attofishpi wrote:Greylorn Ell wrote:My Creator-concept is entirely different from yours, and from everyone else's. What it lacks in agreement base it makes up for in simplicity, clarity, integration with every known physics principle, and its consistency with all scientific and empirical observations of reality. It provides a theoretical platform for serious paranormal research, and as a bonus, it explains dark energy.
I appreciate input on the forum relating to differing concepts of a 'God', as i have stated many times i know a 'God' exists and am attempting to fathom its true nature. I am not even certain that this 'God' is a creator rather than a result.
I am in constant contact with this entity, today i asked it whether it is an AI as i have done countless times in the past and today it replied "you're good."
Since you have done so much work to prove, at least to yourself that there are in fact 'creators' may i ask if these entities have ever contacted you? Surely they must be impressed with your endeavours.
I believe that when they arranged for me to drop 10 feet onto a slab of concrete one Thanksgiving morning, leaving me forever crippled, they might have been telling me to quit wasting my time going dancing or trying to find a good woman who'd put up with me, and get to work. More likely they were trying to kill me to prevent me from writing, and the assholes came pretty close.
I'm certain that they were involved in sabotaging the success of my first book and insuring that it would never be made into a movie. However, I've had no direct contact with them. I describe some experiences looking for a good psychic in the years after that book was published, but found only fraud. I'm not personally very psychically sensitive, but did manage to teach two people the art of trance channeling. They were quite good; one of them made a nice living at it.
However what I learned confirmed an earlier suspicion that whatever beon-level entities we might connect with don't know jack shit about the origin and purposes of the universe, being just as dumb and ignorant as when they died. We will not learn from them because they are not even as smart as some of our best thinkers.
Many religioinists have been programmed to believe the nonsense that upon death, if they lived a "good" (meaning harmless, risk-free, and obediently simple) life, they'd go to heaven, whereupon they would suddenly know and understand everything. My ordinary, simpleminded mother actually believed that after she died she'd know all the physics and math that I'd struggled for years to learn, and more. (Last I heard, she reincarnated after a few years and was living another ordinary life, different sex. Who knows? Who cares?)
I suspect that your view of a creator includes a bit of religious lore. Mine does not. I have no doubt that you can connect with spooks at some levels (a common skill) but am certain that you're not connecting with the Prime Spook. You're just listening in on a tertiary spook party-line set up for believers with some psychic leakage, to keep them mollified.
I'm certain that the spook powers-that-be do not understand my ideas, because they don't know the physics. What they do understand, they don't like. They won't try to kill me again, but they have proven successful at putting all possible impediments in my futile attempts to get Beon Theory examined by intelligent people. I regard disincorporated beons no differently from those connected to a body-- they have their beliefs, and bureaucracies set up to organize those beliefs into a comprehensive agenda. I personally believe that they've chosen a wrong and evil agenda.
attofishpi wrote:I obviously see no conflict with the 'God' that i know exists with any scientific principle. Though i am far from being a scientist, i have an intelligent analytical mind and from what ive read in relation to quatum mechanics or the multiverse i am fully aware as to how this 'God' entity has communicated itself to me whilst others around me are totally in the 'dark' as to its existence and to what it is only intending for me to bare witness to.
An interview of Sir Roger Penrose in Discover magazine includes his opinion that modern physics has made some serious errors, such as string theory and QM. He actually understands the math behind these ideas. Forget multiverse theory, which is complete bullshit that exists only because TV documentary channels thrive on selling bullshit to ignorant viewers, who then move on to purchase advertised products.
Regarding conflict with your God and science-- do you believe that God created the universe from nothing?
If so, he will have had to create energy from nothing. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created. I cannot imagine a more deeply fundamental conflict between physics and religious belief.
attofishpi wrote:If your concept of this creator is simple and easy to clarify as you have stated, then you should endeavour to do so, here on this forum. I'm sure there are enough intelligent minds amongst us to support your ideas if they are conveyed correctly.
I've yet to encounter anyone on this forum who might be capable of understanding my simple concepts. Some of that is the result of inadequate background, but I've not encountered anyone here who might be willing to obtain the requisite background.
Perhaps as a child you might have admired a rainbow and wondered what it was, or how it was formed. Had you asked your father he'd not have been able to explain it. I imagine that now you could ask WikiP and get an explanation that you would not understand, but would assure you that some scientists understood it. To actually understand how a rainbow works you would need to learn some basic physics and the calculus required for its understanding, then study the behavior of electromagnetic energy so as to learn the principle of diffraction. When you can actually write out an equation that describes electromagnetic diffraction in a particular material geometry, you'll have mastered your understanding of rainbows, and a lot of other stuff in the process.
That hard-won understanding could be the beginning of a career in optics, after a few more years of specialized study.
