Is what you have described what you intuit as Reality? That being my point. The reference to “the undivided Whole” and “non-relative infinitude” were in support of my understanding of Reality (as it actually is).
Ultimate simplicity expressing as interdependent synchronicity from our relative points of view. The entirety of Reality unchanging.
Yes, Reality is the result of creative processes , not the causality.
I like Tegmark’s conceptualization that Reality is a “pattern” (wholeness) of various emergent physical densities, i.e. Gases, plasmas, fluids, liquids, elastics, solids.
…
An emergent behavior of a physical system is a qualitative property that can only occur in the limit that the number of microscopic constituents tends to infinity.more…
https://www.nature.com/articles/npjquantmats201624#
Ultimate simplicity expressing as interdependent synchronicity from our relative points of view. The entirety of Reality unchanging.
But then why call it God. A spiritual concept is contrary to a physical concept.
I agree with any concept that employs simplicity as a fundamental property.
There is no irreducible complexity.
However a sentient Agency (God) does conceptualize an irreducible complexity and that argues against the concept of reality, IMO.
re·al·i·ty, noun
Similar:
the real world
real life
actuality
truth
physical existence
corporeality
substantiality
materiality
Opposite:
fantasy
Sorry. Just can’t read these without thinking of
Interestingly, Chopra is part of the team (Hameroff, Penrose) that is researching the hypothesis of ORCH OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) that proposes a quantum aspect to consciousness as a function of microtubules.
I’ll have to leave you to sort out all these rules on your own.
What rules are you talking about? The only universal rules that I am aware of are mathematical rules that guide all physical relational interactions.
But therein lies the rub. The entirety of Reality is ever changing. Without dynamical change the universe would die . That is the predicted death of the universe, when everything stops .
Life itself is an expression of dynamical interactions.
What is the difference between a live beetle and a dead beetle?
Tegmark submits that there is NO difference other than the pattern the beetle’s molecules are arranged in.
Suppose the beetle is frozen to death. It still has all its original molecules. The only difference is the dynamic pattern the molecules are arranged in that makes a dead beetle alive or an alive beetle dead.
There is no magic sauce that imbues life into a dead thing other than the dynamics of the molecular patterns.
And I imagine the same can be said of everything in the universe as well as the universe itself.
There is a modern interpretation that may come very close to providing a TOE.
Its name is CDT (causal dynamical triangulation) which proposes a fractal aspect to the universe.
Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, is an approach to quantum gravity that, like loop quantum gravity, is background independent.
This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.
There is evidence [1] that at large scales CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.
I also have to point out that the reference was to the unique context of “The undivided Whole”. Not “a wholeness”. Makes all the difference, but write4u finds it inconvenient.
Your trolling is inconvenient and your posts seem dishonest to me, write4u may be inconvenient but the posts seem honest.
I had that discussion with him last time he was posting regularly. He stopped voluntarily. He seems to honestly believe there are differences in the meaning of the words he puts in bold and italics, and that somehow, we should see it.
You may want to familiarize yourself with Bohm’s work, before you try to make distinctions between “Wholeness” and “Undivided Whole”.
Do you understand the definition of 'undivided whole"
What you are talking about is an “irreducible complexity” And that is a result, not a causality.
This is the definition of “wholeness”
How do you define wholeness?
Wholeness is the quality of being complete or a single unit and not broken or divided into parts. … the need for wholeness and harmony in mind, body and spirit.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/wholeness
“dynamics of the molecular patterns.”
That’s punting.
“no magic sauce”
Sure okay, its electron transfer, but what does that mean?
The McCloskey Speaker Series features Dr. Eric Smith, professor at the Earth-Life Science Institute in Tokyo and the Santa Fe Institute. For most of the 20th century, complex biological views of evolution have been central to the way scientists think about the origin of life. But progress over the past 40 years in such fields as ocean exploration, microbiology, and planetary science has come together to suggest that life’s origin may have been built on a core chemical blueprint.
Dr. Smith argues that we need a new understanding of the nature of life, in which the dominant, Darwinian view of a “struggle for existence” comes second, and life at its core came about as a necessary layer of our maturing planet. Eric Smith began scientific work in high-energy physics, with Bachelor degrees in math and physics from Caltech, and a Ph.D. from the University of Texas in 1993.
His work moved increasingly into topics in complex systems, during appointments in the University of Texas and the Los Alamos National Laboratories, culminating in eleven years spent at the Santa Fe Institute.
At SFI he began parallel threads of work in non-equilibrium thermodynamics, economics and finance, and the history of human languages, and began studying the geochemistry, biochemistry, and evolution of the earliest life. He is currently a professor and Principle Investigator of the Earth-Life Science Institute in Tokyo, and external professor at SFI. His goal is to understand the origin and nature of the living state through the many windows that science provides on it: the physical, geochemical, biochemical, ecological, and evolutionary.
5:50 - So what I want to argue to you tonight is that the conceptual gap between the nonliving world and living world is not real
or it’s not where we have tried to place it in the past. The nonliving world is very active: it’s richly structured in its activity and the biosphere from the beginning all the way to the presentis embedded in detail in the structure of that chemical activity of the rest of the planet we haven’t recognized the connections because our ways of looking have been too small or they’ve been too short-term they’ve been on the scale of a human life or maybe we’ve looked in the wrong places
but particularly in the last 30 years things that we’ve learned in a variety of different disciplines are changing the way we ask those questions and those are the things that cause us to reevaluate what we think the nature of life is and what we’re trying to explain so tonight I want to cover four points first of all to understand the nature of life in the origin of life you have to understand its planetary context and that context is what I will call a great arc of disequilibrium …
Then it gets complicated 
From our free online course, “Cell Biology: Mitochondria”: https://www.edx.org/course/cell-biolo… Harvard Professor Rob Lue explains how mitochondrial diseases are inherited and discusses the threshold effect and its implications for mitochondrial disease inheritance.
