Do 'we' see the world as we assume it exists?

[onycho]

"All the discoveries in the last century, in a sense, were finding more of things like those already found—until this. The Higgs is a completely new kind of object never known to exist before," says Gordon L. Kane of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Indeed, if it weren't for the Higgs boson, all matter would be on the left side of Albert Einstein's famous formula, E = mc2. Without the Higgs, nothing—not molecules, this magazine, you, Earth, the sun, or anything else—would exist as matter. Everything would always be in the form of energy dashing along at the speed of light.

http://www.sciencenews.org/20010310/bob9.asp

If ultimately no evidence is ever found of the anticipated Higgs Boson or field, what are the chances that there is no reality for particles, matter, strong/weak forces, gravity, a universe with a border or edge or anything else except pure condensed energy dashing about within a heretofore unknown dimension?

Then the question arises as to the nature or properties of energy?

Can anyone reconcile the fact that life forms, human choice and intelligence arise spontaneously from primary particles?

Do 'we' see the world as we assume it exists?

I have deep faith that the principle of the universe will be beautiful and simple.

Attribution: Albert Einstein

 

[Another God]

no, but those materialists amongst us assume the world exists as we see it.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by anothergod

"no, but those materialists amongst us assume the world exists as we see it."

No, but the reality remains that so many unknowns facts persist for human explanation that from our point of observations they cannot be explained by any known theory that exists today. Sometimes it is helpful to get out of one's box and look around.

If it weren't for men like Einstein, Boehr and others that looked at a very different reality, would we still be living in the macro world of Newton?

The search for truth is more precious than its possession

Attribution-Albert Einstein

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by onycho

If it weren't for men like Einstein, Boehr and others that looked at a very different reality, would we still be living in the macro world of Newton?

Well, yeah, if it weren't for men like that, then no one would be pushing science forwards. But there will always be someone around to do it, and the problems faced by each theory are the fuel that makes them do it.

We have moved on from the Macro world of Newtonian physics because the theory wasn't perfect.

 

[olde drunk]

there is no other way to view reality. all data is filtered by our minds, psyche and conciousness. in turn we project our beliefs outward which creates the reality we see or experience.

in essence, we create our own reality,
chet

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by olde drunk
in turn we project our beliefs outward which creates the reality we see or experience.

in essence, we create our own reality,
chet

so, why don't you create a worm-hole to my office and tell me that in person?

 

[olde drunk]

YO GUYBRUSH!

I was just there! did you see me? feel me?

sorry, but you scared me so much that i jumped back to my office.

think bout it! you can doit!


chet

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by olde drunk
I was just there! did you see me? feel me?

you shouldn't drink any more . sorry I just had to say that
If you were close enough to scare you, tell me how do I look?

now, let's get back to serious stuff. How do you create your reality? What is the connection between what you create and what everybody else percieve?

 

[olde drunk]

no offense taken at the drinking comment. actually, i expected someone to tell me not to drink so early in the morn.

no matter how you slice it, our view of reality is based on our inner beliefs.

now, i believe that i am an energy conciousness visiting many worlds in the universe. "my focus" at this point in time and space is a human body that is sharing this period of existence on Earth with many like-minded souls. this (these) belief(s) influence and/or create my perception of this reality.

before birth we all agree to abide by the 'natural laws' that are in play during a particular time (probability) thread. as we, via science or whatever, change the laws (perception) we will experience a world that complies.

i suspect, that isolated cultures that have a high mystic content can and do have more psychic adventures than the rest of the 'civilized' world. brief example, the Tibetian monks that can go up on a mountain in sub freezing weather, bare footed with only a light robe. they do not freeze. in fact, they give off steam as they meditate. yeah, we can scientically explain that their meditation puts them in an altered state. BUT, they get to that state because they believe they can. we can't cause we have not accepted those tenets.

perhaps overly simplistic, but isn't this a simple world??

