God is existence

[Zen Master]

God
n.

A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions
Existence is the only whole (perfect), there was never a time when existence didn't exist (eternal), existence is everywhere (omnipresent), existence possesses the sum of all power (omnipotent), existence possesses the sum of all knowledge (omniscient), existence created the temporary forms that we perceive (creator), and existence is self governed (ruler of all). There you have it, a perfect, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, orginator and ruler of all.

Any questions? :)

[Sir Sin-O-Lot]

God
n.

A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions
Existence is the only whole (perfect), there was never a time when existence didn't exist (eternal), existence is everywhere (omnipresent), existence possesses the sum of all power (omnipotent), existence possesses the sum of all knowledge (omniscient), existence created the temporary forms that we perceive (creator), and existence is self governed (ruler of all). There you have it, a perfect, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, orginator and ruler of all.

Any questions? :)
Thats a very intelligent theory. Seems more philosophical than anything else.

[Philboid Studge]

existence is self governed ?
Entropy, anyone? Sounds like you're stretching things to make the "ruler" part of the definition fit.

Oh, and Grasshopper: By definition, there is no past or future -- only the present exists. Isn't that the opposite of eternal, or something?

And if existence so perfect, how come mango pits are so huge? And what's the point of mosquitoes?

[Zen Master]

existence is self governed ?
Entropy, anyone? Sounds like you're stretching things to make the "ruler" part of the definition fit.

Oh, and Grasshopper: By definition, there is no past or future -- only the present exists. Isn't that the opposite of eternal, or something?
Eternity is now.

And if existence so perfect, how come mango pits are so huge? And what's the point of mosquitoes?
By perfect, I mean whole, or complete.

As for the problem of evil, you can't have good without evil. You only know good because you have evil to compare it with. Even if everything that you think of as evil were removed from existence, you would then divide what remained into greater and lesser goods, thus creating a new good and evil.

We cannot know the Tao itself,
nor see its qualities direct,
but only see by differentiation,
that which it manifests.
Thus, that which is seen as beautiful
is beautiful compared with that
which is seen as lacking beauty;
an action considered skilled
is so considered in comparison
with another, which seems unskilled.
That which a person knows he has
is known to him by that which he does not have,
and that which he considers difficult
seems so because of that which he can do with ease.
One thing seems long by comparison with that
which is, comparatively, short.
One thing is high because another thing is low;
only when sound ceases is quietness known,
and that which leads
is seen to lead only by being followed.
--Tao Te Ching

So the point of evil is good. :)

[Rhinoqulous]

God
n.

A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions
Existence is the only whole (perfect), there was never a time when existence didn't exist (eternal), existence is everywhere (omnipresent), existence possesses the sum of all power (omnipotent), existence possesses the sum of all knowledge (omniscient), existence created the temporary forms that we perceive (creator), and existence is self governed (ruler of all). There you have it, a perfect, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, orginator and ruler of all.
Yep, more Spinozistic/Deistic crap.

Eternity is now.
Wait, eternity is... NOW! Missed it. NOW! Wait... NOW! Ahh, fuck it.

By perfect, I mean whole, or complete.
So God/Existence/The Universe is perfect because it's complete? As in, it contains no parts that are missing/lacking? Being that God/Jerry Orbach (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001583/)/The Universe is necessarily composed of all of it's parts, than anything identical with itself is in a state of perfection! Yeah! Leibniz!

Give proof that "existence" contains/posses all knowledge, or why "existence is everything" is a profound statement.

Rhinoq

[ocmpoma]

"Existence is the only whole (perfect), there was never a time when existence didn't exist (eternal), existence is everywhere (omnipresent), existence possesses the sum of all power (omnipotent), existence possesses the sum of all knowledge (omniscient), existence created the temporary forms that we perceive (creator), and existence is self governed (ruler of all). There you have it, a perfect, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, orginator and ruler of all."

Let's see - I am wholely myslef, there was never a time in my life that I didn't exist, I am everywhere that I am, I possess the sum of all my power and knowledge, I govern myself. There you have it - I am God! (Or the tao, in which case you must follow me like a twig in a hurricane on a dark night when it's not very warm.)

[Tenspace]

.

Oh, and Grasshopper: By definition, there is no past or future -- only the present exists.
But Philboid, the present is really the past. Just as the light from Andromeda is always about 2 million years old when viewed on Earth, and Sol, our sun is always about eight light-minutes old, everything we see is in the very brief past. The car across the street is 8 light-nanoseconds (or whatever) old.

And that doesn't even count the time it takes the brain to translate photons to thought.

:)

Tenspace

[Philboid Studge]

But Philboid, the present is really the past.
Oh, man. But that must mean the future is the present. Damn it, I must be late for something.

[Rhinoqulous]

But Philboid, the present is really the past. Just as the light from Andromeda is always about 2 million years old when viewed on Earth, and Sol, our sun is always about eight light-minutes old, everything we see is in the very brief past. The car across the street is 8 light-nanoseconds (or whatever) old.

And that doesn't even count the time it takes the brain to translate photons to thought.

:)

Tenspace
But "presents" are local, so while information you are receiving may be from the "past", the experience is always in the present. The light from Andromeda that I see at night may be ~2 million years old, but my experience of the light is always in my local present. So the present is really the present (and the only "temporal point" with ontological existence), at least philosophically. :)

Rhinoq

[Tenspace]

But Philboid, the present is really the past. Just as the light from Andromeda is always about 2 million years old when viewed on Earth, and Sol, our sun is always about eight light-minutes old, everything we see is in the very brief past. The car across the street is 8 light-nanoseconds (or whatever) old.

And that doesn't even count the time it takes the brain to translate photons to thought.

:)

Tenspace
But "presents" are local, so while information you are receiving may be from the "past", the experience is always in the present. The light from Andromeda that I see at night may be ~2 million years old, but my experience of the light is always in my local present. So the present is really the present (and the only "temporal point" with ontological existence), at least philosophically. :)

Rhinoq
Ahh, but how we are fooled by the concept of present. If we look at the "present" as a localized temporal point (a configuration), then it is only our (or your) present. We are each living (literally) in our own time, defined by our own clocks and rods. But is it not true that the configuration called "Now", or "Present" contains only information from the past? Add to this concept the amount of time it takes the brain to process that information, and our present has just slipped another 1/2 second into the past.

