Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Illyrius

Quantum Mysticism - dawning of the New Age

1,182 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hre2breal
Just now, Hre2breal said:

Once again I hear what you are saying an the good far out way the bad scenario however MW I also hear you saying things like small risk any tiny risk it blows my mind....If you can call losing your child to a small risk a tiny thing you are deluded..This MW is exactly like I said russian roulette which child dies at times..Its a sad thing that reguardsless babies will die, If you wana sacrifice your child for someone elses your a bigger person than me...I was very lucky not to lose my boy an I would nit like to put anyone in that situation MW because it does feel like you killed your own child it really does..I happy he didnt die for sure bit I never want to go through that experience again thats also for sure...

Sorry eight bits my bad that was for Mr Walker....

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hre2breal
55 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Sorry. I  missed this post while working down through the 47 new responses when I woke up this morning    To me, it represents the same schism between science and  belief as outlined in the topic, and I think that was how it was introduced into the thread,  but i will not respond on it further.   

Apologies also Kismit I will leave it at that now also..Sorry MW also..

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 minute ago, Hre2breal said:

Apologies also Kismit I will leave it at that now also..Sorry MW also..

No need for any apology to me. I understand and empathise with your own view.

It is a very important topic but maybe not suitable here  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hre2breal
1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

No need for any apology to me. I understand and empathise with your own view.

It is a very important topic but maybe not suitable here  

No I apologise it is sensitive to me but you do have great points also an I know that..yes but not here you are right..

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MauriOra
6 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

 I think, if there is such a thing we call God, it is quite natural and comprehendible.

The question is: would we have sufficient intellectual capacity to understand and grasp it in totality? 

Peace In The Light To You Mr HammerClaw..

I Think Your "Brilliant" .. So Cheers.!!

As to Above ..

Yes .. "God " is Very Natural and Comprehendible .. Nature or Mother Earth, is What we See, Taste, Touch Hear, Smell, Feel and Know.. Without Her, We Perish ..

Now, to Second Question, 

Yes, We can Grasp it in Totality, Through Mind or Intellectually, but Mostly Heart .. It is through "Feeling" that the Answers become Known.., the Mind just Takes the Directive from the Heart, and Then it tells Brain, what's what, and then Actions are Followed..

To Understand Completely, Your Feminine Energy must be in Balance with the Masculine Energy.. We all have this Duality within Us .. At the Moment it is Lopsided.. Until that happens, we will only "Wonder".. The Truth is Out there, You just Need to be in Alignment to Tune into the All Knowing..

Mo..xx

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MauriOra
15 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Iam sure I could discuss any aspect of that nature fluently, I did have such for a large part of my life. 

 

Problem being anyone can come up with any given scenario, apply a story that seems to correlate to the teller and call it experience.

Peace In The Light to You Me Good Friend ..

Well I Like that you Can Discuss the Nature with Me Fluently.. This Discussion, Is it on Your Actual Knowing and Seeing Feeling, of The Other Realm, or the Religious Teachings, in your Upbringing.? I am Fascinated if it is the First query..

And to the 2nd Point from your post ..

No. There is No Problem, To telling who's a Scam, and Who Isn't .. If you know of the Energetic System of Tones and Frequency, Colours etc, This is Known in the Energy .. It is Quite Easy to Decipher who is Honest and Who is Not ..

I Am Sorry That You Had A Horrible Experience.. Yes there are Many of these Stories, My Father had Similar Experience, He Raised Us In an Atheistic Atmosphere.. Due to His Upbringing .. My Mother is Not Religious but Very In Tune With Her Spiritual Side, Her Nativity and She's Just Awesomeness...!!!!..

Mo..xx

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
19 hours ago, Kismit said:

I publicly announce I truly like your style Sherapy :wub:

Awww, thanks Kis., likewise. :wub:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
11 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

None of my family going back as far as anyone can remember are even remotely religious.

I see you overlooked the point of my post.  So...I'll restate it a different way.

