CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Philosophy › Weather Forecast / Current Conditions

Weather Forecast / Current Conditions

Started by Alex Ramirez40 · · 👁 8 views · 111 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Alex Ramirez40wearyowl29Matthew Doyle73Frank Lee6Amanda Williams2gentleseal3ARoger Hall15Rachel Bishopsilverpilot40Christian Cox58Richard Howard2Taylor Alvarez6swiftcobra15nimbledrivernorthernotterslycrane94Brian Doyle86Linda Clark14rapidjackal7hiddenviper9Jason Morgan2placidorca16frozenangler9
Richard Howard2 Richard Howard2 Active Member
128 messages
joined Dec 2002
#61 ·
Dirty Harry said:I recall reading somewhere—if I'm interpreting Stephen Hawking correctly regarding the laws of large numbers—that the universe behaves in such a way that if you were just walking down a street in Chicago, there is a non-zero chance you might spontaneously drift off into space. You’d essentially just have to wait long enough for it to happen...

Look, while technically possible, the probability is so infinitesimal it's practically zero. It's really just an illustrative concept rather than a literal prediction, used to explain the fundamental nature of the cosmos. We're talking about something that might occur over a span of time we can only describe as infinity...
rapidjackal7 rapidjackal7 Member
14 messages
joined Apr 2003
#62 ·
Pandora said:Alright, fine... if you’re really gonna dig your heels in on this one, let’s just roll with it.
So, does this whole "chain" thing of yours imply that everything around us follows some kind of mathematical script? Because if it does... where exactly is this supposed "brilliant math" coming from when the actual substance of the universe is so chaotic and mindless?
By your own logic, the environment behaves mathematically—something we supposedly only figured out once we "built" our little mathematical models of thought. Does that mean the surroundings are somehow "intelligent," or maybe even "smarter" than we are? I’d love to see you try to explain that one.🙄

Look, behavior itself is a process, which means it’s tied to time... I honestly think it’s a mistake to toss math aside as a tool for understanding the cosmos, mostly because you're basically trying to use its own logic to argue for your "timeless" little world. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.🙂
rapidjackal7 rapidjackal7 Member
14 messages
joined Apr 2003
#63 ·
Bob Fett said:Look, I mean, sure, that’s technically a possibility, but we’re talking about a chance so slim it’s basically zero. It was just an illustration, you know? Not meant to be taken literally—just a way to wrap our heads around how the universe actually functions. Something like that could theoretically play out on a timeline that feels pretty much infinite to us...

So here's my thing: what other kind of time are we even talking about besides infinity? Or is there really anything else out there besides the endless void? Just playing devil's advocate here—I'm not trying to prove anyone right or wrong, just want to chew on the logic—but if we take that simple model Pandora laid out, where exactly does life fit into the equation?
Rachel Bishop Rachel Bishop Active Member
80 messages
joined Jul 2003
#64 ·
I don't need to be an idiot for you to fail at understanding me, Django. Even when it's obvious you aren't getting it, I don't resort to insults. But you refuse to see, and frankly, you're being rude.
My point is this...
The laws of nature are embedded within us... because man and nature are one and the same.
If a man is a mathematician, nature must follow suit. If a man possesses consciousness, nature must as well. How does a human develop the very models found in the natural world? By virtue of them already being present within him. One cannot perceive what they are not themselves. To see it, one must evolve to match it.
First, you have to grasp the unity of all things. Only then will you realize it doesn't matter which angle you take, because everything existing outside of us resides entirely within us.
Once it finally clicks that consciousness is the vessel encompassing everything—the thing that actually ENABLES this unity—then you won't find yourself struggling to communicate with fools.😉
You are starting from a FLAWED PREMISE: the idea that consciousness simply emerged on its own as a byproduct of evolution... a concept that quite simply DOES NOT HOLD UP.
Rachel Bishop Rachel Bishop Active Member
80 messages
joined Jul 2003
#65 ·
Dirty Harry said:Behavior, as a process, functions as a temporal category as well. It seems a mistake to dismiss mathematics as a tool for studying the universe; doing so merely builds an argument for your own timeless reality. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. 🙂

I am not rejecting mathematics entirely... I am simply asking questions
about where it actually "exists." Surely even you grasp that?😉
rapidjackal7 rapidjackal7 Member
14 messages
joined Apr 2003
#66 ·
Pandora said:Look, I’m not even trying to toss math out the window... I’m just asking questions about where it actually
"lives"... don't you see what I mean?😉