Tenspace

[Rhinoqulous]

Ahh, but how we are fooled by the concept of present. If we look at the "present" as a localized temporal point (a configuration), then it is only our (or your) present. We are each living (literally) in our own time, defined by our own clocks and rods. But is it not true that the configuration called "Now", or "Present" contains only information from the past? Add to this concept the amount of time it takes the brain to process that information, and our present has just slipped another 1/2 second into the past.

Tenspace
I have no problem with the "now" only containing information from the "past". Nor do I have a problem with our "present" lagging behind the world by ~1/2 second. We still only experience our own local present, even if the information that makes up our present is from the past.

I'd like to say more, but I have to split.

Rhinoq

[Tenspace]

Ahh, but how we are fooled by the concept of present. If we look at the "present" as a localized temporal point (a configuration), then it is only our (or your) present. We are each living (literally) in our own time, defined by our own clocks and rods. But is it not true that the configuration called "Now", or "Present" contains only information from the past? Add to this concept the amount of time it takes the brain to process that information, and our present has just slipped another 1/2 second into the past.

Tenspace
I have no problem with the "now" only containing information from the "past". Nor do I have a problem with our "present" lagging behind the world by ~1/2 second. We still only experience our own local present, even if the information that makes up our present is from the past.

I'd like to say more, but I have to split.

Rhinoq
Don't forget about time dilation.....
I was trying to stay within reasonably relative frames, but that is what I meant by each person has their own rods and clocks. Even though the effects are immeasurable, they are there, just irrelevant at our current scale.

Ten

[Zen Master]

Yep, more Spinozistic/Deistic crap.
Spinoza was a pantheist, not a deist.

Wait, eternity is... NOW! Missed it. NOW! Wait... NOW! Ahh, fuck it.
Eternity is.

So God/Existence/The Universe is perfect because it's complete? As in, it contains no parts that are missing/lacking?
It's perfect because it's whole. Everything else is a part of the whole, not indepenent from it.

Give proof that "existence" contains/posses all knowledge
All knowledge that exists is necessarily possessed by existence.

[Zen Master]

I am God!
Everyone is God. Tat tvam asi.

[thomas]

There is a line in the Incredibles "If everybody is special, then nobody is". If everybody is God then nobody is.

[Zen Master]

There is a line in the Incredibles "If everybody is special, then nobody is". If everybody is God then nobody is.
No, that only applies to opposites, in which one thing exists only because it's opposite exists. For example, good can only exist if there is evil. If everything were good, nothing would be good. But God is not a part of a duality, God is unity and transcends duality.

[Another brick in the wall]

But God is not a part of a duality, God is unity and transcends duality.
God is not part of duality? You said earlier that god is existence. The opposite of existence is nothingness. Unless god is both existence and nothingness at the same time.

[Zen Master]

But God is not a part of a duality, God is unity and transcends duality.
God is not part of duality? You said earlier that god is existence. The opposite of existence is nothingness. Unless god is both existence and nothingness at the same time.
God transcends the duality of thingness and nothingness. God is everything, and the no thing from which it came, and to which it will return.

[Zen Master]

God is basically the absolute, fundamental energy of the universe. It itself can not be perceived, but only it's movement. When it stops moving, it transcends perception and becomes what we call "nothing".

[Another brick in the wall]

Energy is the ability to do work, nothing more. If god cannot be perceived when it is moving, how can it be perceived when it is not moving? I don't mean any disrepsect, but your ideas sound crazy to me.

[Zen Master]

Ok, think of it this way. God is the absolute, fundamental substance, or essence that makes up the universe. When it moves, it becomes perceivable to us, and we call it a thing. When it stops moving, it transcends perception, and it becomes what we call "nothing".

Does that make sense to you?

[Another brick in the wall]

So when this invisible thing moves it becomes visible? If this thing is everywhere, if it occupies the whole universe, how can it move? How could scientists test your theory?

[Zen Master]

So when this invisible thing moves it becomes visible? If this thing is everywhere, if it occupies the whole universe, how can it move? How could scientists test your theory?
It doesn't occupy the universe, it is the universe, and it is the "no thing" from which the universe was born.

[Another brick in the wall]

If it is the universe, how can it move somewhere else? The universe contains every possible location for an object. If this thing is located at every possible point, it can't move.

[Zen Master]

If it is the universe, how can it move somewhere else? The universe contains every possible location for an object. If this thing is located at every possible point, it can't move.
By universe, I mean that which is perceivable, or detectable. Quantum physicists have discovered that something can actually come from "nothing". God is both the thing, and the no thing from which it came.

[Another brick in the wall]

A thing can't be itself and its opposite at the same time. For example, it's impossible for it to be raining and not raining at the same time.

[Zen Master]

A thing can't be itself and its opposite at the same time.
The universe is both good and evil, light and dark, life and death. In reality, all is one. Qualities are all subjective.

[Another brick in the wall]

No, those are all different things, just like a giraffe and a pineapple are different things.

[Zen Master]

No, those are all different things
And the universe is all of them.

[Another brick in the wall]

No, all those things are part of the universe, for the universe, by definition, is the thing that everything else is a part of.

[Zen Master]

No, all those things are part of the universe
Making the universe what? A qualityless unity. Qualities are subjective, in reality all is one.

[Zen Master]

"Transcendence implies the surpassing of two things, and the
consequent attainment of a third thing. But there are no 'things'
in reality, of any kind whatever: there is only the thing-in-itself,
its suchness, which is Reality, revealed when the illusory dualism
of inexistent qualities is dissolved."
--Wei Wu Wei

[Another brick in the wall]

I don't see how a pineapple and giraffe are one, aside from the fact that both are primarily composed of water and carbon molecules.

[HeWhoAsks]

Either Zen Master is not careful with his words (!) or he is a troll. He changes the definition of the words he's using. First he's talking about God moving, then it's the universe, the it's what is perceivable. See below.

