Do 'we' see the world as we assume it exists? [Archive]

Dark Wing

Dec3-03, 09:01 PM

I wouldn’t say that we see the world as we presume it exists: we simply experience the world and attribute meaning to it. That’s not to say that we are all seeing different things - I wanted to make sure there was some consensus on that.

Old theories, new theories, and the ones we will use in the future: they are all based on the same thing. All those scientists saw exactly the same thing in front of them: they just came up with different explanations for it. Each of these explanations had their share of weakness and strength, and it is this that is taken to the next level as we try and understand the world. The same thing existed as it always did and we do see the same thing.

As for inner belief controlling outside effects... like your monks on the mountain, well that just goes to show that belief is a very powerful thing. Will to live, and will to keep things going is a very strong phenomenon, and one we don’t understand yet. It does not mean that we can control our outer environment, or that they really didn’t think the mountain was cold - they simply refused to let the mountain freeze them. That’s will power, and it doesn’t work every time, I want to see all the monks who tried that and failed, and what the difference was between them.

Reality being based on our beliefs and our belief systems: this effects the way we perceive the world as it gives us a range of bias's to see the world in. for peace and war for instance... a hate for war may give you a strong bias towards seeing everything as an act of war, in which you will hate and react against it, only making the situation worse. A love for peace would see you calmly sitting back and watching as the minor struggle, now with a lack of attention and momentum in it slowly dissipate, so a peaceful state will reign. So yes, beliefs will effect HUMAN action and social politics, of course it will, because our thought and our perspective is the only way to see what is happening, as it is based on nothing else. But just because we perceive an action to be provocative does not mean that it is, so our perception of even our social world is often inaccurate. We experience the world through our biases, so the aim is to limit the biases we have. Become a skeptic. Have no beliefs. Then we may live in harmony, and experience the world as we see it.

Maybe a distinction to seeing something and experiencing it is needed?

onycho

Dec4-03, 10:37 PM

"I wouldn’t say that we see the world as we presume it exists: we simply experience the world and attribute meaning to it. That’s not to say that we are all seeing different things - I wanted to make sure there was some consensus on that."

Darkwing you have two too many presumptions and attributions for saying tht we are all possibly seeing different things. I'm afraid there is no consensus on this one.

1) What is it we are seeing things with?
2) What is seeing with our occipital cortex which is allegedly composed of ever smaller particles of matter?
3) Why do you think that we are seeing reality or that what we oberserve is as we assume it to exist from each of our points of perception?

"Old theories, new theories, and the ones we will use in the future: they are all based on the same thing. All those scientists saw exactly the same thing in front of them: they just came up with different explanations for it. Each of these explanations had their share of weakness and strength, and it is this that is taken to the next level as we try and understand the world. The same thing existed as it always did and we do see the same thing."

Everything you have just said is a presumption that scientists or even we see the same thing of old and new explanations for what can't possibly be reality.

First you have to surmise that this universe (if it exists at all) is made up of a void (space) 99.9999999% and the rest matter or particles.
Second what are these particles that we think exist as a reality?
If as Einstein and many others have theorized, all particles are in reality nothing more than compressed energy then what the heck is energy?
Third if energy is a reality where did it come from and is there some sort of correlation between this compressed energy and the back and forth formation of matter/energy?

There has been proposed that ultimately, energy is nothing more or less than a creator's Wisdom which allows us to perceive reality as 'we' assume it exists. Experimentation from different scientists around the world have now discovered that 'particles' seem somehow to have a innate choice to go this way or that which gives all particles some sort of Wisdom. Which brings us back to the concept of what animates particles/energy into our perceived human intellect, emotion, movement and some of the very same particles become a table or a photon (wave/particle duality)?

"As for inner belief controlling outside effects... like your monks on the mountain, well that just goes to show that belief is a very powerful thing. Will to live, and will to keep things going is a very strong phenomenon, and one we don’t understand yet. It does not mean that we can control our outer environment, or that they really didn’t think the mountain was cold - they simply refused to let the mountain freeze them. That’s will power, and it doesn’t work every time, I want to see all the monks who tried that and failed, and what the difference was between them."

The enigma remains. Do the Monks on the mountain exist or is perception greater than the reality in which we feel, touch, smell and see? Remember the old Star Trek episode where the Star Ship captain, a young man, was so badly injured that he became blind, quadraplegic (wheelchair bound) and deformed with the inability to speak? The inhabitants of this fictional planet were so much evolved that they were able to create in the captains mind, a reality of a return to his previous self with the ability to see, love, feel, walk and see things as he assumed they existed. Could we, here in this dimension of timelessness experience our clicking clock earth time and understand things that are in reality nothing more than what we are allowed to percieve. Except of course for our freewill choice during our short blip of time in which we live?

"Reality being based on our beliefs and our belief systems: this effects the way we perceive the world as it gives us a range of bias's to see the world in. for peace and war for instance... a hate for war may give you a strong bias towards seeing everything as an act of war, in which you will hate and react against it, only making the situation worse. A love for peace would see you calmly sitting back and watching as the minor struggle, now with a lack of attention and momentum in it slowly dissipate, so a peaceful state will reign. So yes, beliefs will effect HUMAN action and social politics, of course it will, because our thought and our perspective is the only way to see what is happening, as it is based on nothing else. But just because we perceive an action to be provocative does not mean that it is, so our perception of even our social world is often inaccurate. We experience the world through our biases, so the aim is to limit the biases we have. Become a skeptic. Have no beliefs. Then we may live in harmony, and experience the world as we see it."

Or is it that for some inexplicable reason, all the above things you mentioned are not real and only for 'us' to choose to hate (war) or love (anything. Which brings us back to my original concept of each of our freewill choices with no more reality than being allowed to be in an invisible dimension where space/time is warped and 'we' are now as we existed before we were born and where we will be after we pass through this short veil of tears?

For just a moment step out of the box and like our greatest thinkers and scientists, dare to look at reality from a different perspective before returning to our busy measurements and theories of what 'we' see, feel, touch and perceive as this reality.

"Maybe a distinction to seeing something and experiencing it is needed?"

Perhaps you are very correct in this assumption.

olde drunk

Dec5-03, 09:44 AM

i really appreciate your ability to consider and amplify the ideas being presented.

what if our thoughts have enrgy as well as our conciousness. restated: what if we(conciousness) are energy and our thoughts and ideas are an energy projection. this idea(belief) creates the 'warp' in time space to present us with the reality that complies with our projection.

our monks do not change the reality of those that observe their reality. but, to the monks, the harsh weather is accepted in a way that their energy projection(body) experiences the weather as an acceptable (expected) experience.

they have not changed the weather or their bodies, but rather, their idea of what their body can do. firewalkers are ticksters of a sort; they know quick steps will avoid injury. National Geographic, i believe, was the group that filmed these monks. there could be no trick, other than a different belief system.

quite often i laugh after a sporting event. we all witness the same event, yet one third of the observers will be happy, one third sad and one third could care less. was it the same reality or three different realities???

how often does the worry of a negative event bring about it's occurrence??? to a degree, we not only send out the thought energy, but we also unconciously do things that help it happen.

there are too many testimonies about the power of positive thinking to ignore its value. i'm sure it ain't that simple but when i expect a postive outcome my odds of it occurring go up. WHY? confidence does create unconcious actions to reinforce its happening as well.

maybe life is a game and we make up our individual rules as we go along???

hmmmmmmmm, i like that idea!

gimme a drink,
chet

Guybrush Threepwood

Dec5-03, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by olde drunk
yes the weather and the mountain are still there; but our monks are not suject to 'our' natural laws, THEY DO NOT FREEZE! they have been given and accepted a belief that they can be physically warm regardless of the ambient temperature.

ok, let's take another example. how about this? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/406144.stm)

as you see, there are life forms that live in extreme conditions. What about them? Are those little worms modifing the natural laws with their brain. after all THEY DO NOT BOIL!

onycho

Dec5-03, 10:19 AM

Since Einstein basic concept is spacetime the key is imo: 'restructured spacetime". On certain spots spacetime couples to 'condensates' or holons, in which you have double spacetime.
In a Hawking term? Singularity becomes restructured singularity.
At least I offer a simple and logic alternative, which is better then staying in the dark.

Acutally I understood Einstein's concept of a warped space/time being the definition of gravity. The more compressed the mass (i.e., old dead star) the greater that time is effected resulting in the slowing of time until the mass becomes so compressed that everything including photons are drawn into the now rapidly involuting small mass which is theorized to become a black-hole. A place where time itself becomes infinite or that singularity.

Steven Hawkings sees something else happening in these long accepted events. The ultimate is that a black-hole becomes so compressed on itself that the black-hole eventually evaporates releasing all the matter that it held.

For me, whatever 'we' consist of actually exists at the edge of a dimension (could be called a black-hole) where time is infinite and does in reality not exist. Much like a magician's illusion, we perceive a reality of a solid world/universe where from our point of perception we live in this self assumption in a solid macro world.

Whatever.....

THANOS

Dec5-03, 12:30 PM

My T.V. burned out. no more energy comming from it but the T.V. is still there.

olde drunk

Dec5-03, 04:26 PM

staying with the topic of this thread:

if you are born into this world accepting certain basic laws AND they are reinforced with a certain belief discipline then you experience your world (reality) based on those accepted laws and beliefs.

if you are born with the basic ability to withstand high temperatures as a worm, you chose to be a worm with those charateristics.

let's stay with the human experience.

do the "laws of physics" exist because they are laws or because these were our explanation of the various events we experienced/saw and made measurements that resulted in the "laws". please remember that the measurements etc. are the result of the scientist's beliefs about what should be measured. it has been postulated that his beliefs even affect the results of the measurements. glass half full vs. glass half empty (LOL).

what if there are GREATER LAWS yet to be uncovered??? laws that include conciousness and allows us to exceed the speed of light. Quantum theory is getting close to this information.

i am amazed that balancing particles of different charges, will switch instantly when its partner is changed, exceeding the speed of light. the only thing that i believe is quicker is a "THOUGHT".

so, is it possible that the energy of a thought, idea, belief goes out and creates a reality (for me) that complies.

we are but a spec when measured against the size of the universe, and yet, i feel like i am at the center of my universe.

are we a thought projection of our greater self and in turn creating other projected universes????

gawd, the mind boggles!
chet

onycho

Dec5-03, 04:37 PM

Orginally posted by Thanos

"My T.V. burned out. no more energy comming from it but the T.V. is still there."

Where did you say that TV is? Take a look outside of your TV and you might find that you are an optical illusion.

Reality is the beginning not the end,
Naked Alpha, not the hierophant Omega,
Of dense investiture, with luminous vassals.

ATTRIBUTION: Wallace Stevens

onycho

Dec5-03, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Olde drunk

"i am amazed that balancing particles of different charges, will switch instantly when its partner is changed, exceeding the speed of light. the only thing that i believe is quicker is a "THOUGHT"."

Faster than light olde-drunk. Quantum mechanics says that particles on this side of the universe have a direct instantaneous effect on particles on the other side of the universe. The distance across the perception of this universe is so great than even thought cannot happen that rapidly. The effect is that the thoughts created in your gray matter are actually effecting particles on trillions and trillions of miles away the same second. Your reality and that that which is the answer may be light years apart.

"we are but a spec when measured against the size of the universe, and yet, i feel like i am at the center of my universe."

[b]If you feel that you are the center of the universe, then pray tell what is on the other side of this universe?

An inflated consciousness is always egocentric and conscious of nothing but its own existence. It is incapable of learning from the past, incapable of understanding contemporary events, and incapable of drawing right conclusions about the future. It is hypnotized by itself and therefore cannot be argued with. It inevitably dooms itself to calamities that must strike it dead.

ATTRIBUTION: Carl Jung

onycho

Dec5-03, 05:10 PM

Orignally quoted by guybrush threepwood

"that is an..... interesting theory. Can you back it up with something showing that we are conscious before birth?"

that is also an interesting observation. Can you back up anything that shows you are actually conscious right now?

Dark Wing

Dec5-03, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Dark wing you have two too many presumptions and attributions for saying that we are all possibly seeing different things. I'm afraid there is no consensus on this one.

Did I say that we were all seeing different things? i believe what I actually said is that we are all seeing exactly the same thing: it’s our interpretations of what we see that differ.

1) What is it we are seeing things with?
2) What is seeing with our occipital cortex, which is allegedly composed of ever-smaller particles of matter?
3) Why do you think that we are seeing reality or that what we oberserve is as we assume it to exist from each of our points of perception?

1) we are seeing/experiencing things through our sensory system.
2) seeing through our perception system is exactly that: a collection of matter constructed in such a way that it gives us the ability to since and see our world. Yes, its composed of smaller matter etc, and you can take it down or up to any level that you like... (not exactly sure what you are trying to ask here)
3)not exactly sure what you are asking me here... why do i think we see things from our point of perception? because that’s where we are. Why do we use our background knowledge to make sense of our point of perception? because that’s all we have... and its when we realize that these theories we rely on to predict our world do not world that we look for a change, to develop a new theory that will cover more ground... Why do i think we are seeing reality? i think what we are all seeing is consistent. we will all receive the same photon stimulation on our eye, for instance. It depends on how our different systems interpret this information that demands what we will see it as. Does that make it any clearer? it shows you can have 2 identical stimuli with 2 different responses from 2 people.

