God's Eye

There is one called "The Eyes" tho'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

That's more to do with the limitations of our senses than the fundamental nature of reality however it is a good point well made. How can we analyze properly if we can't observe properly.

---

The thing is that we can't know the fundamental nature of reality, even if we weren't limited by our senses we couldn't, because as you said, we modify it simply by observation (we would still look at a representation of it). Unless this modification comes as a direct result of our limitations in perception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaffeine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

That's more to do with the limitations of our senses than the fundamental nature of reality however it is a good point well made. How can we analyze properly if we can't observe properly.

---

The thing is that we can't know the fundamental nature of reality, even if we weren't limited by our senses we couldn't, because as you said, we modify it simply by observation (we would still look at a representation of it). Unless this modification comes as a direct result of our limitations in perception.

---

Good point.

Thinking about it, is there one fundamental nature of reality or are there many depending on one's perspective. I don't mean different interpretations of the same reality. I mean actual different realities.

Perhaps there aren't any realities as they are all just perceptions and nothing more...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benchez

Perhaps there aren't any realities as they are all just perceptions and nothing more...

---

Nah, that's just shite.

All matrixy, modern, namby-pamby, science-fantasy shite.

balls, no it's not, if we all distort our perception to create our reality then without any perception there may be no reality, like the old 'tree falling the woods'...That's not modern you tart...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benchez

balls, no it's not, if we all distort our perception to create our reality then without any perception there may be no reality, like the old 'tree falling the woods'...That's not modern you tart...

---

That's not what I said but, I specifically said not different perceptions of the same reality. Different realities.

The tree falling in the wood thing is pish too. It does make a sound, it just doesn't matter.

But the nature of consciousness affects the nature of reality, for us at least.....so we'll never know for sure....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benchez

But the nature of consciousness affects the nature of reality, for us at least.....so we'll never know for sure....

---

I would contend that the nature of consciousness affects our perception of reality, however it does not affect the reality itself.

I'm listening to quite an interesting lecture on the subject now to refresh my perceptions.....Alan Watts....you know his stuff?

Never heard of him, who does he play for.

rly never heard of him? He played for drink n women....

Now that is a job.

yeh until you die from herpes and liver erosion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benchez

yeh until you die from herpes and liver erosion...

---

Fuck off, I've not got herpes.

:glag:

check out some alan watts on oinks, let me know what u think...

Don't want to appear obtuse here but I have no idea what an "oinks" is.

never mind.....that's way too obtuse :dabs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Good point.

Thinking about it, is there one fundamental nature of reality or are there many depending on one's perspective. I don't mean different interpretations of the same reality. I mean actual different realities.

---

I'm more inclined to the theory that each decision we make and action we take (even at subatomic levels) creates a new "branch" in reality. So if that were the case, each branch or reality would be part (or originated) from the same original reality, sort of speak, but would be a new reality by itself, as no other "thing" could jump from one branch to another or even be aware of other branches. So, we would have many realities that fundamentally in nature behave in the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaffeine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Good point.

Thinking about it, is there one fundamental nature of reality or are there many depending on one's perspective. I don't mean different interpretations of the same reality. I mean actual different realities.

---

I'm more inclined to the theory that each decision we make and action we take (even at subatomic levels) creates a new "branch" in reality.

---

How does one make a decision or take an action at subatomic level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

How does one make a decision or take an action at subatomic level.

---

Not conscious decisions/actions. But there are some experiments that suggest that movement of subatomic particles are affected by our actions in the macromolecular world. This is linked the same way that we alter the outcome of events by looking, we also alter subatomic movement by decision. (of course we don't decide where each particle go or what it does, but our thoughts and conscious actions affect them.

Can I show my Japs eye?

:lol: go for it sgt...I'm off....http://xs320.xs.to/xs320/07405/runaway.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaffeine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

How does one make a decision or take an action at subatomic level.

---

Not conscious decisions/actions.

---

Surely the concept of a decision presupposes some element of consciousness. I can understand that one may have unconscious or subconscious actions. Fair do's. However isn't the idea of a decision which is not conscious an oxymoron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

However isn't the idea of a decision which is not conscious an oxymoron.

