God?

[trollface]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Closed-loop feedback is certainly an aspect of creation.

So you'd actually say that God's observation of his work was not a seperate act of creation in and of itself, but was an aspect of the act of creation which is described as such? Or the latter of the two options I gave you, in other words.

So why describe it as an act of creation in and of itself, when you don't mean that? And, as you've admitted that it's not an act of creation itself, does that not negate the theory you posted above which was dependent on it being an act of creation in and of itself?

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

So you'd actually say that God's observation of his work was not a seperate act of creation in and of itself, but was an aspect of the act of creation which is described as such? Or the latter of the two options I gave you, in other words.

And who is closing which loop here?

Which loop do you seek to close, trollface?

Your language is silly. Do you need me to call you on this again?

Creation is a closed loop. It's outward spiral is 0, 1, 2, 3... It's inward spiral is 3, it is 2, it is 1... it is NOne.

Why do you insist upon breaking everything apart in reduction rather than integrating everything together into One (God)?

Do you know how to surf a wave? Ever surfed a really, really big wave? God is in that torsion curl.

When I cook on the stove, I get the best flavor when I stir and I stir and I stir. Don't you also use this as a key to cooking success, trollface?

The fact that the whirl permeates all life and our universe is not significant to you? I would think that since this exhibits itself through all systemic scales of nature that it would be a primary defining concept of reality. You are so quick to minimize the galactic correlations I gave in my last post. Certainly something that central to universal constructs is highly significant...??? I mean, it is only the basis of Kepler's Laws, which have not been shown to be incorrect.

Whirling torsion. You should look into it. It is the power of the tornado, the hurricane, and the aerodynamic wing... among others, such as galaxies. People are doing some fantastic things with it. There are amazing applications of closed-loop, non-linear learning systems in existence today. They are based on spirals just like you and me.

RMT

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Above you implied that 0 was the neutral, with 1 and -1 on either side

The 0 represents, as much as possible, non-existence. Non-existence can not be described nor defined since it is nothing. The 1 represents existence. Creation is a result of the interaction between the two. Nothing exists but for a relfection of the 1.

Indeed. I'm sure you've already read my comparison on the odds of the person that became me actually being born, so I won't bother repeating it.

No need to repeat it. I remember it. The point was that for all that exists in the Universe, by your account, was an accident. That seems to defy logic does it not? One or two accidents..perhaps...but not in the quantity that was needed to create EVERYTHING that currently exists.

If I could say that with any certainty, then I'd be a very rich man. As it is, I'll simply point out that involving God doesn't solve that question, either, it simply changes it into one where we ask who or what created God.

Didnt ask for any certainty. In science alot is on the level of probability. That is the way to move on to the next probable step, instead of getting bogged down in negativity and endless debate that if applied by the past scientists, would still be debateing on the existrence of fire as they sat in the back of a cave. By changing the question to who or what created God implies that you agree there is God.

Why do you say things and then refuse to elaborate?

Hmmm...that is something we all do since it is impossible to post everything as we find it.

In other words, you didn't arrive at the figures yourself, you read someone else's assertation

And all your posts are entirely products of your own creative powers of logic? How do you support any of your assertions unless you discovered others assertions first?

The arbitrary nature of the "pattern" evidence in the various codes derived from the writings of the Bible. Mentioned twice. Both times ignored.

I don't believe in the bible codes either. I looked into those and agree with you on that score. But if you studied gematria, there once again are too many coincidences for it to be mere chance.

BTW, thank you for not addressing my other criticisms. Rather proves my point, I think.

There is alot of information being presented by both sides. Hard to address them all.

Lets say that god did create our universe... then where the hell did god come from?

Where did you come from....retorical question... are you supporting the concept that all of life came from pond scum?
"...If the evolutionary process really is so strong, that Humans and Whales can evolve from pond scum in just five billion or so years, God is perfectly capable of evolving in ten billion or so years."


Quick word of advice...dont try to post when the wife is home!

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

I don't believe in the bible codes either. I looked into those and agree with you on that score. But if you studied gematria, there once again are too many coincidences for it to be mere chance.

Yes, and let me make my position clear here. I am not advocating or even referring to Drosnin's ELS Bible Codes. I only focus on Genesis 1. That is the only book in the bible that one needs to understand to get a handle on the topology and geometry of creation. It is reflected in the human body structure as it is reflected in our DNA as it is reflected in the Tree Of Life. Genesis 1 teaches basic structure, relationships, and permutation in a recursive fashion. Genesis 1 teaches about how to process information. And information, as I have pointed out to trollface (but which he does not wish to accept) is the key element to the distinction between open-loop, non-regenerative systems and closed-loop, regenerative systems.

There would be no intelligence without closed loops. One cannot close loops without information.
RMT

 

[Rho]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

<font color="brown">ego dumbs us down.[/COLOR]

 

[KerrTexas]

Simple as This....

There comes a time when one must decide what they wish to do with their life; their choices being: To evolve, or to stay the same.

 

[creedo299]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Rainmantime said&gt;Yes, and let me make my position clear here.
I am not advocating or even referring to Drosnin's ELS Bible Codes. I only focus on Genesis 1. That is the only book in the bible that one needs to understand to get a handle on the topology and geometry of creation. It is reflected in the human body structure as it is reflected in our DNA as it is reflected in the Tree Of Life. Genesis 1 teaches basic structure, relationships, and permutation in a recursive fashion. Genesis 1 teaches about how to process information. And information, as I have pointed out to trollface (but which he does not wish to accept) is the key element to the distinction between open-loop, non-regenerative systems and closed-loop, regenerative systems.

Creedo replies&gt;No you're wrong, a hundred percent wrong.

