LNT-5265F
August 11th, 2008, 04:33 PM
Chapter 1
David: You're a liar.
Andrew: I speak only what I feel is true in my heart, and only my universe exists, so I can never lie.
David: Your conclusion is logical, as long as neither one of the conditions fluctuate.
Andrew: Ah, but who's to say that the moment I lie, said lie does not become the reality of all things, no matter whether I believe it or not?
David: I have asked myself the exact same question many times. For example - I can vividly remember two different occasions where I created a lie, and became so entangled (brilliantly I might add) into the lie, that I honestly do not remember what the truth is/was at all anymore.
Andrew: Haha, I have enjoyed that before
David: Basically what I did was resocializing myself into believing in a different reality.
Andrew: At least neither of us are the type to say, "God would know."
David: Haha. Too, right you are
Andrew: And that could easily become a definition of what god is: "The Observer"
David: In which case the Observer is he who sees every reality, right?
Andrew: The one who ensures that no matter how humanity twists what happened in the past, a perspective which is truth is remembered by the planet itself, ie (if this an example it should have a . after it), take the old question "if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?". Regardless of whether it made a sound, upon walking into the forest, that tree is down, and even though we may say that it was cut, the evidence of how the tree fell, and that there was not a soul around to hear it, proves that something must be keeping a record.
David: What are you trying to prove?
Andrew: The intention was to show that damage is incurred consistent with the tree falling without human interaction, even though it may be said by some; that the tree was a victim of deforestation - that is to say that the planet remembers what happened.
David: Why would that truth be meaningful, unless you are suggesting that in your reality you consider the "Planet Earth" to be a living entity - and possibly "the Observer?"
Andrew: In my reality, the planet earth is potentially a living entity, but that's unrelated. The intent is to show that though we have a great control over what is believed to happen in the human Perspective, somehow the universe does not completely alter to fit that belief of what happened. At times it does, eerily so, and that would make me more inclined to believe that it is in fact some form of god that maintains this order, as I don’t believe there could really ever be one perfect being--it would have to make mistakes, as making mistakes is what continues to keep this universe changing, and existing.
David: Perhaps the planet earth is indeed a living entity beyond our comprehension of living. Further, perhaps this entity is in fact THE highest intelligence in our universe - or at least higher than our own collective intelligence. In this case I also hypothesis that perhaps this intelligence is capable of comprehending and monitoring infinite realities. The question remains in this line of thinking, does the entity have abilities such that it can alter these realities as it pleases, or is it stuck in a state of observation. And if the first, would this not be a new definition of "God?"
Andrew: Personally, I side with the latter, that it's stuck in the state of observation, but, if the former is truth, then yes, that would essentially be the definition of God by most standards. That's why I like the phrase "God is everything." Only we're taking it to a different level with that thought process. "God" is now defined as, "the individual atom that recalls all damages incurred." Once making up a whole, scars tend to form, and things become clear no matter how we decide to hide them in thought. We may completely deny an occurrence, but it's remembered by that which makes up its surroundings and, you're right about it being stronger than our collective thought capabilities, most of the time...I think there may be a line where if enough of the universe believes something to be true, it can in part at least become rue. Hence my problem with belief in heaven and hell. It's perfectly fine that we believe in a paradise beyond our wildest dreams - as *****g as I think it'd be - but to condemn even a thief, who stole for his family's sake to an eternal damnation does not seem fair. Also if people believe strong enough, collectively, could not that hell become existent?
David: Ah! See, that's where you are quite wrong. You are assuming that the rest of the universe believes the same way that we do, and if that is true then conditions for their development into existence must be ridiculously parallel to our own. Also, our small area of the universe is quite small. How can we collectively have enough pull in the universe, even if everyone in this community shared a belief.
Andrew: See, you're claiming the universe though. I’m claiming OUR universe. Our immediate collective thought encompassing our individual realities. Being that the majority doesn’t think past "what's for lunch?"..... once we all start believing that the universe is infinite, we lose our power as a collective. Our universe grows as our capacity to understand it does. With that, so does our ability to change it decreases.
David: So, you're saying that a universe can be infinitely small or large, similar to an ecosystem?
Andrew: Basically an ecosystem, yes.
