Zero Point Field (The nature of a \'Creator\')
by BBella 
, Monday, February 11, 2013, 08:12 (4302 days ago)
I had no idea what heading to put this under but chose 'The Nature Of a Creator' because that is what it really is all about in the long run isn't it? I've just been reading about the Zero Point Field recently, there's a lot of sites connecting the Zero Point Field with God, consciousness, the Hall of Records (Akashic Records), Quantum Entanglement, etc. Maybe science is catching up with metaphyics, the foundation of many religions, may even the afterlife, etc? It can be the answer to may unanswered questions - maybe. Here are a few links but they are a mere smidgen. -http://odewire.com/48044/the-amazing-promises-of-the-zero-point-field.html-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-baksa/zero-point-field_b_913831.html-A discussion:-http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/philosophy-spirituality/14214-panpsychism.html-This article requires some serious time reading as it tries to tie up many ideas to the one zero point field. -http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_akashic1.htm
Zero Point Field
by David Turell , Monday, February 11, 2013, 15:34 (4302 days ago) @ BBella
> bbella:This article requires some serious time reading as it tries to tie up many ideas to the one zero point field. > > http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_akashic1.htm-"In regards to consciousness Laszlo states that "in the conservative view human communication and interaction is limited to our sensory channels ... [but] we are linked by more subtle and encompassing connections as well." Also "The connections that bind 'my' consciousness to the consciousness of others... are rediscovered today in controlled experiments with thought and image transference, and the effect of the mind of one individual on the body of another." Furthermore, "Native tribes seem able to communicate beyond the range of eye and ear... In the laboratory also, modern people display a capacity for spontaneous transference of impressions and images, especially when they are emotionally close to each other... transpersonal contact includes the ability to transmit thoughts and images, and ... it is given to many if not all people... this is the finding of recent experiments... Reliable evidence is becoming available that the conscious mind of one person can produce repeatable and measurable effects on the body of another... [also] Intercessory prayer and spiritual healing, together with other mind- and intention-based experiments and practices, yield impressive evidence regarding the effectiveness of telepathic and telesomatic information- and energy-transmission. The pertinent practices produce real and measurable effects on people, and they are more and more widespread. But mainstream science has no explanation for them. Could it be that our consciousness is linked with other consciousnesses through an interconnecting Akashic Field, much as galaxies are linked in the cosmos, quanta in the microworld, and organisms in the world of the living?'"-A very impelling view from the reading I have done. This is why I believe in a panentheistic God. God is universal consciousness.
Zero Point Field
by BBella , Wednesday, February 13, 2013, 20:52 (4299 days ago) @ David Turell
A quote from: http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_akashic1.htm->Mystics and sages have long maintained that there exists an interconnecting cosmic field at the roots of reality that conserves and conveys information, a field known as the Akashic record. Recent discoveries in the new field of vacuum physics now show that this Akashic field is real and has its equivalent in the zero-point field that underlies space itself. This field consists of a subtle sea of fluctuating energies from which all things arise: atoms and galaxies, stars and planets, living beings, and even consciousness. This zero-point Akashic-field--or "A-field"-- is not only the original source of all things that arise in time and space; it is also the constant and enduring memory of the universe. It holds the record of all that ever happened in life, on Earth, and in the cosmos and relates it to all that is yet to happen.-What I think is interesting about this possible eternal cosmic field of all information that ever was, is that "it" is the source of All That Is into which science is finally peering into and wrapping their minds around it's workings. Whether we call it God, source, the Akashic records, the All That Is, doesn't really matter. This field is the source of all that is, the base from which photons instantly carry info into and out of creating the reality of the seen and unseen. We could call it the mind of God or the source, it doesn't really matter what it's called, as long as we know it is the source of All That Is...agreed?
Zero Point Field
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 13, 2013, 21:42 (4299 days ago) @ BBella
> bbella: What I think is interesting about this possible eternal cosmic field of all information that ever was, is that "it" is the source of All That Is into which science is finally peering into and wrapping their minds around it's workings. Whether we call it God, source, the Akashic records, the All That Is, doesn't really matter. This field is the source of all that is, the base from which photons instantly carry info into and out of creating the reality of the seen and unseen. We could call it the mind of God or the source, it doesn't really matter what it's called, as long as we know it is the source of All That Is...agreed?-Yes, agreed. The field is the source of consciousness And psychic experiences and behaviour.
