"Eko sad, Dwiteeyo nasti"
What exists is one, there is no second.
Plan? Contact Heisenberg. He is the disposer of all plans.
That really is not quite right. Heisenberg and the Copenhagen Interpretation have a much more esoteric meaning. “Everything can happen, except that which is forbidden.” There are other (more commonly held) quantum interpretations which hold that everything does happen (the "hard" multiverse theory).
In the first a plan could happen in the second, any plan happens.
If God is all knowing, all powerful, etc., etc., would he be locked into the physics of the universe he created? Or could he act outside the laws where we cannot.
Just curious. Cause if there is a God, and if he has a plan, he has to be able to work beyond the limits of the physical universe. No?
What if the plan is just to create new and unique experiences for us and h!rself? We really do not fully comprehend these “physics of the universe.” So we are on shaky grounds when saying something is or is not within the “limits of the physical universe.” The raw probabilities of quantum a la Heisenberg were only discovered 100 years ago and Einstein never did believe in them.
So do we mean that all wars, all atrocities, all injustices, all slavery, all murders, all rapes, all pedophilia, all earthquakes, all volcanic eruptions, all tsunami, all typhoons, all floods, and all famines, all diseases, and all other mishaps, all through the history, are according to this being's plan? What a grand plan! Must be for some grand purpose, I suppose? Do we worship a God or Satan (though there is no Satan just like there is no God)? I would hate to be a son or messenger of such a God if he existed.
Well, wars, atrocities, injustices, slavery, murders, rapes, pedophilia are functions of the will of individual mean and women, our free will to do good or bad. Why is g!d responsible for that? Earthquakes, volcanoes, comets, super-novae are functions of the world as created. Could it work as well as it does without them? The answer to one (the role of super-novae in creating all elements heaver than iron) is it would be impossible for life to exist without it.
ACOT I was referring and responding to Aup's comment that Heisenberg demonstrates no plan is possible. So my remark that if there is a Supreme Being with no limitations, the physics of how the universe works would not limit him. He created the laws that govern how existence works, but doesn't have to abide by those laws, being Supreme and all.
Miracles would definitely fall under this concept. In that they bend the rules by how things work in the physical universe.
Heisenberg does not demonstrate no plan is possible. It may work, or it must work, depending on how one reads Heisenberg (see my first paragraph). It really depends on what you mean by “Supreme” and “Miracles” and “physical universe”, doesn’t it? Supreme may mean a co-existent being (see Rosenzweig or Whitehead) or a co-operative being (see Kazantzakis) or a co-equal being (see the Tirthankaras or the Buddhas).
For me the existence of a Tirthankara or a Buddha (or a Laozi or Chuangzi or Jesus or BeSHt or Bahá’u’lláh or Moreshi Ueshiba or Ham Sok Han is enough of a miracle. Let alone a new born foal or a butterfly crawling out of a chrysalis.
And physical universe? This is too limiting, one has physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual experiences… so the universe is not just physical (unless you believe all emotions and thoughts and visions are functions of what we ate for dinner last night). Yes, that does make things simpler, I suppose, but it fails to explain qualia, or great art, or great love, or Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, or my experience of g!d.
So I believe ACOT is thinking in not as quite so confined a mode as either Aup or GK. Who is right, who is wrong? I do not know, nor can I come up with some “Absolute Point” (or even conceive of one) whereby one can judge that. We are just thinking along different paths.
