Thread: God - Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient

Interesting...

Taosaur, what do you think of my answers (to your questions)? Do you see what I'm saying and do you think there's better a way around this obstacle you pointed out? I thought I'd have to mention God to re-contextualize old beliefs, but I guess I could have listed many names from many different cultures also. E.g. The Supreme Reality, Mind, etc.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Your "real systems" are confined to finite, particular phenomena, all of which arise interdependently and in concert from the ground of being, which is truly infinite and truly eternal. While one can trace patterns as far through existence as one can contrive to see, those causal networks only have actual existence in the present: Now is the only place that anything has existence because Now is all that exists, with nothing outside of it. There is ultimately no beginning to the interdependent co-arising because it is constant. This eternity is what we're discussing here.

First this nut needs to be cracked.

There are real systems and there are not-real systems.

Real systems are finite, infinite and eternal systems are thus not real.

Simply, AUM does not need to be infinite, the concept of infinity itself brings so many logical inconsistencies which includes infinite processes that requires infinite time and energy.

AUM or reality is relatively and apparently infinite , that is sufficient. Infinity in this view is a metaphor and not a mathematical abstraction.



Read "Infinity Gets Too Big for Real Britches", but I understand that if you want a more clear perception of the words one needs to read from the beginning of the trilogy.

I quote from "In the Beginning... Causality and Mysticism"

"The logic of causality only requires that a given system's beginning appears to be mystical from a point of view that lies within the system. The logic of causality can say nothing about the beginnings of its own system because those beginnings lie outside that system - Beyond the reach of its own causal logic. Beginnings belong to the higher level of causality and are beyond the purview or scope of a subsystem's own causal logic. Imagine a hierarchy of causal systems, each being a subset of the next. Thus mysticism may be removed if we can obtain the perspective of the superset to which we belong."

The scientific model is very comprehensive, it has to be, and without the whole picture any text read separately will contain some missing holes, that is why I strongly urge to the read the whole, and get a bigger picture. It will make sense as it is written to a westerners logical and rational mind.

Originally Posted by Quoted by Specialis Sapientia

"The logic of causality only requires that a given system's beginning appears to be mystical from a point of view that lies within the system. The logic of causality can say nothing about the beginnings of its own system because those beginnings lie outside that system - Beyond the reach of its own causal logic. Beginnings belong to the higher level of causality and are beyond the purview or scope of a subsystem's own causal logic. Imagine a hierarchy of causal systems, each being a subset of the next. Thus mysticism may be removed if we can obtain the perspective of the superset to which we belong."

It seems that this supports the view that Taosaur is advocating. If we postulate the existence of some causal system external to our own from which the 'illusion' of the mystical is evaporated, then how is the beginning of that causal system explained? Surely it too is mystical until one creates a yet larger causal network that itself is either infinite (hence mystical by the authors definition) or itself has the same mystical beginning. Does the author address this somewhere?

My opinion is that postulating the existence of a larger causual network as the author that you are linking to seems to be postulating is every bit as mystical as any of the other options.

Please understand that I'm pretty much a dyed in the wool reductionist but it seems that any way that we try to deny the existence of the mystical leads to contradiction. That is something of a problem for the programme of complete scientific understanding as advertised, is it not?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It seems that this supports the view that Taosaur is advocating. If we postulate the existence of some causal system external to our own from which the 'illusion' of the mystical is evaporated, then how is the beginning of that causal system explained? Surely it too is mystical until one creates a yet larger causal network that itself is either infinite (hence mystical by the authors definition) or itself has the same mystical beginning. Does the author address this somewhere?

My opinion is that postulating the existence of a larger causual network as the author that you are linking to seems to be postulating is every bit as mystical as any of the other options.

Please understand that I'm pretty much a dyed in the wool reductionist but it seems that any way that we try to deny the existence of the mystical leads to contradiction. That is something of a problem for the programme of complete scientific understanding as advertised, is it not?

It is to an extent explained in the chapter "In the Beginning... Causality and Mysticism", read it, it is only 3 pages.

The rest is explained throughout the trilogy, but I think your question is explained adequately in the link.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

It is to an extent explained in the chapter "In the Beginning... Causality and Mysticism", read it, it is only 3 pages.

