truedeity

I think there is a possibility that if your exposed to electromagnetic radiation for a long enough time you could have some hallucination that you cant easily explain. The only interesting thing I could conjure is that if there are different people having the same hallucination at the same time. But people who have done DMT tend to explain a similar 'separate from reality' experience, although not exactly the same.

Is the definition of God something that is at the top of the chain of creation? Sure you can add that to the arguable list of attributes for God but I personally don't know that it has to be a requirement. As for discovery mag. sure i'm not trying to add new forces to the universe. But i'm not describing God as a force of any kind. And just because discovery mag. says something doesn't mean we should be arrogant enough to close our minds to new discoveries in science. We still cant explain entanglement and a lot of aspects of science which is what i am referring to... Which sort of goes into the God of Gaps argument, but is quite a bit different in that i'm not proposing that God has to be the creator of anything, or seed the big bang, or anything like that at all. It is the Gaps of science that can facilitate something like a God such as higher dimensions, etc... Personally, I view the universe and I detect an intelligence within the system which is why I am a theist. But that is all subjective to me and is how I personally feel about the system in which I exist.

I don't want to pick on any religion, and to me its not about debating the responsibility of God, or understanding the moral complications that come with believing in a God. To me it is about can a God be defined within this system we call reality. I think that is a possibility because we don't know that much about the system itself. We had about 100 good years of science so far, and only about 20 of those years had any technology noteworthy of understanding the system. If you refer back to the original post there is a reference, and that guy talks about the possibility of reality maybe being a computer system. In those terms you could say that the computer system is God. You don't have to agree with that, but it does raise some interesting thoughts to consider in relation to metaphysics and the natural world.

either or?

I'm a little tipsy from the bottle of chardonnay I just finished but I want to address grandpa and moontanman. Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post entitled "The Science Of God" under speculations. Not that that is out of the way I will start with moon. Moon- I think everyones concept of God will differ but I want to extrapolate a commonality between the popular type of God that you might find in the Koran or the KJB. I don't want to include too much of the God that most people choose to believe in, such as how loving and benevolent God might be. I just want to classify God in terms of his abilities or properties. So I think if you consider the KJB or the other highly respected religions that refer to God in the context of a Non-Elohim (only one) God. In other words all of the omni- definitions/attributes would be inclusive except for maybe omnipotent (meaning all powerful) which 'I personally believe' is not a requirement for God to exist. I don't think that God necessarily has to 'interact' with the physical aspect of nature in order for God to exist. I also don't think that 'God' has to have been responsible for all the suffering, etc.. that might be accountable for a God that is omnipotent or a God that may have created the universe. So I would rather infer that maybe there could be a God that is 'evolving' and if that evolving definition of God includes omnipresence then it would not matter when that God existed he would be outside of the realm of time. So the question is, is there anything in science that accounts for being unobstructed by time? I think the answer to that is yes, especially if that something exist in higher dimensions of reality. The other omni is omniscient because if that something operates on higher dimensions it must have a knowledge of everything in lower dimensions or reality. So the question might be can higher dimensions of reality facilitate this possibility? But that is the ultimate paradox because no matter what we cannot have a concept of a higher dimension. So we really have to understand the full nature of the finest levels of reality to recognize even a fraction of what it can facilitate. So my approaching God is my same approach to science. God is "what is the science of science?" i'm not sure if you follow that but, that is my answer. The above also contains the answer for grandpa, omniscient might be a requirement of omnipresence.

Perhaps these ideas only seems untestable? I believe a lot can be accomplished through inference as well. But before I elaborate I want to explain what I mean by "seems untestable". I have to fall back on, as a species we are so far away from a big toe unification theory that we probably don't know what there is available to test with. We don't know what consciousness is yet, we all experience that and that is completely subjective to us. And I don't want to get to much into that because that topic can really be stretched out a lot. And my immediate reference to anything on consciousness will be Stuart Hameroff hands down. Which puts consciousness in the realm of a unified theory, in that part of how this consciousness functions is a based on how dendrites within microtubules are in a superposition. This is exactly what I mean by inference... I believe that this is quite a beautiful explanation to the consciousness problem, in that we can infer a subjective relationship with the ultimate laws that govern reality, and our consciousness. If that is the case then we are definitely missing out on a lot of science. So now we are developing something entirely new, if we are to assume that Hameroff is right about his theory on consciousness. I know this seems like Chopra type stuff to you but it is not necessarily that way. But it does support the basis for this argument, in that you could say that if something is governing our consciousness, then our experience with it is our scientific data. It is still subjective, but we all have experiences with our consciousness. And to try and mechanize that in our billiard ball universe is impossible and absurd to a lot of the feynmanites out there. So how do you get around this sort of scientific box? We have yet to develop any types of technologies that can give us ultimate truths about reality, so to me it is sort of repugnant to say that because we cant test something it means we cant consider it. So I really would like a purist to assimilate this information and give some unboxed perspectives.