We procreate.  Some memory...not all...probably not much...but some of the memory  of our ancestors was passed on through our DNA.  I'm not really talking about our grandmothers per say....I was only pointing out that Instinctual Responses are passed down through DNA.  i.e. The Iguana vs the snake.  My point being that from the conception of  HumanKinds acquisition of neo-cortex that a 'new' way of engaging our environment began to take place.  Not just physical engagement but mental engagement....questioning everything.  From that questioning came the epiphany that we were different from the rest of animalkind, and other questions arose.  Out of those questions came answers that allowed the Concept of God to take hold in some HumanKind.  That epiphany and ongoing discussions no doubt galvanized into a 'belief' that God existed.  HumanKind then spread across the Globe. The stories of old were passed down...some were probably lost...but the questioning of Humans never stopped and will never stop.  It is the result of the evolution of our brains.  And the repetitive nature of that belief is exactly the kind of thing that  is passed on in DNA.  So, whether one ever had the thought to ask those questions of our existence, the questions will be asked, because of the Instinctual Response to do so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius

One of the most peculiar experiments in quantum physics is the so called “double-slit” experiment. It proves not only that electron can behave as a wave and a particle at the same time but what is even more important it PROVES that consciousness of observer has an impact on what is observed and thus eradicates previous notions of subject-object separateness.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Illyrius

Actually, the double slit experiment proves that the opposition between particle and wave applied to photons and electrons is ill-conceived (which is not the same thing as "being" a wave and a particle "at the same time"). The question, when particles are detected by a particle detector, "Which slit did the electron go through?" is ill-posed.

Our consciousness has no demonstrated consequence for the experiment. The type of detector determines the type of observation. If you're looking for ancient fables, then it's the blind sages and the elephant - the snake detector finds a snake, the wall detector finds a wall, etc. The thing itself "is" something else (possibly a phenomenon not a "thing" - what if those sages were dreaming their encounters with an elephant? It wouldn't change the story or its moral.).

The experiment does have consequences for consciousness, at least human consciousness: we are far too ready to "fill in the gaps" in what we observe with stories. We make these stories up, but often will be indignant when they are revealed to be shallow ignorant crap (often labeled, however, as deep wise fertilizer, by manufacturers, distributors and enthusiastic consumers alike). We may have the illusion (and like it) that nobody made them up at all, but that somebody grooved on the True Nature of Reality (R)

"I detected a particle! Of course it went through just one of the slits! It has to be, because that's what happens on a tennis court or a billiard table! Electrons are the same thing as game balls, it's just that they're wavier."

Unfortunately, our story-telling capacity pales compared to what Nature can get up to when we don't check. And when we do check, we'll sometimes find what we're looking for, whether that's what's really there or not. Other times, we manage to punch through to a glimpse of truth.

Finally, a word from soft science. For the pioneers, quantum mechanics was a cognitive crisis, because they had a lopsided ego commitment to a version of causality that simply doesn't scale. Look at what happened to Einstein, and despair. When that happens, you have to rebuild your ego (otherwise you die). Ego rebuilds are often accompanied by long journeys back through the primal swamp of the unconscious. By an amazing coincidence, that's where mysticism resides, too.

When you're in that state, all those stories make sense (just like most people's dreams make sense to them while they're dreaming them). If you're lucky, you wake up. The stories don't make sense anymore (because they never did), but you have a new psychic constitution, and are just that much better equipped to deal with actual reality.

"WTF is up with quantum entanglement?" stops being an existential crisis, and starts being a question to answer. Smart money says that the naked guy covered with ashes who lives in a tree is out of his depth to answer it - but talk around it? He's a champ.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
3 hours ago, Illyrius said:

One of the most peculiar experiments in quantum physics is the so called “double-slit” experiment. It proves not only that electron can behave as a wave and a particle at the same time but what is even more important it PROVES that consciousness of observer has an impact on what is observed and thus eradicates previous notions of subject-object separateness.

 

 

That's right Illyrius. 

