A Singularity That Doesn't Result In The Formation Of Me Is Pointless

originally posted by: frenchfries
Everybody talks about randomness. Is there any proof that true randomness exists ? Everything looks to me like it's causal related. At least in Classical Mechanica it looks that way.

But on a very small scale there is Heisenberg , there is Schoedinger, and time looses it's meaning. Unable to understand the relations (Yet) randomness is induced. Ad hoc Constants and parameters without reason. Endlessly tweaking the theory until it fits with observation.

However to make sense of the macroscopic world that same randomness must have some order in it. Who can proof that this isn't Pseudo Randomness generated by unknown rules?

I think that random does not exist, is more like re-organization, may look like random to us but is not.

a reply to: Abednego

Well exactly my point Pseudo Randomness , isn't random at all. Like Perlin-noise mountains ps4 openworlds.

I never said Creation was random but rather the opposite. It was planned out in advance. I don't know about you but there is absolutely no way that randomness led to the creation of me. I am a child of God and was created in HIs image.

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
I don't know about you but there is absolutely no way that randomness led to the creation of me.

What you really are was never created - what you really are has always been!
Prior to any appearance, you are!!

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
I don't know about you but there is absolutely no way that randomness led to the creation of me.

What you really are was never created - what you really are has always been!
Prior to any appearance, you are!!

So you are saying everything has and always will exist, but in different random and changing forms?

Also, why do we assume the universe is not a singularity?

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
I don't know about you but there is absolutely no way that randomness led to the creation of me.

What you really are was never created - what you really are has always been!
Prior to any appearance, you are!!

So you are saying everything has and always will exist, but in different random and changing forms?

What is appearing presently is the current configuration - it is constantly appearing different - but is always present!
Are you present and aware?

Also, why do we assume the universe is not a singularity?

I am not sure what you mean by 'universe' - the planets are contained in the space - space would be singular with apparent objects appearing in it that are not separate from the space.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
I don't know about you but there is absolutely no way that randomness led to the creation of me.

What you really are was never created - what you really are has always been!
Prior to any appearance, you are!!

So you are saying everything has and always will exist, but in different random and changing forms?

What is appearing presently is the current configuration - it is constantly appearing different - but is always present!
Are you present and aware?

I exist in a conscious state within this configuration, which to me, is solid state, yet we know that on the atomic level that all atoms can be split into another configuration. Does that mean my consciousness can also be split apart?

Also, why do we assume the universe is not a singularity?
I am not sure what you mean by 'universe' - the planets are contained in the space - space would be singular with apparent objects appearing in it that are not separate from the space.

That is what I mean, nothing is separate - everything is connected, therefore a single thing or entity.

originally posted by: Abednego

originally posted by: frenchfries
Everybody talks about randomness. Is there any proof that true randomness exists ? Everything looks to me like it's causal related. At least in Classical Mechanica it looks that way.

But on a very small scale there is Heisenberg , there is Schoedinger, and time looses it's meaning. Unable to understand the relations (Yet) randomness is induced. Ad hoc Constants and parameters without reason. Endlessly tweaking the theory until it fits with observation.

However to make sense of the macroscopic world that same randomness must have some order in it. Who can proof that this isn't Pseudo Randomness generated by unknown rules?

I think that random does not exist, is more like re-organization, may look like random to us but is not.

Tell that to PI.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

It must be sad to go through life covering mirrors and never taking any photos of yourself.

Make me believe that you have never looked at a photo of your self from the past. I'll be waiting.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

Study the nature of the human reality. Go to the planck scale, then move up "emergence by emergence", so that quarks, protons, atoms, molecules, etc, show you their intrinsic structural dynamics.

Your point that everything exists in some 'random' way is very true, but it needs to modified by our knowledge of the fundamental symmetry dynamics of humans bodies.

For instance, is the golden rule merely "in our heads", or is it a fundamentally emergent property of symmetry dynamics within a profoundly complex human brain-body-intersubjective interface matrix? It is the latter. And the latter is absolutely ordered, and therefore, not the world you describe in your post.

There is "homogeneity" in outer space (a vacuum). On earth, and elsewhere, certain sorts of matter conglomerate as a function of the context factors that permit their emergence. In fact, they enable their emergence: there is always and at all times a dynamically synchronous continuum. The galaxy we exist within - its "golden spiraling" according to the golden ratio .618, and the spiraling of weather patterns, phyllotaxis in plants, or the golden ratio differences between electromagnetic patterns in our brain, all follow the golden ratio.

