₦airaland Forum

The mind is not just 'expressions people attribute to the brain'.  

In fact the discussions about what consitutes the 'mind' is ongoing in a lot of informed circles such as this one for instance http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/SIG%20Website%20April%203rd%2009%20Programme.pdf. The truth is that we don't know!

I agree with you that OBE is not about 'seeing the other side'. But it's not about your brain being 'fried'. What is going on there is still being investigated. We understand that the experiences are subject to different interpretations but some of the findings do not quite fit into the box of brain hypoxia and gradual brain death (leading to increased 'fronto-temporal stimulation) and the subsequent experiences. Some of these findings are exciting the curiosity of those that are increasingly interested in the issues of Spirituality and Mental Health. Because they are not solely explained by neurophysiology.

Tudór:
Unfortunately it doesn't stop at just knowing about that 'something' people now feel the need to characterize that 'something' however they see fit with several crap like having sons and daughters, answering prayers., intelligent, alive e.t.c and expect us to accept it as truth and rule our lives by it. . .that is unacceptable.

You are right in a way but not completely. Having said that it's important that the truth of 'God' is separated from the traditions and prejudiced interpretaions of man.

'He whom I bow to only knows to whom I bow
When I attempt the ineffable Name, murmuring Thou,
And dream of Pheidian fancies and embrace in heart
Symbols (I know) which cannot be the thing Thou art.

Thus always, taken at their word, all prayers blaspheme
Worshiping with frail images a folk-lore dream,
And all men in their praying, self-deceived, address
The coinage of their own unquiet thoughts, unless

Thou in magnetic mercy to Thyself divert
Our arrows, aimed unskillfully, beyond desert;
And all men are idolaters, crying unheard
To a deaf idol, if Thou take them at their word.

Take not, O Lord, our literal sense. Lord, in thy great
Unbroken speech our limping metaphor translate'

Footnote to all Prayers by C.S.Lewis

mazaje:
Let me come in here. . . . So what is a soul? In what part of the human body does it reside? Belief is very different from reality hope you know? Over a billion people believe that mohammed once divided the moon into two and made it bow down to him, About a billion people believe in Hinduism and the Hindu gods as the creator of the universe, Over a billion people believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead. . . .That is not reality that people believe in all these things does not make them true. . .Reality has nothing to do with people personal and subjective beliefs. . . .

The issue is that nobody is sure what 'reality' is. When Tonyb talked about 'subjective reality', I just wanted to indulge him a bit. Most of what we consider 'reality' is afterall 'subjective'.
What is a 'soul'? you ask? Nobody knows. Just like nobody knows what constitutes the 'mind'. The field of Psychiatry, where by the way you find specialists in things relating to the mind, understands that 'science' itself is unable to unravel fully the mysteries of the mind. That's why there is an increasing interest in 'Spirituality' among Psychiatrists. I should know, because i am actually a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Not that it's of any significance.

I don't know how much exposure to the unfolding field of particle physics you have, but if you are following some of the developments in that field, you will agree with me that our previously held notions of what constitutes 'reality' is changing. You may also have gathered that 'belief' is actually a lot more powerful than previously thought. It has the power to make things happen. So, my friend, let's agree that we are all trying to understand the mysteries of life and death. Some of us believe that there is more to life than 'corporeal'  and time-bound' existence. Those, like you, who don't accept this are at liberty to do so. But discoveries in science are pointing to the fact that we may be more right than you.

For me, the extratemporal and extracorporal realm, is the spirit realm. The one that holds everything together i call God. 'Scientists' in the know are at liberty to call Him the God particle. It doesn't matter. What matters is that there is 'something' out there.

toneyb:
Ok, Subjective reality means relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

The subjective realities' of more people on earth make room for such things as 'soul, spirit etc'. So, my friend, you are wrong when you say that they 'have no evidence at all in any reality'. You are very wrong!

toneyb:
You assume to much my friend, My concience does NOT feel "attacked" and it can never feel "attacked". You came with a false assumption that atheist have some imaginary thirst. That is false. As for your link here is what another person had to say about the ridiculous link.

"Please site the study you are referring to.

Edit: I found the study. It included 371 patients all diagnosed with major depression. Of this 371, only 66 where "not religiously affiliated." It does not even say that these 66 were atheists or agnostics or anything. Hmm, is there a correlation here that could be made about being "religiously affiliated" and having a higher risk of being depressed, ?

For starters, religiously affiliated *doesn't* mean atheist. Sure atheists are in that group, but it would include anyone who's not affiliated with a given church. You'll notice also that the religiously unaffiliated tended to be younger, unmarried, no children, and with less contact with family. ALL those things are correlated with poorer morale and higher suicide rates, irrespective of religion.

So what you're saying is, it's better to be, say, a Muslim than an agnostic or non-churchgoing Christian--and you have an ambiguous survey to back that statement up? All I can say is, color me unimpressed.

You should be ashamed of yourself. All you do is reemphasize to me how easily it is for people like you to lie or fudge the facts. Why is it so easy for you? Or did you not even read the study you are spouting off about?"

There you have it somebody had already answered you ridiculous and false assertion about atheist and suicide. If you want to make this argument, you would have to explain why highly atheist countries like Sweden, Estonia and Finland have such low suicide rates. Which other lie do you have up your sleeve?

Suicide rates in the countries you mention are actually among the highest. Here is a WHO link for you to peruse http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/

I admit that i didn't do my argument a lot of good by giving the link to a study i haven't actually read. Am i ashamed? Not really. I was just looking for something to show you what the facts borne out in clinical practice by Psychiatrists say about the relationship between the absence of a religion and the incidence of suicide. There is a positive correlation, though Atheist psychiatrists like to argue against this, quoting dodgy 'confounding variables'.

Existential angst is common to ALL 'intelligent' humans at one point or the other in their life journeys. Some are pacified by 'religion', not necesarily Judeo-Christian. Those that aren't able to find the peace of religion resort to suicide (sometimes cloaked as euthenasia). Hence the unarguably higher rate of suicide in atheist countries.

toneyb:
It does, If we are to go by what the bible says and assume that it is true then we have god creating Adam and Eve and then after he allowed satan to come and decieve them with out them knowing the difference between right and wrong, He then decided to drive them out of his garden. But, if God is omniscient, he knew that they would eat the fruit. He knew that, even before he created them. And, in possession of that knowledge, he created them, in such a way that, not only could they eat it, but they definitely would eat it. He could have created them otherwise. He chose not to. He needn't have put the fruit there. He chose to. Who's the responsible party here? They had offspring who became rebellious and God according regreted why he created men so he decided to kill all humans on earth and begin again with Noah and his family, That again failed so God according to the bible had to come ones in a while to fight or kill people to show them that he is God, That again did not work so God had to come down in human form to correct that again, Now its still not working because Sin and the devil whom God supossedly created and are making God angry.

I made my deductions based on what is actually written in the bible.

Correct

All these are your subjective reality. Soul, spirit etc are all subjective assumptions that have no evidence at all in any reality.

As you wish, my brother!

PS: What is 'subjective reality' anyway?

toneyb:
What thirst do atheist have? The way you guys go about with your baseless assertions is really ridiculous. I guess you guys can not really come to terms that there are people do not believe in your deeply held non evidential beliefs, So you try all your possible best to placate yourselves with false and ridiculous assertions, What has intelligence got to do with anything? When you are asked very simple things you come up with baseless assertions that have nothing to do with what is been discussed. What has intelligence got to do with anything again I ask? You guys go around bandying baseless claims and when asked to defend it you begin to attack straw man after straw man.

Ahn, Ahn, no be fight now!

I don't know who the 'you guys' you keep mentioning are, but if it helps neither the believers nor the unbelievers have 'evidence' for their positions. So no go there my brother!

The 'thirst' that the so called atheists have, is the one that drives them to higher rates of suicide when it is not quenched http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091103130324AAsqlsd I couldn't come up with better evidence but that should quench a bit of your 'thirst'. I hope.

Let's face it my brother. If you are feeling 'attacked', it's not by me. It may be your conscience.

toneyb:
This is true just by reading the OP, I have stated that I want to know why I am wrong,

The story of the bible doesn't 'consist mostly of god trying to correct his own mistakes'.

toneyb:
Do you believe in the bible? I made my assertions based on what is written in the bible, so I will like you to correct me if I am wrong. ,

You made your assertions based on your own interpretation of what is written in the bible

toneyb:
Belief has nothing to do with innocence. ,

Correct

toneyb:
What peace are you referring to?And what has reality got to do with your personal meditations? To meditate you will first of all have to believe that your deeply held beliefs are true and then try to rationalize your beliefs in the process of "meditating". When you meditate what really happens?

I am referring to a 'peace' that comes from the understanding that there is one greater than me who is in ultimate control.

'RealitY' is what we make of it, my good friend. In my reality there is a role for personal meditation. And i do believe that my deeply held beliefs are true. Honest to God, i do.

When i meditate i experience even more illumination that gladens my heart. And in those moments i know that the one who shepherds my soul is indeed Lord!  In those moments, understanding dawns on me that though i am not even near to being 'righteous', i shall not 'want' anymore because the needs of my soul are continuously nourished. No more for me the existential angst that plagued my soul in the days of my rebellion and of my wandering in the parched deserts of searching. That's my reality. What's yours?

Tudór:
The crux of this post seems to center on thirst i.e curiosity. . . .

Have you ever watched a nature flick? If you have theres no way on this earth you'd tell me animals aren't as curious too.

The thirst here is a metaphor for the desire of the created to reunite with the creator. Even the so called 'atheists', if they will be honest with themselves, have this thirst. It's just that a lot of them like to ignore it and then erect infantile ego defence mechanisms, all in the guise of trying to sound or behave 'intelligent'.

toneyb:
I just want to start a new topic based on a post I saw on another thread from Tudor. Lets assume that the bible is true. Why did Yahweh create anything at all since the story of the bible consists mostly of god trying to correct his own mistakes, punishing Adam and Eve, the flood, sodom and gomorrha, fighting with men. killing them for disobedience, regretting that he created men, sending Jesus(Himself to die) for the sins of men etc. Christians mostly say that people were created for Yahweh's pleasure but what we see around is very contrary to that claim. according to the theory  humans are said to be created in "His image" hence we can comfortly use our "god-given" morals to judge Yahweh assuming he is our maker as well. Also the bible states Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowlage, the fruit of which is supposedly meant to give us some insight into what God himself considers good and evil, right? I think that would place me in quite a safe standing from which to judge the actions of God, by his own morals.

This really does not make any sense at all. Why did Yahweh make Adam knowing that Adam was going to screw-up then? And then going on blaming us, the supposed Adam's descendants for it. according to the story Yahweh created Adam with the ability to sin, and knowing he created Adam with this ability, he placed a "forbidden garden" in his presence  and allowed his enemy to go inside the garden and tempt eve without her having any knowledge of what is right or what is wrong? Isn't that a bit like giving children gasoline and matches and telling them, "you are forbidden to play with those" and sending your enemy whom they do not know about to tell them other wise? I'm not omniscient, but even I can predict the outcome of that little experiment, so why blame humans if this ridiculous theory is true? He should blame himself, as he could have changed it no?   
Personally this hypothesis just points to some story made up by some desperately unhappy people who need hope for happiness in a fairytale future away from this earth but I just want to hear from the mouth of Christians and I want them to tell me why Yahweh created the universe If we are to go by what we see around and what the bible really says.

Your beginning point shows that you are not really looking for answers.

It is clear that you have already reached your conclusions, which would hardly shift even if verses from the bible showed you that your position is very wrong. I have been there myself, so can empathise with your position. After i lost my 'religion' it took me close to 10 years to 'retrieve my paths from the land of wandering.' So i will not give you any answers. You already have answers that you are 'comfortable' with. Most men, myself inclusive, may actually be in error about the truth of the living God. But i have learnt that the answers that i found in my days of wandering are much further from the truth than the ones i have come to know since i regained the 'innocence' to believe again.

The answers that bring peace do not come in places like this. They come in the quiet place of meditation.

In my view, creation is nothing but intrinsic self-expression of the mind of the creator. I believe that the natural outward radiation of the substance of divinity is what emerges as creation.
God being a compound element, comprises an infinite mind that contains all and infinite permutations of existence.
This infinite mind being self-existent continuously pulsates in the reality of its live nature and that emits steady streams of creation which is nothing but the replica of the infinite permutations of existence contained in the universal mind.
Accordingly i do not subscribe to the belief that man was made to worship God per se.
I think that man is a natural manifestation of the mind of God, and in living (and living fully), God's thoughts reach expression and reality through man (and through everything else in existence).
[quote][/quote]I agree especially with the bolded parts. My thoughts are that the 'consciousness' of man is a reflection of that intrinsic self-expression. This is the part of man that is created in the image of the divine and which yearns to be reunited with 'God'.  Recognition of that yearning for God and then acting on it is what I consider to be true worship.

