Logic Puzzles: A Look at Reality, Actuals and Potentials

This is an attempt to define rules for reality so that the science of it does not lead one into infinite fanciful "what if" questions. It is the defining of potentials and actuals, and how they operate. The ultimate goal is to dismantle the idea of infinite realities.

The idea that all potentials exist together at once, or that such potential is infinite, is fundamentally different from saying there are infinite realities. Saying there are infinite realities connotes that there are infinite actuals which exist at once, but are separated. In truth, there is one time-based reality which consists of actuals. The potentials which can be actualized are near-infinite in number, but are quite finite in actualization. You can be faced with a million decisions, but can only make one decision at a time. This decision then becomes a real action, and all past potentials which could have replaced that action cease to exist in the sense that they can no longer be actualized. A potential only stays such a potential when it can become real.

Possibilities come to exist as future facts/truths/actions, and any possibility that has lost its ability to come into creation no longer stays as a possibility. They become mere figments of imagination, and do not exist themselves as a value level in time-space. These are time-sensitive values. Time can create and take away such value. In a realm unbound by time, the value hidden within past potentials can be restored, but only personal potentials have value to the human as a sense of what could have been.

Lost potentials act as opportunity costs. A realm outside of time could realize the potential value of these opportunity costs, but inside of time, an opportunity cost exists as an actualized concept of missed opportunity. This idea of missed opportunity is not entirely based on the potentials which did not actualize, but more from the comprehension of a decision's full implications or meaning. When future potentials are known to the individual, they can persist as actualized ideas associated with the past, though they still lack the value which the potential turned actual through action possesses.

Realize that if there are infinite realities, potentials would not exist, only actuals (or eventuals) would. This brings up the idea that life is like a computer simulation. It devalues both choices and consciousness by stating that everything which can be chosen is chosen in some reality. Essentially, it is the idea that there are infinite time-space universes, and this devalues time itself. One of the main reasons for time and the finite experience is to actualize a small degree of what is possible, and see what can be gained from such incredible limitations. It is the infinite granting value to the finite. It is the creation of meaningful experience through the consciousness of limitations.

"Infinite realities" is equivalent to "unrealized infinite potentials". Potentials act as possible values, and do not produce value in time until made real, either through action or conceptualization. Infinite realities do not possess value because there is no sense of reason or focus. Finiteness is never given true weight when its possibilities are all expressed. The idea of infinite realities makes finite creation infinite. But the First Source and Center is already infinite. The I AM already had contained within it infinite potential, which had yet to hold any kind of organization before the Trinity was constructed. In a sense, what the idea of infinite realities does is place the current time-space model inside of the I AM as an unrealized potential which exists with an infinite number of other such potentials. It destabilizes the idea of identity, the reality of individual personality, and makes our unique perspectives quite worthless. It becomes merely an idea within an infinity of other ideas. Yet we hold identity and perspective, and we continue to hold such while making time-bound decisions. As these decisions are made, they become a part of reality, and this reality has meaning. There are not infinite time-space universes. However, the universe can hold near-infinite space, as well as a near-infinite number of unique beings.

So where does the science get involved in this? It is held as truth that observation turns a wave of possibility into a particle (object) of actuality. God (the Supreme or God the Sevenfold) acts as a fundamental observer in the universe, which upholds all basic physical laws. Potentials and actualized potentials then follow these laws. God upholds the laws which create certain potentials. A human actualizes the potentials within its scope of influence. There is a wave of possibility which exists as a representation of all potential actuals creatable by the individual. This wave is then turned into (or condensed into) a specific aspect of reality. When looked at from a linear perspective, this wave looks like a funnel which extends into the infinite future, growing larger and larger. However, there are limits to what a finite person can create, so the increase in potentials will decrease over time. Note that the universe age will have an impact on this acceleration, as new types of potentials become available.

Another thing to realize is that humans are not the only finite observers on the planet. Consciousness creates observation, and the focus and strength of consciousness likely creates different levels of observation. This creates a certain level of actuals which come to define the environment. Plants, animals, fungi, bacteria or any other form of life possess some form of consciousness, however small it may be. This consciousness will impact what it is being observed. So it may be true that objects cannot exist within the many realms of possibility if an aspect of their being is being observed by a certain organism. However, this idea is mere speculation, and I will leave it up to the scientists to create the experiment to test this idea.

In conclusion, there are likely to be many different types of potentiality waves. Such waves express value when they are brought into actual expression through conscious experience of the actualized potential, and many different actuals come into existence depending on the observer. Consciousness impacts reality, which is also impacted by other forms of consciousness, which may create a form of tug-of-war or co-creation. But ultimately, reality will come to reflect what best follows the higher values or meanings of the universe, and this is so mainly because the ultimatons, the basic building blocks of matter and energy, follow these values (God's will).