All the topologies of Genesis were, is an examination of an engineered primordial man, were he final realized his own adult neurosis and then had to move on, i.e. guilt.

There was a dig published on the past cover of Scientific American in France, that was dated thirty-five thousand years, which had caused a huge cat-fight in anthropological circles.

I don't agree with this point of view.

As I said before, mankind was and is manufactured by many input process.

These are, some from modified natural, some from direct alien intervention input and some from the God Angelic and or spiritual hierarchies.

Any belief system, is fine and alright, if it gets one through.

However most of these belief system have one or two major flaws.

This when these ideas are drug out on the table, there are a few people that are left red faces, either by being countered by other substantiating proof.
Or by some logic point, that they had not accounted on being vc called, before entrenching themselves in their belief systems.

Forinstance' in my area, people will not burry their damned animals hit by cars and trucks.

They let these poor dead animals sit out all day, till they're gross with putfification and flies.

I am known as the animal burrier, as I was taught to do the decent thing and place Spot or Fluffy out of the way.

There was one Jehovah witness church, that had a fluffy black cat on the edge of their parking lot, all day.

I was so upset, that I said to myself, "If they have not buried that poor cat by the end of the day, while they are all getting holy in church, I'm going to pick up that cat and place it on the railing entrance to their church".

I was pissed, I mean really mad.This as they can sit in that dammed church being pious all day, but when it comes to do anything that their supposed, to or professes their faith, then well that's another matter.

Somebody finally got off their but and buried the poor animal.

 

[trollface]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Your language is silly. Do you need me to call you on this again?

I had no idea you'd ever "called me" on it. But yes, if you think that calling an a part of a process something different to the whole of the process is "silly", then feel free.

Why do you insist upon breaking everything apart in reduction rather than integrating everything together into One (God)?

Because if the details aren't right, then anything that you build on those foundations is also going to be wrong. If your foundations are flawed, then your building is going to fall down.

The fact that the whirl permeates all life and our universe is not significant to you?

We must go forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.

No, it's not significant to me that many things in the universe rotate.

People are doing some fantastic things with it.

I bet that if you watched Robot Wars your favourite would be Hypnodisc. Truth be told, I think it's a cool robot. But I don't think it's in any way holy.

OvrLrdLegion said:
The 0 represents, as much as possible, non-existence. Non-existence can not be described nor defined since it is nothing. The 1 represents existence. Creation is a result of the interaction between the two. Nothing exists but for a relfection of the 1.

I get what you're saying, but Rainman seems to have climed two contradictory things - that the Trinity is represented by 0, 1 and 'something inbetween' and also that it's represented by -1, 0 and 1.

Again, this is why details are important, if they contradict each other, then you have to look critically at what you believe and ask yourself why you believe two contradictory things. Think of it, maybe, as a computer programme. I'm not sure if you've seen the extras on the DVD of Shrek, but in one of them they have a couple of misrenderings that occured. In one case, they put a decimal place one point either to the left or the right of where it should have been (this is from memory. I can't rememebr the exact error, but it was something of such a small magnitude as that). From that one, tiny error Donkey rendered as a huge, puffy, furry ball - like a chia pet. If your building your beliefs on a foundation that's wrong even a small amount, then the end result can easily be unrecognisably distorted and flat-out wrong.

If you care if what you believe is true or not, then I'd have thought that the ability to examine your beliefs was paramount, rather than simply unquestioningly taking on board whatever vaguely sounds rght.

The point was that for all that exists in the Universe, by your account, was an accident.

Well, there are theorys which attempt to explain why the ratios are as they are, but I've not looked at them, so cannot comment. Truth be told, I'm somewhat skeptical about such theorys, but I'm willing to be convinced by persuasive evidence. Until then, yes, I believe that it's possible for all tis to have come about by "accident".

That seems to defy logic does it not? One or two accidents..perhaps...but not in the quantity that was needed to create EVERYTHING that currently exists.

Why not? "Unlikely" does not equal "impossible". It cetainly seems more cridible to me than the idea that there was a consious, self-aware force driving it.

By changing the question to who or what created God implies that you agree there is God.

I was saying that if we accept the hypothetical idea that there is a God, then the same questions still remain, it's just that their focus shifts. Yes, how the universe was created and what was there before are unanswerable questions, if you want more than mildly informed guesses. But if you add God to the mix, you still ask the same questions, and the answers are just as unreliable. It doesn't solve any of the problems.

Hmmm...that is something we all do since it is impossible to post everything as we find it.

There's a difference. Rainman has a marked habit of this and it seems to coincidentally happen every time it seems his arguments are crumbling. Rather than address criticisms, he simply ignores that there are and criticisms and continues as if nothing had happened.

As far as credibility goes, repeated crys of "well, I could explain if I wanted to, but I don't want to, so I'll pretend that you never said anything in the first place" isn't really that convincing.

And all your posts are entirely products of your own creative powers of logic? How do you support any of your assertions unless you discovered others assertions first?

I exampne everything I'm told as critically, dispassionately and logically as I can (of course I'm not claming to be free of bias - noone is - but I am aware of it and try to compensate). Compare that to Rainman. In his post after yours he repeats the assertation that the Tree of Life is reflected in Genesis, even though I have shown the way that he claims this to be the case is wrong. This is not conjecture, it is easily demonstrable. You have to ask yourself why he is seemingly so opposed to examining the translation of he Hebrew and why he clings so determinedly to the erronious claim that he has been told. He is believeing what a second-hand source tells him is true about the original Hebrew text of Genesis 1, and giving those words more weight than the actual Hebrew text of Genesis itself.

