• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Was Julius Caesar the real Jesus Christ?

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Thanks for the book recommendation AI. I was wondering, have you read the Philokhalia? It's an anthology of Eastern Orthodox Christian monastic philosophy. I'm reading an abridged version of it right now, and I must say it has a very different flavor from the Christianity that has descended from the Roman Church. There's much less emphasis placed on the notion that the Jesus' death on the cross was a form of substitution, and a lot more emphasis placed on the notion that the goal of spiritual practice is refining the heart and intellect to live as Christ has, and achieve Theosis, or the deification of the mind and body. I'm reading an abridged version, and it spurns me to try and get a copy of the whole thing. I'll try and find some quotes to share from it later on. Consistent throughout it is the notion that "God became Man so men could become like gods". Which in more concrete terms I interpret as "the higher information field has created a material world with which it is able to interface, inform, and cultivate so that the awareness of those forms may in turn grow to participate in the higher realities as equals with it someday." (hope I didn't butcher it).

Anyway the idea of using Christ an example by which to live definitely receives new dimensions with the Caesar aspect, and how much biographical information we have on him. Even the small anecdotes, a la Samenow, show just how no act, thought, or behavior is too insignificant for Virtue to leave its mark on it, and so serve as an example of how to live.
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
whitecoast said:
Thanks for the book recommendation AI. I was wondering, have you read the Philokhalia? It's an anthology of Eastern Orthodox Christian monastic philosophy. I'm reading an abridged version of it right now, and I must say it has a very different flavor from the Christianity that has descended from the Roman Church. There's much less emphasis placed on the notion that the Jesus' death on the cross was a form of substitution, and a lot more emphasis placed on the notion that the goal of spiritual practice is refining the heart and intellect to live as Christ has, and achieve Theosis, or the deification of the mind and body. I'm reading an abridged version, and it spurns me to try and get a copy of the whole thing. I'll try and find some quotes to share from it later on. Consistent throughout it is the notion that "God became Man so men could become like gods". Which in more concrete terms I interpret as "the higher information field has created a material world with which it is able to interface, inform, and cultivate so that the awareness of those forms may in turn grow to participate in the higher realities as equals with it someday." (hope I didn't butcher it).

Anyway the idea of using Christ an example by which to live definitely receives new dimensions with the Caesar aspect, and how much biographical information we have on him. Even the small anecdotes, a la Samenow, show just how no act, thought, or behavior is too insignificant for Virtue to leave its mark on it, and so serve as an example of how to live.
I haven't read it, but it sounds interesting. Yeah, there's not too much emphasis on the imitation of Christ in the West. That last bit was very well put - thanks for that!
 

kenlee

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
whitecoast said:
Consistent throughout it is the notion that "God became Man so men could become like gods". Which in more concrete terms I interpret as "the higher information field has created a material world with which it is able to interface, inform, and cultivate so that the awareness of those forms may in turn grow to participate in the higher realities as equals with it someday."
This is a very good observation and I'd just like to expand on it just a little bit (while these thoughts are still fresh in my mind) although I don't wish to derail this thread which is not about physics but it's about Caesar. I always thought that we basically live in a digital unverse that basically blinks on and off where the universe of matter/energy shares itself with the non material information realm so that the non material information field interleaves and transmits itself from the highest levels of material reality to the lowest giving the universe form. In other words the form and formless worlds sharing the universe via 'on' and 'off.' Not sure how accurate my above statement is though.

But I wonder. If we look at quantum forces as holding matter together and we view matter/energy as the "stuff" of the universe that gets in-formed by information then is there a non material "stuff" of the non material universe? I could only think of the universe of matter/energy as having it's basis/genesis in relationships but what holds the relationships together? Is there a non material "stuff" that is the basis of relationships that holds the relationships together thru which the existing universe can take form? Maybe this "stuff of relationships" is the information field itself that holds the universe of relationships together?

Quick example: I picture in my mind a circle. What holds the relationships together in my mentally envisioned circle that makes it a circle such as, for example, pi where there is a numerical relationship between the circles diameter and circumference? Could it be information that, in a matter of speaking, is the "stuff" that holds the relationships of the circle together making it a circle? Well, FWIW. I don't know, just thinking aloud here but I found this (below) that interested me that gives an interpretation of Wheeler's digital universe of "it from bit."

-https://plus.maths.org/content/it-bit
Wheeler's "it from bit" concept implies that physics, particularly quantum physics, isn't really about reality, but just our best description of what we observe. There is no "quantum world", just the best description we have of how things will appear to us. As Niels Bohr, one of the founders of quantum theory, said:"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature."

Anton Zeilinger, Director of the Institue for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, explains: "My interpretation [of "it from bit"] is that in order to define reality, one has to take into account the role of information: mainly the fact that whatever we do in science is based on information which we receive by whatever means."

