Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Robert.Evans]

I see you are at a loss for relevant reply.

I see your sarcasm has not diminished even at this time of year.

 

[Robert.Evans]

With the approach of Spinoza that I tend to lean towards, what you call the "Divine" is also all that we see or may not see, so change is inevitable with all. Therefore, with any object that I can point to, all I'm seeing is an image that is in constant change, even if I don't realize it is. As the Tibetan Buddhist monk, Matthieu Ricard, has written, if there were to be a creator-god, then this deity would also logically have to change as well. Trouble is, what would make this creator-god change if at the beginning this deity was the only entity that existed?
Tough question, and I don't have enough intelligence to answer it.

Merry Christmas.

BTW, we have 35 people coming over our place to celebrate it today.

The reflection in the mirror is the change! Nothing has changed with source, but the image of the source shows the left and not the right. I take it you know the mirror effect I speak of.


35 people are coming and I don't get an invite... haha. Have a good time! I hope all goes well.

 

[Robert.Evans]

My dear fellow, and I do mean that, you aren't debating a thing as far as I am concerned. Actually, you are underscoring my point. My guess is much of what you have written will fly right over the heads of many.

Well I was about to read it when something shot right over my head and then I forgot it.

 

[YmirGF]

The reflection in the mirror is the change! Nothing has changed with source, but the image of the source shows the left and not the right. I take it you know the mirror effect I speak of.

Don't you think it odd that a being/intelligence/whathaveyou that does not change, to which the concept of change would be alien, would create a universe(s) that is/are in perpetual change? I'd say the chances are slim to nil.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Don't you think it odd that a being/intelligence/whathaveyou that does not change, to which the concept of change would be alien, would create a universe(s) that is/are in perpetual change? I'd say the chances are slim to nil.

In the simple terms that we can understand it, The thing that does not change is the Source and that is conceptual as apposed to actual. Consciousness is what comes after, and that is in the Image. It is the Image that changes and that is Feminine.
It is simply reflective-consciousness, replicating and dividing.

As a necessity something has to be there (I use 'something' for the want of a better word) and that something allowed the change to happen in ways that altered what was already there. Within the original-awareness, it was archetypal and not changing in the way we would think, more conceptual, like ideas. Thus nothing really happens. But nothing was truly born either. That is why the Image was born and ultimately, us! It is through love that this happens, the release the freedom. It is not unlikely to think that intelligence would be behind it, but highly unlikely to think it is just luck.

 

[YmirGF]

In the simple terms that we can understand it, The thing that does not change is the Source and that is conceptual as apposed to actual.

But Robert, if something is not an actuality - it does not exist. Are you endeavoring to have your yummy Christmas cake and eat it too?

Consciousness is what comes after, and that is in the Image. It is the Image that changes and that is Feminine.

Is there really a need to inflict gender into the equation? Likewise, if consciousness is in the image (preexisting) how can it come after?

It is simply reflective-consciousness, replicating and dividing.

I'm more of a co-creating kind of guy, but each to their own.

As a necessity something has to be there (I use 'something' for the want of a better word) and that something allowed the change to happen in ways that altered what was already there.

So, probability gets the short end of the stick here or what?

Within the original-awareness, it was archetypal and not changing in the way we would think, more conceptual, like ideas.

Aside from the niggling fact that ideas have a tendency to grow and become more. If one thinks that ideas are static then I'd have to say that said individual understands very little of the processes involved.

Thus nothing really happens. But nothing was truly born either. That is why the Image was born and ultimately, us! It is through love that this happens, the release the freedom. It is not unlikely to think that intelligence would be behind it, but highly unlikely to think it is just luck.

Well, when you decide to make some sense, do get back to me. I'm still mulling the construct that nothing was born and yet the image was born. Makes sense....

 

[Sha'irullah]

Who the hell ever said the universe is ordered

 

[McBell]

Blind is as blind says.

Yes.
That would explain your recruiting of strawmen.

 

[godnotgod]

You're going to have to explain that more fully as both terms used in this context can be taken different ways. But before you do that, in order to maybe save some time, let me just say that it appears to me that all "things" are likely to be interrelated, and one thing common in meditation is to try and envision these connections and attempt to see what the implications may be.

