|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 2, 2023 11:57:49 GMT -5
Not a thread yet, just notes. Real vs not real. Movement from simplicity to complexity. Alphabet into words, metaphor. Table of elements, letters, into universe-stuff. Elements, electrons, protons, neutrons. epn, formed from quarks. Quarks, formed from quantum fields. If this-world is not "real", then why are there not higher dimensions which are equally not-as-real? So why is not reverting to the simple, primordial, not a step backwards? Reference, Abbott's Flatland.
Why notes? I'm not home.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 2, 2023 12:35:18 GMT -5
The SVP is not the way forward. The SVP is a dead end.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 2, 2023 13:01:22 GMT -5
(Only) about a year ago, after reading popular physics for over 50 years, I saw that space is a substance, it's not nothing. Why I did not see it earlier is incomprehensible, Einstein told us directly. Gravity is geometry. Einstein told us that matter tells space how to bend, and that bent space tells matter how to move. My former son-in-law had a cutting board with a groove in the outer edge for blood to collect in. Mass makes a groove for matter to ~ride~ in. So space itself gives a tract for earth to travel in, and ~holds-up~ the earth in orbit. So space is substantial enough to hold up earth.
So, Einstein showed us time and space are of one substance, they can be transformed one onto the other. (That's what Relativity means, Special Relativity). So time is as much a substance as space is (because they are interchangeable). Now, ordinarily we don't experience this, you have to be traveling near the speed of light, or be very near a black hole, to experience these phenomenon. . .....still, just notes...It took Einstein ten years to figure out how gravity fit into Special Relativity, and for him to write-up General Relativity.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 2, 2023 13:09:12 GMT -5
There are 4 fundamental forces. Physicists still don't know how gravity (one of the forces) fits-in with electromagnetism and strong force and weak force. In fact, for Physicists, 95% of the universe is missing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2023 7:48:11 GMT -5
Not a thread yet, just notes. Real vs not real. Movement from simplicity to complexity. Alphabet into words, metaphor. Table of elements, letters, into universe-stuff. Elements, electrons, protons, neutrons. epn, formed from quarks. Quarks, formed from quantum fields. If this-world is not "real", then why are there not higher dimensions which are equally not-as-real? So why is not reverting to the simple, primordial, not a step backwards? Reference, Abbott's Flatland. Why notes? I'm not home. Have you tried moving from complexity to simplicity? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 5, 2023 9:34:00 GMT -5
Not a thread yet, just notes. Real vs not real. Movement from simplicity to complexity. Alphabet into words, metaphor. Table of elements, letters, into universe-stuff. Elements, electrons, protons, neutrons. epn, formed from quarks. Quarks, formed from quantum fields. If this-world is not "real", then why are there not higher dimensions which are equally not-as-real? So why is not reverting to the simple, primordial, not a step backwards? Reference, Abbott's Flatland. Why notes? I'm not home. Have you tried moving from complexity to simplicity? Sure. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 11, 2023 13:50:40 GMT -5
Not a thread yet, just notes. Real vs not real. Movement from simplicity to complexity. Alphabet into words, metaphor. Table of elements, letters, into universe-stuff. Elements, electrons, protons, neutrons. epn, formed from quarks. Quarks, formed from quantum fields. If this-world is not "real", then why are there not higher dimensions which are equally not-as-real? So why is not reverting to the simple, primordial, not a step backwards? Reference, Abbott's Flatland. Why notes? I'm not home. What do you mean by this question? It may just be the multiple negatives throwing me off. Not sure. But, based on what you have shared in the past, it suggests a mixing of the physical/consensual with the metaphysical and/or missing the understanding of transcend and include, which can require integration in the mind. After all, as for flatland, does one really see 2D as 'only 2D' after stepping back up into and/or realizing 3D? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 11, 2023 14:24:54 GMT -5
Not a thread yet, just notes. Real vs not real. Movement from simplicity to complexity. Alphabet into words, metaphor. Table of elements, letters, into universe-stuff. Elements, electrons, protons, neutrons. epn, formed from quarks. Quarks, formed from quantum fields. If this-world is not "real", then why are there not higher dimensions which are equally not-as-real? So why is not reverting to the simple, primordial, not a step backwards? Reference, Abbott's Flatland. Why notes? I'm not home. What do you mean by this question? It may just be the multiple negatives throwing me off. Not sure. But, based on what you have shared in the past, it suggests a mixing of the physical/consensual with the metaphysical and/or missing the understanding of transcend and include, which can require integration in the mind. After all, as for