COMPLEXITY OF DREAMBALL vs MEATBALL THEORIES

     Dennis,

     I am interested in all this complexity you claim you see in the
dreamball model.

     Your physical universe is where all the complexity lies, the static
of our theory is very simple, mechanically at least, no moving parts.

     All our static is saying is that your physical universe of endless
kinetic complexity is a virtual universe projected in the mind of God.

     That God creates the world as static, and then jumps into it as
kinetic to become parts of his own creation.  Thus only he suffers what
he created.  There are no ultimate cosmic victims.

     The world is projected as a graphics rendition in the static body
of God, a glow in the dark display in the night of the void.

     The 'jumping in' is not physical, but a consideration change as to
who or what is cause and who or what is effect.

     Something static pretending to be something kinetic.

     The theory is lacking in exact understanding of HOW any of this
could happen, but science has no clue HOW anything ultimate happens
either.

     But the dreamball theory immediately suggests a way out, so it can
be tested.

     The virtual universe as real as people want it to be as long as
they are in the virtual reality, but the actuality of it is, that the
phyiscal universe doesn't really exist any more than an arcade game
world really exists.

     Sort of like second life on the internet with avatars and
everything.  Your bod is a graphics rendition avatar in your mind's eye.

     Very simple.

     And allows for OT powers in their proper place and form because OT
powers are used to make the virtual reality by definition.

     If someone or thing can put a mountain there, he can cast it
sideways etc.

     What is the problem really Dennis?

     Besides the absurdity, ridiculousness, preposterousness, and
insanity of it?  (Guardian dicoms)

     WHAT SCIENTIFIC MEASURABLE DO YOU HAVE THAT INDICATES THE VIRTUAL
PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS NOT VIRTUAL BUT ACTUAL?

     Have you ever seen any part of the actual physical universe except
through the virtual helmet of your consciousness?

     Homer

In article  you wrote:
>homer@lightlink.com wrote:
>
>>   Not asking for agreement, but do you understand Dennis?
>
>I understood for many years.  But this construct requires too much,
>assumption upon assumption, upon assumption for me to go along with
>these day.
>
>I prefer the simple direct approach.  If it's not quantifiable, it's a
>guess.  Now I don't mind guessing about the nature of existence and
>consciousness.
>
>But that's all it is.  If you find comfort in the complexity of it. If
>all the whirring, spinning and laddered parts fitting together so
>snugly in your mind help you get to sleep.
>
>Then that is a benefit of your belief.  I won't call it delusion
>unless you claim it's real.  Which I guess by your own admission you
>most certainly don't.
>
>Anyway, yah.  I see where you're coming from.
>
>D
>
>-----------------
>
>"I was one of those." - Leonard Cohen


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com    In the Line of Duty    http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Jan 27 13:58:10 EST 2010