Is God the Universe?

@fresco,

No, that's assuming that such rationalizations are an extension of the cognitive abilities of all "life" (Maturana) in our case coupled with a socially aquired human language through which we functionally segment "the universe" into "things" like "rocks" "electrons" and "black holes".

I agree wholeheartedly, but 1) re-read my reply (I edited it) and 2) a rose by another other name would smell just as sweet.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Are you asking if God created himself?

Now that would be a feat only a god could perform!

Created Himself in the physical sense, yes; I believe that if a fourth dimension exists, it is indeed a "spiritual" realm, but I view it thusly:

If dreams are the accumulation of human experience (which they must be, for we can't dream about something we haven't yet encountered), then I believe the "spiritual realm" to be God's conscious -- that is, it is a realm that doesn't exist. It does not follow any natural laws because, like a world WE invent, it is not subject to "balance." It exists as the de facto representation of God's "Utopia."

I'm not claiming this as scientific -- it is very abstract. But given what we know about the human mind and how it functions and builds its perception of the world, it is such a stretch to imagine that the physical world, too, may have a "subconscious" level? Science itself has hinted at it, sometimes with things as crazy as parallel universes -- rather than parallel universes, however, could it simply be that there is ONE universe, and ONE reality, and that the "spiritual" realm is then simply the infinite possibility that exists at any one time.

In other words, for every one thing that DOES happen, "spirituality" is the cumulative whole of that which does not. You know... like the hypothetical.

My goal is really only to open eyes, not inform. It's gonna take time.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

The world is full of ideas, but I think you'll find that in order to make yours stand out, they will need more meat on their bones.

You seem to have bags of creativity rattling around in your mind, so even though speculative reading might be fun, you might find more detailed information ultimately more rewarding for giving your ideas some grounding. Try "The Elegant Universe" or something from Steven Hawking and see if that gives you more to think about.

Hence why I made this post. Wink

I believe I have something to contribute to science -- something crucial -- but I admit to my own ignorance when it comes to the actual study of "all things." I have an interest in the relationship between everything, which means I have an interest in all branches and disciplines of science, which means I'm stretched far too thin across too many subjects; but that's why I'm branching out and hoping to find others who are willing to work with my sometimes "radical" or "extreme" views and rather than attack, inform.

In the end, my ultimate goal is the same as any other scientist or philosopher: uncover the "truth." And, like any other scientist or philosopher, I've discovered and appreciate that it's a bumpy ride.

0 Replies

@lieunacy,

Yes, we are on similar paths. However we must be careful not to confuse "cognition" with "consciousness". The first can be applied to those adaptive processes displayed by all of what we call "life" (biologically defined as autopoietic systems). It does not apply to "non-living" systems. The second is applicable to systems which appear to have an element of control over their "goal-directedness", but such teleology is not subsumed by "cognition" (Santiago Theory of...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_Theory_of_Cognition

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Yes, we are on similar paths. However we must be careful not to confuse "cognition" with "consciousness". The first can be applied to those adaptive processes displayed by all of what we call "life" (biologically defined as autopoietic systems). It does not apply to "non-living" systems. The second is applicable to systems which appear to have an element of control over their "goal-directedness", but such teleology is not subsumed by "cognition" (Santiago Theory of...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_Theory_of_Cognition

If you ask me, they're merely defining cognition as an entity's ability to survive; however, I see no discernible difference between living and non-living systems. In that respect, cognition is merely a number of complex interactions between individual elements performing specific tasks; in other words, the organism does not "adapt" -- instead, its individual parts react to stimuli in the environment, sparking a chain reaction amongst the whole. If the stimuli persists, the reaction persists; if the reaction persists long enough, it only makes sense that it becomes autonomous to save time and effort.

To demonstrate, let's build two computers:

First, each is given a processor. This processor merely reacts to whatever stimuli its offered -- that is, it processes. Now, one is given RAM while the other remains a simple processor. The computer with the RAM is now capable of storing information for later recall -- albeit in the short-term. This enables it to "remember" how it responds to situations by storing a copy of, say, the amino acid code sequence for a protein that allows it survive in extreme heat. This makes it more versatile and thus more capable of survival.

However, did it "know" that it was doing it? Not at all. It simply reacted to stimuli; there was no cognitive process.

Let's say each computer accumulates one hundred new processors. Both may now react to up to 100 stimuli at any given time, due to their increased ability to process information -- that is, react. However, the computer without the RAM still lacks the ability to automate itself, and therefore long-term, sustainable survival becomes less and less likely. The computer WITH the RAM, however, now has 100 potential processors to react and a small database/reference of past experiences (memory!) to tackle old threats. Think of it like a cold virus; the body struggles to fight it the first time, but once it's created the correct antibodies to eliminate the threat, it stores them for recall at any time... automatically.

