(September 24, 2016 at 5:47 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(September 24, 2016 at 5:30 pm)chimp3 Wrote: You certainly make this up in your mind. 
Radially , inward and outward...
Is that more than two directions? Three? We live in a 3 dimensional universe.
Where can we detect this spinning torus? Where have you detected this torus? What instruments are required to detect this torus?

Yes, 2 directions in 3d space, an outward contracting sphere and an inward contracting sphere. In the space created between is a 3rd "downward" contraction to a floor field nature which would correspond to the Higgs field "frozen" into place at the end of the inflationary period which permeates all void space-time. The prior two might be called "curvatons".

The torus in that post was used analogously but I have deduced the overall shape of our specific section of the universe to be toroidal and it is in motion like a wheel.  This would show up as a slight negative curvature of space type and a hemisphericaly asymmetric CMB as there would be an incoming side of space time and an outgoing side flowing over everything it contains....like a serpent biting it's tail, having "eaten" the dust of poly-galactic filaments, sheet walls and superclusters. It would also show up as an irreversible arrow of time.

Gibberish. You make this nonsense up as you go along. You are not a scientist and I suspect you get these ideas while on LSD.  I will stop reading your nonsense posts starting........now!

(September 24, 2016 at 5:09 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(September 24, 2016 at 4:14 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(September 24, 2016 at 3:06 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Everything depends on how you define The God. I imagine most people make the cardinal mistake of projecting a personality on God.

It is a mistake according to you, not to them.  If I'm going to bet on a horse, it isn't going to be you.  The essence of God according to most traditions is that of personhood.  

You play with your erector set theology all you like, it does not convince.

To whom? From what culture and in what time period?

The point is, I could say with 99% accuracy what you physical anatomy is, how you objectively exist. I could never get remotely close to describing your subjective existence even after being around you for a long time, you have to describe that to me...and even then, you could change.

I give God the same respect. I don't assert there isn't one, I just don't project one then try and relate to my own super-ego projection.

Quote:Bering wants to spread the word that belief in a personal God—along with concomitant ideas about the existence of purpose, providence, an afterlife, and a cosmic support for justice—is an “adaptive illusion.” His originality lies not in his confident insistence that such beliefs are groundless—a view that has been defended over and over again in recent years in a series of bestselling books—but rather in the first half of his claim; he contends that theological beliefs serve a crucial evolutionary function. The bulk of his book is devoted to establishing this point, drawing on a wide range of findings in the cognitive sciences to back it up.

Bering, who serves as the director of the Institute of Cognition and Culture at the Queen’s University in Belfast, does an excellent job of elucidating these findings. (He is the author or co-author of several of the studies he cites.) As he patiently and absorbingly explains, experiment after experiment has shown that human beings are cognitively predisposed, often from early childhood, to detect signs of order, purpose, and justice in the world. We find it nearly impossible to conceive of our own annihilation, which easily leads to thoughts about the immortality of the soul. All of which means that “contrary to what many atheists tend to believe . . . at least some form of religious belief and behavior would . . . probably appear spontaneously on a desert island untouched by cultural transmission.” Humanity, it seems, is evolutionarily hard-wired for God.

All of this theological thinking is made possible by what Bering calls our “theory of mind”—the uniquely human ability to notice and reflect on the agency and intention of other minds. This capacity is so fundamental to human perception and experience that we have a hard time even noticing it. The capacity functions constantly, and it kicks into high gear when another person’s behavior defies our expectations: when a man on the street asks you a question that makes no sense, or when a friend flies into a rage at what seems to be no provocation.

In such situations, our brains furiously seek to make sense of the behavior by attempting to determine the intention of the mind behind it. The instinctual drive to look for this agency and intention is so strong, in fact, that we sometimes find ourselves attributing mindfulness to inanimate objects—the chair we kick in retributive anger after we trip over it—and even to nothing at all. That is where God comes in. Human beings feel that things happen for a reason, that their lives and their triumphs, failures, and tragedies matter in some larger sense; and their theory of mind allows them to trace this sense of cosmic meaningfulness to the presence of a divine agent that watches over and cares for them—even in the absence of any scientifically verifiable evidence of its existence.

https://newrepublic.com/article/81443/be...sse-bering

It is a part of the warp and woof of the history of god-thought to infer intentions behind the acts of the god figure. It is likely this evolved "theory of mind" that is behind it. Regardless, it seems inevitable that powerful forces are framed with intent. It's hardly a parent figure or projection of the super-ego. It is a human attribution of mind to the cosmic. I would say that is a largely invariant trend historically. We tend to conceive of gods as necessarily having intention. It is not a projection; such framing forms the basis of our social world. Why is it any lessening of the Divine to impute it with intentionality? I think you're just projecting what you already believe back onto the universe. If anything, that is a less authentic projection than the belief in the intentionality of the Divine, which is built from the most basic timber of our world, the "theory of mind."

(September 24, 2016 at 6:12 pm)chimp3 Wrote:

(September 24, 2016 at 5:47 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Yes, 2 directions in 3d space, an outward contracting sphere and an inward contracting sphere. In the space created between is a 3rd "downward" contraction to a floor field nature which would correspond to the Higgs field "frozen" into place at the end of the inflationary period which permeates all void space-time. The prior two might be called "curvatons".

The torus in that post was used analogously but I have deduced the overall shape of our specific section of the universe to be toroidal and it is in motion like a wheel.  This would show up as a slight negative curvature of space type and a hemisphericaly asymmetric CMB as there would be an incoming side of space time and an outgoing side flowing over everything it contains....like a serpent biting it's tail, having "eaten" the dust of poly-galactic filaments, sheet walls and superclusters. It would also show up as an irreversible arrow of time.

Gibberish. You make this nonsense up as you go along. You are not a scientist and I suspect you get these ideas while on LSD.  I will stop reading your nonsense posts starting........now!

I can demonstrate all 3 structural movements plus vacation of space with a 2d square sheet of rubber....if you'll allow the though experiment.

(September 24, 2016 at 6:15 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: It is a part of the warp and woof of the history of god-thought to infer intentions behind the acts of the god figure.  It is likely this evolved "theory of mind" that is behind it.  Regardless, it seems inevitable that powerful forces are framed with intent.  It's hardly a parent figure or projection of the super-ego.  It is a human attribution of mind to the cosmic.  I would say that is a largely invariant trend historically.  We tend to conceive of gods as necessarily having intention.  It is not a projection; such framing forms the basis of our social world.  Why is it any lessening of the Divine to impute it with intentionality?  I think you're just projecting what you already believe back onto the universe.  If anything, that is a less authentic projection than the belief in the intentionality of the Divine, which is built from the most basic timber of our world, the "theory of mind."

Thank you for the context.

If it is not a projection of our own needs, how does it for the basis for our social world? if God does not exist, how could the personality of God be anything other than our mental projection?

The theory I'm working from is more fundamental than that of the mind. It is that of living being, of the objective body required for a mind to locate within and ride upon and the mind's most fundamental function as awareness of self existence. No intent required.

The only "intent" I require for a the eternal production of a deterministic metaverse, from an objectively infinite God that materially takes up all available space forever in all directions, Is a single expression of it's self. All it has to do it express it's own "Name", it own subject relationships it has with it's own matter...it relativistic nature. And this yields a specific geometry.

I even think this was a "spontaneous symmetry breaking event" a "quantum fluctuation". A self observation/realization and spontaneous expression of inherent order. No intent required.

The result is a planar traveling wave front that leaves infinite identical spherical universes in it wake, infinite "ones" at every quantum instant or unit of Plank time. The metaversal wave front will never stop because it is a self expression of the thing it is traveling through, expressed and received by it's Self with nothing to impede it.

In this model, the beginning of the metaverse is not necessarily the beginning of our individual universe. There would be no way to tell how many planes exist above or below us although what is below us would be fininte and increasing by one plane every instant. The planes above us may not be a finite amount either (without spatial beginning), if I intuit correctly that this is a self expressive embryonic process of an original infinite Individual (The One), individuating to reproduce other self sustaining individuals...and here we are.

So the total picture of this model's metaverse "without beginning" is as an extremely thick vertical stack of planes of universes that extend infinitely along the horizontal axis/plane, and this is traveling as a a downward iterational wavefront. New universes are formed at the bottom of the stack while completed/matured/fully developed universes are "born" off the top of the deterministic stack to exist as a free willed agent in the mass field of the original infinite substance.

Universes in the metaverse would be developing gods, souls dreaming of lives in material bodies on planets. Universes that have been completed are Gods, birthed as an autonomous individual into the infinite field of the original GOD, eternal life and a crown of glory, co-inheritor with Christ. From this view, GOD simply expressed it's own existence and the happy result is children and eternal company/co-creation/experience. We get to play as Gods together with GOD with no limit.

We were born in a Great Contraction, not a big bang. Though GOD is mentally Paternal, preserving and projecting pattern, GOD is also physically Maternal, holding all the infinite universes like children in infinite wombs within her infinite body, nurturing them unfailingly into perfection. This is the faith of GOD.

(September 24, 2016 at 5:30 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(September 24, 2016 at 5:16 pm)Jehanne Wrote: No, General Relativity is a 4-diminsional theory worked out by Albert Einstein with the input from many other very brilliant individuals whom one hardly hears about, ever.  And, so, x0 is the time axis (at least in some GR texts), followed by x1, x2 and x3.  In eternal Universes, the time axis runs from minus infinity to plus infinity, and so, those models are eternal without a beginning and without an end.

So it explains the existence of the universe by the existence of the universe? That's convenient!

So there's no big bounce in such a model?

Sure, why not?  How do you explain the existence of "god"?  Answer:  "The unmoved mover!"  I can see the Universe, however, and General Relativity makes very, very good predictions.  In fact, it and Special Relativity are fundamental to GPS:

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pog...5/gps.html

I can't see God, and modern cosmology and/or neuroscience do not need "God".  Cosmology can explain the existence of the Universe (an answer:  "it's eternal") and neuroscience can explain consciousness (an answer:  "it's the brain at work")  What is left for God to do???

(September 24, 2016 at 7:02 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(September 24, 2016 at 6:15 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: It is a part of the warp and woof of the history of god-thought to infer intentions behind the acts of the god figure.  It is likely this evolved "theory of mind" that is behind it.  Regardless, it seems inevitable that powerful forces are framed with intent.  It's hardly a parent figure or projection of the super-ego.  It is a human attribution of mind to the cosmic.  I would say that is a largely invariant trend historically.  We tend to conceive of gods as necessarily having intention.  It is not a projection; such framing forms the basis of our social world.  Why is it any lessening of the Divine to impute it with intentionality?  I think you're just projecting what you already believe back onto the universe.  If anything, that is a less authentic projection than the belief in the intentionality of the Divine, which is built from the most basic timber of our world, the "theory of mind."

The theory I'm working from is more fundamental than that of the mind. It is that of living being, of the objective body required for a mind to locate within and ride upon and the mind's most fundamental function as awareness of self existence. No intent required.

It's not even a "hypothesis" let alone a "theory"; in fact, the physics community is going to write you off as being a crackpot/crank.

Come up with some mathematical model that makes testable predictions, ones that can be either verified or falsified, write it up in a scientific paper, and then submit it to some journal or post it on Cornell University's ePrint server.  Send us the link after that.  Until then, none of us will care.

(September 24, 2016 at 7:13 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(September 24, 2016 at 5:30 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: So it explains the existence of the universe by the existence of the universe? That's convenient!

So there's no big bounce in such a model?

Sure, why not?  How do you explain the existence of "god"?  Answer:  "The unmoved mover!"  I can see the Universe, however, and General Relativity makes very, very good predictions.  In fact, it and Special Relativity are fundamental to GPS:

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pog...5/gps.html

I can't see God, and modern cosmology and/or neuroscience do not need "God".  Cosmology can explain the existence of the Universe (an answer:  "it's eternal") and neuroscience can explain consciousness (an answer:  "it's the brain at work")  What is left for God to do???

Can you explain the eternity of the universe to me in your own words? Does it make any predictions on the CMB?

(September 24, 2016 at 7:20 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(September 24, 2016 at 7:02 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: The theory I'm working from is more fundamental than that of the mind. It is that of living being, of the objective body required for a mind to locate within and ride upon and the mind's most fundamental function as awareness of self existence. No intent required.

It's not even a "hypothesis" let alone a "theory"; in fact, the physics community is going to write you off as being a crackpot/crank.

Come up with some mathematical model that makes testable predictions, ones that can be either verified or falsified, write it up in a scientific paper, and then submit it to some journal or post it on Cornell University's ePrint server.  Send us the link after that.  Until then, none of us will care.

It's an objective, 3d/holograhic, geometrically predictive model.

If I chose that route of expression, it may not be the most fulfilling nor effective method of publication.

I'm doing this for those that care, not those that don't, but thank you for the reflections and advice.

(September 24, 2016 at 7:24 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(September 24, 2016 at 7:13 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Sure, why not?  How do you explain the existence of "god"?  Answer:  "The unmoved mover!"  I can see the Universe, however, and General Relativity makes very, very good predictions.  In fact, it and Special Relativity are fundamental to GPS:

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pog...5/gps.html

I can't see God, and modern cosmology and/or neuroscience do not need "God".  Cosmology can explain the existence of the Universe (an answer:  "it's eternal") and neuroscience can explain consciousness (an answer:  "it's the brain at work")  What is left for God to do???

Can you explain the eternity of the universe to me in your own words? Does it make any predictions on the CMB?

The Cosmos is all that there is, or ever was, or ever will be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLu1cTKBspI

(September 24, 2016 at 7:27 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(September 24, 2016 at 7:20 pm)Jehanne Wrote: It's not even a "hypothesis" let alone a "theory"; in fact, the physics community is going to write you off as being a crackpot/crank.

Come up with some mathematical model that makes testable predictions, ones that can be either verified or falsified, write it up in a scientific paper, and then submit it to some journal or post it on Cornell University's ePrint server.  Send us the link after that.  Until then, none of us will care.

It's an objective, 3d/holograhic, geometrically predictive model.

If I chose that route of expression, it may not be the most fulfilling nor effective method of publication.

I'm doing this for those that care, not those that don't, but thank you for the reflections and advice.

What testable predictions are there from your "model"?  How could it, in principle, be verified?  Falsified?