| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
timothy leary 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
|
 Posted: October 22 2015 at 18:11 |
|
^Now put a foundation under these statements. It would seem the realization there is no "true" self and that all boundaries can be equated to that imaginary state line between Ohio and Indiana.
|
 |
CosmicVibration
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 26 2014
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 1396
|
Posted: October 22 2015 at 19:05 |
 timothy leary wrote:
^Now put a foundation under these statements. It would seem the realization there is no "true" self and that all boundaries can be equated to that imaginary state line between Ohio and Indiana. |
Except there are no boundaries for the “true” self. True Being is boundless; it is not bound by
space nor time. Its true abode is beyond
that of matter, energy and even thought / imagination. Beyond the material, astral and causal planes
of existence.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 22 2015 at 19:10 |
|
...Hmm, but what about this mountain.
|
|
What?
|
|
CosmicVibration
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 26 2014
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 1396
|
Posted: October 22 2015 at 20:45 |
According to Albert Einstein,” reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” Maybe because the mountain is over 99%
empty space, the rest called atoms are not material but energy fluctuations.
All matter is
composed of condensed energy; condensed energy is composed of condensed thought. Tuning in to the universal consciousness
(Christ Consciousness) one can easily make changes to any landscape by the
power of his will and thought.
Edited by CosmicVibration - October 22 2015 at 20:48
|
|
timothy leary
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
|
Posted: October 22 2015 at 20:57 |
CosmicVibration wrote:
timothy leary wrote:
^Now put a foundation under these statements. It would seem the realization there is no "true" self and that all boundaries can be equated to that imaginary state line between Ohio and Indiana. |
Except there are no boundaries for the “true” self. True Being is boundless; it is not bound by
space nor time. Its true abode is beyond
that of matter, energy and even thought / imagination. Beyond the material, astral and causal planes
of existence.
|
I think you did not read my post where I said boundaries and imaginary in the same sentence
|
|
CosmicVibration
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 26 2014
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 1396
|
Posted: October 22 2015 at 21:05 |
|
aah, i get it now...
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 22 2015 at 23:19 |
CosmicVibration wrote:
Dean wrote:
CosmicVibration wrote:
Nevertheless, I perceive this passage from the Bible on faith as being literal: “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘move from here to there’ and it will move; nothing will be impossible for you.”
|
Okay, my curiosity is piqued... If that quotation is to be taken literally then literally what does it mean (to you)? |
I should have probably elaborated a bit on the Soul in that post. The Soul is individualized Spirit. Spirit or God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. The Soul, made in the perfect image of God also possesses those same attributes. Moving or creating a mountain for an omnipotent Soul is mere child’s play. The more one tunes in to their true nature as an Omnipotent Being, the more so called miracles one can perform. “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘move from here to there’ and it will move.” To me this means that just a tiny fraction of self-realization can move mountains. Sort of analogous to extracting just a tiny fraction of energy from the vacuum can supply enough power for the entire planet. I can expand much more on any of this when I get home from work… |
CosmicVibration wrote:
According to Albert Einstein,” reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” Maybe because the mountain is over 99%
empty space, the rest called atoms are not material but energy fluctuations.
All matter is
composed of condensed energy; condensed energy is composed of condensed thought. Tuning in to the universal consciousness
(Christ Consciousness) one can easily make changes to any landscape by the
power of his will and thought.
|
Ah right. Unfortunately you cannot switch between quantum mechanics and newtonian mechanics as you are doing here, the terminology used in one is not interchangeable with the similarly named terminology in the other. You also cannot interchange these terms with similarly named terms used in the non-physics world.
For example: the quantum vacuum is a quantum state of lowest possible energy and therefore can also be called the vacuum state, that is: it is purely an energy state that is found, for example, inside a proton (or neutron). Fluctuations in this quantum vacuum are believed to the force that binds the quarks together that make-up each proton (or neutron) and account for 99% of their mass. Since this is a state of the lowest possible energy and quarks are ridiculously small then fluctuations in this energy state is exactly enough energy to bind the quarks together and no more so a fraction of this energy would not power the whole planet. A physical vacuum is a 3-dimensional volume that is devoid of particles, therefore contains no [quantum] energy. A physical vacuum (such as the vacuum of space) is not the same thing as a quantum vacuum.
Edited by Dean - October 22 2015 at 23:20
|
|
What?
