Matrixism - A religion based on The Matrix
- Thread starter DynoMight
- Start date
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Once again you invoke NDE and provide no basis. Once again I ask, what is your opinion of the work of Dr. R. Moody and Dr. E. Kübler-Ross?Geo said:
That isn't a validation, or a logical argument. That is a rhetorical dismissal without any basis.
Cie la vie.
Likewise you are free to believe what you wish, however fraught and based in fantasy, and it is clear you dig your heels in regardless of the evidence.
Last edited:
The modern mathematics I studied at university basically consisted of nothing but proofs. There are very few axioms.
Do you have any examples for what you mean by "modern math is not provable"?
- Messages
- 9,837
- Reaction score
- 2,621
- Points
- 108
Maybe equating physics with maths?
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
String theory
Multiverse
Physics still can't decide between dark matter and dark energy
Then there's the ever elusive Grand Unified Theory
It's not that the numbers don't add up, but that they symbolically represent speculation that inherently cannot be proven...yet. And even if they could, hypothetically, it doesn't change the fact that math is an attempt to point at reality, but is not itself the reality. That was the objection I raised to "the Universe isn't just made up of math... it is math." As though math *is* the reality. No. Math, on its best day, is a symbolic representation of reality, math is not the reality itself. It is a menu, not the meal. Or in Dawkian terms, it is a meme.
1 apple plus 2 apples equals 3 apples. If you actually have three apples in hand, good for you! Otherwise, this is symbolic. 1+2=3, we agree the math adds up, but a person cannot eat the equation.
Last edited:
Understood. I was just mentally on a super nitpicky level: the mathematics is perfectly fine, or as you say, "the numbers add up". It is our understanding of physics, expressed in mathematical terms, that is in those areas not yet profound enough.
The question whether math is reality is still fascinating and goes a bit deeper than just being a convenient description, I think. A description in words can be made in many languages, and of course we could talk about the electromagnetic field, say, in English or Chinese and arrive at the same understanding. But there really is only one set of equations that describe the electromagnetic field (you can use various notations, and transform them, but it is always the same set of abstract relations), and as such, I think, mathematics really is in a different league from ordinary language.
But whether math is just one step closer to reality, or whether it is reality proper - that seems to be the same question as whether consciousness (or ideas or spirit) are sustaining the physical universe, or thether it is the other way around, the physical universe being the environment for consciousness to arise.
Idealism vs. realism (or materialism, to use a different word). Which is just the topic of the Matrix movie, at least superficially (the universe surrounding the matrix is still physical, in the movie)
It seems you may lean more towards the realist/materialist side of things (given your apples example) which can be summed up as "existence precedes essence" or "material circumstances determine consciousness", or even, as the German writer Bertold Brecht bluntly put it, "First grub then ethics". I share this view.
The question whether math is reality is still fascinating and goes a bit deeper than just being a convenient description, I think. A description in words can be made in many languages, and of course we could talk about the electromagnetic field, say, in English or Chinese and arrive at the same understanding. But there really is only one set of equations that describe the electromagnetic field (you can use various notations, and transform them, but it is always the same set of abstract relations), and as such, I think, mathematics really is in a different league from ordinary language.
But whether math is just one step closer to reality, or whether it is reality proper - that seems to be the same question as whether consciousness (or ideas or spirit) are sustaining the physical universe, or thether it is the other way around, the physical universe being the environment for consciousness to arise.
Idealism vs. realism (or materialism, to use a different word). Which is just the topic of the Matrix movie, at least superficially (the universe surrounding the matrix is still physical, in the movie)
It seems you may lean more towards the realist/materialist side of things (given your apples example) which can be summed up as "existence precedes essence" or "material circumstances determine consciousness", or even, as the German writer Bertold Brecht bluntly put it, "First grub then ethics". I share this view.
Geo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 263
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 28
Eternity does not start with death.
"We are in eternity now."
Norman Vincent Peale
"Beyond and Back"
https://tubitv.com/series/3590?link-action=play&utm_source=google-feed&tracking=google-feed
Last edited:
Geo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 263
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 28
- Messages
- 9,837
- Reaction score
- 2,621
- Points
- 108
Like dreaming and waking, perhaps?
Geo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 263
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 28
Andre V NDE 7/25/2021.