David, the man reputably 'after Gods own heart', captured this yearning in the words of several of his Psalms. The first two verses of psalm 42, springs immediately to mind:
‘As the deer pants for streams of water,
so my soul pants for you, O God.
My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. ’

As to the original question you asked about how all this affects such teachings as 'the remission of sin through the death of Christ on the cross', i would say that this is one of such mysteries that one can only accept by faith because ordinarily it could be dismissed as 'unreasonable'.

There are a lot of 'spiritual' mysteries that lie outside our ability to comprehend with our 'carnal' minds. Perhaps that's why the bible is full of metaphors, a lot of which were spoken by the Christ himself. The life and death of the Christ is a mystery. It may also have been a 'metaphor'. 

That's why Faith suffices. Reason would most certainly fail in our attempt to understand the things of God.

Deep Sight:
That's fine. No problems.

But how will you, as a christian, contextualize such "multiple realities" with the spiritual development which i imagine should be the purpose of your earthlife? I am just interested, really.

Obviously these are all idle concepts, even though some scientists pass them off as 'theory'.

I am aware that beyond my ability to comprehend are worlds out there that one can try to explain away in terms of 'spirit realms'. Some may prefer to call them extracorporal and extratemporal dimensions. One may even hazard a suggestion that the 'spirit' (of) man inhabits an alternate reality or dimension, where his 'carnal' self, boundaried by space and time, can never enter into. These are just idle interpretations that one can make as a Christian who understands that science is not exactly antichristian, and that Truth must not fade in the light of scientific discovery, if it be indeed Truth.

But science is not infalliable. It too is subject to the same embellishments that have so tainted 'religious' truth over the centuries and across traditions and cultures. The way one contexualises scientific hypotheses, however has very little to do with Spiritual development at the end of the day. Because most of these hypotheses are really just that: suggestions born out of the 'rich' imaginations of those who are so disposed.

My spiritual development is based on faith alone. My 'rich' imagination, my science and my philosophy avails very little when dealing with matters of the 'spirit'. My spiritual development is a journey in which that part of me that is created in the image of the creator is enriched gradually by the revelations that illuminate that part of me that i call my soul, as i stumble and fall in my unrelenting quest to apprehend the mysteries and the Truth of the one i profess as my God. This quest is my reasonable act of worship. What you could call the 'purpose' of my 'earthlife'.

Deep Sight:
So Beneli, do you imagine that there are infinite numbers of YOU in infinitie time and space dimensions living out an infinity of different tangential possibilities of destiny simultaenously.

Because that is what you have suggested.

I do not discard the possibility: i need to know if that is what you assert or imagine[b] is possible.[/b]

No be me suggest am O!

The concept of multiple realities have become increasingly more popular in scientific discourse since people discovered that 'particles' behave weirdly at the level of quantum mechanics. Some religions describe it using less scientific jargon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse (scroll down to the part about multiverse hypothesis in religion and spirituality).

Do i imagine this to be possible? Why not? I have a very rich imagination!

Mavenb0x:
@beneli: Interesting! And here was I, thinking I had an ingenious and original idea for a novel

Sorry O!

@topic,

There have been a lot of suggestions that the UFO phenomena is not new. Even in bible times, there were UFO experiences. The popular book 'Spaceships of Ezekiel' by J.F.Blumrich makes for interesting reading. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/spaceships_ezekiel.htm

One conspiracy theory is that in the 'end time' there will be a lot of UFO activity. Men will say that this is the evidence that man is partly from the stars and that the creation story is just a metaphor for how these aliens genetically modified the beasts, indigenous to earth, in order for them to become 'rational man' and therefore useful to them. And that when these visitors from the stars actually make contact again they will declare themselves to be the 'gods' that 'created' us. Some say that this is the grand deception spoken of in the book of Daniel and in Revelation that will lead even the 'elect' almost astray. Because these visitors will perform miracles and make 'fire' fall from the sky. And they will make man to 'worship' the 'beast' of revelation.

I think that this is a very interesting theory. Because if, indeed, technologically advanced beings where to visit one day and declare themselves to be the 'gods' of the bible, i am sure that a lot of people will believe them. What this theory suggests is that UFO's are actually the 'fallen angels' of the bible.