The rest is explained throughout the trilogy, but I think your question is explained adequately in the link.

I did read it. It seems that you're going to have to explain to me how he avoids either:

a) an infinite regress of extended causal systems each of which has a beginning that appears mystical from within it until we move to the next level up.
b) an extended causal system which is infinite.

If he does not avoid one of those, I wonder how he claims that that is any less mystical than the beginning of our own causal system when viewed from within it.

My point is that dismissing the mystical as the lack of a potentially complete and logical understanding is just as mystical as anything else.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I did read it. It seems that you're going to have to explain to me how he avoids either:

a) an infinite regress of extended causal systems each of which has a beginning that appears mystical from within it until we move to the next level up.
b) an extended causal system which is infinite.

If he does not avoid one of those, I wonder how he claims that that is any less mystical than the beginning of our own causal system when viewed from within it.

My point is that dismissing the mystical as the lack of a potentially complete and logical understanding is just as mystical as anything else.

Okay, I try to make it a "a or b".



A) Must everything has a cause?

If no - We invoke to mystical beginnings.
If yes - The beginning is a logical impossibility. There can by definition be no beginning if everything must have a cause.

Statement: By the logic of causality beginnings are illogical. The logic of causality requires (because we do exist) the initial existence from which we are derived to erupt spontaneously from nothing. Clearly, the notion of objective causality must violate its own logic in order to get started.

B) There is no beginning, existence is somehow infinite and perpetual.

Statement: This assertion comes from nowhere and goes nowhere. The unbounded mysticism offers no possibility of answers or clues. Beginning with a premise that our ignorance of beginnings is total and perpetual is not particularly clever way to begin an analysis of beginnings. Easy perhaps, but not useful. This logical alternative provides trivial solution that leaves no foundation upon which to build reality.

Conclusion: Thus the logical result of invoking an objective causality is a mystical beginning. Likewise, the logical result of denying an objective causality (our beginning began without prior cause) is also a mystical beginning.

Further explanation:

• Causality is system specific.
  
• The logic of causality only requires that a given system's beginning appears to be mystical from a point of view that lies within the system. The logic of causality can say nothing about the beginnings of its own system because those beginnings lie outside that system - Beyond the reach of its own causal logic. Beginnings belong to the higher level of causality and are beyond the purview or scope of a subsystem's own causal logic. Imagine a hierarchy of causal systems, each being a subset of the next. Thus mysticism may be removed if we can obtain the perspective of the superset to which we belong.
  
• Thus our beginning, from the point of view of our objective causality, must be indefinable, or equivalently, mystical.

Implications:

• The subject of the creation of our reality is unknowable, thus the use of the word mystical.
  
• Once we realize the causal logic that gives us science also limits our understanding of the Larger reality (and its beginning), we are free to begin exploring the larger truth.
  
• Without this realization our perception and capacity to understand is trapped in a conceptual prison (a belief trap) of our own making.
  
• The erroneous belief in a universal causality (opposed to local causality) is repetitively used to to make those who dare rationally tackle the questions of beginnings appear to be ignorant and incorrect.
  
• The repeatedly asked question "What was before that?" inevitably must end with a confusion of complete ignorance existing at the foundation of an otherwise rational discourse.
  
• Our physical space-time causality is local and does not apply to "what was before that" - otherwise we would either be stuck with no beginning, or we would spontaneously popped out of nothing. Either of those alternatives lead to mystical beliefs that are not scientifically or logically productive. Neither makes good sense nor provides with the rational foundation from which to build a scientific Big Picture Theory of Everything.

• Our begging appears beginnings appear mystical to us because of the limitations of our logic and because of the limitations that our belief-based perspectives impose on our mind.
  
• If you raise science, vision and understanding to the next higher level of causality - to the supersystem that contains PMR (Physical-Matter-Reality) as a subsystem - the ever-present mysticism will recede to the outer edges of your newly acquired knowledge.

And the most important:

"By the time you reach the end of this trilogy, the veil of mysticism will be logically removed from our beginnings and you will clearly understand the roots of existence and how and why those roots came into being."

