Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00064)

"The Omniscient Blade" <blade@mysanctuary.con> wrote in message
news:994634882.28558.0.nnrp-14.c1eded33@news.demon.co.uk...> 
> "nos" <nos@granite.net.au> wrote in message
> news:8y027.43$Az2.4024@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> <snip>
> > > >If the laws of nature were all there before
> > > > the Big Bang, then they must be nonphysical, idealike entities
> dwelling
> > in
> > > > some king of permanent mathematical mind (the matrix?), be it
the mind
> > of
> > > > God or the Cosmic Mind or just the mind of a disembodied
> mathematician.
> > >
> > > Thats a big if to start with and if you want information based
> existence,
> > > you need a medium for the inofrmation to be stored and organised
> > coherently
> > > in and that in turn requires some physical aspects. Indeed if such
> > entities
> > > interacted with some physical thing to trigger the big bang, then
they
> > > themselves must have been physical in nature but just not as
anything we
> > > have yet observed. Another thought is that this universe was
triggered
> by
> > > lifeforms in another universe that are much like us and were of
similar
> > > technological ability (slightly more advanced but not nessesarily
much
> > more
> > > so). In trying to figure out the hows and whys of their own
universes
> > > formation they triggered a new one...our one and took part in an
> infinite
> > > chain of causality. This is a workable theory because it has
laready
> been
> > > suggested by physicists that we may soon be able to do this and
that it
> > > might be desireable to see how universes for to better understand
our
> own.
> >
> > By saying 'triggered by lifeforms in other universes' you show that
we
> have
> > a differing definition of the word universe. In theosophy the
universe is
> > the totality of all possibilities.
> 
> That exceeds what nessesarily makes up our reality which you allude to
> below.
> 
> >If there is a causal relationship between
> > differing planes or dimensions then by necessity they are connected.
> 
> The causality interaction may be one way, they may have triggered the
> universe (as we likely one day will) but had no way to access or
interact
> with the inside of this new universe (ours).
> 
> >if
> > another universe exists that has no possible interaction with this
or
> > another one then they may as well not exist anyway.
> 
> Indeed, but this also means that science is all that is needed to
fully
> undersatnd and document our reality because all it relies on are
interaction
> to provide information on the thing interacting and by this all things
that
> exist (relative to us) must be acocuntable to scientific methodology.
> 
> <snip>
> > > >This
> > > > assumption is something that physicists and most modern
cosmologists
> > have
> > > > not yet begun to question seriously. If the universe is
evolving, then
> > the
> > > > laws of nature may be evolving as well. In fact, the very idea
of the
> > > 'laws'
> > > > of nature may not be appropriate. Perhaps the evolving 'habits'
of
> > nature.
> > >
> > > The universe appears to be built essentially on a foundation opf
> > randomness
> > > where certainty does not exist, only probability. Evolution
implies
> > adaption
> > > to meet a certain task or requirement. Life evolves to survive and
our
> > > reproduce the next guy for instance. Why would the rules on which
the
> > > universe operates be evolving and to what end? To me this would
require
> > some
> > > intent behind the universe in the first place for the rules to
adapt to
> > > fulfill, but you can't even demonstrate intent and the most
plausible
> > (IMO)
> > > scenario for their being any intent behind the universes formation
> implies
> > > that the universe fulfilled its requirements moments after its
> initiation
> > by
> > > providing information to a lifeform wanting to know what happens
when
> > > universes form.
> >
> > Necessity. Everything in the uinverse is as it is because of
Necessity.
> > Cosmic Ideation is the mother of necessity and necessity is the
mother of
> > everything.
> 
> But the universe has nothing that nessesitates its existence in a
given
> state. The universe doesn't care wheather its laws of physics allow
life to
> exist, its not a nessesity that it does, its a happy coincidence and
if it
> didn't, we wouldn't be hear to debate the fact. The things inside the
> universe exist because of the laws in the universe, the laws don't
exist so
> that the things can.
> 
> >
> > Your last statement is more profound than you think. All classical
> > philosophies and Buddhism and Theosophy etc consider that the
universe was
> > perfect immediately upon creation and has been in degeneration
since. That
> > is why this is the Kali Yuga. The ages always descend from gold,
silver,
> > bronze, iron....
> >
> > Perfection was destroyed when the Ego said "I am this' and 'that is
that'
> > and the subject object was created. An Illusion.
> 
> Perfection is a subjective thing in most cases, because it is a matter
of
> opinion what constitutes flawless for most attributes.
> 
> --
> Blade ICQ#27537648
> 
> Comparing religion to science is like comparing a molehill to a
mountain!
> 
> Change .con to demon<dot>co<dot>uk to send mail.
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]