The Cube Box hypothesis

[GeistFaust]

Now let's say there is a cube box, which exists at the center of the universe, wherever that may be. It is the source of all matter and energy, and is thus the source of all life. That said there is no empirical means through which to observe and validate the existence of this Cube Box as the source of all things. If it does exist than then we shall never be able to prove its existence and correlation with the lower processes of reality.


If it does exist than we will never know it to exist given the limits of our reality and the empirical instruments we have to measure it. The traditional conception of God according to Christianity defines him as infinite and a pure spirit. This concept is just as unprovable as my hypothesis regarding the cube box.


That said there is no possible means to prove God to be such, because we do not have the means to validate through our senses impressions and mental abstractions an infinite and pure spirit. This would defy our understanding of space-time, and the operation/functionality of our sense perceptions, which impresses an object with limits confined to it.



That is true and authentic information is gained in the context of objects, which represent a limit, and are limited by other limits all within space. If one ought to have faith in the conception of an infinite and spirit God with no physical/empirical existence than what is so ridiculous about believing the probability of a cube box being the creating force of the universe.



It makes as much sense, and just goes to show how much religious and theological propositions and claims are merely built on groundless realities, which have no application to the real world. That is no application to the empirical form and content of the thing, which includes both the concrete and abstract material of a thing. The probability of a cube-box existing out there is just as probable as the concept of God as given to us by Christians or any other religions.


It would be foolish to not juxtapose it as a probability of equal merit and value to the idea of all other "gods." This is to say that such a judgment concerning the existence of a God in the conceptual sense is merely a product of the imagination and sensibility in correspondence with its empirical perceptions of the real world. This is to say that God in the conceptual sense is a "formation" of the imagery created on the imagination through the sense perceptions of the real world, and through the analysis and abstractions of the intellect and mind.


It serves nothing but a defense mechanism for the information and knowledge of the world around us concerning our theoretical and practical systems of belief. It possesses no objectivity to say that the concept of God centers around an infinite, perfect, and all knowing spirit, because it is not applicable to reality pertaining to our understanding of the real world.


Its not grounded either in the real world as impressed by our senses, and if it is then its not capable of being grasped due to the dynamic nature of the empirical world and our environment. If so then the idea or probability of a cube box being the center and creating force of the universe is more probable.


This hypothesis has been constructed to show you how theoretical ideals concerning God are, and that their reality merely depends on the way the abstractions of our intellect and the concrete imagery of our imagination comprehends and understands the outer qualities of an object and the inner workings of its dynamics.


If the Christian concept of God is not capable of being measured or applied by empirical instruments then what is to say that such a Cube Box does not exist. That is we have no objective claim to the existence of God, and thus the probabilities of the concept of such a creative force are infinite.

If you faith in this cube box than it exists for you. But then again what knowledge or true information does faith win in an objective sense? This is the heart of the question here, and this hypothesis is more of an attempt to requestion all religious, metaphysical, and theological propositions.

[Zack_Fair]

Yes, we can't be sure if the Cube Box exists. Neither can we prove it doesn't. So, why should we believe that it doesn't?

[Stygian Cellarius]

That's right, no information regarding a deity itself has reached our senses. The existence of a deity is inferred, at best, by rational minds who "believe".

This reminds me of a thought experiment I came up with awhile back. Although, it doesn't attempt to get the same point across.

Begin thought experiment:
Humans will discover the principles of consciousness sooner or later and when we do, then we will be able to create true artificial intelligence.

Virtual realities have come along way in the past 60 years; from nothing to approaching life-like. What will that tech be like in 100 years? 1000?

Fast-forward a thousand years and upload AI into an avatar in virtual reality.

What will our reality, our spatial dimensions, be like to him if he had a means of experiencing it? If we forbid it and he could not, how could he have knowledge of our existence―his creators? We would exist completely outside of his reality. There would be no possible way for him to receive knowledge about us.