The possibility that UFO's are actually our descendents come to visit from the future is a discussion that is ongoing in some circles. The thinking is that by the time man has mastered space and time to be able to travel outside of time, he will also have cracked such extra-dimensional mysteries like moving across timelines in parrallel universes. The thinking is that once a time traveller makes contact with a specific timeline, he changes it and in so doing sets in motion an alternative future for that time line-a future in which things are so different from the future from where he visited. That's the current theory regarding time travel and multiple timelines.

The fact remains that as scientific theory turns into reality, people will continue to find that some of the conclusions they had come to regarding what the bible said about those things, were more of embellishments by man as opposed to the truth of what God had said in his revealed word.

The truth is that if God is true, then he will remain true irrespective of the traditions of men and the attempts made to defend Him. If God is not true, then those of us who have chosen to believe in Him, have lost nothing.

the_seeker:
The most popular scientific theory states that the universe will stop expanding at some point and start contracting until all matter is compressed together; THE BIG CRUNCH.

Quite a few are beginning to question the so called 'big crunch'. The current thinking, since Scientists starting talking about 'Dark Energy and dark matter (http://nasascience.nasa.gov/astrophysics/what-is-dark-energy), is that the universe will continue to expand until it gradually becomes swallowed up by an 'eternal' dark and cold lonliness. In other words the 'universe' as we know it, will just fade away. Gradually.

grandstar:
You are probably suffering from social anxiety.

Go to google and search "social anxiety" or "social phobia".

I too suffer from it. There are some medication you can take but its best you see a phychologist as well.

All exercise a lot. It makes you feel better. Jog and do press ups. Press-ups helps you to contain fear.

Hows your relationship with your parents? Are they overprotective? Or over possessive? Or domineering?

Always feel free to email me.

He 'probably' isn't. He didn't give you enough information for you to jump to such a conclusion. Your advice is uninformed.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Let's leave particles aside. Particles cannot consciously experience time.

Do you believe that beings (intelligent conscious beings) exist outside spacetime (as defined by you).

If they do, do you imagine that they have a perception of a past, a present and a future.

We don't know that 'particles' are not 'conscious', as in being 'aware' of their surrounding. That obviously is a topic for another discussion. We don't even know what 'particles' are.

Whether one believes that 'intelligent conscious beings' exist outside of space time (as defined by me), depends obviously on ones 'religious' or 'anti-religious' views. I don't shy away from the fact that i am a Christian, so subscribe to the 'faith' that there are extra-temporal intelligient 'beings'. I believe that these beings are aware of the past, the present and the future, yet are not limited by it.

Most religious folks (Christians, Moslems, Jews etc) speak of a God who is 'omnipresent'. In other words an all knowing essence that can be in different spaces (everywhere actually) at the same time. The Christians talk of him being at the 'beginning' and at the 'end' of time (at the same 'time'), so without actually understanding the science of it, we talk about an entity that is not subject to the laws of the 4th dimension. An entity that permeates 'spacetime', yet is not part of it. An entity that just 'is', irrespective of the past, present or the future. This is faithtalk now, and not science!

@butter,
I think that the reason i am able to respond to some of the things here is because i have been able to arrange my work in such a way that i spend a lot of time preparing medico-legal reports, looking for information online and that sort of thing. So i have a lot of access to the internet. I have paid my dues and can allow the junior doctors/staff to do all the 'dirty' work!

Now to the questions.

butter:
I'm a dentist, been practicing for awhile now, I'm thinking of getting an mph via long distance educ. online from the university of Liverpool. now i know from this forum that opportunities exist for mph holders in NGOs, WHO etc, but discussions here would seem to suggest that an mph suits medical doctors rather than dentists. is this true?,

Not true. Anybody can do a MpH. Obviously the job you'd want to apply for later will determine what baseline qualification is more important. Some don't specify a first degree in Medicine. They may just mention something like a 'graduate degree in public health', like the one on this link http://unjobs.org/vacancies/1260685601845

butter:
also I've gone though the curriculum and contacted the enrollment adviser who assured me that there's literary no difference between the on campus and online course, i must admit though, I'm a bit skeptical, do we know of anyone who has gotten an mph online and does the online nature of the program "depreciates" the degree so to speak.

