Monistic Panentheism

unknownuser

Hello sytalls,

Thank you, LT. D I majored in physics and went to school with true math and physics whizzes; however, I was merely competent. While the whizzes went on to grad school and post-grad and pursue dreams of Nobel Prizes, I became a writer.

I must admit though your writing is very clear and engaging! -)
Writer? Science writer? Have you published any books that I can read?

For particles that come in and out of existence, it can be a little misleading to think of them in ordinary terms. They have to do with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for a vacuum. And, no, they don't come out of nothing.

Did not the Big Bang Event come out of Nothing? If so then something does come out of Nothing?

Your question is a very interesting one from the opposite side--when something turns into nothing. Either way, there is a violation of the rule that matter/energy can't be created or destroyed.

Yes, I always was found this notion difficult. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Therefore energy must have always existed?

There has been a conflict between Hawking and the particle physicists over this issue of the disappearance of energy, and it is the same one that exists between quantum mechanics and relativity. The two don't mix, which is a big problem around a black hole's horizon, where they do. hmm That's clear as primordial mud, isn't it?

Not at all. I have studied much of all this myself a while ago. But I won't say I understood any of it correctly like a physicist would, especially the bizzare world of quantum mechanics. I am still learning. But may be one day, when you yourself write a good book -) (you have sparked my interest to study all this again -))

The problem of virtual particles may be solved by string theorists one day or possibly with the holographic theory that Tay and I discussed recently--something that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity, whether around a black hole's horizon or anywhere else!

Yes, I have looked into this Holographic Principle since Tay mentioned to me a while ago. It does have very serious implications to our present understanding of reality. If science is saying there is no objecitve reality then they are talking in the language of mystics! May be one day there might be a synthesis between the two?

Regards,

sytalls

My original standing was that QM does not defy logic, to which you replied with "we don't understand it".

This is what you initially said

Quantum mechanics accepts practically everything on blind faith. Physicists accept things work the way they do without understanding exactly why.

My argument was that even if we don't understand 'everything', it doesn't mean physicists take it on blind faith.

Okay. I'll concede that point.

Also, much of what you've mentioned do have qualitative definitions. For example, electron tunneling happens due to the erratic and volatile surface of the space-time continuum in a very small scale. I'm not sure what the exact qualitative explanation for the wave form collapse is but I'm sure if I hunt around on google I'll find something. Your argument for showing that QM is accepted on blind faith pretty much rests on the fact that it defies common sense, this is not a very tight argument especially in the realm of science.

Please do find me a qualitative explanation for the wave form collapse Also one on wave/particle duality. And I don't mean a description of what these are, because I know what they are. You've given me a possible explanation for tunneling, now I'm ready for more explanations.

As to my statement about not understanding quantum mechanics, It is best here to let greater voices say what I've been trying to say, starting with "common sense""

Albert Einstein
Common sense is a collection of prejudices acquired by age 18.

Carl Sagan
The testimony of our common sense is suspect at high velocities.

And about understanding quantum mechanics

Richard Feynman
I can safely say than nobody understands quantum mechanics ... Do not keep saying to yourself ... "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.

Max Born
No language which lends itself to visualizability can describe the quantum jumps.

Erwin Schrodinger
Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business!

Bertrand Russell
Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover.

The mathematician John von Neumann says about math what I was trying to say about quantum mechanics"...in mathematics you don't understand things, you just get used to them."

For my statement about tunneling, you said

So if you know about it, why are you comparing them? ? It doesn't seem like a valid comparison to me. For an analogy to be valid it has to contain the same properties and attributes and your examples don't. You're comparing an electron to a ball - that's not a valid analogy.

If you read what I wrote, you will notice that I was not making an analogy. An analogy would have been, "an electron tunneling through a barrier is like a ball going through a wall." I never said that. I only compared the reaction to what was being observed--not the events themselves.

No sane person would expect to see a ball thrown at a wall go through the wall and out the other side. Looking at the same scene in the subatomic world makes it no less baffling. It's still a case of, "Wow. Didn't think THAT would happen!"

Okay, neo, let's go to the moon.

