## Final Logic

Final Logic

I must have written around a hundred thousand words on duality. There have been times that the group has been distracted for months talking about it and it was very frustrating to members to endure the same arguments over and over. I tried to respond with different insights, stories and parables to keep the dialog interesting. I covered it thoroughly so I would not have to do so again.

The “two sides of the same coin” argument was sent to me many times as if it were proof that what I was saying was incorrect when it had little or nothing to do with what I was saying. Even if we look at duality in this manner heads is still not tails. They are two different aspects of the trinity of reality.

Now we have entered a discussion with no end on predeterminism or predestination.

A lot of what has been argued about is based on semantics rather than principles. To most people two apples is a definite finite number of apples, but anyone can use a play on words to argue otherwise just as one can argue there is green cheese on the moon. It is wearisome to argue on a play on words rather than dealing with principles.

After some contemplation I have come up with logical proof that predestination is not correct and all is not happening at once in this reality.

Here it is:

[1] Time is caused by motion of form.

[2] Without motion there would be no time, space or matter for even the tiniest atom is created by waves in motion. Without motion all we see around us would cease to exist.

[3] All motion takes us toward a future point in time.

[4] If the future point in time is really in the present then there could be no motion for there would be nothing for motion to take us to.

[5] Again, if there is no motion, there is no time.

[6] If there is no motion and no time there is no form, no past, no present (as we know it) and no future.

[7] Therefore, because we do experience motion we have to be moving toward a future that is not yet formed.

[8] If the future is not yet formed then predicting it with exactness would require a knowledge of all existing causes in play.

[9] Even though this is theoretically possible another element comes into play that cannot be entered into any calculation. This element is intelligent decision.

[10] Because a decision can be made that runs contrary to all calculations, all data and all expectation, the exact future cannot be known in the present.

Our objecting reader seems to think that all decisions are predictable because “Nothing runs contrary to cause and effect.”

Okay. Someone throws a coin in the air and I am to call heads or tails. What causes and effects would you plug into God or your supercomputer to predict whether I will call heads or tails?

Let’s repeat this 1000 times. What causes and effects would you use to predict my call 1000 times without fail?

To this the reader still thinks cause and effect can predict such a thing in advance.

Okay then, how will you use this knowledge of cause and effect to consistently predict whether I will call heads or tails?

To this he gives the reasoning that each flip of the coin has a cause and is predictable in advance.

To this I would ask how this understanding (which we all have) can lead one to successfully predict whether the coin will land on heads or tails? What causes and effects would you plug into your super computer or universal mind to know a day in advance that you would be flipping a coin and what call you would make?

The reader then keeps falling back on the fact that there is a cause behind all things including flipping a coin. He seems to think I am going contrary to universal law

No one is talking about breaking any universal law. Just tell us how one could use this law to predict whether I will choose heads or tails.

You cannot because it cannot be done because one of the universal laws is the uncertainty principle. Science has elaborated on this but it extends to other things such as decision making.

He tells us that a dog can be taught to roll over on command and then we can predict when he will roll over.

But this is not an example of decision. This is an example of programming. It’s like your heart is programmed to beat and has nothing to do with your conscious decisions.

Animals do make some decisions on an elementary level, but to see this you have to put them in a situation where their instincts or programming does not take charge of their actions. If you put two paths before an animal and the choice is not related to his instincts, you will then see an elementary unpredictable decision made.

Many apparent choices humans make are not decisions but just people following a program. If a kid is indoctrinated in a certain religion and  acquiesces decision and does what he is told, then no decision is involved. On the other hand, if he thinks about what he is doing and rebels then he is using his power of decision.

Perhaps the simplest decision is the choice between two things where no programming is involved, such as the choice of heads or tails.

He thinks programming causes decisions and this is not true. Programming can influence us, but not necessarily decide for us. We are not computers or robots. We are living unpredictable beings who can decide between two alternatives.

He then tells us that a higher intelligence can understand our decisions and predict our exact future.

If what he says is correct then a scientist should be able to put a rat in a maze he has not seen before and predict each turn he will make. He cannot. If we cannot predict what a rat will do what makes you think that anything higher could predict all the decisions we would make? Why would It even want to? Would you want to know everything every rat decides to do?

Then he tells me I am breaking universal law thinking I am above cause and effect.

Where do you keep getting this nonsensical accusation that I think I am above universal law? I think no such thing. I keep telling you this and you seem to get amnesia or something about what I have told you.

He says I think that I am unpredictable to those more evolved.

Use the law of correspondences. Those lesser evolved than us are not 100 percent predictable to us, even so we are not fully predictable to those above us. DK said that Christ and the Masters of Wisdom could not predict all human decisions.

I am still waiting for an answer to this question:

Someone throws a coin in the air and I am to call heads or tails. What causes and effects would you plug into God or your supercomputer to predict whether I will call heads or tails during the 1000 flips?

The reader has danced around this, but given no answer. If he has no answer then he should consider that the future may not be completely determined.

Even with the best of maps and instruments, we can never fully chart our journeys. Gail Pool

June 18, 2006

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts