Before we can address this question we really should discuss what creation is. In a previous post I inferred that a thought is a form of creation, as in day or night dreams. We create pictures in our mind, visualize them, and then let them go. This form of creation lasts only as long as we hold the thought in our mind and has no reality other than what we give it. As I posited in my first post, anything not eternal is not absolute and has no reality. But no matter the length of time the thought is held it is still a form of creation, albeit temporal. In the movie A Beautiful Mind, a story about a college professor who develops schizophrenia, his mental illness allows him to create imaginary people and imaginary situations that become very real to him. Within his mind he has created a world that an outsider cannot see but that he sees perfectly well. This example of creation is classified as a mental illness, and there are mental institutions full of "insane" people that are living in alternate universes. They are creating these alternate universes in their minds, universes only accessible to them, but as far as they are concerned their creations are real. This creative ability within is a testament to the immense power of the mind and I can only wish to know how it works. It is surely something we take for granted as it is an ability we possess from the day we start to imagine and see pictures in our head.
Being human our thought creations do not seem to have any staying power and they cannot be seen and experienced by anyone but ourselves. The only way a thought comes out in the open is to write about it or bring it to form such as in our art or music. Thus, we can share our thoughts with the world as we attempt to give them permanency and reality. This is a form of creating that has staying power by way of writings, compositions, and artwork that can hang around for a very long time. Take for instance the pyramids of Egypt. They have been around for thousands of years and are stupendous examples of our creative abilities by bringing thought to reality for everyone to see. But even the pyramids do not have eternal staying power. As a matter of fact, and as the Buddha stated a couple of thousand years ago, all material things are subject to decay. This is true as everything we observe decays, be it a tin can or a distant universe. So is there anything that is real and absolute? And what would real and absolute look like? What does eternity (permanency) look like? Asking these questions we begin to see our inability to even perceive reality.
When we talk of this world being created it follows that it must have began as a thought within the mind of some sort of being. And since this is a world of material form and is subject to decay it is not absolute and following the law of reality, this world and all that we observe is not real. If we want to give credit to a God for creating this world then we have to consider that God as not being real and absolute either, for a real and absolute God cannot create finite and temporary things, which by definition are not real. And if you want to think God creates things external to Himself then you are not allowing God to be an infinite Being, for nothing can exist outside infinity. As a child I naively thought that God just said the words, let there be light and there was light, etc. and likewise everything else came into creation. My childhood understanding of God creating was simply that He said what it was He wanted to create and it came into existence, albeit external to Himself. Since we can temporarily create within our minds, what could a omnipotent and eternal being do in his mind? And the last question, could God create anything that is subject to decay, if we think in terms of God being an infinite and eternal being? In an infinite universe there is no time because there is no beginning and no end. Thus, a thought of God is endless and permanent.When we think of something it has no permanency and fades away as we let it go in our mind. If this world is a creation oin the mind of God, then we must be a thought that is slowly dissipating within His mind, ergo decay. Since anything that God creates is eternal, we therefore cannot be a creation of God.
Now since this world is subject to decay and has no permanency it is not real. If it is not real it must be a passing thought, a dream, or an illusion. So, who's mind is this world coming from?
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Peace Through Strength?
I was recently reading some comments that followed an Internet article concerning how many nuclear weapons we need, and from some of the comments, I have solidified my belief we are insane. Here is a comment paraphrased: "Through strength comes peace". This is of course the philosophy held that as long as we have thousands of nuclear war heads we will have peace because nobody in their right mind would attack us knowing we would blast them from the face of the earth. There are only two things wrong with this position. One is "that anybody in their right mind" rules out those that could care less about their lives and are not in their right mind. Second, is that we have had thousands of nuclear weapons since the early 1950's and we have not been at peace. There was Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, and now Afghanistan, not to mention a few others. What do we make of this? For one thing, all of these wars, or conflicts if you prefer, were of our own volition, so I guess we could say that having thousands of nuclear weapons have prevented us from being attacked, except for the attacks of 9/11. And since 9/11 wasn't obviously perpetrated by a country we couldn't nuke them out of existence. And even if we had been able to identify one culpable country we still would not have nuked them out of existence. We would have used conventional weaponry to defend our honor. So do we want peace?