Zero Point Field
BBELLA: A quote from: http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_akashic1.htm-Mystics and sages have long maintained that there exists an interconnecting cosmic field at the roots of reality that conserves and conveys information, a field known as the Akashic record. Recent discoveries in the new field of vacuum physics now show that this Akashic field is real and has its equivalent in the zero-point field that underlies space itself. This field consists of a subtle sea of fluctuating energies from which all things arise: atoms and galaxies, stars and planets, living beings, and even consciousness. This zero-point Akashic-field--or "A-field"-- is not only the original source of all things that arise in time and space; it is also the constant and enduring memory of the universe. It holds the record of all that ever happened in life, on Earth, and in the cosmos and relates it to all that is yet to happen.-BBELLA: What I think is interesting about this possible eternal cosmic field of all information that ever was, is that "it" is the source of All That Is into which science is finally peering into and wrapping their minds around it's workings. [...] This field is [...] the base from which photons instantly carry info into and out of creating the reality of the seen and unseen. We could call it the mind of God or the source, it doesn't really matter what it's called, as long as we know it is the source of All That Is...agreed?-I've had another look at this, and I expect even atheists would agree that some form of "fluctuating energies" is the source of All That Is. But I think it does matter what we call it, because every name has associations. "Akasa" in Hindu philosophy is apparently ether, one of the five elements (so I don't see how it can have originated in 19th-century Theosophy, which drew heavily on Hinduism anyway). 'Akasa' is sometimes equated with Brahma the Hindu God of Creation, so we find ourselves caught up with Hindu gods and their mythology. It's the same when this energy is called the Mind of God. Which God? Edgar Cayce says each person is held to account after life and 'confronted' with their personal Akashic record ... "comparable to the biblical Book of Life which is consulted to see whether or not the dead are admitted to heaven." So for him the Hall of Records is not an image (e.g. for the way science can discover the past through the materials in which it's embedded). It's to be taken literally. He thinks the entrance to where the record is kept is under the Sphinx's front right paw, and its discovery may coincide with the Second Coming of Christ. Here we have mythology mixed with Christian concepts of judgement and heaven. The moment we delve, we're entangled in a web of ideas associated with the terms used to describe the field.-Ervin Laszlo looks into the panpsychic approach: Evolutionary Panpsychism: Laszlo further discusses the likelihood that consciousness is universal and that all 'things' are to some degree conscious; "there is no categorical divide between mind and matter... conscious matter at a lower level of organisation (the neurons in the brain) generates conscious matter at a higher level of organisation (the brain as a whole)... the emerging solution to the classical brain/mind problem is evolutionary panpsychism... [which claims that] all of reality has a mental aspect: psyche is a universal presence in the world... [and] psyche evolves, the same as matter... both matter and mind ... physis and psyche [prakriti and purusha] ... were present from the beginning: they are both fundamental aspects of reality..." Note that Laszlo specifies "to some degree" ... it's not human awareness as we know it. He then discusses the all-important question that divides the theist from the agnostic from the atheist: -"Could the cosmos itself possess consciousness in some form?", but this is difficult to answer since we cannot perceive the quantum vacuum directly and even if we could, "consciousness is 'private', we cannot ordinarily observe it in anyone but ourselves". However "We could enter an altered state of consciousness and identify ourselves with the vacuum, the deepest and most fundamental level of reality [like the vedic method of meditating upon Brahman]... would we experience a physical field of fluctuating energies? Or would we experience something like a cosmic field of consciousness? The latter is much more likely..."-Would even this "much more likely" field be a single self-aware being, or an interconnected mass of individual consciousnesses, with different degrees of awareness? The zero point field, like every other theory, seems open to a variety of interpretations, and so I'll happily agree that there's a cosmic field of energies which is the source of All That Is. And I'll happily agree that this field may consist of unselfconscious, physical, fluctuating energies, or of a single self-aware consciousness, or of energies with varying degrees of consciousness. I'll also happily agree that these last two alternatives might explain the strange phenomena arising from human consciousness. So where does that leave us? Simply with the fact that there's a cosmic form of energy that is the source of All That Is, and (like anything else except a complete vacuum) it contains information. No doubt Dawkins and David would agree.
Zero Point Field
by David Turell , Friday, February 15, 2013, 16:03 (4297 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Would even this "much more likely" field be a single self-aware being, or an interconnected mass of individual consciousnesses, with different degrees of awareness? The zero point field, like every other theory, seems open to a variety of interpretations, and so I'll happily agree that there's a cosmic field of energies which is the source of All That Is. And I'll happily agree that this field may consist of unselfconscious, physical, fluctuating energies, or of a single self-aware consciousness, or of energies with varying degrees of consciousness. I'll also happily agree that these last two alternatives might explain the strange phenomena arising from human consciousness.-Your first choice of unselfconscious energy makes no sense to me. As the source of ATI it must be self-analytic in making designs to crete the universe and all the rest. Your second choice which seems to help explain consciousness leads away from agnosticism and I understand yhour resistance to pursue that road.-> dhw: So where does that leave us? Simply with the fact that there's a cosmic form of energy that is the source of All That Is, and (like anything else except a complete vacuum) it contains information. No doubt Dawkins and David would agree.-What does Dawkins agree with?
Zero Point Field
by BBella , Saturday, February 16, 2013, 22:17 (4296 days ago) @ dhw
BBELLA: A quote from: http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_akashic1.htm > > Mystics and sages have long maintained that there exists an interconnecting cosmic field at the roots of reality that conserves and conveys information, a field known as the Akashic record. Recent discoveries in the new field of vacuum physics now show that this Akashic field is real and has its equivalent in the zero-point field that underlies space itself. This field consists of a subtle sea of fluctuating energies from which all things arise: atoms and galaxies, stars and planets, living beings, and even consciousness. This zero-point Akashic-field--or "A-field"-- is not only the original source of all things that arise in time and space; it is also the constant and enduring memory of the universe. It holds the record of all that ever happened in life, on Earth, and in the cosmos and relates it to all that is yet to happen. > >...We could call it the mind of God or the source, it doesn't really matter what it's called, as long as we know it is the source of All That Is...agreed?[/i] > > I've had another look at this, and I expect even atheists would agree that some form of "fluctuating energies" is the source of All That Is. But I think it does matter what we call it, because every name has associations...The moment we delve, we're entangled in a web of ideas associated with the terms used to describe the field.-Yes, you are right. It does matter what we "choose" to call it since usually we call it what we believe it to be, which holds energetic associations with it. It is for this very reason I do my level best not to "delve" too deep into others ideas and associations of what this source is - other than on a cold scientific level, and even that is ever evolving with no real concrete. I allow room for evolution about just what it is. I may skim, skirt, skip or consider thoughts and ideas about it, but all in all, I know my perspective is mine alone, altho in an ever evolving state of transition - not just about what it is, but also what I want or hope this source to be. -So, yes, we all look at this source thru our own (separate for the most part) perspective lenses. Is there one "Truth" about what is there? Or is this source so malleable it is what each of us believe it to be? Maybe this source accommodates each, or possibly even a collective perspective? Maybe it is no more than creation (a verb not a noun) itself? It could be that malleable. Just to consider that thought, for me, is tantalizing. Whatever "it" is, we are. We do not peer into it, we peer from it - we are peers together, entwined (in-twined), yet consciously choosing to be separate for this very reason - to be autonomous.
Zero Point Field
by David Turell , Saturday, February 16, 2013, 23:43 (4296 days ago) @ BBella
> b bella:So, yes, we all look at this source thru our own (separate for the most part) perspective lenses. Is there one "Truth" about what is there? Or is this source so malleable it is what each of us believe it to be? Maybe this source accommodates each, or possibly even a collective perspective? Maybe it is no more than creation (a verb not a noun) itself? It could be that malleable. Just to consider that thought, for me, is tantalizing. Whatever "it" is, we are. We do not peer into it, we peer from it - we are peers together, entwined (in-twined), yet consciously choosing to be separate for this very reason - to be autonomous.-The reason we have separate views is that no one really knows. I think we are part of IT and yet autonomous, otherwise humans would not create so much evil. Religions have their individual concepts and we thinking folks each have our own. But what we are discussing must be close to the 'truth' that there is a basic energy underlying all of this. And I feel the energy is self-aware and thoughtful. Otherwise the universe would not be following the laws it does and we would not have evolved, if anything evolved at all.