I almost did an online degree, but didn't go ahead with it as, it was no longer relevant to the direction my career is going. I have heard of a few people who did it, but i don't really know anybody personally. But to be honest, i doubt that the online nature of the course 'depreciates' the degree. I may be wrong of course. However, the advise would be for you to be clear which of the Public Health streams, would take you to where you want to go eventually. To help you with that, you may want to do a bit of research on what the job prospects are for each of the streams. A place to start would be the person specifications in some of the vacancies on sites such as the unjobs link that i gave above. I also think that squeezing out a publication or two from the topic you choose while doing the degree (online or not) would most certainly give you an edge while job hunting in the international scene.

butter:
thirdly are there any scholarships for mph programs that one can access?

There may be. You can start here and see where it takes you. http://ukinnigeria.fco.gov.uk/en/working-with-nigeria/chevening-scholarships

All the best

Outside 'spacetime' things exist but they don't experience 'progression' and that sort of thing. An example is particles that can be in several places at the 'same time'! Obviously within 'spacetime' that's an impossibility!

beneli:
From doing a bit of amateur research using google!, i can see that some mathematical models suggest that the construct ‘time’ is in fact ‘tangible’ and that it moves forwards!.

Before you tell me that i am contradicting myself, this 'movement' is always in association with something else! In other words the 'passage of time' is always in relation to a 1-2-or-3-dimensional construct. It's because of this movement that it is 'measured'. It is therefore boundaried and finite!

Deep Sight:
What gives you the impression that time moves? Where have you ever seen time moving? Is it not more accurate to state that objects and people move and transit within time, and not that time itself moves?

Perhaps you missed the word "constant" in my post. By that word i was trying to suggest that time does not move at all. It is a constancy. Now things happen and objects move within that constancy. This is merely a suggestion. Do not hold me to it.

But in this suggestion lies the equation for eternity. For if time does not move, then it is perforce eternal and infinte: a static constancy within which things happen and objects move.

It seems to m eyou are constricting yourself to finite thoughts. This is why you would state that time must have an end. That is implausible. Time being intangible cannot have an end.

These are scientific gymnastics which we have argued exhaustively before: neither time nor space are capable of being created at any point - and certainly not by any big bang. Unless by space you mean matter. That is not my understanding of space.

Of course the fundamental issue is whether ‘time’ actually exists. I don't believe that there is such a thing as self-existent time. Time, for me, is part of a complex entity, integral to the 4th dimension. So time cannot exist on its own.

From doing a bit of amateur research using google!, i can see that some mathematical models suggest that the construct ‘time’ is in fact ‘tangible’ and that it moves forwards!. This link conceptualises time in terms of having an essence that moves and which can be measured http://www.physorg.com/news139830010.html Even Einstein talked about 'time dilation' in his famous calculations, so the question is not whether 'time' moves, but as mentioned above; it's about what exactly is this thing called time that moves! I see it as an entity that gives 3-dimensional space a context. 

However, at the level of particle physics, even that entity, ‘time’ , according to calculations and observations ceases to exist  http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time!  You see, at that level, where the borders of ‘space-time’ are breached, things behave strangely. Gravity becomes erratic, objects appear and disappear and exist in more than one space at the same time, and matter itself blurs into waveforms that we are still trying to figure out names for. At that level, space and time are almost alien concepts, and 'windows' appear in our time-and-space-bound 4th dimension through which we glimpse infinity and eternity.

So my good friend, the equation for eternity, is not that time is constant. The equation is that the entity that we call time, ceases to exist.

[/quote][quote author=beneli link=topic=362859.msg5104419#msg5104419 date=1260721391]'Time' cannot exist within 'eternity'.

There is a problem with the statement i made above. I think it is wrong for me to say that 'time cannot exist within eternity'. If i where to use the idea of the 'spacetime' bubbles, mentioned earlier, the relationship between eternity and time may be better understood. Time which is a 4-dimensional construct can dissipitate into a higher dimension.

Eternity, which is not subject to the constraints of 4-dimensional calculations, is therefore NOT time. Time, however, can be contained in eternity. One can therefore consider time as an intermission in eternity. Time is bounded by eternity on either sides.

Eternity is therefore before, within and after, time. It transverses time, yet it is not it.

To clarify the above. As long as we view 'eternity' through a 4-dimensional eye piece, we will continue to confuse issues. Eternity by its very nature is outside the 4-th dimension. Time is contained in the 4th dimension.

Deep Sight:
Beneli - what is eternity if not infinite and constant time?

The very idea of eternity puts a cog in the wheel of your presupposition that time can ever be said to end.

The very idea of eternity also shows time to be an intangible constant, as i earlier stated.

