Re: Instinct for survival

[Molly]

No need to attach to life to desire immortality.  We are all both mortal and immortal.  But if you don't know that there is more to life than limited mortality, that is hard to fathom.

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 2:28:21 AM UTC-5, RP Singh wrote:

Attachment to life is the cause of the desire for immortality and the readiness to believe in an after-life or re-birth. It is an off-shoot of the instinct for survival.

[archytas]

It is hard to believe 'this is it' RP.

[James]

I am an aspect of what was, is, and will be, coextensively. Maybe.

On 11/27/2012 2:28 AM, RP Singh wrote:
> Attachment to life is the cause of the desire for immortality and the
> readiness to believe in an after-life or re-birth. It is an off-shoot of
> the instinct for survival.
>

> --
>
>
>

[Lee Douglas]

Heh where do you find these little sayings of yours RP.  Nope I don't agree this is true .

 

Personaly I have spent some years questioning the attitude to life and death that we have.  It seems that for most life in and of itself is kinda sacred, or at least we act like it is.  I'm not sure on this though.  Dawin shows us that outside of our species death is a part of life and comes all too easily.  So I must say that life in and of itself is nothing special.  Then you must mean life as we humans percive it.  However, I am now fully resigend to my own death and it will come when it does, and this no longer holds any fear for me.

 

My own desires to live to be at least 400 years old though is by now widely reported here, and in other places.  This is not for the reasons you highlight above but sheer couriosity.  We are I feel at the cusp of enourmous change, over the next few hundred years we as a species are about to change in so many ways, and I want to see it.

[Allan H]

good reason to live that long.. the advantage is that your soul will
actually see it unfold..
Allan

> --
>
>
>



--
(
)
|_D Allan

Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.


I am a Natural Airgunner -

Full of Hot Air & Ready To Expel It Quickly.

[Lee Douglas]

You see RP sometimes I think you make perfect sense but mostly your insistance on generalising winds me up no end.  Of course this does not explain Athiests, or my own stance on death, or for that matter lots of people. We are of course all differant with differant subjective ways of seeing things and viewing life.  Myself being a Theist I'm still unsure as to the existance of a Soul, I mean I really don't know yet if I belive such a thing exists.  My own reasons for beliving in creative diety are many and complex.  Belife simply cannot be stripped down to pithey sounding short sentances that apply to all humans, because clearly they do not apply to all humans.

 

On another subject I have just posted that I have no fear of death and have accepted that it may come at any time.  Perhaps then you do not realise how insulting it is to be called a liar.  Or perhaps i'm too involved with semantics and concentrate more on your choice of words than the message, ahhh but how else is one to treat written communication?  I must trust that the words you use, you have choosen to portay your meaning.  So when you say 'Yet we do not accept it...' I must belive that this is exactly what you mean to say, in effect  you reduce me, and all other individuals to a mass of humainity that follw the same rules.

 

On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 10:05:19 UTC, RP Singh wrote:

There is death all around us and so we cannot fail to see it , yet we
do not accept it and so we have developed an idea of souls. Our belief
in after-life or re-births is our insistence on immortality as we find
it hard to accept that we will go into a permanent oblivion , never to
return.The instinct for survival makes us readily accept these notions
of immortality as our intelligence is also coloured by our instincts.

> --
>
>
>

[gabbydott]

Ah! That's the extended version of 'possibly maybe' then (my grammar and spelling checker suggests 10 instead of 'then' though)! :)

2012/11/28 James <ashk...@gmail.com>

--

[Lee Douglas]

That is indeed what I belive, all that I am is in my brain, when that goes so do I.  What the soul may be, if I have one, I really don't know.
On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 10:46:22 UTC, RP Singh wrote:

Lee, do you believe that you are this body and nothing separate from
it , because if you don't then you haven't accepted death.

> --
>
>
>

[gabbydott]

Soul is the energy (or whatever you call that) that is bound/related to the I/me. It is in a process of constant transformation and the scientists are too slow to catch it and pin it down. That's the real problem. But not mine.

I am having great fun with my spelling checker and therefore attribute the label 'old soul' to it! :)

2012/11/28 Lee Douglas <leerev...@gmail.com>

--
 
 
 

[Lee Douglas]

Hahah enlightend, ohh my!
On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 11:14:57 UTC, RP Singh wrote:

Lee , I am glad that you are an enlightened person. To say that there
is God is theistic but to say ' I am God ' is not.

> --
>
>
>

[Lee Douglas]

It may be that Gabs it maybe, as I say i really don't know.

[Allan H]

T9   grrrrrrr
Allan

Matrix  **  th3 beginning light

--
 
 
 

[archytas]

What survives is the gene - subject to mutations etc. We are already
'Borg' in the sense of mass assimilation. One's mind could be
transposed to another substrate (nearish future) - our bodies are
currently replaced every 5 years or so- and the new substrate could
have nanobots that would allow minds to outlive Lee's 'hope'. Such
substrated minds might link in super-intelligence and be able to re-
transfer into more human-like bodies they learned to make. This would
be a time beyond singularity. We don't know what such intelligence
might invent or even discover - perhaps such intelligence would
discover we are not as alone as we think. Being human or human being
might be as irrelevant as a mitochondria wanting to live free again.
We might be free of the tiny machines (genes) so much part of our
behaviour now.

On 28 Nov, 14:40, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> T9   grrrrrrr
> Allan
>
> Matrix  **  th3 beginning light

> On Nov 28, 2012 11:38 AM, "gabbydott" <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ah! That's the extended version of 'possibly maybe' then (my grammar and
> > spelling checker suggests 10 instead of 'then' though)! :)
>

> > 2012/11/28 James <ashkas...@gmail.com>

[Allan H]

Spiritual reality is beyond  the physical reality of the universe (s)
Allan

Air gunner full of hot air ready to release it quickly

On Nov 29, 2012 2:41 AM, "RP Singh" <123...@gmail.com> wrote:

Neil , even after re-transposition how long could the brain live
--1000 years , 10000years or maybe as long as the universe ,but
ultimately it will die or be destroyed at the end - time of the
universe. What survives is the Truth behind life and nothing else.

