Which Singularity would that be?
I have been thinking and writing about "The Singularity" for several years before I came to the Mind-Brain forum. In all that time I was under the impression there was only one Singularity; hence the name "Singularity"!
Several months ago I was left a link to Mind-Brain under one of my Singularity posts on another discussion board. Reading Shawn's Introduction to this web site I was delighted to find a kindred mind. From Shawn's Introduction I assumed we were talking about the very same Singularity. A logical assumption, since I believed, and still maintain, there is only one.
When I entered this forum, as it is my habit, I jumped right in head first without ‘checking the waters,' and posted an essay or two on "The Singularity." I should have read a bit more on the ‘Introduction to the Singularity' before I did.
After reading as much as time would allow of what had been posted, I came away a bit confused. Almost nobody was talking about the same Singularity!? From several e-mails and private messages I have received since, it seem I was not the only one a bit confused. It also seems my posts just complicated the issue further.
I will attempt to correct that with this post.
First of all we use the word Singularity way too freely. There seems to be all kinds of ‘singularities' running around, from black holes, to just about any anomaly that reaches a point beyond which anything can be known, calculated, measured, or guessed. None of these are "The Singularity"!
From what I have read here, we now have another new singularity. This one is an anticipated technological/knowledge anomaly.
It is anticipated on the statistical calculations that the time between one technological advance and the next keeps getting shorter, allowing greater knowledge, which in turn fuels the next advancement.
If we plot these advancements for say the last hundred years, ( I have not done so, so this will be just a guesstimate for illustration purposes only.) we get what looks like a "V" with a turnaround time of maybe ten or so years a hundred years ago, to somewhere around a year or two today. If we extrapolate from here, statistically the rate of technological advancement will keep increasing, and the time between advancements will keep getting shorter, from a few months to a few days to a few hours, to a few minutes. After that we will reach the very point of the "V" where the rate of increase is infinite, and the time is equal to zero.
This is the anomaly beyond which we cannot calculate, or even guess what will happen. Well, we can guess, and that is what everyone is doing here: guessing.
What we are assuming is after reaching the zero point anomaly our technology, information, and knowledge will be infinite, and therefore we will no longer exist as the same species we are today. With infinite technology and knowledge, we will become gods of our own destiny, able to shape ourselves and our Universe any way we desire.
We will be absorbed by this anomaly and become one with The Singularity.
Ok, as it turns out, in the end, we are talking about the same Singularity! The only difference is, with the anticipated anomaly above, we are waiting for it to happen, while with Poly-Solipsism I am stating we already are The Singularity, but we just don't know it.
Our problem is we are ignorant of our own nature. We are waiting for the technology/knowledge anomaly believing when it arrives our knowledge will become infinite, and we will finally know who we are and why we are here, and with infinite knowledge we will be able to shape our Universe.
We already do; we have always done so.
We do so by selecting what we wish to be true. Will there be a ‘Noosphere'? If that is what we really believe will happen, it will happen. We create what is true in our Universe by "buying into" an idea, and adding the weight of what we believe to make it a reality. We can also prevent an idea from becoming reality.
I presented an idea, that has been going around for some time, on 40Hz being a portal to our quantum consciousness. The idea is the quantum connection between the mind and the brain operates at 40Hz. If we can stimulate our brains at this frequency we will expand our consciousness.
This idea met with great resistence here by minds who would not buy into it; preferring a more complicated method. Whether 40 Hz will work or not is still to be decided, the idea still is in limbo, waiting to either be accepted or rejected. For those who truly believe 40Hz will work, they will meet with only varying degrees of success because we are all entangled together with those who totally reject the idea. If some success can be demonstrated, it will change the minds of the skeptics, and thus change our Reality. Once an idea is widely accepted, we will find all kinds of evidence to support it.
Will there be a technological anomaly? What will happen when we reach this ‘singularity'? We, as the collective consciousness, are still in the process of deciding.
Our Reality takes form out of the chaos of conflicting perceptions and beliefs. Reality is Fractal Geometry in four dimensions, it is chaotic dynamics continuously recalculated. What we believe changes Reality, and as Reality changes, it changes what we believe.
The anticipated anomaly will not change us into The Singularity, it will provide the knowledge that we have always been The Singularity.
The realization has already begun. We are presently entering the ‘event horizon'!
Chuck
Full Version: Which Singularity would that be?
| QUOTE (cckeiser @ Jun 04, 08:38 PM) |
| Our problem is we are ignorant of our own nature. |
Agreed. What seems certain is that our identity is certainly not that comforting individualistic/egoistic facade we grew up with in early life. We know not our true nature. To what extent are we creators of our nature? To what extent do we realize what was already there? Or make manifest what was always hidden? If we were the Universe conscious of itself, would we know it, or would we create the illusion of individuality? Why the illusion of individuality in the first place? Why aren't more of us born enlightened? Maybe it's not so much culture as it is hard-wired into our genetic programs. Perhaps there's some evolutionary advantage to identifying with our egos and believing in individuality. In fact, it seems obvious that there should be an evolutionary advantage associated with this illusion; else, we would not necessarily seek self-preservation since we would be identifying everything as our self.
Dear CCK
Well articulated!
My POV is along the lines of what Bucky called 'creative realization'. Indeed we can be gods (John 10:34) and manifest any reality at all as the Royal Astronomer Rees is now cluing in to.
You raise the issue of the collective and some geometric occurring anomaly of technology. Because we are 'entangled' and there are laws through which energy is both manifest and designable or directed, we face the issue of fighting each other's energy and thus have the confusion that seems to have a cyclical nature.
I say this because I believe the state of creative realizing or potentiating awreness has always been available to us. The Puranas and other ancient philosophers including Marcus Aurelius saw things that way and I find far too much evidence to suggest that QT is not new at all. In fact I think we are still about a decade away from understanding Harmonics as well as humanity did at least 8000 years ago.
Harmonics (The Logos) is a key element in this. Polysolipsism and representative deities or names for forces and laws of these forces are mere differentiation which get in the way of the Convergence in the Harmonizing Convergence.
You probably know I am a student of secret knowledge like the tepaphone and STONE - and that these things were maintained and are part of the ancient knowledge which is degraded but related to the Lost Chord.
You also mention the 40Hz waveband which the mind of Hank Wesselman is shown to achieve and maintain better than the psychic surgeons of the Philippines and gurus of India. Indeed if all humans learned how to reach this state more often the paradigm shift would likely quickly re-occur. However the issue of achieving that Critical Mass is what we are not able to predict because there is little being done to enable people to understand their soulful potential.
Well articulated!
My POV is along the lines of what Bucky called 'creative realization'. Indeed we can be gods (John 10:34) and manifest any reality at all as the Royal Astronomer Rees is now cluing in to.
You raise the issue of the collective and some geometric occurring anomaly of technology. Because we are 'entangled' and there are laws through which energy is both manifest and designable or directed, we face the issue of fighting each other's energy and thus have the confusion that seems to have a cyclical nature.
I say this because I believe the state of creative realizing or potentiating awreness has always been available to us. The Puranas and other ancient philosophers including Marcus Aurelius saw things that way and I find far too much evidence to suggest that QT is not new at all. In fact I think we are still about a decade away from understanding Harmonics as well as humanity did at least 8000 years ago.
Harmonics (The Logos) is a key element in this. Polysolipsism and representative deities or names for forces and laws of these forces are mere differentiation which get in the way of the Convergence in the Harmonizing Convergence.
You probably know I am a student of secret knowledge like the tepaphone and STONE - and that these things were maintained and are part of the ancient knowledge which is degraded but related to the Lost Chord.
You also mention the 40Hz waveband which the mind of Hank Wesselman is shown to achieve and maintain better than the psychic surgeons of the Philippines and gurus of India. Indeed if all humans learned how to reach this state more often the paradigm shift would likely quickly re-occur. However the issue of achieving that Critical Mass is what we are not able to predict because there is little being done to enable people to understand their soulful potential.
| QUOTE (cckeiser @ Jun 04, 08:38 PM) |
| After that we will reach the very point of the "V" where the rate of increase is infinite, and the time is equal to zero. This is the anomaly beyond which we cannot calculate, or even guess what will happen. Well, we can guess, and that is what everyone is doing here: guessing. What we are assuming is after reaching the zero point anomaly our technology, information, and knowledge will be infinite, and therefore we will no longer exist as the same species we are today. With infinite technology and knowledge, we will become gods of our own destiny, able to shape ourselves and our Universe any way we desire. We will be absorbed by this anomaly and become one with The Singularity. |
we should be careful with infinity. You cannot reach infinity by adding or multiplying a finite string of finite values. Our technology at present is finite. It is difficult to imagine that it could ever become infinite in a finite number of steps or in finite time, though I don't rule it out. I'm just saying it's difficult to imagine.
| QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Jun 04, 09:19 PM) |
| However the issue of achieving that Critical Mass is what we are not able to predict because there is little being done to enable people to understand their soulful potential. |
what would you suggest be done to better enable people to understand their soulful potential? Seriously, how do you reach people? Talking to them rarely works. The only way they understand is if they have the right experiences and awareness, but as has been mentioned before, it seems you can only point the way, so to speak. Well, is pointing the way the only way? I don't think so, but don't have any better alternative to offer at the moment.
| QUOTE (cckeiser @ Jun 04, 08:38 PM) |
| I presented an idea, that has been going around for some time, on 40Hz being a portal to our quantum consciousness. The idea is the quantum connection between the mind and the brain operates at 40Hz. If we can stimulate our brains at this frequency we will expand our consciousness. |
So are you suggesting an interactionalist view of mind/brain function; a seemingly dualistic Cartesian view in which the mind interacts with the brain through 40 Hz oscillation? Where is the identity in that?