I hope this dissection helps you understand it. I must express that it would be more valuable for anyone to read the whole, as the understanding will deepen.

"The whole is so much greater than the sum of the parts" may apply here

I think I need a break now after typing all that by hand.

Any response from Really, Taosaur and Philosopherstoned?

I'm mulling it over. I'll be back to to you.

Good

First, in response to 'lly, whose name I shall henceforth abbreviate to distinguish from the adverb: your answers were satisfactory I'm personally ambivalent about the God concept, being acutely aware of the negative outcomes of viewing the source of being outside of time as an entity of absolute authority--THE LORD, who does things like write books and blow up cities. I do, however, recognize the broad accessibility imbued by personification, and the effectiveness of the Christ sacrifice in convincing people to "lay down [their] burdens," "love thy neighbor" and come to some peace in life. From my perspective as a reluctant Universalist, all systems of practice/belief have their strengths and weaknesses; the weaknesses of God-worship just happen to be the most threatening to my nation, humanity, and life on earth at present, which affects my cost/benefit analysis

Specialis, Campbell's Big TOE looks interesting, but also familiar. It appears to be a more recent iteration of the pseudo-scientific, New Age cosmologies that came out of the '70s Transcendental Meditation movement: see Stalking the Wild Pendulum and The Holographic Universe. I'm not writing it off--those are both great books! As Campbell himself states in his Introduction, however, "the model of reality is not the same as the reality itself" (actually, he states it in bold and asks the reader to repeat it three times).

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Further explanation:

• Causality is system specific.
• The logic of causality only requires that a given system's beginning appears to be mystical from a point of view that lies within the system. The logic of causality can say nothing about the beginnings of its own system because those beginnings lie outside that system - Beyond the reach of its own causal logic. Beginnings belong to the higher level of causality and are beyond the purview or scope of a subsystem's own causal logic. Imagine a hierarchy of causal systems, each being a subset of the next. Thus mysticism may be removed if we can obtain the perspective of the superset to which we belong.
• Thus our beginning, from the point of view of our objective causality, must be indefinable, or equivalently, mystical.

Implications:

• The subject of the creation of our reality is unknowable, thus the use of the word mystical.
• Once we realize the causal logic that gives us science also limits our understanding of the Larger reality (and its beginning), we are free to begin exploring the larger truth.
• Without this realization our perception and capacity to understand is trapped in a conceptual prison (a belief trap) of our own making.
• The erroneous belief in a universal causality (opposed to local causality) is repetitively used to to make those who dare rationally tackle the questions of beginnings appear to be ignorant and incorrect.
• The repeatedly asked question "What was before that?" inevitably must end with a confusion of complete ignorance existing at the foundation of an otherwise rational discourse.
• Our physical space-time causality is local and does not apply to "what was before that" - otherwise we would either be stuck with no beginning, or we would spontaneously popped out of nothing. Either of those alternatives lead to mystical beliefs that are not scientifically or logically productive. Neither makes good sense nor provides with the rational foundation from which to build a scientific Big Picture Theory of Everything.

• Our begging appears beginnings appear mystical to us because of the limitations of our logic and because of the limitations that our belief-based perspectives impose on our mind.
• If you raise science, vision and understanding to the next higher level of causality - to the supersystem that contains PMR (Physical-Matter-Reality) as a subsystem - the ever-present mysticism will recede to the outer edges of your newly acquired knowledge.

We agree on a lot here: causality is local, and a more complete understanding of the dimensionality and behavior of our 'universe' would almost certainly reveal supersystems in which we are embedded--we have already discovered subsystems with their own peculiar causalities. Your analysis, however, still begs PhilosopherStoned's question.

In what sense are these supersystems and subsystems not infinite?

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

B) There is no beginning, existence is somehow infinite and perpetual.

Statement: This assertion comes from nowhere and goes nowhere. The unbounded mysticism offers no possibility of answers or clues. Beginning with a premise that our ignorance of beginnings is total and perpetual is not particularly clever way to begin an analysis of beginnings. Easy perhaps, but not useful. This logical alternative provides trivial solution that leaves no foundation upon which to build reality.

