Big Think

dennis ilic on December 21, 2008, 8:46 PM

Amen.

Musycks on December 22, 2008, 8:41 PM

nice to see you back Coyote.

and I’m glad you put something in for Healing Zero, he has a hell of a time, to quote the Pythons re the meek :)

it’s the anthropomorphing that Lewis and his ilk get up to that amuses me…. a thinking, conscious, interactive diety? I don’t think so. What you’ve set out won’t trouble his logic, he’s made his god so etherial he might as well be the gas that binds. I favour a utilitarian explanation that does not require this ether-dude, but does have room for the sun and the moon!

let’s hope to hear your howl more often.

pokój! on December 25, 2008, 3:00 AM

Coyote! its been a while, thanks for responding though…

I’m going to take this one line by line I think… mostly to try to better understand, and partly because I’m being lazy about being on the internet right now…

“Lewis is arguing that god exists solely in the quantum world, or in the Big Bang that originated this universe rather than in the real here and now.”

Why do you say this?

Bryan Cridlebaugh on December 27, 2008, 4:31 AM

:) Me likey

Mary Coyote on December 28, 2008, 11:51 PM

pokoj posted:
“Lewis is arguing that god exists solely in the quantum world, or in the Big Bang that originated this universe rather than in the real here and now.” Why do you say this?

~
Because he writes of a very airy fairy god; of a very fluffy consciousness, and I would rather use our understanding of the universe – science – as a microscope to look for god rather than someone else’s fluffy poetry. At least in this way we can set some coordinates.

And because I am learning to trust my own intuition rather than someone else’s.

So when I read your Lewis posting, my intuition immediately converted his poetry into the quantum world and, you know what? It fit.


~
Thank you all for your kind comments.

I find BigThink too hard to use, and not enough users to grind against, and hope their new beta greatly improves on this. It drives me nuts that every time I close and open the page, I get a completely different page. Or email tells me that about a certain topic of the week, but upon opening BigThink, that theme is nowhere to be found!!! Like wtf?

Not only this, but most of you folks are a lot more educated than me (although I love to nip at the heels of the lofty), I am naught more than a dusty old coyote.

I post at the Huffington Post News headlines which has recently achieved immense popularity. I have been working hard there to argue the Obama case and did not have extra time for BigThink. Sorry. (did you see my harpy criticisms of Arianna Huffington on this site?)

And my people have just set up a blog for me to fill which I am currently looking at as a blank page and freaking out. I really want to develop the Coyote mythological character (as I have begun on Huffy), not so much as Trickster, but as FirstMother, or goddess, but don’t know where to start.

Nice to see you all here again. Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year also. Cheers!

Matt Pidlysny on December 29, 2008, 2:56 AM

Heh, are you kidding? I only barely got my GED, and yet here I am bashing heads with (Apparently) the best and brightest. Well, on the Internet at least.

Perhaps we should bash heads. I’ll start by contradicting your point on the big bang to say that there are 2 forms of matter, which is the kind that exists all around us, and yet the other kind also exists all around us. Unlike matter, things do not exist in the waters, but inside the waters, things are places to exist. If we are solid and space is empty, then space is solid (Or rather “The Waters”, as it were) and WE are the cavity in space to exist in. I contend that this undeniable logic.

You may now grind :P

pokój! on December 30, 2008, 3:03 AM

Coyote:
“Because he writes of a very airy fairy god; of a very fluffy consciousness, and I would rather use our understanding of the universe – science – as a microscope to look for god rather than someone else’s fluffy poetry. At least in this way we can set some coordinates.”

Well in all fairness I posted this in the spirit of ‘fluffy poetry’ :p … not to mention that Lewis was a great lover of fantasy, and he wrote this passage in that vein… And in posting this in that topic, I wasn’t really trying to invoke your ideas of G-d, it just seemed, at the time, a good example of the many windows Christianity can be viewed through…

And addressed to you primarily because of this part, and my curiosity about what it would mean to you: ‘When human souls have become as perfect in voluntary obedience as the inanimate creation is in lifeless obedience, then they will put on its glory, or rather the greater glory of which Nature is only the first sketch. For you must not think that I am putting forward any heathen fancy of being absorbed into Nature. Nature is mortal; we shall outlive her. When all the suns and nebulae have passed away, each one of you will still be alive. Nature is only the image, the symbol; but it is the symbol Scripture invites me to use. We are summoned to pass in through Nature, beyond her, into that splendour which she fitfully reflects.

