I have considered it. On the surface, it is complete bollocks, so I try to ask questions to get to the deeper meaning. My questions are either ignored, or answered with more bollocks. Iacchy, I'm trying very hard to consider what you "know", but your refusal to answer direct questions with direct answers is preventing that.

Using the example Diggy pointed out. I say that by all known definitions, Earth is not female, human or a mother. You do not respond by telling me how it is female, human or a mother, but instead, you throw in how the sky is a father.

I have no doubt that your mind has not changed any time in the recent past. Mine has changed several times from what I have learned on this forum. I have considered and accepted that Human's classifications of lucid dreams is useful. I have thought about and realized that what Diggy said about there being more than five senses makes some "sense" .

I would love to point out examples of where your ideas have helped me change my mind, but I cannot think of any examples. Perhaps if you would answer the questions asked, I might gain some insight. I'm not averse to learning new things from external sources, Iacchy. Why are you?

Greetings Iacchus,

Dealing with first things first,

I fully agree with the need for humanity to re-engage with reality. You seem to be actively pursuing this, and you have shared some of your insights. You may agree that this re-engagement is not confined to the world of thoughts, but thoughts and their consequences, playing out over the whole extent of mind and body.

Yet we still need a theoretical understanding of this process of re-engagement. It could be argued that until now spirituality has been suffering from lack of rigorous theory. Yet now we have the powerful language of mathematics available to us, which is well-suited to the description of natural and therefore spiritual processes. So mankind awaits a mathematical theory which is consistent with present knowledge yet transcends it, which is designed primarily for spiritual use. Still, this theory is a mere description of reality, and once it is developed there remains the far greater task of understanding it subjectively within ourselves, not just at the subatomic level but at the human level, and so bringing us into better understanding and contact with reality.

So in summary, once a correct theory is developed, there remains the task of implementing the theory, and you rightly believe that this is the main task in achieving unification.

Yes, without the proper understanding of who we are, how can we determine what course of action we need to take?

Well, I happen to think Science can provide the theory, and Religion can provide the necessary means by which to impliment it (will power), especially when the theory is accepted at the core level, belief-wise.

Thus far it's merely speculation on my part, albeit the projection of a specific ideal ... the unification of Mother Earth and Heaven above. And, whether or not it was meant to specifically come about I couldn't say? However, I still feel the need to convey my thoughts on the matter. It is conceivable that things can and will change though, just as it has changed so many times and, in so many ways, throughout history. While here's an interesting thread that I started at Physics Forums awhile back that starts to get into this ... The Center of Existence.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Excellent post, Bariyon. I fully agree that theories need to explain reality. If I might make a single quibble, it would be that theories are not "implemented". They are accepted. How well a theory is accepted should rely on how well it explains the evidence. In this, explaining the natural world is relatively easy compared to explaining the spirit world simply because it is difficult, if not impossible, to gain meaningful evidence of the spirit world. The fractious nature of spiritual belief systems shows this.

But good luck herding cats.

Greetings Iacchus,
Please excuse me, I was thinking somewhat narrowly and didn’t really touch on issues of religion.

It is my view that theory and religion are slightly different entities. For whether or not the prophets had a clear understanding of the nature of reality (and I believe they did), they were certainly not being forthright with it. So in short, religion is providing a means of obtaining knowledge, rather than knowledge itself. For knowledge is not something contained in words on a page, but is a living interaction with reality itself, accessed by our thoughts.

Religion is not only concerned with those who seek knowledge, but also those “little ones” who claim that they are followers but actually lack the strength (I would place you in the first group). How Christianity caters for both groups within the same text is a “mystery” (puzzle) that the Bible sets.

It is all very well gaining scientific knowledge, but without practical guidance from those ahead of us, through religion say, we can be attempting to do so in a state of fundamental error. Here I am attempting to use the word “religion” in a broad sense. A simple example of “religion” in physics might be the life and sayings of Albert Einstein, and what these are able to teach us in becoming better scientists and humans. Yet the Judeo-Christian writings have by no means ended their days.

The reason why I bring up religion, is because in order for a fundamental change to occur, for example in our attitude towards cleaning up the planet (which is my concern), you almost have to go about it in a religious fashion. And here, I'm suggesting Science can provide the know-how (the more technical aspects), and the religious folks can help provide the means, through its involvment at the grass roots level. But then again maybe we're not speaking about the same thing here? I don't know? Of course if it could be established that God existed on a global scale -- through Science -- then people might be more inclined to cooporate and implement the necessary changes. Meaning, if it struck at the core level of their beliefs.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Iacchus,
Suppose it is revealed mathematically that the reality we live in is incomplete, in the sense that there is a division between subject and object that need not be. It becomes clear that a greater reality is available to us, through personal development.

We realise that the Judeo-Christian writings were involved in exactly the same program, using the methods then available. The teaching “Love your neighbour” becomes a necessary condition for moving into a greater reality, and we realise that a life of selfishness and exploitation has come at great spiritual cost.