Conclusion: Thus the logical result of invoking an objective causality is a mystical beginning. Likewise, the logical result of denying an objective causality (our beginning began without prior cause) is also a mystical beginning.

Again, you simply don't seem to know what we're talking about when we discuss the all-encompassing, boundless, infinite, eternal aspect of existence. It's neither mystical nor "comes from nowhere," but arises naturally from an understanding that all boundaries are artificial, including the boundaries between each of us as an object/entity and the air, the sun, or the kitchen table, as well as the boundaries between past and present, causes and effects. This understanding is at once counter-intuitive, defying the conceptual construct we take for reality, and self-evident: whatever we take for a thing unto itself, an object, is in fact interpenetrating, exchanging substance with, and mutually co-defining everything in its surroundings. We're all somewhat aware of the material exchange, but close examination of time, cause and effect reveals the same interdependence and interpenetration.

Ultimately, the interpenetration is total; there is no clear line in time or space beyond which we can say that you, or a moon rock, or the Magellan Clouds have no further influence, nor a boundary within which to declare "Everything in here is me!" (or moon rock, or Magellan Clouds). All that is, has been, and will be, and all of the potentialities, are literally, viscerally One. Like your "actual infinity," it is one set encompassing all possibilities, and our situation as one specific realization by no means precludes recognizing, abiding in, and identifying with the whole; indeed, doing so seems necessary to our species, if only temporarily and at some remove by means of ritual, metaphor and dance, and for those seeking closer affinity with the eternal, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of disciplines for achieving it.

Nicely said, Taosaur.

Specialis, I have to reject it from what I have read so far but I am going to get the book and spend some time with it. I am interested in extended causal systems but this way of doing it doesn't seem to make anything anymore clear than it is already.

Ultimately, I do think that science is going to have to come to terms with the 'beginning' but I think that it is going to have to do this by realizing the continual beginning and not some abstract extended causality network that exists only to give cause to some concrete, distant beginning. By which I mean that said theory is going to have to have time and space as emergent properties. An extended causality network may be the way to go but I think that a non-causal network may be more to the point. There has been some effort to do this with 'spin networks'. They can get space as it is formulated in general relativity but not time. Go figure. Guess it's not the right formalism or they haven't figured it out how to properly apply it yet.

In his series of lectures, Joseph Campbell describes a native american group of tribes that had no nouns in their language. It wasn't "a" rabbit, it was "being a rabbit". While it is easy for many strictly scientific people to dismiss this as bizarre, I think that there is something profound to it. Existence is a verb first and a property second.

QFT gets at this by considering all states (irrespective of causal logic) to already be present in the 'vacuum state'. I think that that is the way to go. What is lacking is an explanation of why only those states that adhere to roughly causal logic actually seem to get noticed.

A lot of the mystery of how 'something came from nothing' is at least partly resolved by the observation that there isn't much of a difference between nothing and everything. They're both equally meaningless terms.

Of course the above is poorly organised 'word salad' and itself only 'pushes infinity away' but I like it. And maybe one day, someone will be able to wrap some math around it.

I'm pretty sure this has already been stated somewhere here but I haven't read. No time lately!! So forgive me if I am rehashing things that have already been said well. I will try to say them differently.

*****
God has infinite power to affect the world we experience. This is because the world we experience is an emanation of him.

In the perceived world of duality (matter and emptiness), anything can be changed. But God is singularity, one. There is neither matter nor emptiness within him. In the oneness, there is no changing or influencing to be done. There is only being.

Originally Posted by sephiroth clock

I'm pretty sure this has already been stated somewhere here but I haven't read. No time lately!! So forgive me if I am rehashing things that have already been said well. I will try to say them differently.

*****
God has infinite power to affect the world we experience. This is because the world we experience is an emanation of him.

In the perceived world of duality (matter and emptiness), anything can be changed. But God is singularity, one. There is neither matter nor emptiness within him. In the oneness, there is no changing or influencing to be done. There is only being.

Yeah I think that's a pretty good analogy. If nothing is outside of God, then everything arises out of Him, yes. In Oneness there is both thing(s) and nothing (form and formlessness), but I guess it could collapse into a greater Reality that is much harder to conceptualize.