Zero Point Field
by BBella , Saturday, February 16, 2013, 22:36 (4296 days ago) @ dhw
Ervin Laszlo looks into the panpsychic approach: > Evolutionary Panpsychism: Laszlo further discusses the likelihood that consciousness is universal and that all 'things' are to some degree conscious; "there is no categorical divide between mind and matter... conscious matter at a lower level of organisation (the neurons in the brain) generates conscious matter at a higher level of organisation (the brain as a whole)... the emerging solution to the classical brain/mind problem is evolutionary panpsychism... [which claims that] all of reality has a mental aspect: psyche is a universal presence in the world... [and] psyche evolves, the same as matter... both matter and mind ... physis and psyche [prakriti and purusha] ... were present from the beginning: they are both fundamental aspects of reality..." > > Note that Laszlo specifies "to some degree" ... it's not human awareness as we know it. He then discusses the all-important question that divides the theist from the agnostic from the atheist: > > "Could the cosmos itself possess consciousness in some form?", but this is difficult to answer since we cannot perceive the quantum vacuum directly and even if we could, "consciousness is 'private', we cannot ordinarily observe it in anyone but ourselves". However "We could enter an altered state of consciousness and identify ourselves with the vacuum, the deepest and most fundamental level of reality [like the vedic method of meditating upon Brahman]... would we experience a physical field of fluctuating energies? Or would we experience something like a cosmic field of consciousness? The latter is much more likely..."-I believe I have seen the field and re-cognized it as myself. I am the field with no separation from it. All just a twinkling soup. I saw that I was in complete control and ran the show of this twinkling soup (consciously and subconsciously). What I see within my field is meant for my eyes only. What I behold is "my" field (this is the choice consciousness has when it evolves into self awareness). And altho we could all look into this same field, because we see from different perspectives within the field, the field accommodates each perspective. It works for us all. I have seen the field and know what it looks like and know it's me. I assume it is the same for us all, but that is not for me to say for another person. What I saw is obviously for my eyes only. What this means for me and the me that is a part of the collective, is what is evolving. Nothing, but the memory of what I experienced is left of that experience. So how I choose to incorporate it into my ever changing experience is yet to be seen. -> > Would even this.... field be a single self-aware being, or an interconnected mass of individual consciousnesses, with different degrees of awareness?-Or could it be both? From my own observation, the field is a single self-aware being. It is me - I am it. Yet, I also have the awareness that this same field accommodates each self-aware (as well as differing degrees) of consciousness and is their own personal field as well. We are all interconnected within this web of one field, and their is only one (whether it has dimensions and levels I have no idea). ->The zero point field, like every other theory, seems open to a variety of interpretations, and so I'll happily agree that there's a cosmic field of energies which is the source of All That Is. And I'll happily agree that this field may consist of unselfconscious, physical, fluctuating energies, or of a single self-aware consciousness, or of energies with varying degrees of consciousness. I'll also happily agree that these last two alternatives might explain the strange phenomena arising from human consciousness. So where does that leave us? Simply with the fact that there's a cosmic form of energy that is the source of All That Is, and (like anything else except a complete vacuum) it contains information. -This realization left me recognizing I am this cosmic field. Out of this field came life (me). After quieting my mind from all the ideas and information I received from everything I knew (which wasn't a lot), from there I began to observe just how this field works, thru observation only. This is when I began to recognize the fields synchronizing aspect and the echo factor (I've called it). I had mentioned this before here in the forum. Mystics, philosophers and religious masters have eluded to this aspect of "what is" as well. But that is handed down information. I've been trying to go on my own observation but I can't really get away from the info that goes before within the field. All the info is all there, and is all connected within the field. So for me, it all comes down to what I choose to hold as my own and what I choose to do with what I choose.
Zero Point Field
by David Turell , Saturday, February 16, 2013, 23:48 (4296 days ago) @ BBella
> b bella: This realization left me recognizing I am this cosmic field. Out of this field came life (me). After quieting my mind from all the ideas and information I received from everything I knew (which wasn't a lot), from there I began to observe just how this field works, thru observation only. This is when I began to recognize the fields synchronizing aspect and the echo factor (I've called it). I had mentioned this before here in the forum. Mystics, philosophers and religious masters have eluded to this aspect of "what is" as well. But that is handed down information. I've been trying to go on my own observation but I can't really get away from the info that goes before within the field. All the info is all there, and is all connected within the field. So for me, it all comes down to what I choose to hold as my own and what I choose to do with what I choose.-You've had an experience I'e never had. You have much more psychic ability than I do, but I think you are very close to the 'truth'.
