Sasun Posted November 4, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 No Thoth, I disagree. Its not a silly question. Silly is to ask for a proof and not know what proof one wants. And a lot of people do ask for proof. Obviously if some being came to Earth and melted all weapons or such - or buildings/whatever - I don't know - prooved his/its power beyond comprehension - etc - I might say whoa - bad dude....etc...or if the same came down and cured all disease, stopped all wars etc etc etc...and perhaps then claimed all these things normally attributed to "God" - - "hey guys I'm the one - I created the universe - did all this stuff etc etc - yeah it was me..." ....well - I still wouldn't believe - LOL...I'd think - OK - powerful dude...maybe his heart is in the right place...but how couls he/it actually proove these things to us? Even if he implanted a movie of all of it in our brains or such...there is still room for sceptiscism - that we are being fooled...so I do not think we can ever "know" for sure - and our perceptions etc are always subject to manipulation - you can't believe what you see - even what you (think you) know...this is my postion and I'm sticking to it! This is exactly what I was saying. People will doubt even what they call proof. What kind of thinking is this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted November 4, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 No Thoth, I disagree. Its not a silly question. Silly is to ask for a proof and not know what proof one wants. And a lot of people do ask for proof. Obviously if some being came to Earth and melted all weapons or such - or buildings/whatever - I don't know - prooved his/its power beyond comprehension - etc - I might say whoa - bad dude....etc...or if the same came down and cured all disease, stopped all wars etc etc etc...and perhaps then claimed all these things normally attributed to "God" - - "hey guys I'm the one - I created the universe - did all this stuff etc etc - yeah it was me..." ....well - I still wouldn't believe - LOL...I'd think - OK - powerful dude...maybe his heart is in the right place...but how couls he/it actually proove these things to us? Even if he implanted a movie of all of it in our brains or such...there is still room for sceptiscism - that we are being fooled...so I do not think we can ever "know" for sure - and our perceptions etc are always subject to manipulation - you can't believe what you see - even what you (think you) know...this is my postion and I'm sticking to it! This is exactly what I was saying. People will doubt even what they call proof. What kind of thinking is this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Sasun - the answer is ultimatly unknowable/unprovable...we have not the capacity. So perhaps I am a ood Daoist after all eh? And i'm sorry for the negative connatations of "silly" - I don't mean to disparage your quest/interest...I really don't...but ultimatly it is how I feel about such a question...(though the questioner and some fo his beliefs & such could be very cool etc - and in your case...well I think your OK Sasun...there...[but Domino & I are already dating...LOL - so sorry...] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted November 4, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Sasun - the answer is ultimatly unknowable/unprovable...we have not the capacity. So perhaps I am a ood Daoist after all eh? And i'm sorry for the negative connatations of "silly" - I don't mean to disparage your quest/interest...I really don't...but ultimatly it is how I feel about such a question...(though the questioner and some fo his beliefs & such could be very cool etc - and in your case...well I think your OK Sasun...there...[but Domino & I are already dating...LOL - so sorry...] OK Thoth, not a problem you are an old chap I know you So now you are dating Domino? You guys are perverts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Actually we broke up, Thoth left me for Hagarag. I'm free Azat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Actually we broke up, Thoth left me for Hagarag. I'm free Azat. Domino...now I am all broke up...I thought we promissed we wouldn't tell - that we would at least keep up the pretense... OK Sasun - I hear you...but being such a searcher I thought you would apreciate the older/experienced...etc...but I see - so typical - just going for the younger (prettier) model...well I hope you two are happy now...hmph....LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Domino...now I am all broke up...I thought we promissed we wouldn't tell - that we would at least keep up the pretense... OK Sasun - I hear you...but being such a searcher I thought you would apreciate the older/experienced...etc...but I see - so typical - just going for the younger (prettier) model...well I hope you two are happy now...hmph....LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted November 4, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Hey Thoth I am young myself so I am attracted to young things Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Hey Thoth I am young myself so I am attracted to young things Well then...I would perhaps suggest giving HyeArcher a call now...isn't she the one who's 14? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted November 4, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Well then...I would perhaps suggest giving HyeArcher a call now...isn't she the one who's 14? LOL Well I didn't say children It is funny how you misspell her name (archer instead of acher (=eyes) ). It would be kind of scary to date a 14 year old archer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 It would be kind of scary to date a 14 year old archer Archer as in "robin hood" archer or archer as in plural of arch (bear) Wouldn't a 14 year old then technically be an "archook" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted November 4, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Archer as in "robin hood" archer or archer as in plural of arch (bear) Wouldn't a 14 year old then technically be an "archook" As in Robin Hood Suppose she gets mad and you get shot (or arched? ) It did't occur to me as bear, maybe becaue technically it would be spelled like "arj", or "arjuk". but isn't 14 year very old for "arj"s? Arjuk would be like 1-6 months old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 BTW Sasun, I am waiting your answer to my post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted November 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 BTW Sasun, I am waiting your answer to my post. You gotta wait a little more I know you are a petient guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 I bite when I have to wait too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted November 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 OK Domino, I don't want to taste your bites, so I will answer before that happens Fair enought about the mathematics part. I didn't understand it before in that context. So you will not accept any universe that defies our mathematics. But I suggest to include the physics laws also. Why? You might say each universe could have different physics. But I am not sure about that. If you are talking about particles, then you automatically assume that all universes will have particles. Well, in our physics we know that there are particles, but are you so sure that all other physics also will have particles and matter? Think about that, it is essential to develop the rest of your theory. So the rest of your theory: I can't claim that I understood everything (as usual). consciencenous exist because each Universe that pup up, to exist and remain must be able to record informations... I don't see the logical connection. Are you saying that universe cannot exist without recording information? Not clear why you think so. I am typing your answer for the second time. I had typed some and thoughts were flowing to be typed when I had a power outage and all was gone. In fact I had managed to understand most part of your post, but now I forgot all I will read it again tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 By the way guys, sorry to interrupt in like this, did any one of you got to see this program on NOVA tonight? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 (edited) OK Domino, I don't want to taste your bites, so I will answer before that happens Fair enought about the mathematics part. I didn't understand it before in that context. So you will not accept any universe that defies our mathematics. But I suggest to include the physics laws also. Why? You might say each universe could have different physics. But I am not sure about that. If you are talking about particles, then you automatically assume that all universes will have particles. Well, in our physics we know that there are particles, but are you so sure that all other physics also will have particles and matter? Think about that, it is essential to develop the rest of your theory. So the rest of your theory: I can't claim that I understood everything (as usual). I don't see the logical connection. Are you saying that universe cannot exist without recording information? Not clear why you think so. I am typing your answer for the second time. I had typed some and thoughts were flowing to be typed when I had a power outage and all was gone. In fact I had managed to understand most part of your post, but now I forgot all I will read it again tomorrow. Sasun, any Universe must have something in, to be Universe, this is what distinguishes a universe from Nothingless, call it particules, call it what you want. As for the memory thing, a Universe to exist must have something in it, and to really exist, it must know of its existance, you exist, because you know you exist, a rock exist, because you and others know of its existance... to know your xistance, you have to record your previous existance, so you have to store that data, you store it in the particules, only by observing a particule, you change it's trajectory, by doing such, this particule has kept a data, by its new position, of you. If there was nothing to move, there would be no recording of data, therefore no Universe, because no one will be aware of its existance, consciencenous is what creats a Universe, and creats the illusion of time. Edited November 5, 2003 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted November 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Sasun, any Universe must have something in, to be Universe, this is what distinguishes a universe from Nothingless, call it particules, call it what you want. You already require that whatever the universe has can store information just like particles. This is single-universe thinking (shame on you) How do you know that would be possible? and to really exist, it must know of its existanceThis is up to debate. I understand your point that something to exist must be known by someone (it is also up to debate, or a matter of definition of "existence"). But not necessarily by the thing itself. How about God knows about everything that exists? So everything does exist. conscience is what creats a Universe, and creats the illusion of time. This is an interesting point. I would modify it to"Human consciousness creates the illusion of time". I believe there are various levels of consciousness, human consciousness is somewhere near the bottom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Sasun, movements are the way of storting informations, particules