You left out the "=P" so it wasn't precise (the "=P" denoted a facetious remark so I was only half serious...). And if relativity is used for satellites (which I've mentioned) then I think it's safe to assume that it was used to send humans into space.

I don't think it is a safe assumption. But since I'm having trouble understanding, why don't you tell me which equations from relativity would be used for space flight?

Also, a trip to the local grocery store does not need calculations of 0 gravity. And correct me if I'm wrong, but did Einstein not expell the notion of ether (definitively)? In that case, that would have certainly played a part in the trip to the moon because scientists wouldn't have to calculate for invisible masses. Anyway, I am speculating because I don't know the exact mathematics involved in planning a space flight - but do you really think that relativistic maths, which is essential for keeping satellites in orbit and were used for a long time before the idea of a manned mission to the moon was even properly considered, would suddenly be totally abandonned for maths that isn't as accurate?

Again, you didn't read what I said about calculations for rocket launches and grocery store trips.

They are the same basic equations. When I add in the variables and account for THE CONDITIONS, my calcuations for each of the above trips will yield different results. However, I start at the same place for both--putting something in motion.

As for the rest and accounting for zero gravity and "invisible masses," I don't have any idea what you mean, so I can't answer.

It isn't that the math used in Newton's equations isn't accurate. Einstein used the same math. Newton invented the Calculus to do physics. So the math itself hasn't changed.

Their theories are different. However, Newton's equations for calculating velocity and acceleration are still accurate. Even the idea of relativity is covered by Newtonian physics. Einstein's special theory of relativity and general theory of relativity are his theories, even though the concept of relativity itself is not. wink It's all "relative."

With all due respect, you just said that it was a 'paradox' without really exlpaining what the paradox was and the facts you gave were that it fills pi volume with an infinite surface area.

Yes, I did. My apologies. I did make the assumption that you would recognize f(x)=1/x and would take it from there.

neo

Erm...you didn't respond to any of my counter-arguments regarding QM being taken on "blind faith" and "nonsensical", but that's okay - I'll assume you're respond to them in your next reply, hopefully. You asked about the qualitative definition of the wave/particle duality and the collapse of the waveform - well, one leads to the other but what you're asking for is essentially asking "why is an electron an electron?" or "find me a qualitative definition on why we exist?". Considering the answer is not really relevant to our course of discussion, I don't see much point of hunting through pages and pages of information on Google for it. However I will take a look at a book I have regarding string theory because I'm sure I read a tidbit about this (it was almost a year back) - just never paid too much attention to it. I can't get it for you right now because I don't have the book with me but I can tell you that the explanation will involve strings - something which I wanted to avoid in this topic because it's difficult to substantiate them (even if it has a lot of steam in the modern physics community.). Also, like I've said - simply giving me a list of things that aren't understood currently doesn't nearly prove your point. All it's saying is that we don't know everything - which happens to be a corollary of science.

I'll borrow a quote from a person who said it better than I

"QM does not defy logic. You mean to say it defies common sense, and that it requires you to significantly rearrange your concepts about how the universe works. However, the universe is not obligated to make sense to you."

This is the crux of quantum mechanics and this is the concept you are debating - that it isn't 'logical' or 'reasonable' because you believe logic/reason/reality must conform to your evryday perspective of the world. This is also why you've made the point of comparing a person's reaction to a principle of quantum mechanics (the ball going through the wall), or how it defies so called 'common sense'.

Albert Einstein
Common sense is a collection of prejudices acquired by age 18.

Carl Sagan
The testimony of our common sense is suspect at high velocities.

I fail to see how this supports your argument of 'common sense'.

Richard Feynman
I can safely say than nobody understands quantum mechanics ... Do not keep saying to yourself ... "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.

Max Born
No language which lends itself to visualizability can describe the quantum jumps.

Erwin Schrodinger
Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business!

Bertrand Russell
Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover.

Again, all you're doing is reiterating your point of how it doesn't comform to 'common sense'. I never said it did. But science is not obligated to conform to our common senses, so taking a theory based on observation and calling it "illogical" and saying it's accepted in "blind faith" is erronous (I've already explained thrice why).

I don't think it is a safe assumption. But since I'm having trouble understanding, why don't you tell me which equations from relativity would be used for space flight?

