Blog‎ > ‎

Philosophy

Humanity’s Oedipus complex killing mother earth

posted Mar 17, 2018, 10:07 PM by Jake Vosloo   [ updated Mar 17, 2018, 10:30 PM ]

Each human is a cell of the organism we call humanity. Humanity was conceived on earth and we have been growing in the womb of our mother. She has been keeping us alive so that we can grow strong enough to survive on our own, strong enough to be born into life outside.

We have looked outside the womb and we saw it is cold and dark out there. We got scared and shrunk back into the womb, so comfortable with all our mother provides.

What happens to a mother if the child is never born, won’t she surely die?

Our mother has been providing us with food and air and cleaning our waste, but as we grow bigger and bigger, we are becoming too large for her and the waste we produce is poisoning her. What can we do?

To save our mother we can and must reduce the waste we produce. We must realise that we are meant to be born and our mother is feeding us to grow strong enough to live out there on our own strength.

The birth process has started, it is a slow process and we can make it easier or harder on ourselves and our mother. At some time in the future, when we can survive out there on our own, we will have to cut the umbilical cord with our mother to let her heal. If we do this, our mother will live a long and happy life and we can live alongside her.

If we do not, our mother will die, and we may die with her if our father doesn’t step in and help us…

Our father is the creator and he is waiting for us to be born into the universe for which we were conceived. If we let him, he will take care of us and our mother.

Our father has created us for more than just becoming the human organism called humanity. He has created us for more than just growing and filling the galaxies.

Our father has created us with a soul, and a choice. Our soul can choose to become part of an eternal spiritual being…

 

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex

http://www.mutualresponsibility.org/science/like-cells-in-a-body-seeing-humanity-as-parts-of-one-organism

https://www.amazon.com/Great-Illusion-Sir-Norman-Angell/dp/1616402563

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140701-the-superorganism-engulfing-earth

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/10-17.htm

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/12-12.htm

http://biblehub.com/romans/12-4.htm

http://biblehub.com/ephesians/1-23.htm

https://pixabay.com/en/earth-planet-space-stars-celestial-1477063/

Zero / Null dimensional space-time

posted Sep 11, 2015, 11:57 PM by Jake Vosloo

According to Ashok (2013) for zero dimensional space time 0-D ST, it is irrelevant to discuss elementary particles or their interactions because by definition 0-D corresponds to geometric and physical absolute 'nothingness'. He posits it to represent the situation "prior to the big bang" when neither space, time nor matter existed and let it represent a point at origin.

ASHOK K. SINHA, 2013, Xlibris, NEW DIMENSIONS IN ELEMENTARY PARTICLE PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY

Axioms by Robert Brown

posted Jan 5, 2014, 1:30 PM by Jake Vosloo

I just read this very insightfull online commentary by Robert Brown from Duke University:
 
No fooling, and this is, sadly, not a joke. I wish I were fooling. If nothing else, I've learned that as soon as one discovers in a debate of any sort that your opponent/partner has different Prime Axioms ... the wisest thing to do is immediately terminate the discussion, back away slowly (possibly with one hand on your wallet and another on a small but powerful handgun), and go do something useful, like doing a crossword puzzle, or taking a nice long nap, or playing World of Warcraft until your mouse-hand is sore.

At least those things will improve your mind and are unlikely to get you beheaded, burned at the stake, pilloried, broken on the wheel, enslaved, or just plain beaten up and left for dead - all of which have happened at one time or another to the loser of what should have been an open-minded and fair philophical debate between holders of different axioms. Including repeatedly, religious axioms, where the ``debates'' were, for example, known as crusades.

The damnedest thing is, of course, that I can no more prove my axioms than they can prove theirs, and hence both our conclusions are in some deep sense equally irrational. Maybe the laws of physics have changed over time in a way that (precisely) cannot be detected now. Formulated this way, how can I prove otherwise by any experiment or experience, by definition?

God and singularity

posted Jun 11, 2011, 9:47 AM by Jake Vosloo   [ updated Oct 8, 2016, 6:48 AM ]

Below is an extract and references regarding the philosophy of God and singularity.
The term Stosolus is used to represents the single final being, similar to what people call God, creator, etc.

Ray Kurzweil in The Singularity is Near end of chapter entitled "Ich Bin Ein Singularitarian"
"Evolution moves towards greater complexity, greater elegance, greater knowledge, greater intelligence, greater beauty, greater creativity, and greater levels of subtle attributes such as love. In every monotheistic tradition God is likewise described as all of these qualities, only without limitation: infinite knowledge, infinite intelligence, infinite beauty, infinite creativity, infinite love, and so on. Of course, even the accelerating growth of evolution never achieves an infinite level, but as it explodes exponentially it certainly moves rapidly in that direction. So evolution moves inexorably towards this conception of God, although never quite reaching this ideal. We can regard, therefore, the freeing of our thinking from the severe limitations of its biological form to be an essentially spiritual undertaking."

"The word "singularity" has several distinct meanings. P.B. is referring to a sudden and radical change in technology. But "singularity" also has a precise mathematical meaning" "points" where quantities diverge to infinity (or are otherwise not defined). The laws of physics tell us that the universe began in a singularity in this precise mathematical sense 13.7 billion years ago. This initial singularity is the Uncaused First Cause. Maimonides and Aquinas defined "God" to be the Uncaused First Cause. Hence, by definition, the Cosmological Singularity is God!" (Frank Tipler, 2006)

Several of those who responded to the original entry made similar comments, although without referencing Maimonides and Aquinas. Professor Tipler is correct to point out the referring to the predicted upcoming Technological Singularity as "The Singularity" is a subjective and arbitrary choice. However, at the risk of bandying cosmological ideas about with one of the authors of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, I would assert that it may be just as arbitrary to identify the singularity of 13.7 billion years ago as the Uncaused First Cause. If those who are now applying evo/devo concepts to cosmology are correct, the singularity that began this particular universe is just one of many in a developmental multiverse. As John Smart explains it:

In the simplest and most biological of these cosmological models, our universe’s genes self-organized, through many successive cycles in the multiverse, to produce the life-friendly and intelligence-friendly universe we live in today. This theory of intelligent self-organized design proposes that, analogous to living ecosystems, our universe's "genes, organisms, and environment" encode deep developmental intelligence on a macroscopic scale, while they use primarily evolutionary and chaotic mechanisms to unfold that intelligence on the scale that we normally observe it." (John Smart, 2005)

So our particular universe need not be the (direct) result of an Uncaused First Cause, and that singularity of 13.7 billion years ago may or may not be correctly identified with God. However, if there is a larger universe that evolves increasingly intelligence-supporting universes, we do face the question of how that ever came into being. The first and perhaps greatest singularity, maybe the one that really deserves to be called "the singularity" is at heart a conceptual one, having to do with the discontinuity between nothing existing and something existing. Stephen has called this singularity The Miracle, and about it he writes:

There's a central question that science cannot address. For all of us, believers and secularists alike, it's "turtles all the way down."

Whether you believe in God, believe there is no god, or remain undecided - there is an undeniable miracle. Why does anything exist at all? Believers say "God made it." Yeah, well who or what made God? Secularists like to talk about the Singularity that caused the Big Bang. Okay, but where did that come from? If you say "Multiverse," or even that intelligent universes spawn other intelligent universes (as discussed James Gardner's book Biocosm) then that's just another turtle.

So here, then, is that Uncaused First Cause of Maimonides and Aquinas. Or maybe it would be better to say where, then, is that Uncaused First Cause?


Frank Tipler has responded 

1-4 of 4