Paradox of Potential popped Aware.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

PoPpAScience
 
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2007 01:38 am
@molok69,
molok69 wrote:
Yes, that was what I imagined the paradox to be!

But I need help!

I`m experiencing some language issues with `pure coincidence`, particularly Norwegians pointing out that `co-incidence` must have a cause(at least two) but you still seem to understand what I mean by `pure coincidence`. As someone saying" This could not have happened by pure coincidence, there must have been a reason for this" would this not be somewhat a `normal` phrase, that someone speaking English actually could say?

`Pure coincidence` for me, is in Norwegian `ren tilfeldighet`.

But `coincidence` translated is not `tilfeldighet`.

`Tilfeldighet` translated is `accident, chance, contingency, fortuitousness, haphazardness`.

Is there a better word for my `pure coincidence`?

These language issues are driving me crazy!



That's a tough one molok69. I have been thinking about it since you first wrote it. It makes sense to me because it was the way I looked at the beginning when I was a Atheist. I would say to religious people when I talked to them, that it is 'just a coincidence' that the Universe turned out the way it did.

Then when I got into Eastern Religion's, I would say that the universe is, just the way it is meant to be. Or, "pure coincidence"

Before I became a spiritualist, and decided to think of what the "Before", the beginning, would be like, I would have been very satisfied with your view of "pure coincidence". But, because I view "Potential", and its "Nature", as the influence on how, "All" turned out.

So, if one has a view of the universe as "pure coincidence", which it would be, if there was no out side influence to make it as it is. Like a "God" or "Potential". Then the Universe turned out the way it did, because of "pure coincidence".

I think "pure coincidence" is thee best wording you can use for your view, and would not change it. But it will no doubt bring questions from those trying to visualize it. I personally, if it was my wording, would come back at the questionnaire, with the statement; 'It is "pure coincidence", that the Universe turn out the way it did."

I hope this helped in some way.
 
PoPpAScience
 
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2007 02:41 pm
@molok69,
molok69 wrote:
So if I say:

`Potential` triggered by "`pure coincidence`s premises met", allows `pure coincidence` itself to occur, obviously it did, and together with `potential`, `pure coincidence` sparks ignition to the `process` of "self-creating existence"(somewhat similar to "aware"). The `ignition point` of this `process` existing within itself into infinity,from this `ignition point` the "self-creating existence" expands by `self-confirming` the `potential` changes in the `process` eternally.

This would somewhat make sense to you?


That last post I had a hard time writing because it is not what I was totally feeling. But I felt your post needed a reply.
I woke up this morning thinking this:

'Potential' triggered by the premise of 'pure coincidence', sparks ignition of a 'self-creating existence. 'Self-creating existence' expands by 'self-confirming' the 'potential' of 'pure coincidence'.

Now for me this holds true from the moment that "Aware", through "Will", became "Cognitive" of itself. From the "Singularity" of "Will", in my view, could the view of yours be interjected.

Our views are the same, just worded different. Except of course, for my view of expanding further into the past, before the "Singularity" of the beginning.

I feel that the "Art of Evolution" operates on the 'potential' of 'pure coincidence'. I feel that the only rule that Evolution creates by, is the rule of 'pure coincidence' that is inherent within it.

I hope this sounds better then my last post.
 
molok69
 
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 03:44 am
@PoPpAScience,
Thanks!

But I don`t see how you can expand further into the past, as I see it `potential` `pure coincidence` are both within the first `moment`, and so is the `popping `of "aware".
 
Seeker phil
 
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 12:36 pm
@PoPpAScience,
We are an extension of the Divine. Somewhat like a Hologram. We have Free Will. We are somewhat limited on the earth plan, but we are experiencing less then 10% of the Ecstasy that we are capable of experiencing while we are in this form and on this planet.

Namaste!
 
PoPpAScience
 
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 02:08 pm
@molok69,
molok69, I would like to say thanks again for your interest in this tread.

PoPpAScience wrote:
That last post I had a hard time writing because it is not what I was totally feeling. But I felt your post needed a reply.
I woke up this morning thinking this:

'Potential' triggered by the premise of 'pure coincidence', sparks ignition of a 'self-creating existence. 'Self-creating existence' expands by 'self-confirming' the 'potential' of 'pure coincidence'.

Now for me this holds true from the moment that "Aware", through "Will", became "Cognitive" of itself. From the "Singularity" of "Will", in my view, could the view of yours be interjected.

Our views are the same, just worded different. Except of course, for my view of expanding further into the past, before the "Singularity" of the beginning.

I feel that the "Art of Evolution" operates on the 'potential' of 'pure coincidence'. I feel that the only rule that Evolution creates by, is the rule of 'pure coincidence' that is inherent within it.

I hope this sounds better then my last post.


I am disappointed that you did not respond to my last post here, answering your question about how to write your view in English. I jumped out of bed with excitement when I finally came to a satisfactory wording for your view, in English. It took a lot of hours of thinking. I personally love the way it sounds.


molok69 wrote:
Thanks!

But I don`t see how you can expand further into the past, as I see it `potential` `pure coincidence` are both within the first `moment`, and so is the `popping `of "aware".


I expand further into the past, by stating that I believe "Potential", in its Paradoxical state of being both, "Absolute", and "non-something", was before, popped "Aware". Without the "Paradox of Potential", "Aware", would have not popped into existence.

I like to state again that before I came to the conclusions I do now, I would express my views in the same terms you do. But I never stop at a final conclusion. I am constantly seeking to stretch my mind future.

Why I have pushed 'pure coincidence' further down my time line of occurrences, is that I feel "Aware", being the "Something" that came from "non-thing", is the only thing that could happen. So, to me it is not a coincidence, but a, must Be.

Now "Aware", only having itself to pop into, because there was "non-thing" before, did the only thing it could, it feel in upon itself into the "Abyss of Eternity and Infinity". Thus, again no coincidence, only, must Be.

"Aware", stopping by the act of "Will", again is the only thing that could happen, or else we would not Be here.

I feel from the "Singularity" of "Will", that became "Cognitive" and"Waved" back upon itself, which 99 plus percent of people see from, is as you state:

'Potential' triggered by the premise of 'pure coincidence', sparks ignition of a 'self-creating existence. 'Self-creating existence' expands by 'self-confirming' the 'potential' of 'pure coincidence'.

If I wanted to express my view of the "Art of Evolution", I would use your view, which is more detailed, and more "Divine"
 
molok69
 
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2007 04:19 pm
@PoPpAScience,
I find this part very good:
'Potential' triggered by the premise of 'pure coincidence', sparks ignition of a 'self-creating existence.

But this you have to explain a little better:

'Self-creating existence' expands by 'self-confirming' the 'potential' of 'pure coincidence'.
 
nameless
 
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2007 05:04 pm
@PoPpAScience,
PoPpAScience wrote:
After studying most of the Religions and most of the Sciences.

The 'studies' must have been rather superficial if, as you say, you merely spent about 30 years in study. What does 'most' mean? Do you know how many 'sciences' there are? How many 'religions'? Most? Do you rather mean that you had a 'taste' of 'most'...?
Is this supposed to be some sort of credentials?

Quote:
After trying to visualize the very beginning of All, with the purest of logic.

With varying degrees of 'success' I'd imagine..
I have found that at a certain point, 'logic' is no longer a functional tool in the ascertainment of the true basic nature of existence, and must be abandoned to 'continue' past that point. Logic can't even get very deep into quantum theory!

Quote:
After absorbing all I could from the age of 7 years old, till I was 41. I came up with this view 10 years ago. Now, this view is how I see things this day. I am open for a change of view, if more knowledge dictates it so.

As the experience of common perseptions tell us that the world is in a constant state of flux, of change, so to must a 'live' world-view. If you came upon a 'world view' 10 years ago, and still maintain that perspective, you are either dead, or have gotten intellectually mired in some 'belief infection'. If you have not grown, expanded, stretched your perspective in 10 years, you might check, you could be dead and petrified. Perhaps you 'deny' "more knowledge" in the support and maintanence of your pet theory (or 'belief infection')
*__-
 
 

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 12/05/2023 at 08:54:43