flatland, does one really see 2D as 'only 2D' after stepping back up into and/or realizing 3D? I obviously have not gotten back to this. Coming back to 2D after experiencing 3D, is like eating cardboard. I will get back to this, later today, a few hours. (As I haven't eaten anything yet, today, it's 2:15 PM). I understand the use of the word real, in comparison to the Ground-Source, ND. But we're here, in the 'unreal' world. I understand you say the unreal world is superfluous in relation to the ND Realization. But we live here. I don't really understand the blasting of the higher dimensions. What I was asking, as this world is considered unreal, why does that negate the existence of higher dimensions? Could not the higher dimensions be as equally unreal as this world is unreal? Does that make sense? It seems to me the ND view is saying everything in this world, as far as the view the world evolving (I don't know why that's a bad word), is just meaningless, superfluous. That's my objection, my question. Sure, there is a Ground, Source, like the alphabet, simplicity. I'll be back. (To try to explain further, now 2:24). It's like the ND view always says One-D (which would actually be Zero-D) supersedes 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 6D and 7D, that nothing means anything in relation to ND. The point of the thread, if I ever get back to it.......is....... |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 11, 2023 15:10:39 GMT -5
What do you mean by this question? It may just be the multiple negatives throwing me off. Not sure. But, based on what you have shared in the past, it suggests a mixing of the physical/consensual with the metaphysical and/or missing the understanding of transcend and include, which can require integration in the mind. After all, as for flatland, does one really see 2D as 'only 2D' after stepping back up into and/or realizing 3D? I obviously have not gotten back to this. Coming back to 2D after experiencing 3D, is like eating cardboard. I will get back to this, later today, a few hours. (As I haven't eaten anything yet, today, it's 2:15 PM). I understand the use of the word real, in comparison to the Ground-Source, ND. But we're here, in the 'unreal' world. I understand you say the unreal world is superfluous in relation to the ND Realization. But we live here. I don't really understand the blasting of the higher dimensions. What I was asking, as this world is considered unreal, why does that negate the existence of higher dimensions? Could not the higher dimensions be as equally unreal as this world is unreal? Does that make sense? It seems to me the ND view is saying everything in this world, as far as the view the world evolving (I don't know why that's a bad word), is just meaningless, superfluous. That's my objection, my question. Sure, there is a Ground, Source, like the alphabet, simplicity. I'll be back. (To try to explain further, now 2:24). Sticking with the analogy, can WHAT IS 3D really BE 2D or 'really' deny the 2D aspect within it? Can what is 3D really make sense to what thinks itself to be 2D? No 'buts' in your reply, please. To avoid all the paradoxes that are sure to arise while using the 2D tools of thought and language, just focus on the objective metaphor at hand, and not apply it to human life yet. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 11, 2023 16:44:34 GMT -5
It's like the ND view always says One-D (which would actually be Zero-D) supersedes 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 6D and 7D, that nothing means anything in relation to ND. The point of the thread, if I ever get back to it.......is....... The realizable potential is to transcend and SEE any conceptual dimension or conclusion as being mind-based phenomena. They're not right/wrong, good/bad, or any other adjective, other than perhaps dependent on the mind, the phenomenal tool. Zen points to the same undifferentiation out of which all apparent dualities, distinctions, and entities arise. That is why they some masters might say not to deny or suppress thoughts, but to just let them go. Many seem OK with that, but if they are dead set on 'enlightenment' or whatever, and want to go head-to-headless with a true Zen Master to 'prove' their own mastery, things might take a turn when they get into the spontaneous stuff. SR/TR/enlightenment/etc is not necessary in order to live happily, though one might just have a broader set of potentials available without certain barriers in the way. Life unfolds in funny ways. The discussions on metaphysics, models, and levels here are fine, too, imo. They can be interesting when understood and provide some perspective on worldly/mindful application. Some seem to have the potential for going in the direction of integration rather than splintering off into disintegration. Dunno, all depends, I guess. All Good. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 11, 2023 19:54:31 GMT -5