"NDE 9243. Next, I asked, 'Any of you guys know where we are going?' They all pointed to the bright portal. One of them said, 'We are going to purgatory.' I asked, 'What will we do when we get there?' Someone said, 'This is where we give a review of EVERY decision we ever made while we were on earth, see how those decisions we made affected God’s plans, and see how it affected others people's decisions they made.' I replied, 'That is going to take YEARS.' The reply was, 'Time only exists on earth."
For me, the first step in this discussion is to draw a distinction between The Matrix, the movie, and The Matrix, a hotch-potch of borrowed ideas.
So, one, the movie:
The Matrix is a movie, A very good movie (the first one, the sequels, hmmm). Groundbreaking, in some technical aspects. As a story, it's as old as the hills. That it should give rise to Matrixism, however ...
Two: The ideas.
The web is awash with discussions of its sources, and all The Usual Suspects are there: Oracles, Plato, Descartes, Kant ... a smorgasbord of juicy morsels from all the world's traditions ... as the adage goes "There's nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9) and there's nothing new in The Matrix.
Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this goes to an onscreen reference to Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation.
Baudrillard saw late-twentieth-century consumer culture as a world in which simulations or imitations of reality have become more real than reality itself, a condition he describes as the "hyper-real". The point being, Matrixism is an example of the very thing Baudrillard is pointing out in his book! Matrixism is the blue pill ...
So, one, the movie:
The Matrix is a movie, A very good movie (the first one, the sequels, hmmm). Groundbreaking, in some technical aspects. As a story, it's as old as the hills. That it should give rise to Matrixism, however ...
Two: The ideas.
The web is awash with discussions of its sources, and all The Usual Suspects are there: Oracles, Plato, Descartes, Kant ... a smorgasbord of juicy morsels from all the world's traditions ... as the adage goes "There's nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9) and there's nothing new in The Matrix.
Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this goes to an onscreen reference to Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation.
Baudrillard saw late-twentieth-century consumer culture as a world in which simulations or imitations of reality have become more real than reality itself, a condition he describes as the "hyper-real". The point being, Matrixism is an example of the very thing Baudrillard is pointing out in his book! Matrixism is the blue pill ...
The idea of 'living in a program' is just a computer-age dressing of a very ancient notion.
The etymology of the term 'person' is uncertain, but possibly from one or two sources:
πρόσωπον (Greek: prósōpon): "face; appearance; mask used in ancient theatre to denote a character or, more generally, a social role"
(Etruscan: phersu): "A mask. A masked individual, often performing in funerary games. An actor."
In both cases tied in with the idea that humanity is the plaything of the Gods, or that the Gods act out the world through humans.
The etymology of the term 'person' is uncertain, but possibly from one or two sources:
πρόσωπον (Greek: prósōpon): "face; appearance; mask used in ancient theatre to denote a character or, more generally, a social role"
(Etruscan: phersu): "A mask. A masked individual, often performing in funerary games. An actor."
In both cases tied in with the idea that humanity is the plaything of the Gods, or that the Gods act out the world through humans.
No, I'd rather you tell me what you believe in your own words than watch a video by some person I don't know and have no relation to, who doesn't even know this forum exists. I am meeting you here, not a bunch of other people.
If one of those accounts is your own, of course, I'd watch it with great interest and we could have a conversation about it.
Thomas is grounded in his tradition, so if he is sure, it is because of his infinite respect for the luminous insight and wisdom of his elders.
Yours to prove, chum...
That's based on what? I see no evidence for it ...
Actually I have. The original is 'garden', not 'paradise', and Eden is 'a plain', it's a generic term. However, the garden is an earthly paradise, not a heavenly one, as the text is quite explicit in that regard, it is quite distinct from heaven, Scripture makes that point on numerous occasions.
(Genesis 1 is the creation seen hierarchically, from above to below. Genesis 2 is the same creation viewed horizontally, from the vertical axis outward on the horizontal plane.)
But not to detract from the garden or, indeed, the creation (as dualists 'spirit v matter' tends to do), God saw His creation and, on every day, saw that it was "good", indeed in its completion, "very good". It is perfect and paradisical in its own realm, that's the distinction.
I have expressed elsewhere that a non-Hebrew dualism is influenced by Greek thought, whereas the Hebrew account is more holistic.
