The God Theory

Thanks.

We continue telling the same story or at least fragments of the same story but with different actors and backdrops.

The golden ratio might be related back to the trinity which is an important revelation in a personal sense as a metaphor of the psychology of the experience of species. Father-mother-child, Birth-Life-Death, and so on. The trinity highlights the wire of polarities instead of simply focusing on its opposites. But again that is only a fragment of the story.

The filtering of the infinite might be correlated to any species experience as well.

The definition brought fourth by Mandelbrot of self-similarity in nature he termed fractal shows there is a definite connection of all things. Holographic principal is basically the same story, as is evolution if you think about it. If accepting the underlying principals these theories put forth shouldn't the filtering process be replicated also within other parts of nature?

When a human child is born it has a bunch of neurons and synapses and these undergo a process known as pruning.

en.wikipedia.org...

In neuroscience, synaptic pruning, neuronal pruning or axon pruning refer to neurological regulatory processes, which facilitate a change in neural structure by reducing the overall number of neurons and synapses, leaving more efficient synaptic configurations.

In the holonomic model of the brain basically the matter is the medium for an interference pattern, it being able to be impressed with multiple patterns and discern them, more than likely, using Fourier transforms.

en.wikipedia.org...

The holonomic brain theory, originated by psychologist Karl Pribram and initially developed in collaboration with physicist David Bohm, is a model for human cognition that is drastically different from conventionally accepted ideas: Pribram and Bohm posit a model of cognitive function as being guided by a matrix of neurological wave interference patterns situated temporally between holographic Gestalt perception and discrete, affective, quantum vectors derived from reward anticipation potentials.

It might be that the filtering/pruning process that occurs within the human species is the fine tuning of the interference pattern until an optimum algorithm, so to speak, is found.

The trinity could also relate to a fragment of human psychology or the story of the development of man through the ages. Freud called it the Id-Ego-Superego relationship which Jung expanded further upon but still had not the complete image. Gordon Allport also had his little trinity with Cardinal-Central-Secondary but again he never took full measure of the complexity of the experience of life. Jung seemed too keen to move away from Freud and though he introduced this most modern of definitions with the trinity Past-Present-Future he failed to expand upon it's nature within the structure of the psyche.

The subversion that is occurring today, is it a natural response of nature/god/allah? Or is it man attempting to invoke god on this mortal plain with people bred for memories? It seems most are still debating the existence of a grander truth when they should embrace it. Some have embraced it, and of course polarised, with some attempting in whatever fashion to usurp gods power with little regard for anything else and the others seeming to fail to recognise this.

So everyone is a piece of the puzzle, holds some fragment of the story, or is at least able to access it. As we develop we manifest (hopefully at least) ideas into this realm. Whatever the fruit it is a contribution. The thing is that all of these manifestations are feeding upon a root and representing that root with whatever might be their expression, be it painting, story telling, map making , gardening and so on. The root will gain ultimate expression through us with, I think, a story. A story which will unlock the gates. The holographic theory, especially as presented by Michael Talbot, is perhaps the closest science has come to explaining that god is attainable through oneself.

Anyway thanks for sharing.

If the base state of all information (in formation) is held and preserved by and within the zero point field, forever retaining anything and everything of value while slicing away everything that is absurd and has no truck with reality, if this is our already always state (in truth), then it only makes sense that we must forgive as we are forgiven, or we cannot be forgiven.

Ever-fresh, the fully informed, eternal base state of all information, is our true condition (in God), whereby own underlying conscious experience is enfolded from the cosmological, informational unity or cosmic matrix of truth and reality and therefrom forever arises authentically and spontaneously as it's manifestation or reflection so that an experience, in shared mutality, can be made possible, through us, even as intended from an originating first/last cause ie: "..them, as you loved me from before the foundation of the world."

The truth that sets us free in eternity is the truth that we are already set free in eternity already, where, prior to judgegement and hard choice, and the assigning of valuations ie: this is good, this is bad, I am right, you are wrong, etc etc. and by absolute forgiveness, our own true state of mind and being transcends the purely localized, material nature, which is to enter into the domain of eternal life (non dual, non-localized, timeless-unmanifest), as our own increasingly aware base-state (informed, reintegrated, individuated, unconditionally accepted) that is in increasing alignment with the truth and reality as it really is, which for us is an experience, even, dare I say it, an emotional response ie: it's experiencial, innerent yet transcendant

Me I love God because I can reason, as Jesus did, that God first loved me from the very get-go simply by virtue of my own present moment experience ie: "the kingdom of heaven is at hand", an experience made possible not as a practice or a doing, but upon receipt of that which has already been done for me and given to me, so that I might also be found again, and welcomed home or reintegrated (see parable of the Prodigal Son), and satisfied.