And in there, in beyond Nature, we shall eat of the tree of life.’

——

Anyway Lewis is more describing the Spirit in relation to G-d and humanity… In this short passage I don’t believe he is describing his idea of what G-d is, (Obviously it would be incorporating it,) rather he is describing our desire to reunite with the beauty that is His Spirit…

but to hear him speaking of a ‘quantum god’ is to neglect that this is just one passage from one of his many essays… and that the primary purpose of the passage is the human spirit reconnecting with G-d, not defining G-d.

“And because I am learning to trust my own intuition rather than someone else’s.”

Not sure what you mean by this… trusting your intuition about what Lewis meant rather than mine, or… ? I didn’t make any assumptions that I can see…

“So when I read your Lewis posting, my intuition immediately converted his poetry into the quantum world and, you know what? It fit.”

Well if you allow it to it will fit whatever world you try to put it in, because that is the nerve of recognition it first touched in your thoughts, no? But that may not have been his intent… anyway…

—————————
(Did you mean…)
“Perhaps [Lewis is saying?] god is the Logos or the recipe or code that generated the Big Bang.”

if so…
The Logos in Christianity is Jesus… If i’m not mistaken, the word ‘Logos’ in the Bible is translated into modern english texts as ‘The Word’. I believe you mean it in the sense of the cause of the creation of our universe, and in John, that is described as Jesus… "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. “
—

”This places god %u201Cat a thousand removes%u201D from our current experience.“

That is the goal, to reunite. Think less of a servitude and more of a Loving relationship… Where G-d is in relation to us is not the same as where we are in relation to G-d, meaning that G-d may be woven through the fabric of creation, but we as a species has disconnected from It. So if G-d figuratively spit in our face, we would not know it, because we don’t properly know how to look or feel it anymore…

”And we will not again see god until the universe contracts back into the space it exploded from."

For me it is more along the lines of when we are willing and able to allow G-d to explode back into the space we’ve separated ourselves from Him.
——————————
I hope you stick around for a bit, I think we are all transient here… I really enjoy your posts, and experiencing such a different belief system from my own (or not, you really never can tell)…

Mary Coyote on December 30, 2008, 6:28 AM

Resonator:
Gee you can get airy fairy also…..While I could not begin to understand you or accept your logic, I do not necessarily find that we contradict.

It almost sounded like you were speaking of consciousness dwelling inside %u201Cthings%u201D (%u201Cthings are places to exist%u201D), or that matter (what-we-think-is-real) is actually what allows or generates consciousness. Or vice versa, or whatever, because I really cannot catch the drifting of your wind only the echoes of my mind.

But if that is indeed what you were suggesting, that consciousness is a property and/or a necessity of matter and which quantum science seems to bear out, then: the larger the thing, the more the possibility of possession of consciousness.

And if that is so, then we are in agreement concerning my thesis that the Sun is our god, our father in heaven, a conscious creator god that sees everything we do.

Doesn’t quantum science a delicious holy book make?

So who needs fluffy religious poetry or drug addled fantasy* to explain the universe, creation, and god when we have this amazing SCIENCE !!!
————-
Note:
(* Now I don’t mean to trouble those who use psychotropic substances for their holy purposes, given, for example,sacred or magic mushrooms deliver what can be described as quantum experiences of the universe and marijuana can generate lasting spiritual experiences.)

Mary Coyote on December 30, 2008, 6:32 AM

This paragraph replaces the damaged one below:

It almost sounded like you were speaking of consciousness dwelling inside ‘things’ (‘things are places to exist’), or that matter (what-we-think-is-real) is actually what allows or generates consciousness. Or vice versa, or whatever, because I really cannot catch the drifting of your wind only the echoes of my mind.

Mary Coyote on December 30, 2008, 7:26 AM

pokoj:
What can I say? Where do I start? What do I mean when I say airy fairy? I mean that there has to be a rational logic of some sort to your’s or Lewis’ beliefs. I will not accept a kingdom built on air and fluff and smoke and mirrors or a big pile of pretty words. I don’t buy into psychobabble.