I have a better idea since you seem to have a fair bit of knowledge about space flights (whereas I openly acknowledged my assumptions), why don't you tell us the exact equations used in the moon mission - starting from fuel consumption and the final landing moment? I think that would be better as you seem to have a better grasp on the mission to moon than I. I'd actually be quite interested in this because not much of what I've studied went very deep into the science of space flights.

Also, I based my assumption of the trip to the moon on the fact that the GPS system we use nowadays use the special and general theory of relativity.

Again, you didn't read what I said about calculations for rocket launches and grocery store trips.

The mission to the moon wasn't 'just a rocket launch', was it? It involved people in space and that still a daring endavour at the time. Hence you are watering down the science quite a fair bit. According to you, a school kid could launch a manned mission to the moon because most school kids learn these things at 12. The concepts may be similar, but they are not the same - not in terms of scale and scale is quite important.

As for the rest and accounting for zero gravity and "invisible masses," I don't have any idea what you mean, so I can't answer.

0 gravity - space
Invisible mass - the mythical ether, which as far as I know was in concordance with Newton's theory of gravity but not with Einstein's.

It isn't that the math used in Newton's equations isn't accurate. Einstein used the same math. Newton invented the Calculus to do physics. So the math itself hasn't changed.

Apologies, I should have said equations.

Their theories are different. However, Newton's equations for calculating velocity and acceleration are still accurate.

Only in relatively low velocities.

Even the idea of relativity is covered by Newtonian physics. Einstein's special theory of relativity and general theory of relativity are his theories, even though the concept of relativity itself is not. wink It's all "relative."

Yes, the concept of 'relativity' is Gallileo's and perhaps older but what does that have to do with anything? They are all "standing on the shoulders of giants" anyways, right?

Yes, I did. My apologies. I did make the assumption that you would recognize f(x)=1/x and would take it from there.

Fair enough. I haven't practiced calculus in a while but my guess of the paradox wasn't exactly far off. p Either way, my answer to the so-called paradox which you initially dismissed based on subjective reasoning was actually correct, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by the way of a 'paradox' here...? If you're trying to prove/show/highlight/introduce the concept of a soul being infinite then I think you're quite far off from it...

Anyway, I'll be anticipating your responses to my counters to your points regarding QM; your points being

acceptance on blind faith
illogical.

sytalls

shock What are you still arguing for, neo? You won! handshake

If you read what I wrote, you would see that I conceded the blind faith point right at the top of my post. Which is why I didn't respond to your counterpoints. I'd simply be rolling over worn tire tracks.

The rest of my post was just clean-up of minor things. And the quotes from the physicists were to say that I was not alone in my opinion--just in case someone was inclined to ask, "Where does she get those crazy ideas?!" The quotes express the sheer awe (and bafflement) at what I learned back in school. That was a time when I didn't, as Newton put it, stand on the shoulders of giants, but merely put my feet down in their footsteps and look at the wonders of what they discovered on their own journeys.

For the launch of probes and lunar landing modules, I wasn't trying to take away from the accomplishments or water anything down. But those accomplishments are in the realm of engineering. How do NASA engineers (or others involved in space flight programs around the world) do what they do? I don't know...but they start with F=ma. A few equations later, they leave me in the dust.

I can give it to you in general terms, although you will likely get bored with it before I finish. First, those "relatively low velocities" you spoke of include the speed at which the lunar module was lanched into space, since it got nowhere near the speed of light. A sufficient amount of power is needed to hurl to spacecraft through our atmosphere and achieve escape velocity...again, nowhere near the speed of light. If you look at things simply, where the entire spacecraft is reduced to a point mass, you would ask how much force is needed to push this really large point mass into space.

Once "free" of the earth's gravitational force, when the initial rockets have done their work (force x distance), the spacecraft will move at a constant velocity. This is where "zero" gravity comes in, since momentum is conserved. If the gravitational force is zero, then you don't have to use "mg" in your motion equations. A body in motion will stay in motion, until it is acted upon by a force. (law of inertia) Without the force of gravity (F=mg), a body in motion will just keep on going at a constant rate of speed (zero acceleration). So you can see if a=g=0, then F=0.