This process, this continual, evolutionary process of differentiation and reintegration occurs with an outer frame of absolute wholeness and perfection, so, from the larger frame of reference, what becomes clear, at least by reading the wise and learned psysicists ref'd in the OP, is that we reside in some sort of evolutionary, eternal recurrence, which while once initiated is never ending ie: the preserver is preseved, or once God said "let there be light" there WAS (already) light - forever grows, and grows ever larger (even from faith the size of but a tiny mustard seed which grows into the largest of bushes) in the hidden domain of the Akashic Record aka "The Book of Life".

The key I think to find one's name written there IN the Book of Life, is to look for it there and find it, because whoever seeks will find and find the end of seeking in the knowledge of the experience (humor of understanding?) of that which is already eternal and thus which can never die, where from he who's already attained the perfection - the gift of "eternal life", and the extending of that free gift by invitation, is not a lie or a deception, but an honest and gracious gesture. This is the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

"Life is a Mighty Joke. He who knows this can hardly be understood by others. He who does not know it finds himself in a state of delusion. He may ponder over this problem day and night, but will find himself incapable of knowing it. Why? People take life seriously, and God lightly; whereas we must take God seriously, and take life lightly. Then, we know that we always were the same and will ever remain the same.......the Originator of this joke. This knowledge is not acheived by reasoning.
But it is the knowledge of experience."

~ Meher Baba

And at the very least if the universe is comprised of information exchange through a non-localizad, holographic type projection, then as a cosmological, informational processing "matrix" such a cosmic "computer" has had more than enough time to become self aware.

At the same time we are also the very object of the whole process and thus the crowning glory of creation standing (in Christ) within the eternal frame of the Absolute Godhead, but in relationship, as we are also one to another on the same shared ground of all being and becoming, and, to God, as that between a parent and child, but with heartfelt familiarity ie: as "Abba" or pappa (Dad). Can you imagine if that's our true and intended stature and relationship, made by design to contain and reflect nothing less than the living God who's will is the will to love, and to share that love? What if Jesus had it right all along..? I think he did, I think he got it right, however misinterpreted he's been.

Makes our own absurdities even more absurd and ridiculous by comparison, imho, so this is why I think of it (accepting the invitation of the ages) as also involving (in-volving and evolving), as an added bonus, the rediscovery (with glee) of one's humor and authentic self-expression, fully restored, not the least of which involves also a healthy dose of self-deprecating humor where we can no longer take ourselves, or more certainly who we thought we were or once took ourselves to be, as seriously any more (in the light of truth), while taking our true self as child OF God and our relationship to and WITH God, much more seriously than we ever have before, unto...divine communion aka koinonia.

There is no god theory, unless you are retarded. The end.

reply to post by BagBing

It's only a "fool" who says in his innermost heart of hearts "there is no God".

At the very least an open mind might be appropriate..


"There is a principal which servers as a bar against all information and proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principal is contempt, prior to investigation."
~ Herbert Spencer, Scientist

Funny, sometimes the things we say say much much more about ourselves than anything and by far more than we might have otherwise presumed..

Originally posted by bismarket
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

ANYTHING testable in this, or is it just woo?

It's doesn't appear to be all "woo" and if it is, it's definitely woo WOO!

Seriously, the field, the radiant akashic field, the Tao, the eternal Godhead, whatever you want to call "it" isn't all woo, no. Check this article written by Haisch again.

Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field

by Bernard Haisch

Is matter an illusion? Is the universe floating on a vast sea of light, whose invisible power provides the resistance that gives to matter its feeling of solidity? Astrophysicist Bernhard Haisch and his colleagues have followed the equations to some compelling — and challenging — conclusions.

"God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light."

It is certainly a beautiful poetic statement. But does it contain any science? A few years ago I would have dismissed that possibility. As an astrophysicist, I knew all too well the blatant contradictions between the sequence of events in Genesis and the physics of the Universe. Even after substituting eons for days, the order of events was obviously wrong. It made no sense to have light come first, and then to claim that the Sun, the moon and the stars — the obvious sources of light in the night sky of the ancient world — were created only subsequently, be it days or eons later. One could, of course, generalize light to mean simply energy, and thus claim a reference to the Big Bang, but that would, to me, be more of a stretch than a revelation.

My first inkling that the deceptively simple "Let there be light" might actually contain a profound cosmological truth came in early July 1992. I was trying to wrap things up in my office in Palo Alto so that I could spend the rest of the summer doing research on the X-ray emission of stars at the Max Planck Institute in Garching, Germany. I came in one morning just before my departure and found a rather peculiar message on my answering machine; it had been left at 3 a.m.by a usually sober-minded colleague, Alfonso Rueda, a professor at California State University in Long Beach. He was so excited by the results of a horrifically-long mathematical analysis he had been grinding through that he just had to tell me about it, knowing full well I was not there to share the thrill.