I think you're a more openminded chap than Rainman. Why don't you follow the link I posted, read the literal translation of Genesis 1 and tell me how many times you can count each instance of speaking, creating and observing? Don't merely believe what Rainman tells you, examine the evidence for yourself. For surely our beliefs should be based upon what our obserevations of the evidence tells us to be true, rather than our beliefs being so solid that the evidence is irrelevent.

But if you studied gematria, there once again are too many coincidences for it to be mere chance.

Another variant on Numerology? How does this fit into the fact that the Hebrew text of the Bible wasn't fixed universally until the 16th Century?

There is alot of information being presented by both sides. Hard to address them all.

You really don't need to make excuses for him. He has admitted himself that he has bad debating technique.

 

[nicknack]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

So where is this thread exactly getting to? With all sorts of reasons, theories, understandings, factors, evidence, we still have not got onto a certain zone of logic and answers yet.

 

[creedo299]

In the hottest Summer, when the drought occurs:

As time goes on in any post or issue, things, events change.

So do concepts and ideologies.

The Atlantian warriors, were mind controlled.

It was said that they had attacked villages, under the controls of someone else.

The very latest of the Predator movie series, I'm reading the book right now.

What I'm finding in the thirds of this series, is that the predator alien connections, in the third book turns into what is known as a, ((canned hunt)).

This is not like the first of the movie series, where one pure warrior finds Earth, remote and pristine and then descends into the Mattogrosso, in order to chance encounter it prey.

There is sometimes very righteous and pure about the first of any series, which really puts forward what the script writer is trying to get across.

In searching for this quality within the very first one, I would say one the Predator has philosophical abilities and respects life.

Two, Earth is very big and the predator only has one small ship and no'one knows who he is, or what he wants.
He is all on his own.

In the very first of the series, the Predator too, is vulnerable and can be hurt. Just as the special ops rescue team, that is on another mission, but does not realize that they themselves, are being stalked.

Warrior was very kind to post a snip-it, from another board, on time travel and an alien war, but this is not it.

There is that other factor, that a warrior purer than what we can contrive here, in some way, might be on the prowl.

A warrior that is better equipped, more agile, more thoughtful respectful of life and the value of theophylosphy, than anything that is openly, or secretly manufactured here.

A warrior predator that had the body of a Dan O'Brien, who is a decathlete, however the thought process of a Rousseau, or a Henry David Thoreau.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Where did you come from....retorical question... are you supporting the concept that all of life came from pond scum?
"...If the evolutionary process really is so strong, that Humans and Whales can evolve from pond scum in just five billion or so years, God is perfectly capable of evolving in ten billion or so years."

So, you don't know where god came from, that's okay. I don't know exactly how the universe came to being either, I can only theorize about that... just like you. Claiming god created the universe only leaves us with the next question... "where did god come from?".

And yes, I support the concept that all life evolved from "pond scum"... Give me one good reason why I shouldn't? There's plenty of evidence.

Roel

 

[Azkaban]

"You believe we should abandon our morality and begin killing innocent people? "

Place yourself in the position of passengers on Flight 93 (the one that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11). Those who perpetrated killed innocent people. What do you do about morality for those who have none? What is the value of your morality if it is not returned to you in kind? I guess it just makes you feel better about yourself? It certainly does not solve the problem, does it?

 

[CAT]

Ray had supplied and shared phenomenal evidence!!! Though it seems that some of you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand in depth beyond the topological of the web site Ray had supplied... And this doesn't even yet begin to touch on the basis/apply the structures of the Hebrew letters and why precisely they are formed and look the way they do??? The letters are not just some unnatural man made scribbled forms, they relate to the consistencies in nature and Phi spiral once again!

Now that everyone here can see and discern that there is a pattern evident... All of us who are intelligent will take the next step in the process of evaluation... This process involves back tracking into our planets religious history to see if any of this information applies!

Well in fact it does and to a very high degree! The first documented evidence begins with a Gd, a garden, a first man and woman who established a learned language... It appears this language was somewhat lost after their fall, but can still be seen in the progressive order of the oldest written forms of languages in the world, Sumerian Sanskrit/Phoenician... Than to our amazement later on in history, it resurfaces again on stone tablets written by the "finger of Gd" and given in affirmation to Moses/unto the Jewish people... Which implies to me that this Gd was obviously evident all through our history... A Gd of energy and spirit...

The Genesis web site that Ray supplied is more than just a base 3 code... It is the energy process in which was used for creation of mass, space and time... Here is the very code the creator is showing/revealing and sharing with us the being of his identity and the place/abode in which he resides... Roel, you cannot separate Time &amp; Gd out of this equation and picture... Because this all revolves around Time Travel!!! It is these natural laws that sustain and maintain the integrity of the universe...

Let me quote what a good friend of mine said concerning this code:

Someone out there has invited us to come visit!! We don't need to wait for SETI to receive a signal or an indication that someone is out there. It will be shown that we have already been contacted in a way that was so magical in its superscience that it has become a religion or maybe intended to be a religion to show us the way to a science that is beyond imagining that will show us the way far more stranger than fiction could ever be able to express.

I strongly believe that all life is designed, significant, and purposeful and plays in with the naturalistic worldview... Natures balance is the result of Gds purposeful and intelligent design: "He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion" (Jer. 10:12). It was this great awareness that inspired the songwriter of Israel to declare, "O Lord, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all. The earth is full of Your possessions" (Ps. 104:24).

Declaring that Genesis of creation is true, we can be reassured that Gd constantly oversees and sustains creation and continues to grant life to all living things... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

got to make this quick, wife is on her way home and she is angry that I am spending too much time on this computer. I will respond in depth on friday.