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Online
Points: 20240
|
Posted: October 23 2015 at 03:01 |
I do believe bananas exist, though!!   All hail to bananas 
Edited by Sean Trane - October 23 2015 at 03:01
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 23 2015 at 06:53 |
..anyway, to return to the OP:
condor wrote:
Although most examples of faith seem suspicious, can you not have faith in your calculations? If we need to have evidence for everything, we will need to have simulations for myriads of things to the extent it will become impractical. |
The quick answer is no - you can never have faith in your calculations. You can only have varying degrees of confidence in them. To understand that you need to understand that having faith on ones calculations requires this definition of faith:
Definition of faith in English:noun[MASS NOUN]Complete trust or confidence in someone or something |
...as opposed to religious faith, which can be summarised as "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof"
So faith means "complete trust or confidence" and it would be both imprudent and arrogant to have complete trust in your calculations without some form of evidence because, as the old adage says: pride goes before a fall.
Even with trust or confidence in your calculations you will need some level of evidence that the calculation is correct. However, with experience you will build-up confidence in your ability to make those calculations and gradually require less evidence that they are correct to the point where you will trust that they are with the minimum of evidence.
That minimum evidence can actually be very minimal because it is not always practical to have (empirical) evidence for every calculation - so we need to increase our confidence using other means - a simple sanity check that you've used the right calculation is a good start, as is double checking your method, or checking that your result is in the right ball-park. Of those the last one is probably the most useful since an estimate of what the result should be will increase your confidence in the calculated result.
For example if you have calculated you will need 0.27 litres of paint to paint a room in your house - to use empirical evidence (i.e., 'evidence from observation') to prove that you would need to go out and buy 0.27 litres of paint to then discover that it only covered less than half a wall. Whether you had faith in your calculation is irrelevant here, you bought the wrong amount of paint and your calculation was wrong since you now know that you need to go out and buy more than 7 times that quantity. But first you should to go back to your calculation to see where it went wrong.
However if you knew from a previous proven calculation that it only took ½ litre of paint to cover a single wall in a similar room (i.e. 'evidence from experience') then you could have instantly told that you were in the wrong ball-park without having to prove your calculation empirically.
From either the empirical evidence or some previous 'experience evidence' a very quick estimate will tell that you should need something in the region of 2 to 3 litres. So you can see that your calculation has an error and you now know the scale of the error, so there could be a miss-placed decimal point in your calculation. Finding the miss-placed decimal point is simply a matter of double-checking your maths, but if that still gives 0.27 litres of paint then you now know something else is wrong:
The calculation for working out how much paint you require is simply area x coverage. To check that your equation is correct there is a technique called dimensional analysis where you check that the units on the left side of an equation equals the dimensions on the right, for example:quantity of paint in litres = area in square metres x coverage in litres/square metre.
quantity of paint in litres = area in square metres x coverage in litres/square metre. correct
so here you can see that the square metres/square metre cancel each other and both sides are in litres.
Now if the calculation you actually used was:
quantity of paint in litres = area in square metres x coverage in litres/square foot. wrong
you can quickly see that the square feet/square metre does not cancel so an extra term is required to convert the coverage in litres/square foot into litres/square metre, (or alternatively the area in square metres to the area in square feet) and that is simply a matter of finding out how many square feet there are in 1 square metre:
quantity of paint in litres = area in square metres x coverage in litres/square foot x (10.764 square feet / square metre).
quantity of paint in litres = area in square metres x coverage in litres/square foot x (10.764 square feet / square metre). quantity of paint in litres = area x coverage in litres/square foot x (10.764 square feet ) quantity of paint in litres = area x coverage in litres x 10.764). correct
and now the square metres/square metre cancel and square feet/square foot also cancel so both sides are in litres and your equation is now correct
|
So now you know where you went wrong and the quantity of paint you need is (0.27 x 10.765) litres = 2.9 litres, which fits in the same ball-park as your estimate.
| Not only that, the dimensional analysis actually informed you of what the missing term in the equation was - in the incorrect equation the units square metre and per square foot did not cancel so to make them cancel you needed to multiply one unit by "square feet" and divide the other by "square meters" so the missing term had the units of square feet/square metre, which tells you which conversion formula to use. |
To avoid buying the wrong quantity of paint you need to have confidence that your calculation was correct and it is not always practical to have evidence for that. But by performing checks like the above example you can increase your confidence in your calculation.
