# Reality and energy

Jeebus
Originally posted by Mumeishi
I've seen people do some amazing things too. And with martial arts training I became able to do many new things too. I've never said that martial arts training cannot allow you to do some things which ordinary people cannot do. What I said was that these abilities are explicable in terms of mastery of ordinary physical forces and that the invokation of mysterious 'chi' energies is uneccessary and unevidenced.

This measuring device could not have been very strong.

We are bound by ordinary physics and this puts limits on what a martial artist can do. He cannot deflect an oncoming vehicle, or defeat an army in an open fight or an elephant or fly or leap 50 feet like in Crouching Tiger. Its just myth and fantasy.

I'd put money on a good boxer, Vale Tudo expert or Thai boxer rather than a Shaolin monk or karate black belt.

Another way in which the reality of causes could perhaps be denied is to say that physics is only the discovery of laws that relate events, not the explanation of the properties of things that lead to these events: that is, that physics is (or should be) only concerned with effects, not with causes. It is agreed that all observations are effects of interactions, but it does seem an unnecessarily severe restriction not to permit physicists to speculate on the causal properties of what they are examining, nor to permit them to postulate, for example, potential energy apart from kinetic energy.

While I find Mumeishi's speech very on point and correct, I find this also a bit dispostional. Meaning that with new advances in technology some of the things that are fantasy could be done with physical properties from ourselves. Like we could unlock a whole other reality unknown to the matter of the mind. Instead of mind over matter; matter over mind, possibly.

Mr. Robin Parsons
Originally posted by Mentat
But what is it? To use your responce, already been posted...(by myself)

Humble point of advice: It is probably not a good idea to post your replies inside of my quote-box, since I then have to copy/paste them into the reply-box in order to respond. Just a thought.
Yes, your right, just a thought!

Think, Parsons! The fact that some idealists postulate the existence of something that doesn't meet the standards of being called "physical" is enough for logic to be used as to the relationship that such things would have if they existed at all (and it doesn't matter whether they do or not, so long as someone has postulated that they do).
Didn't dispute that, but all you end up discussing is/are "belief systems", nothing more, nothing less...no proof otherwise!

What does this got to do with the price of eggs? What an astounding evasion, aren't you just the smart little fellow...(That is sarcasm!)

btw, with all due respect, Really ? where? there's a place for sarcasm, and this isn't it. I've been hoping that your answers would get more serious as the discussion progressed, but this isn't happening. When one uses sarcasm in every post, If you find that from me (in my postings...Nah! rare enough) then you are placing something in there that simply isn't there, it is from you then...NOT me they give the message that they don't care about what they are saying but are posting just to be pain in the neck. Quote: "With all due respect..."...see above I don't think that this is the case with you, but that's the vibe your giving off.

I still don't get this whole "water out of the living thing" problem...he never said anything about taking water out of anything. Clearly...
Perhaps when you figure out the water out of the living thing thing then perhaps we can continue, till then, as your judgment of me is waaaay more a reflection of you, then me, you have some things to do?

Mr. Robin Parsons
Originally posted by Mumeishi
(SNIP) There is simply no evidence of people breaking the laws of physics or performing acts which are inexplicable in physical scientific terms - whatever the fundamental nature of the universe turns out to be.
That's the bottom line my friend. (SNoP)
And yet you seem to have wanted insights into metaphysical realms/understandings/ideas but all that anyone could offer would be subjective testimony, after all that is the nature of the word metaphysical, you ask for something that, once given to yuo, you would wish to "de-bunk"...if you really want for metaphysical understandings, read the Bible New testament, the Dharma Pada(sp?), The Bagavaghita (sp?) as they (and all of the rest of them, the scriptual/holy/spiritual Books) have all of the 'belief system knowledge' that you (might) need.

If you would wish to know insight into 'illusory'...current HS physics sorta, as "Three state of Matter", well matter is solid, that is its definition, and all of the atoms, whatever state they occupy (by comprising it) are 'solids', so the actual states of matter are really matter relationships, "Occluded amorphic" is 'gaseous', "Coherant amorphic" is 'viscuous/liquid', and "Coherant Morph" as 'solidified'...why?

