Meaning can never be exhausted!

[TransmutingSoul]

Actually, it is cool. Using one's imagination, seeing connections which may or may not be significant, recognising analogies, thinking in metaphor; all these things are definitely cool.

It is all connected

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

When used in fictional writing, yes, I can see how that could be "cool." Outside of that, in, perhaps, trying to convince someone that something "bigger" is going on for which you have very little in the form of significant evidence... not cool. That's more that "not cool" I was going for. I figure you understood that, but were just trying to be contrary, because you'd like to believe these things at a whim as well. Or perhaps you didn't know that was what I was going after. But now you do.

There is a provisional translation of the Tablet of the Universe by Abdul'baha.

Tablet of the Universe

It starts by explaining the Spiritual creation and in the Tablet it states that creation is a reflection of that process.

For me, this Tablet will be explored by scientists in the future, when we embrace the oneness of humanity, we will have the capacity to find these connections, in this material world.

All the best, regards Tony

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

@A Vestigial Mote

It was a great post. I see scientists are not far from the truth. Patterns are repeated, this from the "Tablet of the Universe" by Abdul'baha.

"....For physical things are signs and imprints of spiritual things; every lower thing is an image and counterpart of a higher thing. Nay, earthly and heavenly, material and spiritual, accidental and essential, particular and universal, structure and foundation, appearance and reality and the essence of all things, both inward and outward -- all of these are connected one with another and are interrelated in such a manner that you will find that drops are patterned after seas, and that atoms are structured after suns in proportion to their capacities and potentialities..."

Tablet of the Universe

Regards Tony

See my most recent post back to @The Hammer. I point out that even the article admits that the similarities are superficial, and the entire time talks only of quantities that maintain statistical significance - not of any QUALITIES that the two systems actually share. It doesn't mention those at all... and for very good reason. There aren't any that have been found to be significant. To infer that there are qualitative similarities based on purely quantitative comparisons is entirely wishful thinking. As in, you want so desperately to be able to support strange notions you have about "meaning" being behind every corner of the universe that you accept and believe in things that are not supported by the actual evidence in play. And in this case, the actual evidence in play is that the numbers of items, distances between them, and concentrations of materials look surprisingly similar between brain activity and the distribution of materials of the universe. But that's it. That's the evidence. The evidence is NOT "the universe is a brain." That is NOT what the evidence points to.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

For me, this Tablet will be explored by scientists in the future, when we embrace the oneness of humanity, we will have the capacity to find these connections, in this material world.

This is very strange wording for this particular statement. You start out with "For me," and then go on to state that "for you" the tablet will be explored by scientists. I assume you mean that, it is your belief that scientises will one day explore this tablet you speak of. Well guess what? For me (that is, me, A Vestigial Mote) scientists will NOT one day explore your tablet. How do you like them apples? In fact, for me, your tablet will be ignored for the rest of eternity by anyone with even a shred of scientific literacy. For me.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That's the evidence. The evidence is NOT "the universe is a brain." That is NOT what the evidence points to.

I can only offer that I do not know science.

I do understand some things about creation from writings from faiths.

I see both are connected, so it is possible for us to discuss, as long as you know my understanding is not scientific, but it may mirror what science can find.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This is very strange wording for this particular statement. You start out with "For me," and then go on to state that "for you" the tablet will be explored by scientists. I assume you mean that, it is your belief that scientises will one day explore this tablet you speak of. Well guess what? For me (that is, me, A Vestigial Mote) scientists will NOT one day explore your tablet. How do you like them apples? In fact, for me, your tablet will be ignored for the rest of eternity by anyone with even a shred of scientific literacy. For me.

That's OK, that is your choice. I would offer you have missed a great chance, one that will be a disappointment for you.

That is offerd in Love.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

A good though about Words and Meanings is to consider the Word Love.

We can first expand on the levels of Love, which will define the Word. Abdul'baha offered these thoughts in "Paris Talks".

"There are four kinds of love. The first is the love that flows from God to man; it consists of the inexhaustible graces, the Divine effulgence and heavenly illumination. Through this love the world of being receives life. Through this love man is endowed with physical existence, until, through the breath of the Holy Spirit—this same love—he receives eternal life and becomes the image of the Living God. This love is the origin of all the love in the world of creation.

The second is the love that flows from man to God. This is faith, attraction to the Divine, enkindlement, progress, entrance into the Kingdom of God, receiving the Bounties of God, illumination with the lights of the Kingdom. This love is the origin of all philanthropy; this love causes the hearts of men to reflect the rays of the Sun of Reality.

The third is the love of God towards the Self or Identity of God. This is the transfiguration of His Beauty, the reflection of Himself in the mirror of His Creation. This is the reality of love, the Ancient Love, the Eternal Love. Through one ray of this Love all other love exists.

The fourth is the love of man for man. The love which exists between the hearts of believers is prompted by the ideal of the unity of spirits. This love is attained through the knowledge of God, so that men see the Divine Love reflected in the heart. Each sees in the other the Beauty of God reflected in the soul, and finding this point of similarity, they are attracted to one another in love. This love will make all men the waves of one sea, this love will make them all the stars of one heaven and the fruits of one tree. This love will bring the realization of true accord, the foundation of real unity."

Then we have Love in this material world, a fleeting love that death overtakes.

Regards Tony

 

[The Hammer]

Even from the article itself:


Note the use of the word "superficial." And the name of the paper cited at the end as the product of the research:


Quantitative - adj. - that which is or may be estimated by quantity. of or relating to the describing or measuring of quantity.

as opposed to:

Qualitative: - adj. - pertaining to or concerned with quality or qualities.

Wasn't the point of your bringing these images and this idea to bear that you would like us to infer that the quantitative similarities found also imply qualitative similarities? Is that accurate? Bringing it up as a point of debate over religion and meaning, I would assume this has to be - and not that you merely thought it interesting that various quantities used in measuring and depicting these two disparate things were correlated to some degree.

Kay.

You don't want to explore metaphysics. That's fine. Have a good day.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Kay.

You don't want to explore metaphysics. That's fine. Have a good day.

Your attempt at shaming me is a completely lost cause, because I literally like your takeaway... but that's not what I said. What I said was that your source was not communicating what you would have liked to portray that it was, and the image you initially used to "make your case" was a fraud. Those are cold, hard facts. And that's what I said. Please take note.

 

[The Hammer]

Your attempt at shaming me is a completely lost cause, because I literally like your takeaway... but that's not what I said. What I said was that your source was not communicating what you would have liked to portray that it was, and the image you initially used to "make your case" was a fraud. Those are cold, hard facts. And that's what I said. Please take note.

It's not an attempt at shame. Unless that's how you want to take it.

It's a sentence you should have inferred as meaning I'm done with the conversation.

You have spent literal paragraphs explaining things to me, I already understand. I didn't make my post or come here in this thread to specifically debate or argue a position.

Glad you liked my takeaway, but that doesn't negate the constant "how dare you explain things this way" mentality.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You have spent literal paragraphs explaining things to me, I already understand.

Please note that here you say that you "already understand" the things I have told you. Those being, I would have to assume, that your initial posting of images were entirely fraudulent, that the article you then went on to post further trying to make your point said nothing about qualitative similarities, and perhaps even that your intent was to frame it up as if there were qualitative similarities. But then please note your wording in the next sentence:

Glad you liked my takeaway, but that doesn't negate the constant "how dare you explain things this way" mentality.

This isn't "how dare you explain things this way" - this is, precisely: "You don't have a leg to stand on with this nonsense, and your caliber of evidence literally proves this."

That's what this is. Again... please take note. You only THINK you are "explaining things" - that is the problem here. You are not. You're producing evidence for things that are not related to what you are trying to argue in the least. You have no explanation for what you are actually trying to argue. Heck... you don't even have evidence.

 

[The Hammer]

Please note that here you say that you "already understand" the things I have told you. Those being, I would have to assume, that your initial posting of images were entirely fraudulent, that the article you then went on to post further trying to make your point said nothing about qualitative similarities, and perhaps even that your intent was to frame it up as if there were qualitative similarities. But then please note your wording in the next sentence:

This isn't "how dare you explain things this way" - this is, precisely: "You don't have a leg to stand on with this nonsense, and your caliber of evidence literally proves this."

That's what this is. Again... please take note. you THINK you are "explaining things" - that is the problem here. You are not. You're producing evidence for things that are not related to what you are trying to argue in the least.

K

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

K

K

 

[CG Didymus]

It is great we get to choose what we want to believe CG. It is also great we get to choose peace and unity over war.

All the best.

