Philosophy Discussion Forums

The Belief Doctor wrote:
Do you not see the irony in your reply. Of offering no specifics in terms of your criticisms that I lack specifics?

E.g. "senseless pile of completely undefined terms" -- which terms, and in what contexts.

2. "real scientific articles and used in some unclear absolutely non-scientific meaning" - what articles, and how are they "absolutely" unclear, and how are they "non-scientific"

speaking of which, what facts can you cite that are absolute facts that are not reliant upon vague non-scientific assumptions (axioms)?

Just one?

3. "There is no such scientist in the world" - what evidence can you cite that confirms your belief? Any at all? Just a little wee bit of evidence?

4. "as I myself do not think" ... okay, agreed. Since you haven't defined or scientifically explained what it is you do think with, we can all accept your assertion that you "do not think"

I had to present my explanation to you in a metaphysical form - as should I have tried to just a fraction simplify the message (say, to a scientific level used in pedagogical science when addressing the philosophical views of artistic children) I could expect you accidentally falling out of the state of sharing a wave function with me and metaphysically reporting this message instead of appreciating it. You see, we on the net have to use euphemisms specially when talking to metaphysicists, as their neurons seem to be too entangled in their own hypersensitivity to any collapses of the mentioned shared wave function. But I assure you, in a low-probability case if this exchange of ideas was taking place in a common domain of some non-virtual pub, you would afterwards be experiencing a rightful hesitation before visiting its GPS location once again. So in the overall reaction you show I cannot find a place for disagreement, as from the very first words of this explanation I was certainly understanding all irony of it.

Marabod has this tagged

Belinda, in response to stormey you stated that she must remember an atom particle is a fact none other than that of suggesting that if she doesn't accept it as one then she's an idealist.

That's kinda fancy rheteoric, in that if you consider how a person may decide to comprehend or to understand the atom, you find a debate awaiting you- proving stormey true. But who can really assertain the existence of any "single particles" which are proven to exist although they exist. It would seem to suggest transcendentitive issues.

Abacab wrote:meleagar wrote

It's interesting that you feel comfortable claiming that QM physics doesn't back any of this up when three of the greatest QM physicists to ever live, including 2 Nobel Prize winners, directly and specifically contradict your claim and support what the Belief Doctor writes.

Appeal to authority hurting you yet? I could equally appeal to the authority of many scientists and physicists that won nobel prizes ..so what? it`s not science, it is metaphysics.

Thebeliefdoctor wrote

am my community-as-me,
I am this city-as-me
I am this organisation-as-me
I am this planet (Earth)-as-me
I am this universe-as-me
I am god-as-me

I`m sorry but I can`t understand what that even means? it`s certainly not science, and thanks for proving my point.

Dear Abacad

Let me confirm: you don't understand what it is I've stated, yet you understand that it proves your point?

Thank you for clarifying your views.

As for not being science, says who? At what point do nonlocal influences stop from having communities exert influence and substance for each part (person) within it?

Furthermore, if the statements (community-as-you) fail, then where, and why do they not apply? And in those circumstances where they do not apply, tell me, what are you composed of, if not that which is, in a deeper interconnected sense, a greater aspect of yourself?

As for "not science" tell me, what examples have you of "perfect science" that is not based on assumptions (regarding deep reality)?

Each of you here who wishes to 'fight' my words, or me (as inferred by Marabod's "you would afterwards be experiencing a rightful hesitation before visiting its GPS location once again") only succeed in highlighting your fears.

If you have alternative views that go to explain the facts, and the subjective experiences of people, and offer robust frameworks of understanding, then by all means provide them.

Having seen none of substance, or any rigour in questioning my work (other than some insightful questions by Belinda), then I must away.

To each of you, blessings on your journey.

The Belief Doctor wrote: Meleagar,

Interesting. a child playing with playdo may be said to have intelligently designed the result. So?

ID theorists do not claim that all that is intelligently designed is discoverable, only that some things are.

