If that is what you expect, than this is what will happen ... geez, Pat... get out of your cage. I will it so. *laughing*
On 11 Mrz., 14:07, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10 Mar, 22:29, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Existence itself is the property that places us (and > > > anything) within the confines of space-time. > > > I think you are right with respect to time but I do not think you are > > right with respect to space. Space is accidental with respect to > > existence - it is not essential. It is possible to experience non- > > spatial existence and for the current universe to evolve to a non > > spatial state at some time in the future. > > If so, where would that occur? if an event (such as the one you > describe or, indeed ANY event) occurs, it occurs at a particular place > at a particular time. I cannot envisage an event that can occur at a > given time and, yet, occurs nowhere, as that is what MUST happen if a > purely spatial event occurs. The only way around that, perhaps, is to > declare that all purely spatial events are everlasting, i.e., taking > up all of time. > > >Indeed the spatial > > structures that we intuit may be more properly conceived of in terms > > of experience. When I say possible I mean logically possible. In fact, > > it may also not evolve that way and there is no evidence that it > > necessarily will. Still, we should not rule out the possibility of non- > > spatial existence nor define our terms too narrowly. > > Boil it down, though. Where would a non-spatial existence take > place? Equally, WHEN would a non-temporal event occur? These > questions appear koan-like because space and time are intrinsically > joined to one another in a space-time continuum. There is no way to > separate them and have non-temporal or non-spatial events as, by > definition, an event must occur at some place at some time. And, I'm > afraid, THAT'S the governing logic here. > > > As a concrete example consider that you are looking out at a river and > > suddenly everything starts to turn gray. They whole scene then becomes > > gray. There is no way you can turn around or look left or right as > > there is only gray. Then imagine that even that ceases. You can see > > nothing. That does not mean that you see black simply that you do not > > see. However you hear. You hear one note. A sound that just continues. > > Now at that point there is an entire intentional structure: "you" > > "are" "hearing" "it" and that structure "is". However the reality (the > > sound) is not spatial. Other senses, like smells are also potentially > > not spatial. > > Nope. You hear because air is being compressed at different rates. > The sound waves move through the air (this takes both time and space, > the time it takes for the wave to leave its source, travel through a > medium and land on your ear). The air exists within space-time. > Smells are also received by chemicals that are passed past one's > olfactory bulbs when one breathes. This takes time, and space is > involved, again, as the medium through which the chemicals pass. > > > Whether this will happen in reality is doubtful given current theory > > but those theories are empirically justified - essentially its like > > saying it won't happen because it hasn't happened yet - and > > technically that is a non sequitor. > > > This means that there is another property besides existence that > > places us within space-time. That property is the spatial nature of > > the universe. It is real but it is not essential with respect to > > existence. It is an accident (in the medieval sense of being something > > that can change and the thing will still be what it is - not in the > > sense of "car accident"). We exist *and* our existence happens to be > > spatial. To say it is spatial is to say something other that the fact > > that it exists. > > Whilst I agree with your last statement, I fear it's for other > reasons. Hopefully, you'll see what I mean in my passages above where > I point out the spatio-temporality of things you thought had one side > missing. I'm intrigued by but unsure what you mean by 'the spatial > nature of the universe', as, since Einstein, we've come to understand > the universe as not spatial and temporal but spatio-temporal. That > is, our universe is a space-time continuum with NO missing (spatio- > temporal) points. As there are no missing points in the continuum, we > know, then, that the future is already just as much a part of it as is > the past, and that all events within said continuum are within a cause- > and-effect framework, that is, no uncaused events can occur. This > understanding, in a sense, does away with the medieval understanding > of 'accident' by demonstrating that everything that exists MUST have a > cause (or many causes) and, therefore, could NOT have been changed, as > the event was already a part of the space-time continuum anyway. I > hope that helps clarify what I meant, but, I expect it may also clash > with your paradigm (especially if you believe in free will). > > > > > On Mar 10, 5:34 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 9 Mar, 15:11, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Just to make sure I get your soul concept right, Pat, how would you > > > > describe the difference between a ghost