Can science REALLY explain Reality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter OrdinaryMelkite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jochoa said:
You all have great and valid perspectives, and to recognize how they are all valid, simply use the science of creating a true friend given the knowledge of the aspects of friendships, and given absolutely nothing else physical other than yourself.

For example:
A true friend freely chooses to be with you.
One part of the science must be:
Since there is nothing else physical in existence, if you created a physical person in your realm of existence, you would be forcing them to be with you. Therefore, you must create two places: A place where you and your friend will reside once your friend chooses to be with you, and a place for your friend to reside until s/he freely chooses to be with you.

The graceful way of stating all of this is: In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.
Click to expand...
I find it interesting to ponder the nature of those places – the places that isolate friends until they decide to combine or share. What sort of communication or sharing system, if any, would there be between them? And of course we don’t have to be talking about physical places, right?

Alan
 
What we really need to understand that our lives here is NOT reality
Our lives In eternity IS reality.
Our lives here are earth is NOT reality, it is a trial, a test to see if we deserve reality.
 
HalynaHanya said:
What we really need to understand that our lives here is NOT reality
Our lives In eternity IS reality.
Our lives here are earth is NOT reality, it is a trial, a test to see if we deserve reality.
Click to expand...
How can you separate the two? As one man said with great accuracy, “This is always already the ‘other’ world!” What needs to be teased out is why the world as you perceive it is primarily illusory while being based in Reality exactly as you are experiencing it.
 
AlanFromWichita said:
What sort of communication or sharing system, if any, would there be between them? And of course we don’t have to be talking about physical places, right?

Alan
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for inquiring more about the concept!
In attempts to answer the questions directly, please consider the following.

The first question is extremely difficult to answer because there are so many contexts one can consider, which validate a large variety of means to communicate. However, the ultimate form of communication system is the Laws of Love. To state this simply, please consider the following basic concepts.

Human Life naturally seeks peace and happiness.
Since impatience causes disturbance, then patience must maintain/restore peace.
By definition, kindness causes happiness.

Therefore, the basic means of communication, which has always been present would be:
  1. Any perception of a lack of peace and/or happiness is a calling to grow in patience and/or kindness.
  2. Any teaching which promotes greater patience and/or kindness.
Please use the following definitions:
Naturally - by design of the Creator, according to the Laws of Love, semantically provable
Peace - contentment, freedom from disturbance
Happiness - The experiences ranging from contentment to intense joy, Pleasure
Patient - To bear trials calmly or without disturbance
Kind - An act which gives pleasure.

Regarding the question: “And of course we don’t have to be talking about physical places, right?”
If you feel more comfortable only talking about spiritual places, that is fine! However, it is WAAAAY more exciting considering physical places!!!
 
jochoa said:
Regarding the question: “And of course we don’t have to be talking about physical places, right?”
If you feel more comfortable only talking about spiritual places, that is fine! However, it is WAAAAY more exciting considering physical places!!!
Click to expand...
Thank you for your replies. I feel comfortable talking about all forms of separation and communication, so I was basically wanted to know whether you were limiting it. 👍

Alan
 
Sair said:
. Hence the notion that everything that happens in the future has been determined - as in planned, with knowledge of the outcome - right from the beginning, and the related notion that if we could somehow know all the causes, we could know, without a shadow of doubt, all the outcomes, ruling out possibilities as we go.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure determinism doesn’t require that all events are consciously planned, only that they are all caused (“determined”) by other things, and specifically that they do not self determine. Competing causes don’t change this - they are just different determining factors, . It’s only really free will which throws a spanner in the works, assuming it exists, since that is by definition, self determining. Randomness? If a random event occurs,you could argue it occurs because the situation arose that created a random event, hence the randomness itself is determined to occur. Hmmmmm… you could still push it, but it doesn’t really satisfy as an antideterminism argument by itself, I don’t think - but maybe that’s just me 🙂
 
I’m watching an excellent show on how the subconscious works.

It has a great deal of information from the scientific vantage point, about how our minds work and what we perceive as reality.

With Morgan Freeman

“Through the Wormhole” season 3 episode 8, “Mysteries of the Subconscious”

It is a must see for anyone interested in the interaction between the conscious, subconscious, perception and reality. It speaks directly to many of the issues debated on this thread.

Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top