Well I had put it in another thread a while back, the Gravitational boundary acts atomically outside the shell in gases, at the shells surface in liquids, and within the shells structure for solids, as per the Math abbreviations 1/r2, 1/r, 1/$${\sqrt{r}}$$ , respectively.

Does that help?

Mumeishi
Originally posted by Jeebus
Another way in which the reality of causes could perhaps be denied is to say that physics is only the discovery of laws that relate events, not the explanation of the properties of things that lead to these events: that is, that physics is (or should be) only concerned with effects, not with causes. It is agreed that all observations are effects of interactions, but it does seem an unnecessarily severe restriction not to permit physicists to speculate on the causal properties of what they are examining, nor to permit them to postulate, for example, potential energy apart from kinetic energy.

Perhaps, until we have (if ever) a TOE all out theories can do is recognise patterns and make descriptions in terms of incompletely described entities. Not sure what you mean. They do postulate potential energy - potential energy is the other main form of energy apart from the various forms of kinetic energy. Or was this just a misleading choice of phrase? If so, I'd suggest there could conceivbly be other sorts of energy, but that neither myself nor the scientific community is excluding such possibilities. Its just that there is no need with current evidence and theories to postulate such energies. The relatively recent postulation of 'dark energy' to account for a discrepancy between existing theory and available evidence shows the willingness of the scientific community to do this. However, wild speculation unsupported by evidence is generally regarded as a waste of time.

Originally posted by Jeebus
While I find Mumeishi's speech very on point and correct, I find this also a bit dispostional. Meaning that with new advances in technology some of the things that are fantasy could be done with physical properties from ourselves. Like we could unlock a whole other reality unknown to the matter of the mind. Instead of mind over matter; matter over mind, possibly.

Yes, one day we could indeed be able to fly using 'chi energy'. But since there is no evidence, the possibility is rather remote and speculation about it rather pointless.

Mumeishi
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And yet you seem to have wanted insights into metaphysical realms/understandings/ideas but all that anyone could offer would be subjective testimony, after all that is the nature of the word metaphysical, you ask for something that, once given to yuo, you would wish to "de-bunk"...if you really want for metaphysical understandings, read the Bible New testament, the Dharma Pada(sp?), The Bagavaghita (sp?) as they (and all of the rest of them, the scriptual/holy/spiritual Books) have all of the 'belief system knowledge' that you (might) need.

Which one should I pick, given that they contradict one another? And what gives you the justification to exclude the Old Testament? Because its inconsistent with your own belief system?

Some of these texts might contain some wisdom and some truth, but inclusion in an old book and part of a cultural phenomenon characterised by mass-conformity and obendience, is far from a guarantee of truth.

I don't think there is anything inherently untestable about something that is metaphysical. If something affects our reality its effects can be measured.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
If you would wish to know insight into 'illusory'...current HS physics sorta, as "Three state of Matter", well matter is solid, that is its definition, and all of the atoms, whatever state they occupy (by comprising it) are 'solids', so the actual states of matter are really matter relationships, "Occluded amorphic" is 'gaseous', "Coherant amorphic" is 'viscuous/liquid', and "Coherant Morph" as 'solidified'...why?

Atoms are not 'solids', this has been explained to you twice now.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Well I had put it in another thread a while back, the Gravitational boundary acts atomically outside the shell in gases, at the shells surface in liquids, and within the shells structure for solids, as per the Math abbreviations 1/r2, 1/r, 1/$${\sqrt{r}}$$ , respectively.

Does that help?

Gravitational shell boundaries, if there is such a thing, is not something I know about. But I fail to see how this shows , in spite of overwhelming scientific opinion to the contrary, that atoms are 'solids'.

Mr. Robin Parsons
Originally posted by Mumeishi
Which one should I pick, given that they contradict one another? And what gives you the justification to exclude the Old Testament? It was ONLY a recomendation, NOT an order, you know "a suggestion", not an "instruction" Because its inconsistent with your own belief system?

Some of these texts might contain some wisdom and some truth, but inclusion in an old book and part of a cultural phenomenon characterised by mass-conformity and obendience, is far from a guarantee of truth. No guarantee of any provability of truth in metaphysics, hence "belief systems"

I don't think there is anything inherently untestable about something that is metaphysical. If something affects our reality its effects can be measured. humm apparently(?) you seem to miss what 'metaphysical' means, "Beyond Physics" approximates it well enough, so it is beyond (present abilities) "testablity" as for affecting reality, ideas do that, with no physical/testable aspect to them...illusory and metaphysical...

Atoms are not 'solids', this has been explained to you twice now. Hummm...well all matter is comprised of atoms, they are, for all practical intents and purposes, quite solid, but it is a perception of scale, (no question of that) and at the scale we live at, we can easily conclude that they are amazingly solid

Gravitational shell boundaries, if there is such a thing, is not something I know about. But I fail to see how this shows , in spite of overwhelming scientific opinion to the contrary, that atoms are ("appear as"...as I said above 'scale') 'solids'.
Atoms behave as a solid no matter what state of matter they are in, that is the definition of 'matter' itself, solidity (AKA "boundary definition"...not to be confused with a "gravitational boundary") of a measurable mass...

Mr. Robin Parsons
Originaly posted by Mumeishe
(SNIP) Atoms are not 'solids', this has been explained to you twice now. (SNoP)
Humm, atoms are comprised of Protons, and the Protons "Expectancy of duration of Solidity" is roughed out at 10somewhere's in the fourties...(like me, he hee) Years! like about three times the current age of the Universe, roughly! and wasn't it your definition of "solid" that stated it "held it's shape"(?) is this Solid enough for you to accept the Idea of Solidity?

Mumeishi
You're a stubborn old fool aren't you? I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this. Anyone reading these threads can make up their own minds.

Mr. Robin Parsons
Originally posted by Mumeishi
You're a stubborn old fool aren't you? I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this. Anyone reading these threads can make up their own minds.
Clearly you invalidate your own opinion, and I can rest well knowing that you will no longer be "wasting your time" (precious that that is) nor attempting to influence anyone 'unduly' to your "point of view" that seems to think that there is nothing solid in the universe, contrary to the evidence...I'd probably rather be a 'stubborn old fool' who is actually right, then someone so "Arrogantly impudent" who is going to continue in their own "self delusional path of self decreed self righteousness" when the evidence (Nature, AKA physical reality, 'The Truth' as objective {et Al}) clearly tells them that they are wrong!

Last edited:
I think Mumeishi merely expressed the futility in bashing his head against a wall. Considering I've never seen you give one inch, on any subject, I consider that decision wise.

Mr. Robin Parsons
I think Mumeishi merely expressed the futility in bashing his head against a wall. Considering I've never seen you give one inch, on any subject, I consider that decision wise.
Firstly, Thank you for the Honesty, it is appreciated, but post-premised with the notation that the emboldened statement is simply evidence that you haven't read everything I have written, that's for sure...

Hegira
Well then...

I AM COMPLETELY HUMILIATED BY ALL OF YOU!

Much Love and Appreciation,

Hegira

Mr. Robin Parsons
Just a thought radagast, what exactly is it that you would wish me to "Give an inch" upon? the idea (or reality) of a proton's "time of existence"? or its solidity in that time??, is that what (you think) I need to give an inch upon??

Mr. Parsons,
There are many topics discussed on these forums. Others have altered my views on certain topics. I've seen many who acknowledged points made by others. I have lost and acknowledged defeat in certain discussions, and seen this with others. I've never seen this of you. When a person is intransigent, on all points, debate is futile. While no insult intended by this, it is why I try to avoid debate with you.

You are correct that I've not seen everything you've written, so my views could be quite skewed.

I wouldn't have brought it up, but you did ask.

Originally posted by Hegira
Well then...

I AM COMPLETELY HUMILIATED BY ALL OF YOU!

Well, If I've been instrumental in this, I apologise. Usually I am only skilled in humiliating myself.

Mr. Robin Parsons
(SNIP) I wouldn't have brought it up, but you did ask. (SNoP)
Yes, I did, and thanks for the honest responce, but it askes a question within me as to just what is the piont you are trying to make concerning debating, as in the manner in which I proceed in scientific matters is respective of the "Currently Known", or "Currently Available Knowledge" which is why the Philosophers of old would have debated 'Solidity' to death, None of them had any proof to the 'pro', or the 'contrary', (No particle accelerators back then, so they simply "didn't know", clearly did "Wonder", produced all of those works doing just that) hence it was a wonderful time to engage in "Thought gaming" in debate...but today is different, we have particle accelerators, we know that protons last a LOOOOOooooooooooooooooong time, we see clearly that the universe in it's poresentation to us from whatever source is presenting us with the idea of "Solidity" (Ergo the reason why you can! bang your head on a brick/concrete wall) in correlation to the statement of Einstien; "...It is just a very persistant illusion" so we can reconcile the ideas of quarks being 'mushy', (and dissapearing really fast) with the idea of a Proton being 'solid', in recognizing that in assemblage they are in a very solid and long lasting "relationship" (if you wish) built exclusively to present "us" (humanity and any other self aware lifeforms in the Universe) with the "Idea of Solidity".

That said, this is not a discovery of mine, (the protons 'time' of longevity) lots of very intelligent people, long before me, (and well during my existence) have toiled, and worked, to produce these kinds of "knowledge proofs" that are recognized as 'Valid proof(s)' inasmuch as they follow the rigors of Scientific study...simple put, HEY! they taught me the "right" (as opposed to "wrong"/"erroneous" {I suppose}) Answer! (it is those people who contsruct "The Giant" upon whose shoulders the vantage of perspective enables 'some' (few, till it's told) to see the rest of the way.

Mr. Robin Parsons
(SNIP) I have lost and acknowledged defeat in certain discussions, and seen this with others. I've never seen this of you. When a person is intransigent, on all points, debate is futile. While no insult intended by this, it is why I try to avoid debate with you. (SNIP)
Try looking here; https://www.physicsforums.com/showt...e=12&highlight=glass and liquid&pagenumber=2"...at least one of them there are 'others'....but it isn't something to brag about(?), most people don't...

Last edited by a moderator:
Wolf
Stuborn

I tend to agree with mr.parsons on the fact of being stuborn he has his own way of thinking and tends to not let others afect his opinion when expresing i do the same but that does not mean that no one can discuss their views without being insulted or insulting i have a very diferent way of thinking and i know what it is like for EVERYONE to argue your thoughts because they are diferent trust me i have a very metaphysical and phylosophical thoughts and EVERYONE argues my thoughts because they are not commom with others.

All I am asking is could you people just "talk" about your views without fighting just talk i am quite interested in reading thease post and replying to do them and discussing just not fighting i have teachers and other nieve fools for that

Mentat
People,
This thread has been side-tracked. Can we get back to a discussion of the nature of "reality", please (while agreeing to be rational, and to take each new post as possibly correct before looking for what's wrong with it or how we can "block" it)?

Wolf
i Like that tought

As just stated that would be nice thenstead of argueing

anyway...what do you believe the true nature of reality is mr.parsons?

Mr. Robin Parsons
It is what you are experiancing, in your imagination, right now, the Sensual experience of it. ('Sensual' in this instance, meaning; "the totality of all of the sense inputs acting/feeling as one"...same thing for me.)

It has a 'perception of flow' (time) inasmuch as it is persistent in its motion(s), as well.

does that help?

Wolf
so then...

so you say it is perspective and perseption...interesting i have seen many people with this theory. I only know few with the believe that it is a physical reresentation of energy and that when you feel gravity or another "physics force" (presure,tension etc) that is the energy following a certain patern of movement or action that the energy has or does.This theory also goes on further for one's own body and skills and knowledge.