I simply can't consider that "cognition." It does not perceive; it reacts, automatically and "instinctively."

However, include a hard-drive in the mix to "permanently" store information for recall later (DNA), and make this hard-drive universally available to every last individual element within an organism, and suddenly you have a very effective computer working and responding in unison without the need to wait for input -- they know what to do.

Over time, this process produces recurring themes that cells "recognize" like faces; as a greater number of stimuli are recorded into the organisms "hard drive", it is more readily and easily able to tackle sustained and new input. Therefore, adaptability is defined by an organism's collective experience, and therefore "cognition" in this sense is merely its ability to recall prior reactions to stimuli versus its natural inclination to react to new stimuli. In other words, it's a process repeated over and over until it sticks.

So... actually, I just argued your point for you. Cognition is indeed "knowing." And in this sense, you could say that a computer, or a bacterium, "knows." It "knows" how to make proteins. It "knows" how to calculate an algorithm. It is "cognitive."

Now I need to tackle consciousness... which is funny, because I'm using my conscious now. However, I've gotta say... it actually hints at Intelligent Design because let's face it -- our consciousness is actually detrimental to our natural abilities. It acts only to provide "choice" -- the ability to choose AGAINST "nature."

In other words... consciousness is free will and the awareness of possibilities other than what is presented or offered. It is unique to man, and that fact -- to me -- is evidence of intelligent design. Yes, it largely developed through a natural process, but in actuality, a conscience is both a glaring flaw and beautiful gift; nature does not develop such dualities nor contradictions.

But, this is me just exploring territory. I'm glad you brought this stuff up, it's interesting.

1 Reply

@lieunacy,

Your exploring is going well. One "revelation" for me was the Santiago idea that there is no such thing as a "sensory input" or "information" from the point of view of the adapting organism. In other words the concept of "memory for stimuli" lies solely in the domain of an observing/languaging third party looking for "explanation". All we can say about the organism itself is that its "structure has adapted to a perturbation". In terms of your computer models this simply means that the computer itself has no concept of "information" or "input". It is merely our quest for "satisfactory" models of goal directed devices which suggests the application of such models to living organisms.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Your exploring is going well. One "revelation" for me was the Santiago idea that there is no such thing as a "sensory input" or "information" from the point of view of the adapting organism. In other words the concept of "memory for stimuli" lies solely in the domain of an observing/languaging third party looking for "explanation". All we can say about the organism itself is that its "structure has adapted to a perturbation". In terms of your computer models this simply means that the computer itself has no concept of "information" or "input". It is merely our quest for "satisfactory" models of goal directed devices which suggests the application of such models to living organisms.

That's essentially what I was hinting at overall: it is possible to know (cognizance) without being aware (consciousness). In this way, knowledge is literally just the storage of variables within a memory unit; therefore, "perception" is merely the detection of both "remembered" (stored) and new stimuli and reactions.

Awareness/consciousness then expands on that by allowing an entity to recall information by choice rather than only when the information (whether it be an enemy, food source, weather condition, etc) presents itself to the entity.

In other words, it can be summarized like so: a cognizant computer would merely fetch variables upon detecting a familiar stimuli and proceed accordingly, without any awareness of its actions (instinct); a conscious computer, on the other hand, has the added ability to fetch variables upon request -- it requires no stimuli. This allows it to "think" and "reflect," which in turn allows it to potentially learn that which is abstract and "unreal."

As I said, consciousness is actually an evolutionary faux pas in the orderly sense, as it tips the scales and upsets the balance of nature. It provides human beings with their greatest strength and greatest weakness -- but most importantly, it made human beings... well... human.

That is my best attempt to explain the two thus far.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

But was ther originally a reason at all? This is just your supposition upon which you have built your theory. But that makes it no less accurate then any other theory. there is still debat abour whether there was ever a big bang at all, again just another theory upon which a whole science has benn built and adjusted to suit.

Certinaly God is the Universe and visa versa, we are partof theconstruct of the Universe and there fore God is part of us just as we are part of God. And so it goes.....

The Universe is alive, reasoning and sentient buton a level far higher then we can understand at the moment.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

The universes expansion is not accelerating. Things appear to be accelerating away from us because expansion happens at every point. This means new space is being "created" between any two points, which means there is more space for expansion to happen. So from the perspective of any one point, things that are farther away appear to be accelerating away faster than things that are closer. This probably a bad explanation, and someone else may have explained better, I haven't read all the comments yet. But this does not mean the rate of expansion is accelerating, just that, as things are farther away, more expansion is taking place in the space between the observer and the object, so objects that are farther away appear to be accelerating faster and faster...ya know?