The 0 and 1 concept are as follows...In this number the other nine are hidden.
It is indivisible, it is incapable if multiplication; divide 1 by itself and it still is 1.

Multiply 1 by itself and you still only have 1. It represents the unchangeable Father(and Mother) of creation. This number has a twofold nature, a link between existence and non-existence. God is made up of non-existence and existence, a balance of opposing forces...God the "light" of existence, non-existence..again is nothing.

Viewed seperately, neither can be seen, only through the combination of both are you able to see anything. This combination, or the interaction between the two is emanating all that exists.
To create the anything beyond 1...this is what occurs..

To arrive at, or to create an additional number, the 1 is reflected, thus creating 2. A slight imperfect "reflection of 1"
To arrive at, or to create the third, the number 1 is relfected to make 2, and now you will have a 1 and [2 ( 1 and reflected 1 )] appearing to be three, but still only a reflection of the 1.
The 0,1 are assigned no particular sex, or form...
the 2 is for masculine {"potential"( seeds that have not sprouted)}[((Adam)( Created first)], the 3 is for "feminine' {potential (seeds that have not sprouted)}[(Eve)(created second)]...
If we have the 1 and its reflection to complete two, but this does not complete the triad ( or trinity) If one was to draw a line betwen the 1 and its reflection, this configuration would be able to contain absolutely nothing.
Linear in form, but as science is discovering, the essences of creation are not linear. To complete the formation, the reflection of 1 + reflected 1 = 2 ( 1 &amp; 1)

Reflecting 1, and the reflected 1 (2), we can now add 1+1+1 to get 3. Still only being 1, the other 1's only a reflection of the original 1.

By the creation of a third 1, we now can complete a triangle. A Trinity. A formation that actually can contain something. Linear in formation, yet not linear.

As you follow the sequence of life, or matter, the further away you get from the reflected 1, the less perfect it becomes...sort of a copy of a copy, of a copy type of concept. (bottom of the evolutionary scale being of the greatest distance), getting closer as ascension along the evolutionary scale occurs)

Now, this concept is also found in many faiths (0,1)..yin, yang...etc... they are all only representations of existence verses non-existence and the balance of the two.



opps, wife just pulled into the driveway...to be continued on when I can...please read my following post on the Tree of Life...

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

I had no idea you'd ever "called me" on it. But yes, if you think that calling an a part of a process something different to the whole of the process is "silly", then feel free.

I was calling you on how you obfuscate questions with poor language. For someone who normally writes with a high degree of clarity, it becomes all the more apparant when you purposefully try to make a question extremely vague and non-specific. Thus, it is silly.

And yet, I have already answered your question when I said:

Creation is a closed loop.

And then put this together with where I defined the 3 elements of any closed loop structure:

"God Said..." = Command = Output = The OUTWARD spiral.
"God Made..." = Control = Process = The focus point of both outward and inward spirals. The HEART of the creative process itself!
"God Saw..." = Feedback = Input = The INWARD spiral.

All three, taken together, represent the process of Creation. Mankind commits errors when he attempts to dismember the Trinity in a futile attempt at describing each piece of an integrated whole. This principle, which is at the heart of my Massive SpaceTime 3x3 Matrix theory, is indeed borne-out by the fact of Heisenberg Uncertainty.

Because if the details aren't right, then anything that you build on those foundations is also going to be wrong.

Given how often you seek to feed your ego with judgments of "right" from "wrong", I would say you have one hungry ego. And yet it will never be satisfied until you allow it to die.

Please take note that the weak, flawed logic you espouse above would also be directly applicable to the majority of known and accepted scientific theories down through history. You seem to imply (here and in many other posts) that "right" and "wrong" are discrete, boolean functions. I will now prove to you how this view is incorrect. Newton's Third Law (F=ma) is the foundation of the majority of our technological society, certainly of aircraft and spacecraft. Yet along came Einstein and he showed where F=ma was "wrong" (to use your ego-centric word). But in actuality, Einstein did not show that the foundations of our mechanical world are "wrong", but rather that they are limited in the scope of where they can accurately predict experience. And to highlight the point of my comment that engendered this response from you, Einstein was actually seeking a higher level of integration of Mass, Time, and Space than Newton achieved. The VERY THING that I was criticizing you for (not seeking to integrate, but rather to only reduce) is what marks the stunning nature of Einstein's "extension" of Newtonian physics. Note also: Even though Newton was "wrong" (again, your ego word) our technological world that was based on Newton's foundation did not "crumble", and as such, they were NOT WRONG. They were only limited in their application.

You really need to check your ego on the whole right/wrong thing.

No, it's not significant to me that many things in the universe rotate.

And this explains why you have difficulty integrating the "big picture". Because you ignore the single most prevalent characterization of energy in our universe as insignificant. If one wished to understand such massive energetic forms such as the Great Spot on Jupiter, or terrestrial hurricanes that form in the South Atlantic, do you not think that understanding the principles of rotation would be a highly significant aspect of such an understanding? Can you now please provide me EVIDENCE for why this is insignificant? And like you always do to me, I will be the judge of whether your evidence passes muster.

but Rainman seems to have climed two contradictory things - that the Trinity is represented by 0, 1 and 'something inbetween' and also that it's represented by -1, 0 and 1.

Contradictory only in that you really do not understand the "unfolding" that I asked you if you did understand. Remember, I asked the following:

Do you understand the unfolding of number, as implied in the other thread?