All of the above conditions are possible within a thousand years and that time frame is being generous, but the universe has existed for 13.5 billion years already! Now of course in order for that to be possible one would have to take into account how long it takes for conscious culture creating entities to evolve and advance that far, but even then, it seems there has been more than enough time for this process to have happened multiples times already. And what about the events that took place before the creation of our particular universe? Seems hard to believe that there is something unique about our universe and it's the first one to ever come into existence. It seems it is quite possible that this process of reality creating and consciousness creating has taken place millions of times over. We could very well exist in one of them.

When I ruminate on possibilities I like to invoke the concept of Ontological Design Space; a version of Daniel Dennett's evolutionary Design Space or Richard Dawkin's hyperspace that I expanded to include all Being. Instead of a vast theoretical "library" of all possible evolutionary configurations supportable in our universe, a vast theoretical "library" of all possible ontological configurations supportable in our universe, animate and inanimate matter alike, not limited to biological entities.

So many possibilities....

I'm not advocating theism by any means. I'm agnostic.

I hope the scope of my response doesn't serve to derail your thread. If so, my apologies.

[Arne]

My own Theory is that the Cube is inside the Head of the Creator so called Geistfaust.
He developed the Cube in his Mind..

[Osprey]

My own Theory is that the Cube is inside the Head of the Creator so called Geistfaust.
He developed the Cube in his Mind..

Hahahaha!!

[Arne]

http://www.bilderupload.de/bild.php/67045,2203NYSX2.jpg

[GeistFaust]

The information for the existence of such a deity is tentative at best, and if it does exist then it must accord itself with the operations and dynamics of nature and reality itself. The final flaw in this deity is that it can not cease itself from having to anthrmorphize itself or from being anthromorphized by humans in order to be comprehended as a concrete being. Spiritual or abstract phenomenon is not consistent enough with the laws of the empirical world in order for us to establish a consistent understanding of them or the meaning they might represent.


The inferences for such a belief in a God as constructed by Christianity is weak at best, and tends to ground itself on amphibolies and phenomenal illusions. These amphibolies are due to misperceptions of the nature of phenomenon, and the dynamics processes within it. There are too many vague assumptions and too little meaning contained in the context of theological material, which makes it incapable of being applied to reality in any meaningful manner.


This "belief" or act of faith as some might call it is nothing more than a defense mechanism, which has a personal connotation to it in relation to the experiences of a certain individual. That is such "beliefs" tend to be the product of our sensibilities overreaction to the material presented in the phenomenon of a specific religious experience, which could very well be a mental illusion, an amphiboly of the object, or a hallucination of a mad and chemically unstable mind.


Its been proven that a lot of people who have had religious experiences are in a chemically and neurologically unbalanced state, which reflects that of some people with real mental disorders. I don't think we ought to trust or put our faith in those people who claim to have access and knowledge to things of a higher and more divine nature.


I have known such people who have had made such claims, and they were inconsistent in the presentation of their information, and their experience always centered on an Ad Hominem or personal presentation of their experience. This led me to conclude that the experience itself was merely a misprojected filtering of a certain experience where certain neural wirings and chemical processes become imbalanced. This imbalanced lead them to believe what they "wanted" and "projected" themselves as experiencing.


A lot of these people love to invent such religious and divine encounters, and a lot of it is originates out of certain mental complexes. A lot of it is based on the correlation between subjective whims and the chemical and neurological process of the brain.


The overtly sensitive and sensibility oriented religious person believes in such an experience occuring, but is not willing to deny it as possibility due to the fact that their experience could be an affect of an unstable chemical process in the brain.


There is no absolute or grand principle of consciousness, but merely a variety of mechanisms and operations in nature, our mind/brain, and in the phenomenal world, which accords itself with a "causal law." A causal law mind you which applies itself differently in accordance with the shape, mechanisms, and dynamics of a specific object and phenomenon. We construct these universal laws merely as a way of calculating the probability of an absolute or principle of consciousness affecting this particular phenomenon under this and that series of conditions.


