earth quick and easy:
"so it came to me. the dream world is created in an instant, right? or maybe not an instant, some of it may have been swimming around in the unconscious for a while, but still it's pretty fast, right? coupled with that, the idea that i dreamed my way into earth, well what do you have? the concept that maybe earth is somehow part of the dream world, or was created out of the dream world, and that maybe it too was constructed pretty fast."
"the word "constructed" that you use, that just goes against what we normally think of how things, you know, buildings, roads, manufactured items, are made, like really slowly and using mechanical means."
"right, mental manufacturing is quicker and easier than manual or mechanical ways. the difference between the dream and earth is that the dream world is a blur most of the time, but the dream world extension that is earth is clear and in more detail, but it's still just an extension nevertheless."
"well it's the detail and the stability that make it seem real. it's like a computer image file loading slowly, a few big blurry blocks to start with and then it clears up into detail. the dream is the blurry image and earth is the clear image. that's a thought. i suppose it's a problem for some, the whole earth thing and science seeming to work perfectly in a lot of cases. there's the thinking i've read that how could we tell if everything were virtual, you know, if it were like a vast computer simulation, and obviously this is coming from a position where everything seems normal and odd things don't happen, you know, like it's all physical science in perfect order."
"we see glitches, real errors in the coding of earth."
"yeah, like the program has bugs, if it were a computer simulation, that is."
"right, things have happened, definitely, that make it impossible to really believe anymore. it's almost ironic. it's like the only person who knows earth isn't quite real is the person running a pretty bad, poor quality "earth simulation computer program". he's the guy with the crappy software or computer. the guy with the bug free perfect program probably still thinks earth is completely real, all science is true, and Physicalism explains everything."
"perhaps, but maybe no one buys it all, believes in everything like that."
"you're right. i guess everyone has doubts at some point. you know, but yet we're probably dismissed as crazy schizophrenics. it's like, oh you just have problems with your perception, a few crossed wires there in your brain, that's what it is, which is somehow getting divorced from a physical world."
"well ok, back on track, so earth was created in an instant or pretty quick. so when did it start? because then the earth history that we have is a lie, right?"
"well, at the start, i guess we were all in worlds of our own or in little groups of neighbouring people sharing a world. and then we imagined and dreamed earth into existence some time later, and then we slowly started to populate earth, of course, earth being a world full of philosophical zombies to start with and just a few real people."
"your best guess?"
"i don't know. from what i'm led to think, i'm guessing earth began in the 1800's. maybe the first real person on earth came before. but then, i think reality is only a few hundred years old. i know this is very alternative. what we have in the general domain of theories is that it is anything from a few thousand years old to billions of years old. what i think they've grossly underestimated is how fast things happen and how large the unconscious is and what it's capable of and how much existed right at the start of time."
"but you're an Idealist. you believe in the greater mental. it's an extreme position perhaps. it certainly means you disagree with both Creationists and people who think evolution is true."
"people who believe in evolution believe in Physicalism."
"and ok, so what is the true date, assuming that one, an accurate calendar was kept right from day one, and two, that you know what it is?"
"the year is 442 and today the date is September 24."
CLEARCHARGE
Showing posts with label creation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label creation. Show all posts
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Time and the Chaos Mix
time and the chaos mix:
there are a few questions of interest here. what existed or how much existed in the beginning of time or time zero? and how much creation has there been since? do we believe inflationary theories or not?
well, let us fill out the possibility ideas space. consider the big bang theory of the universe, first very little, then rapid inflation to a lot today. it is easy to understand why this is popular, people have poor memories of long ago, so the start seems little, but time makes it seem as though growth is real, so there is inflation. consider something like the reverse, perhaps much early on, but then death and destruction is slowly wiping everything out! perhaps not.
things like colours and sounds surely either existed or always had the potential to be experienced right from the start? if we view reality as something like a soup mix of light, sound and unformed ideas that is eternal, always existed, then perhaps it is not hard to conceive that many things were not created by anyone, that letters of the alphabet and connections to sounds and unconscious thought existed in some unrefined form indeed in the beginning, semi ready made language that was quickly developed.
perhaps all of what time did was to bring order to the chaos mix at the start of time, a move from unrational complexes to rational ones. it is interesting to note that this would seem to imply a dreamlike state of reality at the start whereas waking life now is rational and stable.
CLEARCHARGE
there are a few questions of interest here. what existed or how much existed in the beginning of time or time zero? and how much creation has there been since? do we believe inflationary theories or not?
well, let us fill out the possibility ideas space. consider the big bang theory of the universe, first very little, then rapid inflation to a lot today. it is easy to understand why this is popular, people have poor memories of long ago, so the start seems little, but time makes it seem as though growth is real, so there is inflation. consider something like the reverse, perhaps much early on, but then death and destruction is slowly wiping everything out! perhaps not.
things like colours and sounds surely either existed or always had the potential to be experienced right from the start? if we view reality as something like a soup mix of light, sound and unformed ideas that is eternal, always existed, then perhaps it is not hard to conceive that many things were not created by anyone, that letters of the alphabet and connections to sounds and unconscious thought existed in some unrefined form indeed in the beginning, semi ready made language that was quickly developed.
perhaps all of what time did was to bring order to the chaos mix at the start of time, a move from unrational complexes to rational ones. it is interesting to note that this would seem to imply a dreamlike state of reality at the start whereas waking life now is rational and stable.
CLEARCHARGE
Saturday, August 4, 2012
The Participation Rate of Creation
the participation rate of creation:
assume the beginning was not so long ago, that actually, there are tangible shards of memory crystals in our minds, about the start of time and what progressed from there. various religions put it that there were powerful forces or powerful people, or one very powerful person, in the beginning. atheism holds forth the other extreme, that the human being is rather devoid of any real power, that there are no gods, that we are subject to the whim and random nature of a depersonalized universe. in those who are agnostic or believe neither completely, these theories may not agree with memory which may still be present.
often it is posited that there was practically nothing or very little in the beginning, by both religions and evolutionists. this is where they agree. then there was either rampant creation, that is, the participation rate was at a peak in the first few moments of time, or there was a rapid inflation and increase in complexity of the universe by impersonal forces, nothing to with any gods or God.
now objectively speaking, it seems there is rather a gap in between the two extremes of religion and atheism, if we were to consider the more theoretically holistic range of possibilities, from the all powerful god to demi-god, someone with lesser powers, to magician, someone with a few tricks here or there, to a person with no magical ability or powers, whatsoever, to someone who can barely move or even think, a cripple, mentally and physically. we could intuitively reason that throughout the whole range however, that the participation rate was higher in the beginning, as everything was new, that there was greater opportunity to create things at or near the start.
let us assume that none of us remember the beginning. theoretically, there are two possibilities, one we did not exist as such, in the beginning, and two that we have merely forgotten it. which brings us to perhaps the most important issue on a personal level, did we exist in the beginning or were we ourselves created, in some part or form? was consciousness present in us, whatever we are, at the start of time, or as evolutionary theory would have it, it is the culmination of a very long, tortuous process?
at our most emotionally vulnerable, we are unlikely to present such pride that we claim to have done this or that great deed in the far past. we may not even remember well enough to pass the threshold of doubt. but suppose that anyone who seems very familiar with anything right from the start, seemingly without any explanation, may have had a part in creating it!
though perhaps there is a stability to the universe, not evident always, that belies the theories of religion and evolution, that disproves the case that this much creation or evolution could even happen. perhaps the world was born quite complex and semi-completed already! indeed we could be fooled by the volatility and complexity of what we see, for it leads us to extend to the assumption that much change generally may happen for the universe as a whole.
emotionally, what happens in the process of creation at the human level? first we become excited about something, we think, what a good idea! then we busy ourselves creating it. but then we become cautious. we might even be afraid we've made a mistake! we wait for some progress to happen from others before we take the next step, we become dependent. considering all the inventions and creations of the past, it is not the case that any one being did it all, obviously. as people made connections and dependency grew throughout time, it leads us to the possibility that no one can take full credit for anything anymore. we are all levelled down and perhaps this is a good thing!
CLEARCHARGE
assume the beginning was not so long ago, that actually, there are tangible shards of memory crystals in our minds, about the start of time and what progressed from there. various religions put it that there were powerful forces or powerful people, or one very powerful person, in the beginning. atheism holds forth the other extreme, that the human being is rather devoid of any real power, that there are no gods, that we are subject to the whim and random nature of a depersonalized universe. in those who are agnostic or believe neither completely, these theories may not agree with memory which may still be present.
often it is posited that there was practically nothing or very little in the beginning, by both religions and evolutionists. this is where they agree. then there was either rampant creation, that is, the participation rate was at a peak in the first few moments of time, or there was a rapid inflation and increase in complexity of the universe by impersonal forces, nothing to with any gods or God.
now objectively speaking, it seems there is rather a gap in between the two extremes of religion and atheism, if we were to consider the more theoretically holistic range of possibilities, from the all powerful god to demi-god, someone with lesser powers, to magician, someone with a few tricks here or there, to a person with no magical ability or powers, whatsoever, to someone who can barely move or even think, a cripple, mentally and physically. we could intuitively reason that throughout the whole range however, that the participation rate was higher in the beginning, as everything was new, that there was greater opportunity to create things at or near the start.
let us assume that none of us remember the beginning. theoretically, there are two possibilities, one we did not exist as such, in the beginning, and two that we have merely forgotten it. which brings us to perhaps the most important issue on a personal level, did we exist in the beginning or were we ourselves created, in some part or form? was consciousness present in us, whatever we are, at the start of time, or as evolutionary theory would have it, it is the culmination of a very long, tortuous process?
at our most emotionally vulnerable, we are unlikely to present such pride that we claim to have done this or that great deed in the far past. we may not even remember well enough to pass the threshold of doubt. but suppose that anyone who seems very familiar with anything right from the start, seemingly without any explanation, may have had a part in creating it!
though perhaps there is a stability to the universe, not evident always, that belies the theories of religion and evolution, that disproves the case that this much creation or evolution could even happen. perhaps the world was born quite complex and semi-completed already! indeed we could be fooled by the volatility and complexity of what we see, for it leads us to extend to the assumption that much change generally may happen for the universe as a whole.
emotionally, what happens in the process of creation at the human level? first we become excited about something, we think, what a good idea! then we busy ourselves creating it. but then we become cautious. we might even be afraid we've made a mistake! we wait for some progress to happen from others before we take the next step, we become dependent. considering all the inventions and creations of the past, it is not the case that any one being did it all, obviously. as people made connections and dependency grew throughout time, it leads us to the possibility that no one can take full credit for anything anymore. we are all levelled down and perhaps this is a good thing!
CLEARCHARGE
Saturday, December 17, 2011
A Question of Precedence
a question of precedence:
the human mind is a powerful tool, apparently, as it can shape events. and the universe is ever changing. in an excited, unstable and highly emotional state, the mind can warp reality, indeed perhaps even change natural laws which hold in more normal, settled times. this is how it seems. now this could be dismissed as just flawed perception, that the actual universe has not changed, but to do so would be to dismiss and underweight perception and consciousness itself, to deny personal experience as important. in someone's strange, wild and crazy world, unusual things are happening! there is an assumption that we receive correct data from an "external world" to our brain and to our senses, that there is no great individual power to change this "external world" through our being, that there is no forceful feedback that can alter the state of it, so to speak.
posit that a great, and mad, scientist, perhaps in a dream, perhaps from an unusual experience, perhaps in an epiphany, creates a theory of how something works. his or her mind is engrossed with theoretical possibilities and detail, mechanical metrics and hypotheses and statistics. he or she, very excited, doesn't sleep for days and, when he or she does, has strange vivid dreams. then this mad scientist invents a machine or test to determine whether this hitherto only theoretical stuff is true or works. and it does. the question is, is this really science, is this the way things were or has the scientist changed them? or is it magic, is he or she actually a wizard of some kind? or just the god of this new machine and theory?
there may be true natural laws which came before thought chanced upon them, but what if we have altered the universe with our minds, created new systems, which we now label as "science"?
CLEARCHARGE
the human mind is a powerful tool, apparently, as it can shape events. and the universe is ever changing. in an excited, unstable and highly emotional state, the mind can warp reality, indeed perhaps even change natural laws which hold in more normal, settled times. this is how it seems. now this could be dismissed as just flawed perception, that the actual universe has not changed, but to do so would be to dismiss and underweight perception and consciousness itself, to deny personal experience as important. in someone's strange, wild and crazy world, unusual things are happening! there is an assumption that we receive correct data from an "external world" to our brain and to our senses, that there is no great individual power to change this "external world" through our being, that there is no forceful feedback that can alter the state of it, so to speak.
posit that a great, and mad, scientist, perhaps in a dream, perhaps from an unusual experience, perhaps in an epiphany, creates a theory of how something works. his or her mind is engrossed with theoretical possibilities and detail, mechanical metrics and hypotheses and statistics. he or she, very excited, doesn't sleep for days and, when he or she does, has strange vivid dreams. then this mad scientist invents a machine or test to determine whether this hitherto only theoretical stuff is true or works. and it does. the question is, is this really science, is this the way things were or has the scientist changed them? or is it magic, is he or she actually a wizard of some kind? or just the god of this new machine and theory?
there may be true natural laws which came before thought chanced upon them, but what if we have altered the universe with our minds, created new systems, which we now label as "science"?
CLEARCHARGE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)