I think your really stuck on the billiard ball universe which by the way is not a theory of everything. So I can say the same thing. Until you have a theory of everything you cant rule out these possibilities for God. Your reply just seems to radiate impatience of obtaining any measurable data. Maybe we just are not thinking consecutively? Btw, Albert Einstein was responsible for relativity and he still believed in God and entanglement as mentioned earlier is observable, measurable and violates relativity. Another thing to note is that your making an assumption that God is listening to prayers. You might be thinking that I'm referring to spinoza's impersonal God. But that's not what i'm trying to get at. I just want to imagine that God exists on a higher dimension, or within every atom, or something along those lines. And whatever facilitates that is simply unknown in scientific terms. So our job is to not rule out that possibility and to come up with a list of favorable arguments that support a definition of God that can be discussed in a scientific realm.

Sorry I think I did misread then. I understand what you're saying now. That makes perfect since to me what your asking. So my response to that is simply that it only seems that the definitions of G are violations of natural law. But what I am arguing is that there maybe some some aspect of science which allows for this possibility for G. Which is why i say that G is Omniscient, because G would have to have a vast knowledge of science to exist within the ether. Edit... As an example for perspective, lets say there is a alien race that exists in the cosmos, lets call them 'the grays' and they have been around a billion years or so. Their science is further advanced than the humans as equally as humans are advanced to the amoeba. Then G's knowledge of science would be the same comparison as amoeba to humans above 'the grays'.

Well there is a very simple reason for including Omniscience, and Omnipresence. I think, mostly because there has to be something that separates 'a God' from a technically advanced civilization. I believe a God that is benevolent and has ultimate love is the only type of God that would be of any interest to anyone. But you know what is love? Scientific termonoligies for love are just chemical interactions in an organism. But if God is not a physical entity like you and me then love has to be more than just chemical interactions inside of an organism. Perhaps there is a scientific explanation that could describe a higher dimension that could make room for, and contain the spirit realm. If we are confined to this dimension we would never be able to get any information from higher dimensions. So if this dimension exists how does spirit exist in this dimension and what is the nature of it? There are many anomalies in quantum physics that describe how particles and smaller objects interact that really point to the fact that maybe something is popping out of this dimension and back into this dimension because nothing logical seems to explain for example how these objects belong to one another. This entanglement idea has some gripping implications that we cant ignore, but we also cant make wild assumptions like it goes into the spirit realm either. Gotta run more later.

One assumption your making is that God has to create the physical laws of the universe. What if the universe becoming into existence has nothing at all to do with God at all? It's a rather profound concept that seems counter intuitive. But I want to leave out all the assumptions that are assumed about the biblical Jehovia. So what i'm inferring is that possibly something like God could have evolved. From my perspective evolution seems to be the only sort of thing that can facilitate such a possible outcome of an eternal consciousness evolving in the universe. There are a lot of conclusions and things that can be drawn out of that, and surely if you think in terms of strict classical physics you will not be able to grasp such a possibility because your understanding or world view is built on a sort of billiard ball universe.

I know the mods are gonna want to be trigger happy and flame the God keyword. But as a theist I have to say that God should be a fair and debatable topic in the realm of science. Pure science is not bias. Simply make observations, take notes, and be neutral. So when you want to introduce a concept like God, most people want to make assumptions such as God created the universe. For the purpose of this debate lets completely ignore those types of assumptions as to the "Nature of" or the "Essence of" God. Now some might argue that God cant be God if he wasn't responsible for creating the universe. My response to that is not necessarily. Something similar to our concept of God's attributes could have "evolved" somehow, rather than him being responsible for everything, or him Seeding the big bang, or anything that you might expect to hear out of the God of Gaps argument is not what I want to entertain for the purposes of constructive though... Lets just call the unknown possibility of God, G. So right now the most we can derive is: G = ? Just because we cannot derive anything that defines what G is does not mean G is not real. It also doesn't mean G is real. Moving on... So lets suppose that there are attributes that we can agree on that make God, well God. We really have to figure out what some of those attributes might be without making too many assumptions. The goal here is to start with a framework that defines the cores, or the essence that we all can attribute to G. Opposite of what I had said in the opening but my intention is to leave out the 'fluff' brought through religious dogmas, and strictly view this in a scientific way. I'll start with a few properties just to set some grounds: Omniscience Omnipresent I'm going to leave Omnipotence up for debate because I don't know that it has to be a requirement. I think Omniscience, and Omnipresent are enough to facilitate the most basic definition. If the whole universe we knew was apart of a computer system then that computer system could have all of the properties of God. So lets rule that one out, even though there are some interesting thoughts that arise from that. For more on that train of thought i'll just leave this reference I'm gonna sleep and will leave it at that for now, will finish this but leaving with some room for thought. Would like to see what responses might come.

The earths inner core is thought to be solid. The reason is because the melting point of iron is increased with pressure. So the pressure in the outer core would be less than the pressure in the inner core. It might also be interesting to note that the gravity situation at the inner core would be near zero. So it's not so much that the solid core is spinning, its the earth itself rotating around its axis, and because the outer core is liquid so the inner core is constantly being massaged by the outer core, because of the earths rotation on its axis. This is why we have a magnetosphere which protects us from solar flares. I have a suspected that solar flares play some role in pole reversals. Pole Reversals have been a mystery to scientists, it is assumed that pole reversal is a subtle and slow drifting phenomena. I don't believe this. As we have established, the earths core is like a magnet and we all know that if you send an electrical current through a magnet its N/S poles instantly reverse. I believe solar flares somehow cause the earths inner core to get an electrical discharge, but I have not figured out exactly how that occurs. What I can say is that scientist have tracked the history of berillium-10 from ice rods extracted in Greenland. berillium-10 is only found in solar flares and galactic cosmic rays, and higher levels of berillium-10 seem to correlate with ice ages. And Pole reversals are consequently thought to be one of the main triggers of the ice age phenomena. Is it possible that the Sun storms or solar maximums play a major role in pole reversal?

What Hameroff is suggesting is that the dendrites within microtubules can be in a superposition. So consciousness could in-fact have a one to one relationship with the wave-function collapse which is very intriguing

hackintowhat [4:32 AM]: this guy stuart hameroff is a fucking genius hackintowhat [4:33 AM]: he figured out that the microtubules inside the gapjunctions between neurons and synaptic clefts are in a quantum superposition hackintowhat [4:33 AM]: he actually prooved that consciousness is a product of spacetime geometry hackintowhat [4:33 AM]: he also showed what happens when undergoing the DMT experience hackintowhat [4:34 AM]: the microtubules connection to consciousness is increased hackintowhat [4:34 AM]: so u can infer, that if consciousness is in the unified field. hackintowhat [4:34 AM]: that that unified field is intelligence hackintowhat [4:34 AM]: WOW! hackintowhat [4:34 AM]: thats fucking nuts hackintowhat [4:35 AM]: even photosynthesis in plants is described by quantum physics hackintowhat [4:36 AM]: it is humbling to know that the universe provides your consciousness. hackintowhat [4:36 AM]: its been prooved hackintowhat [4:36 AM]: its not a matter of doubt anymore hackintowhat [4:37 AM]: that guy started studying microtubules 35 years ago and believed then that they were mini computers processing information at a molecular level hackintowhat [4:39 AM]: it wasnt until he met roger penrose that they collaborated about the super positioning of the dendrites in microtubules hackintowhat [4:39 AM]: which basically means that they exist in all possible places according to the copenhagen interpetation hackintowhat [4:40 AM]: because its a product of the wavefunction, and the particle doesnt exist until observation. so the wave function must self collapse. hackintowhat [4:41 AM]: wavefunction is basically a vector in a linear space, meaning that all these possibilies exist but none of them are certain. so the input and output of axonal messages are determined by the quantum response. hackintowhat [4:43 AM]: so basically our consciousness or the "bing" is basically floating around in different places of our brain hackintowhat [4:43 AM]: its processed with our nervous system and we have a subjective experience with that hackintowhat [4:45 AM]: so its basically proof that our consciousness is somewhere on the unified field level of reality hackintowhat [4:46 AM]: so, i pose this question. what kind of reality is this? the unified field has intelligence ...! hackintowhat [4:46 AM]: u follow me?