A lot of this delusional rush to find the principles of consciousness have compelled man to develop his understanding of the scientific and empirical world in much greater detail. In doing so we have been able to find a much greater deal of objectivity and truth, which arises from recognizing the restrictions necessary for scientific validity, and the natural self-restrictions which nature places on itself to regulate the nature and dynamics of phenomenon contained within it.



I think its rather dangerous to think that we will one day be apply a general law of the universe in accordance with causality onto all phenomenon, and through the utilization of a particular phenomenon or group of phenomenon. Its completely ridiculous, but those of the religious mentality in all their pseudo-scientific "might", latch too much onto a sick form of sensibility and spontaneous optimism.


This possibility of comprehending the universe itself within the gestalt and functional instruments of science is a pathetic hope. Each gestalt and functional instrument is shaped and crafted for a particular task in the sciences, and even a diverse task within a particular science. There is no "all communicable" gestalt or functional instrument of science, which will allow us to delineate the possibilities of science itself.


There is always that probability of it occuring, but I would claim the probable to be rather improbable in this case. It always appears probable to the dreamer or madman that he is experiencing this and that experience, but in all actuality when he awakens to reality he will realize he was chasing after vain illusions. This is the nature of religious people for the most part, and they are Modern day Don Quixote's, but the only difference is they fail to utilize their creative and imaginative energies for anything productive or constructive.


They utilize their creative and imaginative energies on the most sickly of things, and this is all done to win the reward of a new eternal world of creative and imaginary energies. Science task is not to create "gods" or to reveal the nature of God, but it merely deals with the dynamics and operations of the empirical world in accordance with a specific schemata of the empirical.



Its when we construct such ideas about creating the "gods" or revealing the nature of "God" that we get falsely optimistic movements like transhumanism. This false optimism usually ends up in leading to more destruction then creating positivistic movements in things we can and ought to know. The religious mentality is inclined towards self-destruction, and for it to meddle in scientific practices and functions is merely going to introduce flaws in thinking.


Just because evolution and science does not mutually exclude the possibility of the existence of God neither will it ever be able to validate or prove the necessary existence of God. That said some stupid religious people continue to say that the world must have order and meaning due to the nature of nature in regards to its operations and dynamics. Little do they know that if anything the operations and dynamics of the empirical world and nature would negate the possibility of God from existing, even in a probabilistic sense.


There are certain common laws off which nature functions, but there is also a lot of random and meaningless processes and formats in nature. This does mean they lack meaning in a natural or empirical sense always, but they negate the possibility of a divine order underlying it.


The two main illusions which give the person of the religious sensibility a definite conclusion for the existence of God being validated in nature is the succession of time, and the fixity or co-existence of objects in nature.


This is a poor and vague argument for such an existence, and it does not account for the diversity in natures, dynamics, and random operations and determinations which occur within the context of the succession of time(Law of Causality) as determined on the different objects co-existing in space-time.

[GeistFaust]

The Ontological possibilities in science and nature are many, but the ontological possibilities are irrelevant if we don't understand them in the context of Poesis. Poesis is Ontology for me, and it is through the internal and external structures of Poesis/Phenomena that objectivity and scientific truth is capable of being abstracted. The "possibility" of Ontology begins in the Poesis of scientific material, and it is on the basis of Poesis that we ought to construct formulations to self-actualize the Ontology of science in a manner which will advance and progress the individual and community.



There are a variety of ontological possibilities contained with the empirical and scientific, but we ought not to forget the limits imposed on nature in our investigations and actualizing of the ontological possibilities of Poesis through techne. The "limits" of our past studies have been delineated to show us the "possibility" of ontology within the current framework of science and technological matter.


This delineation of the limits creates new ontological possibilities in the context of our experience of reality itself, but merely in so far as it applies and accords itself with the basic dynamics and operations of reality itself. There is nothing beyond Poesis, and if there is then there is no meaning in trying to grasp it, since our tools are limited to actualizing the ontological in the context of Poesis itself.


