Just getting back to that baby crying idea. From an evolutionary standpoint, human infants cry to get something out of their adult care takers. Thats why babies have such a LOUD annoying voice. If they were silent and cute, then chances are their parents would not have understood exactly what to do to properly feed and provide care, thus this BIG racket emanates from them. Also, our cave man ancestors probably had a desire to shut them up and keep them quiet to not attract predators.

Its not real pretty or idealistic but it's probably why babies cry.

One who has their own personal unique definition of truth
lives within their own personal unique reality. One in
which agreement and measurements are meaningless.

"The vibration theory" is a God theory? Not true.

(But maybe that is why the Higgs Bosen has been nicknamed the "God particle.")

Its not a theory. Its a fact. That everything is vibrating is not a theory, it is a fact.

Everything in existence has its own unique frequency.

If the ultimate building block of all of this reality is a "particle" and a particle is a standing wave and unmeasurable, then science already has empirical evidence that everything is vibration and frequency.

Unless you want to reject quantum physics.

Everyone does live in their own personal reality, even you.

We also live within the collective reality where our agreements define our collective reality.

Yep I'm sure. His point is that his truth is the truth and my truth is just my ignorant opinion.

Sure! but truth does not apply in the "own personal
reality" space. that is why the common collective
reality space is what people agree on when we discuss
"reality" since "personal reality" space is pretty much
whatever the individual makes up - it is only
relevant to the individual and has nothing to do with
measurement, facts or truth in the common definition.

"personal reality" has "personal truth" or one's
perceptions but they have no meaning for anyone else
so their utility is very very very limited compared
to the commonly accepted truth which is defined by
agreement and which you might call "collective truth"
more commonly simply referred to as "the truth".



since everybody's "personal truth" is, well, personal
then there are as many versions as there are individuals
and it is pointless to refer to this endless variation
of perceptions with a single term - "truth".

I think we should just go back to the good old biblical days and stone everyone who's "personal reality" fell outside of the realm of fundamentalist Christian values.

yeah, stone 'em! it'll teach 'em a lesson.

i have symmetrized your rofls

nah, Michael is just trying to get at the old
"common reality" truth definition stated and what
it means i think....

but i've been wrong before...

Of course it does. That is why truth is personal. Your personal truth may or may not apply in my personal reality.
That would depend upon whether or not we agree on something.



That is totally ridiculous. Everyone who holds a personal truth has their own personal experience and agreements and evidence and facts to support it. What you seem to be doing is describing personal reality as a total fantasy land.

Is your personal reality a total fantasy land? Is what you believe totally unsubstantiated and total fantasy?



Whether a collective reality is considered to be "the truth" totally depends upon the individual accepting all of the agreements.

Your personal reality may have meaning for me if I find it agreeable with mine. That is where the law of attraction comes in. 'Like attracts Like.' (Opposites do not attract.)

People with like minds are attracted to each other and they form a collective group and they form agreements and they define what is true according to them and according to what they agree on.




That is why Red divided it into two groups.

She said that "truth" shall be understood as "personal" and the agreements shall be defined as "knowledge" for the purpose of this thread. (I think that is what she meant)

Truth begins at a personal level. The individual observer decides what is true, and defines reality.

Observers agreements define facts and facts make up what we call knowledge.

This is what Red said:

If this is what he is doing, then he wants to declare "knowledge" to be "truth" when knowledge is agreement and fact and "truth" is personal.

He seeks to force his personal truth (his belief) on others.

His religion is:
"This reality is real and the ultimate truth, and I have scientific observer proven and sensory facts (laws of physics) and agreements to back it up."

My religion is:
"This reality is a holographic dream-like projection, made up of vibrations (light and sound) and is observer defined and manifested, and I have quantum physics and the law of attraction (Like attracts like) to back it up.

If I aim my frequency generator at your stones It will render them harmless.

Ok. I'll confess to having fallen for that one hook, line and sinker. I thought you were going one direction and you ended upgoing in the exact opposite direction.

Ok, so from a strictly pragmatic viewpoint, what's the difference? You're both "stuck in this universe" and must deal with that fact.

So the question becomes: Of what practical use is either belief? How can one's understanding of one's own religioun be used to "increase one's quality of life" so to speak?

The only real pragmatic use for religion or faith based belief that I can come up with off the top of my head is during circumstances of extreme hostility or under duress. Take the holocaust as an example and the concentration camps where Jews were imprisoned. I think religion played a key role there in unifying a people under unthinkable conditions and in the face of unimaginable human cruelty. Religion can actually sustain people when nothing else will.

There really is no difference.

But my belief increases the quality of my life a great deal and is a lot of use to me. I use what I know about the law of attraction in my daily life.

The law of physics are the agreements and constraints I live under. This physical reality is one I agreed to enter.

Understanding its true nature and fabric allows me to experiment with its amazing flexibility. It is a great challenge to use the fabric and process of this reality to learn to create what I desire.

jb

This is really sad to me . . . that you admit that there is no difference as to an outcome based on these fundamental differences and yet YOUR theory is right and not that things are built up the way we see them irregardless of observation with all the evidence that shows they are older them any observers have EVER been.

QM does not back you up JB . . . You take concepts of QM and bastardize them to suit your ideas. Don't feel bad almost every sci fi writer does so, and its a delight to read them in the context they set.

I just wish you would write your book then publish it instead of filling up page after page arguing a useless point.

I also wish you would stop talking about your other fantasies like draconians ect, I cant control you so again this is just my wish, perhaps more then one of us can agree that JB does not believe these things and then that will change her frequency to not be so annoying.

Obi wan tells JB, "you do not believe in draconcians" JB repeats after Obi wan, "I do not believe in draconcians"

Phew I am glad that is over . . .

You are really funny Bushidbillyclub.

You also define "the observer" as a "human being," not realizing the philosophical and spiritual nature of this thinking or the nature of "the observer."

If things are older than "the observer," how would you prove that if there was no observer to have seen these things? But you don't realize that the infinite observer is infinite and nothing is older than infinite.

But that is probably too spiritual for you to comprehend, being an atheist. So Pardon me.

But I am not surprised, since you are an atheist and you think that "humans beings" are the end all of all existence and the only observers who observe this "reality."

QM does indeed support my ideas in the areas that are important to me.

I am talking metaphysics and philosophy, and you are leaning on hard core science, and what you see is all there can possibly be....and don't dare to imagine anything else.

To me, that is really very sad.

I don't talk about the draconions unless a question is posed to me that demands that this piece of the puzzle be brought to light. I don't really expect most people to believe me anyway, but since I don't care a tinker's damn if people think I am nuts, I speak my thoughts on the subject. As I have said, people will always decide for themselves what seems real or true to them and discard the rest.

My picture of reality does not in any way deny physics or science as it exists today. It just goes a little deeper into the fabric of reality than they do.

Do you want to deny that everything in this reality vibrates and has its own very unique frequency?

Do you want to tell me what the bottom line is in the building block of all matter? Do you want to explain to me why a particle cannot be measured and seems like both a wave and a particle?

But alas you are right, I am arguing a useless point to people who chose to believe as you do. Because people obviously don't want to know what the real fabric of their reality is made of.

If what I am saying is such ridiculous fantasy, then why would anyone care or get upset about it?

If my arguments are so ridiculous, then why can't anyone answer the most simple of questions? Like:

If the observer does not determine actuality then what or who does?

What determines reality if not the observer? I have a fantastic imagination, and I can't even come up with an answer to that question.

If an observer does not decide what is truth, then what or who does?

JB

JB your ideas are not what is being argued. I have made no claim to define what an observer is or is not. You have projected that onto me and creative, its not true. This thread is not about the fundamental nature of reality, its about concrete things called knowledge and how that relates to the perception of truth, no vibrations needed in this convo, no draconians needed, no observer created reality needed . . ect ect ect. (thus the Rabbit hole)

I think his argument and mine is that you are not even apart of this conversation. We start talking about something less fundamental that EVERYONE should be able to agree on as a premise to start the conversation (and should not enter said conversation if they cannot), then good ole JB heads off in her own direction at a much more fundamental level that really has nothing to do with the points being raised and destroys the thread and any meaning that might have been able to be gleaned from it because most people are trying to piece together the Jeanieverse. (reductionism always has something to say . . . but is it going to further the convo?)

Then you get annoyed with us because we want to stick the convo . . . . sigh.

I think its great that you feel strongly about your beliefs, but your post that I quoted earlier where you admitted that the end result is not something that will illustrate the nature of reality shows me how useless it is to really make hard stances regarding said fundamental nature of reality. (the jury is out on this topic perhaps even for a few hundred years until math meets up with TOE)

It really is to the point where anything and everything that is talked about will be beat to death at the fundamental level and context of the observer created reality, or vibrating whoawhatsits and not talked about really on the level that the original post has laid out.

This is REALLY not a criticism of your ideas, its a criticism about how you debate, you go reductionist and pretend that the fundamental nature of reality can describe EVERYTHING.

At what point does vibrating NRG become something more? When is it a particle, when is that particle an atom, when is that atom a molecule, when do those molecules form to make life, when does that life evolve brains, then starts to find its world and gain knowledge, when does that knowledge get scribed as truth?

Is this really something we should be talking about in terms of vibrating NRG? Does that further the conversation?

I think you miss our point entirely in the desire to be heard.

in my view, my personal reality is indeed just my
perceptions - which - as Nietzsche noted - cannot prove
anything. so sure - it is fantasyland. nothing wrong with
that. it's still real enough to me.



"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that "personal truth" does not prove anything."

apology to Friedrich Nietzsche