But can we go one step further? Can we say reality is information, that they are one and the same? Zeilinger thinks not: "No, we [need] both concepts. But the distinction between the two is very difficult on a rigorous basis, and maybe that tells us something." Instead, we need to think of reality and information together, with one influencing the other, both remaining consistent with each other.

Perhaps the answer will follow Einstein's great insight from one century ago when he showed that you can't make a distinction between space and time, instead they are instances of a broader concept: spacetime. In a similar way, perhaps we need a new concept that encompasses both reality and information, rather than focusing on distinguishing between them.
 

John G

Dagobah Resident
kenlee said:
This is a very good observation and I'd just like to expand on it just a little bit (while these thoughts are still fresh in my mind) although I don't wish to derail this thread which is not about physics but it's about Caesar. I always thought that we basically live in a digital unverse that basically blinks on and off where the universe of matter/energy shares itself with the non material information realm so that the non material information field interleaves and transmits itself from the highest levels of material reality to the lowest giving the universe form. In other words the form and formless worlds sharing the universe via 'on' and 'off.' Not sure how accurate my above statement is though...

Well, FWIW. I don't know, just thinking aloud here but I found this (below) that interested me that gives an interpretation of Wheeler's digital universe of "it from bit."

-https://plus.maths.org/content/it-bit

...Anton Zeilinger, Director of the Institue for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, explains: "My interpretation [of "it from bit"] is that in order to define reality, one has to take into account the role of information: mainly the fact that whatever we do in science is based on information which we receive by whatever means."

But can we go one step further? Can we say reality is information, that they are one and the same? Zeilinger thinks not: "No, we [need] both concepts. But the distinction between the two is very difficult on a rigorous basis, and maybe that tells us something." Instead, we need to think of reality and information together, with one influencing the other, both remaining consistent with each other...


You can of course move this physics discussion to another topic if it ends up too long. There is Clifford algebra for information (that Ark related to a Cs comment about free algebra) and there is group theory math for matter/energy like the conformal group Ark uses for gravity. One can derive group theory from Clifford algebra. Ark's conformal group comes from the Cl(6) Clifford algebra bivectors. It's like low energy third density group theory for matter/energy is a symmetry broken version of the highest energy 7th density information. It's like when you dial the energy way up, you no longer have energy as we know it, you have just information for 7th density and even for our low energy 3rd density matter, you still have math derived from information theory math.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

In physics and cosmology, digital physics (also referred to as digital ontology or digital philosophy) is a collection of theoretical perspectives based on the premise that the universe is describable by information. According to this theory, the universe can be conceived of as either the output of a deterministic or probabilistic computer program, a vast, digital computation device, or mathematically isomorphic to such a device.

The operations of computers must be compatible with the principles of information theory, statistical thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics. In 1957, a link among these fields was proposed by Edwin Jaynes.[2] He elaborated an interpretation of probability theory as generalized Aristotelian logic, a view linking fundamental physics with digital computers, because these are designed to implement the operations of classical logic and, equivalently, of Boolean algebra.[3]

The hypothesis that the universe is a digital computer was proposed by Konrad Zuse in his book Rechnender Raum (translated into English as Calculating Space). The term digital physics was[citation needed] employed by Edward Fredkin, who later came to prefer the term digital philosophy.[4] Others who have modeled the universe as a giant computer include Stephen Wolfram,[5] Juergen Schmidhuber,[1] and Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft.[6][not in citation given] These authors hold that the probabilistic nature of quantum physics is not necessarily incompatible with the notion of computability. Quantum versions of digital physics have recently been proposed by Seth Lloyd[7] and Paola Zizzi.[8]

Related ideas include Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker's binary theory of ur-alternatives, pancomputationalism, computational universe theory, John Archibald Wheeler's "It from bit", and Max Tegmark's ultimate ensemble.

Digital physics suggests that there exists, at least in principle, a program for a universal computer that computes the evolution of the universe. The computer could be, for example, a huge cellular automaton (Zuse 1967[1][9])...
Clifford algebra relates to cellular automata too.
 

JGeropoulas

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
For those not on the cutting edge of tech gadgetry, Alexa is an interactive device connected to the web which answers it's owner's requests for information (e.g. Alexa is it going to rain today?"). It also follows commands related to connected devices (e.g. "Alexa cut on the lights"). Two guys recently posted a video on Facebook of them grilling Alexa for answers to demonstrate the liberal bias in her programming. Related to this thread, one really stood out. When asked who Jesus Christ was, Alexa said he was a fictional character. When asked who Mohammad was, Alexa said he was a great prophet.

https://www.facebook.com/vin.poston/posts/1703627366373122