Force is used again to change the acceleration of the spacecraft as it approaches the moon. You then use a complex form of "falling bodies" equations to land, changing the value of "g" for the moon's smaller value for the acceleration due to gravity. Reverse this for taking off again, where escape velocities are way, way smaller. Apply the force needed to push the entire spacecraft back into space and toward earth, expending fuel to change acceleration (slow down) as you approach and enter earth's atmosphere.

So, if you look at the basic equation for the special theory of relativity (since our little spacecraft isn't the size of a planetary body, hence not large enough for the general theory), you will see that E=mc(2) isn't practical for space flight. It takes a tremendous amount of energy just to achieve escape velocity for a spacecraft, so I wouldn't even want to attempt to push it up near the speed of light. Because what happens then is that the mass gets larger and larger as you approach the speed of light. It's hard enough to push an electron around a particle accelerator at high speeds, much less an entire spacecraft. Therefore, classical mechanics works much better for bulky spacecraft.

This is a rough explanation and doesn't at all account for inertial frames of reference (which gives me a headache just thinking about the math) or thermodynamics or the many, many, many precise and detailed calcuations for space flight. It is merely meant to illustrate that Newton's laws are all that is needed for a nice little jaunt to the moon and back. The ether need not be accounted for, because it was only used as a convenience in explaining certain things in the "old days."

Okay, then...I will be waiting for an explanation about why wave collapsing and quantum jumping occur. wait

And for more discussion about the infinity of the soul, which I am not at all qualified to speak on. D That is best left to others here who have a far better grasp of the subject than I do.

savage_carrot

Peace sytalls,

And the quotes from the physicists were to say that I was not alone in my opinion--just in case someone was inclined to ask, "Where does she get those crazy ideas?!"

lol I don't think the ideas presented here are all that crazy, I learnt a lot from this discussion between you guys...now if we could only take it back to the infinite soul

Nadia

sytalls

Hello, LoteTree!

Thank you for what you said about my writing. D And I wholeheartedly return the compliment. There are quite a few good writers on this forum, which makes for interesting (and sometimes lively) exchanges of opinions.
I have no books out, since I have spent most of my career as a scriptwriter and comedy writer.

The past few years, I've switched to corporate work, where I do get a chance to handle scientific subjects more often--but they primarily end up being in the medical field. I'm sort of a "de-technical" writer, in that my job is usually to decipher the science and present it to people who prefer to be entertained while being taught.

Really great science writers understand physics in a way that I do not. They have the gift of taking their vast knowledge and sharing it with others.

Modern physics definitely crosses into the realm of the mystics. Or should I say, it confirms what the mystics have been saying all along, especially about objectivity and perception and "reality."

Gary Zukav's "Dancing Wu Li Masters" addresses this quite well. And you may want to check out David Bohm's writing. Along with Tay's suggestions, since he gave me some I hadn't seen before.

As for the Big Bang...well, what can I say, LT? The theory has a few loose threads. lol It's a useful picture, but I suspect it is one that will change as more progress is made on newer theories. Physicists don't like loose ends. There is always the overriding question...where did all this energy around us really come form?

Which takes us right back to the spiritual realm.

peace

sytalls

..now if we could only take it back to the infinite soul

Nadia

peace Nadia

I wholeheartedly concur. hug Let the "soulful" discussion continue! I was very interested in some of the points you and Tay were making.

Should I blow the paradoxical horn to announce the return of the topic?

Tay

I think I heard a paradoxical horn!

Sorry, guys, for stepping away from the discussion. All this physics jargon is way over my head- although Sytalls and Neo did a heck of a job articulating it for us laypeople.

It's funny how I hated science in HS, and now, I wish I could go back and re-energize that fertile mind I had. I was too busy trying to be cool

Anyhow, I've been putting into practice some of what I've been reading and just thought I'd share...

in "the Power of Now", Tolle continuously stuffs the idea of body recognition down the reader's throat. The idea is that when you focus on the body at any given point in time, you force the mind into the "now", essentially forcing the mind to release the soul into the foreground. I've been trying this periodically and the results are pretty freakin awesome.

