Yes Krshna, God does play dice... by changing the boundary
conditions..
system(s) of the universe are disrupted by the continuous
intervention of Will so that the world is not governed by Entropy
alone as it is in closed systems where there are no living beings..
Now what did i say? It was not to be revealed yet...
--- In sathyasaibaba2@
<krshna78@..
>
> YEs Enisten was Wrong when he said
> " God Does not Play Dice "
> He does..
> there is Order in Chaos
>
> Intersting CHAOS Theory
> and The Explanations of
> the nobel Lureate
> RICHARD FYENHAN
>
>
>
> --- In sathyasaibaba2@
> <conscientiousobjec
> >
> > The paradox is that even within disorder, there is order.
> >
> > This is the basis for the theory of all lottery algorithms.
> >
> >
> > --- In sathyasaibaba2@
> > <chittaranjan_
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In sathyasaibaba2@
> > > <krshna78@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > CHitta, and all,
> > > >
> > > > WHen you have time, post those messages of yours
> > > >
> > > > and on ENTROPY and Spiritual ALCHEMY.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ENTROPY, DAWKINS' SYNDROME AND AISHWARYA
> > > ------------
> > >
> > > There is in science a principle called the Law of Entropy that
> > states
> > > that the world continuously tends to chaos and disorder.
Evidence
> of
> > > this universal tendency towards disintegration is everywhere -
> cars
> > > rust, stereos break down, people become old, mountains erode,
and
> > > buildings collapse. If one were to place the parts of a clock
in
> a
> > box
> > > and shake it, the probability of the pieces falling together as
a
> > > working clock is so negligible that it can be discounted. Yet,
if
> we
> > > open our eyes and look around us, we see that the principle of
> > entropy
> > > is being violated with such impunity that it is astonishing
that
> we
> > > don't see it. The evidence is all around us - ordered
structures
> of
> > > beehives come into existence, honey is gathered from diverse
> flowers
> > > and accumulated, anthills come into being, seeds germinate and
> grow
> > > into beautiful trees, cars get made, particles of sand turn
into
> > > microchips, aeroplanes fly and reach their intended
destinations,
> > > activities coalesce into coherent organisations, human beings
are
> > born
> > > and grow - the list is endless. The loci of these tendencies to
> > order
> > > are living beings - wherever we find life there we find that
the
> > most
> > > wondrous order of things are brought forth from the chaotic
> > > dispersions of inanimate matter. The element that makes this
> > possible
> > > is life, for intelligence is the mark of life.
> > >
> > > If one who wanted to make a clock were to sit shaking the
pieces
> in
> > a
> > > box hoping that they would become a clock, we would not called
> such
> > a
> > > person intelligent. On the contrary, it would be quite fitting
> with
> > > his actions to call him 'ignorant'. It is possible to create
> things
> > > only by discerning the operative causes and acting accordingly.
> In
> > > Shankara's words:
> > >
> > > "We have already said that an effect which is patent in the
cause
> > > serves as an obstruction to the manifestation of the other
> effects.
> > So
> > > if one tries only to destroy the previously manifested effect
> such
> > as
> > > the lump or the two halves which stand between it and the jar,
> one
> > may
> > > also have such effects as the potsherds or tiny pieces. These
too
> > will
> > > conceal the jar and prevent its being perceived; so a fresh
> attempt
> > > will be needed. Hence the necessary operation of the factors of
> an
> > > action has its utility for one who wants the manifestation of a
> jar
> > or
> > > any other thing."
> > > (Br.Up.I.2)
> > >
> > > Discussions on efficient causality have often been obscured
> because
> > > words are used in manners that violate their meanings. Thus it
is
> > said
> > > that omniscience is to be understood as being contained in the
> > > manifestations of avidya. It is not reasonable to speak of
> > omniscience
> > > as being a manifestation of avidya, for that is a mere
> application
> > of
> > > the word 'avidya' without a consideration of its meaning. It is
> as
> > if
> > > one who, on seeing a remarkably beautiful woman, were to state
> that
> > > that beauty is contained in, or is a manifestation of,
ugliness.
> > Apart
> > > from the wounded reaction that this might draw from the
charming
> > woman
> > > in question, it would only go to show that the person who
speaks
> > thus
> > > is not speaking meaningfully. Words must be employed in
> > consideration
> > > of their meanings; otherwise one may as well call a cow a horse
> and
> > a
> > > horse a door and say that flying is a kind of walking, and the
> only
> > > thing that this manner of speaking would achieve is universal
> > > confusion.
> > >
> > > One does not attain to the desired result through avidya, for
by
> > > definition avidya is lack of knowledge. Driving a car without
> > knowing
> > > how to drive would most likely result in a consequence that is
> > graver
> > > than the intended one of reaching the destination. Attempting
to
> > cook
> > > without knowledge of cooking may result in something not quite
> > > palatable to the senses. But when these same tasks are
undertaken
> > with
> > > knowledge, they lead to the intended goals even if the law of
> > > probability does not give them much of a chance. Intelligent
goal-
>
> > > oriented actions are disruptive of the closed systems within
> which
> > the
> > > principle of entropy operates. Moreover, the law of probability
> > would
> > > completely rule out the possibility of repeatability.
> > >
> > > It may happen by a rare chance that one clock may somehow fall
> into
> > > place and get assembled, but the chances of clocks getting
> > repeatedly
> > > assembled with clocklike regularity would need an extraneous
> factor
> > > for sure. That extraneous factor is the directedness to the
> result
> > > that is provided by intelligence. Order and regularity can only
> be
> > > brought about by vidya. The word vidya has all these
> connotations -
> > of
> > > intelligence, design and goal-orientation, etc. Avidya on the
> other
> > > hand has neither intelligence nor directedness. Avidya is
> darkness,
> > > sloth, sleep, inertia. Avidya may contribute to the rise of
> chaos,
> > but
> > > would certainly not account for the regularity that we see in
the
> > > world. Therefore, it is Intelligence rather than avidya that is
> the
> > > efficient cause of the universe. And Maya is to be understood
as
> the
> > > power through which Brahman brings forth this universe. Maya is
> not
> > > avidya. The efficient cause of the universe is the Intelligent
> > Brahman
> > > and Brahman only.
> > >
> > > The confusion between avidya and Maya arises from a
> > misinterpretation
> > > of the bhashya, wherein it is stated that the omniscience and
> > > omnipotence of God are contingent upon the nescience of the
jiva.
> > How
> > > is this statement to be interpreted? The word 'contingent' here
> > > implies a condition upon which something else happens. Avidya
is
> the
> > > condition and what happens is the response of Reality to that
> > > condition. And that response springs by its innate power given
> the
> > > contingency of avidya and the accumulations of karma caused by
> > avidya.
> > > Just as in the Yoga Sutra it is mentioned:
> > >
> > > "Good and bad deeds are not the direct causes in
transformations,
> > but
> > > they act as breakers of obstacles to nature, as a farmer breaks
> the
> > > obstacles to the course of water, which then runs down by its
own
> > > nature."
> > > (YS,IV,3).
> > >
> > > Similarly avidya is not the cause, but is the contingent factor
> upon
> > > which the very nature of Brahman 'acts'. And it is because
> Brahman
> > > acts by His nature that Brahman is actionless in His actions,
> > because
> > > that action is not through the sense of agency but by His own
> > > immovable nature, for His nature is unmoved even by the
greatest
> of
> > > deeds and is hence truly omnipotent. He does the greatest of
> deeds
> > > with the greatest of ease - without the least affection to His
> > being.
> > > That is His Aishwarya - His controllership. Therefore He is
> called
> > > Ishwara, for Ishwara is the repository of Aishvarya.
> > >
> >
>
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment