It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
..many would say that it certainly is not at all friendly, as they type away from the comfort of the chair they sit in...
Other's, perhaps to avoid the implications of a friendly universe in favor of the life we experience, would say that it's utterly indifferent and without any direction or intent whereby our existence is a byproduct of a grand fluke or mere happenstance and just a blip, nothing more.
originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
What this line of thought and questioning raises, for me, is the idea of significance and meaning or purpose and an original intent where from our existence and experience is meaningful and significant.
It is of any significance that we are here now and that there is this something rather than nothing or a something that included us or within which we are a part?
originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
Can an entirely disinterested and impersonal viewpoint be taken in talking about evolution that doesn't consider the inextricable implications of the personal experience of being alive? And can the human being be considered as just another thing, nothing more?
originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
Isn't there something about the generally prevailing "scientific" viewpoint that rings hollow, facile, and disingenuous, particularly in light of ideas like fine tuning, monistic idealism (consciousness, not matter is primary), and the self aware universe?
originally posted by:
AnkhMorpork
Are we not on the cusp of a new scientific paradigm where the answer to the question of - Is the creation and universe friendly towards us? is a clear and decisive - YES, however uncomfortable it might make the atheist bias in science, feel?
What would be the implications to the answer of a clear YES?
originally posted by:
AnkhMorpork
What does that look like and what does it mean or signify, if it's not nothing at all?
originally posted by:
AnkhMorpork
This is where it starts to get interesting, imho, what happens when we start to explore that territory yet without losing for a moment the fundamental curiosity and discipline at the heart of scientific inquiry.
originally posted by:
AnkhMorpork
I think there's a whole framework of valid hypotheses that can be considered with the understanding that our own present moment experience contains imbedded within it, an original intent or in other words that it was meant to be and that there is a reason why I can type this and you read it now.
originally posted by:
AnkhMorpork
I think that there's a whole set of logical principals which arise from this consideration, involving things like generosity and kindness and love, and that's interesting to me, what I would call a rational basis for "faith" as a reasonable cause for hope and optimism in the face of a world gone mad due in no small part to bad training involved in the whole materialist monist mindset and worldview and paradigm, which is falling apart at the seems.
originally posted by:
AnkhMorpork
It's imperative that we consider this "alternative" (soon going mainstream) viewpoint and paradigm and consider it's implications right down to our own mutually enlightened responsibilities to God and to our fellow man and to ourselves, and how we relate at all levels, of only in order so that we might be truly happy and back in congruent alignment with the heart of it all, perhaps not unlike the consideration of very wise and knowledgeable ancient ancient people from a long lost golden age of mankind where the "kingdom of heaven" could be likened to a man, a storekeeper, who brings forth from his storehouse of treasure, treasures that are both very old and very new.
originally posted by:
AnkhMorpork
And for the stoic and impersonal, atheistic scientific, materialist monist viewpoint, you'll have to admit that you can't avoid it as a possibility ie: that the whole "world" is friendly towards us, and hey doesn't the physical evidence not point a rather sturdy finger in that direction..?
originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: AnkhMorpork
I just want you to know I think there is much wisdom in what you have to say, overall. I particularly enjoyed this thought
The flaw, if there is one, is in our thinking and the reality tunnel we use to try to protect ourselves from an experience of absolute novelty and unfathomable generosity and love.
I believe the flaw is indeed generally in our thinking too. That said much of this goes beyond our reason and comprehension, at least mine anyway, for now....
It may even be, in the final analysis, the only reasonable and rational position to take. However high minded it's still imminently practical where the rubber meets the road with torque as a first cause at the heart of things. Oh how the high and mighty have fallen when the little man appropriates the hard won boon and gift to humanity while laying claim to an inheritance that has clearly been prepared from an original intent or "before the very foundation of the world".
said that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and by that I mean an awareness that there's no shielding capable of repelling the truth
the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and by that I mean an awareness that there's no shielding capable of repelling the truth and the objective reality
In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem.
A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. Physicists Samuel L. Braunstein at the University of York, UK, and Arun K. Pati of the Harish-Chandra Research Institute, India, first proved the no-hiding theorem in 2007. Until now, however, the no-hiding theorem has been a purely theoretical concept.
Read more at: phys.org...
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: AnkhMorpork
In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem.
A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. Physicists Samuel L. Braunstein at the University of York, UK, and Arun K. Pati of the Harish-Chandra Research Institute, India, first proved the no-hiding theorem in 2007. Until now, however, the no-hiding theorem has been a purely theoretical concept.
Read more at: phys.org...
phys.org...