We can not actualize the ontological possibilities and material of science without understanding it merely in a scientific sense, and in a manner which delineates itself on the basis of empirical means of investigation. We are merely running after illusions constructed by a delusional sensibility when we fill we can delineate all the ontological possibilities of science through the framing of multiple scientific schematas into a single techne framework of science.


There is no ultimate and overlapping meaning to the processes and dynamics found in science other than to serve our own means as humans whether they be for good or bad. If it does not accord with a functional utility or an objective operation then it can not be called science or have the ontological possibility of being considered science in the future.


We must understand science as merely a means of abstracting and actualizing the ontological possibilities in the variety of scientific materials and operations in order to create and delineate new ontological possibilities on the science. That said we ought not to abandon the groundworks of a normative mode of science and technology in order to construct a new understanding of the manner in which science works, and the different ways in which we can apply it to our reality as a tool of functionality and utility for our survival.

[poodletroglodyte]

1. Conception of God in Christianity was floating from the beginning.

2. God or gods shouldn't be objectively omnipotent. It isn't impossible that There are beings (from outer space) on such level of development that we could perceive they like gods. (Universe is much older than Solar system.) Actually godness is a matter of scale – You're a God for an ant. God for us, smart apes, may be (for example) quantum computer not necessarily infinite and a pure spirit.

3. Spiritual experience does not indicate any disturbance in brain work. I think that the best explanation of existing religious phenomena in all human communities is evolutionary. Simplify: People who believed in something (gods, sun, volcano, whatever) had more children than unbelievers and propageted their “religious” genes.

4. From definition, transgression to new paradigm isn't easy.

[GeistFaust]

@Poodletroglodyte
1. The whole concept of a God in Christianity floating from the beginning is flawed, because they try to define it and give it not just a subjective validity, but an objective validity. The objective form of the Christian God is merely an imagery or impression of the sensibility as an impression of the object of the senses. That is its merely a religious experience of the phenomenon of the world as it pertains to a particular function of the brain, which extrapolates and abstracts a specific object and its function to connect with the probability of God that expresses itself through a specific feeling or sensibility.


The Conception of God, and the claims about the human experience of God in Christianity is completely flawed and misconceived, because it does make a rigid distinction between the empirical experience itself, and the subliminal content or conceptualization of that experience. The other thing the Conception of God in Christianity fails to realize is the connection between the subliminal content or effect of a specific experience and its object with subjective consciousness and the object itself being sensed.


That is they can't realize that what they conceive of as God is nothing more than a specific projection of the subjective(anthropological) as specific reaction of a specific function of the brain and sensibility as it pertains to the objects of the senses. If there was a God who existed from the beginning then what is the use in defining such a being, since it appears to be completely irrelevant to the dynamics of the empirical, and to the objects of the empirical itself.


That is we have no firm basis, tools, or grounds upon which to validate or prove the existence of such a God other then merely the sensibility that arises from the subjective conscious as the specific function of its sensibility reacts to the objects of the empirical world around it. There is a static and dynamic component involved in this, and the dynamic determines itself through the static(Actual), and has impressions of the actual embedded in it, but this does not explain any preconceived notion of a God in the static nor an actual existence of such a God in the dynamic.


The dynamic is merely constantly presenting itself in the present nature of a specific being, which has a quiddity to it, but which only determines things on the basis of its own corporeality or the corporeality of the object of its senses. The Concept of God as projected by Christianity is merely a projection of the static into the dynamic, and the desire to self-actualize the self of the other in the subjective consciousness and self and to self-actualize the subjective consciousness and self into the dynamical self or the imaginary self.


It possesses no firm grounds other than merely a projection of the sensibility onto actual forms via the sense impressions received regarding those empirical objects. The process of consciousness and thought play a role in shaping the way content appears and is presented to us both in our sense impressions of the object around us, and the sensibilities projection of self onto the objects of the world around itself.


