|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 12, 2020 20:27:38 GMT -5
This is dedicated to Gopal, but it's two birds, one stone, also how I got my name (half, about minute 10). This astrophysicist is regularly on the Science channel, various programs including How the Universe Works.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 13, 2020 2:53:32 GMT -5
This is dedicated to Gopal, but it's two birds, one stone, also how I got my name (half, about minute 10). This astrophysicist is regularly on the Science channel, various programs including How (she speculates) the Universe Works. your post, hehe. Take a look at this: Physicist: The Entire Universe Might Be a Neural Network |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2020 3:26:22 GMT -5
This is dedicated to Gopal, but it's two birds, one stone, also how I got my name (half, about minute 10). This astrophysicist is regularly on the Science channel, various programs including How the Universe Works. You can speculate like this in another 1000 ways. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2020 3:27:21 GMT -5
This is dedicated to Gopal, but it's two birds, one stone, also how I got my name (half, about minute 10). This astrophysicist is regularly on the Science channel, various programs including How (she speculates) the Universe Works. your post, hehe. Take a look at this: Physicist: The Entire Universe Might Be a Neural NetworkSaid it very well. Yes, she speculates. People who knows the truth of 'feeling has the power to create the reality knows that Universe is not out there' |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Sept 13, 2020 6:21:53 GMT -5
Said it very well. Yes, she speculates. People who knows the truth of 'feeling has the power to create the reality knows that Universe is not out there' When asked why the native people of Australia sang about the country round the bend, they replied that if they didnt sing about it, it wouldnt be there:) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 13, 2020 9:09:18 GMT -5
This is dedicated to Gopal, but it's two birds, one stone, also how I got my name (half, about minute 10). This astrophysicist is regularly on the Science channel, various programs including How (she speculates) the Universe Works. your post, hehe. Take a look at this: Physicist: The Entire Universe Might Be a Neural NetworkThat's a very cool article. It sounds like Seth's CUs would fit well, and maybe the Monads of Leibniz. On first thought it would also explain LOA. For those who didn't read or didn't read in full, he's not saying this means we live in a simulation. It also fits well with...actually the Native American paradigm. And with ~what's seen~ and understood in CC. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 13, 2020 9:23:26 GMT -5
This is dedicated to Gopal, but it's two birds, one stone, also how I got my name (half, about minute 10). This astrophysicist is regularly on the Science channel, various programs including How (she speculates) the Universe Works. your post, hehe. I'm not saying physicists have final answers, that materialism (or physicalism) is the basis for What Is, I've never meant to suggest this. SOCI (Supreme, Ordering, Conscious[ness], Intelligence) is not a physical basis. And most physicists now agree there is no stuff, every-thing is formed from fields of energy. And many physicists now agree that information is a fundamental feature of the universe. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 13, 2020 9:37:32 GMT -5
This is dedicated to Gopal, but it's two birds, one stone, also how I got my name (half, about minute 10). This astrophysicist is regularly on the Science channel, various programs including How (she speculates) the Universe Works. your post, hehe. Take a look at this: Physicist: The Entire Universe Might Be a Neural NetworkI haven't yet read the link critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-self-observing-universe-wheeler_96.htmlbut I'm sure Vitaly V knows about Wheeler's idea of an Observer created U niverse (down in the article is Wheeler's picture of an eye looking at the Universe, thus creating it. BTW, Wheeler was the teacher of Richard Feynman and Hugh Everett, the Many Worlds quantum theory creator). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2020 11:43:48 GMT -5
Corrected your post, hehe. I'm not saying physicists have final answers, that materialism (or physicalism) is the basis for What Is, I've never meant to suggest this. SOCI (Supreme, Ordering, Conscious[ness], Intelligence) is not a physical basis. And most physicists now agree there is no stuff, every-thing is formed from fields of energy. And many physicists now agree that information is a fundamental feature of the universe. You will not have this doubt If you ever created any reality with your feeling. If you had created something in your life, you would be knowing by now that universe is not a dead thing but it's alive. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 13, 2020 12:27:12 GMT -5