I get where you're coming from, really, but I think we're tripping over some subtle wires here—specifically when it comes to how we define consciousness, math, and life itself. It feels like you've basically lumped our current level of awareness regarding nature together with life itself, implying that the universe behaves according to mathematical rules. Honestly, that doesn't sit right with me for a few reasons. Long before humans ever got a handle on mathematics, we had other ways of making sense of this chaotic existence, like religious doctrines and stuff. And those were slowly being pushed aside as we stumbled onto new discoveries about the world (and ourselves). In my book, it’s probably just a matter of time before math gets tossed aside as just another dogma, especially since the number of things we can't explain through math is growing at an insane rate. How many times have you hit a brick wall in math with undefined values or infinity? It’s like running headfirst into a wall over and over again... we aren't going to get anywhere if we stay locked inside this little mathematical box. So, I wouldn't go assigning the properties of our limited, current perception to all of nature (or to us, for that matter). Instead, I’d swap out the concept of consciousness—which is really just a subcategory of math—with the idea of life, something that exists independently of whether we perceive it now, later, or never. Not that it changes the fact that math is pretty much the best tool in our kit right now...
Rachel Bishop Rachel Bishop Active Member
80 messages
joined Jul 2003
#67 ·
Coffee hour is over. Now comes... time.

Time is a dual concept: the idea of space combined with the idea of movement through it. Yet, movement itself is an illusion, a byproduct of our inability to perceive the actual SPACETIME.
The perception of moving through time stems from a sensory deficit—our incomplete grasp of the fourth dimension.
Temporal extension is merely our stretching into an unknown spatial realm.

We have already established that space and time aren't separate entities, but a unified four-dimensional spacetime continuum.
To truly encompass this four-dimensional reality, one would require a fifth dimension... perhaps as a property of consciousness itself, acting as the vector for its own evolution.

Essentially, we aren't escaping these three dimensions anytime soon unless we find some way to be better people.🙄

Go ahead, John F. Kennedy... take your shot.
rapidjackal7 rapidjackal7 Member
14 messages
joined Apr 2003
#68 ·
how much time actually equals how much unknown space?
Rachel Bishop Rachel Bishop Active Member
80 messages
joined Jul 2003
#69 ·
rapidjackal7 said:I get it, but I think we’re tripping over subtle definitions here—specifically where consciousness, math, and life intersect. It seems you’ve conflated our current level of awareness regarding nature with life itself; essentially claiming the universe operates mathematically. That doesn't hold water. Long before humans grasped mathematics, we had other frameworks for understanding existence, like religious dogma. Those were slowly discarded as new discoveries emerged. I suspect it’s only a matter of time before math becomes just another dogma, given how quickly we're hitting walls that it can't explain. How many times have you hit an undefined value or infinity? We won't get far if we stay trapped in this mathematical box. I wouldn't project our limited perception onto the entirety of nature. Instead of treating consciousness as a subcategory of math, I'd swap it for "life"—something independent of our past, present, or future perceptions. Not that it changes the fact that math is currently our best tool...

Every "level" has its own language, its own terms, and its own set of laws. But in the grand scheme... nothing is truly in opposition to anything else.
It’s difficult to use the everyday language of one level to describe the whole... or to try and squeeze the totality down into a single, limited perspective. That's where the friction happens. One simply has to get used to it.😉
rapidjackal7 rapidjackal7 Member
14 messages
joined Apr 2003
#70 ·
Hold up, just because things follow patterns doesn't mean nature is purely mathematical, or even *just* math—it’s more complicated than that. Like, you can't say the Pacific Ocean is just a collection of drops, right? It is those drops, sure, but at the same time, it's the whole damn thing. It's like that weird paradox where you've got a single moment containing all of eternity, or eternity packed into one tiny second... or a single point holding the entire universe, or the whole universe compressed into a single dot. Whatever way you want to slice it, it's deeper than some equations on a chalkboard.
Rachel Bishop Rachel Bishop Active Member
80 messages
joined Jul 2003
#71 ·
rapidjackal7 said:Hold on. That doesn't mean nature is purely mathematical. Or rather, it isn't *only* math. An ocean isn't just a collection of drops—it's both the whole and every single drop at once. A moment containing eternity, or eternity within a moment. A point in space, or all of space within a point. Take your pick.