are where they are, because of their past, they will go where they will be because of their present time. I am not telling that the same kind of particule we have ,must exist, I am saying that in order that there is movement, there must be something in movement, if there is not, there is just no Universe, I don't understand how you can reject such a basic thing. On the other hand, you start with the premiss of the existance of a god, while I started with nothing. While your god is not important to explain the universe, you still need to include it in your system, but you have no problem at all to reject my proposition, when on paper, it is much more logical than the almighty God that created everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted November 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Domino, you have to use something to build your model. Things can't just pop up. For the 'pop up' process to take place there must be at least the concept of this "pop up". That requires consciousness to exist. So if there is no consciousness then how can the pop-up be a pop-up. In other words, using your own logic, if there was nobody to observe the pop-up how can a pop-up exist. If pup-up didn't exist then the universe was not created. Hence a contradiction. Another point: you say time is an illusion of consciousness. And consciousness was created by movements of particles. Movement, on the other hand, cannot exist without time. So there was time before consciousness. Does this make sense to you? Its a closed loop like chicken and egg. The concept of God, on the other hand is very simple and logical: God created everything, and God was not created (and certainly didn't pop up). Are you going to ask how God was created? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Domino, you have to use something to build your model. Things can't just pop up. For the 'pop up' process to take place there must be at least the concept of this "pop up". That requires consciousness to exist. So if there is no consciousness then how can the pop-up be a pop-up. In other words, using your own logic, if there was nobody to observe the pop-up how can a pop-up exist. If pup-up didn't exist then the universe was not created. Hence a contradiction. Another point: you say time is an illusion of consciousness. And consciousness was created by movements of particles. Movement, on the other hand, cannot exist without time. So there was time before consciousness. Does this make sense to you? Its a closed loop like chicken and egg. The concept of God, on the other hand is very simple and logical: God created everything, and God was not created (and certainly didn't pop up). Are you going to ask how God was created? Things can just pup up, mathematically it is absolutly possible, and this is why the String theory has been proposed, they supposed that an infinitecimal entity, by its vibrations creat particules, those little Epsiluns, their limits are 0, the smallest of the smallest, to the point that if you were to take one of them and divide it by another one of them, you would find an undetermination. Those things are on the limit of existance and non existance, and their existance comes from nothingless that has separated by creating those entities by inflation. Concepts are human in nature, like the example of the TV channels, there is infinit concepts, infinit answers, all just probabilities, you just filter and decide few channels among many, many, many others. It is that you come with allegations that are purly subjectives, such as the notion of concept must exist, why? I mean, why this must be true, you came with this claim many times, that concepts must exist prior of the existance, but you were still unable to provide any further evidences to prove that point, I mean, I could very well say that after the existance, the concept exist, or better, during the process of its self creation. Why would that be a lesser truth than your notion of the existance of the concept prior the existance. Now, comming to the observation vs non-observation, you say on your post, that from my logic, if there is nobody to observe the pop-up, there can't be any pop-up. But, from your own conception of God, you give the same exact explannation of its own existance, you bring the concept of the self-creation, your own belief give a sufficiant explannation of the notion of self-creation, of the observer and its observation. And with the quantity of material I have writen about the observer, even if only 10% could be understood due to my limited English, I still believe that by now you should have understood exactlly what I propose, because your critics in your last posts, critic an erronous understanding of what I presented, rather than the theory itself. I will try again, since I am patient So here we come... my new trial, will bring what you just refered, the chicken and the egg, which came first, and the never ending cycle, which you yourself presented. This is EXACTLLY what I am saying, this is not deffect of what I propose, it is actually what I DO PROPOSE, the never ending cycle, of the direct link between the observer and what it does observe, both are enterelated, without one, the other CAN'T exist, while you observe, you modify what you do observe, by modifying it, you modify yourself because of the change your observation has created on you. If you were not able top observe anything, you could not be self-aware, and I challange you to prove me wrong here, but before answering, just imagine that you could not see, not hear, not have the feeling of touch, have no access to any of your memories(the process of remembering IS observing your past) etc... can you claim you could be self-aware? OF COURSE NOT! What I just did, is to reject cathegoricly