In all my experience of ID, behind the acknowledge of "intent" is the usually explicit, sometimes implicit message that the designer was "God".

Since no on else appears capable of actually stating the theory of intelligent design, here it is:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Please describe for me how the theory of intelligent design explicitly or implicitly points towards any god. Also, please inform me of any actual sources you have where any of the leading proponents of ID theory claim the theory necessarily implicates God, much less explicitly identifies God as the designer of anything.


From the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center:

The scientific theory of intelligent design cannot identify the designer, but only detects the past occurrence of intelligent design in the natural world. Intelligent design theory cannot name the designer because it works off the assumption that all intelligent agents would generally create certain types of informational patterns when they act. While we can detect that type of information in the natural world to infer intelligent design, finding that type of information does not give us any information about the nature or identity of the designer. All we can infer is that the object we are studying was designed. - Casey Luskin

ID is not an interventionist theory. Its only commitment is that the design in the world be empirically detectable. All the design could therefore have emerged through a cosmic evolutionary process that started with the Big Bang. What's more, the designer need not be a deity. It could be an extraterrestrial or a telic process inherent in the universe. ID has no doctrine of creation.- William Dembski

The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer. - Michael Behe

The Belief Doctor wrote:I have not ever seen ID proponents suggesting self-organising systems with intent, in which case it would be more appropriately described as Intelligent Co-Design, since it is a sincere, unabashed cooperative result, that includes One and All.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "self-organizing system with intent"; but if you consider intent a primal commodity of existence (i.e., something that is itself not caused), then such an idea is fully embraced by ID theory, which makes no claims whatsoever about the nature of the intent/intelligence doing the designing, other than that it is an intentional (teleological, final causes) force/entity.

NO, my criticism is sound.

Well, if you say so, but the above quotatons seem to directly contradict you.

BTW, what ID books have you read?

Intelligent Design and Evolution are, within the broader context of quantum theory, wrong, in that they are limited, erroneous views of the deeper individual, collective causal mechanisms of our universe, our world and our lives.

Unless you're going to argue that none of your listed causes are intelligent/intentional, and unless you're going to argue that such teleological causations - like humans with intent - cannot produce artifacts/phenomena that are scientifically distinguishable as necessarily caused by teleological intent, then your "broader context" bears no contradiction to intelligent design theory.

No exceptions. TO affirm otherwise is to require an objectified, external causal agent (e.g. God, higher self, soul) that is in some sense "separate" to you, your ego, your immediate sense of self.

ID requires no such external or internal causal agent; it only expresses that some artifacts/phenomena we find must have been caused by some kind of teleological agency, and that we can scientifically identify at least some of those artifacts/phenomena.

Tell me, what is the nature of that disconnect? What's the exact nature of the divide between your ego and your higher self? What's it made of? How do you cross it?

I have no idea what you're talking about. There is no "disconnect" between me and god; I am god. I'm the dreamer and the dreamt.

If, for example, you (your ego) is not perfect, but your higher-God-self is, how does one transcend imperfection into perfection?

I don't consider myself imperfect. Do you consider yourself imperfect?

When does the ego become perfect, and how?

IMO, everything is already perfect. There is no "getting perfect", there is only realizing you already are perfect. And all that does is change some of the parameters and limitations of the dream.

BTW, I don't believe in co-creation; it's a little too self-victimizing and limiting for me. But you are, of course, free to do your co-creational battles with billions of unlike minds if you wish - setting yourself up as the healer, the doctor, the teacher of those poor ignorant savages that need your help (hmmm .. sounds like an imperfect world there. The body of God needs some healing. Good thing there's a Doctor in the house).

I prefer that they all be free (and perfect as-is) to experience whatever reality they personally desire (even if it is the machine-like existence of a biological automaton).

But now I too digress. There is room under the big tent of ID theory for biblical fundamentalists, Abraham & Seth co-creators, deists, muslims, quantum wave-function metaphysicians, and all sorts of views that include the view that at least some phenomena can only be scientifically explained via some kind of teleological intent.

