The nature of some things, so far as I see it

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Post Reply
Infinitemultiverse
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:50 pm

The nature of some things, so far as I see it

Post by Infinitemultiverse » Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:18 pm

I have studied deeply into many facets of our humanity, to discover little more than the thrill of discovery. To which end, I willingly accept any due diligence many of you may bring forth, as to the validity of my beliefs.

On god, as it could have been, may be, or can be. I do not disbelieve or believe per say. I only lack credible evidence, or see only such. So we should visit the bible. I see it as a collection of stories. Most, if not all, stories seem to become more amazing, even legendary, with time. The moral values contained in the bible are no doubt invaluable, or at least to those of us who are good of nature. Still, I see a collection of stories, transcribed after generations of word-of-mouth transference. That and, humans lie. Humans wrote the bible. Still, this does not explain my view of god. If god is real, in a sense relative to the bible, wouldn't he be a she? Creationism and empathy are hardly masculine attributes when you consider the feminine. Still, I see no valid proof that god exists, per factual evidence. Yet if I were to believe in such an entity, even such titles would do no justice. In originality, the deity would be the only one thing. Which of course begs the question, how did it get there? That is quite the quandary, as is this paragraph. Still, some form of creation would inevitably perpetuate. To create from nothing, even for a deity, would be theoretically impossible. Technically, the word describes the absence of all things, including observation or postulation. So the deity must create from itself. Which brings me to the other side of the coin, that means god is everything. I am still perplexed...

On physics. I have also studied to the very edge of modern advancement. When I look at any given material, I see chemicals. Chemicals composed of atoms, structured by quarks, of course followed by what I would imagine, an endless rabbit hole of similar yet different counterparts. Of course then there are the weightless photons, which cannot be. In order for any force to exert itself on another, it must have substance, which is dictated by mass. We shouldn't visit upon dark matter, not for its possible exception, but because that is something I do not wish to discuss. Which leads to the macro scale of the matter, our solar system and it's curiously similar appearance. I think it could be macro neon, or a few higher, of course forced into horizontal rotation by the nearest, greatest mass.

On psychology. I love this bit, it is essentially the understanding of oneself, or one human. Conscious and subconscious mind. I have lowered my heart rate significantly by will alone. The same goes for body temperature, yet not so significantly there. These involuntary bodily systems can indeed be self manipulated. I believe it to be possible through the subconscious mind. Consciousness I believe to be the subordinate of our subconsciousness, not as the respective titles indicate. A naturally inflicted limitation on our ability to use and manipulate our bodies, to keep us from unintentionally harming ourselves. Very intriguing.

Other than the part on god, much of this is critically limited to less than 1% of my factual knowledge on the subjects. Still, they have been conferred.

One subject to rest upon. I have recently pondered the divergence from 'origin' as a concept. For simplicity, lets consider balance. Lets also assume that the directions of divergence would be light and dark. As the light becomes lighter, and the dark becomes darker, in respect to each-other, balance is lost in respect to its' originality. Balance would theoretically be retained by the opposing forces of light and dark, but that does not reflect 'origin' balance. As both fields of divergence are responding to one another, and not maintaining a balance without influence per the origin. Of course you could admit that if they could become divergent fields, then balance was always influenced. I would refer to the point (not vector) of origin, as undefined and simplified. This is obviously a re-visitation to the foundations of logic, but the implications were and are immense. Consider the fact that 'origin' has infinite fields of possible or actual divergence. Of course this is not the case in our universe, we do have many limitations. This would apply to god though, very curious concept. Very curious indeed.

This will likely be my only post. I will look into the responses certainly, but I cannot go too much into detail. To do so would inevitably divulge my thoughts on things like dark matter, social manipulation, and other things I really do not want anyone to have knowledge of unless gained themselves. To answer any question about the discover part of the intro. All I have learned has come with the burden of proof and potential application, which may require frequent re-visitation. Even though I may find some new interesting concept, and see it to resolution or past known human knowledge. The net financial, emotional, spiritual, or physical gain is completely mitigated by the burden. I only 'feel' the gain in the sense of the 'thrill of discovery', which may truly be phantasmal.

Thoughts anyone?

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The nature of some things, so far as I see it

Post by Russell Parr » Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:04 am

Hello Infinitemultiverse, thanks for stopping by. Sorry for the late response.
On god, as it could have been, may be, or can be. I do not disbelieve or believe per say. I only lack credible evidence, or see only such. So we should visit the bible. I see it as a collection of stories. Most, if not all, stories seem to become more amazing, even legendary, with time. The moral values contained in the bible are no doubt invaluable, or at least to those of us who are good of nature. Still, I see a collection of stories, transcribed after generations of word-of-mouth transference. That and, humans lie. Humans wrote the bible. Still, this does not explain my view of god. If god is real, in a sense relative to the bible, wouldn't he be a she? Creationism and empathy are hardly masculine attributes when you consider the feminine. Still, I see no valid proof that god exists, per factual evidence. Yet if I were to believe in such an entity, even such titles would do no justice. In originality, the deity would be the only one thing. Which of course begs the question, how did it get there? That is quite the quandary, as is this paragraph. Still, some form of creation would inevitably perpetuate. To create from nothing, even for a deity, would be theoretically impossible. Technically, the word describes the absence of all things, including observation or postulation. So the deity must create from itself. Which brings me to the other side of the coin, that means god is everything. I am still perplexed...
I would say there are both masculine and feminine versions of empathy and creationism. Masculine creationism results in new ideas and inventions, while the feminine counterpart creates emotional bonds and babies. Feminine empathy leads to shared emotions, while masculine empathy results in an understanding of the plight of others.