That is to say the only possible ways to ground or approximate such a concept of God is through the subjective processes of consciousness, thought, and action, which are limited to the confines of the empirical, and the empirical fails to reveal or show the existence of a God as conceived in Christianity. The dynamic nature of the actual ought to have negated the existence of such a conception of God a long time ago.

Ironically its the dynamic process of nature as determined in the human person and its sensibility, which supports the grounds for the possibility of the existence of a God as conceived in Christianity in the human man. This is a flaw and mistake of the human consciousness as it pertains to the way it thinks and processes the nature and content of its sense impressions and sensibility.


Its a flaw and mistake which is constructed, projected, and applicated by the nature of the sensibility and sense impressions of the static world of the empirical. There will always be an association though with certain causal forces and dynamic forces as it pertains to the senses reception of the objects of the world, due to the fact that their are specific causal forces and dynamics, which appear in specific object or combinations of objects.


That said these associations don't determine any consistent causal law or natural dynamics, which apply them to specific objects or groups of objects, but reveal only the divergence and variance in the mechanics and nature of phenomenon in general as it appears to our senses.


2. If God or gods should not be objective omnipotent then what is the use of the Christian concept of God, and most importantly is their any use in attempting to deduce or induce such a being. That is that its just as useless to try to deduce or induce the existence of a being that is not objectively omnipotent as it is to try to apply the same approach to the concept of God in Christianity.


We don't have means to affirm the objectivity or subjectivity of the existence of an omnipotent, because we are in a "limited" world, where the nature of our tools of investigation and understanding of things is limited to the appearances, content, and information of the objects of our senses. There are always new appearances, content, and information arising in specific objects or groups of objects, but this does not delimit or "change" how much we can know about something, but it only extends about what we know.


It also extends upon what we know not in an actual or fixed sense as it pertains to specific apriori laws or factual existences, but to the dynamic organon or canon of reason, which is redetermining and reconstructing its content and information via the causal laws of nature. That is its merely a growth and extension of information, content, and appearance, which is like the growth of individual's physical being from a specific age to another age.


Its not something affirmed by the intellect or pertaining to an extension of information in the mind, but rather to the object itself as separated from the mind itself, but affecting it nonetheless. Also I think using analogies to point to the existence and conception of a God as conditioned in Christianity to be petty and frivolous, because we ought to use the nature or dynamics of the empirical as a means to abstract or derive a probable notion and concept for the existence of something too great to be imagined.


If God is too great to be imagined then he has obscured himself from revealing or showing his true conceptual nature, and thus has a flawed nature, because he does not accord with the natural presupposition of him. I think this flaw is more of a matter of our sensibilities understanding and conception of God as it pertains to our sense perception of the objects of the empirical.


That is it is not a problem with the actual content and forms contained in the empirical world, but a dynamic problem, which exists simply in the human sensibility. That is the human sensibility, unlike other beings, is self-conscious of itself in such a manner that it projects its own existence into the beings of the world, and presupposes a connections with "being" itself.


You could call this an extreme or sublime form of egotism which exists in humanity, but its merely an instinctual reaction to our environment in so far as it pertains to supplying ourselves with the basic and fundamental necessities and desires of life. The "position" of the empirical and the subjective conscious though is the fundamental grounds upon which any concept of God operates, and is the basis upon which the functionality and nature of such a concept applies and derives itself.


That said we have only talked about the functionality of God as an abstract concept, but there is no means to validate his existence as an empirical being. That is the Christian interpretation of God appears to have no application or accordance with the empirical itself and its dynamics, but rather is missing from this whole scene.


Its why I believe that deism and agnosticism are the healthiest modes of approximating or understanding the concept of God as it pertains to our sense perception of the world around us, and our experience of the empirical items of our consciousness.