Wolf
By the way

Mr. Robin Parsons
Given that all any of us have to relate 'the experience' is subjective testimony, trying to tell someone of the "Oneness of feeling" that is the experience of reality, given the differentiations that are the subtlties, of aging, in life, of learning, environment, all of what promotes (or inhibits) this type of experience, well, if you get there, great! if your are not there, yet, just do what all of the ones who got there did, keep trying...!

(P.S. And please remeber to have some fun while you are doing some of it, but not all of it...)

Mentat

Originally posted by Wolf

What is reality? Reality is a physical construct of processes (not static entities), which are constantly in motion.

Royce
Reality is spiritual God. All else is manifestations of that spiritual reality and is illusion. Physical matter is the ulimate illusion as spirit is the ultimate reality.

Mentat
Originally posted by Royce
Reality is spiritual God. All else is manifestations of that spiritual reality and is illusion. Physical matter is the ulimate illusion as spirit is the ultimate reality.

I'm not disputing, this is an actual question:

Why are we not conscious of the mind of God, if we are all mere extensions thereof?

Royce
Originally posted by Mentat
I'm not disputing, this is an actual question:

Why are we not conscious of the mind of God, if we are all mere extensions thereof?

We all are unconsciously aware of the mind of God and his mind touches ours all the time but we may not realize that it is God doing this. To become consciously aware we must look beyound the material everyday world with "altered states of consciousness" into "alternate realities". I use quotes because the terms while in common use are not really correct. An altered state of consciousness may mean a deep medatative state or simply a moment of quiet acceptance or contemplation.
There is only one reality so alternate realities is not the correct term. It is simply looking at reality a different way and seeing that which is beyond the mundane material reality of day to day life.
I offered my post as an alternative answer of yours to Wolf's question of what is reality.
Again matter, material, is the effect not the cause or source of all that is. You yourself have said that matter and enegry are different states or forms of the same thing, energy waves or fields. If this is the case, and it is, then why think that all that exists is or is a product of matter when matter itself is a product of energy. Rather than being a materialist wouldn't it be more appropriate to say you are an energyist, to coin a new term?

Mr. Robin Parsons
Uhmm don't you risk confuing the difference 'tween energies that demonstrate life's activities, from energy that constructs a rock?

Think that those energies are the same?
(you know the energies that grow all of the food!)

(No, peronally I do not argue a "different source" All/Omni=God=Truth, no problemo, but clearly, in Its presentation to US,it is diferentiated)

Royce
Mr. R B,
I don't risk it. I never claimed that all energy is the same. The term "energy is a generic term we apply to a non-material phenomenon that we can neither understand nor can define; but, we can detect and observe its effects. There are as many forms of energy as there are things in the universe.
A plant lives yet may contain and need many of the same things that the rock is made of; yet, it lives while the rock doesn't. Clearly it contains or is influenced by some form of energy or force that the rock does/is not.

Either its presentation or our perception of it is differentiated.
To see more clearly we must change the way we look as things and be willing to look at things differently. This is all I'm saying.

Mr. Robin Parsons
Originally posted by Royce
Mr. R B, Uhmm, ya, it's R. P. Not B
I don't risk it. I never claimed that all energy is the same. The term "energy is a generic term we apply to a non-material phenomenon that we can neither understand nor can define; but, we can detect and observe its effects. There are as many forms of energy as there are things in the universe.
A plant lives yet may contain and need many of the same things that the rock is made of; yet, it lives while the rock doesn't. Clearly it contains or is influenced by some form of energy or force that the rock does/is not.
Either its presentation or our perception of it is differentiated.
To see more clearly we must change the way we look as things and be willing to look at things differently. This is all I'm saying.
Hummm, I suspect that it is neither "presented to us", nor "a perception" (sorta) inasmuch as I susect that as an energy "it" is, simply put, invisible to us completely, ('completely' in this case means 'Absolutely un-measurable' too!) and this is the reason 'why' when we take the Water out of a cell, it dies, and cannot be "re'started" (as if it were a 'mechanical' thing) like a car (lead acid) battery which will basically turn itself off and on relative to us removing and replacing the acid...mechanically.