It is obvious that our nuclear arsenal is being held only to prevent those countries that also have a nuclear arsenal from attacking us. But since we have been in at least four major conflicts since the end of WWII then it is also obvious that we do not want peace. And it is also obvious that strength does not bring peace. Strength through the posession of nuclear armament is a false sense of security and certainly not an avenue to peace.
And this brings me to the question, "What is peace?" Certainly there have been nations in the history of civilization that have possessed superior strength to all the nations of the earth, and yet we have been warring with each other for thousands of years. Is it that our definition of peace is somehow convoluted and it is not really peace that we seek or want? Taking a closer look at peace through strength it appears that by having superior strength is nothing more than scaring our adversaries to the point they fall in line with our way of thinking. And if they don't we will attack them as is evident from Korea, Viet Name, Iraq, etc. This does not work because to fall in line with our way of thinking is asking them to give up their way of thinking, and their culture, and their traditions, etc. That will never work! If you have become over weight, look at how hard it is to lose it. If you have become addicted look at how hard it is to get off your addiction. Now the peace we seek is asking an entire nation or country to give up its ways. Under this situation peace is unobtainable and it appears our desire for peace has always been a defective goal as it is not really peace, but rather subjugation.
True peace has not come to this earth because true peace is a disolving of boundries, a melding of ways, which appears to us as a sense of loss. Even if we had the magic wand and dissolved all boundries, made everybody the same race and spoke the same language, we would still not have world peace. We would have conflicts over imaginary territories and the the fact that speaking accents have developed and "those" people sound funny. There would be conflicts over natural resource, methods of education, and for sure, religion and politics, and the list can go on and on. The point here is that no matter our situation here on earth we will have conflict because we want conflict. And the reason we want conflict is to assure a state of separation continues to exist between us, for becoming one is what scares us to death. Even to the point we bring death to each other.
Later...
It is obvious that our nuclear arsenal is being held only to prevent those countries that also have a nuclear arsenal from attacking us. But since we have been in at least four major conflicts since the end of WWII then it is also obvious that we do not want peace. And it is also obvious that strength does not bring peace. Strength through the posession of nuclear armament is a false sense of security and certainly not an avenue to peace.
And this brings me to the question, "What is peace?" Certainly there have been nations in the history of civilization that have possessed superior strength to all the nations of the earth, and yet we have been warring with each other for thousands of years. Is it that our definition of peace is somehow convoluted and it is not really peace that we seek or want? Taking a closer look at peace through strength it appears that by having superior strength is nothing more than scaring our adversaries to the point they fall in line with our way of thinking. And if they don't we will attack them as is evident from Korea, Viet Name, Iraq, etc. This does not work because to fall in line with our way of thinking is asking them to give up their way of thinking, and their culture, and their traditions, etc. That will never work! If you have become over weight, look at how hard it is to lose it. If you have become addicted look at how hard it is to get off your addiction. Now the peace we seek is asking an entire nation or country to give up its ways. Under this situation peace is unobtainable and it appears our desire for peace has always been a defective goal as it is not really peace, but rather subjugation.
True peace has not come to this earth because true peace is a disolving of boundries, a melding of ways, which appears to us as a sense of loss. Even if we had the magic wand and dissolved all boundries, made everybody the same race and spoke the same language, we would still not have world peace. We would have conflicts over imaginary territories and the the fact that speaking accents have developed and "those" people sound funny. There would be conflicts over natural resource, methods of education, and for sure, religion and politics, and the list can go on and on. The point here is that no matter our situation here on earth we will have conflict because we want conflict. And the reason we want conflict is to assure a state of separation continues to exist between us, for becoming one is what scares us to death. Even to the point we bring death to each other.
Later...
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Upside down
"... a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma." Winston Churchill.
Churchill was speaking on a 1939 radio broadcast referring to Russian intent; little did he know that he easily could have been describing the game we all play that keeps us in the dark about who we really are and hides any truth that may exist.
Said a bit differently, it could go something like this: Being insane, thinking we are sane. However could we find a truth or an answer to anything if we are living in an illusion? Insanity is living in a world of illusion and believing it is real, and if we are insane then any saneness would appear to be insanity. As an example, we all have moments of insanity where we hold a thought we believe to be true accusing the truth holder of lying. The thought we hold in our mind is held by virtue of its value to us and no matter the evidence towards its falsity, we hold it as true. Is this not a moment of insanity? How long are our moments? And how long have we held a belief that we value even to the point where we have come to know it is a lie?