And then you replied with:

Well, I understand what you're saying in the other thread

Well, it is now obvious to me that you did NOT understand my other thread, and thus you THINK I am being contradictory. Allow me to now point out (again) one of the most primary example of this "unfolding", since it relates to (and is based upon) common scientific understanding:

ENERGY (This is the integrated 0)
/ \
MATTER--MOTION (This is the dualistic 0&lt;-&gt;1)
/ \
MASS--TIME---SPACE (This is the tripartate -1&lt;-&gt;0&lt;-&gt;+1)

It is consistent, and non-contradictory. That is because one thing is described in terms of its relationships to (and integration with) other things. Again....fundamental to systems engineering is the concept of relationship. I have told you this over and over, and you have never once wished to truly understand, for you have not asked to be enlightened. Instead you just berate me and call me wrong. Nice touch. I'd wager you have some ego problems in other areas of life as well.

If your building your beliefs on a foundation that's wrong even a small amount, then the end result can easily be unrecognisably distorted and flat-out wrong.

Once again I point out the incorrectness of this generalized statement. F=ma is, given relativistic effects, ONLY wrong by "even a small amount". Yet that small error did not prevent this theory from, literally, taking mankind to the stars. I would like to see some solid evidence that what you say here is correct, now that I have provided evidence that it is incorrect.

Until then, yes, I believe that it's possible for all tis to have come about by "accident".

I would like to see evidence for this belief. Being that the probabilities we are talking about are so miniscule, such that you have no other belief to fall back upon other than "accident", then it is readily apparant that there is no strong evidence to support what you say. Now that is some critical thinking on your part. BTW, I am not done with this issue of "severe unliklihood of the structure of our universe supporting life" that OvrLrdLegion has presented. You've got more answering to do here, and I will get to it shortly.

Why not? "Unlikely" does not equal "impossible". It cetainly seems more cridible to me than the idea that there was a consious, self-aware force driving it.

So here is the equivalent to what you are saying, using an analogy: Assuming you timetravel here from the BC times, and come to see the amazing capability and fine-tuned tolerances of the modern computer. You are intelligent enough to work-out for yourself that the odds of this complex machine materializing "by accident" are astounding. Yet you can see some evidence for potential "evolution" of this beast, because you see the similarity to calculators, adding machines, and the like. And despite this HUGE unliklihood of the computer coming together "by accident", you still think it is MORE credible to believe it WAS an accident, rather than the obviously more credible stance that it was purposefully designed by someone/something. Please provide some sound evidence for why you believe this is the more credible belief.

Rainman has a marked habit of this and it seems to coincidentally happen every time it seems his arguments are crumbling. Rather than address criticisms, he simply ignores that there are and criticisms and continues as if nothing had happened.

Yes....much like you, if you think about it. You have completely and utterly ignored my statements that energy, entropy, and information are intimately linked. I have provided you sources of evidence that extend to the highly regarded scientific minds of John Archibald Wheeler, no less. You ignored it and claimed it was not evidence. I provided you with a highly technical paper, with all the supporting equations you would need, and you still claimed it was not evidence. When all of that failed, I presented you with evidence that no reasonable, semi-technically-apt human being could deny as evidence...and yet you denied it. Since this is the most powerful evidence I have provided to you on this issue to-date, I will repeat it:

You cannot create any form of a closed-loop, energy management control system without information! This relationship is about as rock-solid as you can get, and as I explained to you, the physical workings of this evidence surround us all in the many control systems in our technological world.

Continue in your ignorance if you must. But now I feel the need to turn the table on you. Since I have provided evidence on this subject that any control systems engineer would clearly find acceptable and correct, I challenge you to provide me with solid evidence for your stance that energy, entropy, and information are "not at all related".

Compare that to Rainman. In his post after yours he repeats the assertation that the Tree of Life is reflected in Genesis, even though I have shown the way that he claims this to be the case is wrong. This is not conjecture, it is easily demonstrable.

Once again, we see a clear inference here that you believe "right" and "wrong" are discrete, discontinuous, boolean states. If I am so "wrong" about Genesis and its Hebrew interpretation, and you are so "right" in the fact that the link you provide is the ONLY "right" interpretation of the original Hebrew... then how would you explain this very quote from that very website:

"To give you a feel for the size of the problem of creating a translated Bible from the source materials, here's a thorough presentation of Genesis 1:1

We've included two slightly different Hebrew source texts. We've also included the Strong's Numbers and pronunciations.

Finally, the popular translation is first, but other possible interpretations or understandings of each word are also shown. Genesis 1:1 could be translated as the combination of any translation of each word. Try experimental combinations (there are over 3,100 possible here, just from the choices listed!). You may develop more respect for the translators who created your Bible. They had to select the best translation of all these possibilities for every single word and line of the Bible!"

Here we see that your very own reference, that you seem to claim is the "final word" on Hebrew translation of Genesis, is hedging its translation! Can you possibly see that this is why I will ignore the living hell out of you when you jump on your high-horse and pronounce your view as the ONLY "right" view?

Another variant on Numerology? How does this fit into the fact that the Hebrew text of the Bible wasn't fixed universally until the 16th Century?

Believe us. It fits in. Gematria is not just "Numerology", although it is a fallout of the fact that Hebrew letters have an assigned numerical value. Rather, Gematria is an "unfolding" technique (as in topological dimension) from which a letter can be translated into a word, or a sentence, that describes it more fully. The Hebrew alphabet is a compact, and yet also degenerate (as in redundancy can correct errors) CODE. Much like our DNA code. Gematria has been used by Hebrew people as a means of interpretation (and translation) since WELL before the 16th Century.

