The Force and the Ultimate Deity

Eleven, that was beautiful.

Thank you to all who have posted some cool stuff.

Please bear in mind that I said there are "parallels". I am not saying there are concrete absolutes.

Much of my point of view comes from walking the mystical path. If I were to call myself Djedi (spelling is deliberate) it would be in context to both Eastern and Western mysticism and whatever syntheses that result from combining the two.

There Force is not omniscient, for it is the total knowledge of all things, not all knowing in itself.

Yeah, this is why we need to consider the religious views of what "omni-" actually means. We all know that these terms apply to the God of the bible and yet this same God exhibits many limitations to wit we must consider. Because we can either say nothing is omniscient and such a thing is impossible. Or... we can use the limited understanding of omniscient to define both the biblical God and the Force. Here's how.

Does the biblical God know EVERYTHING? Or does the biblical God know everything that is KNOWN. Is omniscience possessing all possibilities of anything that COULD BE known? Or is it possessing all knowledge? All knowledge, is of course, present tense. If something is unknown it cannot be said to be knowledge because no one knows it. It only becomes knowledge once a person knows it just like a belief isn't a belief until a person believes it.

Many books are written in the 3rd person omniscient form. The writer knows everything that is written in the book but this only includes everything the writer thought to add to the story, not elements the writer could have known but never conceived. Still that writer's view is 3rd person omniscient. Make sense?

The biblical God doesn't know a lot of things. And that's because God shares the 3rd person omniscient view of authors of the bible. God knew everything they knew but didn't know there was a volcano in Santorini that could be viewed all the way from Egypt. The biblical God cannot put a square peg through a round hole so how could he also be thought to be omnipotent? Isn't that the power to do anything? No... its actually less impressive than that. Its the power to do anything which is already possible.

The Force is not omnipotent, else Jedi would rarely die in combat.

Jedi would rarely die in combat assumes that Force could sum up all of its omnipresent energy into one place to extend to one person. The Force isn't for use by one Jedi in order to grant his or her every whim, but is instead available to and present in all life. It's kind of like DBZ where Goku has to channel the energy around him and from himself; kind of like releasing energy from a battery. It doesn't just appear without effort. Because it takes energy and focus to harness the Force (and I realize that this is going into the metaphysical where we can only speculate and depends on even the remotest of possibilities) the Force can only assist up to the skill, attunement (force sensitivity), etc. of that Jedi. Not every Jedi is as powerful with the Force. Therefore, the Jedi's ability or power could never be comparable to the sum power of the Force.

The Force is not omnibenevolent, or there would be no way to utilize it in Dark ways.

I understand where you're coming from but this is not true. We can all agree vitamins are good. However what happens when you take too many vitamins? Water is good and you can even swim in it and surf on it but what about a tsunami? Air is good. We need it to survive but what about a tornado? We can use energy in different ways without saying the ENERGY ITSELF is bad. I say the energy itself is good because we couldn't have anything good without this energy. If I have a car... the car is good... just like in the bible when God said Let there be light and he saw that it was good. If have a car... that's a good thing. But how do I use it? Do I use it to get to work? Or do I use it in a robbery? Do I drive safely? Or do I hit a pedestrian? The ability to use energy is ways that cause hurt don't mean that the energy itself is hurtful. That's more about our intentions. That's where the darkness comes from. And you can't say the Force doesn't have a will if you're ascribing dark intentions to the Force and not to the many forms it can take. Because where is that line of separation between us and the Force? What part does the mind play? Is consciousness just an extension of the Force? Or is it something that becomes our own? I think its murky but you seem to be suggesting there's more of a contrast because the Force "is a tool by which they choose to work".

The Force has no will except a poetic one.