I just have to post this video because it seems so crazy.

Additional fluff

I can offer some clarification for a few of you who may not understand what anti-gravity is. Anti-gravity an idea forged by popular culture, which earned its own scientific tenure. Basically anti-gravity means that the fundamental causes of gravity are not applicable to a certain object. Like an object is suspended in 0 G. (note: We usually test our astronauts before they go into space by flying them up and down in a 747 according to the parabolic slope. Because all objects fall at the same rate, it creates the illusion of 0 G. However, this is not anti gravity, its just an illusion...) But Anti-G 0-G is still possible, we just haven't figured it out because we are still caught up on a classical model. My speculation is that Nikola Tesla knew more about electromagnetism than anyone else. Mostly because of his hands on experience and work in that field, and also working out the math... It is also very obvious if you read if you read his prepared speach on his dynamic theory of gravity that one can make the assumption I am making. Read on: http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/articles/19370710.doc Tesla also does not believe in time as people tend to understand it. Tesla believes that gravity is a aspect of electromagnetism which inter penetrates all of the Ether. Any bodies moving from place a, to place b create a psychological illusion of time. Our brains are completely isolated in a skull, dark, separated from reality. Our eyes, ears, taste, touch, smell are just sensory organs, and our brain gets their input and generates a hologram that we assume is "real"... Because we cant escape that reality, we tend to argue the contrary. That time is real. Because I know Tesla s work very well, it was very easy for me to make this conclusion. After seeing the declassified document produced by Allen J McClean at the Dept. of Naval Intelligence (i guess they slipped up on that one) it exposed the truth. That the acquired all of Teslas documents from his apartment. Which would include his dynamic theory of gravity... Now the government has these documents, produced by one of the smartest people in the world, immediately following his death. Within a few months the Philadelphia experiment is underway. And then 2 years go by and you have the area51 Roswell incident. (also listen at 5:30 ) get it??

1. How and why area 51 was started in the first place. Which is not what most people currently think which is "that it is somehow connected to UFO's..." I believe that Nikola Tesla's "dynamic theory of graivty", "unified field theory" which he was intending to publish shortly after he died on 7 January 1943. Which was confiscated by a director of the FBI per Allen J McLean instruction (The head of naval intelligence at the time of Tesla's Death. Proof of the document can be shown in a documentary that I'm still working on here http://www.truedeity.com/ev2.wmv ) I've heard of attempts by people that tried to use the freedom of information act to uncover these documents. But they are classed documents by DoD (with the highest level of national security, meaning not even the president can see them...) In the same year that Tesla dies, the Navy conducts a top secrete "Philadelphia Experiment" they were experimenting with anti gravity from Tesla's research. What ended up happening is they created a gravity tunnel so intense that the ship itself was trapped inside of it and it crashed, and broke into fragments at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. Only 1 person survived and his brain was scrambled. Area 51 started beginning to assemble itself in secrete around 1944-1945, this was basically to explore and research what they had discovered in their Philadelphia experiment. They didn't want other countries getting involved with the technology, and in 1947 they crash landed a flying disc/craft in Roswell, the disc was using the technology i describe in #2. 2. The technology behind the flying discs. In the belly of the disc, their are 3 rotating superconductors. These rotating superconductors create a field of anti gravity which enable the disc to "fall through" that gravitational pathway. Superconductor's Also, do some googleing to and read about "rotating superconductors" you might be amazed at some of what you find . Teslas documents are still classified and we continue to research about it at various secrete locations. But it is apparent that if the rest of the world had access to this technology we would not have to rely on Oil

lol. but yeah haramein is not really what i have in mind. however, i think he may infact be the only reference anyone can find against sf. if i do have to debate sf, i will do it on another thread. and thanks for laying down the law. sf is still not the main topic, and i did mention that i didnt wana debate it. i still think we are all more geocentric in our thinking. and academia does not produce very many good thinkers, they are better at indexing current knowledge. but u know, we dont need that now since we have google