Those that we observe to be insane amongst us come to believe in the reality of their thoughts, and as such, their thoughts become their reality. This is the power of our mind. The question then becomes, "What degrees of insanity are there?" To think our spouse is having an affair and then to concoct scenarios in our mind that proves our thoughts are real is called jealousy. Is this not a degree of insanity? And where does this movie come into existence? In our minds of course.
Quite a bit of this insanity is occurring within our current internet political articles, and the comments section following the articles. I was just reading a story this morning and one of the readers was ranting on about the government forcing something upon him on one hand, yet espousing the government to force something upon us that he holds dear. So the reader really didn't have anything against government intervention in our lives, rather what the contents of the intervention. But his comments would clearly leave one to believe he was against government intervention. Is he lying to himself? Is this a degree of insanity where he has come to believe in something under the guise of something else? How much of our lives are of this level of delusion?
Our delusions are born from our values, for what we hold as values dictates our beliefs and our actions. Little do we know how deep into our behavioral instincts beliefs and values rule. Our tribal instincts are clear examples of this. Whatever our tribe we have great difficulty accepting another tribes values. Why is this? It is because we seek security and our tribal instincts bind us together seeking security. This we value to the point we ignore any values an outside tribe possesses, ignore our faulty values, even to the point of our demise, which is what we were trying to prevent in the first place. Is this not a picture of our warring nature? And is this not a classic definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. We delude ourselves into thinking our beliefs and our values are superior to those of our enemies (they're enemies mainly because they hold different values) and have been fighting for centuries under the illusions that we are seeking peace. Peace is our illusion, conflict is our value.
More on this later....
Churchill was speaking on a 1939 radio broadcast referring to Russian intent; little did he know that he easily could have been describing the game we all play that keeps us in the dark about who we really are and hides any truth that may exist.
Said a bit differently, it could go something like this: Being insane, thinking we are sane. However could we find a truth or an answer to anything if we are living in an illusion? Insanity is living in a world of illusion and believing it is real, and if we are insane then any saneness would appear to be insanity. As an example, we all have moments of insanity where we hold a thought we believe to be true accusing the truth holder of lying. The thought we hold in our mind is held by virtue of its value to us and no matter the evidence towards its falsity, we hold it as true. Is this not a moment of insanity? How long are our moments? And how long have we held a belief that we value even to the point where we have come to know it is a lie?
Those that we observe to be insane amongst us come to believe in the reality of their thoughts, and as such, their thoughts become their reality. This is the power of our mind. The question then becomes, "What degrees of insanity are there?" To think our spouse is having an affair and then to concoct scenarios in our mind that proves our thoughts are real is called jealousy. Is this not a degree of insanity? And where does this movie come into existence? In our minds of course.
Quite a bit of this insanity is occurring within our current internet political articles, and the comments section following the articles. I was just reading a story this morning and one of the readers was ranting on about the government forcing something upon him on one hand, yet espousing the government to force something upon us that he holds dear. So the reader really didn't have anything against government intervention in our lives, rather what the contents of the intervention. But his comments would clearly leave one to believe he was against government intervention. Is he lying to himself? Is this a degree of insanity where he has come to believe in something under the guise of something else? How much of our lives are of this level of delusion?
Our delusions are born from our values, for what we hold as values dictates our beliefs and our actions. Little do we know how deep into our behavioral instincts beliefs and values rule. Our tribal instincts are clear examples of this. Whatever our tribe we have great difficulty accepting another tribes values. Why is this? It is because we seek security and our tribal instincts bind us together seeking security. This we value to the point we ignore any values an outside tribe possesses, ignore our faulty values, even to the point of our demise, which is what we were trying to prevent in the first place. Is this not a picture of our warring nature? And is this not a classic definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. We delude ourselves into thinking our beliefs and our values are superior to those of our enemies (they're enemies mainly because they hold different values) and have been fighting for centuries under the illusions that we are seeking peace. Peace is our illusion, conflict is our value.
More on this later....
