-
Posts
-
The major misconception would be how the Superuniverses, are inter-associated and work together as one conceptual structure.
I’m not sure, but are you saying that we misconceive the Superuniverses because we fail to recognize the universe ultimately has “seven different conceptions of space as it is conditioned by time“? If so, I cannot really disagree with this idea, since the universe would certainly be radically different from the three-dimensional space we think we see.
MidiChlorian wrote: The major misconception would be how the Superuniverses, are inter-associated and work together as one conceptual structure.
I’m not sure, but are you saying that we misconceive the Superuniverses because we fail to recognize the universe ultimately has “seven different conceptions of space as it is conditioned by time“? If so, I cannot really disagree with this idea, since the universe would certainly be radically different from the three-dimensional space we think we see.
When one examines the following UB quote, and then applies the various functions of each segment of the superuniverses as related also to spirit function, and reflectively, each of six superuniverses can be associated as a single dimension and the seventh as the union point where they merge. The focal point of each superuniverse can be assumed as the same point placeholder and as each vibrates at a slightly different time frequency and wave length, one could assimilate this to what might be defined as the “holographic principle”.
(181.7) 15:14.1 There are seven major purposes which are being unfolded in the evolution of the seven superuniverses. Each major purpose in superuniverse evolution will find fullest expression in only one of the seven superuniverses, and therefore does each superuniverse have a special function and a unique nature.
If one assumes that all things can be assimilated from light and sound, where the “holographic principle” could be roughly associated to photons and acoustic force-fields there would still be one missing factor “Life”.
(1227.3) 112:1.13 Life is really a process which takes place between the organism (selfhood) and its environment. The personality imparts value of identity and meanings of continuity to this organismal-environmental association. Thus it will be recognized that the phenomenon of stimulus-response is not a mere mechanical process since the personality functions as a factor in the total situation. It is ever true that mechanisms are innately passive; organisms, inherently active.
(1227.4) 112:1.14 Physical life is a process taking place not so much within the organism as between the organism and the environment. And every such process tends to create and establish organismal patterns of reaction to such an environment. And all such directive patterns are highly influential in goal choosing.
(1227.5) 112:1.15 It is through the mediation of mind that the self and the environment establish meaningful contact. The ability and willingness of the organism to make such significant contacts with environment (response to a drive) represents the attitude of the whole personality.
From our understanding of the “holographic principle”, we may find similarities?
“The holographic principle is a principle of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerard ‘t Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind who combined his ideas with previous ones of ‘t Hooft and Charles Thorn. As pointed out by Raphael Bousso, Thorn observed in 1978 that string theory admits a lower-dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way.
In a larger sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as two-dimensional information on the cosmological horizon, the event horizon from which information may still be gathered and not lost due to the natural limitations of spacetime supporting a black hole, an observer and a given setting of these specific elements, such that the three dimensions we observe are an effective description only at macroscopic scales and at low energies. Cosmological holography has not been made mathematically precise, partly because the particle horizon has a non-zero area and grows with time. [. . .]”
This is an absolutely fascinating thread, and the interplay of intellect between all of you is outstanding! I’ve read up halfway through page 3 and skimmed ahead to have enough time to post before leaving for work, but I’ll need to go back and study this discussion a little further, very interesting topic.
from this quote:
30:0.2 It is not possible to formulate comprehensive and entirely consistent classifications of the personalities of the grand universe because all of the groups are not revealed. It would require numerous additional papers to cover the further revelation required to systematically classify all groups. Such conceptual expansion would hardly be desirable as it would deprive the thinking mortals of the next thousand years of that stimulus to creative speculation which these partially revealed concepts supply. It is best that man not have an overrevelation; it stifles imagination.
I figure we have 800-900 years until we begin truly settling in light and life! We’ve already begun making staggering scientific advances in the 1800’s, and by now it is a matter of mass education, most people don’t know how the technology they use works. I think in this day and age we’re all getting on the same page, but as a race we’re still immature, and will need to live another thousand years before our species behaves more like seasoned adults and less like anxious teenagers.
In terms of our own cosmology, this is a miraculous discovery made by scientists a few years back:
scientists have determined the vector normals our galaxies are travelling in, making pathways leading to a new form of celestial organisation as clusters and superclustersand along their pathways some travel away expanding outward into the void while others including our own are heading towards “strange attractors” which i suppose will ultimately destroy us?It also mentions our home is on the outskirts of our cluster. :)Welcome magma!!
Been thinking about this topic for some time and wanted to continue with my “not inspired” consternations and confusions. Research shows that the definition of “cosmology” had a dramatic shift in the late ’20s and early ’30s although the original definition remains valid and is the one I’ve always understood according to the UB:
“Cosmology, is the study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe. Physical cosmology is the scholarly and scientific study of the origin, evolution, large-scale structures and dynamics, and ultimate fate of the universe, as well as the scientific laws that govern these realities. The term cosmology was first used in English in 1656 in Thomas Blount’s Glossographia,[3] and in 1731 taken up in Latin by German philosopher Christian Wolff, in Cosmologia Generalis.[4]
Religious or mythological cosmology is a body of beliefs based on mythological, religious, and esoteric literature and traditions of creation myths and eschatology.