All of the above describes a world that is both random - as a background presence - and yet 'ordered' in a shell like way; for instance, the atom, molecule, cell, tissue, organ, organism, and the environment it is built to represent, are "shells" which work from the 'bottom-up', as a basic ordering principle with symmetry as its control parameter, and the top-down 'symmetry' of the value worlds we enter and interact within.

All of this bespeaks profound order, even if our blind eyes and deaf ears and hardened hearts prevent us from realizing this truth, the truth is the truth: there is no other world but this one; and the gnostic "ideal realm" is not a real thing, but rather a state of symmetry between organism and world that is being desperately undercut by the cultures and belief systems which presently exist.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: MissSmartypants

Study the nature of the human reality. Go to the planck scale, then move up "emergence by emergence", so that quarks, protons, atoms, molecules, etc, show you their intrinsic structural dynamics.

Your point that everything exists in some 'random' way is very true, but it needs to modified by our knowledge of the fundamental symmetry dynamics of humans bodies.

For instance, is the golden rule merely "in our heads", or is it a fundamentally emergent property of symmetry dynamics within a profoundly complex human brain-body-intersubjective interface matrix? It is the latter. And the latter is absolutely ordered, and therefore, not the world you describe in your post.

There is "homogeneity" in outer space (a vacuum). On earth, and elsewhere, certain sorts of matter conglomerate as a function of the context factors that permit their emergence. In fact, they enable their emergence: there is always and at all times a dynamically synchronous continuum. The galaxy we exist within - its "golden spiraling" according to the golden ratio .618, and the spiraling of weather patterns, phyllotaxis in plants, or the golden ratio differences between electromagnetic patterns in our brain, all follow the golden ratio.

All of the above describes a world that is both random - as a background presence - and yet 'ordered' in a shell like way; for instance, the atom, molecule, cell, tissue, organ, organism, and the environment it is built to represent, are "shells" which work from the 'bottom-up', as a basic ordering principle with symmetry as its control parameter, and the top-down 'symmetry' of the value worlds we enter and interact within.

All of this bespeaks profound order, even if our blind eyes and deaf ears and hardened hearts prevent us from realizing this truth, the truth is the truth: there is no other world but this one; and the gnostic "ideal realm" is not a real thing, but rather a state of symmetry between organism and world that is being desperately undercut by the cultures and belief systems which presently exist.

Sigh...I never said random. I said that the singularity was preprogrammed to expand in the exact way necessary to ultimately result in your existence. And that there was only one specific configuration that would lead to you existing...but many many configurations that would not result in your creation. So you can see the odds are against our creation happening randomly. Before your creation God already knew you.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
I don't know about you but there is absolutely no way that randomness led to the creation of me.

What you really are was never created - what you really are has always been!
Prior to any appearance, you are!!

So you are saying everything has and always will exist, but in different random and changing forms?

What is appearing presently is the current configuration - it is constantly appearing different - but is always present!
Are you present and aware?

I exist in a conscious state within this configuration, which to me, is solid state, yet we know that on the atomic level that all atoms can be split into another configuration. Does that mean my consciousness can also be split apart?

Also, why do we assume the universe is not a singularity?
I am not sure what you mean by 'universe' - the planets are contained in the space - space would be singular with apparent objects appearing in it that are not separate from the space.

That is what I mean, nothing is separate - everything is connected, therefore a single thing or entity.

I'm afraid you are suffering from a combination of youth and pseudointellectualism. The youth is something you will recover from however, so take heart.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
I don't know about you but there is absolutely no way that randomness led to the creation of me.

What you really are was never created - what you really are has always been!
Prior to any appearance, you are!!

You're right, you know!
And it didn't take you a dozen paragraphs to explain it. I like you.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

So then randomness doesn't exist? To be clear, I believe it exists, which is why my metaphysical scheme - and the actual sciences - support the principle of randomness.

Furthermore, free will exists. Where I am right now is a function of a great deal of determinism and a small deal of free-will to choose against my automatic, reflexive, affective state.

Since free will exists, it would be rather strained to say that that "God already knew me", at least as nothing more than a logical deduction which merits no further emotional investment. However if emotional investment i.e. investigation, meditation, etc, is engaged in, this is where the self and reality become 'de-coupled', and the self exists according to its own absurd (mostly) self-contained logic - unhinged from actual causal processes between its own body and the 'triggering' object-dynamics of the environment on the ventral brain corticolimbic system.

In short, since you are governed by events in social reality - faces, tones of voices, conveying meaning that interacts with memory and motivational systems in your brain - it really makes very little sense to emphasize an abstraction - God - when what affects us is interpersonal cuing. Since we are motivationally reactive to interpersonal cues of recognition (or its absence) from others, its important that ideas like this be at the forefront of the human mind, with God, paradoxically, mattering only when this interpersonal 'basis' is deeply understood - which it most certainly ISN'T.

People should really be educated in evolution, physics, biophysics, biology, ethology, and a neuroscientific account of the psychological development of the self in dynamical interaction with an "other", as described by present day developmental sciences (Don M. Tucker has the most sophisticated take on the subject).

So, I am unwilling to say "I" existed before I emerged by causal interactions - randomness - which is beyond my control or my ability to know in its complex fullness (I am not God, in other words). Randomness, then, is pragmatic in its honesty: by acknowledging the epistemological blinder that separates us - self-reflexive beings that emerge from dynamics related to our development, and therefore requiring a deep self-knowledge to contain (something that is more or less unlikely without the objective facticity of the brain and its structure to guide our knowledge).

When people attempt to 'play God', they are kidding themselves. Do you know what I consider "playing God"? Making claims that lack evidence to support their value. When people take an intuition, barely fleshed out and lacking any basis in empirical reality, they inevtiably 'veer' into the wrong ways of thinking. Dream psychology (such , relative to neuroscience i.e. an "engineering" perspective of how a brain like ours could exist - is vague and tendentious.

The focus of science on objects is profoundly sensible, because it is a "third" that each of us have access to. It is democratic; it is respectful; it is the fullness, in my opinion, of what it means to be human i.e. the capacity to be reasonable.

Anyways, as to your question, I am just befuddled by the motivation: why are you even entertaining such a speculative idea when we live in a dynamically creative universe. Why not be in awe of that - that the future is partially unknown, and therefore, open to our own intervention. It is because of the structure of the human mind - rational, reasonable, and able to project into a future and learn from its past - that we can be 'arrested' between two points: short term pleasure, whenever we act unreasoanbly we inevitably are enacting our need to dissipate the tension were feeling and feel the 'release' of expressed emotion - especially one that results in a feeling of pride (improved self-esteem).

I see no reason why these practicalities of 'self-regulation' - as a physically, dynamical chemical process - wouldn't be the primary things we need to pay attention to.

Abstract metaphysics is just the self unwittingly dissociating its consciousness from the enlivening affects of being embodied and connected with others. This is the problem with metaphysics: it happens through a thinking system which is affectively guided by events contingently related to the bodies homeostasis: in other words, we can wax poetic merely because were hungry and need to eat.

There is something profoundly equalizing about that fact. No matter how much humans pretend to be God, they are still subject to entropy, and the irritability, bitterness, and psychological disease that it brings.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
I don't know about you but there is absolutely no way that randomness led to the creation of me.

What you really are was never created - what you really are has always been!
Prior to any appearance, you are!!

So you are saying everything has and always will exist, but in different random and changing forms?

What is appearing presently is the current configuration - it is constantly appearing different - but is always present!
Are you present and aware?

I exist in a conscious state within this configuration, which to me, is solid state, yet we know that on the atomic level that all atoms can be split into another configuration. Does that mean my consciousness can also be split apart?

This configuration is aware of itself - there isn't a 'you' separate to the configuration - 'you' do not exist 'within' the configuration. When the two become one the kingdom shall be revealed.

That is what I mean, nothing is separate - everything is connected, therefore a single thing or entity.

There is dreaming (which has no separation - it is one) - there is no dream and no dreamer ( which would be separation - two)!
There is no entity - just an appearance.

What you are actually is beyond words, but it would be not untrue to say you are nothing whatsoever other than pure, infinite, disembodied consciousness/intelligence; a field of miraculous infinite light; God dreaming itself; an infinite point of pure potential; or the infinite implications of nothing whatsoever.

The immediate presentation of this unspeakable actuality is the field of your experience, which is an instantaneously appearing virtual field of Radiant Presence as apparent qualities. This is the actuality of which every/ and any/ thing that you think exists consists. This is inclusive and complete; nothing whatever other than this field exists. In short, the entirety of Reality is the "bubble" of YOUR experience, the field of Radiant Presence, which alone exists.

This is the totality of Reality. This is not theoretical, but is actually, immediately real; always the case right here right now.

theopendoorway.org...

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: MissSmartypants

So then randomness doesn't exist? To be clear, I believe it exists, which is why my metaphysical scheme - and the actual sciences - support the principle of randomness.

Furthermore, free will exists. Where I am right now is a function of a great deal of determinism and a small deal of free-will to choose against my automatic, reflexive, affective state.

Since free will exists, it would be rather strained to say that that "God already knew me", at least as nothing more than a logical deduction which merits no further emotional investment. However if emotional investment i.e. investigation, meditation, etc, is engaged in, this is where the self and reality become 'de-coupled', and the self exists according to its own absurd (mostly) self-contained logic - unhinged from actual causal processes between its own body and the 'triggering' object-dynamics of the environment on the ventral brain corticolimbic system.