What he had succeeded in doing was to derive the equation: F=ma. Details would follow in Germany.

Most people will take this in stride with a "so what?" or "what does that mean?" After all what are F, m and a, and what is so noteworthy about a scientist deriving a simple equation? Isn't this what scientists do for a living?

But a physicist will have an incredulous reaction because you are not supposed to be able to derive the equation F=ma. That equation was postulated by Newton in his Principia, the foundation stone of physics, in 1687. A postulate is a law that you assume to be true, and from which other things follow: such as much of physics, for example, from that particular postulate. You cannot derive postulates. How do you prove that one plus one equals two? The answer is, you don't. You assume that abstract numbers work that way, and then derive other properties of addition from that basic assumption.

But indeed, as I discovered when I began to write up a research paper based on what Rueda soon sent to Garching, he had indeed derived Newton's fundamental "equation of motion." And the concept underlying this analysis was the existence of a background sea of light known as the electromagnetic zero-point field of the quantum vacuum.

To understand this zero-point field (for short), consider an old-fashioned grandfather clock with its pendulum swinging back and forth. If you don't wind the clock , friction will sooner or later bring the pendulum to a halt. Now imagine a pendulum that gets smaller and smaller, so small that it ultimately becomes atomic in size and subject to the laws of quantum physics. There is a rule in quantum physics called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that states (with certainty, as it happens) that no quantum object, such as a microscopic pendulum, can ever be brought completely to rest. Any microscopic object will always possess a residual random jiggle thanks to quantum fluctuations.

Radio, television and cellular phones all operate by transmitting or receiving electromagnetic waves. Visible light is the same thing; it is just a higher frequency form of electromagnetic waves. At even higher frequencies, beyond the visible spectrum, you find ultraviolet light, X-rays and gamma-rays. All are electromagnetic waves which are really just different frequencies of light.

It is standard in quantum theory to apply the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to electromagnetic waves, since electric and magnetic fields flowing through space oscillate like a pendulum. At every possible frequency there will always be a tiny bit of electromagnetic jiggling going on. And if you add up all these ceaseless fluctuations, what you get is a background sea of light whose total energy is enormous: the zero-point field.

The "zero-point" refers to the fact that even though this energy is huge, it is the lowest possible energy state. All other energy is over and above the zero-point state. Take any volume of space and take away everything else — in other words, create a vacuum — and what you are left with is the zero-point field.

We can imagine a true vacuum, devoid of everything, but the real-world quantum vacuum is permeated by the zero-point field with its ceaseless electromagnetic waves. The fact that the zero-point field is the lowest energy state makes it unobservable. We see things by way of contrast. The eye works by letting light fall on the otherwise dark retina. But if the eye were filled with light, there would be no darkness to afford a contrast. The zero-point field is such a blinding light. Since it is everywhere, inside and outside of us, permeating every atom in our bodies, we are effectively blind to it. It blinds us to its presence. The world of light that we do see is all the rest of the light that is over and above the zero-point field. We cannot eliminate the zero-point field from our eyes, but it is possible to eliminate a little bit of it from the region between two metal plates. (Technically, this has to do with conditions the electromagnetic waves must satisfy on the plate boundaries.) A Dutch physicist, Hendrik Casimir, predicted in 1948 exactly how much of the zero-point field would end up being excluded in the gap between the plates, and how this would generates a force, since there is then an overpressure on the outside of the plates. Casimir predicted the relation between the gap and the force very precisely. You can, however, only exclude a tiny fraction of the zero-point field from the gap between the plates in this way. Counterintuitively, the closer the plates come together, the more of the zero-point field gets excluded, but there is a limit to this process because plates are made up of atoms and you cannot make the gap between the plates smaller than the atoms that constitute the plates. This Casimir force has now been physically measured, and the results agree very well with his prediction.

The discovery that my colleague first made in 1992 also has to do with a force that the zero-point field generates, which takes us back to F=ma, Newton’s famous equation of motion. Newton — and all physicists since — have assumed that all matter possesses an innate mass, the m in Newton's equation. The mass of an object is a measure of its inertia, its resistance to acceleration, the a. The equation of motion, known as Newton's second law, states that if you apply a force, F, to an object you will get an acceleration, a — but the more mass, m, the object possesses, the less acceleration you will get for a given force. In other words, the force it takes to accelerate a hockey puck to a high speed will barely budge a car. For any given force, F, if m goes up, a goes down, and vice versa.

