Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[YmirGF]

I believe what I believe but that doesn't mean I don't understand that it is totally subjective and devoid of the necessary elements required to uphold a logical debate based on objective evidence. Though I think this also stems from the fact I don't think my understanding is "correct" in that any and all possible definitions would be wrong to some degree. It is not usually a pagan thing to claim absolute truth.

That sounds like a wonderful perspective to hold. More power to you.

 

[godnotgod]

It says that what we see is not necessarily how things are. Not that it is non-physical.

Yes it does. It shows the 'material' of the atom to be fluctuations in the Quantum vacuum. No material. No 'physicality'.

I would not see the ocean as conscious but the system in which we call the "ocean" not just the water is very much alive.

What I have been referring to as background and foreground are, in reality, one and the same. You and I are also the background. Saying that we are in the foreground is just a matter of perspective. We, as conscious beings, do not exist apart from the background in any way. So consciousness belongs to the background as much as it belongs to the foreground. Can you show where one leaves off and the other begins?

 

[godnotgod]

I am aware of what the research is indicating, but what I'm saying is that much research is yet to be done, plus we gotta be careful in terms of making assumptions at this point, plus not taking extreme positions. There simply is no indication that nihilism is involved.

It's not that nothing exists; it's that the material world is not 'material'. Not being material, it is just the illusion that it is material, especially as what seems to be material also has form. The mystics have been telling us all along that 'form is emptiness; emptiness is form', and that the material world is but a projection of consciousness. So contrary to the nihilist view, consciousness is very real. Consciousness is being, ie; 'I Am', whereas the world of 'material' forms is 'existence'. The former is uncaused, unborn/deathless, and outside of time and space, the latter requiring time and space, as it arises and subsides, merely a manifestation of pure consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

I believe what I believe but that doesn't mean I don't understand that it is totally subjective and devoid of the necessary elements required to uphold a logical debate based on objective evidence. Though I think this also stems from the fact I don't think my understanding is "correct" in that any and all possible definitions would be wrong to some degree. It is not usually a pagan thing to claim absolute truth.

The Universe, in the sense that it represents Everything there is, including all multiverses and intergalactic space, is not just an absolute, it is The Absolute, as there is no 'other' to which it can be compared. When you realize that you are no different from the Universe, individual, relative consciousness is transformed into Universal Consciousness. It is an absolute, but not absolute truth. The realization of Universal Consciousness is not a matter of who is right or who is wrong, as it is not a relative viewpoint.

 

[The Hammer]

You realize, do you not, that to build something all the building materials must be at the building site? How did each small or large part make it there in the right order? You say "science will answer it". Don't hold your breath.

I said science will answer it in time... As it has with many other things. As for your "how did the building material get there, and arrange itself?". Your question seems to be an attempt at me saying "They were always there/I don't know", so you can respond with, "goddidit".

But please, correct me if I am wrong, as I seem to be putting words (among other things, ZING!), in peoples mouth today.

 

[godnotgod]

If one claims a scientific fact as a scientist but doesn't use the scientific method, ya, I can easily see why he would be ostracized.

Likewise, if one doesn't use the Dancing Cave Wall Shadow method to ascertain Reality, and claims the existence of a Sun outside the cave, he too would be ostracized, and probably hunted down and executed for heresy.

The scientific method is neither infallible nor the only way to knowledge!

Facts are not Reality!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Well in general it means all of the energy that we can feel.

Yes I see. I kind of sense these things at times, but it's very elusive, often just beyond reach. Are there practices you do that make you more receptive? How do you tend to experience it?
I've always liked touching rocks ( strange, I know! ), and I've had some odd experiences where it felt like I was picking up "memories" or something - it might have just been an over-active imagination but it felt real at the time. Interesting though!

 

[Robert.Evans]

I said science will answer it in time... As it has with many other things. As for your "how did the building material get there, and arrange itself?". Your question seems to be an attempt at me saying "They were always there/I don't know", so you can respond with, "goddidit".

But please, correct me if I am wrong, as I seem to be putting words (among other things, ZING!), in peoples mouth today.

But if it is not 'goddidit' then surely it is 'naturaldidit'. How are you better off?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes I see. I kind of sense these things at times, but it's very elusive, often just beyond reach. Are there practices you do that make you more receptive? How do you tend to experience it?
I've always liked touching rocks ( strange, I know! ), and I've had some odd experiences where it felt like I was picking up "memories" or something - it might have just been an over-active imagination but it felt real at the time. Interesting though!

Rocks were often seen as the gods. So your words are interesting, and line up with Pr Cox who said his atoms might well have been from other things one of which was a 'rock'. As a rock can be seen as a god then this is not surprising. Yisrael were gods at one time and now are man. Take also that the sun can be seen as a reflection of God and has been worshipped as such. Guess what? We are made of stardust. Interesting? or just coincidence?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Just as a thought:

Universal Intelligence is a term used by some to describe what they see as organization, or order of the universe. It has been described as "the intrinsic tendency for things to self-organize and co-evolve into ever more complex, intricately interwoven and mutually compatible forms."[1] (from Wiki)

So it could be argued that the universe does need intelligence to order it, and that is seen in its ability to self organise.

 

[Robert.Evans]

We next asked Dr. Hagelin to further explain the nature of the universal field of intelligence.

{{Physics has discovered something beyond matter, something non-material, because the material world really stops at about the atomic level. Sub-nuclear particles like photons, quarks, these aren't particles at all; they are expressions of intelligence, they are vibrational modes of a universal field or a superstring field. So we've gone beyond matter into quantum mechanics, then Quantum Field Theory, and today, Unified Quantum Field Theory. }}
SCIENCE and SPIRITUALITY Dr. John Hagelin:Look Within to Understand the Universe

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But if it is not 'goddidit' then surely it is 'naturaldidit'. How are you better off?

Comfort or truth? God is comfort, truth here is "don't know".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Rocks were often seen as the gods. So your words are interesting, and line up with Pr Cox who said his atoms might well have been from other things one of which was a 'rock'. As a rock can be seen as a god then this is not surprising. Yisrael were gods at one time and now are man. Take also that the sun can be seen as a reflection of God and has been worshipped as such. Guess what? We are made of stardust. Interesting? or just coincidence?

I tend to keep an open mind on the experiences I have.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It has been described as "the intrinsic tendency for things to self-organize and co-evolve into ever more complex, intricately interwoven and mutually compatible forms."[1] (from Wiki)

So in those terms is evolution intelligent?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Comfort or truth? God is comfort, truth here is "don't know".

God is truth, don't know is blindness

So in those terms is evolution intelligent?

Yes. Everything is conscious - though don't ask me to explain that in physical terms. The reason evolution works is because it is seeking its own Self, and , when it finds it, it knows, hence we have what we have, animals humans etc.

 

[The Hammer]

But if it is not 'goddidit' then surely it is 'naturaldidit'. How are you better off?

Never said I was better off. I just refuse to accept answers handed to me from a 2000-6000 year old source, and instead work in the science field so that I may keep up, and maybe even contribute to our understanding of the world around us.

Don't get me wrong. I am no atheist. I just don't think "goddidit" is a good answer for anything. Why should I sweep the problem under the rug with that answer, when we can continue to search for the science based answer?

 

[The Hammer]

God is truth, don't know is blindness


Yes. Everything is conscious - though don't ask me to explain that in physical terms. The reason evolution works is because it is seeking its own Self, and , when it finds it, it knows, hence we have what we have, animals humans etc.

What? ... I think I am just stepping out of this conversation with that remark.

 

[YmirGF]

God is truth, don't know is blindness

So-called "truth" is relative to understanding and is therefore a variable. Blindness is the inability to see anything at all.

Yes. Everything is conscious - though don't ask me to explain that in physical terms.

Okies, so, we just take your word for it. Spiffy.

The reason evolution works is because it is seeking its own Self, and , when it finds it, it knows, hence we have what we have, animals humans etc.

Oy vey.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Never said I was better off. I just refuse to accept answers handed to me from a 2000-6000 year old source, and instead work in the science field so that I may keep up, and maybe even contribute to our understanding of the world around us.

Don't get me wrong. I am no atheist. I just don't think "goddidit" is a good answer for anything. Why should I sweep the problem under the rug with that answer, when we can continue to search for the science based answer?

I have no problem with searching with sceince to explain the physical world, it is aafter all, good at it. But there is atnedancy now to think that doing that means there is no God, when in fact that is the very thing they are and they talk about.

 

[Robert.Evans]

What? ... I think I am just stepping out of this conversation with that remark.

Nice talking to you for a short while... don't forget the open mind, haha