> --
>
>
>

--

[Lee Douglas]

Yay RP my freind on that we can agree.

On Thursday, 29 November 2012 01:41:42 UTC, RP Singh wrote:

Neil , even after re-transposition how long could the brain live
--1000 years , 10000years or maybe as long as the universe ,but
ultimately it will die or be destroyed at the end - time of the
universe. What survives is the Truth behind life and nothing else.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:33 AM, archytas <nwt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> --
>
>
>

[Molly]

back to the "what is truth" discourse, I see

[Lee Douglas]

Heh heh it alswys does Molly, as we say 'Ik onkar, sat naam'

[gabbydott]

Does this mean self-assertion and truth construction are co-dependant? 

2012/11/29 Lee Douglas <leerev...@gmail.com>

--
 
 
 

[Lee Douglas]

Nope Gabs, it is merely my own theistic belife about reality.  You of course are free to belive differanty.

[gabbydott]

I would know if it was different, if i understood what you meant, Lee! Circling forwards in loops, arent we?

Am 29.11.2012 15:02 schrieb "Lee Douglas" <leerev...@gmail.com>:

[Lee Douglas]

Heh okay then, RP and myself share the belife that God is the totaliy of everything, although we differ on some things we can at least agree on this.

 

We Sikhs would express it thusly: 'Ik onkar, sat naam'  losely translated as '1God, true name'.  Now True Name, what does that mean?  God's name is true, or truth?  Or perhaps that God is true/truth? 

 

Personaly I would explain it this way.  Before the begining, there was only God, but God in spirt, God said (to steal form the Bible) 'Let there be.....' and thus the creation was created.  Matter from the spirt of God.  Thus the totality of the universe is God, the reality is God and the truth is God.  I heard it expressed just yesterday that God was Anaam (Nameless) and by atributing Naam to Godself the creation came into being.  Not too far removed from the Hindu concept of Om I suppose.

[Allan H]

gee I never read any thing by RP saying that God is the totality of
every thing..
Allan

[Lee Douglas]

Hahhahhhahahha

[Allan H]

My apologies RP, due to what I consider trash I don't waste my time
carefully reading what you write..

Now I am wondering the origin of this vision.. ;o) I am waiting to read.
Allan


On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> me (RP Singh change) Post reply
>
> 4/26/10
> [Mind's Eye] Re: God and I
>
> Consciousness has to do with the senses and the sense-objects. Sight,
> hearing, etc. I see a door as grey in colour and at a distance of 25
> yards from me, does God see it as grey in colour and at a distance.
> No God is immanent in the door, he is the grey colour, he is the
> door , he is the distance and he is me ,the observer. God is in
> everything and is thus all-pervading , he is in every will and is
> therefore the real doer, he is in all beings and non-beings and is
> therefore omniscient.

>> --

[archytas]

It's the mind they talk of transposing to the substrate brain -
presumably it could be transferred 'forever' or the Sun explodes,
universe rips itself apart and so on RP. I do think it likely we will
get to a form of intelligence that sees the world very differently -
gravity and big bang are likely to go in science - but on the real
eternal I am unsure. All we have in respect of this is to posit
creation, begging the question of what created that in an infinite
regress. We might survive the end of the universe in another one -
some maths speculates the universe would survive its own 'end'.
Others have it the only thing that survives (before renewal) of a
universe is quantum fluctuation - but all that speculation is just
maths. I believe in something else RP - but I don't sense it directly
as far as I know and dislike the patronising fantasies of organised
religion. We might get to an intelligent state in which creation
myths are replaced by something more plausible and Truth comes closer.

On 29 Nov, 01:41, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Neil , even after re-transposition how long could the brain live
> --1000 years , 10000years or maybe as long as the universe ,but
> ultimately it will die or be destroyed at the end - time of the
> universe. What survives is the Truth behind life and nothing else.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > --

[Allan H]

I doubt I am a great soul, though I have spent years contemplating the idea.
Allan

Matrix  **  th3 beginning light

On Nov 29, 2012 9:11 PM, "RP Singh" <123...@gmail.com> wrote:

Allan , carefully reading all the' trash' that you spew out makes me
wonder ...maybe you are the greatest soul wrapped in a human body.

> --
>
>
>

--

[archytas]

At least you have soul Al - perhaps in the Russian sense. RP is not
without in that sense either. It's hard to be inter-subjective about
god a a formulation though we seem to crave fellowship.

On 29 Nov, 23:05, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I doubt I am a great soul, though I have spent years contemplating the idea.
> Allan
>
> Matrix  **  th3 beginning light
> On Nov 29, 2012 9:11 PM, "RP Singh" <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Allan , carefully reading all the' trash' that you spew out makes me
> > wonder ...maybe you are the greatest soul wrapped in a human body.
>

> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > My apologies RP,  due to what I consider trash I don't waste my time
> > > carefully reading what you write..
>
> > > Now I am wondering the origin of this vision..  ;o)  I am waiting to
> > read.
> > > Allan
>
> > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>         me (RP Singh change)    Post reply
>
> > >> 4/26/10
> > >> [Mind's Eye] Re: God and I
>
> > >> Consciousness has to do with the senses and the sense-objects. Sight,
> > >> hearing, etc. I see a door as grey in colour and at  a distance of 25
> > >> yards from me, does God see    it as grey in colour and at a distance.
> > >> No God is immanent in the door, he is the grey colour, he is the
> > >> door , he is the distance and he is me ,the observer. God is in
> > >> everything and is thus all-pervading , he is in every will and is
> > >> therefore  the real doer,  he is in all beings and non-beings and is
> > >> therefore omniscient.
>