Everything you have just said is a presumption that scientists or even we see the same thing of old and new explanations for what can't possibly be reality.

no... what i said is that we all observe the same phenomenon: we just attribute different causes to it. an old theory will seem like an exhaustive account of phenomena until more things that it cannot explain are discovered, and then that theory will be discarded; because it could not explain all the repercussions and details of the phenomena... there fore it couldn’t possibly be a true representation of events...

First you have to surmise that this universe (if it exists at all) is made up of a void (space) 99.9999999% and the rest matter or particles.
Second what are these particles that we think exist as a reality?
If as Einstein and many others have theorized, all particles are in reality nothing more than compressed energy then what the heck is energy?
I’m not saying that its not compressed energy. what’s wrong with it being compressed energy? so we have different configurations of energy in the universe that creates different things in the universe... it doesn’t stop us from saying that it is all energy, but surly you cant claim that tables don’t exist as all they are is a compilation of energy. So what if it is? so, look at energy, and try to figure out why it exhibits "table like" behavior when in a table, and "space” like behavior when it’s in space. find explanations for that,, and explain how we are all structured from the same building blocks, space, living things and non-living things alike.

Third if energy is a reality where did it come from and is there some sort of correlation between this compressed energy and the back and forth formation of matter/energy?

why are you bringing reality into this? so everything is energy. does that make reality unreal? does it mean that i am somehow not seeing what is real? or i am living in some kind of matrix like illusion? no - i sit here and type keys: they are a certain physical form of energy, and the keys are real enough. It is energy configured in ways i can perceive it, and it has certain uses.

There has been proposed that ultimately, energy is nothing more or less than a creator's Wisdom, which allows us to perceive reality as 'we' assume it exists. Experimentation from different scientists around the world have now discovered that 'particles' seem somehow to have a innate choice to go this way or that which gives all particles some sort of Wisdom. Which brings us back to the concept of what animates particles/energy into our perceived human intellect, emotion, movement and some of the very same particles become a table or a photon (wave/particle duality)?

Ok, whether it be creators energy or not: that is an interpretation of what you see partials doing. as for them moving with internationality: again, simple interpretation. what you see as internationality, another will see as causation. physical structure gives way to consciousness and intellect: if you are claiming some kind of panpsychism - that energy is consciousness, and we all just walk through it, everything has a mind and intention: then go for it, but i want more than an interpretation of moving partials. Yes, the same photon that i eject from my retina will then be absorbed by the table, which will then spit another photon out and so on. So that suggests that each photon may have a function a photon break down we have not yet discovered. It does not imply universal consciousness, or wave duality.

[quote]The enigma remains. Do the Monks on the mountain exist or is perception greater than the reality in which we feel, touch, smell and see?

Perception is not greater than what we perceive. that’s the point of our perception system. It perceives. we can’t perceive more than our system does. energy may be greater than our perception system: Energy is bigger. and yes the monks exist! if they don’t exist, then how can you sit there and say they survived the mountain freeze? we cannot perceive the whole of reality: reality is too big. but we perceive the reality in which we live.

Could we, here in this dimension of timelessness experience our clicking clock earth time and understand things that are in reality nothing more than what we are allowed to perceive. Except of course for our freewill choice during our short blip of time in which we live?

can we understand our perceived world? yes. i am not sure what you are saying about free will, can you rephrase that bit for me?

Or is it that for some inexplicable reason, all the above things you mentioned are not real and only for 'us' to choose to hate (war) or love (anything. Which brings us back to my original concept of each of our freewill choices with no more reality than being allowed to be in an invisible dimension where space/time is warped and 'we' are now as we existed before we were born and where we will be after we pass through this short veil of tears?

yes... we can choose... whether this is a free choice or not we will never know (as it would feel the same: free will/determinism are again theories of this world in which could both be wrong) so, "we" exist as a collective? as we are all made of ever moving energy that changes in forms to be born and dissipates at death. But does that mean that "we" in our current form do not exist? do we have memory of ourselves in energy form?

For just a moment step out of the box and like our greatest thinkers and scientists, dare to look at reality from a different perspective before returning to our busy measurements and theories of what 'we' see, feel, touch and perceive as this reality.

Who said anything about measurements? I simply say that we all see the same configurations: and we all have our theories on what’s actually happening. I believe it is you who are making the assumptions on what I am saying.

THANOS

Dec6-03, 04:08 AM

"My T.V. burned out. no more energy comming from it but the T.V. is still there."

Maybe you guys didn't understand what i meant by saying that sentence. What i "really" meant was that our mind and memorys. Our reality is much like our "T.V." About 90% bull**** and fiction and the rest is reality to our bias views. And like our T.V. went it dies out no more energy comes through and the images no longer exist. So you see we aren't that far from realizing that our existance is only or mostly for our amusment. hehe.

onycho

Dec7-03, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by Dark Wing

“Did I say that we were all seeing different things? i believe what I actually said is that we are all seeing exactly the same thing: it’s our interpretations of what we see that differ. “

Sorry if I erred in your understanding your previous statement concerning seeing different things or just our differing interpretations of visualizing the very same things. Actually both of our statements have a definite connection in that we both may see a table but your brain may mentally picture a solid flat object and I may see an entirely different three-dimensional object. Much like the illusion created by a skilled magician is interpreted by our brain in order to make some sense of what we see. I once saw a magician on a beach with a small audience seated, when an island about two miles away made to move a significant distance when a screen was placed in front of it and then moved back with a similar movement. I have no idea of how this trick was done but I saw it. This example illustrates that what the observers saw from their individual point of reference was both visually different and interpreted differently.

“1) we are seeing/experiencing things through our sensory system.”

The meaning of your sentence is premised on the concept that we are seeing/experiencing anything that exists in reality or just a perception of same.

“2) seeing through our perception system is exactly that: a collection of matter constructed in such a way that it gives us the ability to since and see our world. Yes, its composed of smaller matter etc, and you can take it down or up to any level that you like... (not exactly sure what you are trying to ask here)”

Your statement is very much on point: To understand that an object is perceived in our brain with a currently not understood ability of our neurons to somehow witness our solid world is based on a jump of faith. Science tells us that what appears to be a solid object is in reality mostly space and inanimate particles. We feel a solid object while they tell us that what we are feeling is not those particles or space but really the strong force that holds a few particles in an unknown relationship.

A great illustration was given with the object we know as a hydrogen atom. The nucleus of this atom is so small that it cannot be seen because photons are too large to rebound into the lens of the latest scanning tunneling microscopes available today. If one were to magically be able to increase the size of that hydrogen atom nucleus to about a 4” diameter the outer circling electron would be 8 miles away. If you extrapolate this fact to atoms/molecules to our universe, then the fact of empty space vs. particles give credence to the fact that particles even compressed to our own world’s dimension are unlikely to be visual reality. We can speak about what we think we see but is it reality?

“3)not exactly sure what you are asking me here... why do i think we see things from our point of perception? because that’s where we are.”

Are we here and just exactly where are we? A conundrum……

“Why do we use our background knowledge to make sense of our point of perception? because that’s all we have... “

Is that all we have or is that all we humans are given to make sense of our point of perception?

“and its when we realize that these theories we rely on to predict our world do not world that we look for a change, to develop a new theory that will cover more ground... “

If these theories to predict our world are in reality based only flawed observations of actuality, then how can we be certain of anything, i.e., what is on the outside of our universe?
“Why do i think we are seeing reality? i think what we are all seeing is consistent.”

Consistent with what and how can you be so sure that all you are observing is real? I have to question even that possibility. Even though you feel that is all we have at our disposal.
‘we will all receive the same photon stimulation on our eye, for instance. It depends on how our different systems interpret this information that demands what we will see it as. Does that make it any clearer? it shows you can have 2 identical stimuli with 2 different responses from 2 people.”

I realize that you are speaking from your own understanding of how the eye macula plate receives photons, which stimulates rods and cones to create electrical signals which are then transmitted along the optic nerves to those portions of the brain where somehow we are able to visualize objects. The brain is such a complex computer that different people interpret a solid differently but I again question the reality of the entire process of particles becoming animate in order for all these things to be real.

“no... what i said is that we all observe the same phenomenon: we just attribute different causes to it. an old theory will seem like an exhaustive account of phenomena until more things that it cannot explain are discovered, and then that theory will be discarded; because it could not explain all the repercussions and details of the phenomena... there fore it couldn’t possibly be a true representation of events...”

Agree entirely with your last statement, “... therefore it couldn’t possibly be a true representation of events...”

“I’m not saying that its not compressed energy. what’s wrong with it being compressed energy? so we have different configurations of energy in the universe that creates different things in the universe... it doesn’t stop us from saying that it is all energy, but surly you cant claim that tables don’t exist as all they are is a compilation of energy. So what if it is? so, look at energy, and try to figure out why it exhibits "table like" behavior when in a table, and "space” like behavior when it’s in space. find explanations for that,, and explain how we are all structured from the same building blocks, space, living things and non-living things alike.”

Your statement is valid. I must go back to my analogy of the fictional Star Trek captain who was allowed to experience reality as he assumed it existed. In your opinion is there not even a possibility that those objects we experience as solid and real could be nothing more than what ‘we’ (whatever self is) are seeing is an illusion? That energy is really nothing more or lees than a form of an unknowable WISDOM from a Master clockmaker?

“why are you bringing reality into this?”

Because that is another possibility beyond our own perceived observations.

“so everything is energy. does that make reality unreal?”

Possibly….

“does it mean that i am somehow not seeing what is real? or i am living in some kind of matrix like illusion? no - i sit here and type keys: they are a certain physical form of energy, and the keys are real enough. It is energy configured in ways i can perceive it, and it has certain uses.”

[/b]Possibly so. As you sit there typing keys and thinking with possibly inanimate sub-atomic particles when you might only be permitted to feel those keys and to think with an unknown gift that gives those perceived particles the ability to sense our reality[/b]

“Ok, whether it be creators energy or not: that is an interpretation of what you see partials doing. as for them moving with internationality: again, simple interpretation. what you see as internationality, another will see as causation. physical structure gives way to consciousness and intellect: if you are claiming some kind of panpsychism - that energy is consciousness, and we all just walk through it, everything has a mind and intention: then go for it, but i want more than an interpretation of moving partials. Yes, the same photon that i eject from my retina will then be absorbed by the table, which will then spit another photon out and so on. So that suggests that each photon may have a function a photon break down we have not yet discovered. It does not imply universal consciousness, or wave duality.”

Again you are correct in your assumptions. But will you admit that your ideations has no more validity than mine because of things not yet discovered?

onycho

Dec7-03, 07:53 AM

”Perception is not greater than what we perceive. that’s the point of our perception system. It perceives. we can’t perceive more than our system does.”

Why

“energy may be greater than our perception system: Energy is bigger. and yes the monks exist! if they don’t exist, then how can you sit there and say they survived the mountain freeze? we cannot perceive the whole of reality: reality is too big. but we perceive the reality in which we live.”

You make an interesting observation in your statement that “reality is too big.” If we perceive the reality in which we live then the circle returns to what is ‘WE.’ Before you can go forward with theories one must define the very what, why and how of existence and the nature of intelligence in any formation of inanimate particles or energy.

“can we understand our perceived world? yes. i am not sure what you are saying about free will, can you rephrase that bit for me?”
Certainly. I propose that the “WE’ are actually a flow of some sort of force or freewill which exists in the form an unknown energy plasma in a infinite timelessness. That this freewill was given as a gift to perceive our universe, objects and given the choice to follow paths in our short life span.

“yes... we can choose... whether this is a free choice or not we will never know (as it would feel the same: free will/determinism are again theories of this world in which could both be wrong) so, "we" exist as a collective? as we are all made of ever moving energy that changes in forms to be born and dissipates at death. But does that mean that "we" in our current form do not exist? do we have memory of ourselves in energy form? “

Do we exist as a collective free will or simply as solid animated thinking matter? Can we never know self determinism as a function of this flow of life? I actually disagree with the concept that this energy flow dissipates at death. In my humble opinion, this flow of free will existed before we were born (became aware of consciousness) and continues in the same form after death but without the ability to experience our place in this universe and that of cognition found during the life episode.

“ Who said anything about measurements? I simply say that we all see the same configurations: and we all have our theories on what’s actually happening. I believe it is you who are making the assumptions on what I am saying.”

Sorry about my assumptions of what you are saying. And you are again correct in stating that we all have our own theories of actuality. For the here and now we see the same configurations (measurements, QM physics observation and hypothesis) but each of us has an equally valid interpretation. At least from my perspective.

pelastration

Dec7-03, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by THANOS
Our reality is much like our "T.V." About 90% bull**** and fiction and the rest is reality to our bias views. And like our T.V. went it dies out no more energy comes through and the images no longer exist.
The TV-waves of the images are still send by the TV-station. My TV can still show them. Whaaw ... very nice movie![6)]

Your TV-body still receives those waves. But your TV can not play them anymore.

