"We are That"

[Ouroboros]

now your questions lead to larger topics.....
how about posting some op's

I did earlier. You led it astray by stating your claims in responses to my posts about the op. If you don't like the branching of topic, then don't start branching it.

 

[atanu]

observation came after the creation.

Ha ha. Was it a blind creation then? Was it a creation devoid of seeing? Perhaps Dawkins is correct after all.

 

[atanu]

I suspect "spirit vs substance" is an illusion..

It has to be this only.

 

[Thief]

Ha ha. Was it a blind creation then? Was it a creation devoid of seeing? Perhaps Dawkins is correct after all.

I've been blind....seven days.....
but that isn't the same is it?

I see.....whether I have my eyes close or not.
I'm sure you understand.

Let there be light.....is more than a command.

You think God had 'nothing' on His mind when it happened?

 

[atanu]

You think God had 'nothing' on His mind when it happened?

Of course not. We call it seeing (as a function of the seer) and many of us equate seeing with creation since out of the three possibilities: 1.Creation preceding seeing, 2.Seeing preceding creation and 3. 'No Creation but only appearance of creation', the last one satisfies scripture and logic both. YMMV.

 

[metis]

and neither do theoretical physicists....
M. Kaku did say.....theoretical physics has a 'problem' with infinity.

I don't

The only real problem with "infinity" is simply that we don't know if it is correct, nor will we ever likely know.

BTW, I have read Kaku and heard him many times, and I do not remember him making any such claim about infinity, so could you link us to where he wrote or said that? He's one of my favorites.

 

[metis]

and God said to Moses when questioned for a name....
Tell the people ....I AM!....and they that understand will know.....

I get it.

I "get it" as well, but I just don't know if it is correct, so I don't assume it is. Why should I when there really is nothing to base it on except a text written about 3000 or so years ago by someone(s) I don't know and cannot verify one way or another?

To me, the importance of scripture isn't whether the narratives are accurate historically but what these narratives teach in regards to morals and values that may be applicable today.

 

[Thief]

I "get it" as well, but I just don't know if it is correct, so I don't assume it is. Why should I when there really is nothing to base it on except a text written about 3000 or so years ago by someone(s) I don't know and cannot verify one way or another?

To me, the importance of scripture isn't whether the narratives are accurate historically but what these narratives teach in regards to morals and values that may be applicable today.

the item I mentioned has everything about existence therein.

if you get the notion.....I AM!.....you don't need the handshake of God.

 

[Thief]

The only real problem with "infinity" is simply that we don't know if it is correct, nor will we ever likely know.

BTW, I have read Kaku and heard him many times, and I do not remember him making any such claim about infinity, so could you link us to where he wrote or said that? He's one of my favorites.

the quote came from one of those science documentaries that he narrates.
( he struck a thoughtful pose as he narrated the scene)
His demo was an equation on a chalkboard that ends with infinity+infinity+......infinitely.

 

[metis]

the item I mentioned has everything about existence therein.

if you get the notion.....I AM!.....you don't need the handshake of God.

Well, first of all we simply do not know if we are part of a universe or a multiverse, so all may not be "within". But, I tend to agree with your take to this extent, which I may have posted on this thread before: Whatever cause this universe/multiverse I'll call "God" and pretty much just leave it at that.

 

[metis]

the quote came from one of those science documentaries that he narrates.
( he struck a thoughtful pose as he narrated the scene)
His demo was an equation on a chalkboard that ends with infinity+infinity+......infinitely.

I Googled it, and here's one item I came up with:

For example he states that the mass of the blackhole being M and R describes the distance from the blackhole, but when R is equal to 0. You simply get infinity. So he states that the very centre of a blackhole, according to Einstein's equations gravity would be infinite and time itself completely stops. Also he says that all the mass of a blackhole, is contained within an infinitely small, infinitely dense point that takes up exactly 0 space at all. -- https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/michio-kaku-and-einstein.666018/

Here's another:

In the following video, world renowned physicist Michio Kaku describes the problem with the inconsistencies of general relativity. He shows that the breakdown of physical laws in a black hole. A result of infinity is a physicists nightmare. Infinity means that all laws fall apart. And when Einstein’s laws are combined with quantum mechanics, an menacing beast is formed, an infinite series of infinities. -- https://sites.psu.edu/twmalencia/2013/11/11/physics-is-having-a-nervous-breakdown-michio-kaku/

So, what's essentially being said here by Kaku is that the laws of physics as we know them do not appear to apply at the point of infinity, and this has been theorized by a long time. It's not saying that infinity cannot be taken into consideration as a viable possibility. I have often posted that the rules that govern mega-matter and sub-atomic particles appear to be different, and that this has been verified by what we do understand about quantum mechanics. Therefore, the implication of Einstein's Relativity theories projected into infinity, not only tends to go along with this, it takes it to a point whereas all sorts of weird things, such as myriads of infinities, could possibly occur.