Precisely.🙂
rapidjackal7 rapidjackal7 Member
14 messages
joined Apr 2003
#72 ·
Life—how do you actually factor it into an equation without the whole damn model collapsing under its own weight? I’ve been chewing on this one idea: movement within a finite, timeless space just can't exist because it drags the heavy anchor of time along with it. Once you look at a single point, you realize it’s basically identical to that timeless void—just pure nothingness, devoid of both time and space. It’s pretty wild when you think about it, how our journey toward infinity actually begins at a single point, which is really just infinity itself (wherever you turn, you’ve already arrived 🙂 ). We move along a line like a single point, and if we stumble upon some geometric shape in a plane, we perceive its edges as points too—we enter it, then time happens, then we’re back to being a point again as we exit. If that shape starts shifting through its other dimension, it totally messes with our heads; we see it as this string of inexplicable points just popping into existence, vanishing, or drifting aimlessly if our path stays within the plane. To us, it looks alive and chaotic—it won't behave like those predictable, static geometric dots.
The kicker is that experience tells us there’s no such thing as "static geometry," there's only movement, and it’s usually a total mess—ranging from "elementary particles" that pop in and out of being while zip-zagging around, to massive things like our own consciousness flickering on and off, or even black holes where matter just drains out of our slice of reality. It would be incredible if we could just constrain all that chaos to, say, four spatial dimensions and finally make sense of the madness. Because, honestly, the spontaneous appearance and disappearance of a triangle on a flat plane can only be explained by a pyramid moving through three dimensions, and so on. Following that logic, life is essentially a type of movement that stretches across infinite spatial dimensions, which means it isn't bound by time, and by extension, isn't bound by space either.
Bottom line: Life is actually just a point... 🙂
Richard Howard2 Richard Howard2 Active Member
128 messages
joined Dec 2002
#73 ·
Rachel Bishop said:Look, Richard Howard2, I don't need to be an idiot just because you're failing to grasp my point. Even when it's glaringly obvious that you aren't getting it, I'm not resorting to insults. You simply refuse to see, or perhaps you choose not to, and frankly, you're being rude.
My position is this...
The laws of nature are also embedded within the human being... because man and nature are one.
If a human is a mathematician... there must be corresponding nature. If a human possesses consciousness... nature must exist as well. How does a human develop the exact models found in the wild? It is because they are already present within him. A human cannot perceive what he is not himself. Or rather, he must become something specific in order to perceive it.
First, you must grasp the unity of all things. Only then will you realize it makes absolutely no difference which direction you look from, because that which exists outside of man resides entirely within him.
And finally, once it becomes clear to you that consciousness is the vessel that encompasses everything—the thing that actually ENABLES this unity—then you won't have such trouble dealing with idiots.😉
You are starting from a FLAWED PREMISE: that consciousness emerged spontaneously in humans as a mere byproduct of evolution... a concept that simply DOES NOT HOLD WATER.


Rachel, perhaps you haven't noticed, but you tend to treat things that are PURE ASSUMPTIONS as if they were absolute truths. Just because you think something or believe something doesn't make it reality. This applies, of course, to your claim that everything stems from consciousness and that if man is conscious, nature must follow suit. Why must that be so? Where is the philosophical logical framework you used to reach this conclusion? And why wouldn't the idea that the world arose through evolution work? Explain yourself. If you're actually capable of it, I will dismantle everything you write without breaking a sweat.

I maintain my stance because I base it on scientific findings. You, however, don't even base your claims on philosophical reasoning; they seem religious. From what I've observed in your line of thought, you don't even adhere to basic philosophical logic. It’s easy to construct a little worldview and try to sell it as the ultimate truth, isn't it? But one has to actually work for it. Show me the logical arguments. If you can't, then you aren't interested in philosophy—you're just interested in religion, right along with the fanatics...
Rachel Bishop Rachel Bishop Active Member
80 messages
joined Jul 2003
#74 ·
Richard Howard2 said:Rachel Bishop, maybe you haven't noticed, but you treat pure assumptions as if they were absolute truths. Just because you think or believe something doesn't make it reality. That applies to your claim that everything stems from consciousness—that if man is conscious, nature must be too. Why? Where is the philosophical logical method used to reach that conclusion? Why couldn't the world have originated from evolution? Explain yourself. If you're actually bold enough, I can dismantle anything you write without breaking a sweat.

