Equation for Religion

The Sum of Awe · Jul 1, 2011

At least a thousand religions, at least a million different spiritual and personal beliefs

If we had proof that only ONE is write out of the 1,001,000's at the least... What makes it likely that the one you believe in is correct?

It's a question that makes me wonder, especially because I just go by perspective... And perspective CAN be wrong.

So the likeliness that your religion/beliefs out of all the others is at the very least the ratio of 1:1,001,000.

There are two ways out of this: Accept all spiritual ideas or accept none until decided. Unless you are sure that the ratio 1:1,001,000 is likely.

Of course it is possible... But 1 out of a million thousand is a very very very low and unlikely chance.

Even I have a very low and unlikely chance, so don't get me wrong.

READ THIS: I am not trying to say you MUST accept all or none, nor that you should...

Hell, I'm not dropping my opinions, you shouldn't either, but just wondering.

Storm · Jul 1, 2011

The Sum of Awe said:
At least a thousand religions, at least a million different spiritual and personal beliefs

If we had proof that only ONE is write out of the 1,001,000's at the least... What makes it likely that the one you believe in is correct?

Objectively? Not a damn thing. Just like all the others.

Subjectively, the list is endless.

So the likeliness that your religion/beliefs out of all the others is at the very least the ratio of 1:1,001,000.

I think that's far too generous an estimate.

There are two ways out of this: Accept all spiritual ideas or accept none until decided. Unless you are sure that the ratio 1:1,001,000 is likely.

Nah... nothing wrong with having opinions, so long as you remember what they are.

Eventually, you have to pick a reality and go with it.

The Sum of Awe · Jul 1, 2011

Storm said:
Eventually, you have to pick a reality and go with it.

That's true too

ellenjanuary · Jul 3, 2011

The Sum of Awe said:
At least a thousand religions, at least a million different spiritual and personal beliefs

If we had proof that only ONE is write out of the 1,001,000's at the least... What makes it likely that the one you believe in is correct?

It's a question that makes me wonder, especially because I just go by perspective... And perspective CAN be wrong.

So the likeliness that your religion/beliefs out of all the others is at the very least the ratio of 1:1,001,000.

There are two ways out of this: Accept all spiritual ideas or accept none until decided. Unless you are sure that the ratio 1:1,001,000 is likely.

Of course it is possible... But 1 out of a million thousand is a very very very low and unlikely chance.

Even I have a very low and unlikely chance, so don't get me wrong.

READ THIS: I am not trying to say you MUST accept all or none, nor that you should...

Hell, I'm not dropping my opinions, you shouldn't either, but just wondering.

Because the YTH is so flippin' unlimited it is just an acronym; and to define is to confine...

...and there's your math. The closer one comes to Zero, the more one reflects the Infinite.

charles brough · Jul 14, 2011

Yes, only one out of the millions of belief system can, as you say, be "true," but what does that mean? Are you saying that one of them can be true, to be the "god's awful Truth?"

I propose that it is impossible for any belief system, ideology or religion to be an abstract "truth," that is, to be the ultimate knowledge, the final knowledge. That would also hold with Secular Humanism. It is also an ideology.

I believe the answer to this dilemma is that in ancient times, the old religions were then considered advanced, as our science-secular beliefs are considered to be now. But the centuries since then have been hard on them, and world-understanding (science) has advanced to where the old religions are no longer accurate. They are no longer consistent with science and, for that reason, are now obsolete and need to be replaced.

Brough,
I might no respond if my paragraphs are intersperced with nit-picking comments.

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 14, 2011

The Sum of Awe said:
At least a thousand religions, at least a million different spiritual and personal beliefs

If we had proof that only ONE is write out of the 1,001,000's at the least... What makes it likely that the one you believe in is correct?

It's a question that makes me wonder, especially because I just go by perspective... And perspective CAN be wrong.

So the likeliness that your religion/beliefs out of all the others is at the very least the ratio of 1:1,001,000.

There are two ways out of this: Accept all spiritual ideas or accept none until decided. Unless you are sure that the ratio 1:1,001,000 is likely.

The Sum of Awe · Jul 14, 2011

Jayhawker Soule said:

I accept negative feedback IF there is a reason on what is wrong with the OP.

Luminous · Jul 14, 2011

The Sum of Awe said:
I accept negative feedback IF there is a reason on what is wrong with the OP.

I supose that other than throwing around false statistics and odds, such an argument must be an old and tiring thing to Jaysoul

Koldo · Jul 14, 2011

Luminous said:
I supose that other than throwing around false statistics and odds, such an argument must be an old and tiring thing to Jaysoul

And yet he still wastes his time and effort trying to mock people.

zemelo.franky · Jul 15, 2011

There's actually a third option, which is to not make a choice and remain open-minded and unattached. After all, attachment is the root of all suffering. Mathematically.

Thief · Jul 15, 2011

The Sum of Awe said:
At least a thousand religions, at least a million different spiritual and personal beliefs

If we had proof that only ONE is write out of the 1,001,000's at the least... What makes it likely that the one you believe in is correct?

It's a question that makes me wonder, especially because I just go by perspective... And perspective CAN be wrong.

So the likeliness that your religion/beliefs out of all the others is at the very least the ratio of 1:1,001,000.

There are two ways out of this: Accept all spiritual ideas or accept none until decided. Unless you are sure that the ratio 1:1,001,000 is likely.

Of course it is possible... But 1 out of a million thousand is a very very very low and unlikely chance.

Even I have a very low and unlikely chance, so don't get me wrong.

READ THIS: I am not trying to say you MUST accept all or none, nor that you should...

Hell, I'm not dropping my opinions, you shouldn't either, but just wondering.

I cut the odds at fifty/fifty.

You can say yeah....or you can say nay.

The choices to make are not that difficult.
The angels will decide later if you have ....chosen well.

Reptillian · Jul 15, 2011

There is bound to be some overlap between religions. If you can find something that every religion agrees on it may have some basis in truth or in human nature. That belief could then be examined rationally for merit.

imaginaryme · Jul 15, 2011

the sum of an infinite geometric series = a/1-r

Word from the perspective of context, perspective and time can be summated in geometric elements of emotional impact. Ranking these elements by size and scaling for god=1, one can see that a lifetime of sin can lead to sanctity. And every word ever written, is of necessity, less that the Word of God.

zemelo.franky · Jul 15, 2011

imaginaryme said:
the sum of an infinite geometric series = a/1-r

Word from the perspective of context, perspective and time can be summated in geometric elements of emotional impact. Ranking these elements by size and scaling for god=1, one can see that a lifetime of sin can lead to sanctity. And every word ever written, is of necessity, less that the Word of God.

It's weird, it sounds like we've found similar geometric structures independent of one another. Are you saying context, perspective, and time are related by triality?

Setting God = 1 is essentially creating a logical axiom (assumption) "It is possible for God to exist." I believe the "sin leads to sanctity" comment stems from the positive and negative "charges" I've discovered returning to "Unity." (1).

Have you heard of Garrett Lisi's E8 Theory, and/or are you familiar with Lie groups?

imaginaryme · Jul 15, 2011

zemelo.franky said:
It's weird, it sounds like we've found similar geometric structures independent of one another. Are you saying context, perspective, and time are related by triality?

Setting God = 1 is essentially creating a logical axiom (assumption) "It is possible for God to exist." I believe the "sin leads to sanctity" comment stems from the positive and negative "charges" I've discovered returning to "Unity." (1).

Have you heard of Garrett Lisi's E8 Theory, and/or are you familiar with Lie groups?

A personal revelation in overcoming duality is for me to be the duality. E8 as a spirograph of (I'm guessing) 216 points? Think so.

zemelo.franky · Jul 15, 2011

To me it seems a third "object" arises from the unification of the duality... i.e. "being" the duality makes one more than the summation of its parts... it allows one to overcome decay through what is essentially a mental orbit (by the principle that since the world always moves, if you "attach" you suffer, so you must maintain a dynamic equilibrium).