Their can be realities that exist where the fundamental laws that govern those realities are different, we do not live in those realities and can only concede that its probably true that they exist. We could infer that if 10^500 realities exist in the multiverse, their may be at least 10^100 vacuua realities, and realities that are composed of vacuum space are very much similar to ours, because I believe their must be conditions met that allow for vacuum space to exist. Only those vacuum realities are what really matter for our science and mathematics so 1+1=2. I really don't think that because I make a statement that I have to explain it for you. But you can start by reading up on the schwarzschild proton. We review our model of a proton that obeys the Schwarzschild condition. We find that only a very small percentage (~10−39%) of the vacuum fluctuations available within a proton volume need be cohered and converted to mass-energy in order for the proton to meet the Schwarzschild condition. This proportion is equivalent to that between gravitation and the strong force where gravitation is thought to be ~10−38 to 10−40 weaker than the strong force. Gravitational attraction between two contiguous Schwarzschild protons can accommodate both nucleon and quark confinement. We calculate that two contiguous Schwarzschild protons would rotate at c and have a period of 10−23 s and a frequency of 1022 Hz which is characteristic of the strong force interaction time and a close approximation of the gamma emission typically associated with nuclear decay. We include a scaling law and find that the Schwarzschild proton data point lies near the least squares trend line for organized matter. Using a semi-classical model, we find that a proton charge orbiting at a proton radius at c generates a good approximation to the measured anomalous magnetic moment. ©2010 American Institute of Physics

Well thanks for your interpretation. But it is true, that as the natural world seems so complex, and yet presents so much beauty that it is still amazing how often these forces or descriptions of our natural world can reduce to an equation that you can write in the palm of your hand.

I have a lot of stuff to address that I've been unable to address yet, but intend on addressing. I don't know that I will be able to address them. But I'll feel better if I just list what i wanted to address. 1. Still to be continued with an @Edtharan. 2. @Ophiolite The 99.9% of those qualified to defend the strong force do so on the basis of substantial evidence supporting its and minimal to no evidence contradicting it. I hope qualified meaning, someone who understands the mathematical and hypothetical reasons for theorizing about the strong force. And that could be any good algebra student... 99% of the time physics is usually just algebra, but in academia the curriculum may have taken 10 years to reach there since high school, so I agree with you, though giving credit where credit is due, especially considering diff-eq. But still, its not beyond an algebra student. Plus, I didn't set out to debate strong force, and it is just an example. But I think if a person wants to ask why we have strong force; that it could present a decent starting point to build a case against strong force. But me personally... nah, I would build my case against interactive forces in whole.

Ophiolite must be enlightened as Ophiolite has shown true wisdom in knowing that (s)he is not enlightened... Response: It is also said that enlightenment is to show true wisdom and that the only true wisdom is that you know nothing... What your saying is true, but instead I offer this as my belief to that translation, I believe it is better stated as "you can assume nothing"... When you let go of what you have learned you can liberate yourself of infectious thoughts. For instance, you can take principals such as Occams Razor and make exceptions. We have situations in science where we have to make determinations and sometimes throw out some widely accepted theories such as "the strong force" people that are unable to let go of these concepts because they cannot visualize an alternative, those people are rigid. That rigid state dates back to an ancient philosophy called minimalism. Yet 99.9% of people will defend the strong force to the death. That other 1% is either enlightened, or delusional. Thanks, and I will cover your other reply's in a latter post...

You are unenlightened, because you have proclaimed yourself to be unenlightened. I am talking opaque nonsense, because 'all' of our intellects are low quality. I don't feel much at all, other than I know the latter to be true.

eh i dunno what all your saying... but I did wonder, maybe it could be easier to state that space can be identified by a minimum of 2 plank lenght's? I mean protons contain astronomical amounts of space I grasp, wrong? curious...