Page 11 of 11

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:08 pm
by surreptitious75
Serendipper wrote:
But regardless how big the universe is even if it is infinite there is still nothing on the outside and that seems in some way meaningful. What is the opposite
of nothing ? Is it something or is it all things ? Is all things really all things or just possible things ? And possible relative to what ? What a brain twister

There cannot be anything outside the Universe because such a place does not exist and that is because the definition of Universe is ALL THERE IS
The opposite of nothing can be one thing or some thing or some things or all things. All things does not include possible [ or potential ] things only
actual things. That is because a possible thing is not actually a thing as such

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:19 pm
by Serendipper
surreptitious75 wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
But regardless how big the universe is even if it is infinite there is still nothing on the outside and that seems in some way meaningful. What is the opposite
of nothing ? Is it something or is it all things ? Is all things really all things or just possible things ? And possible relative to what ? What a brain twister

There cannot be anything outside the Universe because such a place does not exist and that is because the definition of Universe is ALL THERE IS

So, outside the universe is like north of the north pole? Would you characterize it that way? That analogy seems better than the empty box idea because north of the north pole isn't a place of emptiness, but a lack of a place. So outside the universe is a place of no place lol!

I suppose if anyone could ever get to the edge, they'd keep going until they ended at the place they started because there is no place else to go. Even if they had to walk around a few times because of some asymmetry or deviation from a perfectly straight course, they'd still cross their starting point eventually. That's the conceptualization I've had for a long time about the universe: there are no endless straight lines, but loops because there is no outside. Everything is a circle/cycle and there are no loose ends dangling into obscurity and the idea that there are is like a boat with a hole in it... and I've not seen example in nature that could lead me to believe the universe by evolution, natural processes, god, whatever would be so wasteful as to spew energy off into infinity never to be seen again, much less the many worlds interpretation with infinitely more waste infinitely compounding by the quantum time unit until eternity ends. Holy crap!

The opposite of nothing can be one thing or some thing or some things or all things.

Which one best defines nothing in terms of what nothing is not? What is the opposite of zero? Infinity? It seems the ubiquitous absence of everything is best defined by the opposite which is the ubiquitous presence of everything. What defines everything?

All things does not include possible [ or potential ] things only actual things. That is because a possible thing is not actually a thing as such

Can possible things have no potential? Obviously potential things are possible... I guess that goes without saying lol

Are potential things, things? If a potential exists, then it's something that exists and things that exists are things, right?

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:17 pm
by surreptitious75
Serendipper wrote:
Can possible things have no potential ? Obviously potential things are possible ... I guess that goes without saying lol

Are potential things things ? If a potential exists then its something that exists and things that exists are things right ?

For reasons of simplicity I treat the potential / possible as separate from the actual

Before I was conceived I had the potential to exist but after I was conceived I actually existed and so they represent two different points in time

All things that actually exist now had at one point only the potential to exist [ the Universe could be infinite so that would be the one exception ]

All things that only have the potential to exist now may at some point actually exist or may simply carry on potentially existing either finitely or infinitely

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:07 pm
by Arcturus Descending
Ecmandu wrote:


Do we need to exist in order for god to be perfect?


Someone would need to exist. Without the *eye of the beholder* I wonder what this thing called God is - if one can even use the word *exist".

It is that *eye* which makes of God an image.

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:23 pm
by Serendipper
Arcturus Descending wrote:Someone would need to exist. Without the *eye of the beholder* I wonder what this thing called God is - if one can even use the word *exist".

It is that *eye* which makes of God an image.



surreptitious75 wrote:For reasons of simplicity I treat the potential / possible as separate from the actual

Before I was conceived I had the potential to exist but after I was conceived I actually existed and so they represent two different points in time

All things that actually exist now had at one point only the potential to exist [ the Universe could be infinite so that would be the one exception ]

All things that only have the potential to exist now may at some point actually exist or may simply carry on potentially existing either finitely or infinitely


Looks good, y'all! Positive feedback :handgestures-thumbup:

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:56 pm
by Arcturus Descending
Serendipper,

Are potential things things ? If a potential exists then its something that exists and things that exists are things right ?


Hmmm ~ I am not quite sure of that ~ sounds more like a play on words to me.