> > >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> gee I never read any thing by RP saying that God is the totality of
> > >>> every thing..
> > >>> Allan
>

> > >>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com>

[rigsy03]

Ah- Mother Russia. I am close to the end of Anna K.- forgot it was 950
pp though I've read it twice before- maybe in twenty year intervals so
the story reads differently each time. Quite possibly the greatest
novel of all time, I believe. Anyway, my eye is doing well though I
need another week of drops as the doc missed a tiny speck to remove
and somehow I've had a "myoptic correction" and my vision is 20/20!
Speaking of "fellowship" I had an odd call today from some scam artist
pretending to be my grandson needing money. His voice was a dead
giveaway to NY or New Jersey as we don't speak like that in the
midwest. I declined his request and called the police but they weren't
interested as long as I didn't send money and I guess they have real
work to do. :-) So this dude craves loot and others crave other things
and a good deal of human cravings have nothing to do with our
understanding of god, religion, country, society, art & science, etc.
Back to the idea of the instinct for survival in spite of the sureness
of our death, my personal feeling that the best we can do is to try to
live a moral life as best we can correcting ourselves as we stumble
and learn and those paths are numerous as one can not fault a monk or
contemplative, can one?

> > > --- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[archytas]

Good to know your eyes are better rigs - I'm frustrated by my
inability to do close-up fiddly stuff.

[James]

Hrm, I am an instrument perhaps- if the foci have met with a granite
prism! There is hope, it can be transfigured, lets leave the matter of
exertion and opacity for now. Somewhere on a third horizon [perhaps].

The conclusion or misstep would be: Therefore...

an exercise left to the reader, RP must sense the irony (or absurdity)
in this! Hard lessons on love, but I'm getting quite obscure now, and
unworthy of a stone whereon to perch and sing my jay follies. It is a
'Definitely' maybe gabby.

On 11/28/2012 5:38 AM, gabbydott wrote:
> Ah! That's the extended version of 'possibly maybe' then (my grammar and
> spelling checker suggests 10 instead of 'then' though)! :)
>

> 2012/11/28 James <ashk...@gmail.com <mailto:ashk...@gmail.com>>

[andrew vecsey]

The paradoxical dilemma of who created the creator can be circumnavigated by the possibility that the original creator was not matter, but energy. Just like thinking of anything is much faster and much easier than building it, it becomes conceivable that energy patterns could have evolved in a random chance way and finely tuned by selective processes to reach intelligence similar to how most scientists believe that patterns of atoms and molecules evolved to form intelligent life.

Energy patterns could have evolved to a point that they manipulated atoms to desired patterns and forms to code the information required for life and to allow them to evolve on their own to complex intelligent beings able to wonder at and eventually to solve the riddle of where they came from, where they are going and why they are alive. Meaning and purpose could then be given to our fleeting moment of existence.

On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:55:05 PM UTC+1, archytas wrote:

.......  All we have in respect of this is to posit

creation, begging the question of what created that in an infinite

regress.  .....We might get to an intelligent state in which creation

[Allan H]

who said the original creator had to be either matter or energy..
There is always the third choice :: neither of the above.. Sorry to
disapoint you..
Allan

[Lee Douglas]

Heh except of course that when it comes right down to it.energy is matter and matter is energy.

[andrew vecsey]

Lee, I can see where all matter has to have an energy component to it because matter is manifested as atoms which have motion in them. But I could also envision pure motion without involving any atoms...like a vibration in the fabric of space,

[James]

Since this is somewhat on topic has anyone ran across a modern rendition
of the universe speculating our position and the layout? Every time I
look there are irritating answers around such as "there is no center"
and such, never seen a satisfactory attempt at an answer for our
position within the universe (say, as one find it within galactic
clusters, solar systems, etc). A graphic would be really nice, please
share if you've seen one!

> --
>
>
>

[rigsy03]

Thank you, Archy. What kind of fiddly stuff? I am frustrated by your
diet but it's none of my business.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[rigsy03]

Not all matter is energy, is it? What about "inert", negative space,
the pause etc. Aren't stars dead? I really should study the universe
as I don't know very much about space and the cosmos so forgive my
ignorance.

[andrew vecsey]

All matter is made up of atoms. All atoms have internal motion and internal forces keeping them together. It is these internal forces and motions that give an energy component to all matter. You can look on matter as condensed energy just like water droplets are condensed water vapor. I have never heard of negative space. Stars are filled with energy...shown by the light and heat they emit and radiate. 

[Allan H]

Andrew,, your statement is remarkably shallow and not true at all.
Mainly for this simple reason it is well know and of accepted
knowledge in astronomy that the universe is expanding..

Now the simple question is if the space is all ready filled with
matter and energy it can not be expand because it is all ready
filled.. That simple.. for the universe has to contain empty space or
it could not expand.. Some people subscribe to the string theory,,
and what is between the universes or strings?

Maybe just maybe it is filled with knowledge greater that the totality
of the universe and is simply part of the eternal mandala the realm in
which souls exist with out time or space ,, maybe that it the true
reality. could that all be part of a power greater than you are
commonly known as God.
Allan

[James]

I use the shallow method all the time with minor embellishments to
entertain or see if someone catches a joke in there, hopefully my four
y/o doesn't think I'm just making it all up, not yet anyway. ;-)

Now you have me wondering, the processes that generated the particles we
know of in simple terms are due to environmental conditions, density
irregularity in the early universe allowed the development of great
gravitational bodies to form and undergo nuclear transformations
producing the variety of metals, gases and minerals we know today. That
is, as opposed to a uniform and symmetrical universe
Some time ago I had memorized a few stages that produced individual ones
and found iron especially fascinating, but I'll leave that for other
explorers to fill in.

