|
Post by jettimick on Jan 22, 2014 14:52:45 GMT -5
Enigma said,
"If your dream was instead about a cat going down an ant hole, would you need to find an explanation for how that is possible?"
That would depend on if I want to see it manifest or preself defend against it.
Did you know those morons with NASA up on that satellite are still using pi? If we take a matchstick, that's an inch. Rotate it in a circle, we got an inch minute. Every circle can be divided into 60, like a clock. Draw a line from the 12 to the 3 to the 6 to the 9 to the 12. Put a plus sign in the middle of it, and we got 4 right triangles. The hypotenuse of each right triangle is 1.41 or the square root of 2. 60 = the radius times 1.41 times 4. Does that mean anything to you brainiacs out there? I'll bet anyone half my salary for 2014 the Earth's orbit is not an oval. Anybody?
Otherwise, thanks for the vid link, will scope that and laughter's post more in depth after morning coffee.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 22, 2014 18:26:57 GMT -5
If there is no space between the observer and the observed, then there is no time between 'this event or that event', which leads to a precarious calling for a new measuring stick. There are mechanics which function in the experience seemingly appearing in consciousness, and from a focalized point 'during' such appearance we gain access to laws in reference to a point that are being made up at the point and never actually amount to anything more than imagination. Perhaps rather than explaining the double slit experiment in the framework which measures the difference between two separate time-space frameworks, here and now versus then and there, we need something different. By need, I'm saying, maybe can't do without. If we take a matchstick, we got an inch. Rotate it in a circle, we got a minute. Go out in distance and you have foot minutes and yard minutes. Rotate 60 times around and you have inch hours and foot hours. And go 60 more out and we have inch-days and foot days, although those aren't really days, but something else. Let's call em Dwags. We collapse time and space into a new dimension, not even a moment in time, but something seemingly unimaginable. Things which are inexplicable in a framework which separates time and space become irrelevant, because they were never separate in the first place and don't need to be explained. I'm seemingly with Enigma on the suggestion that the detector isn't conscious, but I actually have no idea what you guys are talking about. Some experiment and something about a cat. Although I had a dream one night where I followed a cat down a rabbit hole. That's a story for another day. But in the dimension where time and space are the same, there would be a new set of laws and dynamics, also imagined into apparent existence at a seeming referential point. There's still time and space, but we just stop treating them separately. Change can still be imagined, just in a different way. In this way, solving the experiment would involve collapsing time and space into this dimension, and then using laws of cause and effect to explain the difference. Can someone explain in simple layman's terms the cat experiment and the double slit experiment, without making reference to other principles or theories without explaining in simple layman's terms what they are also? Hey Jet', welcome to the forum. The upshot of the conversation here is this: Niz: ... now divest yourself of the idea that you are the body with the help of the contrary idea that you are not the body. It is also an idea, no doubt; treat it like something to be abandoned when its work is done. ... (This and the last from Chapter 54 of "I AM THAT", "Body and Mind are Symptoms of Ignorance") In reply to your ideas about different types of measurements, Einsteins relativity has time and space as the same thing. The model has us living in four dimensions, and which direction is time is as arbitrary as which are up-down, left-right, back-forward; the quantitative relationship between a time measurement and any spatial measurement involves the speed of light. The difference between this model and our common-sense version of space and time is that Einstein's constructs are not absolute, but can only be defined in terms of arbitrary frames of reference by the relative movement of those frames with respect to one another. The fascinating conclusion from this is that two observers standing in different frames won't measure the same length of a ruler or duration of a minute -- that's why the theory is called Relativity, as it reveals our idea of an objective absolute spatial reference as just that, only an idea. The discussion about the double-slit experiment was about a similar conclusion that was drawn about matter, that is, that what we observe as material turns out not to be independent of the observation of it. As I wrote here, my current interpretation of this is that this result simply contradicts the assumption that the science of Physics that produced it is based on. I refer to this as the "collapse of the material assumption". So with this assumption that we are isolated individuated bits of consciousness each experiencing an absolute and shared physical reality is revealed to be an idea that simply approximates our perceptions of everyday existence but that is not ultimately true, the natural inclination is to go looking for a replacement idea. The vector for finding the replacement might be stated as the question: "what is the basis of this reality that we all seem to experience and can sometimes find agreement about?". That's where the idea of consciousness comes in, and what Enigma has stated here in this thread is what I refer to as the "spiritual speculation". The idea that "everything is matter" is replaced by "everything is consciousness", and