XPost: free.metaphysics
Dale wrote:
On 2/28/2021 7:14 PM, Trolidous wrote:
Dale wrote:
“You are not IN the universe, you ARE the universe, an intrinsic part
of it. Ultimately you are not a person, but a focal point where the
universe is becoming conscious of itself." - Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth
Scientists do not have a coherent definition of
'universe'.
Sadly, even theologians do not have one. Is a
god a part of a universe, or separate from a
universe? If separate, then isn't the 'uni'
or 'one' in 'universe' misnamed?
But when it comes to physicists, they have
built a great mystery over 'particles' and
'waves'.
However, 'point' and 'curve' have coherent
definitions in mathematics. Physicists
are confused however because they have
terms called 'particle' and 'wave' that
only have the look and feel of point and
curve. If physicists don't clearly define
their terms, then should they be surprised
if their terms are 'mysterious'?
The term 'universe' may very well be worse
however. Where does a 'universe' end and
a 'multiverse' start? They might as well
be talking gibberish.
although Bertrand Russel had a set paradox to this ...
Godhead is "the whole"?
There are an array of ideas put forth about the nature
of a god.
It seems to me that there is a term on Wikipedia for
something close to 'the universe is a part of a god'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
It gets even more unclear when you start translating
between languages. When it comes to polytheism there
could be questions about whether 'angels' are lesser
gods and whether 'messengers' could deliver 'godhood'.
Then of course even more unclear are 'spirits'.
Should 'Shinto' be translated into English as 'the
way of the gods' or 'the way of the spirits'.
If you have something on the order of 'the universe
is a part of a god', however, then like with 'multiverse'
the 'uni' might not refer to 'one' or the 'whole'
anymore.
It can be nice when words mean what they are
in general supposed to mean rather than something
different or the opposite. Words however are not
absolutes, rather they can at best be representations
of absolutes. They can thus be prone to mutation into
their opposites. True absolutes are possible to
resist mutation into opposites. Specifics, however,
are prone to mutation into opposites. Why? Words can
be either true or false, and so as such, can be
prone to mutation in meaning.
So what is a 'universe'? Who knows?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)