The problem with typical religious belief such as Christianity and new age fluff is that it is circular logic constantly turning and churning up a lot of smoke and dust obscuring the view. Show me a foundation, a framework, and a roof, or I will not see your temple.

I need to SEE. You need to critically analyze and deconstruct your own faith BEFORE you can explain it to me, but you MUST use a rational language or all these puffs of smoke are lost.

I have posted that I believe faith and reason to be incompatible, unless the faith is built upon a foundation of reason.

I think that you and Lewis are walking the same path: you are looking elsewhere for your faith; the Christian faith is too restrictive. The two of you are wedding new age airy fairy with Christianity.

‘Look!’ the two of you shout in unison, ‘The Bride of Christ!’

‘I don’t think so,’ the coyote commented dryly.

Rather than ‘a good example of the many windows Christianity can be viewed through,’ I think that Christianity is merely another dirty window that only allows those who believe to gaze upon spirituality. It is real because you believe it. Remember your quantum lessons? It IS REAL when you believe it.

But instead I want coordinates and I find them in this amazing science, which provides a measured, plumbed, and tested foundation upon which to raise up a temple to the goddess. Faith built upon reason. Faith I can SEE. This is faith I can lick with my tongue and taste it.

Sorry that was a bit rude. More later

HerbieP on December 30, 2008, 1:59 PM

Coyote only the older less fashionable interpretations of quantum mechanics require the existence of consciousness.

Whilst I am thrilled by your insistance on solid foundations and reason you seem to interpret science to suit your own requirements and what you are doing is interpretation. As soon as you step into the realm of interpretation (however eloquently argued) you have leave reason behind and entered the realm of poetry.

Mary Coyote on December 30, 2008, 4:32 PM

HerbieP:
Is there anything wrong with interpretation? Someone has to be the translator of physicist geekspeak. Is that YOU? Will you enlighten us on just what a quantum view of the universe means to our personal lives? Will you plant the quantum seed within the human heart?

Or are you locked down in a Modernism’s world, only able to able to describe life after you have eviscerated the specimen and pronounced that the soul was not found, therefore it does not exist? That only cold science as a consistent layering of dry facts exists as a real thing?

This is a post-Modern world; the focusing upon the purity of things, including science, or the purity of a vast multi-million dollar canvas of solid blue paint, is OBSOLETE. This is not your grandpa’s 50’s era Oldsmobile. Think fuel cell powered Smart car.

And I believe previous discussions here and on Huffington seemed to indicate that Schroeder’s cat is still relevant, so the observer is still necessary, albeit not popular. If you are able to argue otherwise, I welcome your essay.

But the point is not which faction of quantum scientists are leading the pack, but that, no matter how closely science looks at the universe, we find that it is composed of ‘mostly nothing.’

That at its most basic levels, it is a magical or even god-like place, spinning up matter as if it was an illusion, or, even as religions will tell us, created out of nothingness. Or that everything may be simply harmonics, even as many mythologies tell us how the universe was created out of the spoken word, Logos, or a SONG.

I agree that Science and Reason are not religions, but TOOLS: a way to set some coordinates so we don’t get lost in airy fairyness. And I suggest a NEW FAITH ARGUMENT that is based upon the foundation of science which sews together disparate elements that can be found in the world’s religions and mythologies which fit upon this solid foundation.

This means that our faith will ever evolve as our understanding of science evolves, but it does NOT mean that our faith will be restricted by reason (except to curb excessive airy fairy). It means that reason will act as a springboard to launch faith soaring into our spiritual understanding of consciousness.

So yes, interpretation is necessary (which means it ever needs clarification, so an open faith), but this faith is valid relevant and based upon reason.

pokój! on December 30, 2008, 10:42 PM

“I mean that there has to be a rational logic of some sort to your’s or Lewis’ beliefs. I will not accept a kingdom built on air and fluff and smoke and mirrors or a big pile of pretty words. I don’t buy into psychobabble.”

mmm… First off I didn’t post this with the intent of conversion, or seeking justification… just in curiosity and conversation. This demand, as we come across over and over here (just ask mus) is not one that can be addressed. I have no means of explaining why I believe what I do by trying to type my thoughts. And imagery and metaphor and all the wonderful means of describing the indescribable are the only beginning we have right now.

