I was not incorrect. Brownian motion is chaotic, and crystals are ordered. You are wrong that no statistical predictions can be made from a chaotic system. We don't have to predict the path of every molecule to extrapolate useful rules.
Do you sin against God or man?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
I was not incorrect. Brownian motion is chaotic, and crystals are ordered. You are wrong that no statistical predictions can be made from a chaotic system. We don't have to predict the path of every molecule to extrapolate useful rules.
I think there is a more fundamental issue at work here.
Namely, when humans make statements (that aspire to be or nominally are) about the absolute, the universal or the objective (I know your reservations about these terms, but the fact is, such statements are being made), then this aspiration for absoluteness etc. is reflexively manifested in the certainty with which these statements are made - and I don't think it can be otherwise (unless one is willing to put up with cognitive dissonance).
Namely, usually, we don't hear things such as "It seems the Absolute Truth is a person" or "I think the Universe is governed by laws".
It is just "The Absolute Truth is a person" or "The Universe is governed by laws".
Some premises are such that they exclude being prefixed with "I think" or " It seems" and such, because the content of the utterance states something about the particular utterance itself.
E.g. "I think the Universe is governed by laws" would mean that 'even though the Universe is governed by laws (so there can be only one way), I still get to have the upper hand over that (by my thinking), even though I myself am part of the Universe and as such, governed by laws; so the laws of the Universe are such that they allow to be overridden - in which case they are not laws, or I or my thinking are not part of the Universe'.
Apparently, relativizing a statement (with "I think" or "It seems" etc.) can sometimes get one into some serious conceptual trouble!!
If statistical predictions can be made about something, then it is wrong to call it "chaotic" to begin with.
It would be more accurate to call it "seemingly chaotic" then.
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
You would see the person as more worthy of appology than the one who created all things in existence?.
Think about who the real thanks and appology should go to. When in the court of law you dont just appolodize to the victim you apologize to the community (jury/peers:If nationalized the nationYou also appologize tot he judge if you have proper manners, and you appologize to the victim, you should maybe even apologize to all the trees and animals who had to witness you negative vibrations when you commit an evil act. and apologize to yourself for becomming inpure.
But most of all who do you really think deserves the praise and appology. remember the phrase respect your elders, you would treat the head of the family the most wise and experienced one with the most honour. Now apply that to the grandfather and master of all the universe.
.
Ok.
I note that all you named step up to receive their due.
Your God though is hiding in the bushes somewhere and will not step up.
Perhaps he does so in shame of having broken so many of his own laws.
Do as I say and not as I do is a piss poor policy for a law maker.
Right?
Regards
DL
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
Not in my opinion,
Quite the opposite, Say I was to commit a terrible act upon somebody and a group of by-standers had to witness it. Even though harm was not directly done to the Standers-By I think an apology is still owed to them for having to be in the presence of something ill-natured and not of proper decency.
Do you stop to notice the Cat on the wall who saw you commit an evil deed?. Did a crow look down at you while you acted in some dissrespectful way to somebody. When you understand emotional vibrations and ripples effect everything around you then you start to be polite to everything.
Would you say sorry to a Cloud that drifted Over-head?. Or do Humans only deserve apology. On another note Does anything deserve your respect other than a human?, will you hard a tree for no reason and cut it down?. do you have remorse when you kick a flower head off of a rose bush?.
Peace.
God see's all that you do,
If god came down to you tommorow and said "ok here I exist happy now?" You would know he is always looking at you, you wouldnt do anythign evil because you know he would see it. Everyone would be scared to do bad things. there would be no mystery for the masses to ponder over. There would be no faith left.
The test would be pointless, you need to believe in him first before he will show himself to you. If you deep down in your heart doubt him he thinks you dont appreciate the beauty of his creations. he thinks you see everything as just some random chaotic event that had no creational effort in it.
Warm reception is given to those who come to him witht he belief of a Child, comming to him as a proud, wise "Adult" is not good in his eyes. When he creates things he judges them and declairs them good or Evil in its relation to his other creations. He does not discard Evil creations he uses them to counter and balence his Good ones.
He created the scorpion and also the Butterfly, The gentle Ripple of a lake and the raging waves of a Tsunami.
Come to him as a pure child and he will not forsake you, he will guide you and bring you understanding that you cannot get unless you are his student.
Who do you think the real master is that teaches all the Sages, He is the holder of all knowledge and he can show you things that books cannot.
There is no other way to attain the highest level of happiness and understanding. Remember that emotional knowledge is as prized as Informational knowledge. You cannot learn his love, his faith, his beauty by reading books, you must go directly to the source and learn from the real wise master.
If your heart remains hard he will not teach you and its your own fault for not trying your hardest to become his student. you dont just get into his class without passing the tests.
Peace.
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
LOL.
Thanks for all the speculative B S told as a truth.
You speak as if you have experienced apotheosis.
Have you?
I have and what you describe is basically a reverse of what I found.
Some of it is true. Like recognizing the perfection of all that is.
Do you see a perfectly evolving world when you look about and see 6 million of us starving to death yearly?
If you are to reply, you might want to go and answer my original question above so that we can at least have your view on a God that says do as I say and not as I do.
Regards
DL
Again, I agree with all you say here Signal. Including your mention of the usage of Universals. You're right, I do have reservations about such classifications, but, I do not therefore ignore the fact that they are commonly used.
These kinds of extrapolations, though epistemologically unsound, are indeed of pragmatic value. However, to take the step from there, and to move beyond the scope of their usage is entirely illegitimate (or, at the very least, undecidable). The fact that we use them makes no claim whatsoever to anything beyond their linguistic context.
It seems clear to me that (and from your perceptive comments it appears that you would agree) the fundamental issue here is strictly a linguistic one... (though, unlike Wittgenstein, I don't think that we are thereby rendered incapable of discerning what lies beyond our particular experiences...).
wow..i am having an Epistemic Autonomy flashback...
(OMG it was easier to search google for that forum,than my subscribed list..lol)
(OMG it was easier to search google for that forum,than my subscribed list..lol)
The limits of my world are the limits of my language.
Wittgenstein was centred on language, but failed to account that language does not take place in a vacuum, nor is meaning in the words themselves, but always in relation to the where, how, when, with whom, why the act of speaking is taking place.