Reality is the Set of All things That Exist

[Ostronomos]

I see one problem at least. What about time, is there a reverse time going on to counter the forward direction?

Time only contributes to total energy of the universe by making organized energy disorganized, through entropy.
But it's the same quantity of energy, as per the conservation of energy.

Thanks Syne. Never thought of it.that way. I feel I've derailed Ostro's thread a bit. I think he likes.the God proving questions so I'm going to ask some.

I think the limit of  God's knowledge needs to be established first.

Ostro, doesn't.matter how an omniscient being pops.into existence but why would it create anything?  If it's  all knowing then i think you're trying to prove the existence of something that really doesn't need you, as harsh as that sounds.  Proving God would be an exercise in futility, no?

Not at all. As I recall, telors are relevant to teleological self-configuration. This means we are necessary for God to self-configure in such a way that existence is mutually impacted.

From what I understand, you've proven God or believe.someone else has and you've also experienced close encounters with the divine. As a created being and because of what you hold.to be true,  does God know everything? 

I suppose it's OK to believe that a thought needs to prove the thinker and that one can deploy many measures to accomplish the task. If God is not.omniscient then does he/she/it qualify for.divine status and worthy of your efforts? Maybe you should be looking outside the metaphysical.

In addition to being all-present, God is all-seeing. I have deduced this based on observation (Note: such awareness is extremely pronounced while in the Quantum world). But since God is equated with a self-aware universe one might say that the universe is aware of my actions. This subtle distinction has interesting implications. For if God is the universe then He is both mind and matter, like us. But since matter takes lower priority to mind, except in non-Quantum illusion,  God's mind is the ultimate reality.

---

I recall Chris Langan explaining to Ian Goddard about the principle of syndiffeonesis.

Different minds all exist within the sameness or unity of the Mind of God. We (all minds) are all connected - all life forms in reality. We are co-creators with God and we participate in the creation of reality.

[Ostronomos]

If the positive energy of the universe as matter is equally matched by the negative energy of gravity then total energy of universe equals zero, some hypothesis if I remember correctly. The total energy of nothing would also equal that of the universe in this case I suspect. So if I add up all the yins & yangs I still get nothing. 

So I guess my question would be: if there's a God then should there be an anti-God? Ostro, if you could prove there's an anti-God then surely God must exist. Wonder which one is easiest to prove and how would one tell the difference?

If God is creator then perhaps there is a complementary opposite or a destroyer. The God and the Devil on opposite sides of existence perhaps? One is creating the other is destroying.

[Ostronomos]

Eike: "Can a very fast and powerful rocket ever reach the boundary of the universe? If not, why logically not?"

Langan: No. If one insists on getting technical about it:
Physical space - the medium of spacetime in modern physics - has topological structure and can thus be topologically described as a set of points. (If not, then forget about referring to anything as having a definite location associated with one or more "points of space".)
...
In topology, there is a distinction between the boundary points and the interior points of a set. If you're at a boundary point, then you necessarily have a neighborhood including points not in the set. But where the set is "reality", that means that points not in the set are "nonreality", in which case they aren't real "points".
So the idea that anything - e.g., a rocket ship - can come into coincidence with (or pass through) a boundary point of reality is inconsistent or logically self-contradictory. One is implicitly talking about "points" - the putative boundary and exterior points of the set "reality" - while denying that they are real.
There's really only one way around this paradox. It's called the "CTMU", "Logos", or "God".

[Syne]

Oh, his threads never really go anywhere, unless they are at least somewhat derailed. He's just preaching at people, not really engaging in discussion.

If god and the universe are nothing, god wouldn't have anything to know in the beginning. Unless you believe in predestination/predeterminism, the scope of what there is to know grows over time, because until it happens, it's only a potential. For a god to know anything, it must create things to know. So the process of creation, even moment to moment in time, is intimately connected to omniscience.

Omniscience only includes what can possibly/logically be known. If due to quantum indeterminism, a single set future cannot possibly be known, by design, it would be just as illogical to assume a god could know it as it would to assume a god could make a square circle.

[Ostronomos]

Oh, his threads never really go anywhere, unless they are at least somewhat derailed. He's just preaching at people, not really engaging in discussion.

If god and the universe are nothing, god wouldn't have anything to know in the beginning. Unless you believe in predestination/predeterminism, the scope of what there is to know grows over time, because until it happens, it's only a potential. For a god to know anything, it must create things to know. So the process of creation, even moment to moment in time, is intimately connected to omniscience.

Omniscience only includes what can possibly/logically be known. If due to quantum indeterminism, a single set future cannot possibly be known, by design, it would be just as illogical to assume a god could know it as it would to assume a god could make a square circle.

Yes. But in a purely deterministic universe a God would create for the sake of creating since his mind is distributed throughout such a universe affording Him omniscience. Btw, only physical matter behaves in a predeterministic way. But since telors (us) are intimately entwined with the process of creation, God cannot predict with 100% accuracy what we will do because He would not know How we will respond to His signals when revealed.

[Ostronomos]

However in a purely deterministic universe God would know us so well that He could predict our every action.

[Zinjanthropos]

Omniscience only includes what can possibly/logically be known.

We're talking a god here. I throw logic out the window. How in hell does a god suddenly appear, even if it only knows its name? That in itself is remarkable. Since then God's been omniscient so many times it's impossible to count .

[Ostronomos]

Omniscience only includes what can possibly/logically be known.

We're talking a god here.  I throw logic out the window. How in hell does a god suddenly appear, even if it only knows its name? That in itself is remarkable. Since then God's been omniscient so many times it's impossible to count .

God or reality operates by sentential logic. Recall that our brains/ minds  are images of the universal brain/ mind. The phenomenon of the external world is a reflection of our minds.

[Yazata]

"Reality is the set of all things that exist"

That just seems to exchange 'exist' for 'reality', which doesn't being us any closer to what either word means.

[Ostronomos]

"Reality is the set of all things that exist"

That just seems to exchange 'exist' for 'reality', which doesn't being us any closer to what either word means.

This is a premature judgment on your part. You can indeed exchange exist for reality but the way it is stated reflects the perfect analytic self-containment of reality which does not result in error. You can also say the word "things" is interchangeable with reality as well as "set".