By 'identity' are you referring to personality and ego? If so perhaps the only true identity is in our soul which can only be accessed in its entirety through many dimensions. Have you read Seth Speaks? I find it has a good conceptualization of the multi-dimensional personality. Most people are caught up in the paradigm propganda and never really know themself. As the Mayans say - 'Do not put yourself in front of your Self'.
People will only go so far even if you demonstrate major things inclduing winning nationwide contests on decree, affecting the wind and rain, or doing healings for them. The reason they will only go so far - is it takes work to battle against the politically correct forces which enslave people and the soul which has been systematically aborted. They may stop supporting the old paradigm as much as they had - that is the first step. Then if enough of them start to act and create - much can be achieved. It is amazing what a few committed people with a common understanding and goal can achieve.
| QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Jun 04, 09:53 PM) |
| It is amazing what a few committed people with a common understanding and goal can achieve. |
It's amazing too to envision what can yet be achieved. Those few great ones from the past are good models to emulate, and good teachers, for us in the present, but it would do those great ones great dishonor if we did not exceed all that they did in the past. The great ones willed for much more than they realized. Their wills do not disappear, but merely get transferred, as it were, to other individuals to realize what others could not. To consider all of the willing that was done by the great ones.... To consider all of their great wills and what they strove towards.... this is very empowering, particularly if they can be channelled into your own will, serving to augment it. There is so much will from ages past striving to be realized... what are all these great wills but the many faces and manisfestations of the will of God?
That is a good way to see it - and I see it that way a lot. As Red Dragon says in another post - 'we must help God' and fulfill Divine Providence.
| QUOTE (Unknown @ Jun 05, 01:21 AM) |
| we should be careful with infinity. You cannot reach infinity by adding or multiplying a finite string of finite values. Our technology at present is finite. It is difficult to imagine that it could ever become infinite in a finite number of steps or in finite time, though I don't rule it out. I'm just saying it's difficult to imagine. |
Yes, of course you are correct, we cannot reach infinity by adding or multiplying anything finite. Infinity cannot be ‘reached,' it cannot be attained, or even approached. There is only one Infinity and that is The Singularity. We will not reach infinity, we will not attain infinity, because we already are the infinity; we are The Singularity.
We perceive our Universe as a finite quantity entangled in the Infinite Singularity, our technology/knowledge as a finite quality of the Unbound Singularity. It is a perception only. It is a restriction we have placed upon ourselves.
" It is difficult to imagine that it could ever become infinite in a finite number of steps or in finite time..."
Nothing can ‘become' infinite. It either is infinite, or it isn't. We cannot become what we already are. We, as a whole, at present just do not know we are.
"Our technology at present is finite."
What is "Technology"? Technology is the physical application of knowledge. The more advanced the knowledge, the more advance the technology.
Remove the physical and we remove the need for technology.
Our physical Reality is an illusion. Recognize the illusion for what it is, and we regain control over Reality and remove the physical.
The Universe does not exist if we are not looking!
You say "The Universe does not exist if we are not looking!"
Is this limitation thought to only apply to the human sense of sight or does it also apply to hearing, smell, feeling and actions [like breathing]?
Do we just need to do one of these things for the universe exist?
Is this limitation thought to only apply to the human sense of sight or does it also apply to hearing, smell, feeling and actions [like breathing]?
Do we just need to do one of these things for the universe exist?
| QUOTE (Unknown @ Jun 05, 01:15 AM) | ||
Agreed. What seems certain is that our identity is certainly not that comforting individualistic/egoistic facade we grew up with in early life. We know not our true nature. To what extent are we creators of our nature? To what extent do we realize what was already there? Or make manifest what was always hidden? If we were the Universe conscious of itself, would we know it, or would we create the illusion of individuality? Why the illusion of individuality in the first place? Why aren't more of us born enlightened? Maybe it's not so much culture as it is hard-wired into our genetic programs. Perhaps there's some evolutionary advantage to identifying with our egos and believing in individuality. In fact, it seems obvious that there should be an evolutionary advantage associated with this illusion; else, we would not necessarily seek self-preservation since we would be identifying everything as our self. |
Evolution is a artifact of Universe. Universe is an Illusion. Extricate your mind from the Illusion. Think outside of Universe.
All philosophy is a choice of mind.
I can only tell you what I perceive as True in my universe. You can only perceive what is true in your universe.
We believe the truth we perceive, but we only perceive the truth we believe. To change our truth and change our universe, we must change our perception.
Our mistake is to think of The Singularity as an ‘object' composed of ‘parts.'
The Infinite Singularity has no End, it has no Beginning! The Unbound Singularity cannot be defined, it is always more.
The Singularity is Infinite and Unbound.
We are not ‘in' The Singularity. We are not ‘a part of' The Singularity. We ‘are' The Singularity.
We have no limits.
There are no answers. There are only choices.
| QUOTE (Unknown @ Jun 05, 01:30 AM) | ||
So are you suggesting an interactionalist view of mind/brain function; a seemingly dualistic Cartesian view in which the mind interacts with the brain through 40 Hz oscillation? Where is the identity in that? |
Poly-Solipsism has the brain in the Universe, but also has the Universe in the Mind
The Mind is connected to the brain, but the brain is in the Mind! The Brain, as a physical apparition of a physical reality, is an illusion of the Mind. There is no brain, there is no Universe, there is only Mind. Dualism is part of the illusion.
The use of 40Hz is just another brain altering tool like LSD and other psychedelics to expand our consciousness. Since everything is an illusion of choice all psychedelics work because we believe they will. All they really do is allow us to briefly un-focus our attention from the illusion.
40Hz, psychedelics, and neuroscience work because we believe they will work.
| QUOTE (rhymer @ Jun 05, 06:24 PM) |
| You say "The Universe does not exist if we are not looking!" Is this limitation thought to only apply to the human sense of sight or does it also apply to hearing, smell, feeling and actions [like breathing]? Do we just need to do one of these things for the universe exist? |
Ah yes, our Literal Rhymer! ‘O)
"Not Looking" is meant in the poetic sense. It means that the Universe is a construct of our minds.
Our senses are also an illusion created by mind.
You can find more information about the illusion of senses by researching Hypnosis. Our senses obey what they are told to obey. We are told when we sense something, information is transferred to our brains. It works the other way around. Our minds tell our senses what they are supposed to sense.
| QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Jun 05, 01:19 AM) |
| Dear CCK Well articulated! My POV is along the lines of what Bucky called 'creative realization'. Indeed we can be gods (John 10:34) and manifest any reality at all as the Royal Astronomer Rees is now cluing in to. You raise the issue of the collective and some geometric occurring anomaly of technology. Because we are 'entangled' and there are laws through which energy is both manifest and designable or directed, we face the issue of fighting each other's energy and thus have the confusion that seems to have a cyclical nature. I say this because I believe the state of creative realizing or potentiating awreness has always been available to us. The Puranas and other ancient philosophers including Marcus Aurelius saw things that way and I find far too much evidence to suggest that QT is not new at all. In fact I think we are still about a decade away from understanding Harmonics as well as humanity did at least 8000 years ago. Harmonics (The Logos) is a key element in this. Polysolipsism and representative deities or names for forces and laws of these forces are mere differentiation which get in the way of the Convergence in the Harmonizing Convergence. You probably know I am a student of secret knowledge like the tepaphone and STONE - and that these things were maintained and are part of the ancient knowledge which is degraded but related to the Lost Chord. You also mention the 40Hz waveband which the mind of Hank Wesselman is shown to achieve and maintain better than the psychic surgeons of the Philippines and gurus of India. Indeed if all humans learned how to reach this state more often the paradigm shift would likely quickly re-occur. However the issue of achieving that Critical Mass is what we are not able to predict because there is little being done to enable people to understand their soulful potential. |
Hello Robert
I see you are having a good time on this forum. I wish I had more free time to join you here.
What can I tell you my friend that I have not already said?
Reality is a creation of mind. All philosophies, and all truths, are subject to a perception of choice. What you believe to be true is true in your universe. By sharing our perceptions we invite others to join us in our Truths.
Any Reality that exist within Universe is an Illusion. Any truth concerning Reality within Universe is a choice.
There is only Mind, everything else is a construct of Mind.
There are no answers. There are only choices.
| QUOTE (Unknown @ Jun 05, 01:26 AM) | ||
what would you suggest be done to better enable people to understand their soulful potential? Seriously, how do you reach people? Talking to them rarely works. The only way they understand is if they have the right experiences and awareness, but as has been mentioned before, it seems you can only point the way, so to speak. Well, is pointing the way the only way? I don't think so, but don't have any better alternative to offer at the moment. |
Everyone continuously changes their perceptions of reality, and their universe changes accordingly. Changes are introduced both internally by formulating new concepts and externally by entangling with other minds with different perceptions.