Recent Ideas: The Sacrosanct and the Geometric

I have never quite understood the point of "sacred geometry", or the hype around. Well, what is it? It is the geometry used in the planning and construction of religious structures. It is the math behind the shapes most commonly found in nature. It is an efficient organization of space. It is the founding architecture of creation. It is the golden ratio. It is Metatron's cube. But is it actually sacred? Is it holy? If God and His Paradise Sons use mathematical principals to create the universe and the life which inhabits it, are these mathematics sacred? Must we remain infatuated with geometric shapes?

I do not hold that mathematical or geometrical facts are divine. If a design is so great that God would use it, that makes it efficient. God values efficiency, and certain shapes and ratios are particularly helpful. We should not be regarding such things as hallowed, for they merely exist to provide value. This is proficient geometry. If a shape is superior in its role, then it will be used whenever and wherever it can be of value. That is only logical if we assume things are meant to be as perfect as they can be. If something is functionally supreme, it is going to be used by those who require this level of functionality. However, such things should not be automatically regarded as mystical or divine, even when used by the divine.

The same problem has occurred with sacred books. What makes mere text holy? These too are shapes which carry meaning. If one letter is not deemed holy, why would a specific combination of unholy letters become so precious? Clearly the ideas they carry are more important. So isn't the value a shape provides more important than the shape itself? Is a tool as precious as its maker? Is it more precious than the task its maker wishes to complete?

I consider ascribing adjectives like sacred, divine and holy to geometric shapes to be a form of superstition. The value in these shapes is in their use. Without the value of their possible use in creation, they are merely lines on paper. Calling them sacred infers that value comes directly from the shape, but what is truly valuable is the relationship between the said shape and God. Basically, if God were to create something which was shaped like a pyramid, that would not make all pyramids holy. The pyramid was simply the needed foundation for the specific "thing", and the value of that "thing" does not come from the pyramid. The pyramid only aids in the production of value done by the "thing". The shape creates efficiency by improving a certain function.

Geometry helps create value in its utilization, but it is useless alone. The same can be said for the written word. Even the Urantia Book exists as a mere formation of shapes, and would be nearly meaningless if no one read it or gained something from the ideas being communicated. Here the ideas/thoughts hold the real value, while the words are the vehicle to deliver this value. The letters (shapes) are only valuable in the sense that they are given value by man through their use. They are valuable in how they aid language, but the level of efficiency that is produced is what should be so prized. An alien language may have entirely different letters (from ours) which act as this medium, so this value is entirely subjective as these shapes are not valuable to everyone.

Geometry is never the source of values, God is the true source. God makes the shape valuable as it becomes utilized in the design of creation, matter, energy, life, morontia or spirit. Shapes cannot be sacred, but their use can be. This simply makes the shape efficient, or utilitarian, for a specific (albeit divine) purpose. This appears to give the shape objective value, but God created the original purpose (or use for the shape) which creates this value or level of efficiency.  Even if something is so utilitarian that it is used by Deity, Deity creates the value of the shape through how it is used.

God ultimately holds the key to how useful a form of geometry is, and calling it sacred misplaces this value onto the object itself, which would be so useless on its own. A shape or pattern is used as a means to an end. In time, all possible routes to this end may be experienced or realized. The means are valuable only in their relationship with this end, and would lack all value without it.

I think something that is truly sacred is defined sacred by God, or perhaps a Paradise Son. I do not think that something deserves that name if it is only held sacred by a group of humans. Free will is something that is more obviously sacred, as this is upheld by God and is necessary for the creation of God the Supreme. Another example is life, as many are given eternal life by God. One more possibility is the opportunity for growth, as this is necessary for souls to progress in the ascension career. You could also say this for equality, as God loves all equally. So if that is all true, one can say that the three core values of sustainability are sacred (life, equality, growth).

Analysis of the Self: Problems with Energy Work

Just a passing thought. What would create more guilt? Being good at using energy, but not being able to receive much, or being good at receiving energy, but not being able to use it much? I feel like I belong to the latter category, and I also feel like I am not doing my part to do the most good. Most of the time in meditation, I simply experiment so that I can better understand what it is I receive, and the energy does not get used for a specific goal besides letting me feel it.

