Tuesday, September 05, 2006
God's Debris
A friend of mine sent me the link of this free ebook God's Debris.
Its a short book of about 140 pages. (Even I was able to read it)
The crux of the book is contained in the first 60 pages.
/*********************spoilers********************/
The book discusses several things that were also discussed in some of the posts of this blog. Thus reading the book was a very exciting and a pleasurable experience for me. Infact, in several places it was as if I was reading my own thoughts.
The crux of the book is based on the following hypothesis: An omnipotent being has only one challenge, the challenge of destroying itself. (What a beautiful hypothesis). Read the book for the discussion of this.
So the author claims that big bang is really 'god destroying itself' and creation was caused because of this. Thus it claims we are all god's debris. Further it hypothesizes that we are all trying to unite and become the omnipotent being again. The books cites human' being's instinct to communicate as an evidence for this.
On the other hand, the book begins to drag after 70 pages and becomes montonous trying to "explain" everything using probability.
Its a short book of about 140 pages. (Even I was able to read it)
The crux of the book is contained in the first 60 pages.
/*********************spoilers********************/
The book discusses several things that were also discussed in some of the posts of this blog. Thus reading the book was a very exciting and a pleasurable experience for me. Infact, in several places it was as if I was reading my own thoughts.
The crux of the book is based on the following hypothesis: An omnipotent being has only one challenge, the challenge of destroying itself. (What a beautiful hypothesis). Read the book for the discussion of this.
So the author claims that big bang is really 'god destroying itself' and creation was caused because of this. Thus it claims we are all god's debris. Further it hypothesizes that we are all trying to unite and become the omnipotent being again. The books cites human' being's instinct to communicate as an evidence for this.
On the other hand, the book begins to drag after 70 pages and becomes montonous trying to "explain" everything using probability.
Comments:
<< Home
I've read that book - very interesting! But it is presented as a "thought experiment" - to see if we can pick holes in a theory that seems "to make sense" but may not be correct.
However, I did not do much think-experimenting. What did you find?
However, I did not do much think-experimenting. What did you find?
Actually Srikanth, neither did I;
You see, I had no motivation :)
btw, nice to see you back blogging.
p.s: I see you have used the spelling "interesting" and not "intresting".
(a) I seem to remember "intresting" is also a legal spelling
(b) Do you remember if we used "intresting" back in India?
(c) Do you prefer one of the two spellings? If so why?
You see, I had no motivation :)
btw, nice to see you back blogging.
p.s: I see you have used the spelling "interesting" and not "intresting".
(a) I seem to remember "intresting" is also a legal spelling
(b) Do you remember if we used "intresting" back in India?
(c) Do you prefer one of the two spellings? If so why?
Was wondering for sometime if there is some deeper meaning in your P.S. questions... :-)
p.s: I see you have used the spelling "interesting" and not "intresting".
The word is the adjectival form of "interest" - hence the spelling "interesting." I don't think "intrestin" is valid.
p.s: I see you have used the spelling "interesting" and not "intresting".
The word is the adjectival form of "interest" - hence the spelling "interesting." I don't think "intrestin" is valid.
Thanks for letting me know.
The reason I asked was because I actually rememberred to have searched 'intresting' in a dictionary and finding an entry. Obviously it was a faulty recollection.
The reason I asked was because I actually rememberred to have searched 'intresting' in a dictionary and finding an entry. Obviously it was a faulty recollection.
this is a similar idea to what is expressed in one or two books on Shiva - don't remember the names now- which speak of this in terms of successive dimensions.
This is also the same as the "cosmic consciousness" idea, i feel.
second half padichiya?
This is also the same as the "cosmic consciousness" idea, i feel.
second half padichiya?
actually I remember you saying something about "sivapuranam" - I wanted to again ask you abt this.
what is the "cosmic con.." idea? (Yeah I can guess what it is - what I mean to ask is whether this is a well known idea)
Yes I read the second half.
Post a Comment
what is the "cosmic con.." idea? (Yeah I can guess what it is - what I mean to ask is whether this is a well known idea)
Yes I read the second half.
<< Home
