Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:58 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 236 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 16  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Makalu wrote:
i think the physicist is correct...everything in the material universe of time and space does have a beginning and end...the fact that science demands causes doesnt invalidate the attempt to learn the secrets of their effects. if the physicists were forced to construct a cosmology based on the UB they would have to deal with cyclical time as you've said and the fact that time and space aren't inseparable in the universe and the eternal central stationary isle and belts of counterbalancing motions and power directors and physical controllers and a bunch of other important stuff just to cover the basics....oh look a birdie i forgot what i was talking about


But I thought you made the case for no beginnings and no endings. And now you say that the physicist is correct in believing the opposite.

Makalu wrote:
well my two cents is it's pretty clear that time in the UB is a succession and procession not a regression and the circular simultaneity view just enlarges that to the whole procession..."the nonbeginning, nonending eternal continuum, the fragments of which are called time."


Please clarify your position, since it seems that you hold contradictory views. Science does demand causes, as it should, but utterly and completely ignores the uncaused cause. In the investigation of cause and effect, it gets dicy when one considers secondary and tertiary causes and their relation to effects in what one is observing. The observer himself/herself becomes a cause in as much as the cosmic mind is conditioned by time and the human mind is less time bound than space bound. Attempts at discovering secrets are never invalid, but they can be misleading if there is a confusion between beginnings verses origins.

9:4.4 ...Infinite mind ignores time, ultimate mind transcends time, cosmic mind is conditioned by time. And so with space: The Infinite Mind is independent of space, but as descent is made from the infinite to the adjutant levels of mind, intellect must...

Cycles are reflective at their origins and destinies. This is not the same as beginnings and endings. This distinction is so very important that I cannot stress it enough.

42:4.1 ...Light, heat, electricity, magnetism, chemism, energy, and matter are - in origin, nature, and destiny - one and the same thing, together with other material realities as yet undiscovered on Urantia....


Origin is destiny and destiny is origin. The same cannot be said of beginnings and endings.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 912
there are no beginnings and no endings in the timeless eternity of infinity but there are beginnings and endings for timebound mortals in the timespace universes...even if we were transported to timeless paradise we'd still be timebound

the uncaused cause is the realm of the philosopher not the scientist


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Makalu wrote:
there are no beginnings and no endings in the timeless eternity of infinity but there are beginnings and endings for timebound mortals in the timespace universes...even if we were transported to timeless paradise we'd still be timebound


I agree that we have soul birth and true beginnings, but the prospect of survival and adjuster fusion makes for the possibility of no ending.

And then there is this:

12:5.5 Relationships to time do not exist without motion in space, but consciousness of time does. Sequentiality can consciousize time even in the absence of motion. Man's mind is less time-bound than space-bound because of the inherent nature of mind. Even during the days of the earth life in the flesh, though man's mind is rigidly space-bound, the creative human imagination is comparatively time free. But time itself is not genetically a quality of mind.

Creative imagination must be a divine quality for we are created in the image of God. We are the stuff of God's imaginings.


Makalu wrote:
the uncaused cause is the realm of the philosopher not the scientist



Science, philosophy, religion. Fact, meaning, value. Are you saying that meaning and value are not in the realm of the scientist? And perhaps this lies at the heart of the problem.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 920
Sure Toto. I didn't take any statement personally. But sometimes it can be wearing on a person if you are not really heard or interpreted in a way that is far from what you intend. It works both ways of course and there's only so many radical new ideas I can stomach at once if they are not tied to something shown to be real or workable.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 920
Toto, what leads you to believe that space moves? We know that the pervadedness of space changes according to the respiration cycles. Space might expand with those cycles too. But I don't recall any statements that led me to believe that space moves.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 912
Quote:
Are you saying that meaning and value are not in the realm of the scientist?


erm well , i'm saying that meanings and values are not in the realm of science and science ends it's quest at the First Cause...the scientist can't go further without becoming a philosopher, religionist or some kinda confused metaphysician trying to force the Universes of Universes into a (still timebound) mathematical abstraction.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:32 pm +0000
Posts: 121
Riktare wrote:
Toto, what leads you to believe that space moves? We know that the pervadedness of space changes according to the respiration cycles. Space might expand with those cycles too. But I don't recall any statements that led me to believe that space moves.