Furthermore, the text I have quoted to you twice:

Sepher Yetzirah: The Book of Creation Author: Aryeh Kaplan. ISBN: 0-87728-726-0

Which you seem to wish to dismiss as bunk and "wrong", has been the subject of immense amounts study and commentary. Certainly a LOT more study than you have ever given it, just to put your view in the appropriate, minimal perspective. The first commentaries on the original Sepher Yetzirah text (of which Kaplan's book is simply a modern treatise) are recorded in the 10th Century. The text itself is quoted as early as the 6th Century. Its original source is purported to be father Abraham himself, and there is anecdotal evidence and correlations to his life that make this possible. This is all addressed in Kaplan's book.

Now, seeing as how *I* have been one to be criticized as "arrogant", at least I can state the liklihood that I have studied this important text much more deeply than you have. And for you to pompously dismiss it with words such as:

I did look into it myself. And I found it dubious and wanting.

Only shows your ego, once again. The fact that a large number of great scholars from history have found great use and knowledge within this book is "evidence". I would ask OvrLrdLegion to once again post his list of names of people who have found pertinence in Kabbalah. Contrast that list, and the amount of time these esteemed people spent studying this material to your own singular life, and meager attempts at deciphering its meaning. So where is your "evidence" that can counter the "evidence" of many great men of history? Yes, it is easy to see that such a simple answer as "dubious and wanting" is a way for your ego to protect itself.

My next post will be a reply to one of OvrLrdLegion's recent posts, but I will be asking YOU to step-up to the challenge of "evidence" that you so willingly throw about. In this post I will be linking together OvrLrdLegion's primary point with one of my points that you have continued to ignore. Now, you must begin to provide evidence for you dismissals. So far, you have not done so.

RMT

 

[creedo299]

Re: coucil decree:

Creedo 299 bows out of this thread.

I have done so, as I view man as sort of a product.

If mankind is joined as a whole in this land that I print from, then we all should have a clear value.

The quality of value is kept, by being able to have a say in government.

Secondly to this one fact, there should also be allowed the value of spiritual input.

Say if mankind was a product, however' like a garden that had become too crowded, the gardeners never reacted to the complaints of the flowers and a blight set it.

Then at that point in time, the theosophy of how the garden stood and was created, would remain almost of no consequence.

The key action then, would be to transplant some of the flowers, in order to reduce the mass of the garden population.

Both leaders and planers at this time, are not doing this.

I feel what everyone in this thread is trying to do, is to paint a happy face on the misery of collective man's situation, not correct it.

If man is a product and is at his finish in evolving as he should be, then he should be afforded the right of passage into space and be allowed to space travel.

I feel that what is going on, in this thread is a sad testament to try to paint a happy face, on towering, collective, miserable situation.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: some Things to think about...

It is now an appropriate time to respond to this post from OvrLrdLegion, and tie it together with one of the primary aspects I have been using for "evidence" of God, as it relates to energy, entropy, information, and closed-loop creation. When these two views are merged together, they form a very solid foundation of reasonableness for "intelligent creation" based on the scientific facts of the world around us, as described by science and engineering precepts.

1) This post, and its attendant references, from OvrLrdLegion is describing many different parameters that surround the operations of the cosmos. In engineering, we call each such critical parameter that represents a state of a system a "degree of freedom". The greater the number of degrees of freedom, the more complex the behavior of the system.
2) Not only does this article speak of how the universe has a great many degrees of freedom, any one of which, if it were out of tolerance, would result in an absence of the universe as we know it.... but it also points out just how tight these tolerances are.
3) Tolerances, and their impact on a system's ability to counter nature's tendency towards increased entropy (2nd Law of Thermo), are most easily assessed as their percentage of the full-scale degree of freedom they constrain. Any tolerance that is below 5% is certainly a tight tolerance.
4) So far we have a large number of tolerances, and they are all quite tight indeed. Now add to this the integrative effects of systems: The phenomenon called "tolerance stackup" works against the engineer, in that a design which is contrived to meet the requirements of a SINGLE system operating tolerance will often fail to meet all necessary operational tolerances when the system is finally integrated. Thus, "tolerance stackup" deals another blow to the system designer.
5) Therefore, number of tolerances, individual tolerance margin, and tolerance stackup are how we evaluate how we must design a system such that it can overcome the natural tendency to chaos (increased entropy).
6) The natural condition of ALL "open loop" systems (ones which do not have any means for closed-loop feedback) follows nature's tendency for increasing entropy. History of engineering development has shown, time and again, that CLOSED-LOOP CONTROL SYSTEMS are required in order to field a system that can exhibit decreasing entropy during its operational usage. Such closed loops require information with regards to the state of the system variable that one wishes to control (and thereby shape its energy output).
7) The complexity of a system's operating requirements (as denoted by: degrees of freedom, tolerance margins, and tolerance stackup) provides an indication for how many different closed-loop control systems will be required in the final system in order to meet its objectives. EXAMPLE: I onced worked on the design of a fighter flight control system that required a high degree of maneuvering accuracy. The analysis revealed to me that I required better than 2% tolerance for positioning the control surface in the aerodynamic flowfield. I could not find a servo actuator that, when combined with digital control electronics, could achieve this 2% tolerance with only "surface position feedback". If I had only implemented surface position feedback, the resulting system would have been unstable, and the pilot would not be able to maneuver accurately without oscillating the airplane. The only way I could meet the 2% requirement was to include another sensor that told me the rate of change (speed) at which the surface was moving. This "velocity feedback loop" became an "inner loop" to the position loop. More closed-loop control (command-process-feedback loops) was required in order to meet the stringent operating tolerances of the full-up airplane.