THANOS

Dec7-03, 09:29 AM

Sure the waves are still there. I said nothing about the waves. I said that we are much like the T.V. not the waves the T.V. uses to make the picture. The waves are more like the reality that surrounds us. the things that happen throughout our daily lives. When we die the people still live thier lives and don't stop because we died. The plug and the energy source is much like the food we eat to keep us going. So we are like the T.V. bub! I'm a T.V.!! hehehe
And much like the T.V. when we die the T.V. is still there and can not play the images. Conscience is gone, but the body remains. Only thing is the T.V. may rust and take much much longer to decompose then our physical bodies. But the fact is the matter that makes our body still exist.

pelastration

Dec7-03, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by THANOS
Sure the waves are still there. I said nothing about the waves. I said that we are much like the T.V. not the waves the T.V. uses to make the picture. The waves are more like the reality that surrounds us. the things that happen throughout our daily lives. When we die the people still live thier lives and don't stop because we died. The plug and the energy source is much like the food we eat to keep us going. So we are like the T.V. bub! I'm a T.V.!! hehehe
And much like the T.V. when we die the T.V. is still there and can not play the images. Conscience is gone, but the body remains. Only thing is the T.V. may rust and take much much longer to decompose then our physical bodies. But the fact is the matter that makes our body still exist.
My next step: While your TV-set still is OK
but put-OFF it still receives waves. (that's like Jung's collective unconciousness state). We could also put the image off and only receive the sound. (that's like the personal unconciousness state). When we put the TV-set fully on: we have sound + images (which can be moving or stil). Conciousness.

pelastration

Dec7-03, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by THANOS
But the fact is the matter that makes our body still exist.
... and these particles of matter will also oscillate with the TV-waves IFF they are resonant.

THANOS

Dec7-03, 11:33 AM

Sure the T.V. can be put off eh. much like our sleep or whe we close our eyes. But when the T.V. Burns out neither sound or images will be able to exist within that T.V.

Enough T.V.?

pelastration

Dec7-03, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by THANOS
Sure the T.V. can be put off eh. much like our sleep or whe we close our eyes. But when the T.V. Burns out neither sound or images will be able to exist within that T.V.

Enough T.V.?
Sure.

My conclusion (similar to other already expressed on PF but in other words):
1. We (humans) are a complex system containing a number of inter-resonant out-put sub-systems. (TV-set)
2. We gather (by a number of oscillation-sensing sub-systems) a number of intrinsic different oscillations (text, sound, still images, moving images in TV) from our (providing) surrounding which are re-distributed via a priority-focusing feedback mechanism (TV-set with preferences options like image OFF, sound ON).
3. Our surrounding is not just that what we observe with 'common senses' but includes non-local information. (cfr. TV-waves sent by TV-station).
4. We observe our surrounding in an indirect way. (depending from the available TV-waves offered by different TV-stations).
5. We can focus or have priority (choose a TV or sound or image or text channel).
6. When we decay as a total (TV-set doesn't work anymore) some of our sub-sets may still be functioning correctly (not-affected sub-parts of the TV-set, such as antenna, some condensers, chips, etc.).

onycho

Dec7-03, 03:04 PM

"And much like the T.V. when we die the T.V. is still there and can not play the images. Conscience is gone, but the body remains. Only thing is the T.V. may rust and take much much longer to decompose then our physical bodies. But the fact is the matter that makes our body still exist."

Is our consciousness gone when our bodies die? Did our awareness of self just go on like a light bulb at birth and then when we die our cognizance just burn out?

Where do you think our awareness came from and where does it go after death? Before you relate such things to TV sets and signals, you have to understand exactly what you are talking about.

NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE....

pelastration

Dec7-03, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by onycho
what you are talking about.

About ... what's on my website. [t)]

onycho

Dec7-03, 08:01 PM

I have carefully examined your website and ideas of matter creation. You apparently have made something so simple into a very complex system for the creation of matter through tubules.

Copied from your site:

This pelastration approach is not contradictory to most basics of the Superstring theory and M-Brane theory. (To us the Kaluza-Klein approach contains anti-unification elements since it creates discrete 'traps' which boundary/brane origin is mystic again. In stead of simplifying KK makes it even more complex).

The Paradox of the Quantum Leap can also be explained.

Michio Kaku: "The original 10 dimensional space-time finally "cracked" into two pieces, a four and a six dimensional universe. The universe made the "quantum leap" to another universe in which six of the 10 dimensions collapsed and curled up into a tiny ball, allowing the remaining four dimensional universe to explode outward at an enormous rate. The four dimensional universe (our world) expanded rapidly, creating the Big Bang, while the six dimensional universe wrapped itself into a tiny ball and shrunk down to infinitesimal size."

You find many mystic dimensions that can neither be validated nor measured except in your complex theory of tubes and pelastrations.

I find that the creation of any perceived existence and our own reality so much more simple. Your theory does not allow for that 1 trillionth of a second before the so-called Big Bang. You find other involuted universes creating the Big Bang. (The beginning of energy/mass where nothing or other previous universes existed before. What pelastration or tubule was there when nothing existed at all? The answer is so simple that it begs for some unified theory of the creation of everything from nothing whatsoever.

The Origin From Timelessness with no space, time or energy.

pelastration

Dec7-03, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by onycho
I have carefully examined your website and ideas of matter creation.
I appreciate that.
Originally posted by onycho
You apparently have made something so simple into a very complex system for the creation of matter through tubules.
So simple : You explain me then how matter was created. Show me ... in a way I really can do it. Straight logic.
Originally posted by onycho
You find many mystic dimensions that can neither be validated nor measured except in your complex theory of tubes and pelastrations.

Please rephrase.
Originally posted by onycho
I find that the creation of any perceived existence and our own reality so much more simple.
Please explain the principles.Originally posted by onycho
Your theory does not allow for that 1 trillionth of a second before the so-called Big Bang. You find other involuted universes creating the Big Bang. (The beginning of energy/mass where nothing or other previous universes existed before.
Big Bang is one of the theories. There are other contradicting BB. BTW ... do you think BB was an explosion?
Originally posted by onycho
The beginning of energy/mass where nothing or other previous universes existed before.
What makes you say that. Arguments please ... no statements.
Originally posted by onycho
What pelastration or tubule was there when nothing existed at all?
You carefully examined my website? The key is Einstein's Prior-Geometry. On my thread on Theory development you can find more about that.
You Originally posted by onycho
The answer is so simple that it begs for some unified theory of the creation of everything from nothing whatsoever.
Looking forward for the 'so' simple answer (with arguments please) and to your theory.
Originally posted by onycho
The Origin From Timelessness with no space, time or energy.
And all in Lifegazer's Mind ... yes?

THANOS

Dec7-03, 10:22 PM

Do you have proof that conscience stays? If not i'd advise ya to let me go my way and i'll let you go yours. I simply state that because i believe that our thoughts and mind is gone after death. There is a chance that it remains but if there is no food or water for our bodies to convert to the energy we need to keep our body going it can not survive. I also believe that the belief of conscience still existing is just a direct or indirect hope for immortality or an afterlife. A belief created by religion. But as i said. This is what i believe.

pelastration

Dec7-03, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by THANOS
Do you have proof that conscience stays? If not i'd advise ya to let me go my way and i'll let you go yours. I simply state that because i believe that our thoughts and mind is gone after death. There is a chance that it remains but if there is no food or water for our bodies to convert to the energy we need to keep our body going it can not survive. I also believe that the belief of conscience still existing is just a direct or indirect hope for immortality or an afterlife. A belief created by religion. But as i said. This is what i believe.
Although the ideas I gave are based on my ideas of gravity (not religion) we will stop here. No problem Thanos [;)]
The best and thanks.

Guybrush Threepwood

Dec8-03, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by olde drunk
let's stay with the human experience.

why? does the physics apply only to humans????

please remember that the measurements etc. are the result of the scientist's beliefs about what should be measured. it has been postulated that his beliefs even affect the results of the measurements.

actually the measurements are the result of mesuring, not of someone's beliefs. Please take a voltmeter and a 1.5 battery, and believe that you will measure 400V. Then measure the voltage of the battery. tell us the result....

what if there are GREATER LAWS yet to be uncovered??? laws that include conciousness and allows us to exceed the speed of light. Quantum theory is getting close to this information.

If someone will discover them, it will by work and not by believing that he can run faster than light.....

so, is it possible that the energy of a thought, idea, belief goes out and creates a reality (for me) that complies.

not untill you come to me, wish for a good dinner and make it apper on my desk [;)]

Guybrush Threepwood

Dec8-03, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by onycho
Can you back up anything that shows you are actually conscious right now?

only if you define consciusness

THANOS

Dec8-03, 07:19 AM

May i ask your explaination how gravity is a part of it? sorry if my last post seemed a bit nieve. I was up for 48 hours and didn't even realized i typed that. hehe.

olde drunk

Dec8-03, 09:30 AM

I hate to say it, but it may be time for the thread originator to define "REALITY" that was in the original question. i get the feeling that there may be cross talk about what we see/witness and what we experience.

Is it what i percieve or is it the sum total of what i experience???

to me, reality is what i experience. i also believe that we are energy gestalts. our conciousness is greater than the sum of our parts.

i like the TV analogy! now, who is sending us our waves? our greater self or a higher power????

what if we get our original 'power' from our higher power and then create waves ourselves for our human incarnation???

wish i was still drinking, i'd swear i had the answer!!

the only answer there is is that "there ain't no answer". we all construct an answer based on our beliefs and that answer creates the reality that each of us experience.

martini please,
chet

onycho

Dec8-03, 11:29 AM

Origninally posted by Palastration

---You apparently have made something so simple into a very complex system for the creation of matter through tubules.

"So simple: You explain me then how matter was created. Show me ... in a way I really can do it. Straight logic."

If I actually new how matter was created from nothing, then I would be the only human being in this galaxy that did. The logic of ‘ex nihilo’ must necessarily mean that matter ‘always existed and without being formed by a Creator.’ For theories and formulas to prove logically that things created themselves in a chaos remains within statistical probability off -0> (200) power. For if there was an alteration of less than 1 degree of heat in the nano second following a Big Bang would have resulted in a universe with nothing but diminishing energy with no matter or life as we know it? What are the statistical probabilities for this very accurate event to happen within that infinitesimal factor?

"Nothing" is the absence of anything. "Nothing" is relative, because in this universe, there is no absolute nothing. There is everywhere space and time, and stuff even if only radiation.
One of the fundamental principles of the universe is the Law of Nothing, that "nothing comes from nothing." If there is something, it must have come from something else. Therefore, stuff cannot be created out of nothing. Matter and energy can be transformed, but as a whole, they are conserved, neither created nor destroyed.
Since something always comes from something else, this implies the fundamental law of science: everything happens for a reason. The most basic law of science is the law of cause and effect. Too often students, journalists, and even scholars write as though something can come from nothing. They make unwarranted assertions, with no reason or justification, no warrants from logic and evidence. They think they say something, but their empty statements lack meaning and substance, so really they say nothing.

---You find many mystic dimensions that can neither be validated nor measured except in your complex theory of tubes and palastrations.

“Please rephrase.”

[b]Sorry but your site spoke of ‘mystic’ dimensions in the context of your theory of matter creation.

----I find that the creation of any perceived existence and our own reality so much simpler.

”Please explain the principles.”

Actually Albert Einstein said it best.
"People say I am one of the great minds of all times," Einstein said, "but all I did was look for simplicity. I believe that the grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms. You see, G-d always takes the simplest way."
"I couldn't have said it better, Albert," said Bailey, "But I'll reframe it a little differently. Simplicity is Nature's first step, and the last of Art. Oh, if we all could only realize this truth, the world would be a much better place."

----Your theory does not allow for that 1 trillionth of a second before the so-called Big Bang. You find other involutes universes creating the Big Bang. (The beginning of energy/mass where nothing or other previous universes had existed before.)

”Big Bang is one of the theories. There are other contradicting BB. BTW ... do you think BB was an explosion?”

Actually all theories of matter, space and time creation are nothing more than speculations. I do not believe or believe that there was a giant explosion at the beginning of things. Empirical evidence leads current thinkers to speculate about this possibility. Your site speculates on previous universes involuting causing the Big Bang but then you must ask where the previous universes originate.

----The beginning of energy/mass where nothing or other previous universes existed before.

”What makes you say that. Arguments please ... no statements.”

[quote]The argument is answered by the statement itself. Argument: Any verifiable evidence of the origin of energy/mass, universes or dimensions is pure speculation. If you can prove matter creation with anything more than theories, please enlighten us.

---What pelastration or tubule was there when nothing existed at all?

”You carefully examined my website? The key is Einstein's Prior-Geometry. On my thread on Theory development you can find more about that. “

Yes I did examine your website and also found the following paragraph on Einstein’s Prior-Geometry theory. So much for prior-geometry.

Prior-geometry theory sees "g-mu-nu" as being actually a compound object in disguise; one part being the gravitational field, the other part representing a pre-existing and immutable arena of spacetime. To make such a decomposition work, the part of "g-mu-nu" that is prior-geometry cannot be affected by matter or energy; that was the exclusive role to be played by the second component of "g-mu-nu" representing the gravitational field. Prior geometry would have to play the role of the absolute bedrock of spacetime that both special relativity and Newtonian physics are built-up from. Can such a decomposition really work? No observation by the time Einstein proposed general relativity, or since, has ever uncovered any physical evidence for some 'universal geometric object' or plenum which stands aloof from physics in the manner that prior geometry would have to. Prior-geometry theory would also require that some preferred universal frame of rest exist against which, like the ether or Newton's absolute space and time, we could gauge our motion. Also, no phenomenon had ever been discovered which did not obey the principle of reciprocity; the property of acting upon matter and in turn being acted upon by matter. If this argument for the existence of prior-geometry sounds like the old argument Maxwell used for believing in the Ether, you are right. It is, after all, rather hard not to consider something like a prior-geometry at work in nature for much the same reason that the ether was such a seductive idea in electrodynamics for supporting light waves.

----The answer is so simple that it begs for some unified theory of the creation of everything from nothing whatsoever.