It is this exchange of perceived truths between entangled minds that creates our reality.
What we see as reality are the perceptions we share in common with other entangled minds. Those things we perceive as true take shape in every universe with the same perception. Our minds still exist independently of each other, but the entangled minds who share the same belief all perceive the same reality.
Our senses are our main avenues of communication with other minds in this reality, and everything we read, see, hear, smell, and touch is a perception and becomes a part of our mind/universe. Everything we perceive is added to our storehouse of knowledge from which we weave our universe. Any addition, no matter how small, changes our universe. The change can have either a positive or negative influence, but with every change what we perceive as reality will also changes.
A rejected perception, if repeated often enough can grow to become accepted through its accumulating influence on the mind.
A perception introduced when a mind is still in its infancy and has not accumulated a large store of perceptions will have a greater influence and be more acceptable.
A perception introduced to a mind with limited contact with other minds will have a greater influence.
A perception introduced with the stimulation of multiple senses will have a greater impact and be more readily accepted.
When an idea or perception is introduced accompanied by a combination of colors, soothing sounds and pleasant smells they will be more readily accepted.
Any idea or perception, once it is introduced, is added to the mind/universe and will change that universe. It does not matter if the perception is accepted or rejected, it is still added to the mind/universe. Anything that is added to the mind will have an influence on that mind. Any influence changes the perceptions, and therefore changes the mind/universe.
By sharing my perceptions with you, I changed your universe. Everything I have written here has now become a part of your universe. It does not matter if you chose to accept it as true or not at this time. It is now in your mind and will change the way you perceive everything else.
We change the Universe by the sharing of perceptions.
| QUOTE (cckeiser @ Jun 05, 05:06 PM) |
| 40Hz, psychedelics, and neuroscience work because we believe they will work. |
Do you really believe that? Do you really think it's all about belief? So you're saying that the laws of physics work because we believe they will work? What sets up these beliefs? It seems you must have the natural laws before you have beliefs, since having beliefs would seem to presuppose having the natural laws.
About the brain in mind, yes, our mental construct/apparition we refer to as 'the brain' is certainly a mental construct, but the fact we have mental constructs at all presupposes the existence of a brain or some other substratum beyond mind, don't you think? If you deny this, then consider the following: Assume there exists a universe that is comprised of non-mental physical substratum (mass-energy or whatever you wish to call it) and assume there also exists sentient creatures who possess this thing called mind, which we stipulate is different from the physical substratum that gives rise to it. Now, some of these sentient beings postulate that, because all they know and experience is mind, they postulate that EVERYTHING is mind. But you can clearly see the error of their ways. In this hypothetical universe, we know already that their minds are separate from the physical substratum comprising the rest of the universe, but because these sentient creatures are confined to mind, they falsely infer that EVERYTHING is mind, which we know is not the case. Now, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, you may be committing the same error? It is the error of all solipsisms (including your poly-solipsism); namely, because all we know and experience is consciousness (or mind), we thereby presume that everything in existence must be consciousness (or mind), but this is absurd. It's as absurd as if a rock, being limited by its 'rockness', then went on to presume that everything that exists consists of 'rockness'. You catch my drift? Each one of us, considered within the context of our existential totality, is limited, is merely a piece of something greater. Because we are limited and our experiences are limited, we cannot place restrictions on the rest of Nature. Because we are confined to consciousness and to mind does not mean that everything else is confined to consciousness and to mind. I think that is the fatal flaw of eastern philosophy, is that they started from the subject, and took the subject to be the basis of all. This is naive. It's as naive as a rock claiming that everything that exists possesses 'rockness'.
| QUOTE (Unknown @ Jun 05, 10:15 PM) | ||
Do you really believe that? Do you really think it's all about belief? So you're saying that the laws of physics work because we believe they will work? What sets up these beliefs? It seems you must have the natural laws before you have beliefs, since having beliefs would seem to presuppose having the natural laws. About the brain in mind, yes, our mental construct/apparition we refer to as 'the brain' is certainly a mental construct, but the fact we have mental constructs at all presupposes the existence of a brain or some other substratum beyond mind, don't you think? If you deny this, then consider the following: Assume there exists a universe that is comprised of non-mental physical substratum (mass-energy or whatever you wish to call it) and assume there also exists sentient creatures who possess this thing called mind, which we stipulate is different from the physical substratum that gives rise to it. Now, some of these sentient beings postulate that, because all they know and experience is mind, they postulate that EVERYTHING is mind. But you can clearly see the error of their ways. In this hypothetical universe, we know already that their minds are separate from the physical substratum comprising the rest of the universe, but because these sentient creatures are confined to mind, they falsely infer that EVERYTHING is mind, which we know is not the case. Now, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, you may be committing the same error? It is the error of all solipsisms (including your poly-solipsism); namely, because all we know and experience is consciousness (or mind), we thereby presume that everything in existence must be consciousness (or mind), but this is absurd. It's as absurd as if a rock, being limited by its 'rockness', then went on to presume that everything that exists consists of 'rockness'. You catch my drift? Each one of us, considered within the context of our existential totality, is limited, is merely a piece of something greater. Because we are limited and our experiences are limited, we cannot place restrictions on the rest of Nature. Because we are confined to consciousness and to mind does not mean that everything else is confined to consciousness and to mind. I think that is the fatal flaw of eastern philosophy, is that they started from the subject, and took the subject to be the basis of all. This is naive. It's as naive as a rock claiming that everything that exists possesses 'rockness'. |
Where do ‘natural laws' come from, and what is a rock?
Natural Laws are the laws of Universe. Universe is an illusion. Natural Laws must then also be illusion.
Rocks are part of the illusion, they do not exist in and of themselves. What are rocks composed of?
Follow the evidence! There is nothing solid in our solids, and there are no ‘particles' in our particles.
| QUOTE (cckeiser @ Jun 05, 07:06 PM) |
| Where do ‘natural laws' come from? |
That's the million dollar question!
You conclude that natural laws are an illusion based on your claim that the universe is an illusion, but I reject your claim that the universe is an illusion. Perhaps the universe-as-we-perceive-it is an illusion, but there exists something apart from our minds and spheres of consciousness which gives rise to that universe-as-we-perceive-it, though which is not necessarily identical to that universe-as-we-perceive-it, and which does not necessarily have any mental and sentient component at all as we understand those terms from experience. Forget the rock example; I see your point there. But still, it seems to me that you're extrapolating from your experience onto all of existence, and I don't think this is legit. It's like someone who didn't see in color would extrapolate that therefore all people see in black-and-white, which is an absurd conclusion. You cannot extrapolate from your own experience to all of existence, or at least, I don't see any compelling reason for it.
You've also said that the laws of physics work because we believe in them. Would you like to test this assertion by jumping off a cliff and choosing not to believe in gravity?
| QUOTE (Unknown @ Jun 05, 07:18 PM) |
| You've also said that the laws of physics work because we believe in them. Would you like to test this assertion by jumping off a cliff and choosing not to believe in gravity? |
Hmmm... there's more truth to Bugs Bunny's assertion than meets the eye as to why the laws of physics didn't work: simply because he never studied law.
With any luck I'll invite you to watch this experiment (again) within a couple of years. Its pretty neat. All you'll have to do to acheive the effect is then enter the "field" generated by someone else doing this. Just remember Icarus.
"Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss!"
- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
This PK effect seems to require a syncronization of activity between all the crystalline structures in the brain (pineal, pituitary, cerebellum, cortex). It's accompanied by some neat special effects, including a halo.
Have fun!
Red Dragon
Raven shaman
Yes, the issue of 'projecting' our energy and thoughts onto others was understood by the Indians who did not want their picture taken.
However, there are systems of information such as history and ways to form conventions of these systems which can be freer and more creative or open. Thus pointing the way to allow real thinking by others allows truer communication outside those conventions.
Have you tried absurd relating until neither you or the person you are conversing with (using not conventions including words) are any longer concerned with the origin of the thooughts. These made up words form a bridge to something beyond either party's previous awareness and what I call a 'tap-in' is achieved.
Then evaluate the 'tapped-in' knowledge in normal language and see how the 'tap-in' loses convention even when conventional words (symbols) are used.
However, there are systems of information such as history and ways to form conventions of these systems which can be freer and more creative or open. Thus pointing the way to allow real thinking by others allows truer communication outside those conventions.
Have you tried absurd relating until neither you or the person you are conversing with (using not conventions including words) are any longer concerned with the origin of the thooughts. These made up words form a bridge to something beyond either party's previous awareness and what I call a 'tap-in' is achieved.
Then evaluate the 'tapped-in' knowledge in normal language and see how the 'tap-in' loses convention even when conventional words (symbols) are used.
Dear CCK
Yes, I have found more REAL discourse here than I have found at any other site - so thanks for the invite.
Although reality is a convention and in truth a mere illusion it is entirely possible to CREATE reality nonetheless.
Yes, I have found more REAL discourse here than I have found at any other site - so thanks for the invite.
Although reality is a convention and in truth a mere illusion it is entirely possible to CREATE reality nonetheless.
| QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Jun 06, 01:56 PM) |
| Although reality is a convention and in truth a mere illusion it is entirely possible to CREATE reality nonetheless. |
Precisely! ;O)
QUOTE(Unknown @ Jun 05, 11:18 PM)
QUOTE(cckeiser @ Jun 05, 07:06 PM)
Where do ‘natural laws' come from?