Riktare - The following UB narration may imply that there is motion of space, however it may have something to do with the actual makeup of space where in part, there can be a hyper- and hypo- versions of space which interact to assume that space moves but this could only be an illusion?

Quote:
(133.4) 12:4.2 The Unqualified Absolute is functionally limited to space, but we are not so sure about the relation of this Absolute to motion. Is motion inherent therein? We do not know. We know that motion is not inherent in space; even the motions of space are not innate. But we are not so sure about the relation of the Unqualified to motion. Who, or what, is really responsible for the gigantic activities of force-energy transmutations now in progress out beyond the borders of the present seven superuniverses? Concerning the origin of motion we have the following opinions:

(133.5) 12:4.3 1. We think the Conjoint Actor initiates motion in space.
(133.6) 12:4.4 2. If the Conjoint Actor produces the motions of space, we cannot prove it.
(133.7) 12:4.5 3. The Universal Absolute does not originate initial motion but does equalize and control all of the tensions originated by motion.


ie: "hyperspace" - "Mathematics."
"uclidean space of dimension greater than three. "

Quote:
(125.5) 11:8.2 The center and focal point of absolute material gravity is the Isle of Paradise, complemented by the dark gravity bodies encircling Havona and equilibrated by the upper and nether space reservoirs. All known emanations of nether Paradise invariably and unerringly respond to the central gravity pull operating upon the endless circuits of the elliptical space levels of the master universe. Every known form of cosmic reality has the bend of the ages, the trend of the circle, the swing of the great ellipse.


One might consider that time that is not related to motion but as a separate element within space can effect the equilibrium of space, therefore we may wish to consider time differently outside of motion which can affect what we think is motion? Could time be a variation of substance within space that appears to be motion? Where in order to travel faster than light speeds, would refer to traveling between the elements of time, or if we consider the term time travel, from one point in time to another, could refer to moving forwards and backwards in time, where it would explain the speeds noted in the UB that some beings can travel?

Quote:
(6.1) 0:3.21 As a time-space creature would view the origin and differentiation of Reality, the eternal and infinite I AM achieved Deity liberation from the fetters of unqualified infinity through the exercise of inherent and eternal free will, and this divorcement from unqualified infinity produced the first absolute divinity-tension. This tension of infinity differential is resolved by the Universal Absolute, which functions to unify and co-ordinate the dynamic infinity of Total Deity and the static infinity of the Unqualified Absolute.


Quote:
(6.4) 0:3.24 The Infinite is used to denote the fullness — the finality — implied by the primacy of the First Source and Center. The theoretical I AM is a creature-philosophic extension of the “infinity of will,” but the Infinite is an actual value-level representing the eternity-intension of the true infinity of the absolute and unfettered free will of the Universal Father. This concept is sometimes designated the Father-Infinite.


"ex-tension" - "ex-"
"a prefix meaning “out of,” “from,” and hence “utterly,” “thoroughly,” and sometimes meaning “not” or “without” or indicating a former title, status, etc.; freely used as an English formative: exstipulate; exterritorial; ex-president (former president); ex-member; ex-wife."

"extension" - then could refer to being out of tension, or neutral tension?

"in-tension" - "in-1"
"a prefix representing English in (income; indwelling; inland, etc.), but used also as a verb-formative with transitive, intensive, or sometimes little apparent force (intrust; inweave, etc.). It often assumes the same forms as in-2, such as en-1, em-1, im-3."

"in-2"
"a prefix of Latin origin meaning primarily “in,” but used also as a verb-formative with the same force as in-1.(incarcerate; incantation). "

"in-3"
"a prefix of Latin origin, corresponding to English un-, having a negative or privative force, freely used as an English formative, especially of adjectives and their derivatives and of nouns ( inattention; indefensible; inexpensive; inorganic; invariable). It assumes the same phonetic phases as in-2. (impartial; immeasurable; illiterate; irregular, etc.). In French, it became en- and thus occurs unfelt in such words as enemy (French ennemi, Latin inimicus, lit., not friendly). "


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 920
Good references MidiChlorian, Thanks

Quote:
(133.4) 12:4.2 The Unqualified Absolute is functionally limited to space, but we are not so sure about the relation of this Absolute to motion. Is motion inherent therein? We do not know. We know that motion is not inherent in space; even the motions of space are not innate. But we are not so sure about the relation of the Unqualified to motion. Who, or what, is really responsible for the gigantic activities of force-energy transmutations now in progress out beyond the borders of the present seven superuniverses? Concerning the origin of motion we have the following opinions:

(133.5) 12:4.3 1. We think the Conjoint Actor initiates motion in space.
(133.6) 12:4.4 2. If the Conjoint Actor produces the motions of space, we cannot prove it.