I think that if we actually use the term *potential things* we will think in those terms. Words affect us in ways lol If that made any sense.

The word *potential* exists but does that necessarily mean that a possible future happening is already a thing? I personally would have to say no but perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the concept or thought of it within one's mind can be called a thing but not necessarily what is pointed to.

A man and woman have the potential to someday in the future conceive a child and the woman could give birth to that child. But before that happens, we cannot say that there is a child.

I love this stuff that cannot be figured out at least not by me.

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:05 pm
by Ecmandu
Everything that grows, grows into an already existent magnetic grid, magnetic template or magnetic skeleton.

If you build the skeleton alone, and just bombard it with particles, you'll get whatever form you want.

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2018 1:54 am
by Serendipper
Arcturus Descending wrote:Serendipper,

Are potential things things ? If a potential exists then its something that exists and things that exists are things right ?


Hmmm ~ I am not quite sure of that ~ sounds more like a play on words to me.

I think that if we actually use the term *potential things* we will think in those terms. Words affect us in ways lol If that made any sense.

That's true! I'm not sure if potential things are things or just, like you said, leading the witness by semantics.

I kinda think of potential things as the negative state of things.

Consider a light bulb example: 1) The light is on, 2) the light is off, 3) the bulb is gone. When the light is on, light exists. When the light is off, there is potential for light to exist. When the bulb is missing, there is neither potential nor existence. ( I know there is potential for someone to replace the bulb, but that messes up my example lol)

So there are 3 states: positive existence, negative existence, nonexistence.

Alan Watts put being and nonbeing under the category of existence and, of course, nonexistence doesn't have subcategories because there's nothing there to subdivide.

The question is how does something that does not exist then come into existence? I suppose it was always existing, but in a negative state of potentiality rather than a state of nonexistence.

The word *potential* exists but does that necessarily mean that a possible future happening is already a thing?

Yes, you're right. Potential doesn't always translate into actuality. There could be potential for the light to come on, but someone may never flip the switch.

Schrodinger had the famous cat thought experiment where the cat is both alive and dead until someone opens the box to see, so in that case both potentials exist in a superposition. Apparently that's how it works in the quantum world. Here's a cute video that might help:



But before that happens, we cannot say that there is a child.

Alan says he was the evil gleam in his father's eye when he approached his mother. This was to counter the idea that kids blame their parents for being born, but he asserts the kids asked for it. I haven't fully gotten my head around that notion yet.

I love this stuff that cannot be figured out at least not by me.

I love a good puzzle! But possible ones and not impossible ones lol

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:29 am
by Deltabravo
The word "God" is interesting. In the New Testament, Jesus cries out for Eloi, not God, when he is being crucified. He was, it is said, a Nazarene. The Nazar is a Tukish amulet representing the Eye of Horus and is placed in all Turkish homes. Muslims claim that their religion is the original religion, predating what we know as Judaism, but some scholars say that Arabs originally worshipped the moon. In Egyptian mythology, the moon is the left eye of Horus, which is plucked out by Seth, but regrows, just as the moon wanes and waxes.

The word Jew comes from Yahu which is a reference to their god Yah. But, linguistically, in my opinion, this is the same word as Eloi and Allah, the first part of the two latter words simply being "el" or "al", meaning "the". It's the same god, the moon, the nazar, the eye of Horus.

Josephus, the historian, wrote that the Jews were actually Assyrians from Ur or the region around Mount Ararat in Turkey. Their "god" was a figure called Kaldi, which is where we get the term "Chaldean" from and these people converted to Chaldean Christianity.

My view is that "God" is just a mispronunciation of "Kald". People used to worship the sun, the moon, the stars, not varying notions of the invisible.

So, we go from a society governed by the Egyptians, whose Pharoah was a god and the embodiment of Horus, son of Osirus, to the idea of a word "God" meaning an invisible but truly great big thing of some sort which we can somehow talk about meaningfully as perfect, all-powerful etc etc.

Whether my view is correct or not is immaterial. We have been told as children that this notion of "God" we have is real, so we revere the word "God" without stepping back to ask what it is we are actually talking about, which isn't really even a thing at all, but just an idea in our heads.

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:28 pm
by Serendipper
Delta, your account seems very plausible to me. The evolution of god.