I obviously have not gotten back to this. Coming back to 2D after experiencing 3D, is like eating cardboard. I will get back to this, later today, a few hours. (As I haven't eaten anything yet, today, it's 2:15 PM). I understand the use of the word real, in comparison to the Ground-Source, ND. But we're here, in the 'unreal' world. I understand you say the unreal world is superfluous in relation to the ND Realization. But we live here. I don't really understand the blasting of the higher dimensions. What I was asking, as this world is considered unreal, why does that negate the existence of higher dimensions? Could not the higher dimensions be as equally unreal as this world is unreal? Does that make sense? It seems to me the ND view is saying everything in this world, as far as the view the world evolving (I don't know why that's a bad word), is just meaningless, superfluous. That's my objection, my question. Sure, there is a Ground, Source, like the alphabet, simplicity. I'll be back. (To try to explain further, now 2:24). Sticking with the analogy, can WHAT IS 3D really BE 2D or 'really' deny the 2D aspect within it? Can what is 3D really make sense to what thinks itself to be 2D? No 'buts' in your reply, please. To avoid all the paradoxes that are sure to arise while using the 2D tools of thought and language, just focus on the objective metaphor at hand, and not apply it to human life yet. , that's the whole point. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 11, 2023 19:59:01 GMT -5
It's like the ND view always says One-D (which would actually be Zero-D) supersedes 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 6D and 7D, that nothing means anything in relation to ND. The point of the thread, if I ever get back to it.......is....... The realizable potential is to transcend and SEE any conceptual dimension or conclusion as being mind-based phenomena. They're not right/wrong, good/bad, or any other adjective, other than perhaps dependent on the mind, the phenomenal tool. Zen points to the same undifferentiation out of which all apparent dualities, distinctions, and entities arise. That is why they some masters might say not to deny or suppress thoughts, but to just let them go. Many seem OK with that, but if they are dead set on 'enlightenment' or whatever, and want to go head-to-headless with a true Zen Master to 'prove' their own mastery, things might take a turn when they get into the spontaneous stuff. SR/TR/enlightenment/etc is not necessary in order to live happily, though one might just have a broader set of potentials available without certain barriers in the way. Life unfolds in funny ways. The discussions on metaphysics, models, and levels here are fine, too, imo. They can be interesting when understood and provide some perspective on worldly/mindful application. Some seem to have the potential for going in the direction of integration rather than splintering off into disintegration. Dunno, all depends, I guess. All Good. But the dimensions are not conceptual-mind-based. (That's the whole point). |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 12, 2023 13:48:36 GMT -5
Sticking with the analogy, can WHAT IS 3D really BE 2D or 'really' deny the 2D aspect within it? Can what is 3D really make sense to what thinks itself to be 2D? No 'buts' in your reply, please. To avoid all the paradoxes that are sure to arise while using the 2D tools of thought and language, just focus on the objective metaphor at hand, and not apply it to human life yet. , that's the whole point. Then what can 3D say to 2D when it cries out to understand higher dimensions? |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 12, 2023 13:59:33 GMT -5
The realizable potential is to transcend and SEE any conceptual dimension or conclusion as being mind-based phenomena. They're not right/wrong, good/bad, or any other adjective, other than perhaps dependent on the mind, the phenomenal tool. Zen points to the same undifferentiation out of which all apparent dualities, distinctions, and entities arise. That is why they some masters might say not to deny or suppress thoughts, but to just let them go. Many seem OK with that, but if they are dead set on 'enlightenment' or whatever, and want to go head-to-headless with a true Zen Master to 'prove' their own mastery, things might take a turn when they get into the spontaneous stuff. SR/TR/enlightenment/etc is not necessary in order to live happily, though one might just have a broader set of potentials available without certain barriers in the way. Life unfolds in funny ways. The discussions on metaphysics, models, and levels here are fine, too, imo. They can be interesting when understood and provide some perspective on worldly/mindful application. Some seem to have the potential for going in the direction of integration rather than splintering off into disintegration. Dunno, all depends, I guess. All Good. But the dimensions are not conceptual-mind-based. (That's the whole point). Could just be a 2D hungry ghost checking out the menu items and travel brochures. Could just be a way of pointing out or talking about a higher order, metaphysical point of view than simply personal/physical. Could just be a way of talking about experiential stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 12, 2023 14:13:02 GMT -5
No, that's the whole point. Then what can 3D say to 2D when it cries out to understand higher dimensions? These are interesting questions ... I didn't follow the whole discussion. The 3D is a third-grader, who's answering to the 2D, who's a second-grader: "you'll see in a year, when you'll grow up a little". A second-grader can't suddenly 'realize' what a third-grader knows, but he might be able to some degree to 'realize' why, and what that means in a bigger scheme of things. |
|