Friday, February 10, 2012
Dreaming the Future
It was the latter part of 1969 and I was on a paid vacation in the Republic of Viet Nam enjoying an after dinner drink with a couple of buddies at a beautiful resort (the NCO club) in Tay Ninh province. The drink of choice, New York Taylor champagne, was also the default as there was nothing else to drink. None of us cared for champagne, but it was all they had and it was cheap. There were four of us and we drank two or three bottles apiece and we all wandered back to our hooches stumbling drunk. I woke up the next morning with the second most horrible hang over of my life (the worst came about eleven years later). I was one sick puppy and thought maybe if I ate something I would feel better. I strolled over to the mess hall, er gourmet restaurant, and ate breakfast. It didn't help, and for the first time in my short Army career I went back to sleep during duty hours. I had a dream that I was standing on a precipice about 400 feet high and a Chinook helicopter came flying by from right to left. Just as it was directly in front of me and just below eye level, it flipped upside down, snapped in two pieces and fell to earth. As the the rear engine portion fell to earth it burst into flames.
I awoke from my sleep feeling much better and sauntered over to the company area and started helping the guys put together the weekly rations, water, mail, and ammunition that would be helicoptered out to the guys in the field. We had just finished setting all the supplies on the edge of the runway when I noticed a Chinook lifting off the ground at the south end of the runway. The Chinook had a sling load of concertina wire that was being ferried out to a forward fire base and as he lifted off the ground the helicopter appeared to have problems as it tilted forward and backwards and from side to side. It appeared he had lost hydraulics and could not maintain control of the aircraft. As the chopper gained altitude it started coming our way. By the time it reached us it was about forty feet off the ground and was still out of control. Once the chopper passed us and continued down the runway it seemed to straightened out and we all began to cheer thinking the pilot had finally gained control. And then the chopper turned to the right and the pilot managed to jettison its load. The load fell on the tail end of a Huey helicopter and cut the tail off, and then it disappeared behind a stand of rubber trees. We all began running down towards the end of the runway and as we approached the clearing we met people running towards us yelling that the chopper had flipped upside down and crashed to the earth.
For many years I was at a loss to explain or to even begin to comprehend how I, or anyone, could dream of an event and then watch the event happen in waking life. Nothing made any sense until I became a student of A Course in Miracles. As I wrote in my introduction I began reading The Book looking for a miracle that would help me regain my ability to swallow, only to find out there was much content advocating that this life and our world is a dream; a dream we had and are continuing to remember over and over. As I read this I found myself rejecting even the notion that this life and our world is a dream, until I remembered the dream of the helicopter crashing. Suddenly I could see how we can dream of a future event because we have dreamed this world and we are remembering this dream over and over in successive dreams.The dream of the helicopter crashing was nothing more than the memory of an event that had already occurred in the dream of life. How else can you explain prescience?
Later
I awoke from my sleep feeling much better and sauntered over to the company area and started helping the guys put together the weekly rations, water, mail, and ammunition that would be helicoptered out to the guys in the field. We had just finished setting all the supplies on the edge of the runway when I noticed a Chinook lifting off the ground at the south end of the runway. The Chinook had a sling load of concertina wire that was being ferried out to a forward fire base and as he lifted off the ground the helicopter appeared to have problems as it tilted forward and backwards and from side to side. It appeared he had lost hydraulics and could not maintain control of the aircraft. As the chopper gained altitude it started coming our way. By the time it reached us it was about forty feet off the ground and was still out of control. Once the chopper passed us and continued down the runway it seemed to straightened out and we all began to cheer thinking the pilot had finally gained control. And then the chopper turned to the right and the pilot managed to jettison its load. The load fell on the tail end of a Huey helicopter and cut the tail off, and then it disappeared behind a stand of rubber trees. We all began running down towards the end of the runway and as we approached the clearing we met people running towards us yelling that the chopper had flipped upside down and crashed to the earth.
For many years I was at a loss to explain or to even begin to comprehend how I, or anyone, could dream of an event and then watch the event happen in waking life. Nothing made any sense until I became a student of A Course in Miracles. As I wrote in my introduction I began reading The Book looking for a miracle that would help me regain my ability to swallow, only to find out there was much content advocating that this life and our world is a dream; a dream we had and are continuing to remember over and over. As I read this I found myself rejecting even the notion that this life and our world is a dream, until I remembered the dream of the helicopter crashing. Suddenly I could see how we can dream of a future event because we have dreamed this world and we are remembering this dream over and over in successive dreams.The dream of the helicopter crashing was nothing more than the memory of an event that had already occurred in the dream of life. How else can you explain prescience?
