Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

tama

(9,137 posts)
33. A friend
Sat Mar 3, 2012, 11:48 AM
Mar 2012

who is theoretical physicist of first class and whose TOE includes also theory of consciousness, suggests that "holographically" that each point in space-time has whole of Platonia as inner structure. And much about advanced p-adic math being the mathematical structure of consciousness, or rather the intersections of p-adic and real areas of number theory.

Quite many of theoretical physicists are mathematical platonists. Because it's logically more consistent position than reduction of math to biomatter.

I think that could be worked into a sort of process-theology framework. Jackpine Radical Mar 2012 #1
Yes, the attractor in my example looks a lot like Teilhard de Chardin's "Omega Point" GliderGuider Mar 2012 #4
Reminiscent of Terrence McKenna's Novelty Theory and The Transcendental Object at the End of Time bananas Mar 2012 #14
Not just "reminiscent" - that's exactly what I'm talking about. GliderGuider Mar 2012 #15
It is indeed nt Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #36
Irrelevant, really dmallind Mar 2012 #2
Yes, it's not an Abrahamic sky-daddy-god. The capital G is simply force of habit. GliderGuider Mar 2012 #5
As long as you are stuck on defining God as a person or a being or an entity you are right nt Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #37
So gawd exists, but nobody will ever know because the end is the end. tridim Mar 2012 #3
It's just an idea to play around with. GliderGuider Mar 2012 #6
I remember a great quote from Einstein about how Voice for Peace Mar 2012 #7
Vacuum fluctuations tama Mar 2012 #18
What is a living universe? rug Mar 2012 #10
The one you're living in? nt GliderGuider Mar 2012 #11
I live in a house. It's not alive. Couuntry? Nope. dmallind Mar 2012 #12
You know there are theoretical physicists who disagree with that nonconscious viewpoint? GliderGuider Mar 2012 #13
Electrons are friendly tama Mar 2012 #16
They only wave when they're feeling "particularly" friendly... GliderGuider Mar 2012 #20
Conscious quarks? Via what process? Synapses? Neurons? Brains? dmallind Mar 2012 #23
It's nice when one leaves room to be surprised later on. GliderGuider Mar 2012 #24
Unfortunately (perhaps), reality does not change based on our interest level. dmallind Mar 2012 #29
It doesn't? Again the physicists would demur. GliderGuider Mar 2012 #31
A friend tama Mar 2012 #33
Academic criteria tama Mar 2012 #17
It still has to satisfy them. Rock is definitively not alive. dmallind Mar 2012 #22
Do things need to be biologically "alive" to be conscious? GliderGuider Mar 2012 #25
Yes. Of course they do. What a strange question. dmallind Mar 2012 #28
Perhaps it would generate a little more respect for the world we live in. GliderGuider Mar 2012 #30
Can you tama Mar 2012 #32
In phyics, philosophy and process theology Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #38
Unhelpful and unapplicable muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #8
Maybe so. "Attractor" is the closest thing I've found to the concept I'm looking for. GliderGuider Mar 2012 #9
And tama Mar 2012 #19
I agree with you and muriel on your objections GliderGuider Mar 2012 #21
Weighing on the matter tama Mar 2012 #34
:-) GliderGuider Mar 2012 #35
I don't see how this makes the initial state inevitable (if I understand what you're saying). Jim__ Mar 2012 #26
"Reality" almost certainly bears no resemblance to anything I said. GliderGuider Mar 2012 #27
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»The Universal Attractor: ...»Reply #33