Regards Tony

Funny that so many things in the Bible, especially the resurrection, the one "meaning" Baha'is don't take is the literal one.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Funny that so many things in the Bible, especially the resurrection, the one "meaning" Baha'is don't take is the literal one.

It us for you to decide CG.

I see that flesh does not rise CG, it is bound to the material world. That is good science, minus the supernatural.

Jesus the Christ resurrection was spiritual and that will jot conflict with Science.

Regards Tony

 

[rational experiences]

I think this is a great topic, as it allows us to embrace science while contemplating Religious Scripture.

I see the biggest error we can make, it to think that Words and passages of scripture have but one meaning. To me they are creation every letter of every word has a universe of meaning.

In saying that, there will always be an outward meaning that appears clear and concise and will guide us, yet, what else can the same Word and Passage also mean?

I get my thoughts from these passages offered in the Baha'i Writings.

"Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted." Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 175

"We speak one word, and by it we intend one and seventy meanings; each one of these meanings we can explain." Bahá’u’lláh, The Ki tab-i-Ian, p. 255

"The Books of Bahá’u’lláh number more than one hundred . . . in every word a book of meanings..." ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 154

"...Not only do the words uttered by the Manifestations have inner meanings but even a single letter contains divine mysteries and significances..." Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh v 1, p. 34

There is also other ancient traditions in Judaism and Muslim that talk about this topic. Baha'u'llah quoted some Islamic traditions.

“Every knowledge hath seventy meanings, of which one only is known amongst the people. And when the Qá’im shall arise, He shall reveal unto men all that which remaineth.”

He also saith: “We speak one word, and by it we intend one and seventy meanings; each one of these meanings we can explain.”

So how do you see the Word of God?

Limited?
Unlimited?

View attachment 59961

Regards Tony

Scientist.

Isn't.

The ist.

A theist against gods existence existing.

Sun worshipper how to convert God's body not the rebelling sun.

O pi one circle.
O Phi how to circle.

One circle changing the other circle limited brain capacity not mutual scientist.

Limited thinking was always limited as you aren't any God everything.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Scientist.

Isn't.

The ist.

A theist against gods existence existing.

Sun worshipper how to convert God's body not the rebelling sun.

O pi one circle.
O Phi how to circle.

One circle changing the other circle limited brain capacity not mutual scientist.

Limited thinking was always limited as you aren't any God everything.

Well I have to admit, I find it hard to see what meaning you are offering? I do try, but If the words are not placed as one has learnt to read them, they do not give meaning.

Regards Tony

 

[rational experiences]

Well I have to admit, I find it hard to see what meaning you are offering? I do try, but If the words are not placed as one has learnt to read them, they do not give meaning.

Regards Tony

A human lives natural. Thoughts natural first is human survival only.

The theist.
Satan ist. Its. A theist. Atheist. Against gods natural forms.

Natural forms are first. Even a theist thinker a human says so.

Owns no argument first.

We argue as human men changed natural life.

As in cosmos going back in time to a gas origin is hot not cold.

If two circles are themed first they are the same.

Two circles.a theist theories how to change a circle by two pi and Phi.

Tried to destroy form O holding.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

A human lives natural. Thoughts natural first is human survival only.

The theist.
Satan ist. Its. A theist. Atheist. Against gods natural forms.

Natural forms are first. Even a theist thinker a human says so.

Owns no argument first.

We argue as human men changed natural life.

As in cosmos going back in time to a gas origin is hot not cold.

If two circles are themed first they are the same.

Two circles.a theist theories how to change a circle by two pi and Phi.

Tried to destroy form O holding.

Ok I think I see some thoughts there.

From what I know what came first was the Holy Spirit and from that holy spirit there comes life, as that spirit emanates in this creation at various levels. The Holy Spirit is Heat, it is Love, it is all creation can be.

The vegetable and animal spirits give birth to the nature we are born into.

The human spirit is that of Rational Though.

That Rational thought needs to be guided, it needs education to rise to our full potential.

Regards Tony

 

[Aupmanyav]

Unfortunately, the two images that are juxtaposed in your post are complete photoshops of one another.

Look, it was the best photo I could find to represent my point.

Even if they are the same, it is not against what the organization (Enzo Project) and the two contributers are trying to do. They are talking of similarities and not sameness of the universe and the brain. Their algorithms could be useful in many fields.

"Enzo is a community-developed adaptive mesh refinement simulation code, designed for rich, multi-physics hydrodynamic astrophysical calculations."
They are on Github. The Enzo Project