 

"The quantity of energy taken in or given out when electronic or other positions are shifted is always a "quantum" or some multiple thereof, but the vibratory or wavelike behavior of such units of energy is wholly determined by the dimensions of the material structures concerned. Such wavelike energy ripples are 860 times the diameters of the ultimatons, electrons, atoms, or other units thus performing. The never-ending confusion attending the observation of the wave mechanics of quantum behavior is due to the superimposition of energy waves: Two crests can combine to make a double-height crest, while a crest and a trough may combine, thus producing mutual cancellation."

 

 

 

"While atoms may contain from one to one hundred orbital electrons, only the outer ten electrons of the larger atoms revolve about the central nucleus as distinct and discrete bodies, intactly and compactly swinging around on precise and definite orbits. The thirty electrons nearest the center are difficult of observation or detection as separate and organized bodies. This same comparative ratio of electronic behavior in relation to nuclear proximity obtains in all atoms regardless of the number of electrons embraced. The nearer the nucleus, the less there is of electronic individuality. The wavelike energy extension of an electron may so spread out as to occupy the whole of the lesser atomic orbits; especially is this true of the electrons nearest the atomic nucleus.

 

The thirty innermost orbital electrons have individuality, but their energy systems tend to intermingle, extending from electron to electron and well-nigh from orbit to orbit. The next thirty electrons constitute the second family, or energy zone, and are of advancing individuality, bodies of matter exerting a more complete control over their attendant energy systems. The next thirty electrons, the third energy zone, are still more individualized and circulate in more distinct and definite orbits. The last ten electrons, present in only the ten heaviest elements, are possessed of the dignity of independence and are, therefore, able to escape more or less freely from the control of the mother nucleus. With a minimum variation in temperature and pressure, the members of this fourth and outermost group of electrons will escape from the grasp of the central nucleus, as is illustrated by the spontaneous disruption of uranium and kindred elements.

 

The first twenty-seven atoms, those containing from one to twenty-seven orbital electrons, are more easy of comprehension than the rest. From twenty-eight upward we encounter more and more unpredictability. But some of this electronic unpredictability is due to differential ultimatonic axial revolutionary velocities and to the unexplained "huddling" proclivity of ultimatons. Other influences—physical, electrical, magnetic, and gravitational—also operate to produce variable electronic behavior. Atoms therefore are similar to persons as to predictability. Statisticians may announce laws governing a large number of either atoms or persons but not for a single individual atom or person."

 

Spoiler

Excerpts from the Urantia Book 

 

I guess what that last bit means is that since evolution is definitely controlled and designed to unfold within certain quidelines, free willed people and even some of the material things in the universe are allowed a degree of unpredictability. 

This must be how the Gods have given it up to chance and invite participation.

 

 

Edited by Will Due
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crazy Horse
5 hours ago, joc said:

I see you overlooked the point of my post.  So...I'll restate it a different way.

We procreate.  Some memory...not all...probably not much...but some of the memory  of our ancestors was passed on through our DNA.  I'm not really talking about our grandmothers per say....I was only pointing out that Instinctual Responses are passed down through DNA.  i.e. The Iguana vs the snake.  My point being that from the conception of  HumanKinds acquisition of neo-cortex that a 'new' way of engaging our environment began to take place.  Not just physical engagement but mental engagement....questioning everything.  From that questioning came the epiphany that we were different from the rest of animalkind, and other questions arose.  Out of those questions came answers that allowed the Concept of God to take hold in some HumanKind.  That epiphany and ongoing discussions no doubt galvanized into a 'belief' that God existed.  HumanKind then spread across the Globe. The stories of old were passed down...some were probably lost...but the questioning of Humans never stopped and will never stop.  It is the result of the evolution of our brains.  And the repetitive nature of that belief is exactly the kind of thing that  is passed on in DNA.  So, whether one ever had the thought to ask those questions of our existence, the questions will be asked, because of the Instinctual Response to do so.

Well I do agree about humanities almost incessant inquisitiveness, needing to try and understand ourselves and our world, and what happens next, I think the ancient Egyptians were masters of this, their whole society seems to be arranged in such a way.

But anyhow, I have a different idea of the past, I would say back in the day, individuals or even whole societies could see and communicate with Spiritual Beings very naturally. The stone age folk may not have had much in the way of technology, but I would imagine that they could see and experience Spirit, the manifestation of God, each and every day. Who knows?