What you are saying, separate from the above pondering, seems the
opposite of the universe that I have come to accept (in a scientific
sense, and it may be due to lack of refined knowledge, please bear
with). In that much of the processes of transformation and regulation of
properties operate in an elastic manner. Where vigorous transformations
can occur but have a tendency to harmonize in phases, more of less
gradually moving through punctuated bands in a spectrum of phase states.
Condensation happens to be one of my favorite mental aids in that sense
as it reflects impermanence of configuration that we can easily
manipulate moving up or down the spectrum (in the case of water, on
Earth, today, that is.

Would you mind explaining how the filled space concepts relate to this,
my understanding is not clear. It sounds kinda neat, and challenging.

[Lee Douglas]

Hello Andrew,

 

Heh I can envisage many things, but alas many of them are not true.  I distinguish between two things, matter and spirit.  Mattter is all that is physical, which includes physical 'matter' and also energy.  To me there is no paradox of who created the creator.  Before the begining there was only God, God in spirit, and God created the creation out of the spirt of God.  That is all matter comes from spirit.

[Allan H]

That is not true  the beginning can be pretty much pinpointed ..  as for parallel universes that is just a wild guess with nothing to support the other than it sounds good.  There is more evidence supporting the spiritual realm than parallel universes
Allan

Matrix  **  th3 beginning light

On Dec 4, 2012 2:26 PM, "RP Singh" <123...@gmail.com> wrote:

In my view there is no beginning to creation. There is beginning and
end to universes There are infinite no. of universes in parallel and
continuously many  universes are being born and many are dying , but
Creation which includes infinite universes in eternal time , just like
the Spirit, is without beginning and without end. The difference is
that the nature of creation is dualistic and the Spirit is non-dual.

> --
>
>
>

--

[Allan H]

a series of creation is at best a wild guess with no supporting evidence..
Allan

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can pinpoint the beginning of this universe but not that of
> Creation with its series of universes.

>> --

[Lee Douglas]

Heh the same can be said about any and all concepts of God.

[gabbydott]

The pointlessness of the points' business. Like Lee, I find the God concept much more to the point. :)

I don't follow Lee's sequencing model - first spirit, then matter - though. This sounds very man-made to me. ;)

As for the storytelling aspect, yes, the Chronos story is much more vivid than the "God created (x) and saw it was good" story. That's true. But the children are less likely to have bad dreams at night. Which is really good.

Sorry, Allan, I got carried away. What were you talking about?

2012/12/4 Allan H <allan...@gmail.com>

--

[Allan H]

That is very true Lee very true,, but there is more supporting
evidence for the concepts of God..
Allan

[Allan H]

Well actually Gabby I have this stainless steel soap bar used for
getting rid of ordure off your hands things like onion, Garlic ,,
any strong ordure ,, just tried it on the epoxy smell left over from
fixing my maxi egg coddler.

now one of the greatest mysteries of the universe,, how does it work?
Allan

[andrew vecsey]

How I understand what you are saying is that there is the physical part of reality that includes matter and energy, and there is the other part of reality (mental or emotional or imaginary ????) that includes spirit which is the realm of your God. Did I understand you correctly? That would make God imaginary, a figment of imagination. Infinity can only be imagined. It can not exist physically. .

[andrew vecsey]

Dear Gabby. Your problem of accepting "man-made" concepts or thoughts is puzzling for me. Are you not human? What else is there????

[Allan H]

Andrew believe me God is very real not just atoms and energy, to prove it to you  forget it when people have a predetermined mind set, knowing everything are unable to think beyond their ideas. (Known generality)
Allan

Matrix  **  th3 beginning light

--
 
 
 

[archytas]

Amazing how little the group knows of physics. RP has a reasonable
definition of creator origin, though it is a 'singularity' in the
sense science collapses in and around it. Nothing wrong with that but
it doesn't help make radios (etc). Matter isn't necessarily energy -
there is just a conservation law that connects them, itself connected
with momentum. Big Bang is a construction and losing favour.
Multiple universes and mirror worlds are also constructions used to
explain 'evidence'.
I'm not sure how we can explain not being at the centre of a universe
we can't really define - and our observations of it are known to be
'skewed' by living in an area of normal matter and high gravity. If
you want to make a magnet you probably need relativity - even to
explain how a lead-acid battery works as well as it does. This
doesn't make the theory complete.

Knowing about science doesn't help much with god or why we cling to
this rock and want to know why, purpose, lack of it and how we should
live. Negative space is an art concept. Vacuums are thought to have
energy - the virtual particles, which are known to be particle pairs
that blink into existence and then annihilate in a timespan too short
to measure. They do this everywhere, throughout the Universe ( a
postulate as no one has been to look).

I have never seen any evidence for a spiritual world, but think such
may be an emergent property of the way we live.

On 4 Dec, 15:33, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is not true  the beginning can be pretty much pinpointed ..  as for
> parallel universes that is just a wild guess with nothing to support the
> other than it sounds good.  There is more evidence supporting the spiritual
> realm than parallel universes
> Allan
>
> Matrix  **  th3 beginning light
> On Dec 4, 2012 2:26 PM, "RP Singh" <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In my view there is no beginning to creation. There is beginning and
> > end to universes There are infinite no. of universes in parallel and
> > continuously many  universes are being born and many are dying , but
> > Creation which includes infinite universes in eternal time , just like
> > the Spirit, is without beginning and without end. The difference is
> > that the nature of creation is dualistic and the Spirit is non-dual.
>

> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com>

[archytas]

On he unlikeliness of a beginning see Susskind - http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.5385v1.pdf
- it's free. There's a 'sort of' answer to your 'centre' question in
it James - sadly not starring M.Mouse so you and I can grasp it.
Big Bang was not claimed as fact in science and nor was its successor
that has an air of rigs' negative space about it. Inflation theory
runs, more or less, like this:
Inflation starts with a vacuum in an unusually high energy state and
with a negative pressure. Together these give the vacuum repulsive
gravity that pushes things apart rather than draws them together. This
inflates the vacuum, making it more repulsive, which causes it to
inflate even faster.

