Jump to content

romansh

Senior Members
  • Content count

    1,330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

Everything posted by romansh

  1. Which question? ... I searched the question marks and replied to them.
  2. Perhaps ... it appears you missed my two points too. Yes I have views about certain opinions. Don't you? My second point ... there appears to be a contradiction between separateness and "contingent reality".
  3. cf You seem to believe in separateness yet you think ... every-thing, every object - is dependent.
  4. Energy = mass x length (squared) / time (squared). ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
  5. I am not arguing here ... being saying that all along
  6. It is as good as any. Science describes reality. We can debate how accurately. And ... we get better descriptions so what? I never said science give us knowledge in the sense of absolute certainty. For example the fact that our GPS works is because time is not what it seems. And the relativity that our GPS calculations are based is likely wrong. Ultimately science does not sift out the truth. It sifts out what is not true, Personally I go with cause and effect ... but I also understand with our relativistic and quantum phenomena, it is not as simple as that. Having said that it does not help your arguments one iota. Now if you can have a go at answering my questions please.
  7. What are your beliefs based on Thormas?
  8. Perhaps my question to Joseph needed more detail ... For you, is this substrate part of the universe or is it one? His reply was: For me, it is part of everything. seen and unseen. This to me implies a separateness, and here I can't agree with Joseph if indeed this is what he means. Now when I consider myself or "I", I draw a very useful boundary around myself. But this boundary is flexible and arbitrary. Imagine an average carbon atom ... through the magic of photosynthesis it is plucked out of the air, converted into glucose and then converted into nutrition. Occasionally through an intermediary ... quite often lamb in my case. That carbon atoms briefly becomes "me". It took a whole universe to make that carbon atom and the pattern it fits into. Now I am describing all this dualistic terms. It is very easy to fall into the trap of separateness. Eventually that carbon atom goes back to the air. The Great Circle of Life. Whatever it is - reality - universe. We have a limited array of tools to assess the universe. But science is expanding our array. Are energy and reality the same as being universe? Strange question. Energy is a descriptor of reality. Not the only one. Force, power, tension are also descriptors. There are many more ... they are called words. What? I am not sure what time is ... I have a perception of sequential cause and effect. But something travelling at [approaching] the speed of light will be affected by time differently than me that is at an arbitrary rest. If Joseph is right this universe has come into existence whole (and there is no cause and effect) then your question makes no sense. I do live my life as time exists but I certainly don't think it is at it seems. The universe is in the now, wherever that now might be. Really? If we truly believe we are separate and all the evidence is against it, then how should you describe our belief in separateness? If I had an opinion and someone described it as deluded, I would weigh and debate the evidence and come to a conclusion. But I still maybe deluded regarding my opinion.
  9. To be clear - ground of being, for me is the universe or whatever it is actually. For me the substrate and universe are one. If as I understood Joseph to imply the substrate is some separate then I don't agree. Separateness is bordering on delusion in my opinion. Scholars like Joseph Campbell have described "eternal" as now.
  10. romansh

    Heathens! 2

    Who's the odd man out?
  11. Time being an illusion does not say anything about substrate or the eternal. I don't understand your "then". We function regardless whether we recognize that time is an illusion or not.
  12. If we apply any sort logic to this statement we can only come up with the conclusion is unjustified. This energy argument is akin to New Agers and the ilk talking of vibrations. Again remember you are talking to an agnostic here. If I were writing this sentence it would go something like ... We don't actually know anything, but science gives us more accurate descriptions of how the universe ticks. Alternatively we just fall for the memes that abound.
  13. This begs the question of time being what it seems.
  14. That is not what it seems either. This as far as we can tell, personal opinion is a product "memes" and the ability for "chemistry" to replicate them. And yet energy has the dimensions of mass x distance (squared) / time (squared) ... which is the real substrate energy or mass/distance/time?
  15. romansh

    Ignosticism

    On the original/earlier Wiki page for ignosticism there was a position quoted along the lines that words should be defined otherwise conversations would not be meaningful. I must admit I tend to agree. Now there are many words used here in these threads that seem to mean slightly different things to different people and at times seem at odds to my trusty Oxford Concise (trust me you would not want have Concise dropped on your bare feet). Some of these words include: Divine/divinity Transcendence/transcend/transcendent Immaterial God Holy Spirit/Spiritual ... OK this has been done before Grace Now I may add some other words as they crop up but I would be interested in people's succinct definitions for each these. I am not expecting agreement but just a sense of how people use these words. Thanks in advance rom
  16. Yes mass is an illusion. I personally do think mass can be thought of as having physical properties. In my interpretation energy flow is from concentrated to dilute ... bit of a metaphor. General relativity ... is one example. I am not sure we can ever be sure. Evolution and evolution is a description. let me quote Hawking and Mlodinow one time. I am not sure I but into this interpretation though: Quantum physics might seem to undermine the idea that nature is governed by laws, but that is not the case. Instead it leads us to accept a new form of determinism: Given the state of a system at some time, the laws of nature determine the probabilities of various futures and pasts rather than determining the future and past with certainty.
  17. romansh

    Ignosticism

    I could go with that. For you, is this substrate part of the universe or is it one? Is being existence?
  18. They are an illusion and yes there is an underlying reality. an afterthought If we wish to think of energy as sustaining all ... it is the energy differences that appears sustain change; if we assume time as real but illusionary. If we take something akin to Joseph's view then we have to have a completely different view in that time and energy are simply constructs. We simply flip from one reality to another and we don't have to worry about time and energy.
  19. romansh

    Presidential Poll

    Breitbart? Interesting ... what does he say about the acidification of the oceans?
  20. Yet all the constituent parts of this hopefully happy event are not as they seem. Does not seem like that the baby has been plucked out of the air, water and soil and fueled by the sun. Seem too amazing!
  21. note energy has the dimensions of mass x distance (squared) / time (squared) this is sort of the point of Burl's pun. So when what do we mean when we might say "all is energy"? Brian Greene (if I remember correctly) in one of his books wrote something like ... everything is travelling at the speed of light but the vectors are different.
  22. romansh

    Ignosticism

    Illusion: something is not as it seems. delusion: believing something is as it seems when it is not. Should there be any future confusion as to how I use these words. Ground of being anyone ... seems to come up fairly frequently?
  23. romansh

    Agnosticism

    Joseph recently posted Living with Uncertainty and I could not help identify this as a form of agnosticism. Anyway being of an agnostic persuasion made, it made sense or most of it, I think. Here is a quote from Bertrand Russell a poster boy for atheism (and agnosticism) which parallels Joseph's line of thought. Perhaps the quote is a bit more aggressive than Joseph's “The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” and another from Russell I think nobody should be certain of anything. If you’re certain, you’re certainly wrong because nothing deserves certainty. So one ought to hold all one’s beliefs with a certain element of doubt, and one ought to be able to act vigorously in spite of the doubt…. One has in practical life to act upon probabilities, and what I should look to philosophy to do is to encourage people to act with vigor without complete certainty. Now I personally would not call uncertainty,God, Love or Being.
  24. So you don't have a book that argues that reality is really as we perceive it? Incidentally - it is The Experience of God - must have made a real impression on you 😁 https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/david-bentley-hart-on-god/ A wag in the comments section wrote
  25. romansh

    Agnosticism

    That is an interesting meme that lets just about anything in.
×