0:1:Infinity

[Hedons]

What do you think is the single most fundamental characteristic or feature that defines our universe?

Space-time? Strings? Matter-Energy? Consciousness?

How about Information?


-Hedons

[Governor]

3 dimentional, of course!

[SweetSativa]

Well, I think that consciousness is a 'defining' characteristic... however, I think that it is more of a 'fourth dimensional' thing.... sooooo... yeah, I'd say matter and time/ space define the third dimension... of course, in actuality it's probably all blended together.... holographic.

[The Rev]

Existence.



The Rev

[Governor]

Rev...you may be close but existence with or without awareness? Is sentience required?

3D defines and encompasses the question without further explanation.

Consiousness? A rock is not aware but it's still there. There are more non-sentient things in this universe than not

[The Rev]

Originally posted by Governor
Rev...you may be close but existence with or without awareness? Is sentience required?

I require it.

Actually, without sentience, the Universe could never be anything more than the sum of it's parts. It could never be beautiful, or amazing, or interesting, or messy or whatever. In that sense, it is required, but not for it's simple existence.

3D defines and encompasses the question without further explanation.

Consiousness? A rock is not aware but it's still there. There are more non-sentient things in this universe than not

Existence is first, in the sense that all things must exist before they can be anything more. I think that the only reason we have more non-sentient things (apparently) in the universe is the same reason that there's more to buy at the mall than there are buyers. There has to be, otherwise sentience would be wasted on nothing.

Then again, the fact that I'm stoned might be what's making this whole argument make sense...



The Rev

[ZenSkin]

Locally Euclidean.

If our space were more warped we would never have bothered with plane geometry. And plane geometry is the basis of the engineering that begat more science --- which ultimately questioned plane geometry.

It started with Euclid and Aristotle and grew from there. There is no physical science, thus no technology, that does not, in some way, tip its hat to Euclid and Aristotle.

[Governor]

I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave.....

One of the few things the christians got right but ignore is god's description of himself; "I Am That I Am". Rev's answer of "existence" was correct but encompassed more than the question allowed (by yourself). Existence in extra dimensions isn't permitted in our current 3D form for the very reason that transgression in to them would have the (3D) facade disappear.

This is the playground you chose so don't be concerned about a reality other than the here and now, which is specifically 3D. Rest assured that the real you, the 'I Am', is laughing his ass off at the performance you're giving him/you.

[Hedons]

Originally posted by Governor
I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave.....

One of the few things the christians got right but ignore is god's description of himself; "I Am That I Am". Rev's answer of "existence" was correct but encompassed more than the question allowed (by yourself). Existence in extra dimensions isn't permitted in our current 3D form for the very reason that transgression in to them would have the (3D) facade disappear.

This is the playground you chose so don't be concerned about a reality other than the here and now, which is specifically 3D. Rest assured that the real you, the 'I Am', is laughing his ass off at the performance you're giving him/you.

There are some other reasons 3D (3 expanded spatial dimensions) works so well for our physical existence.

In a 2D world there are inherent limitations on complex structures. It is impossible to have a complicated network without the "wires" crossing; nor can an object have a channel through it, such as a digestive tract, without dividing into two. Also, in 2D the inverse square law of energy and gravity would become the inverse law. This means that gravity would diminish in direct proportion to the distance between two gravitating objects.

1D is right out!

Even 4D wouldn't work for a physical universe because the inverse square law would become the inverse cube law and any planet if it moved in the slightest direction of the sun would have fallen right into it. Just the opposite is true if it were moving away from the sun. There would be no tendancy of the system to remain ordered.

-Hedons

[koshiva]

Conciousness. The question is, existentially...when you have died, is the universe still in existence? Or was it merely a product of your life only? Lets say that another universe in another time was just composed of rocks,stars,gasses,p lanets...but no life what so ever, just matter....could it be said to exist if there was nothing to observe that it was there at all?

So if you die,and thats it....the universe is gone.

[Governor]

The universe does indeed cease to exist upon death but there are so many gods on this level that no one really notices.

[SweetSativa]

Originally posted by Governor
Rev...you may be close but existence with or without awareness? Is sentience required?

3D defines and encompasses the question without further explanation.

Consiousness? A rock is not aware but it's still there. There are more non-sentient things in this universe than not

That is only true if you believe that a rock is not aware. And if so, then that is how your reality is defined (oh yes, there are so many gods... and a sort of collective one as well ) Stop and listen to a rock... you may be surprised what you can allow yourself to hear. Hell, listen to your own body (no, not those little manly noises...hehe), even on a molecular level.

[Governor]

All 3D objects vibrate. Rocks vibrate but saying they're alive is a big jump.

A "collective god" is one of the few things I find obscene.

[SweetSativa]

A collective god can sit very ill in many stomaches. Somehow people may interpret it to mean that we all must or do pray to one 'god' or that we lack individuality. We are what we are. If I think in terms of energy... I think it is consciousness 'driven' but to think that we are the only consciousness creating it is a bit arrogant in my book. However, if everything were linked on some level... there may be a greater intelligence... a sum of the parts.... such as each atom is itself and unique... but also part of something larger... etc.... Not that the larger part is any more important than the single atom... just in a unique state of 'being' and 'being' part of that other 'being'. Just a stream of consciousness from my POV (point of view). It seems obscene sometimes to think of ourselves as anything less than unique and that we are not.... and in another way, we are not so unique. Definitions of 'alive' would keep me from saying that the rock is alive (as we define it)... but there is an awareness. Sometimes when you are drifting to sleep or you are watching a waterfall and listening to the rushing water, and breathing the fresh mountain air... you forget about 'being' and you just ARE.... that's sort of like the consciousness of a rock.. oh yeah, and they also have memories.

[Governor]

'Free Will' may be the key. Imagine yourself as the "One" god. Isolation is your only destiny and you're going fuckin nuts with all the toys you've created to entertain yourself because you know, in detail, how each of them works. No randomness.

Your only solution is to create equals and even those equals have the 'problem' of being all knowing then BINGO!; dimensional restrictions (3) where you can pretend you're not aware of your true essence. Give your free will to a being that doesn't know how to use it. Let the games begin!

The truest connection to the god you really are is in the defination of god; 'the creator'. Humans create and the countless gods watching the show can choose any particular life they wish to savor or learn from. The only way to piss off god is to be boring.

[SweetSativa]

Hehe... we're not saying things much different here. In other words... "nice view from your window"... you're a great creator, keep up the good work... Do equals apply when we are comparing apples and oranges? Which is 'better' just depends on which tastes the sweetest and which you are in the mood for today. The essence is sensed without much effort... we don't really need to analyze the chemical constituents to know that the apple tastes good and to know which we prefer. We all set up our 'constructs'... our little systems. Some do it consciously and some don't. My last 2-cents (hehe)

~~~skipping down the path~~~

We may as well be who we really are... we're here for that reason alone.