Yes the dynamics are relatively simple. It is the numbers that make iy complex.
Nut no magic sauce , no mysterious elan vital. Eric Smith is absolutely right, the entire universe is dynamically active from Planck scale to galaxies, and life is one of its many dynamic expressions…
Since I was speaking from my own understanding, why would I consult with David Bohm first?
My reference to “the undivided Whole” was presented in conjunction with a reference to “non-relative infinitude”.
These were offered in support of my understanding that Reality (as it actually is) is the context worthy of the designation “God”.
I indicated that it was my personal choice to do so. I do however find meaning in the challenge presented when the cages of fundamentalists (atheist and theist alike) are rattled.
To repeat from a slightly different angle; The essential quality of the undivided context that is Reality (as-it-actually-is) is absolute infinitude.
That means it is NOT understood in terms of the relative infinitude of “a wholeness” , or any instance of things among other things. It is the context that expresses it’s nature in the infinitude of things (including relative infinities). Everything and Nothing
Logic only gets you so far in comprehending this. Intuition in equal measure is required (ultimately even meditation if needed).
Not sure I’d put that on the billboard
“Eternal stillness undertakes the progressive expansion of joy”
Oh wait, this one is even more on the money:
“Your consciousness transcends total acceptance of human observation”
A humble tip of the hat to Lausten.
This is rapidly declining into sophistry. You are entering woo-woo land of Ord and Or
Absolute infinity* is supposedly the limit of all transfinite ordinals. However, Sbiis Saibian stated himself that it is “not considered an official transfinite number” and “there is no such thing as a largest number”. He denotes this by a red Ω.[1]
**Absolute infinity cannot be also treated as a set of all ordinals, because it leads to Burali-Forti paradox. Instead, it can be treated as the proper [class]
(Class (set theory) | Googology Wiki | Fandom) of all ordinals, which is usually denoted by Ord or [On]**(On | Googology Wiki | Fandom). Unlike absolute infinity itself, the class frequently appears in googology. For example, it is used in the transfinite induction and in the definition of Little Bigeddon.[2]
Note that absolute infinity is a well-ordered class by itself if we identify it with Ord. Every initial segment of it is an ordinal.
However, the initial idea of absolute infinity by Sbiis Saibian was thinking about it as “the largest infinite number”, which is paradoxical and thereby the term “absolute infinity” is not commonly used in the meaning of Ord. In that case, it might be better to informally think about absolute infinity as some indefinitely large uncountable ordinal so that it is larger than any ordinal for which we can pick a reasonably large system of axioms in order to define it. Sbiis Saibian himself made a page showing that there are always larger “absolute infinities” in that sense.[3]
And what does any of this have to do with Scripture. Who is your prophet that has received is “divine inspiration”?
You have now already dropped the concept of “wholeness” and switched to “Absolute Infinities”, plural no less.
If you want to become spiritually involved , heed my advice and check out David Bohm.
I gave you a ling to his MAJOR WORK on “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”.
Use that poetic mind of yours and read a true “visionary”. You may just like what he had to say… trust me… 
This physicist was on par with Einstein and the rest of the Copenhagen crew but did away with the particle-wave concept altogether.
Well, I’ll listen to anybody who posits that cells have memory of prior expressions and should be right up your alley, no?
Are you talking wavy-gravy, or DNA, or microtubule memory, or the molecular memory in water molecules, or … , or …?
How do you figure that?
Can you explain?
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:257, topic:7931”]
Are you talking wavy-gravy, or DNA, or microtubule memory, or the molecular memory in water molecules, or … , or …?
Cells, remember that a cell’s shape memory itself is a function of microtubules .
I heard Chopra say this about 30 years ago before anybody was even talking about microtubules and at that time I thought that was a pretty profound statement, albeit somewhat vague.
Turns out he was very much on point and it has been proven that he was right. There are many single-celled organisms without brains or neural networks (but do have MT) that have short term memory , perhaps somewhat similar to DRAM in a computer.
Single celled Paramecium learns to navigate, Slime Mold has memory of time intervals
In fact, without microtubules our bodies would be puddles of quivering blubber.
How do you figure that?
Can you explain?
Your entire evolutionary history is contained in the DNA in every cell in your body and is a descendant of a long line of cells that formed billions of years ago.
When talking about grand theories of everything, it helps to build on earlier work. To be understood. Meditation yields different results for the individual. It’s not a form of communication.
On point about what?
If you could find me that quote where Chopra says thirty years ago that, “cell’s memory itself is a function of microtubules” I might take this more seriously. (although even then I’d wander, so what?) I made all sorts of predictions and connects 30 years ago that have also been shown to be more accurate than not. So what?
Cause it sounds to me more akin to how Astrological predications are also known to happen, so of course that’s a reflection on the predictive power of Astrology?
Okay, but I don’t get your connection.
And I really dislike that demonstration of Abrahamic Self-Centeredness.
As though human DNA was all there is to a human or how we got here.
Jumping from there to Brains, I saw this interesting video that underscores my point, that we are still at the discovery stage of brains, with the potential of unrecognized connections and mechanisms right under our nose.
Neurons often get all the credit for running the brain, but the work done by Ben Barres at Stanford University proved that glial cells are far more crucial to brain functioning than we had previously realized.
Although in a way this deserves it’s own post, considering what a fascinating person Ben Barres must have been.