We slowly come into acceptance of that which every instinct has previously rejected. Pain understood is no more. Humanity finally breaks away from the limitations of its animal origins.

Does it sound like I'm dreaming?

I think that's about the only way it can be revealed and make an impact with people to be honest. The days of receiving things by blind-faith alone have come and gone.

Of course I realize this may actually be referring to a "heavenly state" which has already been made available to those who have passed on, yet it could also refer to a time where the notion of God has clearly become evident to everyone which, could very well be indicative to today. Because I don't think people have the tolerance, after having so many things revealed to them by Science, to accept God by any other means. It has to be practicle, otherwise people won't adhere to it.

Yes, and tell it to the planet!

What, when we realize we are creatures of a fallen nature, and begin to assume the role as true caretakers of this planet as was intended to be?

It's just another dimension of reality and closer to your true self.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Many physicists will find this statement to be ridiculous. Surely if the theory passes all the required tests, and agrees with experiment, then it will be accepted?

To physics, the program of unification is the search for a single theory which describes all the forces. But how can physics be so sure how this will happen before it has happened? Also, why is the program of unification so restrictive?

A truly unified theory will unify on several levels. Naturally it will include a description of gravity. But more fundamentally, it will begin by revealing that nature is caught in a duality. It will be seen that our most pressing need is not technical focus on detailed mechanics of mathematical analysis, but the spiritual task of overcoming duality, armed with a precise map which has been provided with mathematics.

I doubt whether physics will be able to respond to this change of emphasis. Physics will see the incorporation of spirituality as being irrelevant, unphysical, distasteful. The repugnance that many physicists have for religion and spirituality actually confirms their dualistic nature. And it is about as hard for dualistic nature to embrace unity as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. After all, what drives a physicist – the selfless desire for true knowledge, or rather concerns of belonging and status, and even dreams of fame?

We speak with sweet words, saying that we desire unification, but actually we strive for duality, and whenever unity approaches, we run away as fast as we can. We need to step back and consider the limitations of our human nature which can so often lead us fundamentally astray.

Please note that I reposted the text as a sticky in the Coming Unified Theory forum here ... Thanks!

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Are you sure physics is "so sure"? From my admittedly feeble understanding, it is a topic of some debate. Some think there will be a single theory, others do not... and what do you mean by "restrictive"? The only restriction I see is that it must fit the observed data...the same restriction any other theory gets...And you accuse the physicists of being "so sure"? How do you know that a unified theory must reveal a duality? What evidence is there for this duality? Could you cite papers in physics journals which speak to this? I think you got it with "irrelevant". The other two are not called for, as they would imply a relevance. Could you cite examples of physicists' alleged "repugnance" for religion? You qualify that statement with "Many"-- can you be more specific? It is just a handful of individuals, or is it a characteristic of the science? And why does the motivation of the physicist matter? Do you really think they all are driven by the same thing?Who is this "we", and what evidence do you have for these claims?

I agree. It is not my observation that the physics community is trying desperately to find a Grand Unification Theory, although it is true that each new bit of data is examined to see how it fits with other data. If a GUT emerges, it will be the result of the consistancy with which scientists verify their data, not because it is their ultimate goal.

And I would agree that "fitting the data" is required for any theory, however, I would also add that it must not insert undefined or circularly defined terms. For example, "God makes it work" fits all the data, but "God" is either undefined, or defined as "The thing that makes it work." I don't think that eliminating such vaguery is unnecessarily restricting.
Indeed, this is a clear cut case of letting the preferred conclusion drive the research. If no data is found to "reveal that nature is caught in a duality", then it is not the scientist who must accept it without data. It is the dualist that must accept that dualism is unsupported.

And while I am glad that Barion wants to make sure that the spiritual side fits in with the math side, what I expect to see is spiritual people trying to massage math to fit in with their determination that there must be a spiritual side. This has been done many times in the past, and it has always failed to establish a link between the two "realms". I've seen many spiritual people or websites throw out the term "quantum" to make their beliefs sound impressively researched, and usually without any idea of what they are talking about.
Oh, "cite this, cite that". Jeepers, Diggy, who wants to read all that citing? No wonder your lectures are taped and used as sleep aids.

But your point that Barion is making a blanket statement about what physicists want is a good one. It is showing a strong prejudice against the motives of physicists and trying at the same time to present this prejudice as evidence for the dualistic nature. Though I am not a physicist, if I were, I would be deeply insulted by his insinuations.
"We" is humanity the way Barion sees it. Personally, I think he oversimplifies for the sake of promoting peace and love among disagreeing factions. While this is a noble goal, I don't believe that this problem will be solved by group hugs.

Greetings DC,
So you didn’t nibble at this offering? Next time I may put pobble toes in it.
I believe there is an article in Nature which speaks to this. You should read it.
You’re requiring that the list fit a logical format you have imposed yourself. Also you’re saying here that religion is irrelevant to physics. I think you have committed a logic crime and made an unverifiable statement.
By “many” I assuredly mean the number of stars in the heavens that Abraham stared into.

Regards, Bariyon

Greetings GB,
I believe that you have no data for this statement. Why do you have no data for this statement? How does data become available? Is the same data available to all? I think Iacchus knows what I’m on about.
You are using the word "realm" differently to how I would use it. Whatever websites you have been looking at, mine wasn’t one of them. And the only time I have mentioned the word “quantum” is earlier in this sentence.
Some people are easily offended, for example their alarm clock goes off in the morning, and they’re offended. But life must go on.
Noble? But it was Christianity that taught me not to advocate the stated approach.

Regards, Bariyon

A man named Jack was walking through the desert, pulling a cart on which two angels were dancing merrily. He was thirsty, and was looking for a well that he had seen in a vision the previous day. And the angels were dancing, singing the words We declare that your vision was a mirage! and If you were one of us you would not thirst!

And behold, a signpost appeared before them, with the words Dig Here For Water written on it.

And Jack embraced the ground in relief, saying This is what I saw in a vision the previous day, before night came! And a voice came from the ground, saying, Your thirst is quenched, and water will rise from the ground beneath.

And the first angel said with utmost caution, Is there any evidence that there is any water? There was silence, not even the sound of blowing wind. And the second angel said in disbelief, I’ve seen many false signs like this before, and this is probably just another. Once again there was muted silence.

And behold, the signpost dematerialised, and in its place appeared a dying animal, with two vultures strutting around it and picking at its body. The angels stared in amazement, then broke into shouts of joy, saying, We were not deceived! and Blessed be the Lord our God, our tower of refuge!

You were the one making a statement, a claim. I merely ask you to back up your claim. I take it you either cannot or will not. Fine. Your claim may be safely ignored.Oh, gee. I'd love to. Can you be more specific? Author, Year, Title? I can find it with that. Otherwise, since you are talking about a journal that dates all the way back to 1869, I think it might be difficult.It was the word from your own post, describing what physicists think. Think--if it is irrelevant...this does not deny any of the other words you listed, it just renders them...irrelevant. As for "logic crime"...or unverifiable statements, I would be glad to withdraw anything that cannot be supported. Oddly enough, my entire post consists of my asking you to support your own statements...which you do not do.So again, you either cannot or will not support your statements. I can see why the physics forum stopped your thread.I bet.

Oh, now I get it! I hereby renounce science, as your method of knowing is far superior! My thirst for knowledge....aw, forget it.

And to you, BarryYou mean that you consider your personal feelings (or as Iacchy puts it, "knowledge that comes from inside") to be data? In order for something to be "data", then in must be avalible to all, or else it is not data. Personal feelings are not data. Now if you made records of lots of people "personal feelings" and tabulated them, that would be data, (In fact, I believe this is what pollsters do), However it would not reveal whether or not your personal feelings were correct, only what they were.

But I am speaking of data for a duality of existence. I thought (and I could be mistaken) that you were saying science had no evidence, at this point, for such a duality but that a "unified theory" would provide that evidence. I apologize if I misunderstood you.Sorry. I can't think of a better term to describe the physical versus metaphysical... um... areas? fields of knowledge? You speak of a duality, you tell me how you would fill in the blanks here:
"The duality is between the ___________ of physics and the ___________ of spirituality."
I was not referring to your website (which I have not seen) and did not mean to imply that you misused the term "quantum". My comments were to illustrate how science gets misused. When you say a unified theory "will begin by revealing that nature is caught in a duality", then I feel that you are misrepresenting how science works, just as a person (not you) misusing the word "quantum" would be doing.

For example, I did a quick search on "Quantum Spirituality" and got about five hundred hits, though to be fair, most were in reference to a book by that name. "Quantum Jesus" and "Quantum Christianity" only got about 25 hits each.
People are indeed easily offended, just as you appeared to take offense when you thought that I had suggested you had misused "quantum".
But let's face it, "repugnance" is a very strong word to describe people you haven't met, and it would be only human to react to it negatively. For example, Iacchy has often chafed when being called "ignorant", even when it is explained that this is not intended as a slur. But I can understand why he is insulted, just as I can understand why a physicist would be insulted by having someone inform them that they are feeling "repugnance" towards spirituality. Words are such tricky things.

However, I am not the least bit insulted. You will find it difficult to find an insult that fazes me, although I notice that Iacchy has opened a flame war section if you wish to try. (All in good fun.)
I'm confused. Christianity taught you not to seek peace? Surely that is not what you meant. What approach is it that Christianity taught you not to advocate?

esteemfully
Goozleberry

MAT 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

You can also find other verses that "seem" to contradict the idea of peace, to add to your confusion.

Yeah, that verse has always seemed a bit odd to me, but I was always told that I had interpreted it wrong.

This one is a bit of a wrench too.
Luke 14:26 If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple.

That is why I am hoping Barry will clarify what approach he meant that Christianity taught him not to advocate. Interpretations vary so widely.