But I agree, some memory is probably passed on through DNA, instinctual responses, but personal traits I would say are ours from a previous life - again, who knows for sure?

As for a belief in God being a purley genetically passed-on, begs the question, where did the first belief come from? An epiphany? That might be true, but that shows that a belief in God isnt genetic, learnt perhaps, or experienced?

And just to add, this knowing, experiencing Spirit, I think its going back towards how it used to be, once enough folk start looking, the accumilative effect will be a much easier connection to THAT. This dip into a purely machanical universe will be seen as a strange kind of anomaly, or perhaps it was necessary to experience what God isn't, before we get to experience and know what God actually is!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
3 hours ago, eight bits said:

Illyrius

Actually, the double slit experiment proves that the opposition between particle and wave applied to photons and electrons is ill-conceived (which is not the same thing as "being" a wave and a particle "at the same time"). The question, when particles are detected by a particle detector, "Which slit did the electron go through?" is ill-posed.

Our consciousness has no demonstrated consequence for the experiment. The type of detector determines the type of observation. If you're looking for ancient fables, then it's the blind sages and the elephant - the snake detector finds a snake, the wall detector finds a wall, etc. The thing itself "is" something else (possibly a phenomenon not a "thing" - what if those sages were dreaming their encounters with an elephant? It wouldn't change the story or its moral.).

The experiment does have consequences for consciousness, at least human consciousness: we are far too ready to "fill in the gaps" in what we observe with stories. We make these stories up, but often will be indignant when they are revealed to be shallow ignorant crap (often labeled, however, as deep wise fertilizer, by manufacturers, distributors and enthusiastic consumers alike). We may have the illusion (and like it) that nobody made them up at all, but that somebody grooved on the True Nature of Reality (R)

"I detected a particle! Of course it went through just one of the slits! It has to be, because that's what happens on a tennis court or a billiard table! Electrons are the same thing as game balls, it's just that they're wavier."

Unfortunately, our story-telling capacity pales compared to what Nature can get up to when we don't check. And when we do check, we'll sometimes find what we're looking for, whether that's what's really there or not. Other times, we manage to punch through to a glimpse of truth.

Finally, a word from soft science. For the pioneers, quantum mechanics was a cognitive crisis, because they had a lopsided ego commitment to a version of causality that simply doesn't scale. Look at what happened to Einstein, and despair. When that happens, you have to rebuild your ego (otherwise you die). Ego rebuilds are often accompanied by long journeys back through the primal swamp of the unconscious. By an amazing coincidence, that's where mysticism resides, too.

When you're in that state, all those stories make sense (just like most people's dreams make sense to them while they're dreaming them). If you're lucky, you wake up. The stories don't make sense anymore (because they never did), but you have a new psychic constitution, and are just that much better equipped to deal with actual reality.

"WTF is up with quantum entanglement?" stops being an existential crisis, and starts being a question to answer. Smart money says that the naked guy covered with ashes who lives in a tree is out of his depth to answer it - but talk around it? He's a champ.

So why does a particle act as a wave when not observed, and as a particle when observed? What is your fable about it?

What is the Reality(R) of the experiment?

Edited by Illyrius
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
43 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

So why does a particle act as a wave when not observed, and as a particle when observed? What is your fable about it?

What is the Reality(R) of the experiment?

  If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?  The answer is No...it makes sound waves.   Sound itself is something that happens when the sound wave is 'observed'.  

To put it another way...is light really light before it is observed?  The answer again is No...it is just waves....Light is what happens when there is a receiver for the light.  Did the structure of the sound wave change because it reached our ear?  No.  But something amazing happened....sound.   Does the structure of the wave change when light is observed?  No.  Can we see radio waves? No.  Not with the naked eye.  

I think so much of the quantum mindset is based loosely on conjecture and superstition.

Edited by joc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
3 minutes ago, joc said:

  If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?  The answer is No...it makes sound waves.   Sound itself is something that happens when the sound wave is 'observed'.  