Later
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Something or Nothing?
What is it we are looking for? Well, that depends on who you are and what your beliefs are. If you are a physicist you may be looking for that illusive elemental particle, you know, the one that is the basic building block of matter. If you are a spiritual individual you may be looking for God. My question is, is there any difference in what we may find? I ask this because if you keep splitting the atom, at what point can you no longer split it? If you have read my previous blogs you may have already deduced that there is no end to splitting the atom and we could go on indefinitely. I remember a riddle that I heard when I was a small boy and it went something like this: If you are standing on one side of the room and you want to get to the other side but you are only able to go half the distance to the other side at a time, how long will it take you to get to the other side? Even as a child it didn't take me long to figure out that I would never get there. That is because half of something is infinite and we can take half of something for eternity. Does this not also apply to the atom and all the particles the atom is made of? Besides, how can you possibly find the smallest thing there is when there is no end to small? For if I can count from one on up forever, I too can count from minus one and smaller forever. As a matter of fact there is an infinite number of points between two numbers such as one and two. We keep finding ourselves in the vicinity of infinite and eternal, our two absolutes. And if we think about this, we can say they are one and the same. Infinite and eternal, two endless concepts that have no beginning and no end. Besides, since we cannot even describe the two outside of the abstract, how is it we can differentiate between the two? In order to differentiate they must have different aspects, or elements, and there are none.
Our thoughts actually belong in the same league. We can wonder through our imagination forever. We can project ourselves out beyond the cosmos and go on forever. We can conceptualize the subatomic until the end of time, if there was an end of time, which there isn't.
How is it being finite beings we are able to conceptualize the infinite and the eternal? How has it been possible to conceptualize something we cannot observe, but something we inherently know to be true? There is not a person on this earth now, in the past, or in the future that could claim there was at some time nothing and there will again at some time be nothing. Why is this? This is because we cannot conceive nothingness. It is beyond our conceptualizing ability to conceive nothingness! Try it.You cannot conceive nothingness as a sentient being. Nothingness has no description for to describe we must be able to compare at least two things and in nothingness there are no things.
Later...
Our thoughts actually belong in the same league. We can wonder through our imagination forever. We can project ourselves out beyond the cosmos and go on forever. We can conceptualize the subatomic until the end of time, if there was an end of time, which there isn't.
How is it being finite beings we are able to conceptualize the infinite and the eternal? How has it been possible to conceptualize something we cannot observe, but something we inherently know to be true? There is not a person on this earth now, in the past, or in the future that could claim there was at some time nothing and there will again at some time be nothing. Why is this? This is because we cannot conceive nothingness. It is beyond our conceptualizing ability to conceive nothingness! Try it.You cannot conceive nothingness as a sentient being. Nothingness has no description for to describe we must be able to compare at least two things and in nothingness there are no things.
Later...
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Time and Distance
In a previous post I discussed the concepts of infinity and eternity as absolutes. In other words if eternity and infinity are real then they are absolute. In purely abstract terms, in an eternal and infinite universe there is no way to describe time or distance as the two do not exist, and we cannot describe something that does not exist. So how do we juxtapose finite life and our world as we know it onto an eternal universe where time does not exist? Everything in our observable universe appears to have a beginning an an end, so it also appears that our beginning (our universe and all that exists within it it) had a beginning and as we observe its decay, will have an end. Therefore, the beginning of our universe originated in an infinite and eternal something. I am at a loss for words to describe this infinite and eternal thing that our universe sprang from. How do I describe infinity and eternity? I can easily describe something that has a beginning and an end because it is observable, but I am having great difficulty describing something that I cannot observe. We'll return to this predicament later. For now, let's return to the origin and birth of our universe. I believe in order for anything to come into existence it begins with thought. As for coming from the void (the infinite and the eternal) it also had to come from thought. All works originate as a thought. Science fiction writers do this all the time as they create worlds from within the infinite reaches of their minds. Once their writing is over with their imaginary world thoughts end. Thus, a beginning and an end. But for our universe to be a thought there must be a mind it is coming from. Is their a mind in the infinite and eternal? Is the infinite and eternal a mind?
