Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Rick O'Shez]

What do the last two posts have to do with the topic?

How precisely does quantum mechanics support the case for the universe being intelligent?
If you are proposing "quantum consciousness" or something you need to explain clearly how you think it works. Actually I think quantum mechanics is a massive red herring in a discussion like this, because none of us here has any real understanding of it. You clearly don't.

You are taking ideas from Buddhism, Hinduism, various gurus, ancient sages, quantum mechanics and elsewhere, and claiming that they somehow support your theory. The problem is that it looks like a new-age muddle rather than a coherent package.

 

[godnotgod]

What do the last two posts have to do with the topic?

How precisely does quantum mechanics support the case for the universe being intelligent?
If you are proposing "quantum consciousness" or something you need to explain clearly how you think it works. Actually I think quantum mechanics is a massive red herring in a discussion like this, because none of us here has any real understanding of it. You clearly don't.

You are taking ideas from Buddhism, Hinduism, various gurus, ancient sages, quantum mechanics and elsewhere, and claiming that they somehow support your theory. The problem is that it looks like a new-age muddle rather than a coherent package.

You seem to have lost your way and cannot understand the connection between Quantum Mechanics and Universal Consciousness in this thread, but I am afraid I cannot help you. I cannot do your thinking for you. You will simply have to do your own homework and footwork to develop your intuitive mind. I will tell you one thing right now: you will make no progress in your meditation until you do, as the intuitive mind is the pathway to the enlightened state, unless, of course, your brand of Buddhism does not include that as a goal, and I say that in light of your statement that Theravada does not include the principle of Buddha nature. Your Buddhism sounds like a dead religion.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Another highly patronising and uninformed post, which as usual evades the questions actually posed to you.

By the way I am concerned about the personal abuse you have meted out to myself and other members during the course of this thread, and will make a point of reporting any further ad-hom attacks.

 

[Robert.Evans]

So you're saying that your belief in God is the result of having thought about it , and not on a particular spiritual experience of God?

I said ''You have what God gives you as I do.'' What I meant was ''You have what God gives you as I do.'' Why is it always so hard for you to understand??

 

[Rick O'Shez]

''You have what God gives you as I do.''

But what is that exactly? What is it that God has given both of us?

I was simply asking whether your belief in God is based on a thought process, or on a personal spiritual experience of some sort. Is that not a straightforward question?

I feel like I keep asking you very straightforward questions and not getting an answer. It's puzzling.

 

[godnotgod]

Another highly patronising and uninformed post, which as usual evades the questions actually posed to you.

By the way I am concerned about the personal abuse you have meted out to myself and other members during the course of this thread, and will make a point of reporting any further ad-hom attacks.

Hey, don't blame me for the fact that you can't think correctly, and are so indoctrinated that certain words are knee jerk trigger words for you. I refuse to go over material that has already been covered and which other people here do understand. You're just being difficult, and I don't have the time. Good luck.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Further ad-hom attacks and off-topic posts will be reported.

Be advised.

 

[godnotgod]

Further ad-hom attacks and off-topic posts will be reported.

Be advised.

Then I will just put you on Ígnore' so you won't be a nuisance any longer. Run along now. Scoot.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Another highly patronising and uninformed post, which as usual evades the questions actually posed to you.

By the way I am concerned about the personal abuse you have meted out to myself and other members during the course of this thread, and will make a point of reporting any further ad-hom attacks.

Are you serious! ? I have not read one time where he has done that. Perhaps in jest. I would say he has gone farther than the extra-mile in explaining this you seem to have no comprehension of. Now come on, ...big smile, shake hands and be friends
Perhaps it is your avatar that should be changed. i tmight be influencing peoples concept of you...

 

[godnotgod]

Are you serious! ? I have not read one time where he has done that. Perhaps in jest. I would say he has gone farther than the extra-mile in explaining this you seem to have no comprehension of. Now come on, ...big smile, shake hands and be friends
Perhaps it is your avatar that should be changed. i tmight be influencing peoples concept of you...

He no longer exists in my world.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I have not read one time where he has done that.

There are plenty of examples if you look back. I have come to expect the highly patronising stuff, but some of it is pure ad hom and entirely inappropriate.
I don't think you have been on the receiving end of the abuse because you tend not to challenge GNG's "teachings".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Perhaps it is your avatar that should be changed. i tmight be influencing peoples concept of you...

Yeah whatever.

So back to the topic, I was asking you about whether your belief in God was based on a thought process or a spiritual experience.

Also could you explain what God has given us both?

 

[Robert.Evans]

But what is that exactly? What is it that God has given both of us?