To put it another way...is light really light before it is observed?  The answer again is No...it is just waves....Light is what happens when there is a receiver for the light.  Did the structure of the sound wave change because it reached our ear?  No.  But something amazing happened....sound.   Does the structure of the wave change when light looked at?  No.  Can we see radio waves? No.  Not with the naked eye.  

I think so much of the quantum mindset is based loosely on conjecture and superstition.

So. You shoot electrons (tiny particles of matter) through two slits, and they leave a wave pattern, which is odd to say the least. Do you agree that it is odd if a particle leaves a wave pattern? And then you shoot them again and observe what happens to explain the oddity, and when they are observed they leave a particle pattern. So how exactly do you explain that.. By comparing that to sound?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
8 hours ago, Illyrius said:

 

 

That is a great video. It explains the problem of the observation of quantum mechanics very well.

In light of the desire to understand what is going on, yes, there is a need to include the factor of spirit insight to the equation of full reality perception.

This requires an attempt to leave the ground of a mechanistic philosophy and go a little higher up to reach an elevated vantage point and finally really observe the world.

 

"There exists a great cosmic gulf between matter and thought, and this gulf is immeasurably greater between material mind and spiritual love. Consciousness, much less self-consciousness, cannot be explained by any theory of mechanistic electronic association or materialistic energy phenomena.

 

As mind pursues reality to its ultimate analysis, matter vanishes to the material senses but may still remain real to mind. When spiritual insight pursues that reality which remains after the disappearance of matter and pursues it to an ultimate analysis, it vanishes to mind, but the insight of spirit can still perceive cosmic realities and supreme values of a spiritual nature. Accordingly does science give way to philosophy, while philosophy must surrender to the conclusions inherent in genuine spiritual experience. Thinking surrenders to wisdom, and wisdom is lost in enlightened and reflective worship.

 

In science the human self observes the material world; philosophy is the observation of this observation of the material world; religion, true spiritual experience, is the experiential realization of the cosmic reality of the observation of the observation of all this relative synthesis of the energy materials of time and space. To build a philosophy of the universe on an exclusive materialism is to ignore the fact that all things material are initially conceived as real in the experience of human consciousness. The observer cannot be the thing observed; evaluation demands some degree of transcendence of the thing which is evaluated."

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do

 

"If you really want to Rock n Roll, you need to do it with 'The Spirit in the Sky.' Otherwise, all it'll be, is Disco."

- Louis Armstrong, 1934

 

 

Edited by Will Due
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
2 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Well I do agree about humanities almost incessant inquisitiveness, needing to try and understand ourselves and our world, and what happens next, I think the ancient Egyptians were masters of this, their whole society seems to be arranged in such a way.

A mixture of science, mathematics, and  'belief' in Gods for practically everything...and worship of objects symbolizing said Gods.  The may have been masters of inquisitiveness...but their answers for the larger spectrum questions fell back on the age old 'because God did it' mindset.

2 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

But anyhow, I have a different idea of the past, I would say back in the day, individuals or even whole societies could see and communicate with Spiritual Beings very naturally. The stone age folk may not have had much in the way of technology, but I would imagine that they could see and experience Spirit, the manifestation of God, each and every day. Who knows?

Quote

 

What was special about ancient civilizations that they were able to see and speak with Spirits?  That's okay if you believe that but it has no foundation in reality.  Technology not withstanding;  they lacked any real information about the actual physics of the environment on a large scale.  Lack of Knowledge = God.  

2 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

As for a belief in God being a purley genetically passed-on, begs the question, where did the first belief come from? An epiphany? That might be true, but that shows that a belief in God isnt genetic, learnt perhaps, or experienced?

At some point in HumanKind's evolution...the brain became structured enough to pose such questions.  Let us not forget that at some point in HumanKind's evolution...drugs of various sorts were discovered.  

I am just contemplating the mechanics of the evolution of thought process.  Much of the belief in God developed based on nothing more than the fear of death...the questioning of death.  No doubt some ancient sage/guru type experienced something along the lines of Peyote and explained to his underlings that there was something after death...as a result of his hallucinations and interactions with the environment.