Let us pause now, and review these verifiable facts of control systems engineering against the universal "degrees of freedom" and "tolerance" data that is described in OvrLrdLegion's post. Clearly, the universe has a great number of degrees of freedom, and all of the ones quoted herein have extremely tight tolerances. One can surmise that the "tolerance stackup" makes the probability of all this coming to pass (and remaining stable) "by accident" as so unlikely for it to be false. Certainly, anyone who has had to deal with such requirements and design a control system to meet them would say that it is terribly far from "reasonable" to assume that all this came about (and remains about) by accident. No, a control systems engineer would say "you would need to design the universe in such a way as to have multiple, self-regulating, closed-loop control systems...otherwise, entropy increase would tear it apart in a microsecond."

8) I have, ad nauseum, pointed trollface to the facts surrounding the relationships between energy, entropy, and information in terms of all closed-loop systems (man-made, as well as natural).
9) The operation of many natural systems in the universe (primarily those that we associate with life and lifecycles) exhibit closed-loop architectures. For several examples, we can look into Chaos Theory. One of the best is the natural "closed loop" of population control in a closed environment. Information from a current year's population and the amount of food resources that the environment can sustain, is "fed back" to the next cycle of the control loop.... i.e. the next breeding season. Studies of these loops (documented in books such as Jame Gleick's CHAOS) were able to verify that if you "opened the loop" either by removing all food sources, or by supplying endless food sources, the system becomes unstable. Extinction comes about from either positive divergence (overcrowding, resulting in species killing each other for room) or negative divergence (no food to sustain any of the species).
10) These facts of systems, tolerances, tolerance stackups, closed-loop control, energy, entropy, and information are evidenced all around us. One cannot deny them as evidence for how the universe works, for the simple fact that this is what observational science has revealed to us.

11) And thus, it should be obvious (and the most reasonable explanation) that we live in a universe whose tolerances for successful, continued operations are so tight, that it required an external, intelligent force (supersystem) to design an active control system that could continue to "keep it functioning" despite internal energetic tendencies towards increased entropy. The fact that the human species has continued to evolve to higher levels of organization (again, demonstrative evidence of descreasing entropy) is perhaps the single biggest piece of evidence that God not only exists, but He/She/It is the finest closed-loop control system design engineer that we know of!

Please, trollface, provide me with evidence that refutes this integrated view of energy, entropy, and information along with the evidence that you have attested to about the severe unliklihood of this universe occurring "by accident".

Trollface, let me again state plainly what you are doing, but this time in the vernacular of control systems. You, sir, are deperately trying to FORCE your own control system to remain "open loop". Your soul and spirit are bringing experiences to you that are providing you with information that COULD be used to close your higher level control loops. Yet you resist by purposefully and consciously rejecting this information, even though it matches the world around you. Since you do not wish to Integrate this information, your conscious loop may be closed, but your soul and spirit continue to run "open loop". Furthermore, as scientific inquiry into the universe has shown us, the universe is accelerating. Time is running out on this cycle. If you are not successful in closing the next highest loop of soul (as a minimum) your conscious system will likely fail you when some not-too-far-off events come to pass. As long as you continue to demand others prove to you, rather than you proving to yourself, you will not be able to evolve.

RMT

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Please Read Carefully....

The following is a brief description of The Tree of Life. Some of the post is from another source other than myself, other parts are edited in and are my contribution. You will see that the Tree of Life is more than a religious formation, but can apply to one's life as well, regardless of the belief in God..or not!!!

The Tree of Life

The Tree of Life is considered a Grand Configuration, created to enable an individual ( from any tradition ) to utilize it, even if one does not believe in God.

The Tree of Life is about YOUR life.

The Tree in its most basic formation, is an empty coloring picture, or canvas, awaiting the individual to color the Tree with THEIR life

It works from a physical perspective, emotional, mathematical, energetic, light, force, expansion, contraction, creative, destructive, and an infinite number of ways to conform to different perspectives.

Each place on the Tree represents levels, energies, intelligences, situations, dreams, colors, sounds, images, nightmares, thoughts, forces, places, experiences, of the individual filling in the "pictures" of their life.

The Tree is the beginning of learning WHO we are and finding those cycles we have created and learning from them to " ascend " and overcome them.

As we grow( evolve ) from infancy, we have created "demons" that dwell within us. Lurking just below the "level" of our consciousness and slipping in to build habits and patterns. These " demons " within...lazyness, addiction, perversion, anger, spite, hate, etc..., they rise up and crush our potential for achieving the "best" of what we could do if free from these "demonic" influences.

Even if one does not believe in God, the Tree of Life is still an excellent method of ascending in life. A way of pushing evolution a little harder to step away from the pond scum and move into a more spiritual( thoughtful ) realm of existence.

As one ascends, an awareness builds, allowing one to sense the intricate patterns of science and apply those "discoveries" to any subject, including time travelling. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Any questions..or can we agree on this so far?

As my wife is now really angry with me, I will continue this at a later time ..please consider what you have read carefully, for it is a very powerful formula for living.

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: coucil decree:

I feel what everyone in this thread is trying to do, is to paint a happy face on the misery of collective man's situation, not correct it.

How unfortunate you feel that way, Friend Creedo. I will try to bring this thread into focus and relate it to time travelling principles. Patience my dear fellow. Until then, sit back and enjoy the ride. But I would certainly miss your creativity and originality with regards to the structure of the english vocabulary.

 

[RainmanTime]

It's what YOU think that god is.

Actually, it is what a great many people know God to be.

You're (ab)using known scientific facts to support your own believes. What you're saying is indisputable to a certain extent. But putting a "god" label on existing theories and facts doesn't prove gods existence. So yes, the things you say are close to indisputable, but they have nothing to do with god.