Understanding Beon Theory is much easier than understanding rainbows. However, it is built upon and integrated with some simple principles of classical physics. Without first understanding those principles, Beon Theory cannot make sense. Believe me, I've been at this for a half-century, and I've tried a variety of simple explanations that did not include the physics.
I once thought that the theory could be easily communicated to anyone who actually knew some physics, and tried doing so on several physics forums. There I encountered the problem of bias. The people on those forums were unwilling to consider any possibility of an integration between a God or soul concept and physics, because doing so would have violated their religion-- atheism. "Hypography" was the worst. I was attacked by every moderator on that stupid forum, plus the forum's cherished resident nitwit. Other potentially interested readers would not have had the courage to go up against the nitwit/moderators, because ordinary people shy away from nasty, unconstructive criticism.
For these reasons I've gathered my ideas in a book, as you know, "
Digital Universe -- Analog Soul" which might still be available on Amazon, who now nicks me $5 for every book they sell. No riches there. However the book is available from me, $25 including shipping, which means that I have to pack it up and address it and kill an hour driving to the nearest post office. Of course that's USA shipping. If anyone in the U.K. wants a cheaper copy, perhaps I can work a deal with a granddaughter who'll be crossing the pond late summer to carry a copy and ship it within the U.K., but I still have to send her the copy about 2000 miles within the US.
The book does what I cannot reasonably propose to do here-- lay the physics and religious/philosophical foundation necessary to make sense of the simple theory. The physics is simple too, but ultimately, understanding Beon Theory, simple as it is, requires understanding of some other simple things.
It's like learning to drive a stick-shift automobile vs. a car with a slush-pump. Having three pedals on the floor instead of just two makes a difference. The driver must learn to synchronize the clutch, accelerator (and sometimes the brake) with his manual selection of gears, while steering and observing the nearby traffic.
I find that most people, particularly philosophers, are slush-pump drivers. They want to put the automatic gearshift in Drive or Reverse, then step on the gas and go. Their gearshift lever selects "Philosophy" and the accelerator selects "Logic," whereupon they're good to go.
Beon Theory is more like a classic Ferrari with six manually-shifted gears (logic, philosophy, physics, evolution, mathematics, and religion) with a third pedal, the clutch, that allows a driver to select between them. So naturally I'm looking for someone willing to learn to drive a classic Ferrari.
attofishpi wrote:
Defining omniscience as all knowing for me does not necessarily entail knowing all of the future. Do we agree on that?
Alas, no.
I like working with dictionary definitions because they provide a reliable standard for coherent communications.
There is no point whatsoever in conversing with someone who invents his meanings of a word to suit his agenda. I've recently chided Gee, an otherwise intelligent and thoughtful poster, for doing exactly that. Let's not do that, unless your agenda is more important than intellectual honesty.
In my work I use an obscure computer language (FORTH) that I helped to develop. It is so flexible that it allows a programmer using it to redefine any component of the language itself. For example, with a few words of code I can redefine "4" as "5." With equal ease I can define the symbol "+" that is normally used for the addition of numbers to mean, "plus 3 divided by 97." However, I do not use such redefinitions. There is no point in doing so, and it would render my code impossible for anyone else to read. After a few years, such code would make no sense to me, either.
The honest thinker does not resort to neurolinguistic programming to make his points. He uses the dictionary definitions of words, ideally the primary definition. If using a secondary definition he makes that usage clear.
If you want to adjust the meaning of a word to suit your opinions, then invent a new word (that's why I use "beon" instead of soul.) Or modify your word with an adverb or adjective, and
use that modified form consistently.
Following the rules of linguistic integrity, you might use a term like "temporal omniscience" after first explaining that it includes knowledge of past and current events only. You must always use this term in your arguments, never using "omnipotence" by itself. For complete integrity, if an argument references the dictionary definition, you might want to make that clear.
I may have a sense of where you think you might be going. (Absolute omniscience logically precludes free will, and you like free will.) Before you go there, consider the potential validity of even temporal omniscience. There are about 10 exp 80 (that's a "1" followed by 81 zeroes) protons in the universe. A temporally omniscient entity must know the exact position and momentum of every one of those elusive little buggers at any moment of time, and from all possible time perspectives (so as to account for relativistic effects).
If such an entity is also capable of past-event-omniscience, he must know the same information for the same protons for every moment (I'd be inclined to define that as a Planck interval, the smallest possible interval in which something can happen at the atomic level) from present to past, including the estimated 13-odd billions of years and multiple-quadrillion Planck-moments in between. I can calculate the number of such possible moments if it would be important (anyone with a calculator can do so), but I promise that it will be an ugly number, unfavorable to the opinion that "God knows all things."