Also keep in mind that such writings as the Ancient Old Testament scriptures came from stories told over generations...who knows how many....and as we know from that game we played as kids..whisper in someone's ear and they whisper in the next person's ear, etc.   At the end of the line it was...And Abraham talked to God.  When in reality Abe was just saying....So, I was walking down the road, and suddenly a dog appeared.  And we talked as we walked.

2 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

And just to add, this knowing, experiencing Spirit, I think its going back towards how it used to be, once enough folk start looking, the accumilative effect will be a much easier connection to THAT. This dip into a purely machanical universe will be seen as a strange kind of anomaly, or perhaps it was necessary to experience what God isn't, before we get to experience and know what God actually is!

smh...If that happens, it will be due to the complete breakdown of civilization where Humans revert back to the stoneage reality of no water, no heat, no light, no weather updates, no technology.   And yes...then the Stoneage Mentality will rule again.  I think rather, as we proceed forward into the future...the concept of God will lessen it's effects on Humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
23 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

So. You shoot electrons (tiny particles of matter) through two slits, and they leave a wave pattern, which is odd to say the least. Do you agree that it is odd if a particle leaves a wave pattern? And then you shoot them again and observe what happens to explain the oddity, and when they are observed they leave a particle pattern. So how exactly do you explain that.. By comparing that to sound?

You didn't really connect with the sound analogy...here is another:

You observe a bullet sitting on a table.  It has form.  It isn't moving.  You say...that is a bullet.  But, shoot the bullet through the barrel of a rifle...that bullet appears to be something else.

Again though..shoot electrons through two slits....what I'm talking about with respect to conjecture and superstition.  

Consider the experiments that led to Nuclear Fission.  They were based on solid theory.  The experiments themselves resulting in fission proved the theories to be sound.   

What is 'shooting electrons thru two slits' about really?  What sound theory is that based on?  I think some conclusions like that are fallible.

 

 

 

ble.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
5 minutes ago, joc said:

You didn't really connect with the sound analogy...here is another:

You observe a bullet sitting on a table.  It has form.  It isn't moving.  You say...that is a bullet.  But, shoot the bullet through the barrel of a rifle...that bullet appears to be something else.

Again though..shoot electrons through two slits....what I'm talking about with respect to conjecture and superstition.  

Consider the experiments that led to Nuclear Fission.  They were based on solid theory.  The experiments themselves resulting in fission proved the theories to be sound.   

What is 'shooting electrons thru two slits' about really?  What sound theory is that based on?  I think some conclusions like that are fallible.

 

 

 

ble.

Ok. Lets take it slowly.

Do you characterize when particles leave a wave pattern as superstition? I mean it is observable. Do you think of something observable as superstition? Do you consider yourself as superstition?

I am taking a slow approach here.

Edited by Illyrius
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
6 minutes ago, joc said:

I think rather, as we proceed forward into the future...the concept of God will lessen it's effects on Humans.

 

I beg your pardon. You're wrong.

As the concept of God continues to grow in the minds of the cooperative, it will proceed and transform into the great REALITY of God, that he is our Father and we are his sons, the ultimate mutual affection. 

Then what will happen is science will be put in the back seat of the car, instead of driving it, so we (those who will awaken like Rip Van Winkle if not already) can get in the driver's seat while the navigator (God) can occupy the seat next to us, and if the kid in the back seat starts impatiently complaining too much, we'll just give him a lollipop and he'll settle down into coming along in the seat where he belongs.

First things first.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
8 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

That's right Illyrius. 

 

"The quantity of energy taken in or given out when electronic or other positions are shifted is always a "quantum" or some multiple thereof, but the vibratory or wavelike behavior of such units of energy is wholly determined by the dimensions of the material structures concerned. Such wavelike energy ripples are 860 times the diameters of the ultimatons, electrons, atoms, or other units thus performing. The never-ending confusion attending the observation of the wave mechanics of quantum behavior is due to the superimposition of energy waves: Two crests can combine to make a double-height crest, while a crest and a trough may combine, thus producing mutual cancellation."