“The problem with typical religious belief such as Christianity and new age fluff is that it is circular logic constantly turning and churning up a lot of smoke and dust obscuring the view. Show me a foundation, a framework, and a roof, or I will not see your temple.”

There will always be a barrier there if we don’t believe in G-d in the same way… I’m beginning to thing this is a reincarnation of the tower of babel here… The confusions stems from an impossible translation from the heart to the head to whatever means of communication there is. Treating one’s spiritual beliefs with this kind of ‘airiness’ is indicative of the territory we are in: Faith/Beliefs. You are lucky, in the forum of the world, to have a belief system that you can substantiate with the physical, as far as I understand it, though what do you actually consider yourself? And you didn’t really respond to that third paragraph…

Whatever you assign it to, the accusations of irrationality of course are not unfounded. I’m not trying to argue anything with you… why does everyone always revert to that tone? O was just grasping for the common ground that is becoming more and more fleeting in these types of conversations.

“I need to SEE. You need to critically analyze and deconstruct your own faith BEFORE you can explain it to me, but you MUST use a rational language or all these puffs of smoke are lost.”

Okay… I’ll do my best from now on…

“I have posted that I believe faith and reason to be incompatible, unless the faith is built upon a foundation of reason.

I think that you and Lewis are walking the same path: you are looking elsewhere for your faith; the Christian faith is too restrictive. The two of you are wedding new age airy fairy with Christianity.”

No what this is indicative of is a search for truth wherever it is found… My beliefs are not constrained by the Bible; I don’t believe the faith was ever meant to be. It doesn’t matter what the source of the message is, or the intent the messenger delivered it with… what matters is how it is received and how one applies it.

And the issue that I would like you and others who continuously decry the descriptive measures we take to at least give heed to is that when belief systems venture outside of the physical, the language barrier doesn’t just become more impenetrable, language becomes irrelevant on the whole.

“Rather than ‘a good example of the many windows Christianity can be viewed through,’ I think that Christianity is merely another dirty window that only allows those who believe to gaze upon spirituality.”

That is sad to hear, but nonetheless I can’t wholly disagree with you, there are many who turn their faith inward and it becomes nothing more than another distraction… but from that last sentence, it sounds like even if you were acknowledging that Christianity is finding some spiritual truths, you would be admonishing our inability to communicate…?

“It is real because you believe it. Remember your quantum lessons? It IS REAL when you believe it.”

So… its only happening because we think its going to happen? How does that follow?

“But instead I want coordinates and I find them in this amazing science, which provides a measured, plumbed, and tested foundation upon which to raise up a temple to the goddess. Faith built upon reason. Faith I can SEE. This is faith I can lick with my tongue and taste it.”

Love is our faith, and our guide, and our minstrel… That is the foundation… look what happened(/s) when the church looses it…

I hope you also experience the faith you can feel, because it trumps all the rest…

“Sorry that was a bit rude. More later”
Oh I’m quite used to that by now… :)
Shalom

HerbieP on December 31, 2008, 4:10 AM

My issue is not with interpretation per se but that the presumption that because you are interpreting science your beliefs acquire greater validity. Such beliefs are not confirmed in any way by science they are simply not denied. Thus such beliefs arguably can be said to have more validity than those which contradict science but they do not gain any greater credibility.

As for popularity or fashion in scientific interpretation, as you say it is no indicator of truth. However that cuts both ways, interpretation is no indicator of truth at all.

Your descriptions of the subatomic world consisting of mostly nothing are based on a conflation of the old ‘particles in a solar system’ model with the probability wave function/Hilbert space conception of the quantum world. ‘Mostly nothing’ is more usefully conceived of as ‘regions less likely to host an interaction’. However the very nature of quantum mechanics means than no region can ever be ‘empty’.

For myself, yes I confess I spend a great deal of mental energy in interpreting science. However I am quite clear that my interpretations are just for personal satisfaction and have no greater status than the beliefs of others.