Zero Point Field
DAVID (to BBella:) You have much more psychic ability than I do, but I think you are very close to the 'truth'.-I lag way behind both of you, and am fascinated by what is coming out of these discussions. I'll pick up on two of David's comments later, but I'll go delving into BBella's posts first, which contain something that surprised me. In response to Laszlo's suggestion that with an "altered state of consciousness" we might experience "a physical field of fluctuating energies" or "a cosmic field of consciousness", with the latter more likely, I asked: "Would even this...field be a single self-aware being, or an interconnected mass of individual consciousnesses, with different levels of awareness?"-Your response is: "Or could it be both? From my own observation, the field is a single self-aware being. It is me ... I am it." And later you repeat: "I am this cosmic field."-My reference to a single self-aware being was made with an eye on David's belief that this single being is his God, who has designed the universe, life and evolution with the purpose of creating humans. Your own concept is clearly quite different: you are the field, but you go on to say that the field is also other consciousnesses "all interconnected within this web of one field", which may take on whatever subjective form you wish it to have. This is a reflection of the subjectivity that marks all our beliefs. Then you conclude by saying: "...it all comes down to what I choose to hold as my own and what I choose to do with what I choose." This free choice was integral to your ideal afterlife, but here you go one step further in so far as it relates to 'truth' itself perhaps being what you call malleable. It's a very different 'truth' from David's, which is firmly fixed, and this is where I find your whole concept difficult to link with the source of All That Is.-David feels that "the energy is self-aware and thoughtful." If we accept the reality of the universe and life, how do we reconcile their existence with David's conscious designer on the one hand, and a subjectively malleable 'truth' or source on the other? The universe and life are the product either of design or of chance (with certain forms of 'panpsychism' offering a nebulous alternative). There HAS to be an objective 'truth' about how we got here, and about all the things people believe. You can hardly be saying that God is/isn't the creator, the universe and life did/didn't come about by sheer chance, the Dogon Amma and Nommo did/didn't originally exist inside an enormous egg, the field is/is not self-aware, etc. So is this malleable truth (about the nature of the source) in fact no kind of truth at all, but simply your way of saying we'll never KNOW the objective 'truth', and therefore we can believe what we want to believe, both now and in our possible afterlife? -And so to the shock of the day: -DAVID (continuing from the above remark about the energy): Otherwise the universe would not be following the laws it does and we would not have evolved, if anything evolved at all.-David, are you now doubting common descent, and veering towards creationism?
Zero Point Field
by David Turell , Monday, February 18, 2013, 20:25 (4294 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: David, are you now doubting common descent, and veering towards creationism? -No, I believe in theistic evolution. Evolution happened. It is the way chosen to advance to human beings. I favor DNA designed from the beginning to reach that goal, but I cannot know if God tampered along the way to be sure of reaching the goal or his code was so perfect from the beginning that no guidance was necessary.-What is true is life is very tenacious and can grow and thrive in any kind of environment, which means to me, life was designed to manage in any kind of environment developed by an evolving universe. Thus evolution of the universe and of life are designed to work together as each evolves.-Of course I have answer to why God chose to evolve everything. I have read the opinion that He could not do it any other way. Possible, but again 'the don't know category' fits.