instead of being individuated bits of consciousness sharing an absolute and common physical reality, the speculation has us all as the same singular consciousness each experiencing our own subjective physical realities, and our agreement about these individuated experiences is based on the singularity of the consciousness to which these experiences appear. It turns out to be a very old idea, nothing new to the Hindu's at all, but modern versions of it expounded, say, by Deepak Chopra, will cite back to the theory that evolved to explain the results of the double-slit experiment as a scientific basis for support of the spiritual speculation. In these models, the quantum observer, the consciousness which triggers the particle nature rather than the wave nature of the electron, is taken to be this singular, unitive consciousness. But what if instead, we don't go looking for a replacement idea? What if, instead, we either lay down or don't pick up the spiritual speculation and just refrain from presenting that question, "what is the basis of this reality that we all seem to experience and can sometimes find agreement about?", to the rational thinking mind? One of the recurring themes that you'll find in this discussion section is the idea of turning away from ideation, of approaching life and experience without conceptualizing it. There are several ways that this idea is expressed, and rather than claim association of this essay with those, I'd invite you to explore them on your own, and I personally particularly recommend what Bob Harwood, posting here as Zendancer, has written on the topic. Recognizing that this idea of the quantum observer isn't actually a physical phenomenon is essentially the same as recognizing that the subjective nature of appearances collapses the assumption on which the science of Physics is based, namely, an objective reality. So the science of Physics isn't really useful to us in supporting the idea that "everything is consciousness". That said, some of the conceptual structure built around this idea that "everything is consciousness" can be useful in countering the subtly ingrained material assumption that has people naturally identifying with and concluding that they are their physical bodies. So we can replace this flawed idea of an absolute physical reality and relative consciousness ("I am the body"), with another idea ("I am consciousness"), but eventually that idea is also only an idea, and can be seen as such once it's job is done.Yes, that's well said. The realizations that collapse the small ideas tend to leave us with bigger ideas. It's not that what we realize is that 'we are consciousness', but rather that we are not what we thought we were. Ultimately, those bigger ideas also collapse into a little greasy spot and nothing at all is really true.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 22, 2014 18:33:48 GMT -5
Enigma said, "If your dream was instead about a cat going down an ant hole, would you need to find an explanation for how that is possible?" That would depend on if I want to see it manifest or preself defend against it. I don't know what "preself" is. In any event, you don't need to manifest or defend anything. I'm saying you're having a dream about something impossible, and yet it's a dream, and so it doesn't need a physics explanation. I'm implying that waking life is also a kind of dream, and the explanations for what happens are really just part of the dream. Not to me.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2014 19:28:02 GMT -5
Ultimately, those bigger ideas also collapse into a little greasy spot and nothing at all is really true.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2014 21:00:07 GMT -5
Enigma said,
"If your dream was instead about a cat going down an ant hole, would you need to find an explanation for how that is possible?"
That would depend on if I want to see it manifest or preself defend against it.
Did you know those morons with NASA up on that satellite are still using pi? If we take a matchstick, that's an inch. Rotate it in a circle, we got an inch minute. Every circle can be divided into 60, like a clock. Draw a line from the 12 to the 3 to the 6 to the 9 to the 12. Put a plus sign in the middle of it, and we got 4 right triangles. The hypotenuse of each right triangle is 1.41 or the square root of 2. 60 = the radius times 1.41 times 4. Does that mean anything to you brainiacs out there? I'll bet anyone half my salary for 2014 the Earth's orbit is not an oval. Anybody?
Otherwise, thanks for the vid link, will scope that and laughter's post more in depth after morning coffee.
Yes, that you've used a rational approximation for the irrational number represented by ?2 for what seems to me a rather ambiguous rhetorical purpose, but if I were to speculate, it is in support an argument that it is moronic to use ? in trig computations. I'd imagine that the implied metaphor is, "c'mon, let's get rational here".
|
|
|
Post by jettimick on Jan 23, 2014 1:04:57 GMT -5
Enigma said,
"If your dream was instead about a cat going down an ant hole, would you need to find an explanation for how that is possible?"
That would depend on if I want to see it manifest or preself defend against it.
Did you know those morons with NASA up on that satellite are still using pi? If we take a matchstick, that's an inch. Rotate it in a circle, we got an inch minute. Every circle can be divided into 60, like a clock. Draw a line from the 12 to the 3 to the 6 to the 9 to the 12. Put a plus sign in the middle of it, and we got 4 right triangles. The hypotenuse of each right triangle is 1.41 or the square root of 2. 60 = the radius times 1.41 times 4. Does that mean anything to you brainiacs out there? I'll bet anyone half my salary for 2014 the Earth's orbit is not an oval. Anybody?