At first, when I focused on my body, I had to keep "hushhhh"-ing my mind from thought. I focused on my breathing, then the conditioned air interacting with my skin, then my limbs, and so on. Before I knew it, my mind was silent, and the "white noise" of daily life came into focus. And then my mind barged back into thought and the experience was over.

What's interesting is the more often I do it, the easier it is, and the more peaceful I feel throughout the day. There's almost a romance to the sound of the fan oscillating back and forth. Even the hum of the computer is somehow soothing. The idea is to pay attention to everything around you - now. When you shower, rather than plan your day, let yourself enjoy the feeling of the water running through your hair, and down your back, all the way down to your toes. When you walk, pay attention to the muscles in your legs contracting with every stride. When you're outdoors, look at the clouds, the trees. Listen to the sounds of life. When you eat, focus on the explosion of tastes, the grinding of the food into digestable paste, the throat muscles working the food down your throat, into your stomach. Heck, even my craps are enjoyable!

All this attention on the now keeps the mind from burying the soul with constant inner dialogue. One of the benefits I'm noticing is the angle of my attention during conversation. I've always been a pretty good listener, but recently, the connections have been deeper. I don't just listen to what the person is saying, I'm starting to see past the words and see right into their soul. I know it may sound strange, but that's the only way I can describe it.

And the more I talk to people, the more I'm seeing that we're all the same. I don't mean this in the sense that we are similar, but that we are identical, beneath the mind. We can truly understand each other if we cease with the silent judgement. It's difficult, because the mind is programmed to take everything it perceives and either compare it to the past, project it into the future, or file it away into the memory banks. This all happens in milliseconds throughout conversation. Observe your mind in action as you listen to someone and see how quickly it works. Count how many judgements you've made in a 5 minute conversation. It's amazing.

And this is how most people spend their days - reflecting on the past or worrying about the future, or judging every person or thing they see, cross-referencing past experiences and future possibilities. How many times have you had a complete conversation with someone in your mind, only to get worked up or stressed out for absolutely nothing? The mind can run wild with any thought and conjure up all the emotions that go along with it. Recognizing this is the first step to getting back control of your infinite soul.

Thanks for listening.

Peace,
Tay

savage_carrot

Peace Tay,

Nicely done. Reading the first half of your post, was summed up in one word for me, which is awareness. This is something you don't need to read in a book to experience (which you already know), but it's practice can be improved on. To illustrate, Karachi in the peak of summer, coming home from school, listening to samba pa ti, that was it. In that one exp, you felt the lull/heaviness/silence in the atmosphere, yet the signs of life/business/noise at the same time...oppositional yet complementing each other...a fusion of sorts that normally should not co exist. These kind of experiences happen now and then, but I think the key is a heightened sense of awareness/perception. You could practise it regularly, I personally would rather let it come to me...not a big fan of ohming and finding my center. Normally, these experiences come regularly and I'm not 'meditating' as it's called. Just a sudden rush and a heightened awareness, akin to intuition, akin to perception...those are what I believe in...but it's different for everyone as we know...

The latter part i completely agree with, and it's truly amazing how the mind works...as for the infinite soul, imo there is only one infinite, the rest is either indefinite or finite. Since infinity can't be divided, can't be split into smaller parts and retain it's intrinsic quality of infinity, that spells it out for me...I can't speculate as to what the indefinite soul is, where will it go etc in the end, so we are all on the same page on that!

Best wishes,
Nadia

Tay

Peace Nadia,

Reading the first half of your post, was summed up in one word for me, which is awareness.

Exactamundo!

These kind of experiences happen now and then, but I think the key is a heightened sense of awareness/perception. You could practise it regularly, I personally would rather let it come to me...not a big fan of ohming and finding my center.

I understand completely. I've bought meditation tapes, read countless books on meditation, and long for the day that I can actually have an hour every morning to sit on the beach and just listen to life. What this book is teaching me is that it's not necessary. Just a simple recognition of now practised throughout the day, in between and during the routines of life, will accomplish the same goal - awareness, and reconnecting with the infinite.

If you wait for it to come to you, you're relinquishing control to the mind and to external influence.

Hope that makes sense.

as for the infinite soul, imo there is only one infinite, the rest is either indefinite or finite.

