Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Religion, Belief, God and Such

Expand Messages
  • etznab@aol.com
    There was an interesting article in the December 2012 Scientific American magazine called: The Quantum Quantum / Quantum theorists often speak of the world as
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 24, 2012
      There was an interesting article in the December 2012 Scientific
      American magazine called: The Quantum Quantum / Quantum theorists often
      speak of the world as being pointillist at the smallest scales. Yet a
      closer look at the laws of nature suggests that the physical world is
      actually continuous - more analog than digital, by David Tong (p. 46)

      The article was interesting in that it said: "Physicists routinely
      teach that the building blocks of nature are discrete particles such as
      the electron or quark. That is a lie. The building blocks of our
      theories are are not particles but fields: continuous, fluidlike
      objects spread throughout space. ... The objects that we call
      fundamental particles are not fundamental. Instead they are ripples of
      continuous fields." (p. 49)

      There was a comment on the S.A. website by vladimir tamari about the
      article that read:

      Quite apart from David Tong's stimulating article and the interesting
      comments above, the original article in the printed edition of
      Scientific American had the title "The Unquantum Quantum". This is very
      interesting: Eric Reiter, who also happens to be the author of an essay
      in this year's Foundational Questions (fqxi) contest, is the one who
      coined the term "unquantum"see http://unquantum.net/. He should be
      given credit for this- but not for mere linguistic cleverness. By
      unquantum emphasizes the challenge that his painstaking experiments
      with gamma rays have posed to the very conceptual foundations of
      quantum physics. Reiter has proven something that Max Planck and others
      have argued for all along - that Einstein's 1905 conclusion that quanta
      of light come in the form of particles is simply wrong. If his
      experiments and conclusions are confirmed this would banish the weird
      particle-wave duality for light, thereby providing a realistic physical
      explanation for probabilistic quantum behavior and much else besides.
      Read Reiters' fqxi essay explaining all this:



      In any case it looks like arguments persist about particles vs. waves
      ... and it seemed to me one of the arguments from the article centered
      around the consideration that discrete particles are an "output",
      rather than an input such as waves existing in a continuum. It also
      pointed out how particles can change into other particles and how
      forces are continuous with one another. That was my impression, at

      Btw, the article blurb on the S.A. website does not do the article
      justice. One really needs to look at the whole article (which, I don't
      think there is one online yet). There were some other links in the
      comment I referenced which might provide even more insight, but I
      haven't looked at them yet.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
      To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous
      Sent: Sun, Dec 23, 2012 8:49 pm
      Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Religion, Belief, God and Such

      Hello All,
      I kind of like this
      approach that etznab
      took. Einstein and
      Hawking, among
      others, seemed to
      be plugged into
      the cosmology of
      our beingness and,
      thus, represent our
      potential more than
      the average human.
      It just goes to show
      the direction of our
      evolution, and with
      technology it has
      certainly speeded

      Etznab wrote:
      Here's an other thought. Maybe there is no distinction between God and
      Soul. That there are no Souls and no Gods. And that everything that
      exists, all individuals, are inherently nothing but the same ONE thing
      which, for some, is something they sacrifice by living under the
      illusion of being something less. In this case it is no less than "God"
      responsible for all good things and all evil things as a matter of
      individual choice.

      Is it really beyond the ONE existent reality to "limit itself"? Nature
      would seem to indicate otherwise.

      Yes this sounds like far out talk, but that is only the result of
      looking at it a particular way. What I am saying is that God can limit
      itself and not limit itself at the same time, because God - the true
      realization of it - exists as part of a realm devoid of time as we know

      Take human thoughts as an example of what I'm trying to get at. People
      can imagine limitation and even imagine being killed and being reborn.
      But when those are only thoughts it doesn't change the constitution and
      the makeup of the person having those thoughts. Like, I could imagine
      myself as an ant but that would only be an imagination and would not
      change the fact that I am human just having a thought of being an ant.
      So what is to say that God can't also imagine, or think, and in no way
      is God, or the ONE, changed by having thoughts.

      And then again, what is to say that people (in the greater scheme) are
      not really God identifying with creation to such an extent as to
      identify with the creation as opposed to the creator? After
      identification with creation is severed upon physical death, perhaps
      the realization of God increases and there might be something to the
      belief in various inner bodies and inner planes. If the individual
      believes and identifies with the creations there, as here.

      "iam999freedom" wrote:
      > Yes, when expressing God in a finite way there are so many
      preconceptions and connotations. It's almost as we are trying to
      analyse It (I say It because in my experience God has no gender) in
      part because that's what our learning bias is and perhaps so we can
      have It do something for us.ie., the way we would with applied science
      and technology.
      > As a sidenote, the priestcraft has projected their own fears and
      "knowledge" to enslave the masses until supposedly they become saved
      upon death. Meanwhile the priestcraft enjoy their delusional sense of
      power and "exclusive knowledge" of God and their followers for the most
      part become spiritually stunted.
      > From a infinite point point of view if God is to be known imo God
      has to be "directly experienced" (as you say in some spiritual sense)
      which from the Normal human state is impossible to comprehend.
      > Just some thoughts. Thanks for yours.
      > Freedom
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.