That's a very cool article. It sounds like Seth's CUs would fit well, and maybe the Monads of Leibniz. On first thought it would also explain LOA. For those who didn't read or didn't read in full, he's not saying this means we live in a simulation. It also fits well with...actually the Native American paradigm. And with ~what's seen~ and understood in CC. Yes, it does sound promising. Seth actually talked about 'strings' made of 'solidified vitality' that hold different reality systems together. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 13, 2020 12:29:03 GMT -5
Corrected your post, hehe. I'm not saying physicists have final answers, that materialism (or physicalism) is the basis for What Is, I've never meant to suggest this. SOCI (Supreme, Ordering, Conscious[ness], Intelligence) is not a physical basis. And most physicists now agree there is no stuff, every-thing is formed from fields of energy. And many physicists now agree that information is a fundamental feature of the universe. Yes, I know you are aware of the limits of these models. I just found it funny how she recited all those fantastic numbers as if they were facts.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 13, 2020 12:34:42 GMT -5
I'm not saying physicists have final answers, that materialism (or physicalism) is the basis for What Is, I've never meant to suggest this. SOCI (Supreme, Ordering, Conscious[ness], Intelligence) is not a physical basis. And most physicists now agree there is no stuff, every-thing is formed from fields of energy. And many physicists now agree that information is a fundamental feature of the universe. You will not have this doubt If you ever created any reality with your feeling. If you had created something in your life, you would be knowing by now that universe is not a dead thing but it's alive. Well, that's an interesting statement coming from you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2020 12:42:24 GMT -5
You will not have this doubt If you ever created any reality with your feeling. If you had created something in your life, you would be knowing by now that universe is not a dead thing but it's alive. Well, that's an interesting statement coming from you. Same argument goes with figgles in gab. I told her "If you see something in your mind's eye, you are going to manifest it. All you have to do is, you have to feel the desired reality as if you are experiencing it." Once people see our visualized reality is confirmed by infinite, then they know universe is not dead but alive and creative at every single moment. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 13, 2020 12:53:17 GMT -5
I'm not saying physicists have final answers, that materialism (or physicalism) is the basis for What Is, I've never meant to suggest this. SOCI (Supreme, Ordering, Conscious[ness], Intelligence) is not a physical basis. And most physicists now agree there is no stuff, every-thing is formed from fields of energy. And many physicists now agree that information is a fundamental feature of the universe. Yes, I know you are aware of the limits of these models. I just found it funny how she recited all those fantastic numbers as if they were facts. Physicists understand within a certain paradigm, it works. The principle model in physics is called The Standard Model. Most everything in ordinary life can be explained by The Standard Model, but not everything, so physicists know it is just a model. But The Standard Model explains only 4% of the universe, 96% of the universe is missing, that is, not perceived. This is about 72% dark energy needed to explain the increasing speed of expansion of the universe and 24% dark matter, needed to explain to speed of rotation of galaxies. The speed of light is the ~measuring rod~. So distances are measured via the unchanging speed of light, all distances related to it, relative to it. There is a feed back between models and experimental results, with each explaining the other. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 13, 2020 13:03:46 GMT -5
Well, that's an interesting statement coming from you. Same argument goes with figgles in gab. I told her "If you see something in your mind's eye, you are going to manifest it. All you have to do is, you have to feel the desired reality as if you are experiencing it." Once people see our visualized reality is confirmed by infinite, then they know universe is not dead but alive and creative at every single moment. But what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Maybe you see what the universe is going to manifest, anyway. There is a famous book called The Lathe of Heaven. It is based on the Chuang Tzu story of the dreaming butterfly. The main character finds that what he dreams at night asleep, happens in life in the near future. But in the end he discovers that what he thought was dreaming at night was actually real life and what he thought was real life was actually him dreaming. |
|