Edited by Dean - October 23 2015 at 07:36
|
|
What?
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: October 23 2015 at 08:24 |
|
I don't know how dimensional analysis worked its way into this thread, but I love it.
|
|
CosmicVibration
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 26 2014
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 1396
|
Posted: October 23 2015 at 09:51 |
Dean wrote:
CosmicVibration wrote:
Dean wrote:
CosmicVibration wrote:
Nevertheless, I perceive this passage from the Bible on faith as being literal: “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘move from here to there’ and it will move; nothing will be impossible for you.”
|
Okay, my curiosity is piqued... If that quotation is to be taken literally then literally what does it mean (to you)? |
I should have probably elaborated a bit on the Soul in that post. The Soul is individualized Spirit. Spirit or God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. The Soul, made in the perfect image of God also possesses those same attributes. Moving or creating a mountain for an omnipotent Soul is mere child’s play. The more one tunes in to their true nature as an Omnipotent Being, the more so called miracles one can perform. “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘move from here to there’ and it will move.” To me this means that just a tiny fraction of self-realization can move mountains. Sort of analogous to extracting just a tiny fraction of energy from the vacuum can supply enough power for the entire planet. I can expand much more on any of this when I get home from work… |
CosmicVibration wrote:
According to Albert Einstein,” reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” Maybe because the mountain is over 99%
empty space, the rest called atoms are not material but energy fluctuations.
All matter is
composed of condensed energy; condensed energy is composed of condensed thought. Tuning in to the universal consciousness
(Christ Consciousness) one can easily make changes to any landscape by the
power of his will and thought.
|
Ah right. Unfortunately you cannot switch between quantum mechanics and newtonian mechanics as you are doing here, the terminology used in one is not interchangeable with the similarly named terminology in the other. You also cannot interchange these terms with similarly named terms used in the non-physics world.
For example: the quantum vacuum is a quantum state of lowest possible energy and therefore can also be called the vacuum state, that is: it is purely an energy state that is found, for example, inside a proton (or neutron). Fluctuations in this quantum vacuum are believed to the force that binds the quarks together that make-up each proton (or neutron) and account for 99% of their mass. Since this is a state of the lowest possible energy and quarks are ridiculously small then fluctuations in this energy state is exactly enough energy to bind the quarks together and no more so a fraction of this energy would not power the whole planet. A physical vacuum is a 3-dimensional volume that is devoid of particles, therefore contains no [quantum] energy. A physical vacuum (such as the vacuum of space) is not the same thing as a quantum vacuum.
|
Empty space is actually a misnomer. Space is not empty, all space, including the physical 3d
vacuum that is devoid of particles.
Every cubic centimeter of space contains more energy than all the stars
in the known universe combined. And this is after physicists “renormalized” the
calculation. The answer actually comes
out to be infinite before “renormalization”.
I don’t understand why when physicists get infinity as
answer to one of their equations it’s “a total disaster?” I’ve heard this from Michio Kaku… I on the other hand see infinities everywhere…
Anyway, it’s not just a theory anymore; it’s been verified
in laboratory experiments such as the Casimir effect. Call it vacuum energy, call it vacuum
fluctuation, call it zero point energy, call it free energy, call it what you want,
I don’t think it really matters all that much.
There’s an inconceivable amount of energy all around us and
some day we will be able to extract just a tiny fraction of it for an endless
supply.
Edited by CosmicVibration - October 23 2015 at 09:53
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
|
Posted: October 23 2015 at 11:14 |
CosmicVibration wrote:
According to Albert Einstein,” reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” Maybe because the mountain is over 99%
empty space, the rest called atoms are not material but energy fluctuations.
All matter is
composed of condensed energy; condensed energy is composed of condensed thought. Tuning in to the universal consciousness
(Christ Consciousness) one can easily make changes to any landscape by the
power of his will and thought.
|
I've been reading your posts and I applaud your positive views and perceptions about the metaphysical and reality, but these can only be views and perceptions. Having great faith in yourself is a fantastic attribute and will give one the ability and courage to try to surmount difficult tasks. Unfortunately, physically moving a mountain, even with the best of intentions, is physically impossible. One of the great things about faith based philosophies is learning to accept things that one cannot change, or in the case of the mountain, physically move it. Peace.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 23 2015 at 12:05 |
I should have known from CosmicVibration's username not to ask how he thought the biblical quote was literal, but I forgot to put my thinking-head on yesterday.  However, I may attempt to respond to his posts later but at present I cannot find sufficient energy to argue with pseudoscience.