No: you use "fabric" because you have misapprehended time as a finite, almost material thing. This is underscored by your allusion to time coming to an "end" - which is inconceivable to a mind having a slight appreciation of the intangible and self-existent nature of time.

'Time' cannot exist within 'eternity'.

So there is something wrong with your definition that 'eternity' is 'infinite' and 'constant' time. Time 'moves', and movement can only occur from one point to another. If there is no beginning and end point, then there is no movement. For time to exist there must be a 'beginning' and an 'end'. Outside of these parametres you have 'eternity', something that is not subject to 'time'. Time by it's very nature therefore CANNOT exist in eternity because eternity has no beginning nor end. Eternity is self-existent and intangible.  Time needs to exist within a medium. It can be quantified and measured. Eternity cannot be measured.

Time and light where 'created at a point when something happened that people call the 'big bang'! That's what i mean when i said that 'time' is a 'function' of the speed of light. Perhaps 'function' is not the right word then.

Deep Sight:
Rather than duplicate threads i think we should simply ressurect that thread so some of the things already said there needn't be repeated.

I agree.

quote author=Deep Sight link=topic=362859.msg5104138#msg5104138 date=1260716969]
Beneli i think that using the word "fabric" in the context if infinity and eternity is an insurmountable contradiction.
[quote][/quote]I use 'fabric' because there's hardly anything else on earth we could use to describe it! Scientists have used phrases such as the 'god particle', so perhaps we should call it God. I still prefer 'fabric' for now, though.

Deep Sight:
Beneli. . . ? ? ? ? You've got something very intreresting cooking there. . . I like very much. . .

Save to state that time is definitely an intangible infinite constant and can never be said to "end."

Ditto space.

The bolded part akes us back to the ancient philosphical question of 'what is time?'!
My take on it is that time, is a function of the speed of light, is finite and will therefore 'end'. Infinity begins at the point where time 'ends'.

viaro:
One reason why I love physics.


             [flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_tNzeouHC4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></[/flash]

The statement in 4.32-4.35 about the electrons behaving 'as if they are aware that they were being watched' raises some very interesting questions such as:
1. could the 'fabric' of the universe itself exhibit 'intelligence'?;
2. is man's so called 'consciousness' something that is not unique to man and 'biological' entities alone?.
3. Could 'intelligence' exist' outside of the 4-dimension, seeing that at the level of particle physics, the laws of the 4th dimension are not obeyed?

These are questions, which one should attempt to answer in the topic about the 'fabric' of infinity and eternity. Perhaps, we could move the video and the questions to the new topic. What do you think Viaro?

viaro:
^^I look forward to that new discussion.

The discussion about the 'fabric' of etentity (and infinity) almost follows from this one. It probably will begin at the point this one ends. So maybe we should backtrack to the original question: How will the 'universe' end?

I think the discussion so far has shown that there is no consensus about what 'the universe' is. 

One camp, the group to which i belong, subscribes to the understanding that 'spacetime'-that which was birthed at the so called 'big bang'-is not the same thing as 'the universe'. So i will argue from the perspective that the 'universe' is NOT bounded by 'space' and 'time', and is therefore, self-existing, eternal and infinite. And if that is the case, it cannot end. 'Ending' by definition would be a 4-dimensional concept. The only thing that will and can end, is really 'spacetime'.

So how will 'spacetime' end then?. My opinion is that it will gradually 'expand' beyond its 'breaking point' into a dimension where time does not exist. We have already raised the point that 'gravity' may be seeping out into a dimension that is higher than the 4th dimension. A dimension, which, as postulated earlier, 'spacetime' itself is also expanding into.  This expansion will continue until spacetime' is completely swallowed up by the 'fabric' of this higher dimension, which for want of a better word, i will call 'infinity'.

So, in a nutshell, the universe itself will not end. But 'spacetime', which is but 'debris'-or if you prefer, creation-of this 'infinity', will gradually become one with that which formed it, and in the process cease to exist for a moment in 'time'; perhaps being birthed again 'sometime' in a future or a present or a past that we, 4-dimensional creatures, will never be able to comprehend.

Deep Sight:
Beneli? ? ? ? ?

I had posted something which i realise is not exactly relevant. I will try to put my thoughts together and start it as a new discussion. It's about exploring the 'fabric' of eternity (and infinity). But if people think that it will be interesting, they can set the ball rolling!