”Looking forward for the 'so' simple answer (with arguments please) and to your theory.”

I have no complex or other theory but for the answer refer to Einstein’s own quote which I will repeat for you here.

"People say I am one of the great minds of all times," Einstein said, "but all I did was look for simplicity. I believe that the grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms. You see, G-d always takes the simplest way."
"I couldn't have said it better, Albert," said Bailey, "But I'll reframe it a little differently. Simplicity is Nature's first step, and the last of Art. Oh, if we all could only realize this truth, the world would be a much better place."

----The Origin From Timelessness with no space, time or energy.

"And all in Lifegazer's Mind ... yes?"

If you say so for you are the one with the palastration theory of matter creation……

onycho

Dec8-03, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Guybrush Threewood

"only if you define consciusness"

Consciousness, we shall find, is reducible to relations between objects, and objects we shall find to be reducible to relations between different states of consciousness; and neither point of view is more nearly ultimate than the other.

ATTRIBUTION: T.S. (Thomas Stearns) Eliot

Guybrush Threepwood

Dec9-03, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by onycho
Consciousness, we shall find, is reducible to relations between objects, and objects we shall find to be reducible to relations between different states of consciousness; and neither point of view is more nearly ultimate than the other.

in other words you have no ideea, but you thought the quote would look cool.
All I can understand from your "definition" is that now consciousness is something reducilble with different states..... although it looks very much like a circular definition to me.

onycho

Dec9-03, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by Guybrush Threewood

"in other words you have no ideea, but you thought the quote would look cool. All I can understand from your "definition" is that now consciousness is something reducilble with different states..... although it looks very much like a circular definition to me."

[b]Actually your question of consciousnss is ridiculous on its face. My consicousness definition is not really relevant but I will give you my impression.

In psychology, that aspect of mental life that is separate from immediate consciousness and is not subject to recall at will. Sigmund Freud regarded the unconscious as a submerged but vast portion of the mind. In his view, the unconscious was composed of the id, which accounts for instinctual drives, acts as the motivating force in human behavior, and contains desires and wishes that the individual hides—or represses—from conscious recognition; and part of the superego, the system that acts to restrain and control id impulses. Conscious cognitive processes, such as thinking, are performed by the ego and part of the superego.
Conflict between conscious and unconscious impulses are said to give rise to anxiety, then to defense mechanisms, which counteract this anxiety. To tap the unconscious, Freud used a variety of techniques, including hypnosis, free association, and dream interpretation. C. G. Jung expanded on the Freudian concept, adding the idea of an inherited unconscious, known as the collective unconscious. The idea of the unconscious has been rejected by some psychological schools, although it is still used by many psychoanalysts. The term unconscious is also used to describe latent, or unretrieved, memories, or to describe stimuli too weak to enter an individual’s conscious awareness.

The fact that consciousness can exist in any combination of particles that also make up everything percieved as we assume it exits is beyond imagination. Ergo, the essence of existence and a unverise that cannot exist by any formulation known to date is truly circular reasoning.

For you to describe the formation of matter with your cognitive consciousness is an oxymoron.

pelastration

Dec9-03, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by THANOS
May i ask your explaination how gravity is a part of it? sorry if my last post seemed a bit nieve. I was up for 48 hours and didn't even realized i typed that. hehe.
48 hours: nice he. My record was 80 hours while writing a patent.

Gravity: Yes.
Einstein said that 'everything' is gravitational 'field'. The gravitational field had no structure: it is the Prior-Geometry.

In my opinion this is correct, but the gravitational 'field will restructure, because it is a 'real' membrane, not an abstract idea. The mechanism to restructuring is by doubling certain parts of that gravitational membrane.

When you couple two little parts of the gravitational membrane you will have new zone (unit) WITH STRUCTURE.
Before we had NO structure, now we HAVE a local zone WITH structure.
That new local zone is called a holon (but you can call that also a Quantum box)
The holon is made of two gravitational layers which are joined (almost locked together): so that like a unity.

So the new 'unity' is still empty! The holon is empty because It is just multi-layered (empty) gravitational membrane.

But that new zone (a holon) can couple with other units (also empty holons) , etc.
So these holons can couple and make very complex combinations (like building up towers of matter). This happens in hierarchic tree/branch systems. Every new combination CONTAINS automatically also the previous gravitational layers. All is just gravitational membrane. Everything is still empty.

For example: May be a quark can contain 6 or 14 gravitational layers. The quark is multi-layered with gravitational membrane but is still empty! In the quark those many layers of gravitational membrane are all the time tearing, pushing, combining, fighting, ... etc.

So the more layers there are ... the more density we see. Think about transparent plastic. One sheet: transparent. But 100 layers: a silver deep color, no transparency.

Humans have billions of such 'empty' holons, so in fact a human is a complex system of (empty) gravitational membrane.
Our surrounding is also a complex system of (empty) gravitational membrane.

So when we "see" and "feel" and "measure" our surrounding we LOOK to other (empty) holons. But all those empty holons are like building blocks. (cfr. empty cardboard boxes). ... and with empty cardboard boxes you can BUILD houses.

Since all those empty building blocs are made only made of the SAME gravitational membrane they can COMMUNICATE (by vibrations).

When we observe our reality (surrounding us) we do that with sensors which are able to communicate with the similar or the same vibrations.(that is resonance).

In humans there are many specialized networks of communication. This is like the different TV waves from many TV stations that your TV-set receives ALL THE TIME. We humans have embedded in our body a number of priorities triggers, identical like the TV-remote box that gives you the possibility to ZAP from TV-station to TV-station, lower sound, change colors, etc.

So our view of reality is related to such internal zap-system in each human. Once this is important (food), next second another thing (sex) is important ... then: pain in finger, then telephone, then ....

But everything is made of vibrations of the gravitational membrane.

For your information: I updated my website. Important new webpages : http://www.mu6.com/holon_creation.html and http://www.mu6.com/spacetime3.html (with animated image of pelastrating spacetime)

Guybrush Threepwood

Dec9-03, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by onycho
Actually your question of consciousnss is ridiculous on its face. My consicousness definition is not really relevant but I will give you my impression.

Actually you brought the subject in discussion.
And again I cannot find any definition in your quote.
If you're really interested maybe you should take a look at this thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5615)...

For you to describe the formation of matter with your cognitive consciousness is an oxymoron.

I didn't say anything like that.

onycho

Dec9-03, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by Greenwood Threepwood

"So our view of reality is related to such internal zap-system in each human. Once this is important (food), next second another thing (sex) is important ... then: pain in finger, then telephone, then ...."

The limits of the human mind in constructing our view of reality theories are finite. Flexible membranes with infinite streching abilities marking the borders of our universe are much like a mist which disppears with the coming of daylight.

Reality imagination could hardly do without metaphor, for imagination is, literally, the moving around in one’s mind of images, and such images tend commonly to be metaphoric. Creative minds, as we know, are rich in images and metaphors, and this is true in science and art alike. The difference between scientist and artist has little to do with the ways of the creative imagination; everything to do with the manner of demonstration and verification of what has been seen or imagined.

ATTRIBUTION: Robert A. Nisbet

onycho

Dec9-03, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood

"Actually you brought the subject in discussion."

Actually you asked my definition of consciousness

"And again I cannot find any definition in your quote."

For a definition of consciousness one must be conscious.

"If you're really interested maybe you should take a look at this thread..."

I looked but found nothin of interest

---For you to describe the formation of matter with your cognitive consciousness is an oxymoron.

"I didn't say anything like that."

Really? From your own web site on palastration theory.

The separation of "matter" and "spiritual" is only the description of two other layers of interconnectedness...

Guybrush Threepwood

Dec9-03, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by pelastration

So our view of reality is related to such internal zap-system in each human. Once this is important (food), next second another thing (sex) is important ... then: pain in finger, then telephone, then ....

But everything is made of vibrations of the gravitational membrane.

bottom of page 4

you know onycho just writing originally posted by [whatever name here] doesn't make that person say what you want...

Guybrush Threepwood

Dec9-03, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by onycho
"If you're really interested maybe you should take a look at this thread..."

I looked but found nothin of interest

maybe you're interested just in your ideeas and don't really care if they fit the world you live in or not.

onycho

Dec9-03, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Guybruth Threepwood

"bottom of page 4 you know onycho just writing originally posted by [whatever name here] doesn't make that person say what you want..."

"Nor does it make the person (whtever name here) who originlly posted mean what was stated says what I didn't want it to mean.[/b]

onycho

Dec9-03, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by Greenwood Threepwood

"maybe you're interested just in your ideeas and don't really care if they the world you live in or not."

Your sentence and its structure is not understandable. But if I had to make a guess at your sentence meaning would reply thusly. I do care about the world in which I assume exists but do not take notions of vibrating membranes or infinite stretching of a universe without something more than the physics of imagination.

Guybrush Threepwood

Dec9-03, 07:10 AM

onycho what I am about to tell you will probably shake your understanding of the world but: I am not pelastration.
We're different people, see my knicname is Guybrush Threepwood, he is pelastration. Is it clear enough for you?

olde drunk

Dec9-03, 07:26 AM

Folks: are we here to exchange ideas and expand our awareness OR to debate words just to show how smart/cute we can be??

conciousness, imho, is my total being(mind and spirit). my human personality cannot comprehend it's full definition due to the limitations of my physical brain.

again, can we have some working definitions with which to discuss our views and opinions??

onycho

Dec9-03, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
onycho what I am about to tell you will probably shake your understanding of the world but: I am not pelastration.
We're different people, see my knicname is Guybrush Threepwood, he is pelastration. Is it clear enough for you?

Sorry for the mixup. My posts should have been directed pelastration as he is the one with ideation of matter creation. My apologies.

onycho

Dec9-03, 08:35 AM

"Folks: are we here to exchange ideas and expand our awareness OR to debate words just to show how smart/cute we can be??

conciousness, imho, is my total being(mind and spirit). my human personality cannot comprehend it's full definition due to the limitations of my physical brain.

again, can we have some working definitions with which to discuss our views and opinions??"

I believe you are correct in your assumption that we are here for the exchange of ideas and expand our awareness but that is why we are here in the Philosophy-Metaphysics & Epistemology section of the Physics Forum.

In my humble opinion (for what it is worth) the current machinations and theories of the physics of the universe are nothing more than current suppositions based on a finite human intellect and scientific experimentation which seems to fit into observation of the world from our solar system perspective.

Many scientists, cosmolgists and physicists admit that these same theories probably do not have validity in a universe we assume exists out there.

No one has explained to my satisfation the insight in your previous statement; "...my total being(mind and spirit). my human personality cannot comprehend it's full definition due to the limitations of my physical brain"

What makes inanimate particles think????

olde drunk

Dec9-03, 09:15 AM

What makes inanimate particles think????

hmm, within our perspective, imho, they do not think. many philosophers over time have presented us with the idea that they do have a 'soul' or greater existence. i doubt that it would be worthwhile to persue an inanimate objects existence since we are having enuff trouble understanding our own (to which we have access).

IF we are to accept that we are energy with the ability to acknowledge ourselves and a greater reality, then we are concious or have conciousness?

to me, the mere fact that we can concieve of a universe and beyond is evidence that we are limitless. we may not be able to explain all of what is out there but we do 'sense' (know?) that we are eternal. not our body but our spirit or conciousness. the zen masters have reveled us with their experience and view of this broader reality. druggies also try to relate the demensions they have visited. unfortunately, words and formulas, etc. are insufficient/inadequate. until we allow all our senses to be integrated into our obsevation of any reality, we will not fully understand our experience.

do not misunderstand me, i am not able to do that. i am able to broaden my experiece the more aware i become of all my abilities.
i submit that we are more than the laws of physics can explain. we have done and witnessed things that are unexplainable. exclude the acient prophets and only study a more recent enlightened human.

how did Edgar Cayce correctly diagnose and prescribe for people that he only viewed in a trance??? the cases are there to study. being logical, he was able to focus his conciousness (attention) on another level of existence and relate what he saw. i do not believe that he is/was the only human with this ability. i strongly believe that we all have these talents. unfortunately, we were trained from birth that there ain't no santa claus or easter bunny; only the solid four demensions. remote cultures retain these abilities because they are reinforced in everyday life.

it is my suspicion that quantum theory will reveal what we need to know and accept in order to open a whole new world of experience for the human reality.

if you believe, you are not peter pan! believing is the basis for experience. Guybush believes that what he observes is really there, apart from him. i believe that what is out there is a reflection of what is inside here(me, pointing to my heart). the heart is a symbol of my spirit.

now, the real question is "WHY?".

thanks,
chet

Guybrush Threepwood

Dec9-03, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by olde drunk
Guybush believes that what he observes is really there, apart from him. i believe that what is out there is a reflection of what is inside here(me, pointing to my heart).

so am I inside there too?

pelastration

Dec9-03, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by onycho
Sorry for the mixup. My posts should have been directed pelastration as he is the one with ideation of matter creation. My apologies.
You gave an excellent example of the essence of this thread: "Do we see the world as we assume it exists?"
You assumed that Guybrush and myself were one ... because you were focusing on something different. If you mixed and combined the two different visions of Guybrush and myself then you had a strange and mixed interpretation and overview of what was said. Maybe you should read again the posts Guybrush and myself did ... and re-interpret them ... now as written by two different persons.

pelastration

Dec9-03, 10:05 AM

Si I wrote: "So our view of reality is related to such internal zap-system in each human. Once this is important (food), next second another thing (sex) is important ... then: pain in finger, then telephone, then ...."
Originally posted by onycho
The limits of the human mind in constructing our view of reality theories are finite.
Can you explain? You mean the human mind is limited? Sure.