There is also the issue that I don't even know what this energy is capable of. I was attuned to a specific form of energy, and I believe I did temporarily heal my parents, but I would need to make it a daily practice to create a long-term effect, and that would keep me from doing other things in meditation. Am I able to create a system where I can gain the most knowledge while doing the most good? Is it worth my time to document the experiences of others? I have a lot of questions, which I'm not sure anyone I know of could answer.

Analysis of the Self: The Facets of Violence

Violence is a form of destructive force, but it is a concept not entirely understood. Yes, definitions exist, but their application is not always clear in cases of minor violence. There are actions which appear violent, but are not, and there are actions which seem almost harmless, but cause damage. These things can be hard to define because violence is only clearly understood by all parties when it becomes excessive.

The best definition for violence is actually quite simple. Violence is a force which threatens survivability. This can relate to people, animals, plants, objects and even ideas or constructs. There can be violence against entire populations, cultures or environments. When looking at violence committed against the individual, this is separated into three categories, which represent the different forms of survival: physical, mental and spiritual.

Physical survival requires working to maintain the life of the physical body. This involves to decisions related to extending the human life. Physical violence equates to reducing the survival of life, which can involve many factors such as damaging resources, physical abilities or normal function (usually through pain).

Mental survival requires working to maintain the life of the mind. This involves decisions related to mental health and sanity. Mental violence equates to reducing the survival of sanity or mental strength through some form of emotional damage. This type of violence is not always intentional, and can be caused by circumstances instead of individuals. 

Spiritual survival requires working to maintain the life of the soul or the spiritual nature. This involves decisions related to spiritual health and the transition to the next life. Spiritual violence is the most problematic and can be the hardest to notice. It is usually self-inflicted violence, but can be caused by others or a society as a whole. It includes the pursuit of evil, destruction of values, misconceptions about self-worth, creation of fear, fostering of hatred and lack of love.

Violence is not only associated with negative change, but with fast or immediate change. A violent idea can be something which quickly invalidates past ideas. Cultural violence involves a quick dismantling of local culture, customs, values or ideals. Violence is almost never a positive force. Even if it involves a thing which is ultimately right, it becomes violent when it is done so quickly that it causes damage in some form. Progressive attitudes fuel human advancement, but can cause violent changes if left unchecked, letting things move more quickly than what can be handled by the whole. 

Analysis of the Self: Personal Interaction

There are many forms of personal interaction (specifically intentional), and each falls into one of three categories: analysis, development and manipulation. Self-analysis is the focus of this post, and involves any kind of observation of the self. This kind of observation is normally pursued for the sake of goals by figuring out if one is capable of reaching the goal in the current state. Development exists as any kind of change in the individual that is brought about to reach goals, and usually follows self-analysis. Manipulation simply involves manipulating the mind or body in a way to reach an intended result, which does not require any kind of self-observation or development (outside of knowing you are correctly manipulating your body or mind).

Personal analysis often comes in the form of heavy criticism or praise. It is oft biased, which is problematic because an accurate view of oneself is needed to best perform other forms of interaction with the self, others or the environment. One can analyze one's total identity, personality, mind, body or memory (knowledge and experience). Each of these can play a part in the future conduct of one's actions and future growth (or even regression). The important thing is to be forgiving if this self-consciousness proves  sorrowful. The following article may be helpful for those who build up guilt from this necessary activity:

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/four_ways_to_constructively_criticize_yourself

Logic Puzzles: We All Have Reasons

"You don't need a reason to help people."

This is a well-meaning statement that is shared often in some fashion through social networks, yet it is untrue. All actions have at least one reason attached to them, whether that reason is known or not. Yes, you can help people without having a conscious reason why you should or should not, but all motion has its cause. You may have acted on instinct, you may have not known what else to do, or you may have been following your moral obligation to be helpful, but you had a reason.

That beginning sentence is used to reduce feelings of selfishness in those who have to think before they aid someone. These people may not have a clear value system that they follow to the letter, so the situation is likely to impact their actions. They must think about the pluses and minuses of aiding another. This phrase which I am writing about glosses over the issue. There is a clear problem in its logic. If you do not need a reason to help people, do you need a reason to not help people? Do you need a reason for any action whatsoever? The phrase brings up the question of which actions need good reasons, but does not go into explanation. Another problem also exists.

What the statement does is imply morality without going into any detail at all. It is never mentioned why helping a person is right, or why doing the right thing is good. It assumes the individual already knows these things, and that is careless. If a person already knows that helping is both right and good, then he or she will follow their morals and help others. Saying you do not need a reason can imply that you do not need morals, as morals are the main reason for moral action. And people who question whether they should follow such morals are likely to also question the morals themselves. I assume that there simply was not enough thought put into the sentence to understand the underlying issues, and that enough people understand that it speaks of selfish reasons only. Still, I wanted to talk about it.

This is not the only example of ambiguity among the many things that get passed around online. It is not the prime example of shortsightedness either. However, I do think it is worthwhile to bring to light the issues involved with these types of ideas, because they can be widely supported while not widely understood.

(I should add that a circumstance may indeed occur where one must think whether they should help another or not. Clearly, I talk about people who do not know why they should do the smallest of things for others, but there are cases where helping could prove problematic for the individual. Sometimes there is no clear answer.)

New Ideas: The Power of Water

I have always taken the research of Dr. Masaru Emoto with a grain of salt. After all, I do not recall him ever creating true scientific studies which follow the scientific method. There seems to always be some way for the results to be fudged. I have no doubt that our consciousness impacts the physical world, but the question is how much.

One thing I don't like about Dr. Masaru's experiments is that they help suggest that a label or piece of paper with human writing impacts the results. I do not believe such symbols hold any kind of value which could sway the natural world. I think the water is being influenced by the thoughts of the researchers looking at the water. The fact is the study was neither blind nor double-blind. The people taking pictures of the water saw these labels. If you believe that their thoughts can indeed impact the water, then this is a very strong conclusion.

Another thing to consider is the possibility that water can store information, though no one really knows what type of information this would be. When regular droplets are photographed, those who create the droplets all have similar looking droplets, but they differ between each individual and each received the same water at the beginning. The same kind of things happen when things are added to the water as well. One thing the water could be storing information on is energy. The energy produced by the people creating the droplets and the energy within the objects could create these new patterns in the structure of the droplets. The question is what such energy actually is. Really, I am just guessing about the possibilities, but I think this could may a use in technology in the future.

I would suggest looking for the documentary on water memory if you want more information. There is much varied research in the subject.

Logic Puzzles: God's Characteristics

Here I am suggesting a different set of definitions for God's attributes, which should provide a concise understanding of Deity and its many forms.

Omniscient: can know all potentials
Omnipotent: can actualize all potentials
Omnipresent: can experience all potentials

In the eternal future, all potentials can be synonymous with absolute potential, which could lead to absolute knowledge, absolute power and absolute experience. This at least partially describes the Deity Absolute. However, to the Father (or Trinity), knowledge and power are existential qualities, and omnipresence is certainly seen in God the Sevenfold.

It is important to note here the difference between existential and experiential traits. Let's use knowledge as an example. There is a difference between knowing something and being capable of knowing something. This can be further broken up into present and future tenses (knowing now, knowing in future, can know now, can know in future). The main question for now is: Does omniscience normally mean you know everything, or that you can know everything?

Knowing everything would be an existential trait (being absolute), acting as a part of your existence. Having the ability to know everything means that knowing everything is not necessarily existential, as you can choose what knowledge to possess. It is more like a potential absolute. Another existential trait could be the ability to learn absolutely everything, but this wouldn’t really make sense without time as you would know everything you want to know at all times. So in timelessness, I would think existential traits would be absolute traits, as a storage of knowledge which does not include everything would be finite. What am I really saying here? Well, there could be both existential omniscience and volitional omniscience (though volitional omniscience sounds contradictory outside of time).

Volitional omniscience sounds experiential, and may have to be to exist, but does not need to be categorized as time-dependent when dealing with what one knows now. Knowing something in the future is time-dependent. Coming to know something through time is experience. But will the Supreme come to know everything as time progresses into the eternal future? How about the Ultimate or Absolute? In other words, does Deity come to know everything as time passes, or can it choose what it learns through time? The former is an example of experiential existential omniscience, the latter experiential volitional omniscience. Asking whether either of these exists is the same as asking if the experiencing of either eventual or potential knowledge can act as an existential trait of Deity (assuming this is absolute eventual or potential knowledge).

Such traits can even be split up further into the realms of finite information, but would not count as omniscience at that point. Examples would include being forced to learn an amount of finite information, or being capable of learning this information. Still, this brings up one last topic: Is finiteness only an experiential trait, or can something be existentially finite? I am probably getting into the absonite territory now.

Are there real examples of each of these different types of omniscience? Well, probably not, but it does allow us to flex our brains a little and give such characteristics the attention they deserve.

Logic Puzzles: The Evitable and Inevitable

There are at least two common philosophical arguments about the properties of God. This post is about the idea that as long as God possesses omniscience, we do not have free will. The idea is that one would feel they have no way to make real decisions if God can tell them what they are going to decide. This is currently my solution to the problem:

Knowledge of a person’s actions does not remove freedom, it removes surprise. If one knows why they will do something, there is no surprise regarding the outcome. People usually know why they make decisions, and God always knows how time will unfold, which naturally includes what choices we make. If our choices came with genuine surprise, we would be at the mercy of random chaos, and would thus not be free. Human behavior would forever be incomprehensible.