But the inflationary vacuum is quantum in nature, which makes it
unstable. All over it, and at random, bits decay into a normal,
everyday vacuum. Imagine the vacuum as a vast ocean of boiling water,
with bubbles forming and expanding across its length and breadth. The
energy of the inflationary vacuum has to go somewhere and it goes into
creating matter and heating it to a ferocious temperature inside each
bubble. It goes into creating big bangs. Our universe is inside one
such bubble that appeared in a big bang 13.7 billion years ago. One
of the striking features of inflation is that it is eternal. New high-
energy vacuum is created far faster than it is eaten away by its decay
into ordinary vacuum, which means that once inflation starts, it never
stops and universes bubble off forever in the future. But because
eternal inflation avoids the dreaded singularity, it opens up the
possibility that this has always been the case with universes bubbling
off forever in the past too.

Other models include the "cyclic universe" developed within string
theory by Neil Turok. Here, our universe is a four-dimensional island,
or "brane", in a higher dimensional space. It collides repeatedly with
a second brane. Think of the two branes as two parallel slices of
bread, coming together along a fifth dimension, passing through each
other, pulling apart again, then coming together again. Each time the
branes touch, their tremendous energy of motion along the fifth
dimension creates matter on each brane and heats it to tremendous
temperature. To observers on the brane, it looks exactly like a big
bang and would lead to the same patterns in the cosmic microwave
background and distributions of galaxies. Yet it is a big bang without
a beginning,because the cycles have been repeating for eternity. Some
say matter on the branes expands more with each cycle and this means
that if you run it backwards like a movie in reverse, the cyclic
universe encounters either a singularity or some kind of beginning
like inflation, In the "emergent universe" it all begins as a small
static universe, which exists in this state for an infinite amount of
time before suddenly being triggered to inflate. Such scenarios do
arise in string theory. Just as Einstein's static universe (that
preceded Bigly Bangly) was unstable and needed the extra ingredient of
cosmic repulsion, two weird ingredients: a vacuum with negative
energy, and fault-lines in space-time known as domain walls that are a
feature of some models of particle physics are needed to make this
model work. Domain walls should leave an imprint on the temperature of
the cosmic microwave background radiation, which has not been seen,
but this might be explained if they were diluted away by inflation.

None of these models is true - they are just the best good minds in
the subject area can muster. We lay people confuse ourselves on the
certainty and claims made abut these models and are exposed to them
through idiot media. Right or wrong we don't get any closer to god
concepts, though the physics may be limited by our early exposure to
such myths. Science may be a religion that admits it is uncertain
about its god. Maybe we made our journey to 'now' without past
information because such information cannot be retained in such
'travel' as ours. We might cross a singularity in the future after
which we can only conceive of what we have done so far as an ignorant
beginning..

[Lee Douglas]

Yo Gabs,

 

Heh yes very man made, or to put it finer, Lee made.  when I become Sikh I did so because the Sikh view of what God is and wwhat God's plan for us is closely resembled my own belifes formed over my life time.  Or to put it another way, this is simply what I belive to be true about God. it makes logical sense to me.  Of course everybody is free to agree or disagree, my faith is just that, personal and largely private between me and the creator, hell my best freind is atheist, and by that I mean my wife, but apart from that so is my best friend whom I am not married to!

[Lee Douglas]

Well Alan, I guess that depends on what you term evidance.

 

To my mind there is plenty of subjective evidance to infer the existance of a creative diety, but we all know that we cannot see it in the same light as what we may term scientific evidance.

 

We are strange creatures though, with our cognative disonance and our bias confirmation.

[Allan H]

Neil even science today is a best guess, as you put it an M Mouse the theory of physics is based off an assumption  .. and that assumption is so widely accepted as being true  that you no longer realize it is an best guess..

Without that best guess you are playing with m mouse.  I am laughing as I am wondering if you even know that basic assumption.
Allan

Matrix  **  th3 beginning light

--

[rigs]

It seems creatures have an instinct for survival that is inborn but
man has contrived religions and myths to extend himself beyond death
as a kind of immortality- my guess is that this is ego driven more
than anything and a habit of man to control his risks and enviornment.
This does not preclude the existence of a creator force/ uncaused
cause. The inability to prove God's existence proves nothing; science
is constantly correcting itself and aghast at unintended consequences
of human behavior and invention. We may not need Heaven/Hell, but I
feel we do need God as a moral barometer however we choose to portray
God(s) rather than humanizing this force to lay human foibles and
troubles apart from ourselves and our own flawed natures. No man/men
could have invented our universe or planet or the countless wonders of
nature including human nature. Even when nature is violent and
destructive it is no proof of a malevolent god in the same way
humanity cannot be considered stupid and evil when faced with its
historical mischief but it's too late to ask the dead- even the 30,000
dead Syrians might have questions for the rest of us.

[Lee Douglas]

I have to disagree with some of this Gabs.  I think it is dangerous to make any claims as to God/religion and morality.  It is clear to me that ones morality starts to develop years before one is cabaple of understanding any concept of God.  Morality is a wholley human issue and God has no place there.

[Allan H]

Early this morning, late last night, two dead boys got up to fight.
Back to back they faced each other, drew their swords and shot each other.
A deaf policeman heard the noise and went to rescue the 2 dead boys.
If you don't believe this tale so tall , ask the blind man.He saw it all.

Stolen by Allan

[Lee Douglas]

Heh for some reason that reminds me of Flann O'Brien's The Third Policeman.

[gabbydott]

Hm, I have never thought of using a steel soap bar for cleaning my hands. I use it occasionally for my pots and pans. And for the more difficult dirt on my hands I use a pumice stone or lemon. And more and more often I wear gloves or buy frozen and precut garlic and onion. But thanks for the tip. I'm sure that one day I'll make use of it. Why not steel instead of stone, you're right.