Zero Point Field
by BBella , Monday, February 18, 2013, 20:39 (4294 days ago) @ dhw
I lag way behind both of you, and am fascinated by what is coming out of these discussions. I'll pick up on two of David's comments later, but I'll go delving into BBella's posts first, which contain something that surprised me. In response to Laszlo's suggestion that with an "altered state of consciousness" we might experience "a physical field of fluctuating energies" or "a cosmic field of consciousness", with the latter more likely, I asked: "Would even this...field be a single self-aware being, or an interconnected mass of individual consciousnesses, with different levels of awareness?" > > Your response is: "Or could it be both? From my own observation, the field is a single self-aware being. It is me ... I am it." And later you repeat: "I am this cosmic field." > > My reference to a single self-aware being was made with an eye on David's belief that this single being is his God, who has designed the universe, life and evolution with the purpose of creating humans. Your own concept is clearly quite different ...[and].. integral to your ideal afterlife, but here you go one step further in so far as it relates to 'truth' itself perhaps being what you call malleable. It's a very different 'truth' from David's, which is firmly fixed, and this is where I find your whole concept difficult to link with the source of All That Is. > >...There HAS to be an objective 'truth' about how we got here, and about all the things people believe. -"IF" there is an, or ONE, objective truth about how we got here, then I would think there would also have to be ONE objective observer to the whole process of how we came to be. And if there is only ONE (because TWO observers would mean two different subjective opinions on the process) then that one observer would either have to be be an outside entity that watched it all happen or the God of all creation that David proposes there is, who did it all himself. And if there is just one objective observer, I would think it would have to be as self-aware as we are in order to observe and relate the process it observes. But, I personally am not stuck on the idea there HAS to be one object truth. Why would there HAVE to be? Everything that IS, is because of everything else that IS. One objective truth means to me, one objective observer. How could it be otherwise? And if there is one objective truth, wouldn't we ALL have to first step into the realm of acknowledging there is one self-aware creator/observer to even begin to get the scoop on how the process went down so we could begin to comprehend it?
Zero Point Field
by David Turell , Monday, February 18, 2013, 21:10 (4294 days ago) @ BBella
bbella: But, I personally am not stuck on the idea there HAS to be one object truth. Why would there HAVE to be? Everything that IS, is because of everything else that IS. One objective truth means to me, one objective observer. How could it be otherwise? And if there is one objective truth, wouldn't we ALL have to first step into the realm of acknowledging there is one self-aware creator/observer to even begin to get to scoop on how the process went down so we could begin to comprehend it?-I don't see how there can be more than one first cause to this process. It can't be like the Kentucky Derby with several causes as the starting gate. We had one Big Bang, one evolutionary process which, granted, went off in a number of bush-like directions, and one set of humans, tuned into the intelligent universe. Your thought follows my line of thinking exactly once you jump onto the first cause option.
Zero Point Field
BBELLA: "IF" there is an, or ONE, objective truth about how we got here, then I would think there would also have to be ONE objective observer to the whole process of how we came to be.-This is the argument that there is no reality without an observer, and of course you are in the very good company of philosophers, mystics and quantum physicists. There is no counter to this, since our only knowledge of what exists or has existed comes from observation. The discussion could end there, but I find such a conclusion deeply unsatisfying because I genuinely believe not only that I am a present reality, but also that you are real and would still be real without my being here, and that dinosaurs would have existed even if people hadn't found their fossils, and that if the whole human race disappeared, there would still be stars in the sky. If this discussion is to continue, we therefore need to decide what level to hold it on. On the premise that you will, at least for the sake of argument, agree that we are both objectively real, that dinosaurs objectively existed, and that there are stars objectively in the sky, I will take up part of David's response, because contrary to his belief that your line of thinking follows his own, his argument actually illustrates mine: "I don't see how there can be more than one first cause to this process. [...]We had one Big Bang, one evolutionary process which, granted, went off in a number of bush-like directions, and one set of humans, tuned into the intelligent universe." Or there was no Big Bang, no evolution etc. David's is a subjective account, but objectively each detail must either be true or not true. However ... and this is the crucial point ... there are NO objective observers (unless David's creator God exists), and so we cannot know what is and isn't true. BBella: But, I personally am not stuck on the idea there HAS to be one object truth. Why would there HAVE to be? Everything that IS, is because of everything else that IS. One objective truth means to me, one objective observer. How could it be otherwise? And if there is one objective truth, wouldn't we ALL have to first step into the realm of acknowledging there is one self-aware creator/observer to even begin to get to scoop on how the process went down so we could begin to comprehend it?-Your last question is precisely the point I am trying to make. IF the universe and life are REAL, they can only have come into existence one way. But the only authority that can tell us that one way would be their creator. And so for us to "get to scoop", it would not even be enough to acknowledge his existence. We would have to have direct contact with him. Or, to take scepticism to its utmost limits, we would actually have to BE him (because otherwise, how would we know he wasn't just telling us a pack of lies?) This is what I was trying to say in my previous post: that your "malleable truth (about the nature of the source) [is] in fact no kind of truth at all, but simply your way of saying we'll never KNOW the objective 'truth'."- To make sure we don't lose our way between the two philosophical levels, let me sum up. If there is no such thing as objective reality/truth unless there is an objective observer, we can go no further. If we both agree that we/the universe/dinosaurs really exist/existed, there has to be an objective truth about how we/it/they came into existence. But that truth is only accessible to an objective observer (who would presumably be the creator of life and the universe). If there is no objective observer (= atheism), the objective truth can never be known. If there is an objective observer, he/she/it might possibly let us in on all the secrets. But I wouldn't count on that!