The empirical limits and blocks us from applying such measures or instruments to validate the existence of such an existence of God, and the actual forms of the empirical operate as self-alienating or isomorphic substances in so far as it regards the "possibility" of an existence of a God conceived in Christianity. I believe that if a concept of a God existed as correlating to your analogies then he would be the worst of all egotists, and there would be no use in contemplating to what amounts to an obscure and meaningless existence of God.


3 and 4. There might be a religious gene, and their is a definitely a part of the brain, which is connected with stimulating religious experiences or the desire for it. Their might be an intrinsic human desire for a religious experience as determined by the brain and sensibility, but it does not validate the uniformity of God as conceived in Christianity. That is because their is going to be a variance and divergence in the conscious approximation of such an intrinsic desire in accordance with the variety of mechanics in nature, the environment, and culture, which will determine the various objects of a specific setting in a variety of different manners.


I think that their are different types of spiritual and religious experience, which correlates to the nature and personality of a specific individual as it is affected and "operating" within a specific culture, environment, and group/family orientation. There are so many factors at play, and so many factors to compute in accordance with a constantly changing and dynamic phenomenal world, as contained in space-time.


This makes it impossible to fix a specific religious or spiritual expression, which indicates the uniformity of the qualities of a God conceived in Christianity. It just merely reveals a divergence and variance in evolutionary expressions, which are determined on the basis of past evolutionary expressions in accordance with the dynamics and mechanics of nature itself.



That is there no possible way to prove that a religious gene has anything to do with the extinction of certain groups of humans, and the survival of certain others. It has everything to do with survival more or less, and those symbols which you mentioned pertained to an object which represented life and survival in some manner.


They were forms which inspired and motivated mankind to continue to live, and it was their successive continuity as consistent forms in nature, which convinced mankind to continue to successively continue within the constructs of space-time, as determined within time itself. I believe that some religious experiences are disturbances or eruptions of specific parts of the brain, which creates an overreaction and superficial interaction or impression with the material of our sense impressions and life experiences.


This is something which occurs in some parallel manner in our dreams, and in the behaviors and experiences of the madman. There are some religious experiences and expressions which mimic certain psychological disorder, and are probably being determined or affecting the brain and sensibility, which is similar to a psychological disorder.


That is we can probably say that the expressions of a specific religious experience as expressed in a person's mode of behavior or perception of the world around them is a psychological or mental malformation of the content of the empirical world and its appropriate dynamics.


That is its merely a perception of something which has no natural basis in the empirical, and which appears to contradict the natural law and the causal law itself. There is no "meaning" or application that a religious experience can have as it pertains to the empirical world, other than what accords with our striving and internal desire to survive, and to experience the world in a subjective manner.


Also there is no possible way to define a transgression to a new paradigm, because its something that is undefinable. Now their might be certain causes or factors for a specific transgression to a new a paradigm, but this will vary in accordance with the actual content and appearances of the phenomenal world as well as the dynamics and mechanics of nature and the environment itself.


Its useless to define something which is so obscure and vague, unless that definition accords with the processes and content of the empirical world, which our perception is limited to. The empirical world is itself limited to the appearance, content, and information of its being, and the dynamic shifts in these elements and components of its being.


The dynamic and causal world is limited to an apriori nature contained within the appearance, content, and information of the world, which can not always be verified to exist through the inquiries and investigations of the natural sciences. The dynamic and causal world is also acting off the actual forms and content of the appearances in the phenomenal world as determined in the internal structures and nature of a specific phenomenal expression itself.


That is the dynamic and causal applications and mechanic processes of the empirical are limited to the divergence and variance of evolutionary determinations and processes, which negate the possibility of uncovering or providing any definite conclusion on the nature of a transgression to a new paradigm shift.


This is the missing link so to speak, and I don't think that in this missing link we will find the concept of God, but merely the dynamics and causal nature of evolutionary processes determining themselves. This is all done in accordance with the internal drive, which exists in all nature, to survive, and this necessitates the adaption of specific forms of life to the specific nature of the environment, climate, and nature of its setting in general.