Let me ask you this Can you think of anything that is truly finite-something that doesn't transform?

Peace,
Tay

savage_carrot

Peace Tay,

I understand completely. I've bought meditation tapes, read countless books on meditation, and long for the day that I can actually have an hour every morning to sit on the beach and just listen to life. What this book is teaching me is that it's not necessary. Just a simple recognition of now practised throughout the day, in between and during the routines of life, will accomplish the same goal - awareness, and reconnecting with the infinite.
If you wait for it to come to you, you're relinquishing control to the mind and to external influence.

I understand and agree, the kind of awareness I illustrated was an example of this, you could consciously bring it about. The other kind that just happens is more difficult to describe, y'know the inspirational/intuitional kind...that is something that won't happen unless it does...don't know if thats clear?

Let me ask you this Can you think of anything that is truly finite-something that doesn't transform?

Finite by definition is something that has limits. Something created, something ending, whichever way you look at it...so the transforming would be? Another start/end? Or would it be seamless in which transformation would not affect it? In which case you would have everything infinite? Please clarify, 'cause these days the words pig meat are revolving in my head to many ideas' detriment...

Nadia

Tay

Peace Nadia,

The other kind that just happens is more difficult to describe, y'know the inspirational/intuitional kind...that is something that won't happen unless it does...don't know if thats clear?

Perfectly. I am starting to wonder, however, if there really is a difference between the 2. Perhaps the one would evolve into the next if we just allowed it a little time to cultivate.

Finite by definition is something that has limits. Something created, something ending, whichever way you look at it...so the transforming would be? Another start/end? Or would it be seamless in which transformation would not affect it? In which case you would have everything infinite? Please clarify, 'cause these days the words pig meat are revolving in my head to many ideas' detriment...

LOL

OK...I'll give it my best shot with the hope that this doesn't get technical. The other day I noticed a massive spider crawling on my floor. While I usually don't kill web spiders, since they are beneficial to my environment, this one was a ground spider that looked big enough to inflict a nasty bite. So I smacked it with my sha'hata (flip-flop) and instantly it was dead - from a biological standpoint. From a spiritual perspective, the life force left the being. From a physics perspective, the spider was still very much alive, as the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen and carbon and whatever else, were still there, in front of me, doing their little imperceptible dance.

Focusing on the spiritual perspective, where did the life force go, if it existed in the first place? Currently, I'm of the opinion that the life force, the energy that animates, is not an individual soul that exists in each being, but an infinite blanket of energy that animates all beings. When you step on a spider, the energy just transfers elsewhere, or retreats back to the Source. It's like taking a sponge and dipping it in the ocean, taking it home, and wringing it out in your sink. The water does not disappear. It makes it's way back to the ocean. Perhaps, on it's way, it's absorbed by the roots of a tree, or evaporated into the clouds, or ingested by a thirsty mammal. No matter what, however, the water does not disappear.

In this sense, I feel it's safe to say that the sum total of all of life is ever-changing, but never-ending, atleast from a human perspective.

Peace,
Tay

savage_carrot

Peace Tay,

Perfectly. I am starting to wonder, however, if there really is a difference between the 2. Perhaps the one would evolve into the next if we just allowed it a little time to cultivate.

Had to edit to get this in, thats a good question. I suppose unless we have that by practising the other...kinda hard to say...also even if it happens then, could it just be something that was given to you because it was the right time as opposed to something that came solely out of your own efforts?

OK...I'll give it my best shot with the hope that this doesn't get technical. The other day I noticed a massive spider crawling on my floor. While I usually don't kill web spiders, since they are beneficial to my environment, this one was a ground spider that looked big enough to inflict a nasty bite. So I smacked it with my sha'hata (flip-flop) and instantly it was dead - from a biological standpoint. From a spiritual perspective, the life force left the being. From a physics perspective, the spider was still very much alive, as the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen and carbon and whatever else, were still there, in front of me, doing their little imperceptible dance.