There is even room under the big tent of ID for those that wish to position themselves above it, even though they haven't read enough about it to realize they aren't proselytizing anything contradictory to it.

Physician, heal thyself.

Meleagar wrote:
BTW, I don't believe in co-creation; it's a little too self-victimizing and limiting for me. But you are, of course, free to do your co-creational battles with billions of unlike minds if you wish - setting yourself up as the healer, the doctor, the teacher of those poor ignorant savages that need your help (hmmm .. sounds like an imperfect world there. The body of God needs some healing. Good thing there's a Doctor in the house).

I prefer that they all be free (and perfect as-is) to experience whatever reality they personally desire (even if it is the machine-like existence of a biological automaton).

But now I too digress. There is room under the big tent of ID theory for biblical fundamentalists, Abraham & Seth co-creators, deists, muslims, quantum wave-function metaphysicians, and all sorts of views that include the view that at least some phenomena can only be scientifically explained via some kind of teleological intent.

There is even room under the big tent of ID for those that wish to position themselves above it, even though they haven't read enough about it to realize they aren't proselytizing anything contradictory to it.

Physician, heal thyself.

Thank you for this Meleager.

It sometimes takes me a little while to to sense the subtlety of people's views - and their hidden agendas.

Your last few paragraphs confirms my point. Our reality is a shared, co-created one, one in which we are all helping to create the resulting world we experience.

To suggest otherwise requires a disconnect of the volition of some part within that whole.

I again affirm that our world and reality is co-created -- 100%, totally and completely, including by those who wish to be victims.

It appears to me your 'hidden agenda' is to elevate some 'intelligence' beyond that of ours.

No thank you.

As far as 'healing myself' indeed I have on a number of occasions, one being a strikingly similar serious condition to that of Norman Cousins' experiences, explained in detail in his book "Anatomy of an Illness".

As within the part, so within the whole. As within the whole, so within each and every part.

I find the attempted elevation of intelligence beyond that of ours (and our deeper selves), a particularly egregious belief that causes immense harm.

And no you are not God, because that would mean the rest of us do not exist, or only as figments of your God-awareness.

The only statement that is consistent is that you are not not-God, nor are you God, but that you are God-as-you.

Just as you are not entirely the community nor entirely not the community, but the community-as-you.

The subtle hidden-agenda of elevating some intelligence beyond that of our own being, is why scientists rail so vehemently against "Intelligent Design".

Once again, if the proponents were honest about their beliefs they would have no issue calling it what it is "Intelligent Co-Design".

I expect the reason Intelligent Design proponents avoid that acknowledgement is the hidden agenda of controlling others. Let each be themselves, and allow them to more fully co-create a better, more fulfilling world-dynamic.

As for the ideal of perfection, that I argue is THE most pernicious belief that has ever existed.

As Jane Roberts clearly explains;

You must not try to be perfect.

Your ideas of perfection mean a state of fulfillment beyond which there is no future growth, and no such state exists. (The Nature of Personal Reality: A Seth Book)

The nonsense of perfection is such a simple one to dismiss. If any part within existence is not perfect, then neither can the whole or any other part of it can be perfect.

To assert otherwise clearly requires a nonsensical disconnect between "here" (not perfect) and some other state of being "over there" that is supposedly perfect, and somehow independent of all else (which is, and remains by definition, "imperfect").

no perfection or imperfection, just that which is.

And finally, your comment "setting yourself up as the healer, the doctor, the teacher" is highly disingenuous. Every word we speak, or write is setting ourselves up as an authority, be it teacher, healer (or destroyer).

Your lack of openness about who you are is reflected in your subtle attempt to limit the power, energy and responsibility of others (insofar as you deny co-creation of our shared reality, thus attempting to deny others their role, energy and responsibility in co-creating this world).

Better that you rejoice in your power, to be open, to enjoy the gift, freedom and the responsibility of your power, while also recognising the freedom and responsibility of others.

We are all in this together, and we are all responsible for the reality that is experienced by One and All.

Lightmage wrote:Belinda, in response to stormey you stated that she must remember an atom particle is a fact none other than that of suggesting that if she doesn't accept it as one then she's an idealist.

That's kinda fancy rheteoric, in that if you consider how a person may decide to comprehend or to understand the atom, you find a debate awaiting you- proving stormey true. But who can really assertain the existence of any "single particles" which are proven to exist although they exist. It would seem to suggest transcendentitive issues.

I don't remember what you refer to. However, if I may make myself clearer, what an idealist believes exists as much as what a physicalist believes exists. Each and every belief is a fact of existence. Whether or not any belief corresponds to objective reality or to social reality is up for discussion.

I dont know how what I wrote here ties in with phenomemology, but for what it's worth, a reverie, an hallucination, a dream, or any conscious and conventional rationalisation are all phenomena, and all of these exist as phenomena.

Facts are taken to be such when theories and beliefs are comprehensive, practically useful, and coherent with other such important theories and beliefs.

**********************
The Belief Dcotor wrote regarding perfection

To assert otherwise clearly requires a nonsensical disconnect between "here" (not perfect) and some other state of being "over there" that is supposedly perfect, and somehow independent of all else (which is, and remains by definition, "imperfect").

I agree with The B D but perfection although it is unattainable, may perhaps be one of those elusive and nebulous visionary aims which are occasionally given transient and only apparent form in some beauty of nature, science, or art.The perfection does not exist in reality and when someone tries to grasp it, it fades away immediately or else the person makes it an idolatry and a reflection of himself.

The Belief Doctor wrote: Your last few paragraphs confirms my point. Our reality is a shared, co-created one, one in which we are all helping to create the resulting world we experience.

It may or may not be, but I don't find it personally helpful to see it that way.

To suggest otherwise requires a disconnect of the volition of some part within that whole.

I'm sure that's what it means to you, but in my world it just requires an honesty in my description of what I actually experience, and what I actually do not experience. I don't place "existential truths" ahead of actual experience. The fact is that the only entity that I know experiences, and that I know can intentionally affect things, is me. Everything beyond that is a conjectural model.

I again affirm that our world and reality is co-created -- 100%, totally and completely, including by those who wish to be victims.

You can assert whatever you wish. In your world, who knows - perhaps you have some way of experiencing that others are intentional agents creating their reality; I personally have no way of going beyond my own experience. In my world, that's one of the limitations of identity.

It appears to me your 'hidden agenda' is to elevate some 'intelligence' beyond that of ours.

Nope.

As far as 'healing myself' indeed I have on a number of occasions, one being a strikingly similar serious condition to that of Norman Cousins' experiences, explained in detail in his book "Anatomy of an Illness".

Welcome to the club. I'm genuinely happy for you.

I find the attempted elevation of intelligence beyond that of ours (and our deeper selves), a particularly egregious belief that causes immense harm.

It's a good thing I haven't advocated that.

And no you are not God, because that would mean the rest of us do not exist, or only as figments of your God-awareness.

I accept that that is what it means to you, but that is not what it means to me. That may be what is going on, but it isn't helpful for me to see it that way. I consider everyone and everything god, in the same manner that everything in the dream is the dreamer, even the buildings and rocks.

The only statement that is consistent is that you are not not-God, nor are you God, but that you are God-as-you.

I consider the semantics of those statements to be ways of avoiding stating directly I am God, usually because people fear making that statement. It can sound rather delusional and scary. I find it liberating and empowering to feel comfortable stating it.

The subtle hidden-agenda of elevating some intelligence beyond that of our own being, is why scientists rail so vehemently against "Intelligent Design".

If so, their "railing" is inappropriate, because ID theory doesn't do any such thing.