SteveG wrote:
CosmicVibration wrote:
According to Albert Einstein,” reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” Maybe because the mountain is over 99%
empty space, the rest called atoms are not material but energy fluctuations.
All matter is
composed of condensed energy; condensed energy is composed of condensed thought. Tuning in to the universal consciousness
(Christ Consciousness) one can easily make changes to any landscape by the
power of his will and thought.
|
I've been reading your posts and I applaud your positive views and perceptions about the metaphysical and reality, but these can only be views and perceptions. Having great faith in yourself is a fantastic attribute and will give one the ability and courage to try to surmount difficult tasks. Unfortunately, physically moving a mountain, even with the best of intentions, is physically impossible.One of the great things about faith based philosophies is learning to accept things that one cannot change, or in the case of the mountain, physically move it.Peace. |
The non-literal interpretation is that with faith you can achieve anything and here the mountain is just a metaphor. It should be noted that Jesus said this to his disciples after they had failed to drive a demon out of a small child, he chastised them of having too little faith before speaking the words in the quote. Moving the mountain is a measure of faith, not an indication the power of thought.
So the classical literal interpretation of the quote is not that the faithful can move the mountain just by the power of their thoughts, that would be capricious, heretical magic and even a sign of hubris. The only way for the mountain to literally move is for god to move it, but since god does not do things on the whim of mere mortals then, no matter how faithful they are, it will only move if god wants it moving. So if a person of sufficient faith (which Jesus states is as small as a mustard seed) commands the mountain to move then it is because of god's will (i.e., the faithful person's will is at one with god's).
Edited by Dean - October 23 2015 at 12:07
|
|
What?
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: October 23 2015 at 13:26 |
|
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
|
Posted: October 23 2015 at 13:31 |
Dean wrote:
I should have known from CosmicVibration's username not to ask how he thought the biblical quote was literal, but I forgot to put my thinking-head on yesterday. However, I may attempt to respond to his posts later but at present I cannot find sufficient energy to argue with pseudoscience.
SteveG wrote:
CosmicVibration wrote:
According to Albert Einstein,” reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” Maybe because the mountain is over 99%
empty space, the rest called atoms are not material but energy fluctuations.
All matter is
composed of condensed energy; condensed energy is composed of condensed thought. Tuning in to the universal consciousness
(Christ Consciousness) one can easily make changes to any landscape by the
power of his will and thought.
|
I've been reading your posts and I applaud your positive views and perceptions about the metaphysical and reality, but these can only be views and perceptions. Having great faith in yourself is a fantastic attribute and will give one the ability and courage to try to surmount difficult tasks. Unfortunately, physically moving a mountain, even with the best of intentions, is physically impossible.One of the great things about faith based philosophies is learning to accept things that one cannot change, or in the case of the mountain, physically move it.Peace. |
The non-literal interpretation is that with faith you can achieve anything and here the mountain is just a metaphor. It should be noted that Jesus said this to his disciples after they had failed to drive a demon out of a small child, he chastised them of having too little faith before speaking the words in the quote. Moving the mountain is a measure of faith, not an indication the power of thought.
So the classical literal interpretation of the quote is not that the faithful can move the mountain just by the power of their thoughts, that would be capricious, heretical magic and even a sign of hubris. The only way for the mountain to literally move is for god to move it, but since god does not do things on the whim of mere mortals then, no matter how faithful they are, it will only move if god wants it moving. So if a person of sufficient faith (which Jesus states is as small as a mustard seed) commands the mountain to move then it is because of god's will (i.e., the faithful person's will is at one with god's).
|
God will not move mountains on a man's whim, but men are chastised for not believing that God will move mountains. How strange. I know what you're trying to literally explain but it's flawed. Back to the topic of the our post. Can faith be really anything else than the power of thought. Is belief not also 'a power of thought'. Both of these examples are not physical powers, but are spiritual and therefore mental powers. I agree that a man can move a mountain physically with explosives, but prayer would not physically move it. But doesn't faith generally (perhaps not always) preclude that God answers prayers and can move the mountain. If not, then why do the faithful pray? And if not, how do you explain this dichotomy?