Originally posted by onycho
Flexible membranes with infinite streching abilities marking the borders of our universe are much like a mist which disppears with the coming of daylight.
Sorry ... this is written like a paradox ... of course that can be real fun.
Can you rephrase your message? Or is there no message?

IMO it has nothing to do with the logic image I gave about: The internal zap-system in each human.

onycho

Dec9-03, 05:42 PM

Palastration or Castration says:

"If you mixed and combined the two different visions of Guybrush and myself then you had a strange and mixed interpretation and overview of what was said.

pelastration, you make my apology to another poster as some kind of proof of your strange understanding of the universe. You place the onus on me for a 'mixed interpretation and overiew' of your convoluted and harebrained internal zap-system theory.

Take a deep breath, relax and come down from your imaginary trip to the moon.

onycho

Dec9-03, 06:07 PM

"Si I wrote: "So our view of reality is related to such internal zap-system in each human. Once this is important (food), next second another thing (sex) is important ... then: pain in finger, then telephone, then ...."

WHAT IS A SI? What are you rambling about?

---The limits of the human mind in constructing our view of reality theories are finite.

"Can you explain? You mean the human mind is limited? Sure."

Even Einstein and Boehr attempted to create a unifying field theory which is inherently impossible without being able to leave our earth point of reference where all known physics and QM do not function or explain everything.

---Flexible membranes with infinite streching abilities marking the borders of our universe are much like a mist which disppears with the coming of daylight.

"Sorry ... this is written like a paradox ... of course that can be real fun. Can you rephrase your message? Or is there no message?"

My message is very clear. When you attempt to use Einstein or other great thinkers work to fabricate your own ideations, then without evidence your theories are like that mist which disappears when looked in the light of day.

"IMO it has nothing to do with the logic image I gave about : The internal zap-system in each human."

FYI the following site will give you a little insight into the sheared flow stabilization experiments in the ZaP flow Z-pinch.

http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/ZaP/index.html

pelastration

Dec9-03, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Palastration or Castration

That's enough.

onycho

Dec9-03, 07:09 PM

.Olde drunk says

---What makes inanimate particles think????

"hmm, within our perspective, imho, they do not think.."

Actually there is now scientific evidence to the contrary. Remember the two split experiment with which many are so familiar? The following experiment has been replicated many times by different investigators with the same inexplicable results. Read the following paragraphs to understand this always occurring event in which atoms have some innate Wisdom of their own.

A gun is able to fire one atom every hour at a plate with photographic emulsion on surface. If an atom hits the plate it makes a spot on the film. If a solid plate is placed in front of the back emulsion film, any atom striking the front solid plate is stopped and seen no more. If the atom happens to pass through the slit on the front plate it continues to the photographic emulsion.

When only one slit is open, the gun continues to fire one atom an hour and a large number of spots accumulate on the emulsion and one can notice the expected fuzzy diffraction pattern. Now if the first slit is closed and open a second slit in the front solid plate, the repeated atom firings produce the same pattern but offset by the distance that separates the the two slits. The atoms are producing the diffraction pattern characteristics of waves passing through a narrow harbor opening.

Now when both slits are opened and again the gun fires one atom at a time the individual atoms no longer land randomly within the usual diffraction pattern. Instead they fall only within the specific "allowed' regions where the light bands of the interference pattern appear and never in the dark band regions. Seems reasonable doesn't it?

But wait! This cannot be. A single atom was fired at a time. There is no other atom, be it wave or particle with which to interfere and cancel each other. Yet the interference pattern occurs and the dark bands appear. A single particle can only go through one of the slits. Already noted that atoms going through the single slit falls everywhere with the diffraction pattern with none of the alternating light and dark bands that result from the interference of waves at the emulsion screen. Although both slits are open, and still firing only one atom at a time,it must travel to only one of the two slits and go through that slit. If the other slit is closed it lands anywhere within the diffraction pattern. If the other slit is open, it never lands in the dark (forbidden) regions originally seen in the interference pattern which developed when there were two slits open.

The atom is a single entity, with a fixed locality. In its passage through one slit, why should opening or closing the other slit have any effect upon its passage? How can it "know' if the second slit is open or closed? But it does know!!!! Somehow the atom is aware of its environment.

The identical results are obtained with firing single photons. Photon particles of light that travel at the speed of light, the now considered maximum speed attainable in our universe. Even if the photon is infinitely extended, in the time it travels from the photon gun to the open slit it cannot have 'felt' the second slit, check to see if that second slit was open or closed, communicated that information to the portion passing through the first slit and then decided where on the screen it was permitted to land and where it was forbidden. There was no time for the feeler to make the round trip.

This is bizarre.

Attribution: Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D. in physics MIT.

Rader

Dec27-03, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by onycho
.Olde drunk says

---What makes inanimate particles think????

"hmm, within our perspective, imho, they do not think.."

Actually there is now scientific evidence to the contrary. Remember the two split experiment with which many are so familiar? The following experiment has been replicated many times by different investigators with the same inexplicable results. Read the following paragraphs to understand this always occurring event in which atoms have some innate Wisdom of their own.

Onycho, just a thought here i had. If the micro world is dominated by quantum mechanics, there is contained in it, all fixed localities. Then within the diffraction pattern of alternating light and dark bands there is contained all the possibilities of fotons that would exist. By shooting single fotons we see what the laws in our universe allow us to. The fotons creating the cancelling out, to create the diffraction pattern of alternating light and dark bands, would then be what the laws of our universe do not allow us to see. This would be a sort of evidence that a muliverse could exist and mutiple realities inside a Reality. If two fotons are shot instead of one, then two are recorded?, this indicates that we create our realtiy through ovservation. It is said, water will not boil if not observed.
What other inovated ways has this ixperiment been done? I have been trying to think of alternative explanations.
[8)]

onycho

Dec27-03, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Rader
Onycho, just a thought here i had. If the micro world is dominated by quantum mechanics, there is contained in it, all fixed localities. Then within the diffraction pattern of alternating light and dark bands there is contained all the possibilities of fotons that would exist. By shooting single fotons we see what the laws in our universe allow us to. The fotons creating the cancelling out, to create the diffraction pattern of alternating light and dark bands, would then be what the laws of our universe do not allow us to see. This would be a sort of evidence that a muliverse could exist and mutiple realities inside a Reality. If two fotons are shot instead of one, then two are recorded?, this indicates that we create our realtiy through ovservation. It is said, water will not boil if not observed.
What other inovated ways has this ixperiment been done? I have been trying to think of alternative explanations.
[8)]

Radar thats just it as there is no proof that the world, the universe or any other dimension is dominated by quantum mechanics. QM appears to explain a paradox first enunciated by Einstein et al. (1935), who proposed a thought experiment that appeared to demonstrate quantum mechanics to be an incomplete theory. The usual view of quantum mechanics says that a wave function determines the probabilities of an actual experimental result and that it is the most complete possible specification of the quantum state. Einstein et al. believed the predictions of quantum mechanics to be correct, but only as the result of statistical distributions of other unknown but real properties of the particles.

You say that this is 'some sort' of evidence that multi-universes
could exist and that multiple realities can exist in other realities. I do not believe that we create reality by observation but that reality creates our perspective of things as we assume them to exist.

The experiment I mentioned is a paradox in itself as there is no QM that can explain the observed phenomena of individual particle thought or Wisdom. QM does not deal with the SAS particle which cannot be deduced by any mathematical formula or ideation of an esoteric ability of the particles that seem to make a construct which has free choice.

Rader

Dec28-03, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by onycho
Radar thats just it as there is no proof that the world, the universe or any other dimension is dominated by quantum mechanics. QM appears to explain a paradox first enunciated by Einstein et al. (1935), who proposed a thought experiment that appeared to demonstrate quantum mechanics to be an incomplete theory. The usual view of quantum mechanics says that a wave function determines the probabilities of an actual experimental result and that it is the most complete possible specification of the quantum state. Einstein et al. believed the predictions of quantum mechanics to be correct, but only as the result of statistical distributions of other unknown but real properties of the particles.

You say that this is 'some sort' of evidence that multi-universes
could exist and that multiple realities can exist in other realities. I do not believe that we create reality by observation but that reality creates our perspective of things as we assume them to exist.

The experiment I mentioned is a paradox in itself as there is no QM that can explain the observed phenomena of individual particle thought or Wisdom. QM does not deal with the SAS particle which cannot be deduced by any mathematical formula or ideation of an esoteric ability of the particles that seem to make a construct which has free choice.

Yes i have been investigating this. Einstein et al,(1935), I leave this interesting site.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Einstein-EPR-Experiment.htm
Take alook at Experimental Proof of the Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter.

Quantum Theory (1900-1930) discovered four main things;
a) Both matter and light sometimes behave as particles and sometimes behave as waves. (Planck, de Broglie)
b) Schrodinger's Standing Wave equations can be used to describe the allowed discrete energy states for electrons (Wave-Centers) in atoms or molecules.
c) It is impossible to know both the location and momentum of a particle and this inherent uncertainty can be calculated using the square of the Wave equation to determine the probability of where the particle will be found. (Heisenberg, Born)
d) Matter seems to be subtly interconnected with other matter in the Universe. (EPR Experiment)

To be found.TOE
e)gravity incorporatd
f)SAS function found
g)Consiousness explained

The Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (EPR) experiment performed by Aspect in 1972 famously and controversially confirmed the apparent instant interconnection of particles and contradicted Einstein's Relativity which requires that all matter to matter interactions be limited by the velocity of light. Einstein is in fact correct, the error of the experiment was to assume matter was a particle rather than the Wave-Center of a Spherical Standing Wave. Once this is understood then it explains how matter is subtly interconnected with other matter in the Space around it (by the In and Out-Waves) and leads to a minor change in the experiment which will confirm the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Spherical Wave Structure of Matter as a sensible and obvious solution to the problems and paradoxes of not only Quantum Theory, but also of Einstein's Relativity and Cosmology.

Most books do not explain Einsteins in depth view of QM, they just brush it off, saying he did not like it or want to accept it..

A consciousness would seem to explain the EPR experiment.
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/dewolf00quantum.html
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/context/40008/0
8)]

ambient

Dec29-03, 01:01 PM

I must apologize to all,

I have not read all the posts in
this forum, and perhaps someone
has already addressed the point
I am about to bring up.

In my opinion, due to improper use
of the word perception, a lot of
pointless arguments are being brought
forth.

You see, perception is nothing more
than our interpretation of empirical
and objective reality. Empirical reality
absolutely can not be altered through
our perception, however it can be interpreted
the way we choose.

You may create a wormhole in your imagination and
travel billions of light years to visit other
worlds, but it is only real for you, not for
others, because you choose to interpret the reality
that way. You can interpret reality as allowing
dragons and goblins to exist, but it won't change
the reality for others. And even if you do change the
reality in your head, the effects will be more
damaging than constructive. Because a constructed
reality is nothing more than an illusion.

In fact, the "perception is reality" approach is practiced by
terminally ill and others seeking to escape reality -
it is called meditation. "See the healing light and
find your cave," - helps those people to free themselves
of pain (temporarily). But does it rid them of their
tumor, illness, or parasites? No, it does not.

Being able to alter the reality is the ultimate dream of
any man. It is the same as being God.

Be patient, one day it will be possible. Not through
metaphysics, but through nanotehnology.

Merlin

Dec29-03, 03:51 PM

This is the only thing that you may be sure of. Reality is an illusion. We "see" reality as a construct, not as it really is. This is because we are in step lock with reality is before we observe / cause the collapse of the wave function. We see old "reality".

onycho

Dec30-03, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Ambient

You see, perception is nothing more
than our interpretation of empirical
and objective reality. Empirical reality
absolutely can not be altered through
our perception, however it can be interpreted
the way we choose.

Ambient you are basically correct that human perception can neither change nor alter objective reality. But you must first define 'reality.'

As one might be able say that our 'reality' is in truth only an illusion that our cognition assumes exists. IF there is in reality a timeless dimension where nothing really exists except a consciousness flow of some 'freewill' that for a short period of fixed time within this timelessness observes our universe with all of its particles and apparent laws of physics.

Then it is not our 'perception' that affects reality but just the opposite.

Either way, this is a metaphysics thread and cannot be validated one way or the other.

Our culture defines our concepts of the fear of death and dying. Unlike meditation or forms of transendental or reincarnations the perception of reality may truly dictate what we humans consider to be real and observable. Reality then would be nothing more or less than a creation in a void by force or forces unknown.

And then again, maybe not.....

ambient

Dec30-03, 09:12 AM

To Merlin:

It is very curious, and in a way disturbing, how
quantum physics has become more of a "new age"
philosophy for some.

I am not going to attack your opinion, but if
you are trying to look at quantum physics as
science you cannot abandon one thing that is
essential to any science - scientific rigor.

I have talked about it on another forum, but I
will say it again. Due to the fact that the
first definition of uncertainty was poorly
worded, the definition allowed for those who
read into the context to think that wave function
collapses once we try to measure it.

But do you just rely on that archaic badly
worded definition, or the clarification that
has since been provided by many scientists.

The uncertainty principle essentially is used
to describe wave/particle duality, not prescribe
our consciousness the attributes it does not
possess.