Once again, if the proponents were honest about their beliefs they would have no issue calling it what it is "Intelligent Co-Design".

Since all of them have already affirmed that humans are agents of intelligent design, and would readily affirm that many humans co-design things, they hardly have a problem with the concept of "co-design". In any event, I suspect that you hardly have a broad enough reading of ID materials to make any assertion about what ID proponents would be willing to accomodate.

I expect the reason Intelligent Design proponents avoid that acknowledgement is the hidden agenda of controlling others. Let each be themselves, and allow them to more fully co-create a better, more fulfilling world-dynamic.

And all of that from someone who has read ... wait, you didnt' answer that question. How many ID books have you read? I'd like to get an idea of the breadth of your ID reading upon which your base your above assessments and smearing of character and motivations.

Is that really what a "Belief Doctor" does? Smear the character and motivations of those whom they haven't even taken the time to thoroughly investigate, for the sake of making their own philosophy appear superior? Wow.

Your ideas of perfection mean a state of fulfillment beyond which there is no future growth, and no such state exists. (The Nature of Personal Reality: A Seth Book)

The nonsense of perfection is such a simple one to dismiss. If any part within existence is not perfect, then neither can the whole or any other part of it can be perfect.

Which is why I view all of existence as perfect - except that, unlike whomever Seth is talking to, I don't hold perfection to be static; I consider perfection to be an ever-changing variety of intentionalized experience, perfectly manifested as the ongoing fourier transform of the identity/eternal divine aspect of the intender, without any actual infringement or conflict with what any other intending identity is manifesting.

And finally, your comment "setting yourself up as the healer, the doctor, the teacher" is highly disingenuous. Every word we speak, or write is setting ourselves up as an authority, be it teacher, healer (or destroyer).

Only if one is claming to describe objective or existential truths, which I do not. I only describe my experience; your experience may vary. For all I know, you've read ID materials (written by the major ID proponents) extensively and in your world, they all make the claims you assert they do. Is that the case? If so, please direct me to those sources so that I can see what they say in my world.

I always enjoy finding world-to-world discrepancies like that.

Your lack of openness about who you are is reflected in your subtle attempt to limit the power, energy and responsibility of others (insofar as you deny co-creation of our shared reality, thus attempting to deny others their role, energy and responsibility in co-creating this world).

I haven't denied anyone anything. Just because I don't believe in "co-creation" doesn't limit anyone else in any way, because I don't believe that a single objective reality exists where all people are competing against each other's intentions (or require them for aid in creating). I don't put that kind of existential, conceptual limitation on what might exist "out there".

Better that you rejoice in your power, to be open, to enjoy the gift, freedom and the responsibility of your power, while also recognising the freedom and responsibility of others.

I fully recognize their freedom, even more so than you, because I don't restrict their freedom to "co-creation". They can "co-create" if they wish, some people prefer that kind of social dynamic. Others might not find it very productive; the meme of "co-creation" doesn't really appear to work in my experience, which is why I abandoned it. If it works in your experience, great.

We are all in this together, and we are all responsible for the reality that is experienced by One and All.

You are, of course, free to see it however you wish. Co-creation, however, is not a meme that apparently works for me, at least in the sense of seeing those who are not working towards the same enjoyments as I am as equal co-creators in my experience. That perspective only sets up a conflict where I'm trying to overcome obstacles and problems others set up, which in turn sets me up for frustration and disempowerment. Better to not even let that foot in the door, or next thing you know I'll be blaming them for something that happens in my experience.

What you choose to experience, and how, is up to you. I never claim that what works for me would work for anyone else. IMO, it's up to each individual to express their identity/aspect of the Dreamer, however they see fit, and none of it infringes upon my experience whatsoever.

Our reality is a shared, co-created one, one in which we are all helping to create the resulting world we experience.

To suggest otherwise requires a disconnect of the volition of some part within that whole.

I again affirm that our world and reality is co-created -- 100%, totally and completely, including by those who wish to be victims.

