Probality of God

[hoptoad]

Makes me wonder: what is then really left unchanged, if the ephemeral forms of matter and energy are changed?

Nothing is left unchanged. The 'whole' is in itself always changing, and the only constant in the universe is change. So the whole universe is best described as the eternally changing universe. The one constant always present is change.

As eatenbyagrue suggested the other constant is time. Time may not necessarily be linear in all frames of reference, but I doubt there is anywhere in the universe where time would be zero for any observer who was present there.

So long as it keeps changing, the universe is always the same. Constantly changing ....... Disclaimer! the above diatribe is just more wild speculation and opinion from the Toad who Hops.

Brought to you by ........ the Toad who drinks Hops!

[scratchrobot]

In the beginning before the big bang there was nothing, no space no matter no time no gravity and these are the main ingredients for our universe and they are all related to each other. Matter creates gravity and slows time down so maybe time stops in a black hole?
Our universe is expanding at a speed beyond the speed of light and maybe the rate of expanding gives us time!
Maybe there are more ingredients.

Time, if we only could manipulate it

[Trino Cularoid]

If there is a creator projecting our universe, there must be a projector room from which the creator executes the projection, which again makes us ask about the possibility of this also being a projection and so forth.

I would say this makes an assumption that projector and projection cannot be the same "thing". It's convenient to exclude this possibility but it's basically still arbitrarily discarding a possibility.

The idea is that it is not possible to observe an experiment without influencing it (as in QM). It might be negligible for practical purposes for common sizes of objects but there is still always a connection between observer and experiment. So this would simply be an "extreme" version of this connection where observer and experiment are identical.

[Gwandau]

Nothing is left unchanged. The 'whole' is in itself always changing, and the only constant in the universe is change. So the whole universe is best described as the eternally changing universe. The one constant always present is change.
As eatenbyagrue suggested the other constant is time.

hoptoad,

I absolutely agree, everything is experiencing the phenomenon of change, but I have a feeling the dynamics of change are the direct product of time. Without time our universe probably would freeze into a infinite three dimensional still.

Time may not necessarily be linear in all frames of reference, but I doubt there is anywhere in the universe where time would be zero for any observer who was present there.

Since I myself regard time as the very frequency engine that projects universe into existence, from my point of view time will never reach absolute zero within the infinite "confinements" of our universe. But since my world view also incorporates the full spectrum of dynamics of a relative universe, were every single particle has a unique vibrational value emanating from center of field in order to be able to exist in a relative universe, time will inevitably decrease to a fraction of Earth time in regions of deep space.

If anyone is interested in a true relativistic outlook I recommend reading David Barclays' "Unity", a theory that turns most things we take for granted upside down. You can freely download it here http://www.gravitycontrol.org/unity-book.html  or buy it as paperback at http://www.lulu.com/shop/w-david-barclay/unity/paperback/product-5434388.html;jsessionid=9C724855B1A575CCFE03ECA4E0DDA272
In a truly relativistic universe where nothing is constant, not even the speed of light, any observations of surrounding universe made from a celestial body will differ from the same observations made from any other celestial body.


This inevitable effect of relativity will be discovered the moment mankind makes the first attempts to measure the distance to a distant star performed from two planets in the solar system seemingly positioned in the exact the same distance from the star according to the reference point of Earth.

Another aspect of this time differential between celestial bodies was shown in growth experiments that NASA performed with Moon soil. Despite being chemically harmless to plantlife, by mixing moon dust with earth soil the plants showed strange symptoms of deformity cause by abnormal growth speed. This anomaly was published in the sixties and even figured in a documentary about Nasas' Moon missions, but today is disclaimed by NASA as if it never happened.  This time differential caused by the different field quality of planet Mars may cause fatal effects upon the biological functions of the individuals who according to the Mars mission plans are going to stay on Mars for an extended time. The possible validity of the Unity theory will thus show in a near future.

I would say this makes an assumption that projector and projection cannot be the same "thing". It's convenient to exclude this possibility but it's basically still arbitrarily discarding a possibility.
The idea is that it is not possible to observe an experiment without influencing it (as in QM). It might be negligible for practical purposes for common sizes of objects but there is still always a connection between observer and experiment. So this would simply be an "extreme" version of this connection where observer and experiment are identical.

Trino Cularoid,

again I totally agree, and here we actually may have entered the very area of discussion that this topic adresses, namely the probability of God, with my suggestion of adjustment by replacing the concept of a personal "God" with an omni present non personal Intent.

The Planck scale observations of the connection between observer and experiment may indicate that universe itself is a living being deeply involved in its own development. Maybe the phenomenon of consciousness is much more involved in the shape of our reality than the dualistic viewpoint of orthodox science is able to grasp.

The dynamics of the event horizon surrounding a black hole indicates this relationship between the observer and the observed. Maybe the old eastern mystics have been correct all these years, who emphasized that there is no objective reality, the shape and appearance of the physical reality that we experience is totally depending upon the limited senses and instruments available to the observer.

This would mean that there is no tree in the forest when no one is there to observe. There is something there, of course, but this something is not limited to the tree we perceive as humans. The tree and the forest, as well as everything else in universe, are according to the mystics a matrix of pure energy vibrating forth a quality that our human senses is filtering down to our limited experience. We call it a tree, but it is only a tree to us, they say. A good analogy is the electromagnetic spectrum, we humans can only perceive a fraction of its wave length span, thus being able only to experience a very small part of reality.


If the above scenario is the actual case, there is no conceptual objective reality, and we are left with a dynamic reality that is dependent upon the quality of the observer. Thus the only question that remains is to which degree we are involved in creating our reality.  We are obviously conditioned to perceive reality in a certain way, and we are likewise conditioned to perceive this reality as the objective version, which is even further funded by our scientific conditioning to approach and explain things the way we do.

But if we knew more about the mechanisms behind shaping our paradigm, how much mandate would we have in forming the way we perceive reality? As I see it, if there is no limit to this potential, and if this potential is directly proportional to to our level of consciousness, then we are potential gods.


So seen in this light we actually are responsible for the reality we experience, as being sort of indirectly responsible for which paradigm we have chosen to act through.


As far as I am concerned, this is a clear indication that we all are active parts of the creation, propelling the evolution of universe forward through our increased understanding of reality and our choice of "reality wavelength" that we decide to tune into.


Seen from that perspective the evolution of consciousness is universes' own will to explore itself.

If that is not an Intent, what is?

Gwandau

[Gwandau]

I found this in another thread posted by TechStuf, and just had to post it here.

The article TS linked to adresses the probability of an intelligent design behind life, and its a nice article as a whole, but a bit into the article there is a certain part consisting of just a few lines that really really rocks.

Citing from the article:

"This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages. If a random mutation helps an organism survive, it can be preserved and passed on to the next generation. Yet, the flagellar motor has no function until after all of its 30 parts have been assembled. The 29 and 28-part versions of this motor do not work. Thus, natural selection can "select" or preserve the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it can do nothing to help build the motor in the first place."


I just say WOW!  It seems to nail it right there, doesn't it ? It does not prove the existence of a personal God, but it sures proves the presence of some kind of design.

Gwandau

PS. Here is the link to the whole article, if anyone is interested.

http://www.discovery.org/a/3059