story and a fairy tale? > > > > A ghost story is a story about ghosts; a fairy tale is, usually, a > > > folktale derived from some local folklore. There is some overlap, as > > > ghost stories may develop into fairy tales and some fairy tales > > > (because of the former reason) contain ghosts. None of this, though, > > > has anything to do with the soul. My concept of a soul or spirit is > > > 'a coherent field of energy'. And, in the above, I extrapolated that, > > > in order to maintain coherence, the field MUST exist within space- > > > time, therefore making it a spatio-temporal object. In fact, in order > > > for it (or anything) to exist, it must exist at some place and at some > > > time (feel free, though, to put forward an exception if you can think > > > of one). Existence itself is the property that places us (and > > > anything) within the confines of space-time. > > > > > On 9 Mrz., 14:00, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 6 Mar, 18:54, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Speaking purely theoretically - I accept Orn's point completely, > > > > > > that > > > > > > discussions about reincarnation are pure theory - I don't see the > > > > > > problem. If there is a soul (theoretically speaking, since I have no > > > > > > idea what a soul IS), upon disincarnation it (presumably) leaves > > > > > > space- > > > > > > time. That's space-TIME. So, theoretically, there's no reason not to > > > > > > assume that a soul experiencing disincarnation in 2009 might not be > > > > > > reincarnated in 1909. Wow, I could even be Albert Einstein in my > > > > > > next > > > > > > life. Or Helen of Troy. Or my own grand-dad. > > > > > > If the soul/spirit is a coherent field of energy, then it must, > > > > > somehow, retain coherence. It could only do that given space and > > > > > time. That is, there is no 'coherence' outside of time (or space). > > > > > Ghosts, if disincarnate souls, would stand as evidence that spacetime > > > > > is STILL a factor after disincarnation. > > > > > > > Personally, I have never found speculation about reincarnation > > > > > > particularly useful for living in the here-and-now. > > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > > On 6 Mrz., 16:36, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > As to theory when it comes to things like > > > > > > > reincarnation....theories > > > > > > > are like comic books. Entertaining, and keep one distracted. > > > > > > > As to proof...the only proof would be if one remembers > > > > > > > experiencing > > > > > > > it. I have nothing against those who make such a claim. > > > > > > > > On Mar 6, 4:32 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 4 Mar, 16:04, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This may be a silly question that has already been answered > > > > > > > > > by those > > > > > > > > > who posit reincarnation, or you may have an answer, Slip. > > > > > > > > > > But it just occurred to me that the world population keeps > > > > > > > > > growing, > > > > > > > > > over time. So let's begin to flesh out the mechanics of > > > > > > > > > reincarnation > > > > > > > > > theory. Since the world population keeps growing, new souls > > > > > > > > > must be > > > > > > > > > coming into being (on the starting premise that souls exist, > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > course). What is your belief as to whether all souls > > > > > > > > > reincarnate? Is > > > > > > > > > it that, each year, of the 300 million people who die (I'm > > > > > > > > > guessing > > > > > > > > > here, not bothering to look up how many people actually die > > > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > year), those 300 million souls immediately reincarnate? Is > > > > > > > > > there some > > > > > > > > > lag time? Given that the world population grows by, say, 200 > > > > > > > > > million > > > > > > > > > a year, does this mean that 200 million entirely new, > > > > > > > > > non-reincarnated > > > > > > > > > souls are generated each year? > > > > > > > > > > More importantly, when a new baby is born, how is it decided > > > > > > > > > whether > > > > > > > > > that new baby gets a reincarnated soul, or an entirely new > > > > > > > > > soul? > > > > > > > > > > The basic premise of my e-mail is that the number of people > > > > > > > > > dying > > > > > > > > > falls short of the number of people being born, so not every > > > > > > > > > new birth > > > > > > > > > can have a reincarnated soul. How does reincarnation theory > > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > about this? > > > > > > > > > Firstly, whose theory? There are theories that don't limit > > > > > > > > reincarnation to only human form. If you count ALL the > > > > > > > > lifeforms in > > > > > > > > existence (and, not just Earthbound ones), THEN you'll see how > > > > > > > > full > > > > > > > > the pool of souls, as it were, is. Whilst I take your point, > > > > > > > > an Earth- > > > > > > > > limited view must be thrown out. Odds are that there's a huge > > > > > > > > whopping amount of life out there that could re-incarnate (or > > > > > > > > re- > > > > > > > > invegetate, for that matter!). > > > > > > > > Although there IS the Jewish view of > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