Yes. St Paul sees Adam as "a living soul" (psyche); and Christ, the last Adam, a quickening spirit (pneuma)." (1 Corinthians 15:45) So the first Adam is a soul, who by Grace 'walked in the presence of God' – as God is present everywhere, we should say 'walked in the awareness of ...' and indeed discoursed with. Then Adam transgressed, and that Grace was withdrawn. Adam our father is then a soul, as we are souls, but the last Adam, of whom Jesus is the father (as it were) is the 'spiritualised soul', a state in fact more perfect, if such was possible, that the original Adam. I say this because what God 'makes anew' (cf Revelations 21:5), He makes better ...
Yes. Heaven, not earth.
I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is your assumption that the earthly paradise is the same as the heavenly. It isn't, were they the same, there would be no distinction.
There are a number of possible explanations.
Well, that's what we read into it, that's not what the text says.
I just don't believe what you believe, although I understand how the error arises.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
And yet again the simple question is avoided, so I must conclude that the person here invoking NDE isn't nearly as familiar with the subject as he puts on, since he is not familiar with the scholars who spent decades studying the subject, having invented and promoted the terms NDE and OBE. And since these folks are/were contemporary with Pastor Peale (who was more of a self help guru and rah-rah coach, not a scientist), it seriously begs the question. I don't dismiss Pastor Peale within his jurisdiction, but to trot him out under the pretext of "science" is far and away misleading. Also nothing new under the sun...
Morton's demon raises its ugly head...
Geo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 263
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 28
"
So we live today in the age of the computer Corbet. I suggest that the math is the reality.
These last days which we live in, the NDE is common knowledge Cino.
Thomas -
"I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is your assumption that the earthly paradise is the same as the heavenly. It isn't, were they the same, there would be no distinction."
Pre Fall Thomas they were the same.
What we read in the scripture is that when Jesus returns bodily, He will bring heaven with Him, and people will live for hundreds of years again, some living for a thousand years, as Adam did post Fall.
Then it is indicated Time will be no more again.
As, it is the greater reality and truth apart from the Matrix.
So we live today in the age of the computer Corbet. I suggest that the math is the reality.
These last days which we live in, the NDE is common knowledge Cino.
Thomas -
"I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is your assumption that the earthly paradise is the same as the heavenly. It isn't, were they the same, there would be no distinction."
Pre Fall Thomas they were the same.
What we read in the scripture is that when Jesus returns bodily, He will bring heaven with Him, and people will live for hundreds of years again, some living for a thousand years, as Adam did post Fall.
Then it is indicated Time will be no more again.
As, it is the greater reality and truth apart from the Matrix.
Bodies of Light
The idea of humans being creatures of pure light – based on the reference to Genesis 3:21 – prior to the Fall has a long history, but it does set up particular problems which have then to be tackled according to the original premise.
Origen seems to regard the "garments of skin" to signify the physical body, the original and essential state of man can be conceived as bodiless, for him it is pure 'νους' (Gk: nous: 'mind'), according to the Platonic ideal of hierarchy, and the idea that the physical world per se exists to catch the falling soul and arrest an otherwise infinite descent.
But as ever, Origen is not entirely consistent οn this issue. Origen suggests that even in the resurrection we will not have our bodies. The idea that the resurrection would be a return to the state of "pure intellects" (καθαρούς νοάς), Origen's (and philosophy's) preexistent souls.
(This sets up a later complex dialogue regarding the nature of pre-lapsarian humanity, and angels, as it would see there is no distinction, both are creature of pure intellect. When angels fell, however, it appears their very nature was corrupted. When man fell, his nature was no intrinsically corrupted, more he was 'wounded' and could be healed.)
Gregory of Nyssa, for example, understood the "garments of skin" (δερμάτινοι χιτώνες) to underscore the σαρξ (soma: 'body') – σώμα (sarx: 'flesh') distinction highlighted by St Paul. For Gregory, the "garments" of Genesis indicate the human condition underwent change through the fall, but not that man acquired a body as a result of it.
Gregory holds that the essential human nature is bodily. The question then is did Gregory, a devoted student of Origen, hold that the change resulting from the fall – the acquisition of the "flesh" – involves not the body but rather the nature of its materiality. Did Gregory hold the body as somehow essentially immaterial, a mere form (είδος), and that its materiality was added as a result of the fall? It would appear not.
Gregory (and his sister Macrina) develops how the body comes to recognise its own soul in order to be reunited with it at the resurrection. Gregory is quite clear that the resurrected body will be the same "thing" that we have in this life: "... this earthly flesh will be translated into the heavenly places together with the soul" (De or. dom. IV).The materiality of the body is a constant unto the life in the resurrection, even if the stuff of the body is in perpetual flux from conception to resurrection.