the possibility of the God you present... Suppose that at the Beginning there was a God, and at that time, there was just one thing, and it was this God, this God will have nothing to Observe, because there is nothing to feel, nothing to touch, nothing to see, NOTHING! This God could not be self aware, this is impossible, because in order to be self-aware, you must be self-aware of something, that is YOURSELF, and in order to be something called YOURSELF, you have to have some caracteristics, memories etc... if that God had memories, it had memories of what? So! Is there no God by this presentation? Actually, I am starting to ironicaly believe there is one, but it has nothing, absolutly nothing to do with the one you do proposes, other than the proposition of self-creation, which in itself is a very good idea, it correct many of the weakness of the "how" in physics. Now, about movement and time, it is exactlly the egg and chicken thing, both are self-creating eachothers... And this again, is the introduction of the infinitly small mathematical entities, in fact, in this thing, there is no, which one came first, because by asking this question, you suppose that time came first, because without time, this question could not be asked, because it supposes that time existed. ---- Now changing the subject, and comming to the observer and the observed, like I said, the fact that you observe change you, and change what you do observe... your observation modify what you do observe, now imagine that you do believe something about the past, you do observe this image of the past you do have, this imagine of the past has been transmited to you from the accurance of this actual real past... for example, I do observe stars millions of light years from here, the photons that will be transmitted to my optical nerves have made a trip of millions of years... what I do see is what this star appeared there is millions of years ago... what I do observe is the past, that was transmitted to me from those photons that kept in memory, this past, this memory, is what makes this star existing, even if there is chances that this star has been blowed as a supernova and is now dead. When I observe something, I modify what I do observe, and I do modify myself, even if what I do observe is the memory of the present, and not the actual real present, like I said previously, my brain is interfaced with the reality which I detect, not my mind, so therefore, the present is like the past, past, present and future are just memories of the Universe... this will happen that will happen, all because of the position and states of the particules etc... so what I am trying to say, is that, the past the present and future, can all be modified, the past is created by consciecenous, because we are self-aware, we are able to observe the past, therefore we can modify it, we can as well modify the future by our expectations, read for example the post at the science and technology forum I made, in my thread mind/machine, I posted a link to a study(in PDF). The reason you believe something and not others, is because of the way in your brain, your neurons interacts, and the reason why those neurons interacts is because of the molecules, the molecules because of the atoms, the atoms because of the particules, the particules because of the infinitecimal little entities creating those particules by the string vibration etc... so you can not possibly think of something that is false, because if what you do believe is not true for you, you could not believe it, because the positions those particules have to make you believe what you do believe could not have possibly existed. You do believe that Jesus is the Son of God, you have this real faith, whom is to tell that your believe is rubbish? It can’t be Rubbish, since the positions those particules creat to make you believe such thing do exist, if it were to not exist, like I said, you could possibly could not believe such thing... So in some, you do observe, you modify your observation, your observation do modify you, in order to be self-aware, you have to observe something, but on the other side, in order that this something exist, there must be something observing it... both are linked together, you take off one, you just took off the other in the same time. I will continue more later, as I am sure that more I write, there is more chances that people don’t read it, including you... and more you don’t read it, more you won’t understand what I am trying to say... and more you will judge what I say based on what you do believe I am saying rather than what I do really say. Hope I’ve made some point more clear than before. Ah and, I’ll let you more time for this one before biting you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted November 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Domino, again I read half of your post and will not read the other half until I get some rest A quick comment: string theory is not about consciousness, it is about pure physical matter. It may or maynot be true, but if it is true then creationist version of the universe still holds true. That is, consciousness created the material world. And the string theory would be part of the question "how". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted November 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Oh, and God is omnipotent. That means God can do anything, there are no limits. You are putting a lot of limits according to human perceptions. That can't be right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KavorKin99 Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 God is watching us..God is watching us God is watching uusssuuss from a distance muahz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.