Zero Point Field
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 19, 2013, 21:58 (4293 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: But that truth is only accessible to an objective observer (who would presumably be the creator of life and the universe). If there is no objective observer (= atheism), the objective truth can never be known. If there is an objective observer, he/she/it might possibly let us in on all the secrets. But I wouldn't count on that!-All religious writers presume God will always be concealed.
Zero Point Field
by BBella , Wednesday, February 20, 2013, 21:20 (4292 days ago) @ dhw
BBELLA: "IF" there is an, or ONE, objective truth about how we got here, then I would think there would also have to be ONE objective observer to the whole process of how we came to be. > > BBella: But, I personally am not stuck on the idea there HAS to be one object truth. Why would there HAVE to be? Everything that IS, is because of everything else that IS. > > Your last question is precisely the point I am trying to make. IF the universe and life are REAL, they can only have come into existence one way. But the only authority that can tell us that one way would be their creator. -I agree with much of what you say, whether there was/is only one or many ways, in order for us to "know" for sure how we "all" came to be we would have to be told by the only one who knows, if there is ONE who knows. Unless - There is a way for us to know how we ourselves came to be - maybe in the afterlife or maybe our subconscious already knows, or maybe we get scientific proof one day on how we all came to be, or something in our DNA activates at some point and we personally or collectively just know, etc. But, if there is a creator, we won't know for sure there is a creator unless that creator wants us to know. That doesn't necessarily mean our creator would just say to us all at once, "hey, this is how it all went down folks, this is how I made you!" (unless the scriptures were his writings and that's all we get). Maybe one day we could just suddenly simply remember. As it is, all things that are (including what we are) has always been. So, in a sense, we were "all" there and have always been here, and somewhere inside us, we are witnesses to how we came to be. Maybe one day science could make a way for us to follow the pathway of our own emergence into beingness. That would be something! Or maybe in the afterlife we each have the ability to simply know.->This is what I was trying to say in my previous post: that your "malleable truth (about the nature of the source) [is] in fact no kind of truth at all, but simply your way of saying we'll never KNOW the objective 'truth'."-I wasn't really trying to say we will never know, I was giving how I view the All That Is. It's not for me to say whether we will or won't ever know. But, for now, we all see truth thru our own separated perspective even tho the truth does plainly exist. We are all the truth, in a sense. And we each choose to make of it what we will. This is a good thing to be separate and to see from different perspectives. Because, as you pointed out, we would "all" have to be one entity to see even one thing the exact same...and what fun would that be? -I recall a "wormhole" experience one time (I called these experiences in the short time I smoked marijuana for my pain during my illness but found I was too sensitive to it's effects even tho it helped a great deal with my pain), that in a split second I went back in time to when I was one...meaning, one conscious aware being, nothing else existed but me (god before the big bang maybe?). I felt so cold and very lonely. Then suddenly, a giant bright light happened in my mind, and I came to myself, thankful I was me. I've pretty much never looked back since. I haven't wanted to go backwards to understand how I came to be and to feel that loneliness ever again. I just became thankful I am a separated being and there is everyone else. Whether it's for a time or eternity, whether in an imperfect or perfect world, I like being separate and seeing things from a slightly different perspective than anyone else. continued...