"if it don't feel good, don't do it! if it does, tell the world!"

hmmm, maybe, everyone should drink?? LOL

 

[onycho]

Well, yeah, if it weren't for men like that, then no one would be pushing science forwards. But there will always be someone around to do it, and the problems faced by each theory are the fuel that makes them do it.

We have moved on from the Macro world of Newtonian physics because the theory wasn't perfect.

Actually you are correct as the knowledge of matter, energy, time and all things observed is increasing exponentially each day. Without those few who actually venture away from conventional math such as QM, any attempt at understanding of what is seen by the visual cortex will remain static. Einstein worked on a unified field theory but failed.

Our current wonder man Stephen Hawking thinks that the theorized 'black-hole' eventually dissipates into nothingness. But the basic fact that the true nature of energy remains unknown. It can be measured but not be defined in terms that explain it exactly.

As Einstein predicted, particles and their constituents are nothing more or less than condensed energy. Whatever that is.

Cynicism makes things worse than they are in that it makes permanent the current condition, leaving us with no hope of transcending it. Idealism refuses to confront reality as it is but overlays it with sentimentality. What cynicism and idealism share in common is an acceptance of reality as it is but with a bad conscience.

ATTRIBUTION: Richard Stivers

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by onycho
As Einstein predicted, particles and their constituents are nothing more or less than condensed energy. Whatever that is.

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.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by olde drunk
no matter how you slice it, our view of reality is based on our inner beliefs.

until I see reality changed by someone's inner belief I don't buy that...

before birth we all agree to abide by the 'natural laws' that are in play during a particular time (probability) thread. as we, via science or whatever, change the laws (perception) we will experience a world that complies.

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

brief example, the Tibetian monks that can go up on a mountain in sub freezing weather, bare footed with only a light robe. they do not freeze. in fact, they give off steam as they meditate.

your example only proves that the monk is hot. He didn't change any reality, the mountain is still there and the weather is still sub-freezing...

 

[olde drunk]

Guybush

i said before, maybe another thread, that i can not concieve of a time when i didn't exist. Therefore, i have always existed. The fact that i have no conscious memory of it is necessary to narrow the focus of my conscious mind into this demension/reality.

remember, we have no conscious memory of being born and yet we know we were born. at least most of us. lol

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.

if we could reach down into our core beliefs and identify them, THEN we could do the work and change them. i remain mindful of the many, many stories of impossible human strength in times of emergency. Here a desparate mother overcomes her belief that she can not lift a car with the belief that she MUST rescue her child trapped beneath the car. yeah, yeah adrenalin, etc etc. BUT what is the basis of making so much of any hormone/chemical. i go to proximate cause, the root of the events.

here's hoping that we change our belief about violence and wars. please, do not hate wars, but rather love peace, a strong belief that peace can and will solve our problems will bring about a better world.

so much for my morning, wake up stroll thru my mind.

peace and love,

 

[Dark Wing]

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]

"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]

onycho:

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 unconscious 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]

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?

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]

An Infinite Space/Time Warp

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 Hawking 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]

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

 

[olde drunk]

Guybrush Threepwood

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]

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]

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."

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]

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]

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 can't 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.

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]

"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 existence is only or mostly for our amusment. hehe.

 

[onycho]

Response Part 1

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 can't 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]

Response Part 2

”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]

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!

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

 

[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 their 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]

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 their 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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

Originally posted by onycho
what you are talking about.

About ... what's on my website.

 

[onycho]

Mystery Mass Pelastration

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]

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]

Do you have proof that conscience stays? If not i'd advise you 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]

Originally posted by THANOS
Do you have proof that conscience stays? If not i'd advise you 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]

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 until you come to me, wish for a good dinner and make it apper on my desk

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

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

only if you define consciusness

 

[THANOS]

May i ask your explanation 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]

LET'S DEFINE TERMS

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]

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.”

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.”

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]

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]

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]

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."

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 perceived 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]

Originally posted by THANOS
May i ask your explanation 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]

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...

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

I didn't say anything like that.

 

[onycho]

So In Your View of Reality

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