Free will is the ability to think and choose, not the ability to do the unexpected. Even if God told you what you would do next, you would not make that choice because God said you would do it. You would choose based on your own goals, desires, thoughts, perception, etc. In time-space, a person could not truly know if what God tells them of their future is really true, as it is not yet an experiential fact for them. So it cannot be the ultimate deciding factor for one’s actions, and hearing this future does not imply fate, as fate occurs no matter the desires of the person.

However, God’s knowledge of His own future can be called fate, as He exists at all points of eternity and has knowledge of such all at once. He exists in time and outside of it. If God were to intervene at different times in time-space, from His perspective, He would be manipulating the future and past in the same moment. From the point of infinity, God is doing everything at once. True fate is the future being experienced in the present, not the knowledge of the future being known in the present, but this definition is time-dependent. Fate can only exist for God, and that is only when dividing Deity into separate categories of experiential and absolute forms of existence. In this case, fate acts more like a fact of future action, which inevitably holds true when all action is accomplished at the same time.


(194.7) 16:8.7 The relative free will which characterizes the self-consciousness of human personality is involved in:

(194.8 ) 16:8.8 1. Moral decision, highest wisdom.
(194.9) 16:8.9 2. Spiritual choice, truth discernment.
(194.10) 16:8.10 3. Unselfish love, brotherhood service.
(194.11) 16:8.11 4. Purposeful co-operation, group loyalty.
(194.12) 16:8.12 5. Cosmic insight, the grasp of universe meanings.
(194.13) 16:8.13 6. Personality dedication, wholehearted devotion to doing the Father’s will.
(195.1) 16:8.14 7. Worship, the sincere pursuit of divine values and the wholehearted love of the divine Value-Giver.

Logic Puzzles: Objective Freedom

I came across the idea that there can never be such a thing as an illusion of free will. Free will is either possessed or it is not. When one has the ability to ponder about their will, it is already the case that it is free to do so. While it is true that animals are pretty much free to do as they please, their will is not very strong. It is hard to think of other animals as free will beings because they are barely aware of their own awareness. After all, only beings with a great enough will are capable of benefiting from the final two adjutant mind spirits: those of wisdom and worship.

Understanding the fine line in ancient human history where individuals gain the freedom of will in order to separate themselves from instinct and the chemical processes is a tricky business. However, if we could know which early humans were given unique personality by the Father, it would be easy to know who gained free will and who was still under the influence of their body and the environment.

Look at consciousness the following way. For a finite animal with no survival value, consciousness is like a bubble inflating to a certain size and then popping. From personality comes freedom, and from a strong enough will and intelligence (plus the Father of course) comes the personality. Without the ability of the mind to make conscious choices, the personality and soul cannot grow. While the Thought Adjuster does play a role in this, it is still true that children survive death before they are indwelt and a soul is built. God can clearly re-personalize individuals who were not yet capable of surviving solely through a free will relationship with God, creating an immortal soul. Since the personality does not yet have a permanent vehicle of its own for death, God becomes that vehicle, or the medium through which the personality regains existence.

The fact is, once that personality is created, the bubble of consciousness should not pop, and this originally depends on the ability for that organism to have free will (to gain higher self awareness, at least potentially in the future). It is clear that all beings bestowed with personality from the Father share this freedom in decision-making, and it seems this freedom is absolutely necessary for the individual to even truly contemplate about the said freedom.

Thus, those without free will could never understand free will. The concept would not exist, for there would barely be a realm of thought to consider the matter. Only those free can believe that they are not free, and only those without this freedom cannot hope to understand that the freedom exists in the first place. There cannot exist an illusion of freedom because those without freedom cannot see the illusion and those with it cannot lose their freedom as it is guarded and upheld by God. The concept of an "illusion of freedom" is an illusion in itself as it tricks free-thinking minds into believing they may not be free. It is like prison bars made of air.

This logic depends on the following:
1. True free will for evolutionary creatures depends on all seven of the Adjutant Mind Spirits, or at least the final two. (I am not aware of the requirements for celestials, so this is only about humans.)
2. Free will is about the awareness of one's awareness and the freedom of thought, not about the outside choices or actions available to the individual.
3. God will always uphold and respect the free will it grants to others.

(Free will may require the gift of personality, which is not adequately discussed here.)