malai5

Dear Keith Russell.

Dimensional worlds, are a hierarchy of worlds. Lowest evolved to the highest. There are multi universes as well, multiverses.
The only truth is universal truth, for it knows all. Anything less than that is subjective and conditional truth.

Please check out this link.

http://www.qubit.org/people/david/Ar...Frontiers.html

Cheers.

Malai5.

jpbrooks

Then, again, how can it be known that any "growth" in the "Gift Of Design" takes place at all if there is no "yardstick" that exists independently from the "G.O.D.'s" changing nature? (This is similar to the situation that we have concerning "reference frames" in Physics with Einstein's "Relativity" theory.)

So perhaps the "G.O.D's" "growth" is merely a stipulation. But if this is so, then how can this "model" of the "G.O.D." be demonstrated to be accurate?

And it is not clear how the "G.O.D." could be the originator of a process that it is itself subject to. (Perhaps it is not really bound by the process. But the theory provides no reason to think otherwise.)

But when does the "reunion" take place if there is no end to the cycle of reincarnations?

But if the "G.O.D." is the final authority and is thus not forced by some entity outside itself to continue to determine the paths of "True Selves", why, if not out of a sense of right and wrong, does the "G.O.D." continue to do so? The "G.O.D.'s" ultimate reason for continuing the process could be its own enjoyment. But this seems unlikely because there are much easier ways to have fun than putting up with life "lessons".

malai5

Dear jpbrooks.

No ''yardstick'' is needed if the process is evolutionary by design and that is the way it is.
3D science seems to need reference frames, but as the frames of reference are of themselves artificial constructions only data that is subjective can be gained. The ''truth'' of the results is only as good as the frame of reference, which is a falsity to begin with.

In truth, any frame of reference tends to dictate the results gained, not the truth, but a subjective truth.

There is no way, in the3D world to demonstrate the accuracy of the stipulation, as no true frame of reference can be used.
Frames of reference, being a falsity, show the limitations of 3D science.

We believe, that G.O.D. the Gift Of Design is not subject to or bound by the process, it is the process.

The ''reunion'' is in fact a constant series of reunions as each run of lives ends and reunites, there are countless other ''runs'' in play at the same time. The cycle of ''reincarnations'' is eternal, but achieving higher and higher dimensional incarnations for the true self.

Yes, you could be right (can only use that word in the speculative sense), G.O.D. might just do it for ''fun''.
This is where we arrive at the ''Isness'' factor, G.O.D. just ''is'', there may be no ''why''. When we find out what ''is'' means, we will tell you and everyone.

Cheers.

Malai5.

jpbrooks

So, without a "yardstick", how do you know that the change in the "G.O.D." is "evolutionary" and not simply arbitrary or random?

"Reference frames" need not be artificial constructions, unless of course, you hold that everything in the world is an artificial construction.

This is not true for all frames of reference. "Relativistic" frames of reference in Physics, for example, can yield data that can be measured and recorded objectively.

So, without any way to test any belief that one can have about the "G.O.D.", how do you know that any of your ideas that relate directly or indirectly to the "G.O.D." are true?

I have to leave soon.

Keith Russell

malai5, even if Mr. Deutsch is correct, his 'multiverse' theory does not prove your claim that this universe is a limited '3-D' one.

His theory states that everything in our universe has a counterpart in every other universe. That means that no universe would be any more special (or any less '3-D') than our own. Each will be different than the others, based on chaotic quantum phenomenon, but no better and no worse.

There is certainly nothing in his theory that supports your psychobabble 'little self/big self' hypthesis...

Keith.