God and Pre-universe

[godnotgod]

I mean, as long as we're trying to understand concepts through methods that are wholly unsuited to the task and can't even begin to make meaning of it (although QM does have the advantage here in that people like you can have basically no clue as to what it is and still regurgitate Chopra's nonsense despite the entirety of physics literature).

I mean, as long as we're trying to understand concepts through methods that are wholly unsuited to the task and can't even begin to make meaning of it (although mysticism does have the advantage here in that people like you can have basically no clue as to what it is and still regurgitate mathematical nonsense despite the entirety of spiritual literature)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Uh...BTW...that is AMIT GOSWAMI talking; not Chopra, who happens to be a bona fide Quantum Physicist who understands what the Quantum view signifies.

Right. It's not like he's careful to ensure nobody creates a Wikipedia page about him, or that those of us who have access to academic journals know that his "expertise" in quantum physics amounts to so many papers of the type
Goswami, A. (1996). Creativity and the quantum: A unified theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 9(1), 47-61.

which of course was an incredible advancement in quantum theory after his ground-breaking work
Goswami, A. (1988). Creativity and the quantum theory. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 22(1), 9-30.

I mean, the guy does regularly publish in physics journals:
Goswami, A. (1993). An idealist theory of ethics. Creativity Research Journal, 6(1-2), 185-196.
Goswami, A. (2009). Quantum creativity in business. In Morality, ethics, and gifted minds (pp. 133-146). Springer.

And, of course, apart from his self-publishing, self-citing "research" (which are still tiny compared to his popular junk), it's not like all his actual connections to physics are ~50 years old:
Goswami, A., & Kisslinger, L. S. (1965). Particle Correlation Arising from Isospin Pairing in Light Nuclei. Physical Review, 140(1B), B26.

That aside, my real interest is in Legion's definition of God

I didn't know I had one. You must have Chopra's understanding of quantum mechanics, which gives you the ability to read my mind and download movies from Verizon FIOS.

 

[lovemuffin]

mysticism by nintendo sounds awesome

 

[nazz]

I come across many people that say God existed for an eternity before creation.

Putting aside all the problems coming from that idea. (time before time, eternity implies no end and so here we are, etc)

If God existed eternally before he made the universe, why did it take him so long?

Also, what did he exist in? Space is post-creation, as is time. A sequence of events must have happened before creation, right? So now he has no time.

Time is required to act (create) - Without it, God cannot do any action at all until he created time.

Yes, I realized all this some time ago. Which is why I no longer believe in a conscious act of creation. I now see reality as an actuality that emerged from pure potentiality outside of space and time.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

mysticism by nintendo sounds awesome

Come to think of it...yeah! Also I'm reminded suddenly of Bujninkan ninpo training, where I first learned the "symbol" and meaning of "nin" and wondering whether it has any meaning in Nintendo (I don't know Japanese apart from a few words and there combinations, so I don't know if "nin" here can be combined with "tendo" or if "tendo" is anything at all).

 

[godnotgod]

Right. It's not like he's careful to ensure nobody creates a Wikipedia page about him, or that those of us who have access to academic journals know that his "expertise" in quantum physics amounts to so many papers of the type
Goswami, A. (1996). Creativity and the quantum: A unified theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 9(1), 47-61.

which of course was an incredible advancement in quantum theory after his ground-breaking work
Goswami, A. (1988). Creativity and the quantum theory. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 22(1), 9-30.

I mean, the guy does regularly publish in physics journals:
Goswami, A. (1993). An idealist theory of ethics. Creativity Research Journal, 6(1-2), 185-196.
Goswami, A. (2009). Quantum creativity in business. In Morality, ethics, and gifted minds (pp. 133-146). Springer.

And, of course, apart from his self-publishing, self-citing "research" (which are still tiny compared to his popular junk), it's not like all his actual connections to physics are ~50 years old:
Goswami, A., & Kisslinger, L. S. (1965). Particle Correlation Arising from Isospin Pairing in Light Nuclei. Physical Review, 140(1B), B26.

Maybe he's decided to focus on the larger implications of Quantum reality, and not just the skeletal descriptive details. But then again, you wouldn't know what that means, as you still have your nose buried in mathematical and physics descriptions of the world. Perhaps you could sneak a breath or two with your Qi Gong technique so as to provide you a glimpse of what all that math and physics are about. That way, you will at least begin to place the cart properly behind the horse.

I didn't know I had one. You must have Chopra's understanding of quantum mechanics, which gives you the ability to read my mind and download movies from Verizon FIOS.

No, it is simply that his matches mine, both of which tell me yours is a dead understanding, based on the dissected and mathematically derived corpse you think is 'The Universe', a description no different than those of the 3 blind men groping the elephant.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Maybe he's decided to focus on the larger implications of Quantum reality

Sure. I mean, quantum physics has LOTS of utility in the workplace, and of course its natural relation to ethics makes it a perfect tool here as well.

and not just the skeletal descriptive details.

