|
|
| |<1-10 | God, cows, milk and cheese... | | |
Sponsor |  Firebringer | Sep 23, 2004 7:10pm | I'm partial (for obvious reasons) of the Buddhist view of the universe - though a discussion in that area really should take up space in the Buddhist group rather than here, I think.
God is a bit of a conundrum. If we start discussing the qualities of a discreet god we are seperating him/her/it from the universe by our acton. If we don't assume a sepeartion the discussion is meaningless, isn't it?
FluidGuy - current physics holds time and space as local phenomena and not applicable to the universe as an absolute. For instance, at the speed of light, distance and time cease to exist and one would be "everywhere and everywhen now".
Jhana, what I am saying is that if we leave the Buddhist notion of the universe - and we start discussing "a" god we are discussing something separated out of that universe. Once we separate it/he/she out, discussion of qualities becomes meaningful. If we simply hold that all life and all thought - even all matter and energy - are a manifestation of "godness" then, "what is, is god", the discussion is over, isn't it? |
|
| 
Sponsor | | Perko | Sep 24, 2004 12:45am | I agree, one cannot discuss "a" god so much as "the" Universe... along those lines I submit to y'all an article which I found to be right up my alley, and I certainly think you all will find it some very tasty food for thought at the least: wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/holytech.html [wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/holytech.html] The article deals with the hot topic of Digital Physics, a topic I am completely in love with. In analogical terms, digital physics asks, "what if the universe is its own biggest computer, an all-pervading system where everything can be deduced to 1's and 0's?" I mean, after you read this article (stick with it, trust me, its worth it!) its obviously much more precise than my shoddy summary, but please, roll with it.
Firebringer, you raise a point which eerily paralells the old testament when you say, "what is, is god." As the article points out, when Moses asked the Creator "Who are you?" "he" simply replies "am." Now imagine this state of "am" as a 1 in binary code, seems reasonable enough right? 1 is, after all, the necessary first step in producing more numbers. But for binary code to exist at all, it needs a 0-- an "am not." So rather than the discussion being over, from my viewpoint of digital physics I'd say its only half over, multiplied by the size of the universe. I guess that kinda sounds like a bummer, but if everything can be deduced to 1 and 0, "is" and "is not"... then isn't every "bit" of life just as good as the other? Damn... I love puns!
I will acknowledge that its a dangerous paradigm shift for physicists to liken the Universe to a computer after seeing how limiting comparing the Universe to a clock was to Newtonian physicists, but I think its a paradigm shift whose time has come before mankind can dream up a new and better machine than a computer with which to model the world after, only to have it comically bashed by the very next paradigm to come along (at least that's the way it seems to always go, doesn't it?).
ps: I am looking to start my own SU group/forum on the topic of digital physics, but so far nobody has filed "digital physics" under their "my interests" category on the edit profile menu of their SU blog... if you forum readers are as fascinated with digital physics and its spiritual (sure, even technical) underpinnings as I am I'd love for you to add it to your interests so we can get this forum ball rolling! In the meantime my blog has some more sites I've found relating to digital physics, visitors are of course MORE than welcome!
much love,
perks |
|
|  |  143741 | Sep 24, 2004 9:01am | Firbringer - I am not sure of the intent of your comment, but I believe you are in agreement with me. In your case, the removal of time makes everything one. Mine is just the mirror image of yours in that the application of time and space causes separation.
Also, I believe there is reason to discuss God without assuming separation. If you assume you are God, or at least a small part of God, it does not preclude you from discussing yourself or your other constituent parts. It opens up an entire hierarchy of existence between the individual and the God. If we were to consider the quark, atom, molecule, cell, organ then human, why not continue that same hierarchy all the way to God? Since God is supposed to be infinite, that means and infinite set of hierarchies to work through. Makes you wonder if there is "The Human", made up of all of us "little humans". Why should this wonderful concept stop at the "little human" level just because that is where our conscious awareness stops? This opens many hypothetical doors for what one might do by expanding their conscious awareness.
Perko - I have never heard of Digital Physics before reading your comments and the contents of the link. As you suggest, it is an interesting way of describing what is. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | jhanajian | Sep 24, 2004 1:09pm | I would agree with the statement that 'what is' is God, but I don't see why that would have to be the end of the conversation on God. In the first place, we don't know what 'what is' is. Neither science nor anything else can even begin to explain 'what is' adequately.
Secondly, I have read the statement, referring to existence, that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In that case, that means there is more to existence than that which is measurable. And that leaves a lot of room for potential discussion of god, the universal soul, or whatever you might want to call it.
Third, I'm curious, what is the 'Buddhist' notion of the universe? |
|
|
Sponsor | | Firebringer | Sep 24, 2004 3:27pm | 14. Impermanence, shunyata, illusion, karma.
"Whole worlds are brought into existence so that karma may play itself out." (Gautama Buddha - but perhaps not exact, my memory is a bit sketchy so I'll call it a paraphrase)
FluidGuy - we're in agreeement. Remove itime we have oneness. Insert time we have separation. Add words (concepts), and we separate it further.
"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The Name that can be spoken is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of the ten thousand things." ( Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, Verse 1 ) |
|
| |<1-10 | God, cows, milk and cheese... | | |
You need to Sign-up for StumbleUpon to post to this forum
| |
|
Spirituality → Discussion