Zero Point Field
by BBella , Wednesday, February 20, 2013, 21:21 (4292 days ago) @ dhw
continued...-> To make sure we don't lose our way between the two philosophical levels, let me sum up. If there is no such thing as objective reality/truth unless there is an objective observer, we can go no further. If we both agree that we/the universe/dinosaurs really exist/existed, there has to be an objective truth about how we/it/they came into existence. But that truth is only accessible to an objective observer (who would presumably be the creator of life and the universe). If there is no objective observer (= atheism), the objective truth can never be known. If there is an objective observer, he/she/it might possibly let us in on all the secrets. But I wouldn't count on that!-Yes, that pretty much sums it up. I agree that the universe exists and dinosaurs existed. And that if there is one objective truth we may one day be let in on just what that IS.-If I may, I'm reminded of a dream I once had while in the depths of my illness. Many Beings from many places (they all looked human but I knew they were from many different places and times) were all gathered and seated in a celestial stadium set somewhere in a far away universe surrounded by the night sky of stars and galaxies. Their discussions and murmurings were quieted by a gentleman pounding away at the podium set higher than the rest. He stated the purpose for the meeting. "We have all come to this point in time, again, to ask if there is anyone that has yet found the answer to our most important question of all time?" For a while no one said anything as they all waited. Then the gentleman stated, pounding again, "Just as I assumed. Let us adjourn and return to our homes." Just then, a child came to him pulling his pants leg and he knelt down to her as she whispered. He picked her up and stood her on a stool at the podium. He asked her if she had an answer to give for the most important question of all time? She stated that she did with a nod. With a bit of an indulgent grandfatherly laugh, he gestured for her to speak. She spoke 2 words: "What Is." The crowds all shook their heads and mumbled to each other not grasping what her words meant. They all returned to their homes still wondering. -I don't remember what the most important question was, or if there even was one. But I've not forgotten her answer, and I still try daily to grasp it's profound yet simple meaning. Of course it was just a dream, but in those days of darkness, for me, my dreams and visions were the only guidance and hope I had. And in some way, they remain a guide for me altho their meanings have never been clear, on some days they seem a bit clearer.
Zero Point Field
BBELLA: I had no idea what heading to put this under but chose 'The Nature Of a Creator' because that is what it really is all about in the long run isn't it? I've just been reading about the Zero Point Field recently, there's a lot of sites connecting the Zero Point Field with God, consciousness, the Hall of Records (Akashic Records), Quantum Entanglement, etc. Maybe science is catching up with metaphyics, the foundation of many religions, may even the afterlife, etc? It can be the answer to many unanswered questions - maybe. Here are a few links but they are a mere smidgen. http://odewire.com/48044/the-amazing-promises-of-the-zero-point-field.html-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-baksa/zero-point-field_b_913831.html-A discussion:-http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/philosophy-spirituality/14214-panpsychism.html-This article requires some serious time reading as it tries to tie up many ideas to the one zero point field. http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_akashic1.htm-I haven't had time to peruse all of these, and I'm not sure that the concept is necessarily linked to a Creator as such (i.e. a single, self-aware, purpose-led being). It's interesting that the third item is about panpsychism (which need not be theistic either), and one can certainly see the connection. The first of the websites details a number of very interesting experiments demonstrating links between mind and matter, as well as between mind and mind, and it stands to reason that if there is universal energy with degrees of what I prefer to call "intelligence", all kinds of connections should be possible, at least theoretically. In the discussion, though, it says: "Panpsychism declares that the entire universe from the most distant galaxy all the way down to the smallest particle or wave is entirely sentient or conscious." This is horribly misleading, as it suggests that all matter is as conscious and sentient as humans. That is NOT what is suggested (let alone declared) by the panpsychist variants I've read about. As you say, BBella, there are all kinds of ideas linked together here, just as there are in the many different versions of panpsychism, but I'd need to study both theories more closely to find out how they differ. A.N. Whitehead was a panexperientalist (a variant of panpsychism) and a leading light in process theology, who believed that everything was "a field spread out temporally and spatially; every object, from a human body to an electron, is composed of events or processes" and according to his metaphysics the basic unit was an experiential event called an 'actual entity', which unifies "its relations to the other actual entities of the world it appropriates" (quotes taken from an article on ANW in my invaluable Oxford Companion to Philosophy). David will be pleased to hear that according to Whitehead, "God plays a central role in this appropriating process." I'm not going to pretend that I understand all of this, but the similarity to the zero point field is pretty clear.
Zero Point Field
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 15:50 (4301 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: A.N. Whitehead was a panexperientalist (a variant of panpsychism) and a leading light in process theology, who believed that everything was "a field spread out temporally and spatially; every object, from a human body to an electron, is composed of events or processes" ......David will be pleased to hear that according to Whitehead, "God plays a central role in this appropriating process." I'm not going to pretend that I understand all of this, but the similarity to the zero point field is pretty clear.-All of this points to my parallel concept of God as a UI.