Hmmm, the keys phrases are motion of space and motion in space.

"Motion in space" to my ears definitely sounds as if space is essentially still or not referenced with regard to something other than space. What is moving here is whatever is contained in space.

"Motion of space" is a little harder to be sure of. One could argue that it refers to the objects in space also. Again, we are not given what space moves with reference to. So it would be questionable if it is actually space moving in some way and not what space contains.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:32 pm +0000
Posts: 121
Riktare wrote:
Good references MidiChlorian, Thanks

Quote:
(133.4) 12:4.2 The Unqualified Absolute is functionally limited to space, but we are not so sure about the relation of this Absolute to motion. Is motion inherent therein? We do not know. We know that motion is not inherent in space; even the motions of space are not innate. But we are not so sure about the relation of the Unqualified to motion. Who, or what, is really responsible for the gigantic activities of force-energy transmutations now in progress out beyond the borders of the present seven superuniverses? Concerning the origin of motion we have the following opinions:

(133.5) 12:4.3 1. We think the Conjoint Actor initiates motion in space.
(133.6) 12:4.4 2. If the Conjoint Actor produces the motions of space, we cannot prove it.


Hmmm, the keys phrases are motion of space and motion in space.

"Motion in space" to my ears definitely sounds as if space is essentially still or not referenced with regard to something other than space. What is moving here is whatever is contained in space.

"Motion of space" is a little harder to be sure of. One could argue that it refers to the objects in space also. Again, we are not given what space moves with reference to. So it would be questionable if it is actually space moving in some way and not what space contains.


Could we then assume that "the motion in space" creates "motion of space", like waves, or ripples?

_________________
The Reality of knowing what Wisdom is, is in the Experiencing of the Philosophy of using Knowledge.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Riktare wrote:
Toto, what leads you to believe that space moves? We know that the pervadedness of space changes according to the respiration cycles. Space might expand with those cycles too. But I don't recall any statements that led me to believe that space moves.


12:4.7 Space is, from the human viewpoint, nothing—negative; it exists only as related to something positive and nonspatial. Space is, however, real. It contains and conditions motion. It even moves. Space motions may be roughly classified as follows:

1. Primary motion—space respiration, the motion of space itself.
2. Secondary motion—the alternate directional swings of the successive space levels.
3. Relative motions—relative in the sense that they are not evaluated with Paradise as a base point. Primary and secondary motions are absolute, motion in relation to unmoving Paradise.
4. Compensatory or correlating movement designed to co-ordinate all other motions.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Makalu wrote:
Quote:
Are you saying that meaning and value are not in the realm of the scientist?


erm well , i'm saying that meanings and values are not in the realm of science and science ends it's quest at the First Cause...the scientist can't go further without becoming a philosopher, religionist or some kinda confused metaphysician trying to force the Universes of Universes into a (still timebound) mathematical abstraction.


But do you not agree that the First Cause IS the Uncaused Cause?

In my opinion, it was when science and philosophy (even thought metaphysically flawed) parted ways that the mechanistic view of the universe overtook science. Religion was completely squeezed out. And I do not see why a scientist cannot be a religionist in light of the revelation of TUB.

A philosopher who is not confused by the faulty metaphysics of Urantia could have easily refuted Descartes. Descartes stood on the shoulders of Euclid in devising a model for absolute space and implied absolute time by accepting the faulty metaphysics of plane geometry and the axiom of parallel lines.

Only in this faulty model of space (cartesian coordinates) can one pretend to move from one parallel line to another. For example, the line y=1 is parallel to the line y=2, and co-parallel to the line y=3, and so on.

In order to move from y=1 to y=2, a distance of 1 must be traversed. This is of no matter at first glance, but there is a serious metaphysical mistake to think that one can do this jump. The glaring problem that was, and still is, overlooked is that in order to go a distance of 1, or any distance, time is a requirement. Even a quantum jump requires a fragment of a circle. Others reasoned that time in the cartesian coordinate system is implied. But the only time that can be implied is absolute time. UB readers know that the absolute of time is eternity. Scientists in Descartes' and Newton's time had no problem with absolute time. It was not till Einstein's revolution that time fell out of its absoluteness.