Until next time....
Until next time....
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Physical or Spirit?
There is not a hotter topic than this as can be see from reading comments of Internet articles concerning the existence of God, or the creation of this world and our lives. And not only a hot topic but very controversial to the point of name calling and outright insults slung back and forth between those submitting comments. The general degradation of the quality of comments appears to occur between the rabid creationists and the equally rabid atheists. The argument goes something like this: Atheist - if it can't be observed and measured it don't exist or, God only exists for the those afraid of death and the need for an afterlife to assuage their fear. Creationist - The bible says its so, so God exists and He created the world and you can't observe a spiritual being with the implements of this world. Faith is the answer. And many other arguments that are too numerous to list here, and besides these arguments on both sides of the aisle may eventually prove to be useless and misleading.
I believe in order to find the truth we must ask the right questions. And in order to ask the right questions, or at least questions we hope are right, we must use a bit of logic to find a basis of reality so we are not asking questions that pertain to effects rather than causes.
To begin, we must agree on something or else we can go on forever disagreeing. What we need is absolute truths, absolutes which we must all believe to be true no matter our persuasion. Without a basis of absoluteness we can never expect to arrive at a truth because of one of the laws of this world. This law is the law that says we are all able to individually perceive, and as such, we can then perceive differently no matter what we are perceiving. As an example: One person can perceive President Obama as God's gift to the presidency where another can perceive him as Satan's gift to the destruction of the United States. Why one chooses to perceive President Obama as one or the other is the subject of another blog, but I do hope you get my point. To emphasize the law of perception we only have to observe how many different Christian churches there are that each has a slightly different slant on Christianity and the way it should be followed and practiced. How many philosophy and psychology schools of belief are there? How often are scientific discoveries poo-pawed by other scientist that have taken a different view of how things work? So do we have any absolutes?
Let us consider eternity and infinity. Do these things exist? Now if we ask this question from our world view we have great difficulty grasping the concept of either of them because we live in a world where time and distance exists. Time and distance exists because we are able to observe and apply measurements to the things we observe, such as the length of our foot, the height of our bodies, the time it takes to go from point A to point B, or the years of our lives. We of course had to invent the symbols and language of mathematics and time to apply these measurements, such as feet, meters, seconds, minutes, years, etc. What symbols do we apply to infinity and eternity? With the exception of the infinite symbol used in mathematics (an 8 laying on its side) there is no such thing as a measurement of either infinity or eternity. Why? Because you cannot measure either one. In an infinite universe there is nothing to measure from and to, and in an eternal universe there is no beginning and no ending event to be timed. And in an eternal and infinite universe we can say all points are at the center and all times are now.
And we cannot observe either property and as such cannot apply a measurement. Does this mean they do not exist? And if they do not exist then our universe is finite and it has a beginning and an end. This argument fits with our world view of time and distance, but this puts us in a quandary. If our universe is both finite and not eternal that means there is something outside of this universe. If so, then again we are faced with conceiving there is no end to that something that is out there. Can we then say there there was never nothing and then suddenly there was something? This would defy logic and our current understanding of matter and energy. Something cannot come from nothing!
So can we agree there has always been something? If you cannot agree then continuing to read this blog will be a terrible waste of your time. But if you do agree or you are at least willing to consider there has always been something, then read on.
If there has always been something then we can logically deduce eternity is real and absolute, for what could be more absolute than eternity? As for infinity, we apply the same logic. There is no such thing as nothing so there can be no beginning and no end to the universe. Thus infinity is real and absolute. So we have just come to establish two things that we cannot observe. And if we accept these two things as real and absolute, then we can say they are truths, and absolute truths at that. But this too presents another quandary because this flies in the face of science and the scientific process. These are two items that we cannot observe, measure, quantify, etc. But without an absolute we do not have a basis to establish a truth, for without an absolute basis all arguments can only exist in the moment (time) and are susceptible to change as changes occur in what we observe. And we can all agree that change is real and observable in this universe. So science, using time and distance and all the measurements within a finite and limited universe are making these measurements without an absolute basis. Time and space are not absolutes and are creations from our observations, thus our scientific processes are only applicable to what we can observe, quantify, measure, etc.