Otherwise, thanks for the vid link, will scope that and laughter's post more in depth after morning coffee.
Yes, that you've used a rational approximation for the irrational number represented by ?2 for what seems to me a rather ambiguous rhetorical purpose, but if I were to speculate, it is in support an argument that it is moronic to use ? in trig computations. I'd imagine that the implied metaphor is, "c'mon, let's get rational here". Gonna work backwards this morning. Yes. Although on a less ambiguous note 1.41 is the growth rate of the dream, which more closely resembles a self reflective sphere than the linear framework that all base 10 calculations embody. Base 10 is too linear. We need base 60. On that note, humanity is actually in a degrading nightmare right now growing at exactly that rate. Or I spose we could say, it's God's nightmare
|
|
|
Post by jettimick on Jan 23, 2014 1:19:11 GMT -5
I don't know what "preself" is. Hey still figuring out how to layer these quotes. To preself defend is to imagine something happening ahead of time and space (like an apocalypse), and then using the laws and cause and effect to preself defend against it. Obviously, these laws can be used in your own life as well. "In any event, you don't need to manifest or defend anything." In the wake of becoming fully conscious is the realization that there isn't a self to defend. That does not however prevent one from using the laws of cause and effect to manifest something. I didn't mean to imply anyone needs to manifest or defend anything, only that the laws of cause and effect can be utilized to embody these dynamics. "I'm saying you're having a dream about something impossible, and yet it's a dream, and so it doesn't need a physics explanation. I'm implying that waking life is also a kind of dream, and the explanations for what happens are really just part of the dream. " In essence I agree with you. God doesn't need a law to create stuff. Humans need laws so we can figure stuff out, and sometimes we can use those laws to unfigure what we figured. Even though the explanations are part of the dream, the laws of cause and effect can still be used to explain how that dream is unfolding.
|
|
|
Post by jettimick on Jan 23, 2014 1:50:07 GMT -5
"Feb 27, 2013 20:58:44 GMT -5 laughter said: Niz: ... now divest yourself of the idea that you are the body with the help of the contrary idea that you are not the body. It is also an idea, no doubt; treat it like something to be abandoned when its work is done. ... (This and the last from Chapter 54 of "I AM THAT", "Body and Mind are Symptoms of Ignorance")" Maybe Niz was the biggest jackass of them all. The body and mind are what you work with, and if as a collective unit survival as a species is something we want, we better starts putting some of these mind things together and creating a plan to manifest that. According to legend, I'm pretty sure Niz would walk around with feces on his Guru garb. Seemingly Niz forgot to abandon the idea that he isn't the body. Oops. "In reply to your ideas about different types of measurements, Einsteins relativity has time and space as the same thing. The model has us living in four dimensions, and which direction is time is as arbitrary as which are up-down, left-right, back-forward; the quantitative relationship between a time measurement and any spatial measurement involves the speed of light. The difference between this model and our common-sense version of space and time is that Einstein's constructs are not absolute, but can only be defined in terms of arbitrary frames of reference by the relative movement of those frames with respect to one another." Einstein sounds confused. "The fascinating conclusion from this is that two observers standing in different frames won't measure the same length of a ruler or duration of a minute -- that's why the theory is called Relativity, as it reveals our idea of an objective absolute spatial reference as just that, only an idea." Where the hell did two observers come from? " The discussion about the double-slit experiment was about a similar conclusion that was drawn about matter, that is, that what we observe as material turns out not to be independent of the observation of it." Obviously, yah? "That's where the idea of consciousness comes in, and what Enigma has stated here in this thread is what I refer to as the "spiritual speculation". The idea that "everything is matter" is replaced by "everything is consciousness", and instead of being individuated bits of consciousness sharing an absolute and common physical reality, the speculation has us all as the same singular consciousness each experiencing our own subjective physical realities, and our agreement about these individuated experiences is based on the singularity of the consciousness to which these experiences appear." Everything is consciousness until it loses consciousness of itself. That's what peeps are for. Most peeps are not consciousness . Let em burn! "One of the recurring themes that you'll find in this discussion section is the idea of turning away from ideation, of approaching life and experience without conceptualizing it. " I don't mind the ideation, but it mostly seems like layered confusion, and to start at a point of confusion and then make sense of it seems a bit silly, so I can support the idea of reversing our way out of that mess. "That said, some of the conceptual structure built around this idea that "everything is consciousness" can be useful in countering the subtly ingrained material assumption that has people naturally identifying with and concluding that they are their physical bodies." Now you're speaking my lingo. "So we can replace this flawed idea of an absolute physical reality and relative consciousness ("I am the body"), with another idea ("I am consciousness"), but eventually that idea is also only an idea, and can be seen as such once it's job is done." I don't mind that.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 23, 2014 3:11:05 GMT -5