---

You're right.
I guess I didn't give that sentence a second thought lol.
anyway, you got my idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

I don't think he understand mate. He seems to think that omnipresent means actually being everything, as opposed to being everywhere.

---

FFS.... No I don't.

To be everywhere he would have to hold a form that made that possible. Any form that has definable features such as eyes is therefore never going to be big enough to be everywhere...

How you arrived at me thinking or claiming that he is everything is waaaaaayyyyyyyy beyond any reason that I can see in anything that I said.

Like I said if his eyes are that small and he isn't a really fat bloke, how can he be everywhere

Please think about it....

Oh and the rest of this utter tosh you've wandered off into is .... mmmmm I'll leave it there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manicgeek

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

I don't think he understand mate. He seems to think that omnipresent means actually being everything, as opposed to being everywhere.

---

FFS.... No I don't.

To be everywhere he would have to hold a form that made that possible. Any form that has definable features such as eyes is therefore never going to be big enough to be everywhere...

How you arrived at me thinking or claiming that he is everything is waaaaaayyyyyyyy beyond any reason that I can see in anything that I said.

Like I said if his eyes are that small and he isn't a really fat bloke, how can he be everywhere

Please think about it....

---

You're idea of omnipresence appears to suggest that He is physically present everywhere. That would mean that He was everything, there's no getting round that. It's a logical extension of your own argument

However as has already been explained that is only the case if He is corporeal by nature. If He is not then he can be omnipresent whilst taking up no space whatsoever.

I say again, these are fairly basic concepts. I think it may be best if you actually read what other people post, rather than base your replies on your own preconceptions of what they may be saying.

How did this turn into a "God" debate? Lol. :blink:

I thought the photo was pretty cool. Now where's my damn wish at! :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

What's interesting is that quantum physics tells us that by observing events we influence them and that the normal order of cause and effect is not a strict rule. We are now starting to observe the very beginings of the Universe so it's possible that we are also influencing it.

---

That's utter bollocks! What we're observing is light that's taken billions of years to get to us...how can that influence things that happened billions of years ago?

I think the title and the first post, the whole point of the thread, may have started the whole "God" motif.

Well it's descended into a bollocks motif now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squeamous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

What's interesting is that quantum physics tells us that by observing events we influence them and that the normal order of cause and effect is not a strict rule. We are now starting to observe the very beginings of the Universe so it's possible that we are also influencing it.

---

That's utter bollocks! What we're observing is light that's taken billions of years to get to us...how can that influence things that happened billions of years ago?

---

Actually you're right. What a lot of shite.

How the fuck could I let these people drag me into their madness.

Thanks for the head's up mate.

lmfao!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squeamous

Well it's descended into a bollocks motif now.

---

Again true. You are the voice of reason in a World run mad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manicgeek

Oh and the rest of this utter tosh you've wandered off into is .... mmmmm I'll leave it there.

---

very good point. well explained also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squeamous

Well it's descended into a bollocks motif now.

---

+1.. this is complete BS. thank god someone gave some sense into this!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

You're idea of omnipresence appears to suggest that He is physically present everywhere. That would mean that He was everything, there's no getting round that. It's a logical extension of your own argument

However as has already been explained that is only the case if He is corporeal by nature. If He is not then he can be omnipresent whilst taking up no space whatsoever.

I say again, these are fairly basic concepts. I think it may be best if you actually read what other people post, rather than base your replies on your own preconceptions of what they may be saying.

---

What a load of bollocks, how does being present everywhere imply being everything... basic concepts my arse, you're waffling.

Omnipresence as in "the ability to be present in every place at any, and/or every, time"

See and Wiki is never wrong ;)

Omnipresent doesn't mean "the ability to be present in every place at any, and/or every, time". It means being present everywhere at the same time.

As such if something is physically omnipresent then it is everything.

I say again there's no way round that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

As such if something is physically omnipresent then it is everything.

---

I can't help but wonder if you're working on the premise that because everything is matter, that matter must be omnipresent, and that therefore omnipresence is everything... which is not what the word omnipresent means.

So according to your wonderful theory the passage of time (which by any means of measurement is omnipresent) is everything, are you sure that you really want to argue that ?

made my wish the same one i always wish and in 3000 years its still not come true