Why is this? What gave matter this property of possessing inertial mass? Physicists sometimes talk about a concept known as "Mach's Principle" but all that does is to establish a certain relationship between gravity and inertia. It doesn’t really say how all material objects acquire mass. In fact, the work that Rueda, I and another colleague, Hal Puthoff, have since done indicate that mass is, in effect, an illusion. Matter resists acceleration not because it possesses some innate thing called mass, but because the zero-point field exerts a force whenever acceleration takes place. To put it in somewhat metaphysical terms, there exists a background sea of quantum light filling the universe, and that light generates a force that opposes acceleration when you push on any material object. That is why matter seems to be the solid, stable stuff that we and our world are made of.

Saying this is one thing. Proving it scientifically is another. It took a year and a half of calculating and writing and thinking, over and over again, to refine both the ideas themselves and the presentation to the point of publication in a professional research journal. On an academic timescale this was actually pretty quick, and we were able to publish in what is widely regarded as the world's leading physics journal, the Physical Review, in February 1994. To top it off, Science and Scientific American ran stories on our new inertia hypothesis. We waited for some reaction. Would other scientists prove us right or prove us wrong? Neither happened.

At that point in my career I was already a fairly well-established scientist, being a principal investigator on NASA research grants, serving as an associate editor of the Astrophysical Journal, and having many dozens of publications in the parallel field of astrophysics. In retrospect, my experience should have warned me that we had ventured into dangerous theoretical waters, that we were going to be left on our own to sink or swim. Indeed, I would probably have taken the same wait-and-see attitude myself had I been on the outside looking in.

An alternative to having other scientists replicate your work and prove that you are right is to get the same result yourself using a completely different approach. I wrote a research proposal to NASA and Alfonso buried himself in new calculations. We got funding and we got results. In 1998, we published two new papers that again showed that the inertia of matter could be traced back to the zero-point field. And not only was the approach in those papers completely different than in the 1994 paper, but the mathematics was simpler while the physics was more complete: a most desireable combination. What’s more, the original analysis had used Newtonian classical physics; the new analysis used Einsteinian relativistic physics.

As encouraged as I am, it is still too early to say whether history will prove us right or wrong. But if we are right, then "Let there be light" is indeed a very profound statement, as one might expect of its purported author. The solid, stable world of matter appears to be sustained at every instant by an underlying sea of quantum light.

But let's take this even one step further. If it is the underlying realm of light that is the fundamental reality propping up our physical universe, let us ask ourselves how the universe of space and time would appear from the perspective of a beam of light. The laws of relativity are clear on this point. If you could ride a beam of light as an observer, all of space would shrink to a point, and all of time would collapse to an instant. In the reference frame of light, there is no space and time. If we look up at the Andromeda galaxy in the night sky, we see light that from our point of view took 2 million years to traverse that vast distance of space. But to a beam of light radiating from some star in the Andromeda galaxy, the transmission from its point of origin to our eye was instantaneous.

There must be a deeper meaning in these physical facts, a deeper truth about the simultaneous interconnection of all things. It beckons us forward in our search for a better, truer understanding of the nature of the universe, of the origins of space and time — those "illusions" that yet feel so real to us.

Bernhard Haisch, staff physicist at the Lockheed Martin Solar & Astrophysics Laboratory in Palo Alto, California, is a scientific editor of The Astrophysical Journal and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

homepages.ihug.co.nz...

Shameless self bumping of thread for further consideration and comments.

Which God? Zeus? Mars? The Great Ju Ju Under The Ocean? All of the tens of thousands of Hindu Gods? Funny how religious types conveniently see their god in nature and not the countless others.

Interesting theory. Loosely reasonable, but it's a little vague in places and a little off the mark in others. Think quantum gravity, and you'll see where "God" comes from.

But again, as I have said before, I hate to use the word 'god', because of all the dogma, preconceptions, and expectations applied to it. I'd rather use the word "Law", because law doesn't imply personality or judgment. It simply is.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I realize you may not wish to hear this, but the phrase "the law of life and love" is also very Biblical, while referring to the giver or generator of the law as God. I like to think of God as the first/last cause and the Alpha and Omega of existence, which fits well into the scientific paradigm of the Zero Point Field or the Akashic Field, as a fully informed, and self-aware Godhead, yet one's who's highest expression through an eternal creative, cosmological evolutionary process, is none other than we ourselves and this is where, by divine proportion or according to sacred geometry, that the premise of Christianity ie: man as son of God in relationship with the Godhead recognizes it's efficacy as a rational basis for "faith" and for our own transformation towards ever higher states of conscious realization, so as to reach the "I am of God" state, in human form, with all the accompanying implications in terms of our place and standing both in creation and, in relation to one another where we all share the same ground of being and becoming ie: what our obiligations to one another might be within that highest imaginable familial relationship of the brotherhood of man.

bump thread for further evaluation and discussion..