Our body evolves constantly as we grow from conception to old age, but the soul imparts the είδος (eidos: 'kind') and that is constant throughout our lives. Further, its composition changes more radically in the resurrection – yet it is ever the same body.
"Be not in despair", we are told, for although this bodily covering is now dissolved by death, you will see it woven again from the same [elements] (εκ των αυτών), not indeed with its present coarse and heavy texture, but with the thread respun into something subtler and lighter, so that the beloved body may be with you and be restored to you again in better and even more loveable beauty, again all based on St Paul.
Gregory's uses the metaphor of the seed's maturation into a plant, as St Ρaul's description in 1 Cor 15: 42-44 of the physical body, sown perishable, in dishonour and in weakness, which is raised a spiritual body, imperishable, in glory and in power – one and the same body.
The idea of humans being creatures of pure light – based on the reference to Genesis 3:21 – prior to the Fall has a long history, but it does set up particular problems which have then to be tackled according to the original premise.
Origen seems to regard the "garments of skin" to signify the physical body, the original and essential state of man can be conceived as bodiless, for him it is pure 'νους' (Gk: nous: 'mind'), according to the Platonic ideal of hierarchy, and the idea that the physical world per se exists to catch the falling soul and arrest an otherwise infinite descent.
But as ever, Origen is not entirely consistent οn this issue. Origen suggests that even in the resurrection we will not have our bodies. The idea that the resurrection would be a return to the state of "pure intellects" (καθαρούς νοάς), Origen's (and philosophy's) preexistent souls.
(This sets up a later complex dialogue regarding the nature of pre-lapsarian humanity, and angels, as it would see there is no distinction, both are creature of pure intellect. When angels fell, however, it appears their very nature was corrupted. When man fell, his nature was no intrinsically corrupted, more he was 'wounded' and could be healed.)
Gregory of Nyssa, for example, understood the "garments of skin" (δερμάτινοι χιτώνες) to underscore the σαρξ (soma: 'body') – σώμα (sarx: 'flesh') distinction highlighted by St Paul. For Gregory, the "garments" of Genesis indicate the human condition underwent change through the fall, but not that man acquired a body as a result of it.
Gregory holds that the essential human nature is bodily. The question then is did Gregory, a devoted student of Origen, hold that the change resulting from the fall – the acquisition of the "flesh" – involves not the body but rather the nature of its materiality. Did Gregory hold the body as somehow essentially immaterial, a mere form (είδος), and that its materiality was added as a result of the fall? It would appear not.
Gregory (and his sister Macrina) develops how the body comes to recognise its own soul in order to be reunited with it at the resurrection. Gregory is quite clear that the resurrected body will be the same "thing" that we have in this life: "... this earthly flesh will be translated into the heavenly places together with the soul" (De or. dom. IV).The materiality of the body is a constant unto the life in the resurrection, even if the stuff of the body is in perpetual flux from conception to resurrection.
Our body evolves constantly as we grow from conception to old age, but the soul imparts the είδος (eidos: 'kind') and that is constant throughout our lives. Further, its composition changes more radically in the resurrection – yet it is ever the same body.
"Be not in despair", we are told, for although this bodily covering is now dissolved by death, you will see it woven again from the same [elements] (εκ των αυτών), not indeed with its present coarse and heavy texture, but with the thread respun into something subtler and lighter, so that the beloved body may be with you and be restored to you again in better and even more loveable beauty, again all based on St Paul.
Gregory's uses the metaphor of the seed's maturation into a plant, as St Ρaul's description in 1 Cor 15: 42-44 of the physical body, sown perishable, in dishonour and in weakness, which is raised a spiritual body, imperishable, in glory and in power – one and the same body.
- Messages
- 9,837
- Reaction score
- 2,621
- Points
- 108
Other physicists disagree with Max Tegmark. A person needs to take-in a cross section of opinions before deciding. String theory and 'many worlds theory' are possible according to the math, they resolve certain difficulties but create other ones. They can't be shown to be actually the case.
The math predicts a multiverse containing possible infinite copies of me, not to mention all the close but not exact copies -- but because something is mathematically possible doesn't mean it is the reality. And the math breaks down at singularities. Did you watch the video? It's only 10 minutes and contains a lot of knowledge, presented in an accessible way.
Sabine Hossenfelder is very good, imo