That's clear enough, so i'll ask a question, does that mean that there was nothing that made that particular spider that particular spider (indv entity)? Thus all spiders are the same, thus everything is the same? Animals might be a tad difficult to work with here, so let's choose humans. Say a human died, let's call him Tom, does that mean that which made that human, in particular Tom, also disperse? Or was it a collection of energy that made that human, in particular Tom, go somewhere else as a collective (as in still intact)? Is there anything that makes us unique or different from the rest? If not, and all souls are the same, then where is the individuality? In which case could two people, Tom and Bill be put through the same situation and make the exact same choices? There has to be an individuality, a difference imo that would remain even after the death, or there is no point in life as we know it (test), and everyone would have the same results if the outside variables are the same. Don't know if this is where you wanted to go but just thoughts i had reading the first half...

Focusing on the spiritual perspective, where did the life force go, if it existed in the first place? Currently, I'm of the opinion that the life force, the energy that animates, is not an individual soul that exists in each being, but an infinite blanket of energy that animates all beings. When you step on a spider, the energy just transfers elsewhere, or retreats back to the Source. It's like taking a sponge and dipping it in the ocean, taking it home, and wringing it out in your sink. The water does not disappear. It makes it's way back to the ocean. Perhaps, on it's way, it's absorbed by the roots of a tree, or evaporated into the clouds, or ingested by a thirsty mammal. No matter what, however, the water does not disappear.

This brings me to my reply above. If it's not an individual soul, then we are all the same and there is no point in being put through this existence as it's called a test. Could there be a point if I didn't know there was a purpose? I don't know. But what I do think as is mentioned in the reading, that it is for a purpose and that purpose is a test for distinguishing those among us that would make the 'right' choices as specified by the infinite creator itself. For that individual entity to make choices and then disperse is kinda huh? But for that entity to make right choices or wrong choices and then be taken somewhere collectively makes sense...

In this sense, I feel it's safe to say that the sum total of all of life is ever-changing, but never-ending, atleast from a human perspective.

I would have to say, that it could be changing from one status to another, but with an individuality intact and that we had a starting point, as in we are distict from the creator, thus we are indefinite...as it's not specified when, if ever, we will cease to exist.

Hope I didn't go off on a tangent...It's difficult discussing abstract concepts without doing that )

Nadia

yfn123

Peace Tay,

I am going to take a long break from FreeMinds Forum. I'll reply to your post when I get back.

Anwar Azim

Peace Anwar,

You stated

The CPU is likened to the brain. I can hardly see how the CPU is likened to the mind.

As Neo stated, they are one and the same.

8< 8< 8< snip snip snip >8 <8 <8

Tay

Tay

Peace Nadia,

also even if it happens then, could it just be something that was given to you because it was the right time as opposed to something that came solely out of your own efforts?

I suppose. Seems a bit random but I wouldn't rule it out. I saw "the Skeleton Key" the other night, and one line from the movie that stuck with me..."It can only happen if you believe". Perhaps we all have these experiences and just give them different names, or perhaps only those that believe can truly feel the effects of the inspirations/intuitions. And perhaps those that believe can work on catalyzing these inspirations through their own efforts. I'm beginning to think this is possible, from my own experiences.

does that mean that there was nothing that made that particular spider that particular spider (indv entity)? Thus all spiders are the same, thus everything is the same?

I've been chewing on this for a few days and, to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure. This touches on the rest of your replies so I'll run with it from here...

On the one hand, I see and experience the "Oneness". On the other, I see and experience the indivuality. I find myself asking, "Is it the mind that tricks us into thinking we are seperate entities? Is this the true essence of the ego, of Iblis?? Afterall, it was Iblis that seperated from the path. But of course, seperation cannot happen unless God allows the seperation, or better yet, unless God decides on a seperation. But then again, if God is Omnipresent, then can seperation ever even happen?

This is the mystery of all mysteries.

God is everywhere.
I am here.
God is here.

Is there seperation?
Is there individuality?

I don't know, but it seems to me that God's omnipresence and our individuality are at odds.

What are your thoughts?

Peace,
Tay

Tay

Peace Anwar,

A break is always good. Enjoy yourself and take your time.

