• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

Runewolf1973

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
godnotgod said:
If virtual particles are real, why make the distinction? Why not simply return to calling them 'particles', neither virtual nor real. It's like saying 'water is wet'. It has no real meaning.



Yes indeed, the Earth is flat and the Sun goes 'round the Earth. But in truth, there is no Sun; there are only dancing cave wall shadows interacting with each other.

If john Hagelin is on crack, so have all the mystics been throughout the ages. That's a lot of crack!
Click to expand...



Perhaps ask a quantum physicist regarding virtual particles.

Yes, indeed that is a lot of crack.
 
Runewolf1973

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
godnotgod said:
Interaction does not tell us what consciousness is; it only displays your theory about how the universe behaves. But since you deny the existence of consciousness, what you're really saying is that we live in a mechanical, dead, unconscious billiard ball universe. You're still living on Newtonian Physics time.

Consciousness is the Unified Field is The Absolute is Nothingness is Brahman is The Changeless is YOU, pretending you are NOT That.
Click to expand...

The theory does explain what consciousness is....complex interactions. It tells us that there is no true "consciousness", or "life", or "death", that there is only interaction. Some things evolved/changed in such a way that they are able to interact in more complex ways than other things, for example: the human brain as compared to a plant or a rock. All are interactive, but all interact differently, to different degrees. We are not in a dead, static universe, we are in a dynamic, ever-changing, highly interactive universe. It still beats the dead, static universe of pure nothingness which you are portraying.
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
Runewolf1973 said:
The theory does explain what consciousness is....complex interactions. It tells us that there is no true "consciousness", or "life", or "death", that there is only interaction. Some things evolved/changed in such a way that they are able to interact in more complex ways than other things, for example: the human brain as compared to a plant or a rock. All are interactive, but all interact differently, to different degrees. We are not in a dead, static universe, we are in a dynamic, ever-changing, highly interactive universe. It still beats the dead, static universe of pure nothingness which you are portraying.
Click to expand...

You are making a gross error. This nothingness is vibrant with pure consciousness, out of which comes the entire Universe.

If there is no consciousness in your model, then we have a mechanistic universe that interacts to no apparent end, a gyrating stupidity. I don't buy it. Your theory 'explains' consciousness by rendering it non existent, in spite of the fact that it is self evident to most people.

My scenario is far more compelling and magical, and there is a good reason why the universe is being manifested.
 
Runewolf1973

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
godnotgod said:
John Hagelin IS a Quantum Physicist!

But since you insist, I am asking you: why make the distinction if virtual particles are real?

.

They've unanimously concluded that the material world aint all its cracked up to be.
Click to expand...


I guess the distinction could be because these "particles" behave differently at different times, or under different circumstances.

So it's unanimous eh?...

Which is exactly why "Pure Consciousness" is so widely accepted among physicists worldwide, uhuh...
 
Runewolf1973

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
godnotgod said:
You are making a gross error. This nothingness is vibrant with pure consciousness, out of which comes the entire Universe.

If there is no consciousness in your model, then we have a mechanistic universe that interacts to no apparent end, a gyrating stupidity. I don't buy it. Your theory 'explains' consciousness by rendering it non existent, in spite of the fact that it is self evident to most people.

My scenario is far more compelling and magical, and there is a good reason why the universe is being manifested.
Click to expand...


I may in effect be rendering consciousness non-existent, but you are rendering the entire universe non-existent with your view of pure "nothingness". How can nothingness be "vibrant"? You do realize that for something to be vibrant requires some form of interaction.
 
Runewolf1973

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
John Hagelin may be a quantum physicist, but he allows unproven mystic views to infiltrate his work which effectively discredits any theories he might have. It is rather disappointing seeing such a great scientific mind being wasted on such unscientific nonsense.
 
Rick O'Shez

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
Runewolf1973 said:
John Hagelin may be a quantum physicist, but he allows unproven mystic views to infiltrate his work which effectively discredits any theories he might have. It is rather disappointing seeing such a great scientific mind being wasted on such unscientific nonsense.
Click to expand...

All it shows is that some scientists have religious beliefs.
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
Runewolf1973 said:
I may in effect be rendering consciousness non-existent, but you are rendering the entire universe non-existent with your view of pure "nothingness". How can nothingness be "vibrant"? You do realize that for something to be vibrant requires some form of interaction.
Click to expand...
I
It's vibrant because it is conscious, the highest form of consciousness, one that you are not yet aware of, and this consciousness is the source of the entire Universe. But while you are not aware of It, It is always aware of you.
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
Runewolf1973 said:
John Hagelin may be a quantum physicist, but he allows unproven mystic views to infiltrate his work which effectively discredits any theories he might have. It is rather disappointing seeing such a great scientific mind being wasted on such unscientific nonsense.
Click to expand...

He's light years ahead of you, son. What you don't understand is that Hagelin has realized the unity of the scientific view with the mystical view, which puts the scientific view into the correct context of Reality itself., and for this, one need not seek proof, but only clear and direct insight. This can only come, however, with the right kind of focus, one which the mystical view provides. In a nutshell, science is a kind of spotlight attention, scanning the environment bit by bit, while the mystical view is floodlight attention, taking in the entire picture all at once. That is the difference between the enlightened mind, such as Hagelin's, and the still unenlightened scientific mind. And so, the scientific mind continues to seek, while the enlightened mind already sees things in their completion.
 
Rick O'Shez

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
th
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
Runewolf1973 said:
Yes, and there is so much more they could do for this world if they dispelled the religious nonsense and stuck with the actual science part.
Click to expand...

...which would result in an unbalanced view of Reality. The pursuit of science and technology have created a world in which we are more alienated than ever, in spite of all the advances. Luckily, we have people like Hagelin who provide the needed ballast, putting science into the correct perspective, instead of putting it on a pedestal as many do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top