I was simply asking whether your belief in God is based on a thought process, or on a personal spiritual experience of some sort. Is that not a straightforward question?

I feel like I keep asking you very straightforward questions and not getting an answer. It's puzzling.

What do you mean by ''personal spiritual experience''. I feel this subject is easy. Either you understand it or you don't, what could be easier than that? You must remember that you don't even believe in God, so you will not understand it, hence the many questions.
If you are asking whether things happen in my life to confirm what I am saying, then I guess so, though don't ask me to name one. It is not something I dwell on. God is within and reveals himself within.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Could you say a bit more about what you mean by "energy" here?

To atheists it would be mumbo jumbo that I don't defend as fact in debates. It is my spiritual view.

Interesting. My take on it is a bit different. I see consciousness (the background) as doing the universe (the foreground) in its entirety, including you and I. The consciousness we think of as 'I' is an illusion; it is actually a universal consciousness projecting us and everything else, but acting in such a way as to be all the parts of the universe, such as stars, rocks, trees, animals, and us. Once the facade of individual personal consciousness is seen through, all of a sudden everything is seen as alive and conscious. This 'I' holds everything in a kind of suspension as unconscious 'things', apart from a conscious observer. So from the point of view of universal consciousness, this world is not real. From the point of view of personal consciousness, it is. This seems to coincide with the Quantum view of the world compared to our ordinary everyday 'materialist' view of the world.

So you said a rock is conscious. For me, that translates as having spirituality, which transforms its physicality. When we say 'physical', we are conceiving that state of being as existing in the foreground of our conscious attention against a background of the non-physical, without realizing it, because the background is already in place. It is this non-physical state that is consciousness, or spirituality, that infuses the entire universe.

I don't think your view is supported by QM in the way we understand it scientifically. And I said that I did "not" think that a rock had consciousness as it doesn't have a spiritual viewpoint. It can have an energy but it isn't self reflective.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you are asking whether things happen in my life to confirm what I am saying, then I guess so, though don't ask me to name one.

It would be interesting to hear some examples. I am genuinely curious because I've never experienced anything relating to God, despite a lifetime of meditation and other spiritual practices.
Sure, I don't believe in God, but I do admit the possibility that I might be missing something - so maybe you could explain what you think that is, or describe how you experience it? How does God reveal himself within? What's it like?
Just saying "If you don't believe in God you won't understand God" seems a bit lame to me.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't think your view is supported by QM in the way we understand it scientifically.

Of course not. I thought that was clear. But what QM makes clear is that matter simply doesn't exist. So now where does that leave you and your description of the world as being 'physical'?

And I said that I did "not" think that a rock had consciousness as it doesn't have a spiritual viewpoint. It can have an energy but it isn't self reflective.

But the background to the rock and the entire universe may indeed have consciousness. The sea is the background to the fish. What is the background to you, myself, rocks, trees, planets, stars, galaxies, etc.? IOW, you currently exist in some kind of context. What is that context?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

To atheists it would be mumbo jumbo that I don't defend as fact in debates. It is my spiritual view.

I asked because I was curious. I may be an atheist, but that doesn't mean I am not spiritual.

 

[metis]

Photons are energy, not matter.

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations

• New Scientist November 2008 by Stephen Battersby

Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.

The researchers simulated the frantic activity that goes on inside protons and neutrons. These particles provide almost all the mass of ordinary matter.

Each proton (or neutron) is made of three quarks - but the individual masses of these quarks only add up to about 1% of the proton's mass. So what accounts for the rest of it?

Theory says it is created by the force that binds quarks together, called the strong nuclear force. In quantum terms, the strong force is carried by a field of virtual particles called gluons, randomly popping into existence and disappearing again. The energy of these vacuum fluctuations has to be included in the total mass of the proton and neutron.,,,,

,,,,The Higgs field is also thought to make a small contribution, giving mass to individual quarks as well as to electrons and some other particles. The Higgs field creates mass out of the quantum vacuum too, in the form of virtual Higgs bosons. So if the LHC confirms that the Higgs exists, it will mean all reality is virtual.

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations - physics-math - 20 November 2008 - New Scientist

Again, it boils down to how one may define "matter".

 

[godnotgod]

Again, it boils down to how one may define "matter".

Well we certainly can no longer define or think about it in the classical sense of it being something solid or stable, or even existing for that matter, no pun.

 

[metis]

Well we certainly can no longer define or think about it in the classical sense of it being something solid or stable, or even existing for that matter, no pun.

We should never assume that anything is unchanging, but neither should we assume nihilism.