Peace,
Tay

savage_carrot

Peace Tay,

I suppose. Seems a bit random but I wouldn't rule it out. I saw "the Skeleton Key" the other night, and one line from the movie that stuck with me..."It can only happen if you believe". Perhaps we all have these experiences and just give them different names, or perhaps only those that believe can truly feel the effects of the inspirations/intuitions. And perhaps those that believe can work on catalyzing these inspirations through their own efforts. I'm beginning to think this is possible, from my own experiences.

It could possible...but I would also say what you are targeting and how would/could be a factor...

On the one hand, I see and experience the "Oneness". On the other, I see and experience the indivuality. I find myself asking, "Is it the mind that tricks us into thinking we are seperate entities? Is this the true essence of the ego, of Iblis?? Afterall, it was Iblis that seperated from the path. But of course, seperation cannot happen unless God allows the seperation, or better yet, unless God decides on a seperation. But then again, if God is Omnipresent, then can seperation ever even happen?

This is the mystery of all mysteries.

God is everywhere.
I am here.
God is here.

Is there seperation?
Is there individuality?

I don't know, but it seems to me that God's omnipresence and our individuality are at odds.

I would tend to disagree on the ego bit, because being an individual doesn't mean you are following your ego. You could have an opinion and it doesn't necessarily follow that it is egoistical, or rebellious. Tom could think a certain way and Bill could think a certain way, why do we have to be the same for there to be no seperation? There is unity in diversity as you said as well (don't remember which post now). I think that our individuality is in perfect harmony with God, think a.i...it's created, individual yet seperate? Thoughts?

Nadia

edit sp corr

neo

God is everywhere.
I am here.
God is here.

Is there seperation?
Is there individuality?

God can't be one with humans; humans can't be a part of god. However, god's intellect can be ever-present over us - but that's distinguished from god physically being 'everywhere'. So yes, there is individuality.

Tay

Peace Nadia, Neo,

Nadia, you stated

I would tend to disagree on the ego bit, because being an individual doesn't mean you are following your ego. You could have an opinion and it doesn't necessarily follow that it is egoistical, or rebellious.

I'm not speaking of ego as rebellious nature or in any negative sense, ie, pride. Think more in terms of

The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.
http//dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ego

We are told in the Qur'an that Iblis split from the path. Iblis is the only character beside mankind mentioned as not being in perfect harmony with God. Everything else submits. Do you see the connection?

Tom could think a certain way and Bill could think a certain way, why do we have to be the same for there to be no seperation?

Thinking is exactly the point. What we think does not define us, it only defines the sum total of experiences.

There is unity in diversity as you said as well

Of course. And I still believe that, as humanity, we are one in our diversity. But what I'm grasping at right now is beyond the effects of the diverse environments. What I'm grasping at is what lies under the consciousness that experiences the diversity. I'm trying to understand that being that remains when the mind stops talking, and reflecting, and projecting, etc. That silent entity that simply observes without judgement, that listens and feels and empathizes without word or mental construct, is the real me. The mind is just a product of it's environment. All we can do is direct the mind, but who is doing the directing?

Neo, you stated

God can't be one with humans; humans can't be a part of god.

Why not? The Qur'an tells us that God is closer than the jugular vein, and the jugular vein is an internal part of the human anatomy. What could be closer than the internal human anatomy?

However, god's intellect can be ever-present over us - but that's distinguished from god physically being 'everywhere'.

What, exactly, is the difference?

Peace,
Tay

neo

Why not? The Qur'an tells us that God is closer than the jugular vein, and the jugular vein is an internal part of the human anatomy. What could be closer than the internal human anatomy?

I don't think that verse was meant to be taken literally because that would mean there's a discreet distance between the 'god' that is apparently within us and our 'minds'. A more consistent way of interpreting that verse would be to mean god's intellect is omnipresent ('the all seeing eye') since we are god's creation.

However, god's intellect can be ever-present over us - but that's distinguished from god physically being 'everywhere'.

What, exactly, is the difference?

Peace,
Tay

Intellect is not tangible, however god being physically present is tangible (meaning its consequences can effectively be measured...). Our universe is tangible (i.e. detectable through our senses) and god is defined as the intangible (I'm pretty sure the Qu'ran explicitely states that god is beyond our senses) thus there's a direct incoherency between the universe we know and god's attributes.