Also, if you do read scientific publications on
quantum physics and mechanics, you would know
that at least at this point quantum physics is
used solely to describe properties and interaction
of atomic and subatomic particles.

TRYING TO EXPLAIN EVERYDAY PHENOMENON LIKE GRAVITY,
TRAJECTORY OF AN OBJECT, ACCELERATION, BY THE MEANS
OF QUANTUM PHYSICS IS TOO COMPLEX TO BE PRACTICAL.

The rules of classical physics that are used to accurately
describe the interaction between objects, cannot be used
to describe the properties of subatomic particles accurately,
and vice versa.

In no way the uncertainty principle does suggest
that our consciousness collapses the wave function. Only
if you really try to read the definition the way you want.

What stirs up this confusion is our lack of complete understanding
of particle/wave duality of matter.

We do not construct the objective reality, it is always there,
it is not affected by our consciousness in any way. If our
civilization ceases to exists, it does not mean that the
universe will cease to exist. If you die, the people around you,
and the universe, do not!

I said it before, I will say it again - you can interpret reality
the way you choose, but it does not make your interpretation
real. Nazi's believed that they were a superior race, there were
millions of people who believed that, but did it make it so? Not
in the least. Militant Muslims believe that they will go to Heaven and live with 70 virgins there if they sacrifice themselves and kill
infidels. But do they end up in heaven with 70 virgins? I doubt that.
(I am not trying to stir up a religious debate here, just making a
point). Communists believed in bright future of equality and
conformity, but you can see that it didn't work either.

What was wrong with the groups mentioned in the above examples?
They all refused to accept objective empirical reality and tried
to create their own skewed one.

I can go on and on with examples of how departing from sober
and objective look on reality can be destructive.

However, I believe I have shown enough evidence to make my point.

Cioa.

olde drunk

Jan2-04, 02:25 PM

somewhere, near the beginning of this thread, i believe i asked that we define the reality we are discussing.

there is a physical reality that we share and this has laws of science to explain its behaviour. in all probability it is a form of electro-magnetic energy that we agree to experience as being physical.

another reality is what we experience. you and i can interact with the same physical objects and yet have a totally different experience with them. lets agree to have a catch with the exact same ball. (we will put aside the question of whether or not it is) now, i think playing catch is a complete waste of time, is so easy to do (throw and catch) that i have a miserable time. you, wanting to hone your skills, know that you can get better for your up-comming game. you enjoy the exercise and practice.

like the muslims, you believe you will play better in that game. whether you do or not is questionable.

so we percieve/experince our individual reality based on what we believe. hopefully, from there, we learn how to adjust our beliefs for a future reality that is more enjoyable as it expands.

the interplay of beliefs and reality are very complex. i chose to participate in a catch because i believed that i was helping you, but, believing that it was a waste of time i was unhappy. within the belief of practice makes perfect, what do you do, if you play and make 3 errors??? no virgins for you!

we agree that the physical world is here, but it is our beliefs that color our experience of the physical and and non-physical universes. if we load in the probablity of reincarnation, we can see how all the universes expand and there is no waste of time or energy. our poor muslim may not get his virgins, but he may be able to reason more clearly in another life. without linear time, he may even be another casualty of 9-11.

are we treading close to religion ban? if so i'll demur. IMHO, religion is what we believe. what should be discouraged is discussions of the various 'organized religions'.

the only truth is that there ain't no truth.

onycho

Jan2-04, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Olde Drunk

"there is a physical reality that we share and this has laws of science to explain its behaviour. in all probability it is a form of electro-magnetic energy that we agree to experience as being physical."

Why must experiencing reality be a form of electro-magnetic energy? Why could it not be some form of giant dimensional holograph in which our state of consciousness experiences reality?

"...another reality is what we experience. you and i can interact with the same physical objects and yet have a totally different experience with them...."

Why must we interact with anything physical when the nature of 'things' maybe nothing more or less in which our individual consciousness awareness' presuppose a universal reality?

"are we treading close to religion ban? if so i'll demur. IMHO, religion is what we believe. what should be discouraged is discussions of the various 'organized religions'."

In the irreducible complexity that our conscious finds for the formation of presumed life here on earth, the farther man finds himself from any organized religion or belief and simply finds a master designer which is necessary for whatever we exist in.

olde drunk

Jan2-04, 09:42 PM

isn't a holograph a form of energy??

imho, we interact with the physical world and other entities to expand our awareness. if we are energy, this expansion enables us to manipulate this energy to a greater extent.

the more we become self-aware the more we can do.

we are in process, each to their own individual goal. along the way, we assist others and they assist us. perhaps the conciousness of rocks, plants, etc also agree to participate. i gotta believe that a chicken, born into a chicken mill, is aware that it will exist briefly to be food.

from another post, earlier, i do not wish to invest time contemplating their conciousness. i have enough trouble understanding and developing my own.

YES, it is very possible that we are the gods of the universes that we create. and once created we release them to do as they see fit.

to me, the physical world is a play ground. we come, play (perhaps for many lives), learn and move on. at times, i feel that we are just now(in linear time) leaving kindergarden.

life is a game to be played, respectfully.

have fun!

onycho

Jan3-04, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by olde drunk

isn't a holograph a form of energy??

Einstein says that all particles are interchangeable with energy and vice versa. But does that mean that a hologram is electro-magnetic energy?

imho, we interact with the physical world and other entities to expand our awareness. if we are energy, this expansion enables us to manipulate this energy to a greater extent. the more we become self-aware the more we can do.

In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.

Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.

Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.

http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

we are in process, each to their own individual goal. along the way, we assist others and they assist us. perhaps the conciousness of rocks, plants, etc also agree to participate. i gotta believe that a chicken, born into a chicken mill, is aware that it will exist briefly to be food.

I believe that that all the particles in this presupposed universe don't communicate or participate with each other but in reality are a part of a greater Wisdom which comes from an ultimate designer. To really understand what I am saying you should read the short article at the earth portal site above.

from another post, earlier, i do not wish to invest time contemplating their conciousness. i have enough trouble understanding and developing my own.

Don't feel like the Lone Ranger....

YES, it is very possible that we are the gods of the universes that we create. and once created we release them to do as they see fit.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. We "EXPERIENCE" but we do not "CREATE" and by definition cannot be gods or sub-deities.

to me, the physical world is a play ground. we come, play (perhaps for many lives), learn and move on. at times, i feel that we are just now(in linear time) leaving kindergarden.

Do you have any reason to believe that the world is our playpen? To believe in reincarnation or that we are in the process of learning (in any linear time) is to me no more than ego-centric thinking.

life is a game to be played, respectfully. have fun!

To me life is neither a game nor for playing. Although we are allowed to experience existence, I believe that we are here for a very different reason. A reason that no one on this dimensional plane can understand with any degree of certainty.

This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment. According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality.

Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.

In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected. The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky. Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.

In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order. At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past. What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from blue whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is."

olde drunk

Jan6-04, 10:55 AM

let's debate! i believe that we are in constant communication with and within the universe! how else can we explain those particles at opposite ends of the universe 'immediately' changing spin or charge to accomodate a change in the other??????

who has greater wisdom FOR YOU, than you??? yes, it would be reassuring to have a god-figure there to guide and protect. but a true god would have to cut the apron strings at some point. we call that good parenting where i come from. i would give my right arm to protect my children from the risks of the world. but guess what? I CAN'T PROTECT THEM! in fact, i might be cheating them of their opportunity to grow and learn. nah, if i can think of this on the human level, i'm sure a god would on a cosmic level. s/he/it has turned us loose, with love and guidance and whatever else we might need to explore the universe.

here goes, we 'create' the experiences we have. our imagination creates new worlds and i suspect that those worlds create new worlds. within this context, the word 'universe' seems limiting. we and our worlds are infinite. also, i do believe that we create all of our reality. we hold certain beliefs, and psychically send these thoughts out to those that are sharing earth at this time. we attract those that want to play with those thoughts, and we are attracted to them. now together we all create our 'mass reality'. most of us get lost trying visualize our individual mind/conciousness bringing together all the atoms and molecules necessary to make a brick. i don't think we know enough, yet, to understand how we do create that brick, but we each do(imho).

i have tried the serious, heavy view of the world. i didn't enjoy it. every thought and/or decision became more important than the last. believing that i create my reality/experience would have driven me crazy (no comments please). so, logically, i decided to have the ultimate confidence in myself that no matter what decision i made, it was the best one. this removed the need to worry over my next thought and led to a lighthearted view of playing at life. do not get me wrong, i am not a dillitant(sp?). i have values and beliefs, but they are like my clothes, when they no longer fit or get uncomfortable, i change.

the experience that i have gives me the information on how these views are working for me. hey, i'm only here for short time, may as well have fun!!!

isn't it egocentric to believe that our life has a greater purpose/meaning?? why can't we just be here to expand our individual conciousness in our own simple, individual way??

let's play!

Thallium

Jan6-04, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by olde drunk
isn't it egocentric to believe that our life has a greater purpose/meaning?? why can't we just be here to expand our individual conciousness in our own simple, individual way??

You are a strange little man[t)]

I have not the time enough to speak my thoughts of the other things you said bu the paragraph in the quote was too interesting to neglect. It is not, in my humble opinion, egocentric to believe there is a greater purpose for the existence of Men. This belief if, I feel, a desperate idea we cling to with our hearts, fists and flesh. If there would be a reason, that reason must have been to oppose something, to develop something for a "final". And if there would be a final, there would be an end to it. Then again, supporting the idea of a purpose of our existence depends on whether you believe in eternity or finity. For if there was a climax and an ending to this purpose, finity would exist. I hope that was not way off the mark for the debate you asked for. A rather long digression, but I am open for other views.

onycho

Jan6-04, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by olde drunk

let's debate! i believe that we are in constant communication with and within the universe! how else can we explain those particles at opposite ends of the universe 'immediately' changing spin or charge to accomodate a change in the other??????

The problem is that this concept remains theory. Unless you have access to experimentation that definitively proves particles simultaneously communicate across the universe, it remains unknown.

who has greater wisdom FOR YOU, than you???

I really don't know....

yes, it would be reassuring to have a god-figure there to guide and protect. but a true god would have to cut the apron strings at some point. we call that good parenting where i come from.

WHY would you think that a master Creator has to do anything that we humans believe should be?

i would give my right arm to protect my children from the risks of the world. but guess what? I CAN'T PROTECT THEM!

Are you a master Creator of all things with independent unknowable Wisdom?

in fact, i might be cheating them of their opportunity to grow and learn. nah, if i can think of this on the human level, i'm sure a god would on a cosmic level. s/he/it has turned us loose, with love and guidance and whatever else we might need to explore the universe.

Correct.... Why must we be children of a master Creator? If you were able to create complex thinking organisms from your vantage point, would these organisms be your kids and would you want the best for them? If humans had infinite Wisdom, we would most certainly be gods but believe me, we do not.....

here goes, we 'create' the experiences we have. our imagination creates new worlds and i suspect that those worlds create new worlds. within this context, the word 'universe' seems limiting. we and our worlds are infinite. also, i do believe that we create all of our reality. we hold certain beliefs, and psychically send these thoughts out to those that are sharing earth at this time. we attract those that want to play with those thoughts, and we are attracted to them. now together we all create our 'mass reality'. most of us get lost trying visualize our individual mind/conciousness bringing together all the atoms and molecules necessary to make a brick. i don't think we know enough, yet, to understand how we do create that brick, but we each do(imho).

Which new worlds did we create in or with our imagination?

Here is the old chicken and egg conundrum. We live in a dimension where we perceive time, space, gravity, emotions and everything our senses assumes exist. Did we create ourselves out of nothing or from our imagination? Could there be timelessness with a master Creator who has always existed in this singularity with total Wisdom. (Just like the particles that we find to have their own innate wisdom.) We create bricks and Mars Landers but did we do that because we are all knowing? I don't think so.

i have tried the serious, heavy view of the world. i didn't enjoy it. every thought and/or decision became more important than the last. believing that i create my reality/experience would have driven me crazy (no comments please). so, logically, i decided to have the ultimate confidence in myself that no matter what decision i made, it was the best one. this removed the need to worry over my next thought and led to a lighthearted view of playing at life. do not get me wrong, i am not a dillitant(sp?). i have values and beliefs, but they are like my clothes, when they no longer fit or get uncomfortable, i change.

We all make decisions or choices in our short earth time perception. We are now given a set of precepts or guidelines that like a roadmap allow us to turn to the right or left, up or down in our own conscious choices.

Unfortunately, the choices we make are usually those paths of least resistance which may not be the choice we should choose. I do not feel that the universe revolves around me but innately understand that there is irreducible complexity in our bodies and the universe around us. I cannot make the molecules in my DNA line up and bind correctly or use enzymes to direct the splicing of segments of the gene to create new life. I cannot find that particles of irreducible complexity accross the universe can communicate ex nihilo.

the experience that i have gives me the information on how these views are working for me. hey, i'm only here for short time, may as well have fun!!!

You are speaking of Hedonism. I'm not so sure we are ultimately in this dimension for pure self-pleasure.

isn't it egocentric to believe that our life has a greater purpose/meaning?? why can't we just be here to expand our individual conciousness in our own simple, individual way??