I suspect that, in the cell, the 'invisible' energy that is at work there, simply disappears from its "intersecting portal" (for lack of a better wording) when its 'supension sys.' (the water) is removed, hence we see "Death of the System", we don't know, neither can we prove, that the energy itself "died" or simply did return to some of other plain/dimension/universe(?).

Last edited:
Mentat
Originally posted by Royce
We all are unconsciously aware of the mind of God and his mind touches ours all the time but we may not realize that it is God doing this. To become consciously aware we must look beyound the material everyday world with "altered states of consciousness" into "alternate realities". I use quotes because the terms while in common use are not really correct. An altered state of consciousness may mean a deep medatative state or simply a moment of quiet acceptance or contemplation.
There is only one reality so alternate realities is not the correct term. It is simply looking at reality a different way and seeing that which is beyond the mundane material reality of day to day life.
I offered my post as an alternative answer of yours to Wolf's question of what is reality.
Again matter, material, is the effect not the cause or source of all that is. You yourself have said that matter and enegry are different states or forms of the same thing, energy waves or fields. If this is the case, and it is, then why think that all that exists is or is a product of matter when matter itself is a product of energy. Rather than being a materialist wouldn't it be more appropriate to say you are an energyist, to coin a new term?

Well, Materialism actually refers to the belief that all things are physical, and energy is physical. I said (in response to Wolf) that reality is a physical construct. Anyway, doesn't your philosophy justify using drugs to reach altered states of consciousness? Also, do all altered states of consciousness bring you closer to the mind of God, or is there a specific state one should look for?

Royce
I have never used drugs so I casn not testify to their effectiveness. I personally wouldn't trust anything I saw or found while under the influence of drugs.
Meditation can bring use closer to the mind of God but what I really think that is does is makes us conscious of our connection and oneness with reality as well as seeing and being in a different reality than we are use to seeing and being in during our everyday normal material lives. It is the same reality, there is only one, but we are able to percieve it differently. This different perception seems or feels more complete and more right than our normal reality.

Mr. Robin Parsons
Originally posted by Royce
I have never used drugs so I casn not testify to their effectiveness. I personally wouldn't trust anything I saw or found while under the influence of drugs.
Meditation can bring use closer to the mind of God but what I really think that is does is makes us conscious of our connection and oneness with reality as well as seeing and being in a different reality than we are use to seeing and being in during our everyday normal material lives. It is the same reality, there is only one, but we are able to percieve it differently. This different perception seems or feels more complete and more right than our normal reality.
Given that it can be shown that food does effectively have "Drugging" effects, (Less obvious and/or intense) just as does nicotine affect the mind in a perported ability to focus better, sugar is know to affect brain function, (in very short and real times) all kinds of things affect the human brain, odors/aroma's have been suggested as study aids, the idea of a drug Increasing effectiveness is sort of wrong, it is just a different approach to a viewpoint.

For myself my 'sortie' started in a forest, Meditation on a rock in the woods, trying to subdue my own fear of just being there all alone, by rational means (sorta effective) and (mostly) emotive training, AKA Tranquility...It sounds weird sort of that I would offer the subjective testimony of a sense of the tree's living energy, their reflection of my fear back at me, (as if they could feel it from me, and they were, in turn, "fearful") repeated, till the point in time (Lotsa that passed) when I could enter the forest without fear of it, thus the reflection of the energies from within the trees, towards myself, became a completely different thing, nice! to the point where on "Soft-Breezy days" it was almost (or was it just my happiness inside me?) as if you could feel that the tress were "Happy" with this particular kind of weather*...but that is all subjective testimony, has a quality that allows me to discount it completely (for your sake) so's as to ensure that we all stay on the page(s) (of what we know is provable) unless we intend a discourse upon metaphysics exclusively...

*And a P.S. NO DRUGS USED THERE!

Royce