String theory, Relativity, and angels

by onacruse 133 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  BrendaCloutier

  Computationally speaking, God could possibly be implemented as a muti-threaded time-warping server farm capable of processing billions of concurrent requests per millisecond.

  In terms of object-oriented languages: God can potentially "be" in a biilion of places simultaneously. All it takes to appear in another place at the same time is creating just another instance of the abstract class "God". So it all boils down to how much RAM the Almighty one has at his disposal to handle all of those instances. If you have some faith, it becomes a quantitive problem not a qualitative one.

  But that's a private joke for programmers. Sorry if it made you yawn...

  Pole

  Pole, I think you actually have one of the best analygies for God and the space-time continum. As a former programmer type, I understand.

  (BTW - I like your polish eagle)

  The universe's beginning as a microdot then exploding in the big bang must have been something, eh? That Microdot must have been of an atomic weight beyond our ability to comprehend.

  Can we imagine or comprehend such concepts? If we couldn't then they wouldn't even be concepts. However, I think the human mind, even Mr. Hawking's, is too small to begin to grasp the enormity and complexity of our universe and the universes of the "others".
• 

  logansrun

  frankie, sunnygal, Sirona, et al. :

  I just don't agree with dogmatism no matter it's form. There are fundamentalist theists and there are fundamentalist atheists/materialists. Truth generally lies in between two extremes and it is hubris to think we have reality in our back pockets like some form of personal possession.

  B.
• 

  dolphman

  Hey, I'm no math guy, but check this out.
  

  God is a big fat 0. 0 is nothing, yet it is something. Add a 1 to it, and you get the number 10. 10 is tangible, 0 isn't. Yet 10 cannot exist without 0.

  The Hindus believe God is both nothing (like a zero) and the source out of which consciousness and creation comes. It's a paradox that is BEYOND our minds. Does that make sense? How could you see a germ without a microscope? How can we understand god with our physical brain? Our intellect, although a by-product of a much bigger one (God consiousness), is not the tool by which we can use to understand the concept of a God that is both nothing and the source of everything. Does that add up to you? Probably not. Because you're using the wrong tool for the job. However, I think our brains have the capability to at some point.

  Many mystics have said that at the moment of enlightment they "understand" this concept, but they are not "understanding" with the part of their mind that worries about the stock market, thinks about not getting hit by a car when crossing the street, etc. It is a "super-consciousness" that understands it. And the best way to describe the concept of "God" is to say it's nothing and something at the same time. Concepts such as parallel universes may help articulate it, but do not in totality describe it.

  I'm thinking that soon the two worlds will marry, string-theory and quantum mechanics will evolve our mindsets to the point where we can see god and the physical universe connect. It will help those understand who cannot access these realities through direct mystical experience.
• 

  logansrun

  Dolphman,

  The number 10 can be written in such a way that does not include 0; the Roman numeral "X" for instance. I'm not sure if your analogy is as useful as you might have thought. I also think you may be a little dogmatic in asserting that God and a mystical spiritual reality do indeed exist, whereas I simply allow for the possibility. We should all doubt. And doubt our doubts as well.

  B.
• 

  LittleToe

  Bradley:

  The number 10 can be written in such a way that does not include 0...

  THis from the guy who cant count syllabuls - get yer ass back on the Renga thread!!!
  LOL

  I just don't agree with dogmatism no matter it's form. There are fundamentalist theists and there are fundamentalist atheists/materialists. Truth generally lies in between two extremes and it is hubris to think we have reality in our back pockets like some form of personal possession.

  Darn - say something I can disagree with, will ya?

  I also think you may be a little dogmatic in asserting that God and a mystical spiritual reality do indeed exist, whereas I simply allow for the possibility.

  Oh, you did. LOL
  So direct experience doesn't count for anything, these days?
  

  Yeah, I know... how can you be sure that what you subjectively experienced was interpretted correctly?...
  But there comes a time when you accept that honey tastes sweet...
• 

  dolphman

  The concept of 0 and of putting it with the number 1 is still a viable analogy, nonetheless. Using the Roman X is another way of not using a zero, not another way to dispel a concept completely.

  I simply allow for the possibility. We should all doubt. And doubt our doubts as well.

  I would doubt if I could, but all doubt has been erased for me due to direct experience. But I do expect people to doubt, and doubting is fine. It's simply not an option for me anymore, although at times I wish it was. And that is the honest truth.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Dolpman,

  God is a big fat 0. 0 is nothing, yet it is something. Add a 1 to it, and you get the number 10. 10 is tangible, 0 isn't. Yet 10 cannot exist without 0.

  Actually when you think of it you always need the opposite for either one to exists,, "Nothing" would not exist unless "Something" did,, and "Something" would not exist unless "Nothing" did.

  As to "nothing" being "something" I think about the universe as expanding space,, space is something even if it appears to be nothing and they say our universe is expanding with nothing on the outside,, well the way I see it in that case is that nothing can be very solid, for if you come to the border of the universe and nothing is outside of it, then that nothing would appear very solid and in penetratable.
• 

  onacruse

  Ha! I come back from 10 hours of eating sawdust, and see that my innocent little thread has been trodden to dust.

  Thanks for all your posts...many good observations, that make me think.

  As a general observation: My topic was intended to show that there are recognized mathematical theories (with numerous experimental evidences) that legitimize the concept of hyper-dimensions. And, after all, isn't pure mathematics supposed to be a cornerstone of ultimate logic?

  On the one hand, that would suggest that hyper-dimensional life is a possibility, even as we see life in our dimension. Of course, that's an extrapolation by analogy; really, worth no more than some corporate projections of next years' expected profits.

  On the other hand, even if we accepted that analogic extrapolation, there's no way that we could apprehend or comprehend the reality of it!...any more than those poor little old Flatlanders could try to understand a sphere.

  An interesting conflict between "real" and "possible"... or, to use Terry's terminology, "actual" versus "potential."

  Thus Kant's, Ouspensky's, and others', conviction (after themselves sojourning from pure mathematics into philosophy) that mystical revelation is the only way that one could expand their consciousness beyond this "sphere" (deliberate play on words) of 3-D existence.
• 

  Robdar

  Terry and Elsewhere, thanks for clarifying the subject. Lot's to think about tonight.....

  Robyn
• 

  lauralisa

  {{onacruse}}
  
  One can not have too many reference materials.