The obvious philosophical/metaphysical conclusion is that there can be no motion in this absolute model of space and implied absolute time. TUB came to the rescue and told us that we had a serious flaw in our metaphysics and also told us why.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 912
yeah the first cause is the uncaused cause but its just an event that mortal mind invented...there never was a "first cause" in the eternity of the past for the scientist to investigate...there never was a "time" when the central universe didn't exist.

yeah we know there's fundamental differences in the models of space and time according to newton, einstein, UB and a lot of others over the years...space was relative to einstein and space was an absolute container that holds things to newton and in the ub space is a thing itself and the nearest material thing to absolute that there is....its absolutely ultimate.

i think current physics is on track to recognize the reality of space...they just call it vacuum energy or something.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Makalu wrote:
yeah the first cause is the uncaused cause but its just an event that mortal mind invented...there never was a "first cause" in the eternity of the past for the scientist to investigate...there never was a "time" when the central universe didn't exist.


Yeah, tell that to "The Big Bangers". I think that there are quite a few still left. It's a theory that just keeps on getting renewed and will soon live on forever in syndication. O:)

Makalu wrote:
i think current physics is on track to recognize the reality of space...they just call it vacuum energy or something.


I hope you are correct but I am still trying to get Mr. Riktare to understand that physics has not recognized "space respiration". They have recognized that space is expanding (Nobel Prize 2011, Perlmutter et. al.) but have for the most part they do not extrapolate that as being just one half of a breathing cycle. There are those that theorize about a cyclic universe but I am unsure how popular a notion that is currently in physics circles.

I think that science recognizes that matter contains space because I have heard it said that matter is mostly space. The next realization on this track is to discover that particles spin but they also respire very rapidly. This would go a long way in explaining all of those waves coming from a particle as it moves though space in a helical trajectory. Yes, I said helical. This makes for even more wavicle confusion.

Travel through hyperbolic space must proceed in a path of least time (Fermat's assumption). The path of least time is the path of the minimal surface. It is NOT the path of least distance because I have explained that you cannot go from y=1 to y=2 on Descartes' graph because it would necessarily take an eternity. The shortest distance between two points (origin and destiny) is not a straight line. This lies at the heart of the metaphysical confusion that TUB speaks of. A helix is a minimal surface and these curvy paths are the shortest time paths because a line is infinitely long. Ask any sharp-shooter how his bullet winds in a helix towards its target. The helical spiral is minimized in its cylindrical diameter by forcing the bullet to spin rapidly as it exits the barrel of the gun or rifle. The pointy tip of the bullet is to minimized air drag (resistance) but someone figured out that bullets that spin are more accurate at greater and greater distances. This was probably found out by trial and error but TUB reveals that space moves in a spiral fashion and the space in matter also must move in a spiral fashion. If you design a barrel chamber that has grooves that causes the bullet to spin, it will need to perform less helical maneuvers through the geometry of space.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 1368
toto wrote:
This would go a long way in explaining all of those waves coming from a particle as it moves though space in a helical trajectory.

Yeah and it also explains why the Cubs won the World Series and the Indians did not.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 920
MidiChlorian wrote:
Could we then assume that "the motion in space" creates "motion of space", like waves, or ripples?


I would say no. Motion in space may sponsor energy repercussions that appear to be waves or ripples. But that is a fluctuation of the energy or force that is contained in space. It would really be worth looking at Nigel's presentation. He postulates that photons actually travel in straight lines in space where its content is undifferentiated, as the revelators say. But once a photon enters space containing a differentiated energy or charge, such as segregata, waves or ripples are created in that energy ocean.

P.S. Just how those waves or ripples appear and under what conditions they appear is very well described by 150 year old Physics. That is what the Maxwell equations tell us. Maxwell was extremely savy in first breaking apart the different energies or forces that are activated as a charged particle passes through our local configuration of segregata, and secondly in telling very precisely what those waves or ripples look like on our measuring equipment.

P.P.S. One crucial observation that shows that space is not motion in creating those energy ripples is that superposition is always observed. That means that when 2 or more particles are traveling through space, the ripples for one of them can be added to the ripples of the other. If space were in motion with regard to the first particle, it would be impossible for it to be in motion with regard to the second particle in a way that cancels out all mismatching effects.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 236 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 16  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google [Bot]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group