That's the million dollar question!
You conclude that natural laws are an illusion based on your claim that the universe is an illusion, but I reject your claim that the universe is an illusion. Perhaps the universe-as-we-perceive-it is an illusion, but there exists something apart from our minds and spheres of consciousness which gives rise to that universe-as-we-perceive-it, though which is not necessarily identical to that universe-as-we-perceive-it, and which does not necessarily have any mental and sentient component at all as we understand those terms from experience. Forget the rock example; I see your point there. But still, it seems to me that you're extrapolating from your experience onto all of existence, and I don't think this is legit. It's like someone who didn't see in color would extrapolate that therefore all people see in black-and-white, which is an absurd conclusion. You cannot extrapolate from your own experience to all of existence, or at least, I don't see any compelling reason for it.
You've also said that the laws of physics work because we believe in them. Would you like to test this assertion by jumping off a cliff and choosing not to believe in gravity?
So much to do and so little time.
First my Unknown friend, I would like you to know I do understand how you feel about what I have been writing about. Up until about six or seven years ago, I was in the place you are now. I have earned my living with Science for the past 37 years. For the first 50 years of my life Science was my all consuming passion. I built and launched my first home-made rocket at the age of 12; no ‘kits' for me, I made everything myself! My Heros were Chuck Yeager and Robert Goddard.
Back in 97-98, if I had read the things I now believe and write about, I would have said ‘This guy's a Whacko"!
But in the search for "Truth," and the ultimate Universal Philosophy, I have come to these conclusions, which I do not take lightly. They were hard won and required sacrificing many of my own beliefs. It is not an easy thing to relinquish ‘truths' you have spent a like time acquiring, but we must follow the evidence, no matter to what end it leads us.
I came to my conclusions independent of any other philosophy, only to discover afterwards I have reinvented much of many others. Which should not be surprising since we all must follow the same evidence. Where I differ from the host of others is in my conclusion that "We are The Singularity," and each reside in our own personal universe that may differ from any other. That is my contribution to the continuing search for "The Truth."
I know it will not be accepted by everyone. There are too many who already have too much invested in their own philosophies to gladly abandon them.
The Truth is, "Truth" really doesn't matter to anyone except those searching for "The Truth."
"We would sooner believe a comfortable lie, than accept an uncomfortable truth."
We all exist in our comfortable lies.
..."But still, it seems to me that you're extrapolating from your experience onto all of existence, and I don't think this is legit. It's like someone who didn't see in color would extrapolate that therefore all people see in black-and-white, which is an absurd conclusion. You cannot extrapolate from your own experience to all of existence, or at least, I don't see any compelling reason for it."
You are correct, it is not legit, and it is an absurd conclusion for any of us to make, but that is what we all do; every one of us!
That is the message I am trying to impart. What you believe about Reality is an extrapolation of your own experience. Because we each see things in a certain way, we believe everyone else must see it in the same manner as we do. I am saying this is not true. Hell, I am not just saying it, I screaming it!
You believe "...there exists something apart from our minds and spheres of consciousness..."
That is the way you perceive your universe, and because you perceive it that way you assume everyone else must also do so. You cannot understand why someone else does not.
We each believe the Reality we perceive is The Truth and the Only Truth. And because we see ourselves as existing in this Universe, we then assume everyone else must be existing in the same Universe.
I think it should have become abundantly clear by now this is not the case. If it were, there would be no contentions between perceptions; there would only be one Truth, and we would all see and agree on everything. It is quite obvious we do not now, and never have.
We have been at this ‘Searching for Truth' thing for way over 2000 years, isn't it time to admit none of us live in the same universe?
We need go no further than this Mind-Brain forum to find the evidence for which I speak. Everyone here is presenting a different perception of Reality. Robert believes in a conspiracy of the powerful who possess forbidden knowledge, not granted the rest of us. Shawn believes in the triumph of mind technology to evolve humanity to the next level. Joesus believes a philosophy very similar to my own, but from what I have seen, desires to turn it into a Religion with himself as ‘The Teacher." Not yet sure about Red Dragon, but he/she seems to share perceptions similar to Robert, and pays homage to the Druids and Shamans of past glory.
Somewhere someone believes the mind and consciousness is only an electrochemical reaction in a physical brain. Somewhere someone believes in a soul crated by a Divine Deity. Somewhere someone believes in Secret and Hidden knowledge, lost artifacts of untold power, ancient aliens procreating a human species; somewhere someone believes one or all these things to be true, and somewhere someone else does not believe any of them. Which, if any, of all the things we believe is True?
They all are.
We are The Singularity. The Singularity is Infinite and Unbound. There are no answers. There are only Choices!
"Of philosophy I will say nothing, except that when I saw that it had been cultivated for many ages by the most distinguished men, and that yet there is not a single matter within its sphere which is not still in dispute, and nothing, therefore, which is above doubt, I did not presume to anticipate that my success would be greater in it than that of others; and further, when I considered the number of conflicting opinions touching a single matter that may be upheld by learned men, while there can be but one true, I reckoned as well-nigh false all that was only probable."
Rene Descartes ( Discourse on Method :1637)
Rene's mistake was in believing..."there can be but one true"!
We each extrapolate what we perceive to be true of our reality into what then must be true for all of Reality and for everyone else. "I don't think this is legit" and " is an absurd conclusion." to make.
You, my Unknown friend, are no less guilty than the rest of us. You believe what you perceive of your reality to be the Only Truth for all of Reality. To me that is an absurd conclusion.
"You've also said that the laws of physics work because we believe in them. Would you like to test this assertion by jumping off a cliff and choosing not to believe in gravity?"
I have already done so...sort of. Except I didn't jump off, I jumped up!
I know I probably should not be doing this. The story below is true, and one of a series I am writing in hopes of making a few dollars to augment my merger pension. I should not be giving it away for free, but I believe it is needed at this moment in time.
As with most of my stories the title has several meanings within the story. If you are sharp enough, you might catch them all.
This is one of them.
In every life there are moments when we come face to face with the "Impossible." More often than not, when our minds are confronted with contradictions to our firmly held beliefs, we go into ‘denial.' We refuse to except what our senses are telling us, and try to abolish our perceptions from our conscious mind. We bury it deep and try not to think about it, for if we do, surely we would go Mad! But if we have the audacity to question those things held as inviolate, and relate the happening of "The Impossible" then surely others shall call us Mad!
Our ‘Natural Laws' are forged from those things we wish to be true. Anything that violates these fabrications we deny. "We are not rational creature. We are rationalizing creatures." We Rationalize away any contradictions to held beliefs. I have no doubt, that by the end of my story, many who read it will enter into denial, and their minds will find excuses to rationalize away the truth in my story.
What happened was Impossible, so therefore it could not have happened. But it Did!
This story is True, and it happened the way I relate. As a writer I have taken a few liberties to enhance the ‘enjoyment factor' of the story, but the events did happen in the sequence as related. I did not change or enhance the truth, I just slightly ( and I do mean slightly)enhanced the story around the truth.
Dear CCK
Could you elaborate how the concept of we are the Singularity is any different than the Magian laws that allowed Jesus (amalgam that he is) to say what he does in John 10:34. I also see it in what I am always quoting from the Mayans - 'Do not put yourself in front of your Self.' In fact I think the collective unconscious understands that we are one and at-one or Atman and this is part of most adepthoods. It is there is Bucky Fuller as he creatively manifests or 'realizes' all that IS through the 'observer of the observed' and all related Harmonic Convergences of the ancient Heliopolitans.
The issue is almost a done deal as far as I see it - and it is more a matter of understanding the layers that our conscious and soulful efforts of energy have created which confuse those who are still seeking to find WHAT IS.
Could you elaborate how the concept of we are the Singularity is any different than the Magian laws that allowed Jesus (amalgam that he is) to say what he does in John 10:34. I also see it in what I am always quoting from the Mayans - 'Do not put yourself in front of your Self.' In fact I think the collective unconscious understands that we are one and at-one or Atman and this is part of most adepthoods. It is there is Bucky Fuller as he creatively manifests or 'realizes' all that IS through the 'observer of the observed' and all related Harmonic Convergences of the ancient Heliopolitans.