David: Indeed.
David: You're a liar.
Andrew: I speak only what I feel is true in my heart, and only my universe exists, so I can never lie.
David: Your conclusion is logical, as long as neither one of the conditions fluctuate.
Andrew: Ah, but who's to say that the moment I lie, said lie does not become the reality of all things, no matter whether I believe it or not?
David: I have asked myself the exact same question many times. For example - I can vividly remember two different occasions where I created a lie, and became so entangled (brilliantly I might add) into the lie, that I honestly do not remember what the truth is/was at all anymore.
Andrew: Haha, I have enjoyed that before
David: Basically what I did was resocializing myself into believing in a different reality.
Andrew: At least neither of us are the type to say, "God would know."
David: Haha. Too, right you are
Andrew: And that could easily become a definition of what god is: "The Observer"
David: In which case the Observer is he who sees every reality, right?
Andrew: The one who ensures that no matter how humanity twists what happened in the past, a perspective which is truth is remembered by the planet itself, ie (if this an example it should have a . after it), take the old question "if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?". Regardless of whether it made a sound, upon walking into the forest, that tree is down, and even though we may say that it was cut, the evidence of how the tree fell, and that there was not a soul around to hear it, proves that something must be keeping a record.
David: What are you trying to prove?
Andrew: The intention was to show that damage is incurred consistent with the tree falling without human interaction, even though it may be said by some; that the tree was a victim of deforestation - that is to say that the planet remembers what happened.
David: Why would that truth be meaningful, unless you are suggesting that in your reality you consider the "Planet Earth" to be a living entity - and possibly "the Observer?"
Andrew: In my reality, the planet earth is potentially a living entity, but that's unrelated. The intent is to show that though we have a great control over what is believed to happen in the human Perspective, somehow the universe does not completely alter to fit that belief of what happened. At times it does, eerily so, and that would make me more inclined to believe that it is in fact some form of god that maintains this order, as I don’t believe there could really ever be one perfect being--it would have to make mistakes, as making mistakes is what continues to keep this universe changing, and existing.
David: Perhaps the planet earth is indeed a living entity beyond our comprehension of living. Further, perhaps this entity is in fact THE highest intelligence in our universe - or at least higher than our own collective intelligence. In this case I also hypothesis that perhaps this intelligence is capable of comprehending and monitoring infinite realities. The question remains in this line of thinking, does the entity have abilities such that it can alter these realities as it pleases, or is it stuck in a state of observation. And if the first, would this not be a new definition of "God?"
Andrew: Personally, I side with the latter, that it's stuck in the state of observation, but, if the former is truth, then yes, that would essentially be the definition of God by most standards. That's why I like the phrase "God is everything." Only we're taking it to a different level with that thought process. "God" is now defined as, "the individual atom that recalls all damages incurred." Once making up a whole, scars tend to form, and things become clear no matter how we decide to hide them in thought. We may completely deny an occurrence, but it's remembered by that which makes up its surroundings and, you're right about it being stronger than our collective thought capabilities, most of the time...I think there may be a line where if enough of the universe believes something to be true, it can in part at least become rue. Hence my problem with belief in heaven and hell. It's perfectly fine that we believe in a paradise beyond our wildest dreams - as *****g as I think it'd be - but to condemn even a thief, who stole for his family's sake to an eternal damnation does not seem fair. Also if people believe strong enough, collectively, could not that hell become existent?
David: Ah! See, that's where you are quite wrong. You are assuming that the rest of the universe believes the same way that we do, and if that is true then conditions for their development into existence must be ridiculously parallel to our own. Also, our small area of the universe is quite small. How can we collectively have enough pull in the universe, even if everyone in this community shared a belief.
Andrew: See, you're claiming the universe though. I’m claiming OUR universe. Our immediate collective thought encompassing our individual realities. Being that the majority doesn’t think past "what's for lunch?"..... once we all start believing that the universe is infinite, we lose our power as a collective. Our universe grows as our capacity to understand it does. With that, so does our ability to change it decreases.
David: So, you're saying that a universe can be infinitely small or large, similar to an ecosystem?
Andrew: Basically an ecosystem, yes.
David: Indeed.