You might say that it is egocentric to think that we are here for fun and pleasure. And that as long as we are here, why not just take whatever you want from your neighbor, kill him at your own whim, rape his wife because they are there or in the opposite, lead this short life for the betterment of all.

let's go!

olde drunk

Jan7-04, 09:55 AM

to suggest that hedonism or playing at life gives license to raping and killing is ludicrous.

back to our original topic. imho, there is no master creator or greater wisdom for us to reach.

whenever i suspect that there is a 'greater purpose' to our lives i remind myself of my logical conclusions on the subject. i think about an individual born into the outback of china, africa or whatever. he grows up as a peasant, working the fields with his family. ironically, he is a happy person because he grows good crops, his family is sheltered, fed and cared for. he takes supreme joy in talking to his animals and crops, he thanks them for sharing their existence with him and his. he respects their roles and provides for them almost religiously.

now, this poor, ignorant man, never hears of buddha, plato, christ, mohamed or any of the great minds of the world. he simply accepts his role in the universe, accepts his reality and is happy. NOW, why would a god create such a situation if we have a 'greater purpose'? why should we think that (in the grand scheme of things) that being super educated and/or a world leader is more important than being that peasant????????? these other roles improve society, but what do they do within the broader reality???? does anyone truly believe that einstein deserves a better place in the universe than themselves??? god forbid i should suggest that even jesus is not more deserving than that peasant (if there were afterlife rewards).

that's my logical progression to satify all my questions about what really is happening. i create my reality and experience. i am here to experience a physical existence and expand my awareness and/or conciousness.

actually, i envy that peasant. i wonder, is it his first or last life on earth??

onycho

Jan7-04, 03:12 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by olde drunk

to suggest that hedonism or playing at life gives license to raping and killing is ludicrous.

Hedonism, olde drunk, is living solely for self gratification with no precepts to live by. You said:
hey, i'm only here for short time, may as well have fun!!!

back to our original topic. imho, there is no master creator or greater wisdom for us to reach.

It is reassuring to know that you are certain that there is no master Creator. Why I could have gone on for the remainder of my life just in amazement at the miraculous impossibly constructed world we live in and now with your certain assurance that all this irreducible complexity simply arose out of evolutionary chaos.

whenever i suspect that there is a 'greater purpose' to our lives i remind myself of my logical conclusions on the subject. i think about an individual born into the outback of china, africa or whatever. he grows up as a peasant, working the fields with his family. ironically, he is a happy person because he grows good crops, his family is sheltered, fed and cared for. he takes supreme joy in talking to his animals and crops, he thanks them for sharing their existence with him and his. he respects their roles and provides for them almost religiously.

It is nice to personally comprehend with all certainty that some are born into a world of plenty and pleasure while others are born into poverty and pain. As you say, a child born into slavery, pain or cancer must ironically also be a happy carefree human. Ultimately with this unambiguous understanding that no great imponderable purpose exists to our lives, time or place then we can just kick-back and enjoy a nice ride.

I wish I could be as certain.....

Now, this poor, ignorant man, never hears of buddha, plato, christ, mohamed or any of the great minds of the world. he simply accepts his role in the universe, accepts his reality and is happy. NOW, why would a god create such a situation if we have a 'greater purpose'? why should we think that (in the grand scheme of things) that being super educated and/or a world leader is more important than being that peasant????????? these other roles improve society, but what do they do within the broader reality???? does anyone truly believe that einstein deserves a better place in the universe than themselves??? god forbid i should suggest that even jesus is not more deserving than that peasant (if there were afterlife rewards).

There just might be a purpose to our lives (no matter the circumstance) or the reason that eagles soar over mountains or a beetle is born or our sun which releases just enough energy to keep us warm instead of having a degree or two to much or to little which would burn us to a cinder or a world of ice. What does anyone deserve or not deserve in world of pleasure and pain? How much ultimate reward do you deserve or will you just go out like a flame?

There are only a few of us who truly know the answers to these enigmas.

that's my logical progression to satify all my questions about what really is happening. i create my reality and experience. i am here to experience a physical existence and expand my awareness and/or conciousness.

Yes the universe does truly revolve around you in your sole knowledge of your reality and experience.

actually, i envy that peasant. i wonder, is it his first or last life on earth??

I believe that it is his first and only trek through this massive hologram in which we each perceive our own consciousness as we assume it exists.

Rader

Jan8-04, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by olde drunk
i believe that we are in constant communication with and within the universe! how else can we explain those particles at opposite ends of the universe 'immediately' changing spin or charge to accomodate a change in the other??????

The fact of the matter is QM does not explain this phenomenon. There seems to be something more. There are four current interpretations of how QM works, all four have a part to play and each has something to say about the bizarre micro world. None is complete or total in its explanation. There are others. Mine is not of them but part of them.
01=The Copenhagan intrepretation
02=The Stochastic-Ensemble Interpretation
03=Everets Many worlds
04=Hidden Variable Intrepretation
If you want to read a great book to lead you up to your own choice of how it is.
Read>The physics of consciousness by Evan Harris Walker
ISBN O-7382-0436-6
In my humble opinion this book might lead you in the right direction.
[8)]

olde drunk

Jan8-04, 02:40 PM

Onycho – let’s break this down into smaller pieces.
In my world hedonism is the simple pursuit of doing things that are pleasant. No where do most dictionaries or I say, without regard to precepts. If it’s enjoyable, do it! If it ain’t, STOP!

nothing mystical, just a simple view of living and coexisting with my fellowman. i do not like to hurt others, ergo i don't do it.

back to views on reality in the next post.

peace,

olde drunk

Jan8-04, 03:26 PM

/I/onycho-It is reassuring to know that you are certain that there is no master Creator. Why I could have gone on for the remainder of my life just in amazement at the miraculous impossibly constructed world we live in and now with your certain assurance that all this irreducible complexity simply arose out of evolutionary chaos./I/

oldedrunk - I usually say 'imho' - meaning that after much exploration, I have found what works for me. There was a creation, who or what is the creator, is basically unimportant to me since all of traditional explanations fail any test of logic. imho- it is the/a gestalt of all consciousness. Almost like a message center trading, enhancing, and creating information for all of us to accept/reject and play with. It maybe a higher level of consciousness, but without rules or commandments. Society created most rules of behavior. They may have come from a higher source as an aide for civilization, but they are no required.

Yes, the world is miraculous! I also believe that it is a playground and not a temple or church.

Isn’t it amazing that this started as a question about reality being influenced by our assumptions. There is a perfect example. I also doubt that there was chaos at the beginning. Some would postulate that there is chaos now. Trying viewing your universe without time and space.

I also suspect that as you and I look at Michelangelo’s Pieta’, we may see two totally independent statues. That’s for scientists to pursue.

peace,

onycho

Jan8-04, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by olde drunk
Onycho – let’s break this down into smaller pieces.
In my world hedonism is the simple pursuit of doing things that are pleasant. No where do most dictionaries or I say, without regard to precepts. If it’s enjoyable, do it! If it ain’t, STOP!

nothing mystical, just a simple view of living and coexisting with my fellowman. i do not like to hurt others, ergo i don't do it.

back to views on reality in the next post.

peace,

Your definition of hedonism is very interesting. You say, "if it's enjoyable, do it! If it ain't, STOP!"

So in effect it seems that you are saying that if you are living a life of self pleasure, then go for it but you also choose to make up your own rules about the appropriate ways to treat your fellowman.

What did the hedonist do before there were rules or precepts to coexist with your fellowman and not to hurt others? What would you have done without these rules we now live by under our system of law and justice? Would you come to them by your own intellect?

onycho

Jan8-04, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by olde drunk

oldedrunk - I usually say 'imho' - meaning that after much exploration, I have found what works for me. There was a creation, who or what is the creator, is basically unimportant to me since all of traditional explanations fail any test of logic.

Do you mean that by your own human logic and olde drunk human explanation there can be no room for consideration of a Creator? If there is no logic or reasonable explanation to our senses that we live in a world of molecules, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, etc which we cannot see or feel, they therefore do not exist. If I can't see the atmosphere or subatomic particles with my eyes, obviously there is no need for understanding that they fail my test of logic and explanation.

imho- it is the/a gestalt of all consciousness. Almost like a message center trading, enhancing, and creating information for all of us to accept/reject and play with. It maybe a higher level of consciousness, but without rules or commandments. Society created most rules of behavior. They may have come from a higher source as an aide for civilization, but they are no required.

So, if there might be a higher source to give guidelines for civilization, they are not really required.. If we look back into history before these guideline/rules, mankind lived for the most part by instinct resulting in beastiality and total loss of experiencing others pains or damage that actions directed against them based on our own pleasure. You now have the privelege to live a life of pleasure but taking into account your own feelings for your fellowman. Very nice indeed.

"Yes, the world is miraculous! I also believe that it is a playground and not a temple or church."

I never said that the world needed a temple or church for the miraculous nature of the universe or our world to function.

Isn’t it amazing that this started as a question about reality being influenced by our assumptions. There is a perfect example. I also doubt that there was chaos at the beginning. Some would postulate that there is chaos now. Trying viewing your universe without time and space.

Reality before the Big Bang is unknown. You doubt that chaos existed in the events following the Big Bank, so things were either always formed perfectly or there was a pin point start of all energy to particles in a perfectly smooth non-chaotic event. Where you aware of the fact that just a little bit more or less of that energy and heat would have resulted in a universe of nothing in a flux?

For our finite minds, visualizing a unverse without time or space is not only difficult but downright impossible. That does not mean this event is not possible because it doesn't fit into our human logic or explanation to our own satisfaction. I can visualize that we now exist in a dimension without time or space but that is just me.

I also suspect that as you and I look at Michelangelo’s Pieta’, we may see two totally independent statues. That’s for scientists to pursue.

Do we really see Michelangelos's Pieta or do we assume we see it? What if it does not exist in reality as Michaelangelo was nothing more than a part of the same hologram that we visualize in a void?

This is not for scientists but really for metaphyics and theology.

May the Force be with you....

olde drunk

Jan8-04, 08:22 PM

i'm getting confused. you refer to the beauty of our world, and all its physical components. then you refer to it being an illusion.

may i rephrase?

our world is an illusion that we experience as real and have chosen to deal with it as real.

from that persecptive, the world is always as perfect as it should be, at any given moment in time. this is so because we can enter an illusion at anytime to experience anything we choose. the world is perfect because it is providing what we want.

i can not and do not dispute that. i simply do not need an explanation for the universe that spawned our universe. as you can see from my previous paragraph, i explain my basis for reincarnation. our greater self(soul?) is out there deciding which lifetime thread(s) to experience within the illusion or whatever.

if we choose our experience, doesn't it follow that we also we see the world according to our assumptions(beliefs)?

if the world is an illusion why be concerned about the inequity between the rich/poor, healthy/lame?? it is only an illusion.

next phase, did they each choose their individual experience??? isn't this more acceptable than having a greater power inflict experience on a being within this framework??

we are all equal. there is no greater or lesser experience. we are here to expand our consciousness however we choose. moreover, once we accept responsibility for our reality, we also realize that we have the ability to change an undesirable experience into a productive positive accomplishment.

we might even enjoy the process and have fun.

peace,

onycho

Jan9-04, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by olde drunk

i'm getting confused. you refer to the beauty of our world, and all its physical components. then you refer to it being an illusion.
may i rephrase?
our world is an illusion that we experience as real and have chosen to deal with it as real.

May I rephrase your last statement? Our collective consciousness experiences 'things' but we do not choose to deal with it as real as the giant holograph is designed to be accepted as reality by the observers.

from that persecptive, the world is always as perfect as it should be, at any given moment in time. this is so because we can enter an illusion at anytime to experience anything we choose. the world is perfect because it is providing what we want.

Again I do not believe that we can choose to experience anything. If you tell your friend that he and you are not really solid living beings in a physical world, he will think you are crazy. We see only the beauty in the Designers hologram which is divisible by each individual's perspective but I do not believe that our world is any way perfect as for many it provides only pain, suffering, hunger and death.

Can you choose to become a despotic ruler or a Budda simply because you feel like changing your perspective?

i can not and do not dispute that. i simply do not need an explanation for the universe that spawned our universe. as you can see from my previous paragraph, i explain my basis for reincarnation. our greater self(soul?) is out there deciding which lifetime thread(s) to experience within the illusion or whatever.

Your above statement is a perfect example of your free will's choice. You say that you do not need an explanation for the basis of existence experience or the Creator whose Wisdom is unknowable. How do you come to the conclusion that you can decide which life tract or thread to experience for yourself? I admit that my conclusions are based on my own opinions and have no signed document validating my constructs. I also do not accept the concept of reincarnation as most (even Buddhists) humans think of his own reality.

if we choose our experience, doesn't it follow that we also we see the world according to our assumptions(beliefs)?

Ibid

if the world is an illusion why be concerned about the inequity between the rich/poor, healthy/lame?? it is only an illusion.

You ask why we need be concerned about the poor, the ill, the sick, the hunger or the death of our fellow travelers in this illusion? I believe our individual concern for others is our sole reason for existence, as our essence's existence in this giant dimentional holograph. We are being given the chance to mold and strengthen our 'free will' toward a difficult path in our presumed reality to assist in the continuous creation of 'good' rather than 'evil' in this holographic image. Our concern for our fellow suffering travelers is the goal and not self-gratification and enjoyment while others are in pain.

next phase, did they each choose their individual experience???

I believe that no one chooses their own experiences as outlined above.

isn't this more acceptable than having a greater power inflict experience on a being within this framework??

Not at all. The chance to follow the path of righteousness and goodness is likened to the hardening of metal in a cauldron. Our essence becomes greater and more like the Creator wants his creations (us) to become.

we are all equal.