The issue is almost a done deal as far as I see it - and it is more a matter of understanding the layers that our conscious and soulful efforts of energy have created which confuse those who are still seeking to find WHAT IS.
a very inspiring story Chuck! And I must say, the way you characterized some of the fellows around here is admirable. Also, Descartes excerpts were much appreciated. However, I still have a bone to pick with you. First, I'm not sure if you really addressed my tongue-in-cheek point about jumping off a cliff, but more importantly perhaps is your claim that there are many truths, not just one. Is that different (and if so, how) from Nietzsche's claim that there are no facts, only interpretations? That is, our worldviews or systems of belief are just interpretations of "raw data". I say "raw data" because, on further reflection, I find it difficult to specify exactly what I mean by "raw data" since it seems so much of my thoughts/perceptions are contaminated by interpretations. Superficially, I was thinking that "raw data" corresponds to sensory impressions, but on further thought, I'm not sure if this really holds up because I have trouble isolating these "sensory impressions" from my interpretations of them. I don't know. I'll have to think about this one for awhile. An excellent post, though; one which left me speechless and one which I think will need some time to sink in. Thanks for posting it.
| QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Jun 08, 06:02 PM) |
| Dear CCK Could you elaborate how the concept of we are the Singularity is any different than the Magian laws that allowed Jesus (amalgam that he is) to say what he does in John 10:34. I also see it in what I am always quoting from the Mayans - 'Do not put yourself in front of your Self.' In fact I think the collective unconscious understands that we are one and at-one or Atman and this is part of most adepthoods. It is there is Bucky Fuller as he creatively manifests or 'realizes' all that IS through the 'observer of the observed' and all related Harmonic Convergences of the ancient Heliopolitans. The issue is almost a done deal as far as I see it - and it is more a matter of understanding the layers that our conscious and soulful efforts of energy have created which confuse those who are still seeking to find WHAT IS. |
Since I do not know any of these things you quote, I cannot tell you.
All I can tell you is the 'Truth" I perceive.
It is all in the Mind.
What you chose to believe as true is in your mind, and what I chose to believe as ture is in my mind. It is when we share our perceptions of Truth we create a common Reality.
The Singularity is not an 'object' composed of parts. We are not in The Singularity, we are not part of The Singularity, we are The Singularity. We have no reference within Universe we can draw an analogy to.
Another point that comes to mind: CCK, you give a special role to "choice". But what is "choice"? Some would say choice is an illusion. We have no choice since time is an illusion. What are your thoughts on this? What exactly is the importance of choice in your worldview, and how would your worldview be modified if choice was removed?
Words.
Well I see that what you have said and is now being proven by QMWI is around for a long time and it is the functioning of energy (which has consciousness and is harmonic). Thus it is science and not perception and now replicable in such things as the work of Tiller who demonstrates the mind impacts matter or the Japanese scientist working with water crystaline development. The lattices form and the thoughts form according to laws and knowledge. The only place where perception gets in the way - is when ego tries to negate the laws and create outside these laws - which really is not possible except through delusion.
Well I see that what you have said and is now being proven by QMWI is around for a long time and it is the functioning of energy (which has consciousness and is harmonic). Thus it is science and not perception and now replicable in such things as the work of Tiller who demonstrates the mind impacts matter or the Japanese scientist working with water crystaline development. The lattices form and the thoughts form according to laws and knowledge. The only place where perception gets in the way - is when ego tries to negate the laws and create outside these laws - which really is not possible except through delusion.
Laurent and I have had many great exchanges over the last couple of years. This is a recent piece of his and he has many others on his site. I tend to think that time is variable and yet is as he says in the observable world to the most part.
Must we assume that in the absence of particles and fields, and in
the absence of space and time, there would be nothing?" - John
Dobson
----------------------------------------
Nothingness does not exist and creation ex-nihilo is not physically
possible.
Can space exist independently from matter? Is space primary, not
derivable from anything else, non-reducible, or is it a product?
Since empty space is not material, not subject to time, can we say
that empty space is eternal, not subject to change or process?
First of all, before we continue, we must start distinguishing empty
space from material space. Empty space is the seat to all fields,
synonymous to Einstein's aether, and it is primary. Material space,
or the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) and
electromagnetic radiation (EMR), are products.
Is empty space really there? Can you prove it? Can you measure it?
If the aether really were empirically untenable, could it still be
considered as real? When you mathematically describe the rotation of
an object in empty space, do you think of empty space as real? I
mean, if you were the only particle in space, how could you tell
when spinning or accelerating?
Supposedly, MMX results mean that the aether is immaterial and
unobservable. Now, if empty space were here before matter and could
exist independently from the Universe, isn't the classical vacuum
immaterial and unobservable too?
To exist, things must be in spacetime, and the aether is not in
spacetime, it is before spacetime, so it is but doesn't exist.
Matter is continuosly changing, becoming, what was a second ago
isn't any more, but the only things real or meaningful to us humans
are the information and process through which they become. Empty
space (aether) is what is real, matter and fields are a little more
than just apparitions made from active information (energy). Basil
Hiley is correct when he says that being is a relative invariant in
the process of becoming, existing is not the same as being.
Existence starts with the field, and before that there is the
aether. Aether is before air. The aether is, but since it is not
matter and does not occupy any space, it does not exist in
spacetime. The aether is dimensionless, it is before geometry.
Spacetime and geometrization come after the aether. Aether is
primary. Matter, energy, material space and time are not. The aether
is changeless and eternal because it is not bounded by the laws of
spacetime, which is what we humans call the laws of physics.
Aether is not in spacetime, spacetime is in the aether. The aether
is physical but immaterial. There is no action at a distance because
there is no distance to cover within the aether. The aether is one
and everywhere, it has no moving parts, motion is not necessary,
that's why information can be transferred instantaneously. It is an
error to think in terms of spatial extensions when trying to
understand what's going on at the aether scale. The aether is
everywhere and nowhere in specific, it's all pervading, it is inside
and between particles, it is a plenum, a matrix, the origin.
Some claim that space has no physical properties, but if you
eliminate the notions of permittivity (e0) and permeability (m0)
from Maxwell and Einstein's theories, they fall appart. They believe
in the reality of nothingness and accept that notion as an integral
part of their physics. They say that empty space as such is real,
but can't even ascribe any physical properties to it. At least
Einstein's aether is real BECAUSE of its physical nature.
All you need to be physical is to be able to act as a force. To be
real there is no need for dimensions or geometry. We need to think
of empty space as a physical but immaterial substance. Einstein
called it the gravitational, relativistic aether.
In Einstein's view your 'perfectly flat balanced vacuum state' does
not move, but helps determine ratios like permittivity, permeability
and the propagation vector of fields and light rays.
Einstein said that matter and fields are made from the same basic
substance, material space is synonymous to the field. He also said
that there can't be a Universe without an aether, that the aether is
the seat to the electromagnetic and gravitational fields, and that
without fields there can't be matter or CMBR.
Einstein's aether is not the same as his spacetime, spacetime is the
aether's product and is synonymous to Timothy Boyer's material
space - which is nothing more than the CMBR and EMR combined.
Einstein's spacetime is 4-dimensional, time is included in the
structure of material space, that's why he termed it spacetime.
AETHER AND RELATIVITY
GTR is an idealization of reality, a method, a mathematicians trick
to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty). Smoothout
spacetime and you get theories like Relativity, String Theory,
TQFT... to work. But there really is a background of cosmic
microwave radiation (CMBR), without which there would be no material
space.
According to Timothy Boyer, the CMBR is constituted by at least two
different spectrums, one is noisy and expanding while the other is
self-organizing and condensing. One exhibits negative gravitation,
the other positive gravitation. From one space is created, from the
other, matter. Matter waves are contantly flowing inwards into
matter, while heat and light flow away from matter. There is a
continuos condensation and expansion of space particles (CMBR)
taking place.
Material space is made from two types of particles, one resists
compression or exhibits negative-gravitation (thermal radiation,
light), the other is infinitely compressible and exhibits
positive-gravitation (ZPR, dark matter).
Boyer described the ZPR as fundamental to material space, and
thermal radiation as a product generated by the motion of ZPR
particles which in turn are buffeted back into motion by this
thermal radiation which they themselves had produced, providing the
basis for a perpetual motion system and solving the riddle of infinite
energies coming from space. [See Puthoff, Haisch and Rueda's papers]
Now, if material space is made from particles, then it may be
subject to changes in pressure and density, like a gas. Therefore,
if space particles (dark matter, ZPR, quantum matter...), carried by
matter waves, continuously condense into material objects, that
would mean that the closer you get to the object the denser the
space would be, as a function of the object's mass and radius,
explaining why gravitic pressure obeys the inverse square law.
Space particles (dark matter) are carried by matter-selective,
inwardly flowing photons, in an electrical current. Just like
electrons are moved by electromotive force.
The gravitational field is continuos, what is quantized by
matter-waves is the CMBR. As the CMBR spins and cuts the
gravitational field in a circular motion, there is a friction which
creates matter-waves, or inwardly flowing photons - just as
electromagnetic waves (photons) are created when you shake an
electron. This photons are moved by a force orthogonal to the
direction of rotation, inwardly carrying CMBR particles to the
center of the system. This quantization depends on the
characteristics of the matter-waves, which in turn depend on the
characteristics of the rotating material body. This model explains
why some planets have greater concentrations of some elements than
others.
I agree with most of what CMBR etherists say, but I think we still
need an immaterial aether which serves as the seat for the
electromagnetic and gravitational fields.
Einstein presented a different concept with his 1920 essay "Ether
and the Theory of Relativity". What he termed the 'gravitational
ether' or the 'relativistic ether' came from a completely different
idea. Motion and particulation can't be applied as properties to
Einstein's aether, it is one and has no components. This oneness
explains action at a distance and inertia. CMBR is material, and
Einstein's aether is physical but immaterial. First there needs to
be an aether before we can have fields, spacetime, matter or a CMBR.
Einstein's gravitational aether is Newton's absolute space mixed
with Mach's aether. It's an aether enbued with physical properties
that help determine the formation and structure of fields.