Orbits are basically rings, which is what (in my understanding) Lie groups are all about. E8 is a non-compact Lie group posited by Garrett Lisi as the geometric structure of everything. You really should check out his paper "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" on arxiv.org - it's not right, but it gets you thinking...

imaginaryme · Jul 15, 2011

zemelo.franky said:
To me it seems a third "object" arises from the unification of the duality... i.e. "being" the duality makes one more than the summation of its parts... it allows one to overcome decay through what is essentially a mental orbit (by the principle that since the world always moves, if you "attach" you suffer, so you must maintain a dynamic equilibrium).

Orbits are basically rings, which is what (in my understanding) Lie groups are all about. E8 is a non-compact Lie group posited by Garrett Lisi as the geometric structure of everything. You really should check out his paper "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" on arxiv.org - it's not right, but it gets you thinking...

Pretty sure I heard him pimping his gospel on TED.

But we are "of ring" in that being the worst thing in the universe discussing the best thing in the universe (god) is singular theology from duality. Trine is engineering. Created in the image of god before Genesis 2:4, from components after - dust and breath - another duality. Nested, like fractals. Knowing fine structure, however, ain't exactly my field.

zemelo.franky · Jul 15, 2011

imaginaryme said:
Pretty sure I heard him pimping his gospel on TED.

But we are "of ring" in that being the worst thing in the universe discussing the best thing in the universe (god) is singular theology from duality. Trine is engineering. Created in the image of god before Genesis 2:4, from components after - dust and breath - another duality. Nested, like fractals. Knowing fine structure, however, ain't exactly my field.

Yeah he pimps hard, but like I said - the idea.

...that's actually a really interesting way of looking at it: the two components discussing the whole. It's funny, you should look up Gell-Mann's "Eightfold Way" in comparison to the Eightfold Path. Makes you wonder... what's really going on at the subatomic level? Thought?

imaginaryme · Jul 15, 2011

zemelo.franky said:
Yeah he pimps hard, but like I said - the idea.

...that's actually a really interesting way of looking at it: the two components discussing the whole. It's funny, you should look up Gell-Mann's "Eightfold Way" in comparison to the Eightfold Path. Makes you wonder... what's really going on at the subatomic level? Thought?

Gell-Mann is a name I know studying mathematics, but I do now have some recommended reading - thanks.

But I'm content in hypothesizing pure number at Planck scales. If the mind is truly a quantum computer, seeing myself as "simple sequential time processor" and god as "point-object simultaneity" becomes theology elevated to verified scientific hypothesis - a gospel of me kicking it with Holy Spirit may yet be theory...

But there is no sense of "being 4" at the human scale without sequency... what's going on at the quantum level is for the quantum mind to research and publish.

zemelo.franky · Jul 15, 2011

imaginaryme said:
Gell-Mann is a name I know studying mathematics, but I do now have some recommended reading - thanks.

But I'm content in hypothesizing pure number at Planck scales. If the mind is truly a quantum computer, seeing myself as "simple sequential time processor" and god as "point-object simultaneity" becomes theology elevated to verified scientific hypothesis - a gospel of me kicking it with Holy Spirit may yet be theory...

But there is no sense of "being 4" at the human scale without sequency... what's going on at the quantum level is for the quantum mind to research and publish.

I went down a similar path a few months ago - I was calling it Data Compression Theory. Basically, I was treating each human as a "lossy data compressor" and the universe as uncompressed quaternary information. For a while I was tempted to treat humans as transistors (output of true/false), but I realized that humans make mistakes, hence the lossy (as opposed to lossless) data compression.

I realized a major error, however, and am heading in a weird new direction.

Equation for Religion

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.

Well-Known Member

Member

-- untitled --

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.

non-existential luminary

Outstanding Member

Member

Rogue Theologian

Hamburgler Extraordinaire

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Member