The midi-chlorians, which connected the Living Force to the Cosmic Force and allowed a Force-sensitive individual to feel the will of the Force, originated on the Wellspring of Life. - https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/The_Force

Yes... this is fiction from a fictional universe. So why quote it? The idea here is that life is a complex collective of living energy. This is based, obviously, on real world mitochondria which has its own DNA (MTDNA). If all life is a collection of individual living cells which may also be a collection of living organelles and their surrounding biological ecosystems... then all life is connected. If the neural networking of the brain takes a collective of neurons, allowing consciousness to flow and information to be gathered and processed, then you have a high level thought that isn't really shared externally except through communication. But wait... communication also happens inside the body, through the nervous system. And we often are simply communicating externally through voice and expressions and body language, the sum of our internal communications. Does this high level thinking extend all the way down to the mitochondrial level? Probably... not. We don't "hear"... as in... we're not "Sensitive"... to these individual cells, nor to the power/energy that they generate for our bodies to use. And do they, in turn, receive any data from our high level thinking? Again. Probably... not. But the point is, what if there was a lower level foundation of all life that all life is built on (cellular level) and what if that level was like individual neurons that couldn't think on their own, but be extremely intelligent when put together... when communicating together?

And there's other ways to communicate outside of energy signals passing through the nervous system. There's also chemicals. Why couldn't there be electromagnetism as communication? Vibrations? Perhaps a certaini communication could even influence the form energy takes and cause it to become metalic or crystaline, etc.? We don't know all of these possibilities because we aren't omniscient but if we can conceive them, maybe one day we will. And through us the Force will know these things too. Put in the poetic sense, I definitely think that's true that there is a will, but as a programmer, I also wonder if subtle influences from lower levels of reality don't influence higher level thinking. We had an internet before there was an internet. It was just human beings talking to each other. Then we sent mail and originally it had to be carried by horseback. Then messages were carried by telephone wires. Then cars and trucks and mircowave signals and even light in fiber optic cables. How do we know the whole universe isn't sending information across a massive network of stars and planets? Perhaps even communicating the will of the universe as a whole.

The Force is not, in my estimation, a deity. The Force is a tool by which they choose to work.

I agree the Force isn't a deity. However, name a deity that hasn't been used as a tool by humans. Anything can be a tool. A rock can be a tool to hit another rock. Water can be used as a tool to wash a car or irrigate a field. People are constantly used as tools. If you have a job where you get paid, you're being used as a tool. But that doesn't mean you exist for that purpose or that you are defined by those who use you. The same is true of the Force.

ZealotX wrote: ... there's other ways to communicate outside of energy signals passing through the nervous system. There's also chemicals.

And those chemicals react with each other to either store or release energy for use in further reactions. Granted, whether we want to call this communication or not is up for interpretation - though one can certainly form some kind of information equivalent functional there to quantify a cell's biochemical behaviour... At any rate, what passes through the nervous system are electrical signals, but the potential changes are facilitated through ion pumps and channels - dedicated chemical molecules to that end - and transmission chemicals that control those channels in neighboring/target cells... So it is by no means any less chemical for the macroscopic physical effects we can measure happening.

Why couldn't there be electromagnetism as communication?

Pretty much (by a very slim and debatable margin, if any) all chemistry boils down to electromagnetism. The overwhelming majority of everything happening in your body is electromagnetic at its root. Obviously communication with electrical and electronic devices boils down to electromagnetism also. And seeing as pretty much all of chemistry does, one can argue that even things written on paper or carved in stone in some very technical sense owe their possibility to electromagnetism. It's actually quite astonishing just how few things in our day-to-day experience aren't electromagnetic in the end.

Perhaps a certaini [sic] communication could even influence the form energy takes and cause it to become metalic [sic] or crystalline, etc.?

What does metallic or crystalline form of energy mean? Also, by far most metals are crystalline in structure anyway, with metal glasses produced by costly means for very specific applications and often from more than a single element at that.

We don't know all of these possibilities because we aren't omniscient but if we can conceive them, maybe one day we will.

We don't know of possibilities until we have demonstrated either by experiment or as a consequence of an otherwise well working theory, that the thing in question is indeed possible. It's not a matter of omniscience. For example, I can say I know for a fact that you will nowhere find a metal arrangement with a natural blue colouration without foreign atoms or paint on top to make it blue. We can conceive of it all night in our dreams, but we also know already, that, as a matter of fact, or at least as far as we can say anything about such matters in the first place, it is not possible.

How do we know the whole universe isn't sending information across a massive network of stars and planets? Perhaps even communicating the will of the universe as a whole.

We don't. But then we don't know what that means in practical terms either. What would such communication look like? That is, how would we tell a universe - or a region of one - where it happens (or more of it) from one where it doesn't (or less, as the case may be)? In other words, assuming that this is a meaningful question to begin with, just how would we go about any attempts at finding out an answer to it?

I tend to view midichlorians as being more representative of the mutualistic microorganisms in each living thing, rather then any particular cellular architecture required for life. To denote that functional connection down in scale and out if body, and as you describe, the flow of communication by fluctuating connection. Hence the suffix 'ian' relating to 'profession'. Chloro could be green/yellow for flora, midi might be because the most relevant examples are in the gut, which is the middle :side:
Gut biota has been shown to directly influence mood, systematic and local inflammatory mechanism, and obviously digestion. It's not called the second brain for no reason.

Adder wrote: I tend to view midichlorians as being more representative of the mutualistic microorganisms in each living thing, rather then any particular cellular architecture required for life. To denote that functional connection down in scale and out if body, and as you describe, the flow of communication by fluctuating connection. Hence the suffix 'ian' relating to 'profession'. Chloro could be green/yellow for flora, midi might be because the most relevant examples are in the gut, which is the middle :side:
Gut biota has been shown to directly influence mood, systematic and local inflammatory mechanism, and obviously digestion. It's not called the second brain for no reason.

Yes, you bring up good and valid points. I view Mitochondria in the same way. And the reason I say mitochondria and not some other micro organism is because it produces energy. If that "life energy" is our connection to the Force by way of transforming matter (sugar) into energy then it would stand to reason that someone with more mitochondria would have a higher metabolism and would be able to produce more energy. And this could help an athlete have an advantage. It could even play a role in how much energy can be harnessed in an adrenaline rush. You brought up an excellent point about "chloro" as in chlorophyll. What does chlorophyll do? It basically creates energy from sunlight. In our bodies the work of energy production and transformation is done by mitochondria. And obviously I think "midi" is simply a spinoff of "mito" as if to merge the concepts of mitochondria and chlorophyll.

It is for this reason that mitochondria are often referred to as the powerhouses of the cell. Cells that need a lot of energy, like muscle cells, can contain thousands of mitochondria. Mitochondria are tiny organelles inside cells that are involved in releasing energy from food. - Jul 20, 2011

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/1839-mitochondria-cell-powerhouses

Are mitochondria separate organisms?

Theoretically, mitochondria are said to be a separate organism that is concerned with its own life and its own processes. In fact, it even duplicates individually. ... Logic would suggest that since mRNA exists in the mitochondria separate from DNA in the nucleus, they have their own control over how they behave. - Aug 14, 2014

https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/20491/mitochondria-are-they-really-separate-organisms-that-once-merged-into-eukaryot

This was posed as a question but the answer was yes. It is reasonable to assume that mitochondria were their own micro organism before by, and this is my speculation I'm adding, became so connected that they could create larger organisms without having to retain all of their prior functions like the appendix in humans, nipples on males, etc. If mitochondria created a network, sharing energy in a way that excess physical matter could be supported to become organs, then it could be the foundation of higher forms of life. After all... without enough energy production, evolution would not have been possible.

We do have lots of microorganisms living in us. In fact, they typically outnumber our own human cells.

https://www.nature.com/news/scientists-bust-myth-that-our-bodies-have-more-bacteria-than-human-cells-1.19136

However, the main problem I find with this is that I find them to be mostly transient. In other words, they're not part of the framework of the body even though SOME of them are beneficial to it. This isn't entirely necessary for our purposes but their populations can be extremely delicate. The larger the creature the more likely to have much larger counts of microbial life inside and thus "stronger with the Force", but look at Yoda. Look at Anakin measured as a child. It seems to be more about concentration than sheer volume. And I don't think when they measured Anakin's mitichlorian count they were measuring how well he could digest food. I would agree that microorganisms are about as ubiquitous as the Force itself. And certainly outside the body there is definitely a big role played by bacteria and other small scale organisms. So I'm not saying you're wrong. I just think mitochondria is a better fit as the presence of micro organisms in a body, in general, wouldn't make that person more or less powerful. Those organism... at least the ones I know... mostly contribute indirectly as a consequence of their own survival while mitochondria are directly supplying energy as a codependent collective parts of us.

disclaimer: of course all this is highly subjective speculation. But fun, no?