The details being quantum physics.

But then again, you wouldn't know what that means, as you still have your nose buried in mathematical and physics descriptions of the world.

You are so right. We should stop using physics to do physics. I mean, if quantum mechanics works when it comes to electrons and photons, it should logically work when it comes to creative writing, drama, and poetry too!

Perhaps you could sneak a breath or two with your Qi Gong technique

You mean the qi gong I learned fro practicing under one of the leading experts in Chinese traditions from martial arts to acupressure? He has a master of science in physics and a PhD in mechanical engineering, and he approach to science and mathematics is to use it for science and mathematics, not act like he's selling a Verizon product that he slaps the word "quantum" onto because he thinks it will sell better. That's what your guys do.

so as to provide you a glimpse of what all that math and physics are about.

Except my teacher, one of the world's leading experts on qi gong, thought that his years and years of study would never be enough without studying physics and applying it like physicists do. Your guys sell books and other junk for those who can't be bothered to study and train but want the ability to sound mystical and esoteric. They corner the market on McDonald's Mysticism.[/QUOTE]

 

[Ouroboros]

They corner the market on McDonald's Mysticism.

Or Quantum McDonaldism.

 

[lovemuffin]

Nintendo mysticism > McDonalds mysticism. Although I have experienced the Whole in the McNugget, so that I can say the latter is not without value

 

[godnotgod]

The details being quantum physics.

...which is the methodology that tells us about the behavior and characteristics, but not the nature of the world. The description of something is not that something.

You are so right. We should stop using physics to do physics. I mean, if quantum mechanics works when it comes to electrons and photons, it should logically work when it comes to creative writing, drama, and poetry too!

Physics and math are just fine if you want to know about the world; but they still cannot tell us what the nature of the world is.

If the nature of Reality is not what it seems, as Quantum Physics is pointing out, then where does that 'other' Reality leave off and our lives begin?

You mean the qi gong I learned fro practicing under one of the leading experts in Chinese traditions from martial arts to acupressure? He has a master of science in physics and a PhD in mechanical engineering, and he approach to science and mathematics is to use it for science and mathematics...

Yes, that's the one I mention, as Qi Gong is also a pathway to the enlightened state, which is a transformation of consciousness, in which what one thought to be the case, is not the case, which essentially is that the description of Reality, is not actually Reality, in the same manner that what math and physics describe about the Universe is not what the Universe actually is.

Except my teacher, one of the world's leading experts on qi gong, thought that his years and years of study would never be enough without studying physics and applying it like physicists do.

Your guys sell books and other junk for those who can't be bothered to study and train but want the ability to sound mystical and esoteric. They corner the market on McDonald's Mysticism.

Mystics have no problem with physics and math, but science alone is a one-sided view of Reality. Sure, it gives us all the facts, but in reality, tells us nothing. Facts alone are not enough. You can't get the music by dismantling the piano. A larger, all encompassing view is what is needed in order to place science in the correct context. There comes a point at which dissection and over-analysis of the universe misses something vital, creating a dead view of Reality.

Science thinks it has a monopoly on Quantum Physics; it doesn't. It needs to be handed over to others who have the ability to put it into proper perspective. The people you denigrate as unworthies are the ones who have broken with the old materialist paradigm that science continues to prop up as the only authentic system of knowledge, when, in fact, it has become dogma, something materialists refuse to acknowledge.

 

[godnotgod]

Or Quantum McDonaldism.

Can a Big Mac Double be in two places at the same time?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The people you denigrate as unworthies are the ones who have broken with the old materialist paradigm that science continues to prop up as the only authentic system of knowledge, when, in fact, it has become dogma, something materialists refuse to acknowledge.

That's interesting. I just posted quotes from several peer-reviewed physics papers from the top journals in the world arguing that physics presents us with problems regarding realism, the physicist who developed string theory and is strongly against spiritual/theistic notions argues that reductionism is dead, and I have e.g., a volume for a technical, scientific monograph series presenting a theistic interpretation of cosmology and theoretical physics.

Meanwhile, all of those you tend to prop up as those gurus/mystics that we (we intellectually sterile Western zombies) are so inferior to are also educated in Western sciences, and they sell their wares to Western consumers. They don't challenge any paradigm, because they are working within a very common one: a business paradigm where they rely on the ignorance of consumers and their claims to both scientific expertise and mystic traditions in order to flood the market using a very common business strategy and marketing paradigm.

 

[godnotgod]

Meanwhile, all of those you tend to prop up as those gurus/mystics that we (we intellectually sterile Western zombies) are so inferior to are also educated in Western sciences, and they sell their wares to Western consumers. They don't challenge any paradigm, because they are working within a very common one: a business paradigm where they rely on the ignorance of consumers and their claims to both scientific expertise and mystic traditions in order to flood the market using a very common business strategy and marketing paradigm.

I suppose you're referring primarily to Deepak Chopra, but I don't see it that way, which is to portray him as a snake oil salesman. If that were the case, he would have been discredited and shut down long ago. The fact is that he not only has credentials, but is connected to others who have a great deal of integrity in many other fields. The fact that he is trying to educate people through his books and lectures and is financially successful at it is a credit to his efforts. And yes, it is this same man who continually points out that scientists cling to the old materialist paradigm. Sir Roger Penrose has also joined in the ranks of these cutting edge mavericks, all of which can expect to be ostracized by the entrenched status quo.

But my main point here is that I think you're failing to see what this breakaway represents, both from the old patriarchal religions and the old materialist paradigm, and that is a dissatisfaction with their failure to provide spiritual nourishment, both of which are inflexible, narrow, and extreme views.

There is no need to 'prop' any of them up on my part; they seem to be standing up quite well on their own power.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I suppose you're referring primarily to Deepak Chopra, but I don't see it that way, which is to portray him as a snake oil salesman. If that were the case, he would have been discredited and shut down long ago.

How could he possibly be more discredited than he is? The physicists who have bothered to respond to his crap have shown definitely multiple times that he never had any credit to be discredited, the physics literature contradicts his views, more general science research (from neuroscience to chemistry) contradicts his views, his supporters are legions of amateurs and other people like Goswami who have marketed and packaged McMythicism for Westerners who can't be bothered to train and study, and his main support comes from his ability to take money from people who don't know the subject and avoiding either debating his would-be colleagues or producing scholarship for review by other scientists.

How can you possibly evaluate his credibility as a scientists if you don't read scientific research and you don't know the scientific topics he addresses?

The fact is that he not only has credentials, but is connected to others who have a great deal of integrity in many other fields.

He has credentials, and he's very bright. That's why his marketing scheme has been so successful. However, he isn't connected to credible scientists he's regarded as at best a joke and at worst almost as bad as those with credentials who promoted creationism.

The fact that he is trying to educate people through his books and lectures and is financially successful at it is a credit to his efforts.

Were he trying to educate people, he wouldn't be lying.

Sir Roger Penrose has also joined in the ranks of these cutting edge mavericks, all of which can expect to be ostracized by the entrenched status quo.

Right. First, Penrose is a mathematician (not that this matter, it's just an FYI), and second he's been promoting a model of consciousness that is wildly regarded as borderline pseudoscience, so has Stapp, Rauscher has published multiple works including a complete theistic (with Eastern leanings) monograph on theoretical physics and cosmology published in a peer-reviewed monograph series, the journal NeuroQuantology has an incredible following considering how poor the literature coming out of it is, hardcore atheists materialists like MIchael Ruse contribute to volumes with those they absolutely disagree with (Ruse and Dembski, the latter an ID proponent, co-edited a volume on evolution), multiple volumes that contain papers from physicists, mystics, theologians, philosophers, etc., are produced to increase interdisciplinary research, and on and on. Nor is this new (The Dancing Wu Li Masters ring a bell? It should). Don't describe the politics and dynamics of fields when you don't even read the popular science books other than the crap produced by those who sell-out religion and commercialize spiritualism.

 

[Ouroboros]

Can a Big Mac Double be in two places at the same time?

LOL. Sure, but they're entangled by the processed cheese.

 

[Thief]

I come across many people that say God existed for an eternity before creation.

Putting aside all the problems coming from that idea. (time before time, eternity implies no end and so here we are, etc)

If God existed eternally before he made the universe, why did it take him so long?

Also, what did he exist in? Space is post-creation, as is time. A sequence of events must have happened before creation, right? So now he has no time.

Time is required to act (create) - Without it, God cannot do any action at all until he created time.

Got here late.....sorry....

Movement is required to act.

Time has never existed.
It is only a means of measurement.
Man created time.....to serve Man.
It is a quotient on a chalkboard.
It is not substance nor is it a force.

Space is real enough.
You need two points and there you have it....in between.
Movement is real enough.
You can measure it, if you want to.
But it would exist without the cognitive effort, anyway.

 

[Thief]

Just out of curiousity......

I came to the notion that time does not exist.....when I was a teenager.
I am almost 60.

I grew up with this manner of thought.

How about the rest of you?

 

[`mud]

hey Thief,
You already know what I think,
There ain't no time.
~
But the distance vs. motion is interesting, isn't it ?
But.......about the OP, what came first ?
Was your God moving before the creation ?
From where did the inertia come ?
And I guess the big bang was the creation ?
~
Geeeeees...all those silly questions, you got answers ?
I bet you do !
~
'mud

 

[godnotgod]

LOL. Sure, but they're entangled by the processed cheese.

It's a non-local connection, I'm certain of that.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's a non-local connection, I'm certain of that.

Non local in some 30,000 locations around the world.