Physical because it helps determine ratios like the permittivity and
permeability of free space. Ratios on which the existence and
behaviour of all fields entirely depend. Without fields you can't
have any type of matter/particle. And immaterial because it lacks
properties like extension or motion, it does not move and it has no
parts or components in the material sense.
How could a non-material aether represent a preferred frame if it
lacks any landmarks or coordinates?
Because the aether is immaterial, it can't be quantized like
material space or CMBR. The aether is before spacetime. Einstein was
correct in his claim of a background free universe, the aether can't
even be called a reference frame, it is immaterial, therefore lacks
any landmarks. Einstein's gravitational aether does not represent an
absolute frame. The aether is not material, therefore, it can't
represent a background.
In Einstein's view, material space can't exist without time,
process, or change, so he calls material reality spacetime. His
aether is not a material reference frame. In Einstein's view, we
have a background free Universe, in the material sense. In
Einstein's GTR material space is 4-dimensional (spacetime), but not
his aether, and when you take time and motion from the theory you
are left with Einstein's gravitational aether, which is
complimentary to Newton's absolute 3D space.
Can we take a direct measurement of something which is not matter?
The only thing proven by the MMX was that they didn't understand the
aether's nature.
You want to measure drag caused by the aether? Just measure a moving
object's momentum... or measure the force needed to accelerate that
same object... that's it, that's aether caused drag.
If material space (CMBR) were primary, then spatial extensions
wouldn't be variable, and that's what is claimed by Relativity. In
spacetime, space-like separations are supposed to be relative.
For reality to take place all physical laws must remain constant,
independently from the inertial frame, and because the aether is
physically finite, there must be space contractions and time
dilations in relation to slower moving inertial frames. Even though
proportions are kept, dimensions are constantly adjusted to fit the
inertial frame.
c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep) - (where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
permittivity)
The only reason this relationship holds true is because the speed of
light (and of all electromagnetic phenomena) is determined at the
aether level. It remains constant in all frames because it is not
dependent on a coordinate system like matter with mass is.
When you have a magnet with its surrounding field, we say that that
field is made of particles going from one end of the magnet to the
other, that's a field, but what determines the path of those
particles, the direction of propagation, the force lines, is the
gravitational aether.
Fields are matter are observable, measurable, the aether is not.
Fields have a geometric structure, the aether does not. When you
describe a field you may talk about intensity, density, size or
magnitude, but none of those concepts can be properly applied to the
description of Einstein's gravitational aether.
CMBR is material space and Einstein's aether is synonymous to empty
space, or Newton's absolute space, or Mach's momentum space.
http://cyberdyno1.tripod.com/
Must we assume that in the absence of particles and fields, and in
the absence of space and time, there would be nothing?" - John
Dobson
----------------------------------------
Nothingness does not exist and creation ex-nihilo is not physically
possible.
Can space exist independently from matter? Is space primary, not
derivable from anything else, non-reducible, or is it a product?
Since empty space is not material, not subject to time, can we say
that empty space is eternal, not subject to change or process?
First of all, before we continue, we must start distinguishing empty
space from material space. Empty space is the seat to all fields,
synonymous to Einstein's aether, and it is primary. Material space,
or the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) and
electromagnetic radiation (EMR), are products.
Is empty space really there? Can you prove it? Can you measure it?
If the aether really were empirically untenable, could it still be
considered as real? When you mathematically describe the rotation of
an object in empty space, do you think of empty space as real? I
mean, if you were the only particle in space, how could you tell
when spinning or accelerating?
Supposedly, MMX results mean that the aether is immaterial and
unobservable. Now, if empty space were here before matter and could
exist independently from the Universe, isn't the classical vacuum
immaterial and unobservable too?
To exist, things must be in spacetime, and the aether is not in
spacetime, it is before spacetime, so it is but doesn't exist.
Matter is continuosly changing, becoming, what was a second ago
isn't any more, but the only things real or meaningful to us humans
are the information and process through which they become. Empty
space (aether) is what is real, matter and fields are a little more
than just apparitions made from active information (energy). Basil
Hiley is correct when he says that being is a relative invariant in
the process of becoming, existing is not the same as being.
Existence starts with the field, and before that there is the
aether. Aether is before air. The aether is, but since it is not
matter and does not occupy any space, it does not exist in
spacetime. The aether is dimensionless, it is before geometry.
Spacetime and geometrization come after the aether. Aether is
primary. Matter, energy, material space and time are not. The aether
is changeless and eternal because it is not bounded by the laws of
spacetime, which is what we humans call the laws of physics.
Aether is not in spacetime, spacetime is in the aether. The aether
is physical but immaterial. There is no action at a distance because
there is no distance to cover within the aether. The aether is one
and everywhere, it has no moving parts, motion is not necessary,
that's why information can be transferred instantaneously. It is an
error to think in terms of spatial extensions when trying to
understand what's going on at the aether scale. The aether is
everywhere and nowhere in specific, it's all pervading, it is inside
and between particles, it is a plenum, a matrix, the origin.
Some claim that space has no physical properties, but if you
eliminate the notions of permittivity (e0) and permeability (m0)
from Maxwell and Einstein's theories, they fall appart. They believe
in the reality of nothingness and accept that notion as an integral
part of their physics. They say that empty space as such is real,
but can't even ascribe any physical properties to it. At least
Einstein's aether is real BECAUSE of its physical nature.
All you need to be physical is to be able to act as a force. To be
real there is no need for dimensions or geometry. We need to think
of empty space as a physical but immaterial substance. Einstein
called it the gravitational, relativistic aether.
In Einstein's view your 'perfectly flat balanced vacuum state' does
not move, but helps determine ratios like permittivity, permeability
and the propagation vector of fields and light rays.
Einstein said that matter and fields are made from the same basic
substance, material space is synonymous to the field. He also said
that there can't be a Universe without an aether, that the aether is
the seat to the electromagnetic and gravitational fields, and that
without fields there can't be matter or CMBR.
Einstein's aether is not the same as his spacetime, spacetime is the
aether's product and is synonymous to Timothy Boyer's material
space - which is nothing more than the CMBR and EMR combined.
Einstein's spacetime is 4-dimensional, time is included in the
structure of material space, that's why he termed it spacetime.
AETHER AND RELATIVITY
GTR is an idealization of reality, a method, a mathematicians trick
to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty). Smoothout
spacetime and you get theories like Relativity, String Theory,
TQFT... to work. But there really is a background of cosmic
microwave radiation (CMBR), without which there would be no material
space.
According to Timothy Boyer, the CMBR is constituted by at least two
different spectrums, one is noisy and expanding while the other is
self-organizing and condensing. One exhibits negative gravitation,
the other positive gravitation. From one space is created, from the
other, matter. Matter waves are contantly flowing inwards into
matter, while heat and light flow away from matter. There is a
continuos condensation and expansion of space particles (CMBR)
taking place.
Material space is made from two types of particles, one resists
compression or exhibits negative-gravitation (thermal radiation,
light), the other is infinitely compressible and exhibits
positive-gravitation (ZPR, dark matter).
Boyer described the ZPR as fundamental to material space, and
thermal radiation as a product generated by the motion of ZPR
particles which in turn are buffeted back into motion by this
thermal radiation which they themselves had produced, providing the
basis for a perpetual motion system and solving the riddle of infinite
energies coming from space. [See Puthoff, Haisch and Rueda's papers]
Now, if material space is made from particles, then it may be
subject to changes in pressure and density, like a gas. Therefore,
if space particles (dark matter, ZPR, quantum matter...), carried by
matter waves, continuously condense into material objects, that
would mean that the closer you get to the object the denser the
space would be, as a function of the object's mass and radius,
explaining why gravitic pressure obeys the inverse square law.
Space particles (dark matter) are carried by matter-selective,
inwardly flowing photons, in an electrical current. Just like
electrons are moved by electromotive force.
The gravitational field is continuos, what is quantized by
matter-waves is the CMBR. As the CMBR spins and cuts the
gravitational field in a circular motion, there is a friction which
creates matter-waves, or inwardly flowing photons - just as
electromagnetic waves (photons) are created when you shake an
electron. This photons are moved by a force orthogonal to the
direction of rotation, inwardly carrying CMBR particles to the
center of the system. This quantization depends on the
characteristics of the matter-waves, which in turn depend on the
characteristics of the rotating material body. This model explains
why some planets have greater concentrations of some elements than
others.
I agree with most of what CMBR etherists say, but I think we still
need an immaterial aether which serves as the seat for the
electromagnetic and gravitational fields.
Einstein presented a different concept with his 1920 essay "Ether
and the Theory of Relativity". What he termed the 'gravitational
ether' or the 'relativistic ether' came from a completely different
idea. Motion and particulation can't be applied as properties to
Einstein's aether, it is one and has no components. This oneness
explains action at a distance and inertia. CMBR is material, and
Einstein's aether is physical but immaterial. First there needs to
be an aether before we can have fields, spacetime, matter or a CMBR.
Einstein's gravitational aether is Newton's absolute space mixed
with Mach's aether. It's an aether enbued with physical properties
that help determine the formation and structure of fields.
Physical because it helps determine ratios like the permittivity and
permeability of free space. Ratios on which the existence and
behaviour of all fields entirely depend. Without fields you can't
have any type of matter/particle. And immaterial because it lacks
properties like extension or motion, it does not move and it has no
parts or components in the material sense.
How could a non-material aether represent a preferred frame if it
lacks any landmarks or coordinates?
Because the aether is immaterial, it can't be quantized like
material space or CMBR. The aether is before spacetime. Einstein was
correct in his claim of a background free universe, the aether can't
even be called a reference frame, it is immaterial, therefore lacks
any landmarks. Einstein's gravitational aether does not represent an
absolute frame. The aether is not material, therefore, it can't
represent a background.
In Einstein's view, material space can't exist without time,
process, or change, so he calls material reality spacetime. His
aether is not a material reference frame. In Einstein's view, we
have a background free Universe, in the material sense. In
Einstein's GTR material space is 4-dimensional (spacetime), but not
his aether, and when you take time and motion from the theory you
are left with Einstein's gravitational aether, which is
complimentary to Newton's absolute 3D space.
Can we take a direct measurement of something which is not matter?
The only thing proven by the MMX was that they didn't understand the
aether's nature.
You want to measure drag caused by the aether? Just measure a moving
object's momentum... or measure the force needed to accelerate that
same object... that's it, that's aether caused drag.
If material space (CMBR) were primary, then spatial extensions
wouldn't be variable, and that's what is claimed by Relativity. In
spacetime, space-like separations are supposed to be relative.
For reality to take place all physical laws must remain constant,
independently from the inertial frame, and because the aether is
physically finite, there must be space contractions and time
dilations in relation to slower moving inertial frames. Even though
proportions are kept, dimensions are constantly adjusted to fit the
inertial frame.
c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep) - (where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
permittivity)
The only reason this relationship holds true is because the speed of
light (and of all electromagnetic phenomena) is determined at the
aether level. It remains constant in all frames because it is not
dependent on a coordinate system like matter with mass is.
When you have a magnet with its surrounding field, we say that that
field is made of particles going from one end of the magnet to the
other, that's a field, but what determines the path of those
particles, the direction of propagation, the force lines, is the
gravitational aether.
Fields are matter are observable, measurable, the aether is not.
Fields have a geometric structure, the aether does not. When you
describe a field you may talk about intensity, density, size or
magnitude, but none of those concepts can be properly applied to the
description of Einstein's gravitational aether.
CMBR is material space and Einstein's aether is synonymous to empty
space, or Newton's absolute space, or Mach's momentum space.
http://cyberdyno1.tripod.com/
| QUOTE (Unknown @ Jun 08, 08:18 PM) |
| a very inspiring story Chuck! And I must say, the way you characterized some of the fellows around here is admirable. Also, Descartes excerpts were much appreciated. However, I still have a bone to pick with you. First, I'm not sure if you really addressed my tongue-in-cheek point about jumping off a cliff, but more importantly perhaps is your claim that there are many truths, not just one. Is that different (and if so, how) from Nietzsche's claim that there are no facts, only interpretations? That is, our worldviews or systems of belief are just interpretations of "raw data". I say "raw data" because, on further reflection, I find it difficult to specify exactly what I mean by "raw data" since it seems so much of my thoughts/perceptions are contaminated by interpretations. Superficially, I was thinking that "raw data" corresponds to sensory impressions, but on further thought, I'm not sure if this really holds up because I have trouble isolating these "sensory impressions" from my interpretations of them. I don't know. I'll have to think about this one for awhile. An excellent post, though; one which left me speechless and one which I think will need some time to sink in. Thanks for posting it. |
I did not answer you question about jumping off a cliff because I didn't believe it was necessary to do so. If you have been reading my posts I would assume by now you know we are entangled in this illusion together. There are exceptions, as my Catch story illustrates, but for the most part, once we are told something is impossible it become part of our personal universe, and we are limited by the transfer of perceptions.
I believe in levitation by the power of the mind, but that power is limited by the other minds I am entangled with. That is the essential difference between pure Solipsism and Poly-Solipsism. In pure Solipsism one mind can do anything it truly believes it can do. In Poly-Solipsism all minds are entangled, and what is possible for any one mind is limited by the collect mind. To change what is possible we must change the perceptions of the collective mind.
| QUOTE (cckeiser @ Jun 08, 06:59 PM) |
| That is the essential difference between pure Solipsism and Poly-Solipsism. In pure Solipsism one mind can do anything it truly believes it can do. In Poly-Solipsism all minds are entangled, and what is possible for any one mind is limited by the collect mind. To change what is possible we must change the perceptions of the collective mind. |
Interesting,.... but how did we become so entangled in the first place? Surely we didn't pull the law of gravity out of our collective asses.
| QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Jun 08, 10:34 PM) |
| Words. Well I see that what you have said and is now being proven by QMWI is around for a long time and it is the functioning of energy (which has consciousness and is harmonic). Thus it is science and not perception and now replicable in such things as the work of Tiller who demonstrates the mind impacts matter or the Japanese scientist working with water crystaline development. The lattices form and the thoughts form according to laws and knowledge. The only place where perception gets in the way - is when ego tries to negate the laws and create outside these laws - which really is not possible except through delusion. |
The results of any experiment within Universe are influenced by what we believe. The function of QM and the functioning of energy is no exception. They will obey the ‘laws' we created for them to obey. All things within Universe are part of the illusion, Science is no exception. We do not ‘discover' the Laws of the Universe, we fabricate them.
What is "energy"? What is "Delusion"?
I cannot answer you without sharing my perceptions from my own universe. My answers here are not Poly-Solipsism. They are only the truths as I perceive them through my own universe. Within the concept of Poly-Solipsism my perceptions of truth in Universe hold no more weight than your perceptions, or the perceptions of any other mind.
Everything is Subject to Change, your results may vary, and objects may be larger then they appear.
PPOV.
Energy is within Universe and part of the illusion. Where does ‘Zero Point/ Vacuum Energy' energy come from. All energy in Universe emanates from the Quantum. The Quantum is the bridge between Universe and Mind.
A delusion is just an illusion seen by only one mind. An illusion seen by all is called Reality.
There are many works by many researchers giving evidence Thought influences just about everything. They record positive results because they believe, yet when the same experiments are carried out by skeptics, they record no positive ‘hits' beyond random chance.
This alone should be evidence that what we believe influences the experiments we perform.
From what I have read so far, all research into ESP has only been carried out involving two, or just a few, subjects at a time, and all selected at random. Two minds do not have enough weight to overcome the total effect of all the skeptical minds they are entangled with.
We need to separate the subjects into believers and non-believers and then test them in large groups. Separating believers from non-believers, and grouping them together isolated from non-believers, empowers them to overcome the influence of skeptical minds.
I am telling you all this because I wish to illustrate I too have perceptions and beliefs in my own personal universe. But because of Poly-Solipsism I know the things I believe to be true may or may not be true in someone else's universe. That does not mean what you or I believe is not true. It just means that my truth may differ from yours, and our truth may differ from someone else's truth.
As much as we would like what we believe to be the truth for all, this is not a "One Truth fits all Universe." It is not now, never has been, and more than likely never will be.
The water can be impacted by thought alone but it is also impacted by music alone. Thus thought as you suggest is not operative. What does operate is not illusion and is not even impacted by our perception. Science can prove thught is energy and it can prove how energy works. We observe - and we may be deluded but reality though it is something we can create occurs accordng to the laws of energy or nature.
All the adepts say this and have said it since long before history - and the occultation of it and the use of power is a fact - of ego and history. The New Age slogan that says 'We are spiritual beings having a brief illusory material trip', is true for those who will not know their connectivbeness and those who insist on ego and its pre-eminence. (perception)
All the adepts say this and have said it since long before history - and the occultation of it and the use of power is a fact - of ego and history. The New Age slogan that says 'We are spiritual beings having a brief illusory material trip', is true for those who will not know their connectivbeness and those who insist on ego and its pre-eminence. (perception)
| QUOTE (cckeiser @ Jun 08, 08:22 PM) |
| A delusion is just an illusion seen by only one mind. An illusion seen by all is called Reality. |
very quotable.
| QUOTE (cckeiser) |
| I am telling you all this because I wish to illustrate I too have perceptions and beliefs in my own personal universe. But because of Poly-Solipsism I know the things I believe to be true may or may not be true in someone else's universe. That does not mean what you or I believe is not true. It just means that my truth may differ from yours, and our truth may differ from someone else's truth. As much as we would like what we believe to be the truth for all, this is not a "One Truth fits all Universe." It is not now, never has been, and more than likely never will be. |
There was one, who used to go on and on about the One.....
There are many who listen to our leaders and follow their paradigm who think it is reality - that is group delusion. Science however, cuts through this illusory 'world of seems to be' except those scientists that Kaku calls 'know-nothing scientists' who are tenured asss-kissers.
Illusion can become reality for the deluded - eg. wars we have created in search of freedom.
But I maintain just because none of us is omnipotent and all-knowing does not mean all of energy or all knowledge is not just that. The problem comes when people will not fulfill their potential because it requires responsible action - Operant law - RIGHT THOUGHT = RIGHT ACTION.
Illusion can become reality for the deluded - eg. wars we have created in search of freedom.
But I maintain just because none of us is omnipotent and all-knowing does not mean all of energy or all knowledge is not just that. The problem comes when people will not fulfill their potential because it requires responsible action - Operant law - RIGHT THOUGHT = RIGHT ACTION.
After following such circuitous paths of reason, one always ends up where one began, in the Self.
The "impersonal" worldview of science can be reconciled with a most personal view indeed. The universal and the particular are flip sides of the same coin. We are all the Self, expressing Itself, realizing Itself, becoming more aware of Itself.
The resolution of the contradiction leads the way to synthesis and greater awareness.
Alas, words can be so empty, phantoms which slip off into the shadows, leaving you with....nothing.
The "impersonal" worldview of science can be reconciled with a most personal view indeed. The universal and the particular are flip sides of the same coin. We are all the Self, expressing Itself, realizing Itself, becoming more aware of Itself.
The resolution of the contradiction leads the way to synthesis and greater awareness.
Alas, words can be so empty, phantoms which slip off into the shadows, leaving you with....nothing.
That is indeed one of the meanings of the Mayan saying. There are many perspectives to it and the important thing is what we do to make god (Nature=Reality) better.
| QUOTE (cckeiser @ Jun 06, 04:24 PM) | ||
Precisely! ;O) |
This "we create our own reality" is a fundamental principle in the Kabbalah; Jewish mysticism or the secret dogma of God. Ostensibly this thinking started with Abraham as an oral tradition.
Have Fun!
Red Dragon
Raven shaman
We all believe the Truth we perceive, but we only perceive the Truth we believe.
Well we see where you are coming from - Kaballah.
Abraham was tutored by Melchizedek - a peryllat or alchemist of the Gaedhilc Druids.
I have also shown others who see the connections of Yggdrasil and Runes which are Ogham (my top expertise) and thus the original language long before Melchizedek whose very name tells the story of my history.
Abraham was tutored by Melchizedek - a peryllat or alchemist of the Gaedhilc Druids.
I have also shown others who see the connections of Yggdrasil and Runes which are Ogham (my top expertise) and thus the original language long before Melchizedek whose very name tells the story of my history.
the nutcase mind is interesting, is it not, Shawn? It's not so much that they are describing factual observations and events as it is that they are attempting to reconcile fundamental psychological needs that they have no rational means to deal with. Their worlds can be very self-illuminating due to the power of mythologic as a transformative process, but also risky due to the danger of terminal confusion and consequent 'lunacy'.
I wish it was rare to find denial, projection and the confusion of fear and insecurity borne of inexperience versus factual observations. The pot sees the kettle well in this post.
| QUOTE (Dan @ Jun 10, 11:32 PM) |
| the nutcase mind is interesting, is it not, Shawn? It's not so much that they are describing factual observations and events as it is that they are attempting to reconcile fundamental psychological needs that they have no rational means to deal with. Their worlds can be very self-illuminating due to the power of mythologic as a transformative process, but also risky due to the danger of terminal confusion and consequent 'lunacy'. |
Yes, you're right. I find this to be true of most doctors and scientists and other types of quacks, as well, just like you do. Or have I got the wrong reference here?
For instance, visual thinkers were previously diagnosed with schizophrenia(sp?) because of course the not so clever after all monkey examining this "hallucinating person" this wasn't a visual thinker.
Extrapolate that a little further.
Have fun!
Red Dragon
Raven shaman
To DUMB DAN
QUID ERAT DEMONSTRATUM
Ok, Dan let's go! Show me just how clever a monkey you are! How would you diagnose the following "symptoms":
QUID ERAT DEMONSTRATUM
Ok, Dan let's go! Show me just how clever a monkey you are! How would you diagnose the following "symptoms":
| QUOTE ("ambersong") |
Yes the horizon changes sometimes, the whole thing. yes i have spots on my left eyes sometimes. And i fasinates me that you ask so directly and specifically, beacuse i truly dont know much about the agreed-upon matters of shamanism. I am new to this. In a way. And very old too. |
| QUOTE ("ambervoice") |
And furthermore- if this is not for reassons of medical conditions- how can you know that i dont have some kind of personal idiosyncracy towards seeing the world disolve (and becoming fluent like i have seen so many times). Maybe i live in a society where liquidity has a different meaning than in yours, maybe there´s a saying here " seing through the haze" that means something specifically, and maybe my experience toke form after that... |
| QUOTE ("ambersong") |
Maybe the times when the horizon burn and flash like northern lights or strange photographic illuminations, it beacuse i read the french poet Rimbaud when i was young, and thought his images were fantastic. |
| QUOTE ("ambervoice") |
Well, my wake up call, came before i really woke up. It was a new years eve and i was 17. I sat on a hill top in the country, a friend was by my side. But she didnt understand a word of what i said ( i was speaking both known and unknown words) I saw a whole scenery that was not there... i saw a dragon... i saw the whole world looking different. Sitting there on the hill top the world transformed before my very eyes. |
| QUOTE ("ambervoice") |
Years later i was walking the street of copenhagen (where i lived then) and suddenly saw my self transform into this giant red woman, so tall that she (me?) could touch the sky. |
| QUOTE ("ambervoice") |
The dark angel came to my bed. I have never hatet him- i dont see him along christian lines. I was hospitalized beacuse felt like my body was falling apart and beacuse i had these vision/experiences where i would feel i was falling through the world.. like an astronaut in space. ANd then offcourse there was HER whenever i looked into mirrors- mirrors were like gateways. |
| QUOTE ("ambervoice") |
Luckily i have guardians who has always tried to help me, even when i was really stupid (like that time i did ritual magic and called on demons.. stupid studpid thing to do). |
| QUOTE ("ambervoice") |
My experiences are left in that "unsolved" category, and personally there is no doubt in my mind, that they were of shamanistic/spiritual nature. I saw another world. I cans till see it somethimes. My horizons have always been broader. And i dont thing of it as a disadvabgtage anymore- more a strenght. |
| QUOTE ("ambervoice") |
Interrestingly enough cognitive psychology is beginning to realize how imossible it is to empiraclly demonstrate this lines of connections. The phenomena of "blind sight" where braindamged people left blind still "knows" how to locate objects is still a mystery, that cannot be logically explained. Yet. Same as with the plasticity of the brain. |
Here's a summary of her first impression of a vision after doing a runic blot:
| QUOTE |
| I was a bright clear full moon night (last full moon) i was doing a blót- giving my self to myself and to the gods. I have waitet long for doing that, waited untill i felt that the moment was absolutely right. That night it was. And it was absolutely beautyfull. I live in the country, and have a lot of land. On it, is a hill upon wich three grand stones rest. I go there to soak up the sun and the moon and the gods and... everything else. next to the stones are a little LUND (grove?) with elderberry trees (freyas trees). I was sitting there. Doing stuff... Afterwards i felt something on my back- preasuring me towads the stone. Very fim, but not brutely- it was just a very real touch... so i leaned over the stone and the coldness of the stone coolled down my hot cheeks. I looked to the horizon.. then the world began to disolve, like a fog. Everything... became non existent, blurred. Then the horizon began to flash and blink and... allmost like the photographic negatives. It was wild! flashing... very powerfull. I became scared. i can deal with many things- i´m a warrioess, i´m not a coward. But when reality change, like that, it reminds me too much of a time when i was sick. So i stopped. Collected my forces, collected my self. Spoke salutations and went inside. As i aprroached my bed i felt very very cleayrly that SHE loves me (deisr?) and will help me. That she bears over with me... Thats it. That was the experience. I cant grasp the meaning of it. I dont know what to do, about the gifts i´ve been given. All i know, is that i have too much to live for, to want to let the world or myself disolve. To let go. I love. And now i dont know what else to say. But i will be happy if someone replied. Just a little comment, would be much appreciated. I dont know what the meaning of all that was. |
I DO!
So Dan! What's your ill considered opinion as to the above "symptoms".
Have Fun!
Red Dragon
Raven shaman
'Singularity' may be another way of saying technology is a dictator!
Jesus was an adept and most great people and especially the saints have had 'shamanic' visions. Malcolm Muggeridge opinied that Jesus would be drugged and institutionalized if he were alive today. Muggeridge is right - I should know.
| QUOTE (Dan @ Jun 11, 02:32 AM) |
| the nutcase mind is interesting, is it not, Shawn? |
There are different types of truths. You are free to choose which ones to use, but this doesn't invalidate the myriad truths nor in any way diminish Truth. Put yourself in Robert's shoes; try to see the world through his eyes if you can. Do you not see something there? If you close yourself off, you will be dismissive of his perspective, but I wouldn't recommend doing this unless there's good reason to do so. I guess one good reason is because the inclusion of different perspectives has the potential to lead to confusion, but it also has the potential to broaden your ken, your mental vision. You are always free to choose which perspective best suits you for your particular circumstances. Think of it as a pragmatic perspectivism (though I think it goes beyond this). I know this doesn't address your issue of illegitimate or otherwise undesirable perspectives, such as those associated with insanity. But this is a whole other thread, one I think might be fun to pursue, but which I can't really contribute to at the moment. In sum, I'll grant you that Robert is speaking a different language, but there is truth there if you choose to see it.
| QUOTE (Antlion @ Jun 11, 07:21 AM) |
| 'Singularity' may be another way of saying technology is a dictator! |
or alternatively, that technology will facilitate the realization of our (the Self's) potential.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.