Maybe I can ask the question in a different way: Where does consciousness leave off and the outside world begin?

 

[godnotgod]

Mathematics. Mathematics is one area that all human animals seem to agree on. Though that might make some folks uncomfortable, that reality can be reduced to a set of equations, for the most part, it can be. Where this runs off the rails is that such a clinical, calculated view of reality is not supportive of your fragile vision of reality.

Mathematics is still something about the universe, but does not tell us what the universe actually is.

Mathematics is not what the universe is.

Mathematics is a description as to how the universe works.

The description is not the described.

Try again.

Mathematics (and physics) runs off the rails Big Time in the following video:

 

[godnotgod]

"The true nature of reality."

Hmm.

Is there a false nature of reality ? ( Here we go ...)

There is a false view of Reality.

For example, most of us see the world as being made up of many separate 'things'. But in reality, and upon closer examination, we see all 'things' as being interconnected to everything else to make up what we call 'the uni-verse'. 'Things' is just a mental concept we create in order to try to make 'sense' of the world, and for the sake of convenience. A 'tree' for example, is not a separate thing called a tree, but an outgrowth of many other factors, such as Sun, atmosphere, soil, etc. It cannot be what it is without those other factors being involved. Same goes for us as human beings.

Classical thinking tells us that the material world is made up of solid particles, but closer examination shows that the atom is over 99.xxxx% empty space.

We say: 'The river is flowing', but there is, in reality, no such entity called 'river' that flows. There is only flowing water.

....and on and on.

 

[godnotgod]

Who the hell ever said the universe is ordered

Is there a repetitive pattern to the way the planets behave in our solar system?

 

[godnotgod]

Don't you think it odd that a being/intelligence/whathaveyou that does not change, to which the concept of change would be alien, would create a universe(s) that is/are in perpetual change? I'd say the chances are slim to nil.

Unless there was no such 'creation'. A movie projector, for example, projects a series of still images upon a screen, but projection is not creation. Nothing is being created; nothing is changing.

 

[YmirGF]

Unless there was no such 'creation'. A movie prijector, for example, projects a series of still images upon a screen, but projection is not creation. Nothing is being created; nothing is changing.

Oddly, I hadn't realized that a simple projector was intelligent. That's news.

 

[godnotgod]

But Robert, if something is not an actuality - it does not exist.

The light from a light bulb exists in potentiality. All one need do is to flip the switch to prove it is actually there. Likewise, the entire universe exists as both unmanifested potential and as manifested potential. Isn't that what Quantum Physics has shown us? Currently, it is in the 'on' phase.

 

[godnotgod]

Oddly, I hadn't realized that a simple projector was intelligent. That's news.

Was I referring to intelligence, or to the nature of the projected imagery?

C'mon now....use your intelligence!

 

[apophenia]

Oddly, I hadn't realized that a simple projector was intelligent. That's news.

Did you ever take the time to talk to one ?

Oh, hang on,maybe that's what you've been doing here !

Silly me.

I have no idea.

 

[apophenia]

There is a false view of Reality.

For example, most of us see the world as being made up of many separate 'things'.

....and on and on.

"most of us"

In the manner of my earlier ignostic rant, pull that apart and see what you have

are "most of us" "separate things" ?

or is it the unity which is arguing amonst itself with presumed things ?

can the unity get over this ?

if so, how much longer than eternity will that take ?

 

[godnotgod]

"most of us"

In the manner of my earlier ignostic rant, pull that apart and see what you have

are "most of us" "separate things" ?

or is it the unity which is arguing amonst itself with presumed things ?

can the unity get over this ?

if so, how much longer than eternity will that take ?

There is neither separation, nor not-separation. Some just see it that way, which is a false, dualistic view of Reality.

 

[apophenia]

There is neither separation, nor not-separation. Some just see it that way, which is a false, dualistic view of Reality.

but if the "some" are the reality ... then ... that is also reality's view of itself ... and therefore not false ... just the way it is