I am doing nothing of the sort. What I *am* doing is simply showing how established scientific principles of energy perfectly align with what most mystical/spiritual traditions have claimed God to be. Conservation of Energy is eternal, as is God. Total universal energy is the sum of all Mass, all Space, and all Time. This is how many traditions describe God. The very fact that science can, without compromising its science, validate mystical descriptions of God *does indeed* constitute a level of proof. The fact that you may deny it to your grave does not change this.

Which brings me back to my prior statement: your opinion is just as good as mine.

Assume OvrLrdLegion came to both of us and asked our opinions of fishing and camping in the Southern Alps of New Zealand. Now, if I had "been there, done that" and you had not, who's opinion would be more valuable to OvrLrdLegion? The point is: Opinion is limited by experience. If you have never experienced the presence of the ultimate creative being, how could you ever form an opinion? It's like forming an opinion of whether you like mushrooms without ever seeing them or tasting them.

But you can't deny the possibility that this is just an illusion. In fact, it's even more likely that it's an illusion.

Given that you obviously mean an illusion to our physical senses, let me again remind you that our senses only report on 2% of total universal energy. Given that your senses cannot directly perceive 98% of universal energy, it is actually more likely that it is NOT an illusion, but rather a manifestation that cannot be explained within our 2% perception.

Okay, if you've read my replies in this thread you've probably noticed that I agree to this statement. I don't see why this should be called "god".

Because it completely aligns with what has been described as God. Let me put it this way: Can you possibly find any OTHER description, which is based on established science, that even comes this close to equating to how traditions have described God? Beyond all this, if you are successful in transcending physicality (by eliminating your ego-reference to Mass/Space/Time) you will know why the total of all energy IS God.

Nor do I believe that this "energy" is selfaware. It does not have a conscience, nor can it think autonomically.

And yet you are nothing but a clump of energy, and you ARE self aware. Isn't that a bit odd that your little segment of universal energy you would consider aware, but you would not extend the same capability to a MUCH, MUCH, MUCH larger body of energy (which also happens to include the energy of other people who you would deem self-aware)? Isn't cause-effect autonomic?

the spirit, the soul or whatever anyone may call it, is nothing more than a process within our brains. It cannot exist outside the human brain, for the simple reason that it needs a brain to perform its function.

Alan Turing, and the generalized Turing Machine. This seminal work influenced and gave rise to Claude Shannon's landmark treatise on information theory. Any process can be codified in information, independently of the physical structure of a given device. A code can be implemented in a machine that reads a serial tape of holes (the original Turing machine), or the code can be implemented in a modulated electromagnetic wave... or it can be encoded in our DNA. Thus, the soul, while I agree that it is a process, is transferrable, and therefore has the potential to be eternal. The work of Turing and Shannon make this clear, especially since the human brain is of finite information storage capacity.

I'd like to know why you think the information you gather from your non-physical self is more reliable than the information you receive from your primary senses?

Read above! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif 2% vs. 98%. If I run a lab experiment 100 times, and I get the exact same result 2 times, but I get much broader answers the other 98 times, which result is more likely to be "true"?

In which case I'd like to stress that if what you're saying is true, then NOTHING is the absolute truth. And when I say NOTHING, that also includes god.

What I am saying is that the 2% world we perceive in Massive SpaceTime is the fantasyworld. Whereas integration of all Mass, with all Space, and all Time is, quite literally, the only absolute. It is also equal to energy.

There are absolutes, but again I don't think god is one of them.

OK, I'm game. Give me something that you think is an absolute, that is obviously much more powerful than God.

I'm probably going to prove your point more than my own now, but I think that's the basis of our disagreement. This "fantasyworld" may be relative to humans in general, but every individual is unique and thus we all perceive this "fantasyworld" in our own way.

Yes, you kind of did prove my point there. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif We all perceive the Massive SpaceTime matrix in different ways, because we all occupy distinct spaces, we are comprised of distinct masses, and we exist over distinct times. A very fair analogy would be a 3x3x3 cube structure with 27 cells in it. Place the earth in the center cell, place Ray in the upper-right-forward corner cell, and place Roel in the lower-left-aft corner cell. When we both look at the earth, we see different things and describe different views of earth. It is not important that we each see different things. What is more important is that we both agree that our physical senses can only see very small parts of the real situation. Now fill all the other cells in the cube with people, and get 24 more (and different) views of earth. Now if you can think of how to integrate ALL of these views, simultaneously (rejecting none, accepting all), we can begin to transcend the limited senses of one with the limited senses of many. Yet even this is still not the "whole" picture of reality, for we have not included the earth itself. There is ALWAYS more out there than just what you senses tell you. That is the more important thing to comes to grips with, rather than your fantasyworld vs. mine.

But since you cannot prove the existence of god to me

Still stuck in the mud, huh? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif One cannot ever prove something to someone who does not wish to receive it. A lawyer can never serve me with a subpoena to appear before a court if they can never find me. You get my point.

Let me put it this way: I think that god is energy, but not the other way around.

You do realize that this is equivalent to saying "A = B" however "B &lt;&gt; A"?

Energy is energy. It's not selfaware and there's no indication for me to think otherwise.

No indication? And yet you will agree with me that each of us, as physical human beings, amount to nothing more (and nothing less) than a clump of energy vibrating at a low frequency? So if you are made of energy, and you claim that energy is not self aware, then how do you count for your own self awareness? To what can you possibly attribute it to?

Roel, you do not know how very close you are to "seeing" the proof of God. I'd really like you to ponder deeply these last questions I have given you. How can you account for yourself and your awareness if you believe energy cannot be self-aware? This is called a self-referent loop...and it is infinite, just like God. It is one of the very first steps of seeing God in yourself, and yourself in God.

Continue to disbelieve if you simply must... but you are much closer to seeing that evidence than you may have ever been before.

RMT