Strange it be, Belief-Doctor, but when you start using a standard human terminology in place of irrelevant parascientific wave functions and neurons, I can agree with you, that such point of view can equally exist with its opposite counterpart, insisting that we all are the products of already existing Objective Reality.

This is just the approach, based on an inversion of a kind, and it also establishes our connection to Objective Reality, but from the "other end". Instead of placing out Conscience as a derivative of the Surrounding World, it places the Surrounding World as a product of our Conscience. I doubt even a hard core Materialism can disagree with you on this, as Materialism basically agrees that without our Conscience reflecting the reality this reality does not exist.

We can see the big picture either way equally:
1. We are born into the already existing World, and we perceive it same way as the other humans, concluding from this that this World is Objective (exists independently from each of us).
2. We are born (appear from Nowhere) and the Surrounding World is born together with us, as our automatic Creation. This makes each of us to be a mini-God, a mini-Creator. The individual Worlds we create are slightly different from the individual worlds, created by other humans, but coincide in some their key features (sort of "sky is blue" for everyone) - and this their partial similarity makes us all to be humans, the Observers of a similar type - as the other types of Observers would perceive another types of the world. Say the dogs would perceive a different world, and the snails would also perceive their own type of the different world, common for all of them. However such commonly perceived World still becomes Objective for a certain selected group of Observers, as it exists independently from them - this independence reflects then the automatic, non-deliberate nature of our perception, we all have similar set of senses and perceive similar way, or even use them to "create" what we perceive.

In fact this point of view, you came across, leads us to the idea that the Act of Creation was not deliberate at all. This eliminates the "personality" of God-Creator and places us instead of Creator, thus following the Genesis, which proclaims us "Images of God". We are born - and our world is created with our birth; we die - and this world also dies, as there is no one else who perceives this our world in exactly the same way as each of us does - this is why we argue about it, because each of us perceives it slightly differently.

Each of us individually can choose any of the two existing approaches and "follow" it. As I said they both are equally justified. However if we start seeing ourselves from the Materialistic position, as the dwellers of one common Objective World, then we acquire the capacity to perform a group action in exploring this common Reality - and use the results of this exploration to create new, previously non-existent things, adding them to this Reality. Thus being humble dwellers of one big world allows us to play our mini-role as a mini-Creator.

The opposite approach (which you talk about) has another purpose - it is the development of our Individuality, out Conscience, which does not suggest any physical creation (a Buddha would hardly invent a colour TV or a computer!).

We each choose the approach which we find fitting our needs and desires, so there is no contradiction between them at all. Your world is not depended on my approach and vice versa mine is not affected by your approach. The only case when the collision may happen is when we are trying to somehow enforce our approach onto the others, to prove it is the only valid one.

Marabod wrote:1. We are born into the already existing World, and we perceive it same way as the other humans, concluding from this that this World is Objective (exists independently from each of us).
2. We are born (appear from Nowhere) and the Surrounding World is born together with us, as our automatic Creation. This makes each of us to be a mini-God, a mini-Creator. The individual Worlds we create are slightly different from the individual worlds, created by other humans, but coincide in some their key features (sort of "sky is blue" for everyone) - and this their partial similarity makes us all to be humans, the Observers of a similar type - as the other types of Observers would perceive another types of the world.

Or 3: "the world" as we know it is a framework with certain obligatory rules which still supports individuated "realities" which coincide with others (as you illustrated), which we deliberately enter.

It could be something akin to a multi-layered, multi-dimensional holodeck (to borrow terminology from Star Trek), where not everyone you meet is someone that "came in" from the outside, and where few holodeck adventurers "remember" that they came from somewhere else.

When one "remembers" or realizes that they are in a holodeck, then their perspective on how to do things in the holodeck changes, because the only "real" things in the holodeck are perhaps some other people. Most of the people, however, might just be holo-entities.

