tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21959228.post7183996485500403598..comments2024-03-28T09:14:52.110+00:00Comments on Sinclair's Musings: My PhilosophyMatthew Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05948452770723874618noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21959228.post-50076069885129042922007-12-14T09:31:00.000+00:002007-12-14T09:31:00.000+00:00These comments are surely in reply to a different ...These comments are surely in reply to a different kind of question than that being asked by Matt. The question of existence of God, at least in so far as Matt approached it, seems driven by a desire not so much to understand the world, as to understand one's place in it ; or to phrase that in another way, was seeking not so much to establish what to expect of the world, but what ought to be expected of himself.<BR/><BR/>Matt, I've expressed with you before my near correlation with your perspective on now wanting to know what God's thinking, and being free to act appropriately, as you believe you ought. Nonetheless, the existence of God wouldn't lead to the conclusion that you ought to seek to please Him or in the alternative evade his punishment and act in fear, driven by cowardice ; rather it would be entirely possible to remain free, and independent in thought and action, and still choose to act in a particular manner out of Love, driven by your belief and your spontaneous intention to enter into a relationship with Him.<BR/><BR/>As such, and as I read it, your logic only extends so far as not knowing how God would reconcile fundamental questions, such as to allow people to follow His code in a self - seeking manner. It is not entirely contradictory to follow a personal code, while holding true, and even as fundamental, the existence of God.<BR/><BR/>Regardless of whether you personally accept or reject the existence of God, surely what is more significant is that whichever conclusion is reached it doesn't warp one's rational conclusion as to what is the right and moral path to follow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21959228.post-15791811875619479902007-12-10T10:09:00.000+00:002007-12-10T10:09:00.000+00:00better link here .better link <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser" REL="nofollow">here</A> .purplepangolinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17297351611950245044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21959228.post-27721463085576994842007-12-10T10:06:00.000+00:002007-12-10T10:06:00.000+00:00This article references the experiment I think you...<A HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL" REL="nofollow">This article</A> references the experiment I think you are refering to. Did a google search for "laser time travel one second past" without the quotes.purplepangolinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17297351611950245044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21959228.post-42362215532878022162007-12-09T18:07:00.000+00:002007-12-09T18:07:00.000+00:00Not handy, no. Unfortunately googling for it comes...Not handy, no. Unfortunately googling for it comes up with a vast amount of other stuff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21959228.post-6942496969355466672007-12-08T20:01:00.000+00:002007-12-08T20:01:00.000+00:00Any links to information on this experiment?Any links to information on this experiment?Matt Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08062352280843955046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21959228.post-13285712854483549882007-12-08T15:53:00.000+00:002007-12-08T15:53:00.000+00:00The whole question about "God" seems to me to be a...The whole question about "God" seems to me to be a dumbing-down of any real intellectual attempt to understand the universe.<BR/><BR/>A far more relevant question is 'What is Time?'<BR/><BR/>Very very very few people have grasped the implications of recent experiments in "Time Travel", whereby a laser was sent a fraction of a second into the past.<BR/><BR/>This is concrete proof that we can travel to the past. But stop there: No, I'm not talking about Time Machines and such Sci-Fi trivia, think rather of what that scientific fact tells us<BR/><BR/>It tells us that our perception of the past as being <I>something that existed</I> is false. Rather, the past <I>is something that exists</I><BR/><BR/>As I write this comment it is going on for a quarter to four o'clock. By the time you read it both our conscious perceptions, due to their linear nature in relation to Time, will have moved on. Yet I will always be writing this comment at a quarter to Four on Saturday the 8th of December 2007. In effect we exist in a multitude of "whens", even though our conscious perception can only occupy one "where"<BR/><BR/>Of course, there is also the question of whether Time & Space (and our own "When & Wheres") can survive the end of the Universe, but nobody's really sure about what the Universe is or what shape it is or where it is going yet, so that one has to be put on hold for the time being<BR/><BR/>But this in itself should give us far more productive things to mull over regarding our existence than "Is there a God", in my opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com