"Feb 27, 2013 20:58:44 GMT -5 laughter said: Niz: ... now divest yourself of the idea that you are the body with the help of the contrary idea that you are not the body. It is also an idea, no doubt; treat it like something to be abandoned when its work is done. ... (This and the last from Chapter 54 of "I AM THAT", "Body and Mind are Symptoms of Ignorance")" Maybe Niz was the biggest jackass of them all. The body and mind are what you work with, and if as a collective unit survival as a species is something we want, we better starts putting some of these mind things together and creating a plan to manifest that. According to legend, I'm pretty sure Niz would walk around with feces on his Guru garb. Seemingly Niz forgot to abandon the idea that he isn't the body. Oops. "In reply to your ideas about different types of measurements, Einsteins relativity has time and space as the same thing. The model has us living in four dimensions, and which direction is time is as arbitrary as which are up-down, left-right, back-forward; the quantitative relationship between a time measurement and any spatial measurement involves the speed of light. The difference between this model and our common-sense version of space and time is that Einstein's constructs are not absolute, but can only be defined in terms of arbitrary frames of reference by the relative movement of those frames with respect to one another." Einstein sounds confused. "The fascinating conclusion from this is that two observers standing in different frames won't measure the same length of a ruler or duration of a minute -- that's why the theory is called Relativity, as it reveals our idea of an objective absolute spatial reference as just that, only an idea." Where the hell did two observers come from? " The discussion about the double-slit experiment was about a similar conclusion that was drawn about matter, that is, that what we observe as material turns out not to be independent of the observation of it." Obviously, yah? "That's where the idea of consciousness comes in, and what Enigma has stated here in this thread is what I refer to as the "spiritual speculation". The idea that "everything is matter" is replaced by "everything is consciousness", and instead of being individuated bits of consciousness sharing an absolute and common physical reality, the speculation has us all as the same singular consciousness each experiencing our own subjective physical realities, and our agreement about these individuated experiences is based on the singularity of the consciousness to which these experiences appear." Everything is consciousness until it loses consciousness of itself. That's what peeps are for. Most peeps are not consciousness . Let em burn! "One of the recurring themes that you'll find in this discussion section is the idea of turning away from ideation, of approaching life and experience without conceptualizing it. " I don't mind the ideation, but it mostly seems like layered confusion, and to start at a point of confusion and then make sense of it seems a bit silly, so I can support the idea of reversing our way out of that mess. "That said, some of the conceptual structure built around this idea that "everything is consciousness" can be useful in countering the subtly ingrained material assumption that has people naturally identifying with and concluding that they are their physical bodies." Now you're speaking my lingo. "So we can replace this flawed idea of an absolute physical reality and relative consciousness ("I am the body"), with another idea ("I am consciousness"), but eventually that idea is also only an idea, and can be seen as such once it's job is done." I don't mind that. ... ok I had my doubts at first but now they're gone. You tell that caucasian from Philly sitting next to you that if his question about the "reverse pyramid effect" on the Tolle board is anything other than pure Ashley-bait then I can answer it with two sentences! "The discussion about the double-slit experiment was about a similar conclusion that was drawn about matter, that is, that what we observe as material turns out not to be independent of the observation of it." Obviously, yah? No, not obviously at all. Most people assume quite the opposite. They assume that what appears to them is part of an objective reality external and independent of them. This is the material assumption, and apparently it takes more than just an intellectual understanding to undo ... but that's obviously a bullsh!t story just like any other story. Heard something on the ancient base-60 system ... I think on NPR, like about a year ago. Sounded pretty cool. Re "Einsteins confusion" ... tell it to the geniuseses at NASA that keep yer' GPS werkin!
|
|
|
Post by jettimick on Jan 23, 2014 6:17:23 GMT -5
"
I'll answer it with one. God doesn't need a law to create stuff and this dream started with more than 2 people. You ain't getting back to 2 peeps in base 10. In base 60 you don't have to.
"No, not obviously at all. Most people assume quite the opposite. They assume that what appears to them is part of an objective reality external and independent of them. "
I spose you're right. Folks have no idea how brainwashed they are.
"Heard something on the ancient base-60 system ... I think on NPR, like about a year ago. Sounded pretty cool."
This is base 60, with a twist.
"Re "Einsteins confusion" ... tell it to the geniuseses at NASA that keep yer' GPS werkin! "
I don't have a GPS!