I state what I state because it's grounded in scientific insight. You don't even base your claims on philosophy, but on religion; from what I've seen, you don't even follow basic philosophical logic. It's easy to construct a little worldview and sell it as the ultimate truth, isn't it? But one must actually fight for it. Show me the logical arguments. If there aren't any, you aren't interested in philosophy—just religion, along with the fanatics...

First off, Richard, I’m not selling anything... I give it away for free... unlike science, which carries a high price tag and thus maintains an incentive to be what it is.
Second, this isn't science, it's philosophy. Don't lecture me on scientific facts.
Third, you are also starting from a PURE ASSUMPTION, and a completely absurd one at that... if you can't see the absurdity, no arguments will help.

My point is that nothing can become what it is not... and so consciousness cannot "become"... it simply IS... before and after YOU... whether you like it, admit it, or whether science confirms it or not.

And most importantly...

WHY DOES IT BOTHER YOU SO MUCH?
Richard Howard2 Richard Howard2 Active Member
128 messages
joined Dec 2002
#75 ·
Rachel Bishop said:First off, Richard Howard2, I’m not selling anything here... I’m giving this away for free... which is a far cry from mainstream science, where everything comes with a price tag and a built-in incentive to maintain the status quo.
Secondly, what we are discussing isn't science; it is philosophy, and please don't try to lecture me on scientific facts.
Thirdly, you are operating entirely from a PURE ASSUMPTION—one that is quite frankly absurd... and if you can't see the absurdity there, then no amount of argumentation will help us.

My point is that nothing can become something that it isn't... and by that logic, consciousness cannot "become"... it simply IS... before and after YOU... whether you like it, acknowledge it, or whether science confirms it or not...

And the most vital thing I have to say...

WHY SHOULD THAT BOTHER YOU?

Well, it doesn't bother me, per se, but I did expect an actual response from you...😉

Anyway, you are once again firing off assertions without any supporting evidence. This whole "whether you like it or not" routine is so desperate it’s almost laughable.

I am not starting from assumptions; I am starting from established facts. You seem to be making the mistake of treating science as just another option for belief, lumped in with religion and philosophy. It isn't. Science exists as a universal, perfectly precise, and neutral tool for understanding the world; it cannot be compared to philosophical or religious speculation.
That distinction allows me to do this:

I can apply scientific findings within a philosophical debate, but you cannot use philosophical musings within a scientific one.

If you had even a passing familiarity with science, or even philosophy, you would realize that is how it works. Instead, you are just someone clinging to an idea you believe is an undeniable truth, but in reality, it seems you just dislike the fact that your idea can be debunked, isn't that right?

Let me know when you've actually studied some science and philosophy. For now, you might be better suited for a position in Theology, given that you continue to offer zero arguments and instead claim I lack understanding of "obvious" things.👎
Rachel Bishop Rachel Bishop Active Member
80 messages
joined Jul 2003
#76 ·
Richard Howard2 said:It doesn't bother me, but you were clearly expecting an answer from me...😉

Anyway, here we go again. Making claims without any actual substance. This whole "whether you like it or not" routine is desperate. It's almost funny.

I don't deal in assumptions; I deal in proven facts. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that science is just another belief system, sitting right there next to religion or philosophy. It isn't. Science is a universal, precise, neutral tool for understanding the world. It isn't comparable to philosophical or religious speculation.
That distinction gives me an edge:

I can bring scientific findings into a philosophical debate, but you can't drag philosophical musings into a scientific one.

If you understood even a shred of science—or even philosophy—you’d know that. Instead, you're just someone clinging to an idea, thinking it's an unassailable truth. But really, it's just that you can't handle it when your little theory gets dismantled, right?

Fine... if you claim "my idea can be disproven," then go ahead. Prove it. What are you waiting for?

My position is this: consciousness doesn't "become." It simply IS... an eternal, infinite unity.
.....now, prove me wrong.🙂
Richard Howard2 Richard Howard2 Active Member
128 messages
joined Dec 2002
#77 ·
Rachel Bishop said:My point is, consciousness doesn't "become"—it simply IS... an eternal, infinite oneness...

Alright, so I'll go first then?

By looking back at the deep history of Earth and even Space itself through verified scientific methods, we have reached the conclusion that nothing in Space just pops into existence out of thin air. For complex structures to emerge, you need vast stretches of time during which adaptation and modification can occur.

This is most obvious in living beings, which emerged as the long-term evolutionary product of chemical and physical processes. Space is structured by its own physical laws to allow for this kind of behavior; in fact, one could argue that in such a chemical and physical environment, this behavior is almost always the case—it's just that due to other various factors, only a negligible percentage actually completes its evolutionary journey.

