistic science agree.....
that the physical universe can be extended back in time to a point where the laws that govern particle interactions begins.....
but you are the one here who is within the mainstream of academic thought, which is evidenced by the great number of mainstream thinkers you quote.....
determinism is obviously the status quo........

quote:

---

Determinists speak of "causes and effects"
for the sake of convenience;

---

how convenient....since this is the entirety of your whole argument, that everything is caused by a prior reason.....
which makes these statements quite illogical....

quote:

---

I see God as the First Cause. That is all.

I cannot say that there was a first domino -
it seems likely they've been falling for eternity.

---

huh!!??

quote:

---

Whatever does or does not break down at point zero,
has no bearing on eternity.

---

time breaking down at point zero has no bearing on eternity?
and no bearing on the physical laws of particle interactions
on which your entire mechanistic theory rests?

quote:

---

:Stephen Hawking was originally a believer in the Theory of Everything but, after considering Gödel's Theorem, concluded that one was not obtainable.

“Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind."—Stephen Hawking, Gödel and the end of physics, July 20, 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

Again, this only agrees with my position.
I'm just surprised it took Hawking so long to figure it out.

---

this refutes your position....as stated in the following....

quote:

---

The bottom line is,
if you want to refute determinism,
you really have to renounce reason

Before determinism can be refuted,
you must first refute math and science,
and not just their past forms;
but then you are in the business
of refuting pure reason.
Good luck with that.

---

thats precisely what godel did....was show the severe limitations of your so-called 'self-consistent logic'

as in this statement

quote:

---

although the All cannot be subject
to anything above and beyond itself,
it is nevertheless constrained by an internal logic

---

it is illogical for the ALL to be constrained by internal logic....or it will be incomplete or inconsistent, either of which will be fatal to your theory......
if it is incomplete, it is not the ALL
if it is inconsistent, it is not determined...

quote:

---

Remember that I am using words like
"need" and "sense of itself"
in the abstract,
and not as they appear in everyday usage.
The ancients viewed Nature alive,
evincing a life not identical, but analogous,
to the life experienced by man.
They also had a healthy respect for poetic license.

---

i think the words you chose were quite clear, even to the untrained ear....
i also have a healthy respect for the ancients view that nature is alive....

>>quote:the cog is a microcosm....

quote:

---

And God is the macrocosm.
Thank you for making my point.

---

that has never been your point,
your analogy is a cog in a machine...

quote:

---

That's a matter of taste,
and I am inclined to agree with you.
But the analogy is essentially the same.
The fractal is not free,
but it is fun to look at.
Really, its just a shinier cog.

---

a microcosm is a reflection of the whole on a lesser level....
its nothing like a cog in a machine...
the fractal is free if the whole is free.....

you said this in a previous post

quote:

---

First things first. My first point is that man is not the cause.
Man is a finite entity, and therefore,
cannot be the transcendant reason for his own nature.

---

a microcosm is infinite, if the macrocosm is infinite
a fractal is infinite, in every one of its lower reflections
as mannu pointed out
there is a smaller infinity and a larger infinity

quote:

---

If, as you agreed,
there are no gaps between causes and effects,
how can there be gaps between man and his environment?
This should be your "ah ha" moment.
Carrying this a bit further,
how can there be gaps between Creation and Creator?

---

this is the point i was trying to cut thru to
from my very first question.....
because nothing can pre-determine the ALL
except itself.....
nothing.....

if you accept that man is a microcosm
then this should be your ah ha!! moment

posted November 04, 2007 12:12 PM              

It was later discoverd the young man suffered from a huge brain tumor on the frontal lobe of his brain. That is the area of the brain which governs our thinking processes, our reasoning abilities.

So this young man was not responsible for his actions even though those actions were horrible. Had he not had that very large brain tumor in the area it was located he probably would have not committed this act. This is another instance when Free will was most certainly restricted.

posted November 04, 2007 12:20 PM            

~ Albert Camus

posted November 04, 2007 12:23 PM              

or does that count as a purpose?