Gisteron, you are my favorite Jedi to read when discussing science. Thank you for that.

It's actually quite astonishing just how few things in our day-to-day experience aren't electromagnetic in the end.

Very true. And I think we are only at the very early stages of learning to communicated via this method. Think about brainwaves and the fact that we can stick sensors on our heads and control devices with our brains. And this is building towards a mind-to-machine interface that will get better over time.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/tech/elon-musk-wants-hook-your-brain-directly-computers-starting-next-ncna1030631

What does metallic or crystalline form of energy mean? Also, by far most metals are crystalline in structure anyway, with metal glasses produced by costly means for very specific applications and often from more than a single element at that.

You're right. I just meant crystalline in terms of actual crystals... not the internal structure. For me, all programming is communication because we program using languages. DNA is a language and once we understand it we can program it. The periodic table is like an alphabet. I'm just saying that it seems to me that all life is already communicating between itself but we are either insensitive to it or we don't understand the language. This communication is metaphorically similar to the poetry of God in Genesis saying let there be light as if talking to Alexa 50-100 years into the future.

We don't know of possibilities until we have demonstrated either by experiment or as a consequence of an otherwise well working theory, that the thing in question is indeed possible.

Yes. Basically, I was just trying to say that "omniscience" is limited by what is known and is knowable. So I would say omniscience is knowing everything that is known. Likewise, "omnipotence" is being able to do anything that anyone is able to do.

In other words, assuming that this is a meaningful question to begin with, just how would we go about any attempts at finding out an answer to it?

Again... depends on what's being communicated. And basically... Physics (although possibly mixed with music).

ZealotX wrote: Gisteron, you are my favorite Jedi to read when discussing science. Thank you for that.

Thank you!

I just meant crystalline in terms of actual crystals... not the internal structure.

That is pretty much the only thing distinguishing crystals, though. A crystal is any solid with a periodic (bar imperfections) atom placement.

For me, all programming is communication because we program using languages. DNA is a language and once we understand it we can program it. The periodic table is like an alphabet. I'm just saying that it seems to me that all life is already communicating between itself but we are either insensitive to it or we don't understand the language. This communication is metaphorically similar to the poetry of God in Genesis saying let there be light as if talking to Alexa 50-100 years into the future.

Admittedly, I can appareciate where you are coming from with this. I do think though that one should be careful and aware about the limitations of such analogies. After all, any circuit construction can be seen as "programming", eventhough nothing like even the lowest level digital machine instructions are used in that most basic electrical or even electronic hardware assembly. One can of course argue still that even electrical circuit elements, like resistors, capacitors, and coils are "letters" of a kind of circuit language alphabet. Similarly, DNA is of course a chemical molecule interacting with others in its vicinity in accord with chemical laws, or even electromagnetism if we want to go as deep as we can with the reduction/deconstruction. Sure, one can interpret everything as being in some sense a sum of its parts, with emergent macroscopic properties. One can see the elements, or even their electron spectra or configurations as symbols of a language, but I think it is very easy to over-interpret the analogy. Human languages, even programming languages and the rulesets they provide to build messages, evolve through use, and at the behest of its users, for example. I don't think quite the same can be said in a strongly similar sense also of the principles of chemistry and physics that force the elements and compounds to aggregate and to interact the way they do. Though on that note one might question if the behest of the human agent is anything genuinely more than chemistry in its own right... Still, I think there is a level of abstraction we normally associate with languages that isn't quite guaranteed when we talk of electronic or chemical elements.

ZealotX wrote: disclaimer: of course all this is highly subjective speculation. But fun, no?

Yes, but I found no practical application for using mitochondria, and think they would have just used miti instead of midi. I don't judge Yoda by his size, hehe, and think it's not the quantity but quality. So, I use the term midichlorians as described just for the beneficial ones, being that functional relationship denoted by the suffix '-ian'. Take psychobiotics and eat the Force :woohoo: Well not really but yes fun.