Roel van Houten
Quantum Scribe
Re: Newsflash - Energy is THE Truth!
Second, we are all energy. Everything is energy. However, not everything is selfaware. That's a bit like saying "all the soccerplayers in the world are human, so all humans must be soccerplayers". I am selfaware, you are selfaware, but the universe isn't.
The discussion over the number 7 started with you claiming that it couldn't have been created by humans because there are 7 seven distinct electron energy levels that align with religious references to the number 7. This similarity is insignificant. It would seem significant, but if religions would have mentioned 5 instead of 7, you would have found anoother similarity. That's my point!
This might interest you! But I guess you are already aware of this particular case.
Cheers,
Roel
I thought we already agreed on this subject. You're absolutely right. However, this doesn't in any way indicate that energy is selfaware. Energy does not express any form of selfawareness, or intelligence for that matter. Information needs processing and is quite useless in itself.But even in this virutal environment of Energy exchange, the primary basis of it all is still Information.
First of all, I don't think the ability to create is really a mystery. I think it's the result of millions of years of evolutions where our central nervous system has evolved to a tool that allows us to create.I am. You are. We are. The universe is.....all the same thing....we call it Energy.
Second, we are all energy. Everything is energy. However, not everything is selfaware. That's a bit like saying "all the soccerplayers in the world are human, so all humans must be soccerplayers". I am selfaware, you are selfaware, but the universe isn't.
Only time will tell which is the right way. I do not proclaim a strict seperation of science and spirituality, as long as we do not bluntly accept either as the absolute truth. If they are to be integrated, science will have to open to experiences that can not be sensed or measured in the traditional way, whereas spiritual experiences will no longer count as absolutes anymore. "God" will be just as much a theory as any other scientifical concept., especially since we in our day have chosen to forcefully keep these two separate.
Yes, in the same way that the Egyptians worshipped one god in its many aspects. My point was, that if you think they had advanced knowledge of spirtuality, perhaps it may prove necessary to worship god in every singe aspect. If Egyptians really were ahead of us in every field, why not copy their believesystem?And I worship a God that can be One and at the same time Three.... and more. In fact, God is the Infinite and Unknown.
I do understand the concept of 0=1, but I do not (yet) acknowledge its validity. Using your version of the Energy Equation you can proof that 0 equals any value. So 0 = 1, 0 = 2, 0 = 3, and so on... While this may "prove" that 0 equals everything, I doubt that this equation has any valid mathematical or physical foundation. I'll try to provide proof for that shortly.I'd say that this statement of yours shows that you have really not grabbed the deeper significance of the 0=1 concept as giving birth to all things.
I was not trying to create the illusion that I have scientific proof for that statement. I do not really believe that aliens visited the ancient Egyptians, although I do consider it as one of many possibilities. To me it just seems more probable. Actually the reason why I think it seems more probable could be classified as "spiritual" rather than "scientific". When I was around the age of 11 or 12 I read a book by Erich von Däniken which left such an impression that, as to date, still arouses my interest in things like aliens, ufo's, cropcircles and advanced ancient cultures.There you go throwing around probability again.
In that case I have no problem with the integration of science and spirituality. In fact, I can already think beyond "the physical" and I can visualize that everything is in fact energy.This is the essence of the integration of science and spirituality.
You could say that Energy appears in infinite ways. I was going to write: "Energy manifests itself in infinite ways", but that would imply that Energy is selfaware which I definitely think it's not.We simply describe Energy as being multiple parts...
I do see what you're talking about and I think it's something old in a new fur /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif In my opinion something "new" would be taking god completely out of the equation. That does neccesarily not rule out the integration of spirituality and science. Perhaps spirituality will become a useful tool in proving that god does not exist.But it seems like you do not see that what I am talking about (integration of science and spirituality) as being something "new".
I will at least try to prove your 0=1 equation wrong. Please allow me some time, since physics and mathematics are not my strongest point /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gifBut I don't think you can for the very fact that what I am talking about completely aligns with what the cutting edge of science is discovering about Energy.
As mentioned above, I do not really belief this. I merely consider it as one of many possibilities. I think that the existing theories about where, by whom and how the numerical system was created will suffice until new facts arise. Also, from an evolutionary point of view it seems perfectly logical that humans would create a numerical system. When humans become aware of quantities, eventually they will feel the need to communicate these quantities to other humans. I can imagine that, when hunting, an individual might want to indicate how many prey animals or predators there are on the other side of a hill. In its most primitive form this could have been dashes written in the soil with a twig, but eventually this system evolved into a much more complex numerical system. This is a universal need, which would also explain why so many different kinds of numerical systems were invented by various cultures.And yet, from your statement of belief about the ancients probably being in contact with aliens, you cannot even show that this statement of yours is true.
Oh, like just like the existence of god?The problem is one of infinite regression...
This is a perfect example of your talent for taking my words out of context. Of course the structure of the energetic shell of atoms is significant. The fact that there are 7 energy levels is insignificant. More specifically, the number 7 in this context is insignificant. There are 7 energy levels... so what? What does this tell us about the number 7?The structure of the energetic shell of atoms is insignificant???
Good! So you agree that the numbers 3 and 7 do not have any particular meaning? So any occurance of that number is either accidental or purposely used by the author?The number 7, by itself, is not significant.
I know for a fact that you have a better sense of humourIt is almost funny that you cannot see this.
The discussion over the number 7 started with you claiming that it couldn't have been created by humans because there are 7 seven distinct electron energy levels that align with religious references to the number 7. This similarity is insignificant. It would seem significant, but if religions would have mentioned 5 instead of 7, you would have found anoother similarity. That's my point!
Correction: blueprint for humans and animals.The fact that the blueprint for humans matches the Tree Of Life is a clue to look deeper.
I didn't say it wasn't worth researching. I am simply not qualified to start looking for possible similarities between the tree of life and DNA. If a revolutionary discovery is made in this field, I'm sure I'll hear about it from people who are qualified. These things do arouse my interest, but not from a spiritual point of view.Scientists are looking deeper, but it appears you don't wish to, as you think it is insignificant.
This might interest you! But I guess you are already aware of this particular case.
So the chance is big that if you take a number that's represented in the Tree of Life, there's a matching binary sequence number.Yes, I do, infinite.
So 5 is another significant number /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif If you keep this rate up, I think we'll have thousands of "significant" numbers that match the model of the tree of life.Do you understand the significance of each binary sequence number in terms of differing constructs of life in the universe? 2^5 is connected to the human form of existence (five senses anyone?).
I'll help you remind.Dealing with "what ifs" that counter established history are of no use to us, now are they?
But that didn't keep them from doing so. Also, these are different times.Being so open about what they knew was true (through observation/experimentation) didn't exactly make Copernicus' and Galileo's life a bed of roses, now did it?
I agree... Good ol' non-selfaware EnergyRather, there is one, simple thread that ties all of science together. Energy.
No. I seek truth (sometimes more passively than other times), but I haven't found it yet. Just like you I can only "have faith" in the things I read and hear. In my opinion science should be an ongoing process of trial and error. People make mistakes, but everytime we make a mistake we learn from it and it allows us to complete another part of this immensly large puzzle. Now, I don't mind integration of science and spirituality. What I do mind is playing Jeopardy! The answer is "God exists", now lets find a question that matches this answer. That's just not the "non-linear thinking" we are after! Of course the answer "God exists" can be one of many theories that we can either prove or disprove. There are no absolute truths (and I think you've already said that yourself on one or more occasions). /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gifIs that perhaps because you think you can reach the same answers of Truth in an easier manner?
I wonder if there are any great minds that do no agree with this understanding. Now this may seem as a negative approach, but it is not meant as such. If I read an article by a renowned scientist, it is most likely that the matter he discusses will be presented in such a a way that it can convince other scientists, let alone a simple mind like myselfAnd are you aware that, right now, some of the greatest minds in theoretical physics are strong in their understanding that an accurate description of the universe cannot be divorced from the force of consciousness?
Cheers,
Roel