 

[Thief]

I Googled it, and here's one item I came up with:

For example he states that the mass of the blackhole being M and R describes the distance from the blackhole, but when R is equal to 0. You simply get infinity. So he states that the very centre of a blackhole, according to Einstein's equations gravity would be infinite and time itself completely stops. Also he says that all the mass of a blackhole, is contained within an infinitely small, infinitely dense point that takes up exactly 0 space at all. -- https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/michio-kaku-and-einstein.666018/

Here's another:

In the following video, world renowned physicist Michio Kaku describes the problem with the inconsistencies of general relativity. He shows that the breakdown of physical laws in a black hole. A result of infinity is a physicists nightmare. Infinity means that all laws fall apart. And when Einstein’s laws are combined with quantum mechanics, an menacing beast is formed, an infinite series of infinities. -- https://sites.psu.edu/twmalencia/2013/11/11/physics-is-having-a-nervous-breakdown-michio-kaku/

So, what's essentially being said here by Kaku is that the laws of physics as we know them do not appear to apply at the point of infinity, and this has been theorized by a long time. It's not saying that infinity cannot be taken into consideration as a viable possibility. I have often posted that the rules that govern mega-matter and sub-atomic particles appear to be different, and that this has been verified by what we do understand about quantum mechanics. Therefore, the implication of Einstein's Relativity theories projected into infinity, not only tends to go along with this, it takes it to a point whereas all sorts of weird things, such as myriads of infinities, could possibly occur.

and in recent posts I rhetorically did ask....
what if reality as we know it could be crushed?
what if our beloved laws of motion don't work?

But I don't believe in gravity as an absolute.
and even if the equations claim time stops (time is a measure of motion)
motion never actually stops.

even black holes move through space.

 

[metis]

and in recent posts I rhetorically did ask....
what if reality as we know it could be crushed?
what if our beloved laws of motion don't work?

But I don't believe in gravity as an absolute.
and even if the equations claim time stops (time is a measure of motion)
motion never actually stops.

even black holes move through space.

When physicists talk about "time starting", in most cases that I have read from them is that this should not be taken at face value because what they actually are saying is that time as we know it appears not to exist. I have not read a single cosmologist or physicist who believes that nothing moves at such a time, and if anything moves even one minute iota, time is involved. This is the space-time concept that Einstein theorized and what was eventually proven by others.

 

[Ouroboros]

I've been blind....seven days.....
but that isn't the same is it?

But if observation came after creation, then how did God observe before?

I see.....whether I have my eyes close or not.
I'm sure you understand.

So observation comes without substance then.

Let there be light.....is more than a command.

The first light came some 130,000 years after creation.

You think God had 'nothing' on His mind when it happened?

So God had thoughts before substance? In other words, not just spirit first, but mind first as well. God observational skills first, and God's voice first. Light first, and other things first. All things you'd like first, before substance, except substance is already an illusion. Maybe you can think instead all things that are not substance first, and last, and substance never.

 

[Thief]

When physicists talk about "time starting", in most cases that I have read from them is that this should not be taken at face value because what they actually are saying is that time as we know it appears not to exist. I have not read a single cosmologist or physicist who believes that nothing moves at such a time, and if anything moves even one minute iota, time is involved. This is the space-time concept that Einstein theorized and what was eventually proven by others.

the concept is cognitive.....numbers on a chalkboard.

time is only a measure of movement.

 

[Thief]

But if observation came after creation, then how did God observe before?


So observation comes without substance then.


The first light came some 130,000 years after creation.


So God had thoughts before substance? In other words, not just spirit first, but mind first as well. God observational skills first, and God's voice first. Light first, and other things first. All things you'd like first, before substance, except substance is already an illusion. Maybe you can think instead all things that are not substance first, and last, and substance never.

the only item to observe would be God.

in that instant of self awareness......I AM!.....
Let there be light .....was simultaneous.
(so what if it took a few years for the effect to gel)

 

[Ouroboros]

the only item to observe would be God.

in that instant of self awareness......I AM!.....
Let there be light .....was simultaneous.
(so what if it took a few years for the effect to gel)

All is God.

 

[Thief]

All is God.

I don't think you say it the same way I do.....
how about?.....God is all...

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't think you say it the same way I do.....
how about?.....God is all...

And All is God.

 

[metis]

the concept is cognitive.....numbers on a chalkboard.

time is only a measure of movement.

I agree.