Edited by SteveG - October 23 2015 at 13:47
|
|
HackettFan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
|
Posted: October 23 2015 at 19:38 |
Dean wrote:
..anyway, to return to the OP:
condor wrote:
Although most examples of faith seem suspicious, can you not have faith in your calculations? If we need to have evidence for everything, we will need to have simulations for myriads of things to the extent it will become impractical. |
The quick answer is no - you can never have faith in your calculations. You can only have varying degrees of confidence in them. |
Thanks for bringing it back to the OP. Many people have answered as though the question is about whether people benefit from a faith-based outlook. This is not how the OP framed things. It framed the question of faith as being a part of (any and every) sound reasoning process (using the word "calculations"). It cannot be a part of that. And the word 'faith' used in its religious sense differs from the more mundane sense of having confidence or trust. I agree with Dean totally. I'd like to add, for a little additional perspective, that there are scientists who are religious. They see themselves as studying god's creation. The religious faith of these individuals lies in the source of the design, not in the design itself.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 23 2015 at 20:10 |
SteveG wrote:
God will not move mountains on a man's whim, but men are chastised for not believing that God will move mountains. How strange. I know what you're trying to literally explain but it's flawed. |
Everything about religion is flawed. It's the religious "get out of jail free" card that always makes it the believer's fault when the mountain doesn't move and god's will when it does.
Rest assured the person who authored Matthew's gospel knew the mountain was never going to move.
SteveG wrote:
Back to the topic of the our post. Can faith be really anything else than the power of thought. Is belief not also 'a power of thought'. Both of these examples are not physical powers, but are spiritual and therefore mental powers. |
I don't have an opinion so I'll formulate one: Power is the ability or capacity to do something and the phrase "the power of thought" is a only really associated with paranormal and parapsychology/pseudoscience stuff like telekinesis, telepathy and ESP and fall foul of so many laws if physics that the probability that any of them are real approaches zero. Mental powers on the other hand are the ability the brain to do normal thought-based things like data processing, reasoning, problem solving or invention.
Faith and belief are certainly not superpowers or anything of the sort so I wouldn't call them a "power of thought".
Belief and faith are not really mental powers either, but somethings that are enacted by one or more mental powers.
Mountains cannot be moved by thought.
SteveG wrote:
I agree that a man can move a mountain physically with explosives, but prayer would not physically move it. |
Man can only destroy the mountain with explosives, he cannot move it somewhere else. The Mountain does not move.
SteveG wrote:
But doesn't faith generally (perhaps not always) preclude that God answers prayers and can move the mountain. If not, then why do the faithful pray? And if not, how do you explain this dichotomy?
|
Sorry, I don't follow what you are saying because you've used too many negations for my tired brain to keep up. I follow this so badly I cannot even see two conflicting statements that could form a dichotomy.
Their god is omniscient, so he would know whether the mountain moved before there was even a mountain and he also would know when someone would ask for it to be moved. Yet still their god commands that the faithful shall pray. (so why do the faithful pray? ...because they were told to) [the question I would ask in return would be: what is the purpose of prayer?]
Since moving the mountain would be direct evidence of god, the mountain remains where it was formed.
Edited by Dean - October 23 2015 at 20:14
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 23 2015 at 20:11 |
|
|
|
What?
|
|
Tom Ozric
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2005
Location: Olympus Mons
Status: Offline
Points: 15916
|
Posted: October 23 2015 at 21:07 |
|
.......only when she farts in bed.......
|
|
CosmicVibration
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 26 2014
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 1396
|
Posted: October 23 2015 at 21:42 |
SteveG wrote:
CosmicVibration wrote:
According to Albert Einstein,” reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” Maybe because the mountain is over 99%
empty space, the rest called atoms are not material but energy fluctuations.
All matter is
composed of condensed energy; condensed energy is composed of condensed thought. Tuning in to the universal consciousness
(Christ Consciousness) one can easily make changes to any landscape by the
power of his will and thought.
|
I've been reading your posts and I applaud your positive views and perceptions about the metaphysical and reality, but these can only be views and perceptions. Having great faith in yourself is a fantastic attribute and will give one the ability and courage to try to surmount difficult tasks. Unfortunately, physically moving a mountain, even with the best of intentions, is physically impossible.One of the great things about faith based philosophies is learning to accept things that one cannot change, or in the case of the mountain, physically move it.Peace. |
This
is true for the son of man with limited ego consciousness (i.e., a human being). However, for the son of God with Christ
consciousness nothing is impossible.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Is faith allways bad?