This is, briefly stated, a depiction of the evolutionary development of Space, driven by the physical and chemical laws established at the very birth of the universe:

1. The first second of the creation of Space—the universe was a white-hot sphere of infinite density and temperature expanding at speeds exceeding the speed of light.

2. After some time, the first elementary particles and atoms form; the structure of Space is a glowing, hot gas.

3. This hot gas expands non-homogeneously for reasons still unknown, causing denser regions to pull in surrounding matter and themselves into increasingly dense structures under the influence of gravity.

4. Clumps of hot gas in rotation form disks—future galaxies—where gas is further distributed into smaller fragments—future stars—forming the proto-disk of our future Sun.

5. Our Sun is formed, and the remnants of the surrounding gas from the disk aggregate again into planets—Earth is born.

6. Heavy chemical elements formed in the high temperatures of the proto-disk allow for cooling and a solid structure for our planet; over billions of years, water condenses through chemical processes and an atmosphere is created.

7. Over the following millions of years, various combinations of increasingly complex molecules form within the elemental oceanic soup—finally, several billion years ago, organic molecules are born.

8. Through the next millions of years, organic molecules evolve to the point where their chemical construction serves as a coded trigger for creating themselves (duplication) from the surrounding chemical material.

9. Molecules advance so much that the chemical code begins building additional organic structures—single-celled organisms emerge.

10. Over millions of years, complex multi-celled organisms develop, and through further evolution, highly sophisticated living beings emerge, where individual cells specialize in specific purposes and act as a mechanism capable of reproducing and adapting to the environment.

11. All kinds of animals and plants emerge, and through further evolution, highly advanced complex beings arise—hominid apes.

12. Due to the extreme complexity of functioning and the mingling of millions of electrical nerve impulses in the brain, some of them begin to perceive their own existence—FIRST CONSCIOUSNESS EMERGES—man is born.

13. Man evolves, and through a capability no other being or thing possesses, creates his own world and strives to comprehend the Space around him.

14. Thus, Space perceives Space; it becomes aware of itself through us.

It is a process, not something that has always existed. The reason it is a process is because Space is structured in such a way that the world exists of its own accord; likely, Space would not function the way it does now if it weren't.

OK, I was being generous and presented my arguments ready for discussion before you, even though the initial demand for arguments came from me... YOUR TURN!
Rachel Bishop Rachel Bishop Active Member
80 messages
joined Jul 2003
#78 ·
Richard Howard2 said:Fine. I suppose I'll go first.

By analyzing the deep past of Earth and even Space itself through established scientific methods, we've concluded that nothing in Space simply appears out of thin air. Complex structures require vast stretches of time to allow for necessary adaptation and modification.

This is most evident in living beings, which emerged as the long-term evolutionary product of chemical and physical processes. Space is structured by its own physical laws to permit this behavior; one could argue that in such a chemical and physical environment, this outcome is almost inevitable. Only due to other random factors does such a process complete its evolutionary path in an insignificantly small percentage of cases.

A brief summary of the evolutionary development of Space, driven by the physical and chemical laws established at its very birth. Modern science can determine the initial state, even if the ultimate cause remains a mystery:

1. The first second of Space's existence—Space is a white-hot sphere of infinite density and temperature, expanding faster than the speed of light.

2. After some time, the first elementary particles and atoms form; the structure of Space is a glowing gas.

3. This hot gas expands unevenly for unknown reasons, causing denser regions to pull in surrounding matter and themselves into increasingly dense structures under the influence of gravity.

4. Clumps of hot gas rotate to form disks—future galaxies—where gas is further distributed into smaller fragments—future stars. A proto-disk of gas forms, which will become our future Sun.

5. Our Sun is formed, and the remnants of the surrounding gas in the disk gather again to form planets—Earth is born.

6. Heavy chemical elements created in the high temperatures of the proto-disk allow for cooling and a solid planetary structure. Over billions of years, water condenses through chemical processes and an atmosphere forms.

7. Over the following millions of years, various combinations of increasingly complex molecules form in an oceanic chemical soup—finally, several billion years ago, organic molecules are born.

8. Through millions of subsequent years, organic molecules evolve to the point where their chemical construction serves as a coded trigger for self-replication from the surrounding chemical material.

9. Molecules advance so far that the chemical code begins building additional organic structures—single-celled organisms emerge.

