"It" Makes a Difference

[ThePainefulTruth]

It is no revelation. It is analysis and science.

That's exactly the same thing as saying, It is the Truth. May be, but I gotta assume if you had any such analysis and science, you'd have at least hinted at it.

 

[Meriweather]

Spanish isn't the best example here, IMO. A better example would be e.g., Hebrew, where the dictionary form of a verb is the 3rd person masculine (i.e., verbs have gender) or the male lexemes in IE languages that are grammatically "female", or Navajo where verbs have only two genders: neuter and not neuter.

That's interesting! I am only familiar with Spanish, so that was why it was my jumping off place.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That's exactly the same thing as saying, It is the Truth. May be, but I gotta assume if you had any such analysis and science, you'd have at least hinted at it.

No, it is not. You asked if it was a revelation, I wrote that it is not a revelation. As for truth, we still have not got the whole of it. The status is like Big-Bang. A good possibility of it being the truth. If something against it is discovered, we make necessary changes in the theory. If you have gone through my later posts, you may have had some idea of my position.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

No, it is not. You asked if it was a revelation, I wrote that it is not a revelation. As for truth, we still have not got the whole of it. The status is like Big-Bang. A good possibility of it being the truth. If something against it is discovered, we make necessary changes in the theory. If you have gone through my later posts, you may have had some idea of my position.

My response was to your, "Brahman has no need to act in any way, it is our perception that makes us think so - there is some action, there is creation, there is death. This is known as 'maya' at our level of reality. It sure is false. At the absolute level of reality there is none."

How did it come to be known as 'maya', that it is applied at this level of reality, or even that there are "levels" of reality? If this is claimed to be objective knowledge, then how did you objectively come by it? If it is subjective "knowledge", then there's no way whereby it can be pass on as anything but subjective hearsay--a good definition of either divine or spiritually derived revelation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How did it come to be known as 'maya', that it is applied at this level of reality, or even that there are "levels" of reality? If this is claimed to be objective knowledge, then how did you objectively come by it? If it is subjective "knowledge", then there's no way whereby it can be pass on as anything but subjective hearsay--a good definition of either divine or spiritually derived revelation.

Simple, a much quoted example. Prick your finger with a needle. Do you feel pain? Why do you feel pain when no electron has touched any other electron? Pricking, finger, pain, blood, all these are our perceptions. They are true at what we term as 'pragmatic reality', but they are not true for the 'absolute reality', where only energy plays the game. It is physics, science. I do not believe in divine or revelation.

 

[Thief]

May the Force be with you!

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Simple, a much quoted example. Prick your finger with a needle. Do you feel pain? Why do you feel pain when no electron has touched any other electron? Pricking, finger, pain, blood, all these are our perceptions. They are true at what we term as 'pragmatic reality', but they are not true for the 'absolute reality', where only energy plays the game. It is physics, science. I do not believe in divine or revelation.

You didn't answer my questions. How do you know? You say physics and science, how? They're only just this year beginning to understand quantum mechanics, and it doesn't all come down to perception. An observer is not required. There is a link between the timeless quantum micro-world, and the physical macro-world.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is a link between the timeless quantum micro-world, and the physical macro-world.

Yes, there is a link between the pragmatic reality and the absolute reality too. What is perceived also is because of what exists in reality. Quatum theory is more than a Century old now.

"First recognized by Planck in 1900, it was originally the proportionality constant between the minimal increment of energy, E, of a hypothetical electrically charged oscillator in a cavity that contained black body radiation, and the frequency, f, of its associated electromagnetic wave. In 1905 the value E, the minimal energy increment of a hypothetical oscillator, was theoretically associated by Einstein with a "quantum" or minimal element of the energy of the electromagnetic wave itself. The light quantum behaved in some respects as an electrically neutral particle, as opposed to an electromagnetic wave. It was eventually called the photon."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

"After the cubic model (1902), the plum-pudding model (1904), the Saturnian model (1904), and the Rutherford model (1911) came the Rutherford–Bohr model or just Bohr model for short (1913). The improvement to the Rutherford model is mostly a quantum physical interpretation of it. The Bohr model has been superseded, but the quantum theory remains sound."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yes, there is a link between the pragmatic reality and the absolute reality too. What is perceived also is because of what exists in reality. Quatum theory is more than a Century old now.

The mechanics of it yes, it could produce predictable results, but without any understanding the reasoning behind it all, finally dumping the Copenhagen, Many Worlds interpretations along with the rest of the other pretzeloid machinations beginning to crumble, it appears, in favor of the Transactional Interpretation. it was always the one (from 30 years ago) that explained all quantum weirdness, characterized as transactions taking place backward and forward in time. Now they are characterized as taking place outside of spacetime which is more reasonable AND more intuitive. Among other things, it explains the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and the two slit experiment.

In a nutshell, quantum transactions between offer and confirmation waves between quantum emitters and absorbers take place outside of our physical space-time, and then collapse,when confirmed, into physical entities within that space-time--thus the wave/particle duality, and the physical world in which we interact and experience pain of a pin prick. I think this ether, or whatever it is which "outside" of our 4-D universe, is going to explain the dark matter and dark energy we're discovering (which is much more than the visible matter and energy we can observe); as well as what is driving the accelerating expansion of the universe to superluminal speeds, in all directions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The mechanics of it yes, .. in all directions.

So, if we do not understand something till now, the answer is 'Goddidit'?

I think this ether, or whatever it is which "outside" of our 4-D universe, is going to explain the dark matter and dark energy we're discovering (which is much more than the visible matter and energy we can observe); as well as what is driving the accelerating expansion of the universe to superluminal speeds, in all directions.

Even if it is outside our 4-D universe, still it will be within the whole. And we in 'advaita' Hinduism term the whole as Brahman, which is without a second.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

take away the anthropomorphic qualities

...of the creator who created us (in his image)? As the only sentient beings capable of knowing, appreciating creation, acknowledging him for it?

I don't think it would make much sense to do that!

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

So, if we do not understand something till now, the answer is 'Goddidit'?

Nooooooooo. The answer is, "I don't know".

Even if it is outside our 4-D universe, still it will be within the whole. And we in 'advaita' Hinduism term the whole as Brahman, which is without a second.

I don't disagree with that at all. They have to be related somehow, being connected by quantum mechanics.

...of the creator who created us (in his image)? As the only sentient beings capable of knowing, appreciating creation, acknowledging him for it?

I don't think it would make much sense to do that!

Yes, we're in God's spiritual image (if It exists), that being our full self-awareness. I don't think another animal has that, but if they did, they'd be in God's image as well.