The leap-frogging turtle metaphor applies to the implicit infinite regress when an eternal buck-stopping agent is denied. In religious arguments it's common to be challenged with "so who created your God?". But the question only makes sense if the deity is subject to the limitations of space-time and matter-energy. Most Christians have no problem answering with "my God is eternal and self-existent". But those who suggest a Multiverse or Many Worlds alternative would be embarrassed to respond with "so is my Multiverse". That sounds too much like "my Material god-substitute versus your Spiritual God". And physicality would logically require an infinite regression of world-cycles in space-time.How come you are always referencing turtles when the buck clearly stops at my One as the base? — PoeticUniverse
But those who suggest a Multiverse or Many Worlds alternative would be embarrassed to respond with "so is my Multiverse". That sounds too much like "my Material god-substitute versus your Spiritual God". — Gnomon
And physicality would logically require an infinite regression of world-cycles in space-time. — Gnomon
His outlandish ideas opened the door to Quantum Theory, which like quicksand has undermined the ancient Atomic Theory with invisible intangible Mathematical Fields as the fundamental reality of Physics. — Gnomon
physical Brains that mysteriously generate invisible mind-fields are ultimately composed of, not things per se, but incorporeal relationships between things. — Gnomon
Of course. That's the point of the Multiverse hypothesis. Instead of a First Cause, it's a more-of-the-same-forever infinite (no beginning or end) chain-of-causation --- or a cosmic Conga Line of turtles, if you prefer a more concrete image. :wink:That's fine for some, but it's not 'God'; it's just the simple basis of the more complex as the Ground of Determination. — PoeticUniverse
Yes, but is the "One" physical & ever-changing, or meta-physical & omni-potential? :chin:? The one and only basis remains; no regress. — PoeticUniverse
True. But at the time it sounded unorthodox, hence "outlandish" (alien ; foreign) for the wave-propagation orthodoxy of the day. :smile:Einstein's discovery of the quantum discreteness of photons proved true, so it was not outlandish. — PoeticUniverse
Is that what psychics "see" as the human Aura? What color is yours? Mine is boring beige. :joke:We do see the mind-fields, and that is all we ever 'see'; they're as maps made in the brain process of consciousness. — PoeticUniverse
Yes, but is the "One" physical & ever-changing, or meta-physical & omni-potential? — Gnomon
Is that what psychics "see" as the human Aura? — Gnomon
So the answer is Be Here Now? Don't worry about what was, or will be. Sufficient unto the day . . . . . . . — Gnomon
Sounds like the TAO, or LOGOS, to which I compare my G*D concept. However, like Energy, G*D is not a physical object, but a functional process or flow. It's an "essence" not a physical substance. It's ineffable ; so you can't point to it and say "there it is". It's a holistic pattern of relationships, not an individual thing ; so you can know about it, but not see it. Therefore, as a system, I call it "Meta-Physical", in the sense that it is more than the sum of its physical parts. :smile:It remains as the physical One; its rearrangements are temporary; it doesn't make new substances; it is ever itself. — PoeticUniverse
That's why I distinguish the meta-physical eternal TAO or G*D or LOGOS from the space-time bubble of the physical temporal world :Since, with no beginning, it ne’er became;
Thus no Alif through Ye: it’s e’er the same. — PoeticUniverse
Sounds like the TAO — Gnomon
the meta-physical eternal TAO or G*D or LOGOS — Gnomon
Yes, but it's a mental something (subjective idea, not objective object). So such abstract universals as G*D or TAO don't fall under the category of physical scientific things. Instead, they are metaphysical philosophical non-things. Knowable, but non-tangible. Holistic all-things, but not reductive things. More than nothing, in the sense that Infinity is more than nothing. :smile:Isn't this more than 'Nothing'. Isn't it still a something in some kind of realm as above in that realm's level as tangible to that realm but not to ours? — PoeticUniverse
it's a mental something (subjective idea, not objective object). — Gnomon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.