There would be the standard way of "doing things" in the holodeck - moving about and physically interacting with holo-objects and people, but one realizes that they aren't actually generating "cause and effect" with actual objects, they are interacting with a program that is generating their interactive experience. If you go bowling in a holodeck, the ball doesn't leave your hand via momentum and cause pins to fall via any actual collision and expression of real kinetic energy and mass; all of that is just manipulated, programmed bits of observable energy being orchestrated by a program.

The non-standard way of "doing things" in a holodeck would be to issue commands to the holodeck program itself; to tell it what you want to happen, which would correlate to praying or using affirmations. The holodeck can make virtually anything happen; the only question would be one's level of command access to the holodeck program.

In fact this point of view, you came across, leads us to the idea that the Act of Creation was not deliberate at all. This eliminates the "personality" of God-Creator and places us instead of Creator, thus following the Genesis, which proclaims us "Images of God". We are born - and our world is created with our birth; we die - and this world also dies, as there is no one else who perceives this our world in exactly the same way as each of us does - this is why we argue about it, because each of us perceives it slightly differently.

Well, it could be deliberate if one chose to enter the holodeck from the outside. However, I would agree that one's particlar holodeck manifestation would begin and end with us, even if it was connected where possible with the holodeck experiences of others who adventured into the holodeck (re: the multilayers, multidimensional holodeck where not everyone shares the same experience).

I appreciate your commentary which led me to this delightful holodeck meme.

What keeps me away (so far) from this 3rd possibility is that I cannot detect this "deliberate" entry. We are certainly not choosing, to be born or not. Also we are not choosing the form in which we are born - and once we are born, we are born as an Observer of a certain type. If I am born as a sparrow, I would not be able to change into a fox, I can only fail as a sparrow.

Certainly seeing the world as a Matrix is possible, but then one needs to point out to these forces which maintain this Matrix - but the processes we deal with seem to be auto-catalytic and spontaneous, at least in relation to us ourselves. They are most likely driven by determinism, but we do not find ourselves involved in the determinism on that level, and thus can ignore or deny it. The world lives its own life independently from us, but far not all processes of this world are part of our individual worlds - say some super-Nova is not existing in my world because I cannot observe/create it. Our personal world is always infinitely smaller than the Universe, and can only be bigger or comparably smaller than the worlds of the other Observers.

But sure if you try to exercise this "opposite" inverted perception, you would have a lot of fun, re-discovering the old things in their new meaning.

Belief Doctor said: "The nonsense of perfection is such a simple one to dismiss. If any part within existence is not perfect, then neither can the whole or any other part of it can be perfect."

Actually, your above statement is nonsensical. In order to to make a valid claim about whether Existence is or can be perfect, one would have to: (1) Be capable of apprehending/comprehending perfection, and (2) Be aware of the Whole of existence.

Agree with you, Felix. Any "imperfection" of an isolated component cannot assist to establish a conclusion about the imperfection of the entire system, specially when the number of components in it may well be infinite. Out perceptional abilities are limited. This is like in that old Indian tale about the blind people examining the elephant - one touches the tail and says elephant is like a rope, another touches the foot and says the elephant is like a tree etc.

On the other hand, we know that evolution occurs. IF evolution is a progressive process (which seems to be a matter of faith, we cannot be certain about it), then we can surmise that the Universe is not perfect or at least does not now express it's ultimate state (omega point) of perfection.

Felix wrote:On the other hand, we know that evolution occurs. IF evolution is a progressive process (which seems to be a matter of faith, we cannot be certain about it), then we can surmise that the Universe is not perfect or at least does not now express it's ultimate state (omega point) of perfection.

Not really! Mathematically this brings us into the area of operations with infinitely large (or infinitely small) numbers. Infinity plus 1 is the same Infinity. The entire system is perfect because it contains everything existing - so if some "micro" evolution brings to existence some new feature, the entire system would automatically include this new feature too, and its nature would not change. With all internal changes and processes, the whole system would always remain as complete as it was from the beginning, as all what happens, happens within it.