10. Over millions of years, complex multi-celled organisms develop, followed by highly sophisticated living beings through further evolution, specializing cells for specific purposes to act as mechanisms capable of reproducing and adapting to their environment.

11. All species of animals and plants arise, eventually leading to highly advanced, complex beings—hominids.

12. Due to extreme complexity in functioning and the interplay of millions of electrical nerve impulses in the brain, some begin to perceive their own existence—the first consciousness emerges—man is born.

13. Humans evolve, using abilities no other being possesses to create their own world and strive to understand the Space around them.

14. Thus, Space perceives Space; it becomes self-aware through us.

It is a process, not something that has always existed. It is a process because Space is structured this way; if it weren't, the universe likely wouldn't function as it does now.

I was generous enough to present my arguments for discussion before you did, despite my own initial demand for proof... Your turn.


Appreciate the generosity... though I suspect you realize that these pieces of evidence from the origins of Space don't prove consciousness didn't precede the "creation" of the universe. In fact, using those exact same facts, one could argue the opposite—that consciousness preceded creation and actually drives it.
We also know the mystery of the beginning doesn't permit a definitive scientific answer, merely a hypothesis.
So, without disputing a single one of your cited "scientific proofs"
(none of which address the nature of consciousness itself) I can claim my position with equal right and based on the exact same material.

A few arguments, then...

What is consciousness-intelligence? It isn't a physical or material fact... it’s metaphysical. Consciousness isn't "material," isn't "objective," and isn't matter. It is an internal, essential property and attribute (one that encompasses and unifies all other properties of "matter"). You don't see it as an "object"; it is experienced subjectively and manifests objectively as a whole... making it a "process" in itself. And as a process, it cannot be isolated or located; it can only be observed within the whole.
We are the proof. We feel the continuity of our own consciousness internally, yet we cannot see someone else's consciousness. Instead, we infer their awareness through their behavior—their manifestation—by analogy.
If consciousness-intelligence isn't a material fact (which science hasn't proven to be so), but rather a property of the whole that defines the process manifesting in creation—and since humans are the result of the cosmic process—it is perfectly logical that consciousness-intelligence is present throughout the entire process of creating both the universe and humanity. They are inseparable from the whole.
Therefore, manifestation cannot be the cause of consciousness-intelligence; quite the contrary, manifestation is the proof of it.
Consciousness-intelligence is recognized not as matter, but as the "total behavior of matter." And we see that matter behaves intelligently and consciously during creation (universe-life-humanity).
In this sense, we can't even speak of matter in the traditional sense. People assume matter is static and finite, but physics already knows better... matter isn't a "given substance," but a continuous process.

Just as you can't take a "piece" of a living human to prove life or intelligence exists, you can't take a "piece" of the universe to prove its nature. Just as a human is only comprehensible as a whole, the universe, along with humanity, is only comprehensible as a whole.
Everything is one seamless process. Nothing is understandable in isolation.

From all this, I am quite happily... and entirely freely (without contradiction) drawing the conclusion that everything that exists is one infinite, living consciousness-intelligence. This includes the conscious act of creation itself, as well as the perception that gathers this totality into a meaningful whole. Even if it remains invisible to me (sigh), it is most likely true.

That is my theory... my probability.😉
hiddenviper9 hiddenviper9 Active Member
81 messages
joined Oct 2003
#79 ·
YES! Pandora, spot on: ...consciousness preceded the creation of the universe—and it is that very consciousness that brings it into being.

Just wanted to share this.
Scientists tend to overlook two key things.
1. They forget (or simply don't realize) that Nature itself is Infinite!!!
Absolutely everything else, even if it is Eternal, remains finite.

2. They overlook the fact that within an Infinite Nature, there is an Infinite flow of transience.

-------------------
- Shouldn't we ask ourselves: from any given point along this "circle of Eternal transience," how many universes have already emerged and vanished?

-------------------
- They ignore (or just don't get) that all intelligent beings agree on one thing: Nature thinks.

And thought is an energetic potential.

Doesn't the answer to how energy—and ultimately matter—appears lie right there?

So, Pandora, your take on consciousness and intelligence is absolutely right on the mark.

Honestly, reading your posts, I can only say you are a force to be reckoned with! 👍 👍
Rachel Bishop Rachel Bishop Active Member
80 messages
joined Jul 2003
#80 ·
Thanks, Delilah, and... well... 👋 🙂

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads