|
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your kind support. I must say it makes me feel a lot better!
***If God is down into the details of worldly experience, then he is not able to synthesize those experiences into one coherent consciousness. If God is at a high enough level to be able to synthesize them, then he is too far removed from the details to be involved in any of them.***
It's hard for me to visualize what kind of limitation this would be. Would that mean that God could be all powerful, all knowing, etc but these darn limitations keep getting in the way?
***. If we acknowledge that our consciousnesses and our free wills are really those of God's, then all of our efforts are really God's efforts down here at the detail level. That is going on concurrently with whatever he is doing, or has done, up at some unimaginably higher level.***
But, if there is this limitation which prevents him from synthesizing and being cognizant of all the events, actions, and thoughts occuring in nature, then what can God really know about what is going on? Would he for example know who we are? Or, are we some dim glow of incoming sense impressions that he can vaguely make out. I'm thinking that he doesn't distinguish one person from another, or even a human from a chimpanzee. Is that how you see it?
***Yes, I would agree that we are anthropomorphizing more so than in science, but certainly not more than in any other context in which the notion of God is considered. In particular, in religious contexts, where God may have a beard, a right and a left hand, gets angry, loves, makes rules, etc., we impute attributes that are much more human than the attribute of 'becoming'.***
I agree, religion is the most anthropomorphic. But, that's why people find religion so much more satisfying than theology or philosophy. Dealing with tangible features of the supernatural is much more real for most people.
***I am not able to follow your derivation from first principles via path integrals to an explanation of reality but you could be right. If you could fill in the sketch a little bit, maybe I could catch on to how you see it. Why don't you dish me up a small helping from your recipe using those herbs and spices. I'd like a sample. How did reality get started? What did it start with? And, how did it get to be what we see now? My integration skills have long since atrophied, so I hope you don't toss me a very involved path integral.***
Well, I should have said that the principle behind the path integral is what I consider fundamental. The equation itself might simply be a physical manifestation of the principle. I am not mathematically adept at the path integral that I could in any way say more of the integral itself.
The principle of the path integral is that every path conceivable is represented as a path from start to end, but many of the paths are eliminated by integration such that only the path representing the minimum effort is what results.
My concept of this is that the universe begins with God (the originating point of the path) and follows a minimal path toward some goal. This goal, I think, is a symmetry transformation of the original state. Since the path is a minimum (has to be a minimum by path integral way of thinking), the world follows a natural course. But, because the end goal is a symmetry transformation of God, the path itself must ultimately end up reflecting God's existence (otherwise it wouldn't be a symmetry transformation). Hence, the world follows a way of natural miracles where constants are 'just so', people become conscious, etc, all because th Logos (principle of the path integral) is working in the world to create a final symmetrical state from its beginning.
Although, I am anthropomorphizing as much as any religion, my view is that this compact explanation is a rough approximation as to why we see ourselves living in this natural miracle that we call the natural world.
Warm regards, Harv |