As for the existence of God, I invite you to consider the idea of an absolute, fundamental principle through which everything exists and operates, including God. This principle is "cause and effect". This would nullify any notion of a God having ultimate power over reality, as He necessarily depends on cause and effect for everything He does. Under this paradigm, the search for a deity as the source of "all things" is rendered pointless, because we now already know where everything comes from: Nature (which is comprised of cause and effect).
On physics. I have also studied to the very edge of modern advancement. When I look at any given material, I see chemicals. Chemicals composed of atoms, structured by quarks, of course followed by what I would imagine, an endless rabbit hole of similar yet different counterparts. Of course then there are the weightless photons, which cannot be. In order for any force to exert itself on another, it must have substance, which is dictated by mass. We shouldn't visit upon dark matter, not for its possible exception, but because that is something I do not wish to discuss. Which leads to the macro scale of the matter, our solar system and it's curiously similar appearance. I think it could be macro neon, or a few higher, of course forced into horizontal rotation by the nearest, greatest mass.
Long forgotten by modern culture, due to the materialistic explosion of scientific advancements in technology and medicine, is the fact that science originated as a subcategory of philosophy. Science can never find the ultimate answers to life and reality because it necessarily deals with parts of reality, and not the whole. Science is a refined form of philosophy that works with assumed, not absolute, premises, based on empirical evidence. Ultimate truths about reality cannot be reached within the limited, relativistic scope of science.

David Quinn, one of the founders of this forum, wrote about physicists and their shortcomings over at his blog. To quote, "if you want predictions, do science. If you want explanation, do philosophy."
On psychology. I love this bit, it is essentially the understanding of oneself, or one human. Conscious and subconscious mind. I have lowered my heart rate significantly by will alone. The same goes for body temperature, yet not so significantly there. These involuntary bodily systems can indeed be self manipulated. I believe it to be possible through the subconscious mind. Consciousness I believe to be the subordinate of our subconsciousness, not as the respective titles indicate. A naturally inflicted limitation on our ability to use and manipulate our bodies, to keep us from unintentionally harming ourselves. Very intriguing.
Intriguing indeed. I think it is accurate to say that the conscious mind is built upon the subconscious mind, through which we experience control.
One subject to rest upon. I have recently pondered the divergence from 'origin' as a concept. For simplicity, lets consider balance. Lets also assume that the directions of divergence would be light and dark. As the light becomes lighter, and the dark becomes darker, in respect to each-other, balance is lost in respect to its' originality. Balance would theoretically be retained by the opposing forces of light and dark, but that does not reflect 'origin' balance. As both fields of divergence are responding to one another, and not maintaining a balance without influence per the origin. Of course you could admit that if they could become divergent fields, then balance was always influenced. I would refer to the point (not vector) of origin, as undefined and simplified. This is obviously a re-visitation to the foundations of logic, but the implications were and are immense. Consider the fact that 'origin' has infinite fields of possible or actual divergence. Of course this is not the case in our universe, we do have many limitations. This would apply to god though, very curious concept. Very curious indeed.
This appears to be related to the topic of duality, which, as you might know, has a long history in religious traditions, particularly in the East. Understanding the dualistic nature of consciousness, as it relates to the non-dualistic nature of ultimate reality, is key to understanding God.
This will likely be my only post. I will look into the responses certainly, but I cannot go too much into detail. To do so would inevitably divulge my thoughts on things like dark matter, social manipulation, and other things I really do not want anyone to have knowledge of unless gained themselves. To answer any question about the discover part of the intro. All I have learned has come with the burden of proof and potential application, which may require frequent re-visitation. Even though I may find some new interesting concept, and see it to resolution or past known human knowledge. The net financial, emotional, spiritual, or physical gain is completely mitigated by the burden. I only 'feel' the gain in the sense of the 'thrill of discovery', which may truly be phantasmal.
Thanks for the intellectual exercise. I will mention that those specific topics (dark matter, social manipulations) are offshoots of the fundamentals that this forum was made to focus on.

Also, in case you haven't, I recommend checking out some of the material of the forum founders. What can't be found at theabsolute.net can most likely be found over here (like a copy of Quinn's website). And here is their youtube channel.

Post Reply