We are not talking about the American Constitution where all men are said to be created equal. A child born with terminal cancer or a dying AIDS inflicted woman in Somalia is not given an equal status as you or me.

there is no greater or lesser experience. we are here to expand our consciousness however we choose. moreover, once we accept responsibility for our reality, we also realize that we have the ability to change an undesirable experience into a productive positive accomplishment.

Really? Do you believe that each of us realizes that we have the ability to change undersirable experiences or other lives in a more productive or positive accomplishment? If that were the case, the whole of humanity would be altruistic instead of indulging in self pleasure and gratification while those around us cry out in need and pain.

we might even enjoy the process and have fun.

That is up to you and your free will choice in this realm of illusion and pain.

peace, [/B][/QUOTE]

olde drunk

Jan9-04, 01:20 PM

after many, many years of thinking and sorting information i reached my conclusions because they were logical, explained my past experiences and were worthwhile tools for creating my present and future. in fact, dealing with probable pasts and furures led me to the quantum information. i have no difficulty understanding that this present is a product of one particular probable past and one probable future.

let me explain. being born into a dire family situation and raised catholic, i found little that explained why or gave me hope, other than prayer. after a failed romance, she was a fundamentalist baptist, what hope did we have, i began looking for information, explanations, philosophies, whatever that would give me a handle on what the hell was going on in this world. i will admit that being born again for a period was rewarding. unfortunately, this too failed the test of time.

so, when i accepted simultaneous-time and reincarnation as a basis, i was amazed at how things came together. i accepted full responsibity for being born into a bad situation, i didn't ask why. (the "why" can be addressed later.) i immediately became enpowered to make changes. thinking that a god had imposed these conditions was depressing. that actually causes despair (which might explain suicidal terrorism).

through experience, i have proven, to my satisfaction, that believing that i am the god of my individual universe, works. i accept and continue to create my reality. and, believing that it can be a happy or serious trip, i choose happy.

is the greater universe a hologram? another universe? another demension? i do not know, today. if it ever becomes important, i am confident that i can look within for a clue, if not the answer. i am the master of my fate and fear no god(s). see, no lightening bolt!!

peace,

onycho

Jan9-04, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by olde drunk

after many, many years of thinking and sorting information i reached my conclusions because they were logical, explained my past experiences and were worthwhile tools for creating my present and future. in fact, dealing with probable pasts and furures led me to the quantum information. i have no difficulty understanding that this present is a product of one particular probable past and one probable future.

Your history is sad but seemingly productive considering that you know have looked and found your way of dealing with your own reality.

I must respectfully disagree with your "logical" assessment of your past, present and future which you say are a product of only one 'probable' path to each time reference.

In my long search for knowledge, I have found that there are many paths to take in each persons short time span in this virtual reality.

so, when i accepted simultaneous-time and reincarnation as a basis, i was amazed at how things came together. i accepted full responsibity for being born into a bad situation, i didn't ask why.

I feel great sadness in your words which have led you to accept responsibility for being born into an arbitrarily bad situation. Finding solace in logic of simultaneous-time and reincarnation as the answer which gives you comfort and almost leading to suicidal despair is understandable But sadly you didn't find any reason to ask why you chose the path which you found to bring things together.

The seeking of your chosen path based on your self described subjective history in your experiences has led your thought process to find yourself using your own human logic.

through experience, i have proven, to my satisfaction, that believing that i am the god of my individual universe, works. i accept and continue to create my reality. and, believing that it can be a happy or serious trip, i choose happy.

With a more objective comprehension of your background, your personal choices seem more understandable. But happiness comes in many forms and by many routes. At least in my opinion you’re a deity in a very small universe.

is the greater universe a hologram? another universe? another demension? i do not know, today. if it ever becomes important, i am confident that i can look within for a clue, if not the answer. i am the master of my fate and fear no god(s). see, no lightening bolt!!

At least you are the master of your fate for the time being but in the end, you will also know the ultimate truth of existence which may not be exactly as you have imagined.

olde drunk

Jan10-04, 08:26 AM

onycho:
I feel great sadness in your words which have led you to accept responsibility for being born into an arbitrarily bad situation. Finding solace in logic of simultaneous-time and reincarnation as the answer which gives you comfort and almost leading to suicidal despair is understandable But sadly you didn't find any reason to ask why you chose the path which you found to bring things together.

drunk:
there was and is no sadness, there was a relief. now i have the power of the present to change the future!! i have not invested time trying to figure why my greater self chose the circumstances of birth. i can debrief after death. should it become important, i am confident that i could/would get the message from within me.

perhaps i needed that situation to open my consciousness and create motivation to explore and question reality. that alone would be ample reason.

our paths are many, like a plate of spaghetti. all probable paths are before us.

let's make that angel hair since more probable threads(paths) will exist. my experience begins at one end of a strand of pasta. it intertwines, overlaps, goes over, under and merges with other paths. this is how we continually have the power to change our future, we move from one strand(path) to another as they come together in our present.

now, the great leap for us will be when we can change our paths that are not contiguous or proximate.

'be like a leaf in a moving stream. accept your experience, do not fight the current, use it to your advantage'.

Rader

Jan10-04, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by olde drunk

is the greater universe a hologram? another universe? another demension? i do not know, today. if it ever becomes important, i am confident that i can look within for a clue, if not the answer. i am the master of my fate and fear no god(s). see, no lightening bolt!!

If it might be so,that the universe is a hologram. It would hold consequence for those who lived in it, and so have a purpose. A mind would have access to all the present and past but not the future. Nothing could be thought that is not part of the hologram. Every choice or free will decision made, by the thinker, would be important as it would affect other thoughts and everything else inside the hologram. A hologram would have a holomovement to form a purpose by free will decisions. The purpose would change over holotime by free will decisions and have a direction. If all thought is interconnected, we have a great responsibility to others in what we think. One compassionate thought might make the butterfly move its wings and create not a tornado in Kansas but free the world of hunger thirst and pain. So maybe you are very important.
[8)]

pelastration

Jan10-04, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Rader
If it might be so,that the universe is a hologram.
A hologram would included that everything is inside you. That's to much imo. I can tell you ... there is no Saddam or GWBush in me. We are spacetime connected but in a unharmonic way.
A type of building up on spacetime like the building up in holography on the plate may be OK. We are restructured part of the spacetime layer.
People claiming a hologramic universe don't provide a mechanism, it's one of the possiblities.

Rader

Jan10-04, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by pelastration
A hologram would included that everything is inside you. That's to much imo. I can tell you ... there is no Saddam or GWBush in me. We are spacetime connected but in a unharmonic way.
A type of building up on spacetime like the building up in holography on the plate may be OK. We are restructured part of the spacetime layer.
People claiming a hologramic universe don't provide a mechanism, it's one of the possiblities.

pelastration, I would have to rearrange your statemet. A hologram would include us as a part of it. Each of our parts would contain the hologram in it. I do not like to admit it either but we have good and bad in us all. Think what Saddam or GWBush could have done with all the power they did and do posess. If i was Georges adviser i would whisper in his ear. To get re-elected it would be better to declar a war on hunger in the world and then invite everyone to go to Mars. You have seen my posts and my position has not changed much. The mechanism is consciousness. Consciusness connects to the physical world, on all levels of evolution in this holgraphic illusion by means of the v vector as the physical constuct. Anyway i do not claim anything except for myself. For its only me that i have to satisfy. I am almost convinced that we all know the way it is, its just that we explain it the way it appears to us.
[8)]

pelastration

Jan10-04, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Rader
pelastration, I would have to rearrange your statemet. A hologram would include us as a part of it.
... The mechanism is consciousness. Consciusness connects to the physical world, on all levels of evolution in this holgraphic illusion by means of the v vector as the physical constuct.
Rader ... don't tell me the name of that mechanism ... tell me how it works. [6)] . I want to rebuild it ... not talking about it in semanitic or theoretic values. The 'real' thing you know ... [;)]

onycho

Jan10-04, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by pelastration

A hologram would included that everything is inside you. That's to much imo. I can tell you ... there is no Saddam or GWBush in me.

Acutally you have these folks in you. Even in our physical universe there is Saddam, G W Bush and Cleopatra in you. The same particles they shed from their physical bodies become part of our environment forever and you breath them in making you a part of all present and past humanity.

We are spacetime connected but in a unharmonic way.

Unharmonic way? The background residue noise (harmonics) of the Big Bang connects with our time, space and matter.

A type of building up on spacetime like the building up in holography on the plate may be OK. We are restructured part of the spacetime layer. People claiming a hologramic universe don't provide a mechanism, it's one of the possiblities.

How can you prove your hypothesis of universe layered spacetime other than your site?

pelastration

Jan10-04, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by pelastration

A hologram would included that everything is inside you. That's to much imo. I can tell you ... there is no Saddam or GWBush in me.

Acutally you have these folks in you. Even in our physical universe there is Saddam, G W Bush and Cleopatra in you. The same particles they shed from their physical bodies become part of our environment forever and you breath them in making you a part of all present and past humanity.
No ... no Saddam or GW Bush inside me.
Connectable yes.
All braced on the membrane. Not holographic ... but holonistic.
Vibrations can be conducted over the membrane.
Fully incorporated everything (hologram) in every spot would be a huge lost of energy.
The cosmos takes only the minimum of energy.

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by pelastration
We are spacetime connected but in a unharmonic way.

Unharmonic way? The background residue noise (harmonics) of the Big Bang connects with our time, space and matter.
Nay.
We are transmitters and receivers. We 'recognize' the resonant vibrations. We 'reject' dissonant vibrations. Others vibrations we are not capable to notice due the difference in order of magnitude.
Keep it simple. Occam's razor.
We don't communicate through one of the thousands big bangs but due the membrane oscillations.
A big bang may how created 'this' Universe but our communication can go behind that.
It's all inside of you but only by it's parent hyperspace roots.
The AIN, you know?
It's inside you ... but that doesn't mean it's you. We are just small holons.

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by pelastration
A type of building up on spacetime like the building up in holography on the plate may be OK. We are restructured part of the spacetime layer. People claiming a hologramic universe don't provide a mechanism, it's one of the possiblities.

How can you prove your hypothesis of universe layered spacetime other than your site?
I show a mechanism. I explain consciousness. I explain life. I explain the creation of Quantum baskets, holons. The same mechanism is on macro and micro level. It shows that the difference between strings and branes is an illusion. It confirm Guth's pocket universes but also Bohm's Implicate Order. It's shows the mechanism for the creation of Yin-Yang. You need more?
I don't refer to an Alphabet or to semantics. I use just one postulate. Is that to much?
Actual science is ruled by 'uncertainty' and string people telling with a proud smile that they don't know what they are talking about. Why does it take such a time to give that solution? Because some of the starting points is wrong. Matter doesn't create gravity ... Matter is gravity.
If you check your own religion I will see that the real essential point is: interconnectivity. That you can call God or G-d. The only way you can express that in scientific terms is GRAVITY. So it can not be teared or cut in pieces ... no intersections ... no mathematical commutativity ... no uncertainty ... no superposition.

I just use straight logic onycho ... no reference to the bible. The bible is just a small spot in time. Just like the Sutra's. Good spots ... but just for a while.

If you know the answer of 'how genderless became duality' - which is the essential question - tell me not in semantics but in an engineering plan. I gave the answer, but it doesn't fit in you semantic alphabet. That explains your fear, but in your hologram system it's already in you together with Saddam, Bush, Blair, Jesus, Madonna, Sting, Picasso, DaVinci, Einstein, M. Jackson, Sharon, Perle ... So don't worry.

Rader

Jan10-04, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by pelastration
Rader ... don't tell me the name of that mechanism ... tell me how it works. [6)] . I want to rebuild it ... not talking about it in semanitic or theoretic values. The 'real' thing you know ... [;)]

pelastration By defining what consciousness is, that should be the fist door to enter. It appaears that science has opened that first door. What is on the other side not many want to realize. No matter what we use to define the world we live in, we must use its known variables to take a step further. It appears this is the way.
As a result of this we can assert the following postulate:

01=Consciousness is real but nonphyslcal.
02=Consciousness is connected to physical reality by one physically fundamental construct.
You can read this paper and read the book and you will understand how it is constructed in all its detail.
The physics of consciousness by Evan Harris Walker ISBN 0-7382-0436-6
http://users.erols.com/wcri/CONSCIOUSNESS.html
The explanation how consciousness, allows humans to be conscious by measuring in millions of bits, the brains holgrafic ability to allow a electron to tunnel the width of the brain and be in all places at once. On my thread on dreaming i would have hoped someone would have said something but i guess everybody was Chrismas shopping or dreaming. The wake state can be explained by beta and alfa transfer rate of millions of bits and theta and delta a slower rate of bits when we move into the dream state. Beta and alfa waves as i said before that the Ego evolving from the theta and delta from the Id dreaming. It is known that actually we move at all times between all states or at least can when for whatever reason it happens.
It is my assumption and not without fact to back it that if consciousness has its physically fundamental construct the v vector to produce the consciouss state that we humans are aware of, that this same physically fundamental construct the v vector, so does connect all levels of the evolutionary chain. Consciousness peers through each level and each level perceives what it does because of its complexity. An atom is aware of where it is, and how to get married by elecro=magnetic covolant bonding if it so chooses. We humans are aware of being aware, do to our complexity. The human mind is a hologram of high complexity. If you look at this paper and changed n'2 space-time for consciousness your model would be no different to the way i see it.
[8)]