However could we base our observations on the unobservable that has no applicable language or symbols? We do this by accepting the reality of infinity and eternity even though we cannot prove their existence because they fit very well into our mathematical equations. Actually, our math does not work without accepting their reality. How could we accept the laws of thermodynamics in that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed without accepting that matter and energy have always been here and will always exist - even though we cannot prove this. We accept this theory because it fits with our observations of matter and energy and the language and symbols we invented to measure the two. We will continue this discussion later this week.
I believe in order to find the truth we must ask the right questions. And in order to ask the right questions, or at least questions we hope are right, we must use a bit of logic to find a basis of reality so we are not asking questions that pertain to effects rather than causes.
To begin, we must agree on something or else we can go on forever disagreeing. What we need is absolute truths, absolutes which we must all believe to be true no matter our persuasion. Without a basis of absoluteness we can never expect to arrive at a truth because of one of the laws of this world. This law is the law that says we are all able to individually perceive, and as such, we can then perceive differently no matter what we are perceiving. As an example: One person can perceive President Obama as God's gift to the presidency where another can perceive him as Satan's gift to the destruction of the United States. Why one chooses to perceive President Obama as one or the other is the subject of another blog, but I do hope you get my point. To emphasize the law of perception we only have to observe how many different Christian churches there are that each has a slightly different slant on Christianity and the way it should be followed and practiced. How many philosophy and psychology schools of belief are there? How often are scientific discoveries poo-pawed by other scientist that have taken a different view of how things work? So do we have any absolutes?
Let us consider eternity and infinity. Do these things exist? Now if we ask this question from our world view we have great difficulty grasping the concept of either of them because we live in a world where time and distance exists. Time and distance exists because we are able to observe and apply measurements to the things we observe, such as the length of our foot, the height of our bodies, the time it takes to go from point A to point B, or the years of our lives. We of course had to invent the symbols and language of mathematics and time to apply these measurements, such as feet, meters, seconds, minutes, years, etc. What symbols do we apply to infinity and eternity? With the exception of the infinite symbol used in mathematics (an 8 laying on its side) there is no such thing as a measurement of either infinity or eternity. Why? Because you cannot measure either one. In an infinite universe there is nothing to measure from and to, and in an eternal universe there is no beginning and no ending event to be timed. And in an eternal and infinite universe we can say all points are at the center and all times are now.
And we cannot observe either property and as such cannot apply a measurement. Does this mean they do not exist? And if they do not exist then our universe is finite and it has a beginning and an end. This argument fits with our world view of time and distance, but this puts us in a quandary. If our universe is both finite and not eternal that means there is something outside of this universe. If so, then again we are faced with conceiving there is no end to that something that is out there. Can we then say there there was never nothing and then suddenly there was something? This would defy logic and our current understanding of matter and energy. Something cannot come from nothing!
So can we agree there has always been something? If you cannot agree then continuing to read this blog will be a terrible waste of your time. But if you do agree or you are at least willing to consider there has always been something, then read on.
If there has always been something then we can logically deduce eternity is real and absolute, for what could be more absolute than eternity? As for infinity, we apply the same logic. There is no such thing as nothing so there can be no beginning and no end to the universe. Thus infinity is real and absolute. So we have just come to establish two things that we cannot observe. And if we accept these two things as real and absolute, then we can say they are truths, and absolute truths at that. But this too presents another quandary because this flies in the face of science and the scientific process. These are two items that we cannot observe, measure, quantify, etc. But without an absolute we do not have a basis to establish a truth, for without an absolute basis all arguments can only exist in the moment (time) and are susceptible to change as changes occur in what we observe. And we can all agree that change is real and observable in this universe. So science, using time and distance and all the measurements within a finite and limited universe are making these measurements without an absolute basis. Time and space are not absolutes and are creations from our observations, thus our scientific processes are only applicable to what we can observe, quantify, measure, etc.
However could we base our observations on the unobservable that has no applicable language or symbols? We do this by accepting the reality of infinity and eternity even though we cannot prove their existence because they fit very well into our mathematical equations. Actually, our math does not work without accepting their reality. How could we accept the laws of thermodynamics in that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed without accepting that matter and energy have always been here and will always exist - even though we cannot prove this. We accept this theory because it fits with our observations of matter and energy and the language and symbols we invented to measure the two. We will continue this discussion later this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)