Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are asking questions but obviously not parsing the answers very well. You are conflating and confusing issues.
Just an FYI - when Mystic leads with insults about your intelligence, it generally means you've figured out the particular trick he's attempting to use.
Quote:
Measurement is a problem of our current technological capabilities, period. The unmeasurable part of our reality is currently 95+%. That leaves science constrained to the less than 5% that IS measurable. That is a separate issue entirely from the composition of our reality. The fields that science CAN measure are currently all within the less than 5%. But 100% of our reality is entirely established by a unified field. Only 95+% of it is NOT measurable that would include our consciousness.
Notice the inconsistency between "we can't observe 95% of the universe" and the confident claims about the content and nature of that unobservable stuff, as if he has some sort of magical knowledge that no one else can. It's a classic god of the gaps argument, and in this case the gap is our incomplete understanding of consciousness.
Your confusion probably stems from a common sense use of the term "physical" and the philosophically correct use of the term. Philosophically. the unified field and EVERY manifestation within it is "physical" or material" . . . but not necessarily measurable or perceptible as the commonly experienced ones within the less than 5%.
Ah, ok. So I can correctly refer to the entirety of our reality, including the 95 percent plus undetectable "god field" as a physical, but not necessarily detectable. We could also refer to the entirety as natural, following the same logic. This is good and now logically consistent.
That leads to my next two questions.
How did you determine the ratio of the manifested material "god field" (5 percent), and the imperceptible remaining portion of the "god field" (95 percent)? I'd imagine you're taking this from scientific findings that claim only 5 percent of the mass in the observable universe is "bright matter" or matter we can detect with current instruments. However, science does not claim the missing mass is simply a field, in fact, I'm not sure fields without particles (can fields exist without their associated particle?) actually have mass (this would seem to be what you're also indicating; the "god field" does not have mass). A percentage is thought to be dark matter and the largest percentage to be dark energy. And if we remember what good Ole' Albert taught us, matter and energy are two sides of the same coin. So the missing remainder would be more of the same stuff, if not detectable.
My second question is a bit more direct. If you can quantify parts of the "god field" this logically means the "god field" is finite. I'll strip the word field from the question and simply ask; Are you claiming this concept of god is finite? I can see no way you can have percentages of the whole of an infinite reality.
Last edited by NOTaTHEIST; 03-18-2014 at 03:52 PM..
If the "god field" is conscious as you claim, and the "god field" comprises or underlies 100 percent of our reality, does that mean you deem everything conscious?
Just an FYI - when Mystic leads with insults about your intelligence, it
generally means you've figured out the particular trick he's attempting to use.
Well, I hope he wasn't intentionally trying to be insulting, and as was discussed earlier in the tread, I also hope he's being honest and not attempting to trick. But yes, I take your point well. This tactic is old and very common in discussions such as this.
Your confusion probably stems from a common sense use of the term "physical" and the philosophically correct use of the term. Philosophically. the unified field and EVERY manifestation within it is "physical" or material" . . . but not necessarily measurable or perceptible as the commonly experienced ones within the less than 5%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST
Ah, ok. So I can correctly refer to the entirety of our reality, including the 95 percent plus undetectable "god field" as a physical, but not necessarily detectable. We could also refer to the entirety as natural, following the same logic. This is good and now logically consistent.
That leads to my next two questions.
How did you determine the ratio of the manifested material "god field" (5 percent), and the imperceptible remaining portion of the "god field" (95 percent)? I'd imagine you're taking this from scientific findings that claim only 5 percent of the mass in the observable universe is "bright matter" or matter we can detect with current instruments. However, science does not claim the missing mass is simply a field, in fact, I'm not sure fields without particles (can fields exist without their associated particle?) actually have mass (this would seem to be what you're also indicating; the "god field" does not have mass). A percentage is thought to be dark matter and the largest percentage to be dark energy. And if we remember what good Ole' Albert taught us, matter and energy are two sides of the same coin. So the missing remainder would be more of the same stuff, if not detectable.
This is correct. The energy/mass equivalence reveals that they are manifestations of the field within which they exist. There are no "particles" per se. They are a necessary artifice in the mathematical models . . . but they are simply measured vibrational "events" . . . manifestations of the field.
Quote:
My second question is a bit more direct. If you can quantify parts of the "god field" this logically means the "god field" is finite. I'll strip the word field from the question and simply ask; Are you claiming this concept of god is finite? I can see no way you can have percentages of the whole of an infinite reality.
You are making an unnecessary leap from concepts involving extrapolations of measurements to concepts involving the extent of reality. However finite or infinite our reality is . . . we simply extrapolate that the apparent percentage accessible to us with our measurements is parsed as 95+% and less than 5%.
Everything is IN God's consciousness . . . as Sir James Jeans said . . . "Our universe is more like a great thought than a great machine." It is as if our reality exists as one of God's dreams.
So then everything is not conscious, just everything is perceived by this god? Is that accurate? Say the plant outside my window isn't conscious, but the god perceives it? Is that what you're saying?
Everything is IN God's consciousness . . . as Sir James Jeans said . . . "Our universe is more like a great thought than a great machine." It is as if our reality exists as one of God's dreams.
We have given Mystic a tough time - as he has given us a tough time in the early stages of the debate. I believe in being fair- and to be fair, we don't know that he's wrong, just that we don't know that he's right to the extent he does.
But I looked up the James Jeans quote (and he was agnostic) and he had this to say
"2 Consciousness
Sir James Jeans, in an interview published in The Observer (London), when asked the question:
Do you believe that life on this planet is the result of some sort of accident, or do you believe that it is a part of some great scheme?
replied:
I incline to the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental, and that the material universe is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the material universe...
In general the universe seems to me to be nearer to a great thought than to a great machine. It may well be, it seems to me, that each individual consciousness ought to be compared to a brain-cell in a universal mind.
What remains is in any case very different from the full-blooded matter and the forbidding materialism of the Victorian scientist. His objective and material universe is proved to consist of little more than constructs of our own minds.
To this extent, then, modem physics has moved in the direction of philosophic idealism. Mind and matter, if not proved to be of similar nature, are at least found to be ingredients of one single system. There is no longer room for the kind of dualism which has haunted philosophy since the days of Descartes." Sir James Jeans addressing the British Association in 1934.
Apart from the dismissal of dualism, (and Mystic may recall that I thought that the dualism proposed as the conclusion of the Hard Question implied a kind of non - materialistic monism) Mystic could have written that.
However finite or infinite our reality is . . . we simply extrapolate that
the apparent percentage accessible to us with our measurements is parsed as 95+%
and less than 5%.
So these figures could in fact be meaningless on the grand scale?
So far, this is what I believe Mystic is proposing with an overarching consciousness thrown in. However, he seems ok with philosophically referring to everything as physical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