Post #22:God is the absolute, fundamental substance, or essence that makes up the universe. When it moves
Post # 24:So when this invisible thing moves it becomes visible? If this thing is everywhere, if it occupies the whole universe, how can it move? How could scientists test your theory?
It doesn't occupy the universe, it is the universe, and it is the "no thing" from which the universe was born.
Post #26:If it is the universe, how can it move somewhere else? The universe contains every possible location for an object. If this thing is located at every possible point, it can't move.
By universe, I mean that which is perceivable, or detectable. Quantum physicists have discovered that something can actually come from "nothing". God is both the thing, and the no thing from which it came.

[Zen Master]

The fundamental substance is what makes up the universe, and therefore is the universe. When it moves it becomes perceivable to us, and we call it a thing. When it stops moving, it goes beyond perception, and we call it "nothing".

[Philboid Studge]

There is a line in the Incredibles "If everybody is special, then nobody is". If everybody is God then nobody is.
Sweet merciful crap, Thomas: you and I AGREE on something!

[Zen Master]

There is a line in the Incredibles "If everybody is special, then nobody is". If everybody is God then nobody is.
Sweet merciful crap, Thomas: you and I AGREE on something!
I agree with it too, but it only applies to dualities in which one thing only exists because it's opposite exists. But God is a unity of the All, not a duality, so it doesn't apply to God.


You can't say that if everything is all, then everything is not all.

[Philboid Studge]

I agree with it too, but it only applies to dualities in which one thing only exists because it's opposite exists.
Is "specialness" a duality? (see Incredibles reference)

[Zen Master]

I agree with it too, but it only applies to dualities in which one thing only exists because it's opposite exists.
Is "specialness" a duality? (see Incredibles reference)
Yes, it's a part of a duality. There is specialness and non-specialness, and only through non-specialness is specialness known. But God is not a part of a duality, God is a unity of the All.

Read this:

"We cannot know the Tao itself,
nor see its qualities direct,
but only see by differentiation,
that which it manifests.
Thus, that which is seen as beautiful
is beautiful compared with that
which is seen as lacking beauty;
an action considered skilled
is so considered in comparison
with another, which seems unskilled.
That which a person knows he has
is known to him by that which he does not have,
and that which he considers difficult
seems so because of that which he can do with ease.
One thing seems long by comparison with that
which is, comparatively, short.
One thing is high because another thing is low;
only when sound ceases is quietness known,
and that which leads
is seen to lead only by being followed."
--Tao Te Ching

[Zen Master]

That also happens to be the solution to the so-called problem of evil. We can only know good because we have evil to compare it too. If everything were good, nothing would be good.

[HeWhoAsks]

The fundamental substance is what makes up the universe, and therefore is the universe. When it moves it becomes perceivable to us, and we call it a thing. When it stops moving, it goes beyond perception, and we call it "nothing".
By universe, I mean that which is perceivable, or detectable.
You've just contradicted yourself. Is the universe that which is perceivable (=*only* that which is perceivable), or is the the fundamental substance that, when it moves, it becomes perceivable (=*more* than just the perceivable)? Those are two very different definitions.

It is not any fun to carry on a conversation with someone who changes the definitions of words that they use. Can you understand that?

[Philboid Studge]

Yes, it's a part of a duality. There is specialness and non-specialness, and only through non-specialness is specialness known.
What is an example of non-specialness?

Read this:

"We cannot know the Tao itself,
nor see its qualities direct ...
I've read the Tao Te Ching, Zen. Probably before you were born.

[Zen Master]

The fundamental substance is what makes up the universe, and therefore is the universe. When it moves it becomes perceivable to us, and we call it a thing. When it stops moving, it goes beyond perception, and we call it "nothing".
By universe, I mean that which is perceivable, or detectable.
You've just contradicted yourself. Is the universe that which is perceivable (=*only* that which is perceivable), or is the the fundamental substance that, when it moves, it becomes perceivable (=*more* than just the perceivable)? Those are two very different definitions.

It is not any fun to carry on a conversation with someone who changes the definitions of words that they use. Can you understand that?
When the fundamental substance moves, it becomes the universe, it becomes what we call "thing". When it stops moving, it goes beyond perception, and we call it "nothing", "nonbeing", or "nonexistence". So, the fundamental thing is both the universe, and not the universe. It is everything, and no thing.

Sorry if I've confused you, but this isn't easy for me to explain.

[Philboid Studge]

Zen, I like your avatar. Can you make me one that says "It's all Devil," then the little imp picks up the D and plants it on his head as horns? No, really.

[Zen Master]

Yes, it's a part of a duality. There is specialness and non-specialness, and only through non-specialness is specialness known.
What is an example of non-specialness?
Well that depends on how you define "special". It's all very subjective. In reality, all is one, there is no special or non-special.

Read this:

"We cannot know the Tao itself,
nor see its qualities direct ...
I've read the Tao Te Ching, Zen.
Then you should understand that evil is not a problem at all. So why do you have it in your sig?

[Philboid Studge]

In reality, all is one, there is no special or non-special.
All one? Like good and evil? But you're using God and good as equivalent. Therefore, God is a duality, by your way of thinking.

Hey, I don't think evil is a problem. In fact, "It's all Evil." Isn't that as true as saying "It's all good"?

I'm serious about the avatar!

[Philboid Studge]

There is specialness and non-specialness ...
In reality, all is one, there is no special or non-special.
Now I don't know what to think!

[HeWhoAsks]

The fundamental substance is what makes up the universe, and therefore is the universe. When it moves it becomes perceivable to us, and we call it a thing. When it stops moving, it goes beyond perception, and we call it "nothing".
By universe, I mean that which is perceivable, or detectable.
You've just contradicted yourself. Is the universe that which is perceivable (=*only* that which is perceivable), or is the the fundamental substance that, when it moves, it becomes perceivable (=*more* than just the perceivable)? Those are two very different definitions.

It is not any fun to carry on a conversation with someone who changes the definitions of words that they use. Can you understand that?
When the fundamental substance moves, it becomes the universe, it becomes what we call "thing". When it stops moving, it goes beyond perception, and we call it "nothing", "nonbeing", or "nonexistence". So, the fundamental thing is both the universe, and not the universe. It is everything, and no thing.

Sorry if I've confused you, but this isn't easy for me to explain.
Yes, it isn't easy for you to explain. At last, we agree! ;)

Seriously, these issue are not only difficult, but people disagree, so when you are not *extremely* careful with how you say what you intend, there are all sorts of possibilities for misunderstanding. I understand your clarification above just fine; but your earlier posts were contradictory.

Furthermore, these abstract ideas are sometimes expressed in seemingly deliberately obscure ways. It would help discussion immensely if these ideas could be expressed in very clear and specific ways, without contradiction, etc. I hope that's not controversial.

[thomas]

Zen M, are you advocating pantheism ? Are you saying that the universe is all that exists and that its OK to call it God ? Or are you saying that as well as the universe there is something else other than the material ? If so, what is this other thing and how do you know about it ?

[Tenspace]

If it is the universe, how can it move somewhere else? The universe contains every possible location for an object. If this thing is located at every possible point, it can't move.
By universe, I mean that which is perceivable, or detectable. Quantum physicists have discovered that something can actually come from "nothing". God is both the thing, and the no thing from which it came.
Really? What have quantum physicists discovered that can come from nothing?

Ten

[Another brick in the wall]

I remember talking about the conservation of matter and someone interjecting about virtual particles that appear and disappear. Maybe that's what he means.

[Tenspace]

I'm hoping he'll answer, because virtual particles don't come from nothing. They come from the negative energy density of the vacuum.

The law of conservation of energy is not broken.

Ten

[Another brick in the wall]

I've never heard of negative energy before. The potential energy due to gravity is defined as negative. Are the two related?

[Zen Master]

Tenspace,

The "nothing" is actually something which is beyond perception. Are you familiar with string theory, and dark energy...?

[Zen Master]

Zen M, are you advocating pantheism ? Are you saying that the universe is all that exists and that its OK to call it God ? Or are you saying that as well as the universe there is something else other than the material ? If so, what is this other thing and how do you know about it ?
Well that depends on how you define "universe".

[Zen Master]

There is specialness and non-specialness ...
In reality, all is one, there is no special or non-special.
Now I don't know what to think!
We perceive things as special and non-special, good and evil, ect., but in reality all is one, and there are no qualities. Qualities are subjective.

[Zen Master]

In reality, all is one, there is no special or non-special.
All one? Like good and evil?
Yes.

But you're using God and good as equivalent. Therefore, God is a duality, by your way of thinking.
In my way of thinking, it's all good, even "evil". Only through evil is good known, so evil exists for goodness sake, and goodness exists for its own sake.

Hey, I don't think evil is a problem. In fact, "It's all Evil." Isn't that as true as saying "It's all good"?
If you thought it were all evil, you would say no to it, and go off to kill yourself. But you haven't done that, you've said yes to existence, so you must believe that overall, it's good, and is worth living and participating in.

I'm serious about the avatar!
I would make you one, but I don't know how. My friend made my avatar for me.

[Tenspace]

I've never heard of negative energy before. The potential energy due to gravity is defined as negative. Are the two related?
Vacuum energy can be both positive and negative. Pressure plays a part of the gravitational energy of a body, along with mass and energy.

Tenspace

[Tenspace]

Tenspace,

The "nothing" is actually something which is beyond perception. Are you familiar with string theory, and dark energy...?
Very familiar.

You said, "Quantum physicists have discovered that something can actually come from "nothing". " I didn't take into account of your quotation marks delimiting "nothing". I would agree that there is energy in the vacuum of space, and its presence is derived from quantum uncertainty.

Tenspace

[Tenspace]

Zen, I'd like to talk about Duality. I find it intriguing that all of nature exhibits this phenomena. What do you think drives nature to settle into a state of two, and only two choices?

Tenspace

[Philboid Studge]

If you thought it were all evil, you would say no to it, and go off to kill yourself.
Why would I? After all, "In my way of thinking, it's all good, even 'evil.' Only through evil is good known, so evil exists for goodness sake, and goodness exists for its own sake."

Your contradicitons are amusing, but they're not quite koan quality, so keep at it!

Meanwhile, if God = Existence, what's the point of the word 'God'? Thicker thesaurus?

[Rhinoqulous]

Zen, I'd like to talk about Duality. I find it intriguing that all of nature exhibits this phenomena. What do you think drives nature to settle into a state of two, and only two choices?

Tenspace
What do you mean that nature "settles" into a state of two (and only two) choices? Sorry to interject, but I think this may be a false dichotomy.

Rhinoq

[Tenspace]

Zen, I'd like to talk about Duality. I find it intriguing that all of nature exhibits this phenomena. What do you think drives nature to settle into a state of two, and only two choices?

Tenspace
What do you mean that nature "settles" into a state of two (and only two) choices? Sorry to interject, but I think this may be a false dichotomy.

Rhinoq
I'm glad you took the bait. Even "False Dichotomy" reflects duality.(Dichotomy = Division into two usually contradictory parts or opinions, per Webster and his friends).

That is exactly my point. Everything in nature appears to break down, at the most reduced level, to a dichotomy, duality, yin-yang, pairing, whatever. Why is that? I have my theories, but I'd like to hear what others think before I wax accidental. ;)

Tenspace

[Rhinoqulous]

I'm glad you took the bait. Even "False Dichotomy" reflects duality.(Dichotomy = Division into two usually contradictory parts or opinions, per Webster and his friends).

That is exactly my point. Everything in nature appears to break down, at the most reduced level, to a dichotomy, duality, yin-yang, pairing, whatever. Why is that? I have my theories, but I'd like to hear what others think before I wax accidental. ;)

Tenspace
I don't see the duality, which is why I labeled it a "false" dichotomy. Unless there's something I'm missing, the laws of nature don't fall into a pairing, unless you count super-symmetric partners, but this doesn't imply the underlying laws are dualistic.

Unless you are only talking about how we define or give descriptions to reality, then there is a lot of dualism going on. There are other "magic" numbers though; threes (triads, trinities, etc.), fives, and sevens come first to mind. In the Church of the Screaming Blue Ants, the magic number is 53 (anyone care to speculate on why? :P).

I'd also like to hear what people think about number distinctions we make in nature. I haven't really thought about this in years.

Rhinoq

[Tenspace]

I'm referring to the duality of dimensions - left/right, up/down, in/out - of scale - large/small - of absolutes - right/wrong - of body symmetry (and brain symmetry), of particle symmetry. It seems that many of nature's laws (and man's) do form a pairing. We could add good/evil, absolute/relative, and any other opposites you can think of. Binary as well.

What drives this? Am I being too esoteric?

Ten

[Another brick in the wall]

I don't think the universe is fundamentally made of pairs. Protons, neutrons, and electrons don't form a pair. the human brain is adept at finding patterns and a pair is one of the most common associations we make. After all, most our body parts come in pairs.

[Rhinoqulous]

I'm with brick on this one. It probably has something do with how our brains recognize, or even create, patterns. I could make the same argument with threes: left/middle/right, good/neutral/bad, top/middle/bottom, etc.

Rhinoq

[Another brick in the wall]

Or ones: one nose, one bellybutton, one tongue, one mouth, one asshole.

[Metman07]

God
n.

A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions
Existence is the only whole (perfect), there was never a time when existence didn't exist (eternal), existence is everywhere (omnipresent), existence possesses the sum of all power (omnipotent), existence possesses the sum of all knowledge (omniscient), existence created the temporary forms that we perceive (creator), and existence is self governed (ruler of all). There you have it, a perfect, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, orginator and ruler of all.

Any questions? :)
Omniscient means to know EVERYTHING, but even if we added up the sum total of knowledge, we wouldn't know everything. If we added up all the knowledge in the universe it is still unlikely that we could know the position of every single particle in the universe. Things like atoms, molecules etc. don't possess knowledge, only things like living creatures, computers etc. do.

[Tenspace]

I don't think the universe is fundamentally made of pairs. Protons, neutrons, and electrons don't form a pair. the human brain is adept at finding patterns and a pair is one of the most common associations we make. After all, most our body parts come in pairs.
Protons and neutrons aren't fundamental. More "dualities": Up quarks and down quarks, charmed and strange, top and bottom. Even though quarks come in three "colors" , they are still paired with their anti-partner.

Bilateral symmetry definitely plays a part, but I don't think that it's fundamental.

Ten

[Tenspace]

I'm with brick on this one. It probably has something do with how our brains recognize, or even create, patterns. I could make the same argument with threes: left/middle/right, good/neutral/bad, top/middle/bottom, etc.

Rhinoq
As mentioned in my reply to Brick, pairings are part of the fundamentals of nature. I'm not talking as much about abstractions, such as good/neutral/bad, but more about the core makeup of reality. Spacetime, for example. To increase motion in one, you must decrease motion in the other (within the limitations of c). Again, particles are paired with their anti-particles; even half-life calculations are either/or. We've especially exploited this concept in the technology sciences. Look what Intel (and others) can stuff on a chip, but the fundamental logic is still binary.

Quantum computing may change this. Qubits are bizarre, fuzzy representations of logical conclusions. Logic circuits are being developed, but isolation from decoherence is a huge problem. We're in for a truly strange ride ahead.

Tenspace

[Tenspace]

Or ones: one nose, one bellybutton, one tongue, one mouth, one asshole.
Not much of a breast or thigh man, are you? :)

Ten

[whoneedscience]

How about a fundamental drive to delineate friend from foe. If primitive humans went around arranging everything into spectra and caefully deliberating every disagreement, they would have been wiped out by more simple-minded competitors.

I also think we find almost sexual beauty in things that are symetrical. Sexual because we know attractiveness is correlated with symmetry and with physical health. If we saw someone with a lopsided face (although we'd more likely see the breats or thighs first), we would instinctively avoid them like the plague because they would likely have some kind of illness (and would certainly not be a very good mate). If we get such an automatic response (back to the simple-minded argument) from something like that, then we would naturally look for simple symmetry in everything around us, even abstract concepts.

And Ten, how can you make a dualistic argument when by your own admission the physical world seems to divide itself up just as often into odd numbers. Even spacetime contains at least 4 (and maybe eleven, but definitely not ten, sorry :)) dimensions (not 2 as you seem to suggest). The rule of having to decrease motion in the time dimension when approaching c came from the idea of having to do that with the three regular spacial dimensions.

[Tenspace]

How about a fundamental drive to delineate friend from foe. If primitive humans went around arranging everything into spectra and caefully deliberating every disagreement, they would have been wiped out by more simple-minded competitors.
And those that did, were. The more primitive the brain structure, the more attuned it is to making an either/or decision. The brain stem and limbic system are, in an evolutionary sense, much older than the cortex or lobe structures. They control the fight or flight response. (One neuroscientist described their function as "The Four F's: Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding, and Reproduction.")

I also think we find almost sexual beauty in things that are symetrical. Sexual because we know attractiveness is correlated with symmetry and with physical health. If we saw someone with a lopsided face (although we'd more likely see the breats or thighs first), we would instinctively avoid them like the plague because they would likely have some kind of illness (and would certainly not be a very good mate). If we get such an automatic response (back to the simple-minded argument) from something like that, then we would naturally look for simple symmetry in everything around us, even abstract concepts.
Again, evolution is the driving force. There have even been studies on primitive tribes, where they would show men silhouettes of female bodies. As predicted, they picked the wide-hipped, large-breasted women, not because of Glamour or E! but because that body plan is most successful at rearing babies in a primitive world without epidurals and c-sections.

And Ten, how can you make a dualistic argument when by your own admission the physical world seems to divide itself up just as often into odd numbers. Even spacetime contains at least 4 (and maybe eleven, but definitely not ten, sorry :)) dimensions (not 2 as you seem to suggest). The rule of having to decrease motion in the time dimension when approaching c came from the idea of having to do that with the three regular spacial dimensions.
Um, space and time are the two fundamental components of spacetime. There are three space dimensions and one time dimension in classical physics. There are ten space dimensions and one time dimension if you subscribe to M-theory, less if you focus on one of the five (super)string theories.

Each fundamental dimension is represented by two components. Consider that even in three dimensions, we have six components to any potential configuration: up/down, left/right, forward/back. Add another dimension, call it, oh, "in/out" or "plus/minus". You are still working with paired fundamentals. And to consider the "degree" of upness or downness, leftness or rightness, one would simply be applying parameters on top of those fundamentals.

This conversation is turning weird, in a good way. I was hoping for something stimulating. :)

Tenspace

[whoneedscience]

This conversation is turning weird, in a good way. I was hoping for something stimulating. :)

Tenspace
Yes, well, that's always good, and you do make a nice point of two directions in each dimension, but I'm not sure I see any real disagreement here. From my point of view at least, I was making almost exactly the same points. I was, of course, referring to M-theory and evolution and all that. My one issue is that Glamour and E! may glorify large breasts, but it seems to me as though pop culture frowns on the wide hips (at least on white girls, although that's a whole other topic), so at least some of it appears to be socially influenced (another counter-point would be the long-necked people and Chinese footbinding). Symmetry as beauty is the one thing that seems to be universal.

To continue in the wierdness, however, does string theory or even general relativity really see time as such a fundamentally different dimension that you see a need to group it as a dualistic pair to the spacial ones? I suppose there is the inability to move backwards in time, but in every other way it is exactly the same. Both ostensible types must share energy, and are relative. I believe Einstein's point was that time is no different from space, not that they are dualistic. That is more of a classical idea. With strings, you still have at least three fundamentally different sets of dimensions: the regular three, time, and all those tiney curled up ones.

And you might not be understanding my beauty argument entirely. What I probably should have elaborated on more is that because humans have a tendency to force simple symetric beauty, it couldn't really be fundamental. We create the idea of movement allong a dimension because we are prone to such symetric beauty and simplicity.

Maybe I just misinterpreted your little disagreement with Rhinoq and Brick.

This is the way to have a discussion though: outside the intellectual capacity of theists.:D

[Tenspace]

To continue in the wierdness, however, does string theory or even general relativity really see time as such a fundamentally different dimension that you see a need to group it as a dualistic pair to the spacial ones?
String theory & GR are both time invariant - doesn't matter which way in the dimension of time you travel, the equations should solve without infinities. There are some interesting theories which destroy time as we know it; see Julian Barbour's "Platonia", as one example. Let's take a more down-to-earth view of spacetime, using two dimensions + time instead of three.

In auto racing (don't think NASCAR, but road course racing), every good driver learns about the "traction circle". It's an easy concept to understand, and applies quite well when extrapolating to spacetime. Draw a circle, and bisect horizontally and vertically. Those two lines make up your traction vectors. Left/right == lateral acceleration, positive/negative == longitudinal acceleration (not forward/backward, because you're always moving forward, or trying to).

If you're driving in a straight line, accelerating as hard as the car can, all of the potential traction (energy) is being used to propel you in a straight line. When you turn the car left or right, a portion of that forward thrust must be applied to lateral motion. Traction is a zero-sum game. Just as c limits spacetime, 100% traction defines the limits of the traction circle.

In a very sharp, hairpin turn, up to 90% of available traction is used in the lateral plane, which is why, "the tighter the turn, the slower the speed" (The best drivers are masters at minimizing the amount of traction for lateral motion). The same applies to spacetime. Subtracting motion due to celestial mechanics, when you are sitting at rest, you are moving through time at the speed of light. If you accelerate to 1/2c, then you are moving through time at 1/2t. Hence the fact that photons are eternal to us, because while they move at lightspeed, they are at rest with respect to time.

And you might not be understanding my beauty argument entirely. What I probably should have elaborated on more is that because humans have a tendency to force simple symetric beauty, it couldn't really be fundamental. We create the idea of movement allong a dimension because we are prone to such symetric beauty and simplicity.
Maybe I just misinterpreted your little disagreement with Rhinoq and Brick.
This is the way to have a discussion though: outside the intellectual capacity of theists.:D
The search for the truth in symmetric beauty is what drives some of the greatest theorists. Guys like Krauss and Lederman, Higgs and Feynman were all enamored with the elegance and beauty of symmetry.

There's proabably a bit of qualia in my original statement. Of course it's all relative to the wiring inside my head, but I seem to find beauty in reducing nature to dichotomies. :)

Don't worry; I'm sure some lurking theist will chime in with the Heaven/Hell God/Satan comparison. :P

Ten

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

Quick (or maybe not-so-quick) question--Why does science believe there may be 10, 11, or 26 dimensions? I have a copy of "The Elegant Universe", but haven't got around to reading it yet. I was hoping maybe someone could provide a concise explanation.

[Tenspace]

Quick (or maybe not-so-quick) question--Why does science believe there may be 10, 11, or 26 dimensions? I have a copy of "The Elegant Universe", but haven't got around to reading it yet. I was hoping maybe someone could provide a concise explanation.
In a nutshell, theorists are hoping to reduce the myriad models that make up classical physics into a "Theory Of Everything", where gravity becomes integral to the standard model and quantum phycics. Why is this important? Because the same thought process was used to discover that electricity and magnetism were two sides of the same coin, and more recently, that at higher energies the weak nuclear force is really a cooled-down manifestation (along with electromagnetism) of the Electroweak force. It's the elegance of reductionist simplicity - one theory that melds quantum physics with relativity, the tiny with the massive.

This is where extra dimensions come in. By mathematically extending our universe to multiple dimensions, certain fundamental aspects of both relativity and quantum physics appear to coalesce, possibly pointing toward the elusive TOE.

The big disadvantage is that (with a couple of exceptions), nothing in string theory is experimentally testable in our lifetimes, or any human's for that matter. The energies described where strings exist are at the Planck scale - several orders of magnitude smaller than electrons and quarks. It would take a particle accelerator the size of the Earth's orbit to generate the energy necessary to probe at this scale. Oddly enough, some scientists are considering the Earth as a particle accelerator, and predicting certain anomalies from cosmic ray strikes which might help narrow the range of possibilities within string theory.

Read Brian Greene's book. It's an excellent introduction to relativity; plus, his nerdy sense of humor is pretty funny.

Tenspace

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

Thanks. "Elegant Universe" is the next one on my list. Also, I saw he has a (relatively) new book out.

What sorts of experiments would one do to detect a curled-up dimension?

[Tenspace]

Thanks. "Elegant Universe" is the next one on my list. Also, I saw he has a (relatively) new book out.

What sorts of experiments would one do to detect a curled-up dimension?
His new book, The Fabric of the Cosmos is a bit easier read than The Elegant Universe. It is more general, and doesn't go as deeply into string theory.

Tenspace

[NihilistThug]

God
n.

A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions
Existence is the only whole (perfect), there was never a time when existence didn't exist (eternal), existence is everywhere (omnipresent), existence possesses the sum of all power (omnipotent), existence possesses the sum of all knowledge (omniscient), existence created the temporary forms that we perceive (creator), and existence is self governed (ruler of all). There you have it, a perfect, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, orginator and ruler of all.

Any questions? :)
1. Nothing is 'perfect' or 'imperfect', these are evaluations of things not properties of things.
2. Time is a property of space, and becomes undefined and nonexistent quite repeatedly. So there have been times when there was no time to exist in.
3. Everywhere exists, that's tautological.
4. Potence is only sensical in relation to either order (thermodynamics) or intent. There is no such thing as 'power as a whole'. There is only power over the Universe, not power 'as' the Universe.
5. Knowledge is a certain type of organization, and 'existence' does not possess it at all, only small lumps strung throughout the Cosmos have this sort of organization. And for most of the time, it doesn't exist at all.
6. Existence didn't 'create' anything. It is because it has to be.
7. Existence doesn't have any sort of identity to 'govern' things. There is no such thing as 'existence', except in a reference to the Universe in general. Without limited structural knowledge any concept of identity (and thus any action) is purely nonsensical, which is one of the problems of 'god' to begin with.

This isn't philosophy, is regurgitated pandeistic nonsense.

[Rhinoqulous]

To turn back to Ten's topic, what do you, Ten, think about all this duality that we see in the universe? What is the significance? Do you think it's a product of how we define and describe reality, or do you think it's a basic, uhm, don't want to say "property", but I can't think of a better word.

So again, what do you think this all means (if anything)?

Rhinoq

[Tenspace]

It's weird, I've been contemplating this since I posted it. I think it's a byproduct of our dimenions, as well as our evolution. Hard to put into words, just yet, but there are two thought processes I'm considering. First, the bilateral nature of our physical existence definitely has something to do with it. As someone else mentioned, pattern recognition plays a part. In the simplest systems, there's far less overhead necessary to choose between A or B than to choose A, B, or C. We have evolved to choose between one thing or another; fight or flight, etc. Even our brain bifurcated over time.

My other point has to do with our 3+1 dimension, but I still haven't been able to put my concepts into words yet.

Ten

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

It's weird, I've been contemplating this since I posted it. I think it's a byproduct of our dimenions, as well as our evolution. Hard to put into words, just yet, but there are two thought processes I'm considering. First, the bilateral nature of our physical existence definitely has something to do with it. As someone else mentioned, pattern recognition plays a part. In the simplest systems, there's far less overhead necessary to choose between A or B than to choose A, B, or C. We have evolved to choose between one thing or another; fight or flight, etc. Even our brain bifurcated over time.

My other point has to do with our 3+1 dimension, but I still haven't been able to put my concepts into words yet.

Ten
Is this related to how people have a natural, in-born, intuitive understanding of Newtonian mechanics, or are you hinting at something else?

[ocmpoma]

Quite some time ago I was watching something about human evolution. One of the scientists who was being 'interviewed' (can't think of a better way to describe what the usually do on those Discovery-Channel-type-shows) was sitting at a desk; he was talking about how fossils are grouped, etc. He had a bunch of sharpened pencils in front of him. As he spoke, he grouped the pencils into 'long' and 'short' groups - a duality. He then took the pencils and arranged them by length, demonstrating that they had been sharpened into a smooth gradation.

I think that a lot of the 'dualities' we percieve don't exist outside of our minds; just as patterns are a creation of our minds.

[HeWhoAsks]

I think that a lot of the 'dualities' we percieve don't exist outside of our minds; just as patterns are a creation of our minds.
I think that dualities either exist outside of our minds or they don't. :D

[HMS Beagle]

Meanwhile, if God = Existence, what's the point of the word 'God'? Thicker thesaurus?
Hear, hear. Much as I have trouble understanding Christianity, at least I understand Christians for whom God is God, full stop. I find it impossible to respect mindless mumbo-jumbo like God is Love, God=Existence, God is Truth (Augustine started that rumor).

Although I will capitulate to this extent: God is listed as the 9th definition of "love" in Webster's, qualified as "cap, Christian Science." It's right after 7) copulation, and 8) a score of zero, as in tennis.

[Tenspace]

It's weird, I've been contemplating this since I posted it. I think it's a byproduct of our dimenions, as well as our evolution. Hard to put into words, just yet, but there are two thought processes I'm considering. First, the bilateral nature of our physical existence definitely has something to do with it. As someone else mentioned, pattern recognition plays a part. In the simplest systems, there's far less overhead necessary to choose between A or B than to choose A, B, or C. We have evolved to choose between one thing or another; fight or flight, etc. Even our brain bifurcated over time.

My other point has to do with our 3+1 dimension, but I still haven't been able to put my concepts into words yet.

Ten
Is this related to how people have a natural, in-born, intuitive understanding of Newtonian mechanics, or are you hinting at something else?
Our intuition regarding falling objects would be a product of successful selection. There's a brain disorder in which the person doesn't see motion, only still images. Like living your life in darkness with nothing but a strobe light flashing every second. They can't pour a cup of coffee, because they see an empty cup, a coffeepot with a sold black stream of coffee, then an overflowed cup and a mess. But back to the subject...

It seems that a core function of our brain is to make binary decisions. Right now, I'm learning about genetic evolution in humans, which should provide some additional insight.

Ten

[Blindwatchmaker]

dictionary.com wrote:
God
n.

A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions

Existence is the only whole (perfect), there was never a time when existence didn't exist (eternal), existence is everywhere (omnipresent), existence possesses the sum of all power (omnipotent), existence possesses the sum of all knowledge (omniscient), existence created the temporary forms that we perceive (creator), and existence is self governed (ruler of all). There you have it, a perfect, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, orginator and ruler of all.

Any questions?

//

there was never a time when existence didn't exist (eternal),

//

This is a little circular? You are kind of playing with semantics on the word existence. Look at the muddle Heidegger got himself into over non existence.

The concept of god is a human notion, it doen't exist outside our minds (brought together by the process of meme evolution).

[Tenspace]

Damn satanist lexicographers! :D

[Zen Master]

The concept of god is a human notion, it doen't exist outside our minds
Of course all concepts and words are human notions.

[HeWhoAsks]

dictionary.com wrote:
God
n.

A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions

Existence is the only whole (perfect), there was never a time when existence didn't exist (eternal), existence is everywhere (omnipresent), existence possesses the sum of all power (omnipotent), existence possesses the sum of all knowledge (omniscient), existence created the temporary forms that we perceive (creator), and existence is self governed (ruler of all). There you have it, a perfect, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, orginator and ruler of all.

Any questions?
Not questions, but objections:

1. "The sum of all power" is not the same as omnipotence. Omnipotence is the capability of doing anything. The sum of all power is merely all the power that currently exists. Those two things are not the same.

2. Same for the sum of all knowledge and omniscience.

3. Existence is not a being. A being something that has an identity as an isolated person, for instance. All of existence could not be a being because it would be everything and therefore couldn't be isolated in contrast to something else.

[Zen Master]

dictionary.com wrote:
God
n.

A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions

Existence is the only whole (perfect), there was never a time when existence didn't exist (eternal), existence is everywhere (omnipresent), existence possesses the sum of all power (omnipotent), existence possesses the sum of all knowledge (omniscient), existence created the temporary forms that we perceive (creator), and existence is self governed (ruler of all). There you have it, a perfect, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, orginator and ruler of all.

Any questions?
Not questions, but objections:

1. "The sum of all power" is not the same as omnipotence. Omnipotence is the capability of doing anything. The sum of all power is merely all the power that currently exists. Those two things are not the same.

2. Same for the sum of all knowledge and omniscience.
That's not true. Omni = all, potent = power, science = knowledge. God is all power, all knowledge, and all presence.

3. Existence is not a being. A being something that has an identity as an isolated person, for instance. All of existence could not be a being because it would be everything and therefore couldn't be isolated in contrast to something else.
God is being, not a being.

being
n.

1. The state or quality of having existence. See Synonyms at existence.

2.
a. Something, such as an object, an idea, or a symbol, that exists, is thought to exist, or is represented as existing.
b. The totality of all things that exist.

3.
a. A person: “The artist after all is a solitary being” (Virginia Woolf).
b. All the qualities constituting one that exists; the essence.
c. One's basic or essential nature; personality.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

[HeWhoAsks]

God is being, not a being.
The word "god" is widely understood as *a* being.

And, if God is being, then why not just say "being?"

So, the word "god" is widely understood to be *a* being, and you have a perfectly good word, "being," that you claim is exactly equal to the word "god," yet you use the word "god" to mean something that most people don't mean when they say the word, and you could have said "being."

Why get tricky with words in an area that is notoriously difficult for people to understand each other and agree?

I think it was Wittgenstein who said "When the words are confused, the mind is also."

[HeWhoAsks]

1. "The sum of all power" is not the same as omnipotence. Omnipotence is the capability of doing anything. The sum of all power is merely all the power that currently exists. Those two things are not the same.

2. Same for the sum of all knowledge and omniscience.
That's not true. Omni = all, potent = power, science = knowledge. God is all power, all knowledge, and all presence.
Huh? You're just restating what you think and not replying to my specific ideas. Could you address my ideas in the quote above? I mean refer to them, break them down, show inconsistencies, etc.

[Zen Master]

1. "The sum of all power" is not the same as omnipotence. Omnipotence is the capability of doing anything. The sum of all power is merely all the power that currently exists. Those two things are not the same.

2. Same for the sum of all knowledge and omniscience.
That's not true. Omni = all, potent = power, science = knowledge. God is all power, all knowledge, and all presence.
Huh? You're just restating what you think and not replying to my specific ideas.
I'm not stating an opinion, I'm stating a fact. See dictionary.com

[Zen Master]

God is being, not a being.
The word "god" is widely understood as *a* being.
The word "God" is widely misunderstood as a being.

And, if God is being, then why not just say "being?"
You can say "being" if you want, or "cosmos", or "reality", or "universe", or "existence", or "the All", or "Brahman", or "Truth", or "Tao".

"Truth is one; the sages speak of it by many names."
--Rig Veda 1.164.46

[HeWhoAsks]

That's not true. Omni = all, potent = power, science = knowledge. God is all power, all knowledge, and all presence.
Huh? You're just restating what you think and not replying to my specific ideas.
I'm not stating an opinion, I'm stating a fact. See dictionary.com
I didn't say you were stating an opinion. That's not my point. Please re-read what I said.

[HeWhoAsks]

God is being, not a being.
The word "god" is widely understood as *a* being.
The word "God" is widely misunderstood as a being.
You want to tell that to Christians, Jews, and Muslims? They understand god to be *a* being.

And, if God is being, then why not just say "being?"
You can say "being" if you want, or "cosmos", or "reality", or "universe", or "existence", or "the All", or "Brahman", or "Truth", or "Tao".
But why not use the plain, clearly understood word? All those other words, especially "universe" and "existence" and "truth" have meaning distinct from the idea of god as a being.

You just can't use words to mean what you want them to. The whole point behind haveing words is that they must carry a *shared* meaning - then communication can actually take place.