Physical cosmology is studied by scientists, such as astronomers and physicists, as well as philosophers, such as metaphysicians, philosophers of physics, and philosophers of space and time. Because of this shared scope with philosophy, theories in physical cosmology may include both scientific and non-scientific propositions, and may depend upon assumptions that cannot be tested. Cosmology differs from astronomy in that the former is concerned with the Universe as a whole while the latter deals with individual celestial objects. Modern physical cosmology is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which attempts to bring together observational astronomy and particle physics;[5] more specifically, a standard parameterization of the Big Bang with dark matter and dark energy, known as the Lambda-CDM model.”
Until the big bang theory, cosmology included God and creationism – origins, meanings, destiny – or the power, purpose, plans, and methodologies of creation, organization, management, evolutionary change, ultimate destinies. The UB gives us this cosmology – which is far, far more than particle physics and astrophysics – the extreme polar points of material/physical/material – but we know the universe, including the material universe, is far more than physics. Here’s a link to quotes including “cosmology OR cosmos” – 95 quotes for some orientation.
If we cannot agree on the definition of “cosmology”, then we will never agree on the meaning of “not inspired”, which I still maintain means factual rather than being subject to the limits of revelation regarding unearned knowledge. Indeed, a key word search for “inspired” makes me think that inspiration has everything to do with truth and nothing at all to do with fact. “not inspired” does not mean lacking truth exactly, it means it resides in another character or form – fact. We are advised that truth is often inspired and cosmology is never such. Likewise, I think science is not inspired….it’s discovery and it’s pursuit (the scientific method) is often sparked or triggered by insight, intuition, and inspiration….deep thinking and observation of fact discovers fact.
The cosmology of the universes is also fact…God is fact. The reality of all creatures and creation is fact. The relationships between all creatures and creation is fact. Physics is one very limited portion of the grandeur of reality….and a strictly material one to the scientist and the method. For centuries, science and religion were often mutually inclusive studies and the greatest of early scientists did, philosophically at least, tend to integrate both science and religion as a holistic discipline. Then came Darwin and then the Big Bang, or accidental/mechanical explanations for the observable universe, and ‘cosmology’ became limited to particle and astral physics only.
But this did not happen until after the UB was given. So, should we expand or limit the definition of cosmology? Can any cosmology that is factual and reality oriented dismiss the Creator and creation process from its consideration? Because that’s what happened around 1935 – the secularists hijacked a term and gave it a new definition – physics….that which the revelators tell us of their limitations regarding unearned knowledge. Perplexing…..to me!
I do not find the functions of a factual cosmology and the limitations of revelation as mutually exclusive concepts. The cosmology of who’s who and how things work is a factual presentation….it is just not a complete presentation regarding physics! But isn’t Nebadon, Michael’s creation, cosmology? How is this creation created? And Paradise and the architectural worlds and power centers and life carriers? A litany of forms/elements of cosmology not even considered or dreamed of by modern science. Perhaps the student body needs to consider expanding the definition of cosmology to gain a better understanding of the limits of revelation and the fact that the cosmology presented is not ‘inspired’??
If we cannot agree on the definition of “cosmology”, then we will never agree on the meaning of “not inspired”, which I still maintain means factual rather than being subject to the limits of revelation regarding unearned knowledge.
I generally agree with your conclusion that “not inspired” means the cosmology revealed in the Book is essentially true in concept, even if some of the scientific facts may been incorrect, due to the prohibition against giving us unearned knowledge. For instance, we are told there are 7 structural levels of revolution beginning with the earth’s revolution about the sun and ending with Orvonton’s revolution about Paradise. (15:3.8-14) The hierarchy of universe administration parallels this hierarchical physical structure. More than 80 years after this dynamic physical structure was first revealed, there is still no general consensus among students of the Book on what astronomic structure the superuniverse of Orvonton refers to, much less the cosmic structures associated with Norlatiadek, Nebadon, or Splandon. It is still the case that some think Orvonton may be the Milky Way, while others think it may be as large as the Virgo Supercluster, which is a thousand times the size of the Milky Way.
The physical structure of the universe revealed to us is true, assuming the authors tell us the truth. The few scientifically verifiable facts and relationships included in this description are “not inspired” and may be incorrect, such as the distance to Andromeda. We cannot know which of these facts is incorrect and by how much until astronomic knowledge advances sufficiently. However, we can project that this revealed structure of the universe is the one which informs those worlds in Orvonton which reach Light & Life and interpret the universe accordingly. The location of Paradise at the center of revolution for the entire universe is both an absolute truth and an absolute fact.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.