Did you know the typhoon hit the Philippines 61 years 360 hours after the Mike Test nuclear reaction on Nov. 1, 1952? Things are way too connected to be random. Those morons with the nukes didn't know what the hell they were doin. In terms of those idiots up on that satellite, they're still on the 1 + 1 = 2 software.
No two things in the universe are alike. Only by adding things somewhat alike but different than they are can we get 2. 2 what, what the hell are we even talking about? 1 + 1 only equals 2 in your head hole.
Before you came your mom and dad now later on in time and energy we have you. 1 + 1 ==> 1
Just another way of looking at it.
How bout this,
2x2 =4 ; 2+2 = 4 4x2 =8 ; 4+4 = 8 1x1=1 ;
What's 1 + 1?
See how it helixes up like that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2014 7:03:24 GMT -5
this man , Jeffrey Santinover, shows in the ultra ultra extended version of ´´what the bleep´´(which i have at home)(i could not find it online) how they make a foto of an object, 1 object, appearing in 3 places simultanuously,
how can they do that if the observer collapses it into one place..havent they solved that observer problem already??
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2014 2:57:39 GMT -5
I don't know what "preself" is. Hey still figuring out how to layer these quotes. To preself defend is to imagine something happening ahead of time and space (like an apocalypse), and then using the laws and cause and effect to preself defend against it. Obviously, these laws can be used in your own life as well. "In any event, you don't need to manifest or defend anything." In the wake of becoming fully conscious is the realization that there isn't a self to defend. That does not however prevent one from using the laws of cause and effect to manifest something. I didn't mean to imply anyone needs to manifest or defend anything, only that the laws of cause and effect can be utilized to embody these dynamics. "I'm saying you're having a dream about something impossible, and yet it's a dream, and so it doesn't need a physics explanation. I'm implying that waking life is also a kind of dream, and the explanations for what happens are really just part of the dream. " In essence I agree with you. God doesn't need a law to create stuff. Humans need laws so we can figure stuff out, and sometimes we can use those laws to unfigure what we figured. Even though the explanations are part of the dream, the laws of cause and effect can still be used to explain how that dream is unfolding. Not if the explanations are part of the dream.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2014 5:54:31 GMT -5
this man , Jeffrey Santinover, shows in the ultra ultra extended version of ´´what the bleep´´(which i have at home)(i could not find it online) how they make a foto of an object, 1 object, appearing in 3 places simultanuously, how can they do that if the observer collapses it into one place..havent they solved that observer problem already?? this is it, www.google.pt/search?q=bose+einstein+condensate+examples&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=cUXiUo70DePB7AbbzIDIBw&ved=0CCYQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=896called ´´bose einstein condensate´´ (grrr...the image appears in the preview but then it disappears, so now i put the link instead..lots of examples) same object appearing in 3 places simultanuously, i understand it not..but how could they make that foto??
|
|
|
Post by jettimick on Jan 24, 2014 7:35:10 GMT -5
Hey still figuring out how to layer these quotes. To preself defend is to imagine something happening ahead of time and space (like an apocalypse), and then using the laws and cause and effect to preself defend against it. Obviously, these laws can be used in your own life as well. "In any event, you don't need to manifest or defend anything." In the wake of becoming fully conscious is the realization that there isn't a self to defend. That does not however prevent one from using the laws of cause and effect to manifest something. I didn't mean to imply anyone needs to manifest or defend anything, only that the laws of cause and effect can be utilized to embody these dynamics. "I'm saying you're having a dream about something impossible, and yet it's a dream, and so it doesn't need a physics explanation. I'm implying that waking life is also a kind of dream, and the explanations for what happens are really just part of the dream. " In essence I agree with you. God doesn't need a law to create stuff. Humans need laws so we can figure stuff out, and sometimes we can use those laws to unfigure what we figured. Even though the explanations are part of the dream, the laws of cause and effect can still be used to explain how that dream is unfolding. Not if the explanations are part of the dream. In terms of prior to and after prior to I got nuthin' . But from within the illusion of being bound by the framework cause and effect the laws of cause and effect can be used to embody an imaginary creative principle which you can imagine gives you control over your own imagination.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 24, 2014 16:01:38 GMT -5
Not if the explanations are part of the dream. In terms of prior to and after prior to I got nuthin' . But from within the illusion of being bound by the framework cause and effect the laws of cause and effect can be used to embody an imaginary creative principle which you can imagine gives you control over your own imagination. Yeah and a thought occurs that in dealing with people who take themselves as people this framework isn't only helpful but perhaps necessary ... Just like any other thought, it can be questioned, or simply witnessed. Just like any other idea, it shouldn't be trusted.
|
|