In short, since you are governed by events in social reality - faces, tones of voices, conveying meaning that interacts with memory and motivational systems in your brain - it really makes very little sense to emphasize an abstraction - God - when what affects us is interpersonal cuing. Since we are motivationally reactive to interpersonal cues of recognition (or its absence) from others, its important that ideas like this be at the forefront of the human mind, with God, paradoxically, mattering only when this interpersonal 'basis' is deeply understood - which it most certainly ISN'T.

People should really be educated in evolution, physics, biophysics, biology, ethology, and a neuroscientific account of the psychological development of the self in dynamical interaction with an "other", as described by present day developmental sciences (Don M. Tucker has the most sophisticated take on the subject).

So, I am unwilling to say "I" existed before I emerged by causal interactions - randomness - which is beyond my control or my ability to know in its complex fullness (I am not God, in other words). Randomness, then, is pragmatic in its honesty: by acknowledging the epistemological blinder that separates us - self-reflexive beings that emerge from dynamics related to our development, and therefore requiring a deep self-knowledge to contain (something that is more or less unlikely without the objective facticity of the brain and its structure to guide our knowledge).

When people attempt to 'play God', they are kidding themselves. Do you know what I consider "playing God"? Making claims that lack evidence to support their value. When people take an intuition, barely fleshed out and lacking any basis in empirical reality, they inevtiably 'veer' into the wrong ways of thinking. Dream psychology (such , relative to neuroscience i.e. an "engineering" perspective of how a brain like ours could exist - is vague and tendentious.

The focus of science on objects is profoundly sensible, because it is a "third" that each of us have access to. It is democratic; it is respectful; it is the fullness, in my opinion, of what it means to be human i.e. the capacity to be reasonable.

Anyways, as to your question, I am just befuddled by the motivation: why are you even entertaining such a speculative idea when we live in a dynamically creative universe. Why not be in awe of that - that the future is partially unknown, and therefore, open to our own intervention. It is because of the structure of the human mind - rational, reasonable, and able to project into a future and learn from its past - that we can be 'arrested' between two points: short term pleasure, whenever we act unreasoanbly we inevitably are enacting our need to dissipate the tension were feeling and feel the 'release' of expressed emotion - especially one that results in a feeling of pride (improved self-esteem).

I see no reason why these practicalities of 'self-regulation' - as a physically, dynamical chemical process - wouldn't be the primary things we need to pay attention to.

Abstract metaphysics is just the self unwittingly dissociating its consciousness from the enlivening affects of being embodied and connected with others. This is the problem with metaphysics: it happens through a thinking system which is affectively guided by events contingently related to the bodies homeostasis: in other words, we can wax poetic merely because were hungry and need to eat.

There is something profoundly equalizing about that fact. No matter how much humans pretend to be God, they are still subject to entropy, and the irritability, bitterness, and psychological disease that it brings.

It would appear to be so on the surface and yu have described the mechanics very...um, "wordyly"...but there is so much more.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

The entropy should make it impossible for order(and us) to exist for very long ...were it not for the fact that our Creator makes " all things work together for good".
And Itisnowagain, I admire your ability to express truths so concisely. I wish more people could do that. Those with no understanding use effusive words to try and divert attention away from their lack of true awareness.

You are the singularity..

The very fact that you have choice and freewill.. leads to some certain conclusions..

First when information is given you.. you can make an informed choice and change the outcome of the future.. your very reasoning process is made by destiny and purpose..

You are the singularity in The Son of God..

Someone may have created you.. but they can't remove your freewill!

This concept of freewill or a choosing station is directly in the middle of the cosm of cause and effect..

Only to note.. you can't change the past.. but you can change the future..

Though you may be creating opportunities for yourself, you still need to act on them, and go through the experience of them..

In fact experience is the central processing unit itself.. you can never get away from being.. never get away from experience!

So to conclude.. it is the medium called choice that is indeed the singularity! Your experience rests on this fundamental idea!

originally posted by: Boundless1
So to conclude.. it is the medium called choice that is indeed the singularity! Your experience rests on this fundamental idea!

Is there any choice in whether these words are seen or read?

I see what your saying..

I have choice to look up this post and see a new reply.

But I can't control the object that is right in front of me.. the object being your post!

As soon as I see it.. the whole topic becomes understood automatically.. and that is without control.. it is an immediate transfer of information..

Kind of like walking in a storm.. you can understand what the storm is doing but you don't have control over the wind..

So I guess freewill has allot of offs and ons..