Amazing
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Speaking about beliefs and belief networks, today being an > appropriate reminder (both at MIT, and in a facility near you) - there was > a > post from a few days ago which deserves comment: > > From: Blaze Spinnaker > > > > http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offe > r-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4 > Is the Big Bang even remotely "proof" of God? > Very doubtful... or definitely... depending on POV. The "proof" claim is > beyond anything scientifically relevant, other than showing how years of > indoctrination bleeds over - but this subject does tie into an expanded > notion of the "sim meme" in a more basic (natural) way, which is the > self-imposed sim. > Anyway, to dispense with the article's claim - a steady state Universe > (succession of little bangs) may offer more evidence of Divinity to logical > thinking than does a Big Bang... since the latter implies annihilation of > everything - physical and spiritual, between long cycles of expansion. A > steady-state implies a persistent kind of continuity, one that true > believers demand, at the top....In this perspective "universal expansion" > is > no more than a temporary blip in the local frame (local contraction). And > yes, gravity waves can be better explained from the steady state POV. > Surprisingly, from the sim perspective, one can certainly define Divinity > itself as a gigantic sim in which the programmer or "player" is always the > same old dude :-) If that characterization sounds disrespectful then, it is > further proof that religion should be divorced from science - for this and > almost every other reason. > However, the sim-meme discussion, and the distinct possibility that some or > us (or all of us) can be living in a "special" or computer generated > reality > (or alternatively a natural kind of information-processed reality)... in > which individualized happenstance is based to varying extents on nonrandom > input and even whim ... that discussion always breaks down to religion in > the end- and to identifying the source of whim, karma or capriciousness in > the behind-the-scene players (assuming the players are less than divine). > Anyway, despite the possibility of one kind of natural sim being the only > relevant reality, religion is not science, anti-science or anything in > between - it is more the result of a human biological genetic trait, which > goes back in prehistory to a "pack mentality." It is based on a survival > imperatives from an earlier time where the pack (tribe, clan, or whatever) > had to identify with leadership skills of the alpha male (as politically > incorrect as that fact may sound to you in 2014). > There is no fact or experiment - in all of science which cannot be > rationalized either way - for or against the reality of God. Get over it. > Darwinian evolution is fully compatible with Divinity, perhaps even better > adaptable than the silly biblical pronouncement. Evolution represents the > strategy of a God who simply chose this modality as a better way to created > sentient beings than by fiat. He knows a thing or two about cars as well > (Latin: "Let there be" as in Fiat Lux, "Let there be light" in Genesis). > In the end, each human is either spiritual or not - and science cannot help > much to alter that, nor can it hinder the basic orientation. The spiritual > scientist has no problem at all with Darwinian evolution, nor even with an > "evolved Divinity" in the sense of the Buddhist/Jainist notion of the sum > of > all souls. In this view, God evolves just as the sum of souls increases. > Yet > this is a state which is always "perfection" of a sort, at any single point > in time. > As a matter of coincidence, yesterday Mark Iverson sent me this video, > which > has a bit of deeper meaning over and above the obvious. It relates to one > of > the judge's comments (that this 9 year old girl is an "old soul"). It is > just an aria, but it brings many non-opera aficionados to tears. > https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZWpLfncliwU?rel=0 > Can this kind of prodigy happen in anyone's personal reality-frame without > some notion of the primordial "natural sim" (the one called karma, fate or > reincarnation) which is espoused more in Buddhism, but which many > Christians > incorporate into their own spirit-package ... and in which the present life > is somehow merged with a progression of former lives? > > > > > > >