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

It is my understanding that black holes actually do decay, or lose mass over time via hawking radiation

0 Replies

@lieunacy,

Why do people feel the need to say evolution seeks to disprove intelligent design? Evolution has NOTHING to do with intelligent design. It is simply the mechanism (or explanation) of change of species through time, and has zero implications for or against a creator.

0 Replies

There are just a few points I'd like to make to add to this discussion.

1) The Big Bang Singularity did not explode into a void. It expend within itself and created time and space as it unfolded. A void is nothing and you can't go into nothing because there is nothing to go into.

The inflation or expansion of the BB Singularity (a mass of incredibility dense and hot energy.) is credited with creating: Time, Space, the laws of physics and all the matter and energy in the Universe. We believe that because energy and matter are the same thing in different states. (like water that can exist as a gas, a liquid or a solid depending on the temperature in which it exists.)

Since we accept that energy = mater, then we can conclude that the BB Singularity (directed by the laws of physics) expanded, cooled off and turned itself into and became everything that exist today. In short, the Universe is everything.... and has always been everything. The Universe was not created, it trasformed itself from the BB Singularity to what it is today.

2) The evidence we have for believing that we are in an expanding and accelerating universe, is the Red Shift of the light coming to us from galaxies that are almost 14 Billion Light Years away. (We believe that Those distant galaxies are moving way from us and the Doppler effect causes the Red Shift.) Now here's the kicker. Our own solar system is about 4 to 5 Billion years old. So what happened to the light from those galaxies when they were only 4 to 5 Billion light years away. Should we be receiving that light now? And if we are, based on the fact that gravity can Red Shift light .... and the light leaving those galaxies some 4 to 5 Billion years ago has traveled through 4 to 5 Billion light years of intergalactic space which is filled with gravity producing matter... (about 5 percent is visible and 95 percent is invisible dark matter and energy)... wouldn't that have Red Shifted the light? And if so, to what extent?

I'm just thinking.

1 Reply

Two things: 1) you were doing fine until you said

Quote:

Right? If it happened, it happened for a reason.

Maybe not. There's no way to tell.

2) The stuff of the Universe, the baryonic matter, the stuff we think as real, headed in all directions with the initial inflation and acted just like we would think stuff would for..... about eight billion years. Moving outward and ...dun dun dun ...slowing down due to the force of gravity, but THEN, about five billion years ago.....even stranger...everything that was matter, stuff, started to speed up we think, due to the influence of dark energy.

We have to remember that the universe is vastly stuff that is not real to us: 77% dark energy, 23% dark matter and everything else (all those billions and billions of galaxies, moon, dust and us) is 4.56% of the universe. If the Universe was the size of a football field, the entire physical matter of everything wouldn't cover the zero in the marker for the 50 yard line.

Picture the universe as that football field, the universe is kind of flat, and you and I are out on the edge, out there riding on the dark energy as the Universe slowly spins.......we look out past the edge and what do we see?

About 5000 other universes headed right for us.

Joe(you can tell by the shift in the wavelengths)Nation

0 Replies

@lieunacy,

lieunacy wrote:

I'll leave you with one thing that I wholeheartedly believe: whether God truly exists or not is a moot point, as I believe humanity will be destroyed before and or precisely when the truth is revealed.

The truth is, there is no god. But why would anything change if people start to realize that there is no god?

lieunacy wrote:

Essentially, I believe the end of times will occur when Faith is no longer necessary and the bridge between Knowledge and the Enigma is met.

Faith isn't necessary at all and never has been. If you want to believe in fairytales then you need faith because all you are saying is believing something without any good reason to be doing so.

So I think you are wrong. Nothing is going to happen once everyone wakes up and stops believing in nonsense.

0 Replies

Once you name it god you are anthropomorphising.

0 Replies

@Ray Ramirez,

Ray Ramirez wrote:

There are just a few points I'd like to make to add to this discussion.

1) The Big Bang Singularity did not explode into a void. It expend within itself and created time and space as it unfolded. A void is nothing and you can't go into nothing because there is nothing to go into.

The inflation or expansion of the BB Singularity (a mass of incredibility dense and hot energy.) is credited with creating: Time, Space, the laws of physics and all the matter and energy in the Universe. We believe that because energy and matter are the same thing in different states. (like water that can exist as a gas, a liquid or a solid depending on the temperature in which it exists.)

Since we accept that energy = mater, then we can conclude that the BB Singularity (directed by the laws of physics) expanded, cooled off and turned itself into and became everything that exist today. In short, the Universe is everything.... and has always been everything. The Universe was not created, it trasformed itself from the BB Singularity to what it is today.

2) The evidence we have for believing that we are in an expanding and accelerating universe, is the Red Shift of the light coming to us from galaxies that are almost 14 Billion Light Years away. (We believe that Those distant galaxies are moving way from us and the Doppler effect causes the Red Shift.) Now here's the kicker. Our own solar system is about 4 to 5 Billion years old. So what happened to the light from those galaxies when they were only 4 to 5 Billion light years away. Should we be receiving that light now? And if we are, based on the fact that gravity can Red Shift light .... and the light leaving those galaxies some 4 to 5 Billion years ago has traveled through 4 to 5 Billion light years of intergalactic space which is filled with gravity producing matter... (about 5 percent is visible and 95 percent is invisible dark matter and energy)... wouldn't that have Red Shifted the light? And if so, to what extent?

I'm just thinking.

Great post by the way. Looking over the thread again I decided to address it because it is a good post and no one has yet so here goes.

Id like to maybe clear some things up first just so I know we are on the same page. You might already know this so don't take it as an insult if I'm explaining something and you already know it.

First let me explain the expansion vs. velocity issue that many confuse. It is not the "speed" or "velocity" of the galaxies moving away that cases the red shift. It is the space being stretched that causes the red shift. Let me use an example. As you drive your car down your street, imagine that the street is stretching, getting longer.

Now if your car were light for this example, the stretching of the street also effects your car. Your car is also being stretched at the same rate as the street is. Now the further you are away the faster the stretch and the longer the stretch has been occuring so your car and the street are extremely stretched.

When you stretch light the wave length gets longer causing a shift in the color spectrum. So don't think of it as the speed or velocity of the glaxacy but instead it's the space. This is important to your question.

So reverse the process with the car and street analogy. Reverse 5 billion years and the street and your car are not as streteched as they were before. So less red shift.

This is as simple as I can make it without throwing a bunch of math at you.

0 Replies

@lieunacy,

I have the same theory. But I wouldn't use the words "he" or "Him" the universe is not a person it is the energy that surrounds us. There is positive energy and negative (good or evil as some say. I don't like those words). I do not belong to any religion. They are all based on myths and false beliefs. You do not need religion or to be labeled a 'christian' to strive to be a good and moral person. In fact I believe religion is dangerous and wasted energy. Positive and negative. The mass power of energy created off of those who strongly believe (no matter what it is) can lead to good or mass destruction. I do for a lack of a better word 'pray.' I pray to the 'Universe' and ask it to decide the choices I have to make daily so I will be healthy, happy, wealthy, and successful, etc. If I have those things then I don't have to ask for anything else because it would trickle down. For instance I would not have to 'pray to a God' for my mother to be okay because if something negative did happen to her then I wouldn't be' happy' and so on. Get it? So all I really ask is to let the universe decide the choices I make, if I think I want or need them or not. Then I will carry them out thorough my actions. I would never 'wish' hard for something to happen or not happen because the energy I give off might make 'that' thing happen and it may not be the best thing for me. Letting the universe decide insures the things that happen will be best. I don't sit there like a log and wait for things to happen. I still have ambitions and goals but let the choices I make be from the energy of the universe and let what ever happens, happen. Everything effects everything else. Reading this article and writing this has changed the course of the rest of my life. Like the movie Run Lola Run. Some people believe in Karma but 'karma is like using the word God. I believe if you do something wrong, that negative energy will surround you and effect other things that happen to you, therefore that negative energy will create negative things to happen to you until that negative energy is used up. The same for positive things you do. The positive energy will create positive things to happen to you. Well anyway this is what I believe.

0 Replies

@lieunacy,

At last someone is thinking! I have company regarding God being the energy of the Universe; or better put...God is the Universe or Multiverse. In my book, "Three Minutes that are Simply Fascinating" published in 2005, I intimated this exact idea. Both science and those who feel they must have a God can agree that this concept of 'God is' helps sooth all who get lost questioning.

All replies to this topic show interest in the subject and in 'thinking' which is the humankind's most enjoyable endeavor (well, perhaps after sex and golf) and will someday in some universe; perhaps not already 'big banged' reveal the how and why of creation. Then again perhaps our ultimate motivation for 'discovery' will always be just over the horizon.

Ron Heller, author of "Three Minutes that are Simply Fascinating" and "Three Minutes for You"

0 Replies

@lieunacy,

God is alpha and omega. He himself is the beginning and the end. That is the reason why He has no beginning and end. I agree with the point that Universe in its totality is God. If universe is God, then it cannot have beginning and it cannot end. Anything which has no beginning cannot end and vice versa.

I have many more points to discuss. Responses are welcome as I am also on the same track.

0 Replies

Is God the Universe?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know