 

 

 

"While atoms may contain from one to one hundred orbital electrons, only the outer ten electrons of the larger atoms revolve about the central nucleus as distinct and discrete bodies, intactly and compactly swinging around on precise and definite orbits. The thirty electrons nearest the center are difficult of observation or detection as separate and organized bodies. This same comparative ratio of electronic behavior in relation to nuclear proximity obtains in all atoms regardless of the number of electrons embraced. The nearer the nucleus, the less there is of electronic individuality. The wavelike energy extension of an electron may so spread out as to occupy the whole of the lesser atomic orbits; especially is this true of the electrons nearest the atomic nucleus.

 

The thirty innermost orbital electrons have individuality, but their energy systems tend to intermingle, extending from electron to electron and well-nigh from orbit to orbit. The next thirty electrons constitute the second family, or energy zone, and are of advancing individuality, bodies of matter exerting a more complete control over their attendant energy systems. The next thirty electrons, the third energy zone, are still more individualized and circulate in more distinct and definite orbits. The last ten electrons, present in only the ten heaviest elements, are possessed of the dignity of independence and are, therefore, able to escape more or less freely from the control of the mother nucleus. With a minimum variation in temperature and pressure, the members of this fourth and outermost group of electrons will escape from the grasp of the central nucleus, as is illustrated by the spontaneous disruption of uranium and kindred elements.

 

The first twenty-seven atoms, those containing from one to twenty-seven orbital electrons, are more easy of comprehension than the rest. From twenty-eight upward we encounter more and more unpredictability. But some of this electronic unpredictability is due to differential ultimatonic axial revolutionary velocities and to the unexplained "huddling" proclivity of ultimatons. Other influences—physical, electrical, magnetic, and gravitational—also operate to produce variable electronic behavior. Atoms therefore are similar to persons as to predictability. Statisticians may announce laws governing a large number of either atoms or persons but not for a single individual atom or person."

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Excerpts from the Urantia Book 

 

I guess what that last bit means is that since evolution is definitely controlled and designed to unfold within certain quidelines, free willed people and even some of the material things in the universe are allowed a degree of unpredictability. 

This must be how the Gods have given it up to chance and invite participation.

 

 

Hi Will

I noticed that you are now using the term gods rather then the singular god that you generally use. Do you have more than one father now or is there one father and the others are someone elses father? Are you suggesting that there are several but that there is one that carries greater influence and powers? If so how do you determine which one is which and what purpose these other gods satisfy?

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
5 hours ago, Illyrius said:

Ok. Lets take it slowly.

Do you characterize when particles leave a wave pattern as superstition? I mean it is observable. Do you think of something observable as superstition? Do you consider yourself as superstition?

I am taking a slow approach here.

I don't need to take anything s l o w l y. 

But...since you insist...what is 'observable'?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
5 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

I beg your pardon. You're wrong.

As the concept of God continues to grow in the minds of the cooperative, it will proceed and transform into the great REALITY of God, that he is our Father and we are his sons, the ultimate mutual affection. 

Then what will happen is science will be put in the back seat of the car, instead of driving it, so we (those who will awaken like Rip Van Winkle if not already) can get in the driver's seat while the navigator (God) can occupy the seat next to us, and if the kid in the back seat starts impatiently complaining too much, we'll just give him a lollipop and he'll settle down into coming along in the seat where he belongs.

First things first.

 

 

The difference between us Will is not really rightness or wrongness.  It is a matter of context.  I spent most of my life in the 'belief'...in the  'faith'.  So I know of what I speak.   When you are of the 'faith'...when you are in the 'belief' then that 'belief' guides the entire context of your search.  You are as right as anyone else in the context of your beliefs.  And so am I.   I have left the Belief Box and asked the same questions I've been asking all my life.  The difference there is...they were not asked in the context of the belief.   They were asked in the context of What is the Truth.  And the Truth just is.  It is not incumbent on belief in order to be.  It just is.

So...within the context of your belief...you are right...because belief is irrelevant with regards to the truth.   And within the context of the Truth...I am correct as well.  Because the truth just is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.