[gabbydott]

As a human I am part of the ecosystem I am living in, but I am not the creator of the ecosystem. That's my understanding of us.

[gabbydott]

Oh yes, please, explain the mouse matrix to Neil! :)

2012/12/5 Allan H <allan...@gmail.com>

--
 
 
 

[rigs]

Another branch of this issue is that humans invented immortality
because of their accomplishments and decided advantage over other
living creatures, i.e. we had earned it. Humans are curious about
themselves and their world and beyond- it was the impetus for the
explorers and inventors as all fields of science now intrigue.
Religions and myths belong to the past except for some basic ethical
considerations which were also known to those we call pagans. However
more people belong to a religion than understand science. Which of the
two contribute to the instinct for survival?

[James]

I could reference the plot of Enemy Mine but that would only prove two
things: my memory is junk, and I'm too trapped in that trivia world Neil
mentions. In my view morality resides among human faculties, perhaps
next to wisdom. Parallel worlds makes me think of perception trained on
divergent and sometimes conflicting narratives, that's just a notion
that passed me the other day.

Now I'm pondering why I sound like an antimonian but think like Jude. :/

On 12/5/2012 5:49 PM, gabbydott wrote:
> Oh yes, please, explain the mouse matrix to Neil! :)
>
>

> 2012/12/5 Allan H <allan...@gmail.com <mailto:allan...@gmail.com>>

>
> Neil even science today is a best guess, as you put it an M Mouse
> the theory of physics is based off an assumption .. and that
> assumption is so widely accepted as being true that you no longer
> realize it is an best guess..
>
> Without that best guess you are playing with m mouse. I am laughing
> as I am wondering if you even know that basic assumption.
> Allan
>
> Matrix ** th3 beginning light
>
> On Dec 5, 2012 9:58 AM, "archytas" <nwt...@gmail.com

> <mailto:allanh1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > That is not true the beginning can be pretty much
> pinpointed .. as for
> > > parallel universes that is just a wild guess with nothing
> to support the
> > > other than it sounds good. There is more evidence
> supporting the spiritual
> > > realm than parallel universes
> > > Allan
> >
> > > Matrix ** th3 beginning light
> > > On Dec 4, 2012 2:26 PM, "RP Singh" <123...@gmail.com

> <mailto:123...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > > > In my view there is no beginning to creation. There is
> beginning and
> > > > end to universes There are infinite no. of universes in
> parallel and
> > > > continuously many universes are being born and many are
> dying , but
> > > > Creation which includes infinite universes in eternal
> time , just like
> > > > the Spirit, is without beginning and without end. The
> difference is
> > > > that the nature of creation is dualistic and the Spirit
> is non-dual.
> >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Lee Douglas

> <leerevdoug...@gmail.com <mailto:leerevdoug...@gmail.com>>

> <mailto:123...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> > Neil , even after re-transposition how long could
> the brain live
> > > > >>>>> > --1000 years , 10000years or maybe as long as the
> universe ,but
> > > > >>>>> > ultimately it will die or be destroyed at the end
> - time of the
> > > > >>>>> > universe. What survives is the Truth behind life
> and nothing else.
> >
> > > > >>>>> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:33 AM, archytas

> <nwte...@gmail.com <mailto:nwte...@gmail.com>>

> <mailto:allanh1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> > >> T9 grrrrrrr
> > > > >>>>> > >> Allan
> >
> > > > >>>>> > >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light
> > > > >>>>> > >> On Nov 28, 2012 11:38 AM, "gabbydott"

> <gabbyd...@gmail.com <mailto:gabbyd...@gmail.com>>

> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>>> > >> > Ah! That's the extended version of 'possibly
> maybe' then (my
> > > > >>>>> > >> > grammar and
> > > > >>>>> > >> > spelling checker suggests 10 instead of
> 'then' though)! :)
> >
> > > > >>>>> > >> > 2012/11/28 James <ashkas...@gmail.com

> <mailto:ashkas...@gmail.com>>

> >
> > > > >>>>> > >> >> I am an aspect of what was, is, and will
> be, coextensively.
> > > > >>>>> > >> >> Maybe.
> >
> > > > >>>>> > >> >> On 11/27/2012 2:28 AM, RP Singh wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>>> > >> >>> Attachment to life is the cause of the
> desire for
> > > > immortality
> > > > >>>>> > >> >>> and the
> > > > >>>>> > >> >>> readiness to believe in an after-life or
> re-birth. It is an
> > > > >>>>> > >> >>> off-shoot of
> > > > >>>>> > >> >>> the instinct for survival.
> >
> > > > >>>>> > >> >>> --
> >
> > > > >>>>> > >> >> --
> >
> > > > >>>>> > >> > --
> >
> > > > >>>>> > > --
> >
> > > > > --
> >
> > > > --
>
> --
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>

> --
>
>
>

[rigs]

Not sure I can agree as it depends on whether you and your culture are
rational. Without "right reason" there is less/no chance of morality
or wisdom. One can call something a word that is essentially false but
taken as truth/goodness.

On Dec 5, 9:19 pm, James <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I could reference the plot of Enemy Mine but that would only prove two
> things: my memory is junk, and I'm too trapped in that trivia world Neil
> mentions. In my view morality resides among human faculties, perhaps
> next to wisdom. Parallel worlds makes me think of perception trained on
> divergent and sometimes conflicting narratives, that's just a notion
> that passed me the other day.
>
> Now I'm pondering why I sound like an antimonian but think like Jude. :/
>
> On 12/5/2012 5:49 PM, gabbydott wrote:
>
>
>
> > Oh yes, please, explain the mouse matrix to Neil! :)
>

> > 2012/12/5 Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com <mailto:allanh1...@gmail.com>>

>
> >     Neil even science today is a best guess, as you put it an M Mouse
> >     the theory of physics is based off an assumption  .. and that
> >     assumption is so widely accepted as being true  that you no longer
> >     realize it is an best guess..
>
> >     Without that best guess you are playing with m mouse.  I am laughing
> >     as I am wondering if you even know that basic assumption.
> >     Allan
>
> >     Matrix  **  th3 beginning light
>

> >     On Dec 5, 2012 9:58 AM, "archytas" <nwte...@gmail.com

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[archytas]

I tend to follow Lee on the god stuff. I always make time for the
Jehovas who come to the door and offer tea. I'm not sure I could live
with anyone professing such belief on a day-to-day basis. I think the
stuff is bunk and don't want to go around pretending it isn't - one
can say much the same of many other organisational practices like
appraisal we have to kow-tow to. For me god and after-life concepts
don't work as well as M.Mouse style assumptions like T = 0 and 'it's
not much use believing I am being deceived all the time by an evil
genie I never see'. I'd probably prefer if all the group were
scientists and atheists - but then I've learned I don't really want a
world full of my preferences!

Memory often seems like a scrap-book found after many years - you
reach for scissors to chop it up for fear of the embarrassment should
anyone else find it.

One standard treatment of paradigms or generic frames of reference
proposes your thought above James - and eventually goes too far in
saying different root metaphors create different realities. My own
view is something more violent is at work in a space where biology and
ideology meet. I'm pretty sure morality is earlier in evolution than
our species.

Rigsy seems to have produced an answer relevant to RP's statement. We
make a lot of fuss over our dead - but then scrub jays hold funerals
and chimps are very aware of death (and incest in a way that makes me
question morality as human faculty). Allan is delightfully wrong and
right at the same time -I suspect we don't do enough of this.

Something in life is immortal or quasi-immortal. Do creatures that
replicate by division ever die? Would you take an amoeba's place to
have this quasi-immortality? Your body is replaced every five years -
I can't help wondering why the cranky bits don't get put right. It
may soon be possible to transfer our minds to non-human substrate.
Our selfish genes are at work ensuring their replication and quasi-
immortality and may prefer non-human existence knowing of Gabbys
threat to torture them with stone, lemon and other odious cleaning
apparatus.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Allan H]

it is not for cleaning hands ,, it just gets rid of smell that you
can not get rid of no matter how much you wash.. you just wash after
youor hands are clean,, then the smell is gone.
Allan

[Lee Douglas]

I must admit to being puzzled by such a product.  Personaly I like my hads to smell like chili after makeing a curry!

[Allan H]

That is the strange thing it gets rid of the lingering smells..
how,, no idea..
Allan

[archytas]

Sounds like something Pontius Pilate might have used.

I guess that David Deutsch and constructor theory tries to get back to
reminding science about its root guesses Allan. I take from
'Spartacus Ants' sacrificing themselves to destroy slaver ants that
pre-human biology 'knows' something of survival instinct.

Descartes had it that until we could get to a point of re-evaluating
against his radical doubt one had to trust in a beneficent god.
Whilst we can criticize his system, I think anti-religious science
misses the beat on issues of how we can live until we know more. The
spiritual thus has its place. There is plenty to avoid in its history
of control fraud, abuse, sexism and war crimes - but plenty to learn
in terms of grace and fellowship.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Allan H]

Many things are best guesses..  are the foundation to many things along what has been observed .. and there is nothing wrong with that .. many ideas have evolved from the instinct for survival .. from that has come selfishness which has lead to the excessive uncaring greed we see today... sacrificing the other ant.
Allan

Matrix  **  th3 beginning light

--

[archytas]

Biology is describing a 'co-evolution arms race'. Religious notions
of the eternal have a lot in common with Popper's 'World 3' and what
we can regard as 'objective' and 'factual' I'm as sure as you about
the 'meanness' you often describe and believe the way through it, past
it, whatever - is spiritual - maybe a kind of dawning.

There's a joke in the new Batman film (other 2 hours plus rubbish) -
when the bad guys raid the stock exchange a trader says there is no
money there for them to steal - the answer is that there must be -
otherwise the traders wouldn't be there. I think economics is largely
a fetish designed around libidinal and domination 'needs' - but even
organised religion becomes such. My guess is we need a spiritual
democracy and finance is set against this forcing us into compliance
with its control fraud much as many routinely bend their knees in
religious observance. Science, admittedly as reliably as a double-
glazing salesman, is suggesting human-biological intelligence is
already giving way to more machine-substrates that offer quasi-
immortality and intellect beyond a singularity we can hardly imagine.
In my science fiction dreaming we may discover the alien life on Earth
is actually ours and we have only been used by another, more worthy
consciousness..

On 6 Dec, 12:26, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many things are best guesses..  are the foundation to many things along
> what has been observed .. and there is nothing wrong with that .. many
> ideas have evolved from the instinct for survival .. from that has come
> selfishness which has lead to the excessive uncaring greed we see today...
> sacrificing the other ant.
> Allan
>
> Matrix  **  th3 beginning light

> ...
>
> read more »

[Allan H]

I think that religion should evolve..just like the rest of the
universe.. when the evolution stops it begins to die.. a good example
of dead beliefs is those our fundamentalist friend is presenting.
Recite the magickal incantation and and every thing will be all
right.. this statement to me is one of a dead faith'
Allan

[archytas]

The old joke runs - 'I was a Catholic (perm to choice) until I reached
the age of reason'. Most religions have some notion of evolutionary
adaptation to the modern world in their creed, often at laughable odds
with practice. I'm in favour of a fresh start - yet how often have we
heard this from politicians really plotting business-as-usual? Those
who insist on holy text seem to miss the point that they make such
text into an idol to worship. As you point out Allan, the 'origin' of
such text is usually dubious, with the ideas already encoded in other
history and copied. There is some good stuff, but also evil rot like
Numbers 31 (and people about who will defend Moses as 'a man of his
time' - so was Hitler).

We have new potentials for transparency these days - but even this is
contentious - most of us don't think much of eavesdropping and its
excesses from the Domesday Book through the Checkists, KGB, Gestapo,
Stasi and various secret services, offshore banking and witch-hunts.
Religious institutions have played their part in such. Was that a
police helicopter hovering above our estate a few minutes ago or part
of the Gabby-Matrix surveillance through which she intends to rule the
world? Just my way of asking what might be good in transparency, bad
or just paranoia. I'm quite sure Gabby's drones are much more stocked-
out with vorsprung dorch tecknik and stealth than the simple
instruments of our boys in blue! Religion often practices control of
our inner worlds through such matters as making masturbation a mortal
sin, weird rites like 'churching' and promises of judgement days and
after-life. Most who contribute in here seem interested in a more
rational form of spirituality - the first rational step for me in this
is imagining what this might be - especially as much presented as
rational is merely a systemic control fraud in which we are sheep in a
world in which 'aliens' own the grass.

> ...
>
> read more »

[archytas]

I don't go with rigs on morality and god-religion. You can get an
article here - http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwcbs/pdf/Brosnan%20et%20al%20AB%202010.pdf
- on the experience of inequity amongst chimps. Some of them make a
stand on behalf of others when they perceive it.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Allan H]

I do some pretty amazing texts in the bible if you forget the time
line and accuracy. I do see a fairly close depiction of the big bang
theory,, If you were trying to explain it to primitive man with
knowledge of science. I also see the value to beliefs as they can
provide an anchor of reason and stability when there is none and that
is a hard place to be.

I do think in today's world there is little to no real transparency as
it would be more like swimming in a muddy river.. especially when
people do not want you to know about their activities like in the
political deals and the massive bribes they are accepting.. that
includes the business world.. it seems bribery has become a way of
life..

But what do yu expect from a culture that worships the "Golden Calf"
Allan

[Lee Douglas]

And in truth Allan religion does evolove, perhaps slowly but evolove it does.

[Allan H]

From what I have seen it does evolve.. it seems mostly in the
negative directions.. probably because of greed and a desire to
control rather than spirituality.. there are exceptions but they are
rare.
Allan

[Lee Douglas]

Hahah maybey, maybe.  I am though the eternal optimist so I see things differantly. 

 

The Anglican church in particular are making some good moves.

 

There are though only two things I wish to comment on at this momnet.

 

My career in IT support thus far informs me that people do seem to have an inbuilt resistance to change, and ultimatly the Christian church in particular but of course all other dogmatic religions need to change or they risk dieing out.

[Allan H]

The changes are only in administration,, to me that is not evolutionary type change
Allan

Matrix  **  th3 beginning light

--
 
 
 

[Lee Douglas]

You are joking right Allan?

 

The changes are only in administration?  So Catholics the world over are not using contraception in spite of what the pope says?  No such change I think is driven and will be further driven by the faiths followers more than it's leaders.  When the new Arch Bishop of Canterbury leaves his new post any changes that he has affected will still be there, one day woman Bishops will be common place, despite any changes in administration.

 

Besides if you think of religous ideas in the same way as any and all other ideas, then it is clear to see that such ideas will evolve or die.  We no longer belive that the Earth is the center of the universe, that right there is a dead religous idea.  Yet Catholosism is still very much with us, and that right there is an example of evolotion of the idea rather than the admisistration.

[Allan H]

I know you dis agree .. birth control and woman bishops effectively no more than administration.  How has those events changing the theology? They still strickly following  the rules unchanged since early centuries
Allan

Matrix  **  th3 beginning light

--
 
 
 

[Allan H]

well Lee I am some what wrong I remembered the charismatic christian
and that is a step forward,, but then they to have been around not
as widely recognized.
Allan

[Lee Douglas]

Haha whatever gave you that impression Allan?

 

 

Really though you don't think that female priests represent a change in theology?  I know both gay men and gay woman who are preists, this is known and excepted in the Anglican church.  I don't know one Christian who keeps the sabath, rather than do a spot of shopping, do you?

[archytas]

The Xtians do Xmas quite well Lee - though it is in fact the Anglo-
Saxon New Year.

On 7 Dec, 16:35, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Haha whatever gave you that impression Allan?
>
> Really though you don't think that female priests represent a change in
> theology?  I know both gay men and gay woman who are preists, this is known
> and excepted in the Anglican church.  I don't know one Christian who keeps
> the sabath, rather than do a spot of shopping, do you?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, 7 December 2012 14:01:48 UTC, Allan Heretic wrote:
> > I know you dis agree .. birth control and woman bishops effectively no
> > more than administration.  How has those events changing the theology? They
> > still strickly following  the rules unchanged since early centuries
> > Allan
>
> > Matrix  **  th3 beginning light

> > On Dec 7, 2012 1:35 PM, "Lee Douglas" <leerev...@gmail.com <javascript:>>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Allan H]

Not at all female theology has been around since the start.. I am not
christian .. you see administration as a change in theology .When
you start correcting the errors christianity has made in the past.
but that would take an actual evolution in beliefs rather than
administrative changes.. but christianity is far to arrogant to do
that.. they have a problem saying they made a mistake.

shopping on sunday is an administrative type change..
Allan

[Allan H]

that is true.. xtians are great at celebrating pagan holidays..
Allan

[rigs]

It depends on what religion you are referring to. Very funny line
about Pilate! :-)

[rigs]

Fine- but I wasn't aware I was trying to convert you. I have a hard
enough time converting myself.

On Dec 7, 2:09 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't go with rigs on morality and god-religion.  You can get an

> article here -http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwcbs/pdf/Brosnan%20et%20al%20AB%202010.pdf

[rigs]

Actually, it derived from a Roman feast so there is a mix of sacred
and profane. I had more Christmas decorations than I thought so I have
been busy with that plus getting ready to bake. My daughter is so
excited to share our memories and favorites with her young daughters.
And snow has finally started to arrive. Perfect!