100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Truth vs. Bull**** | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Sky... I have no reason to believe that, but I will take it as a "Yes" answer.
Your are welcome to add positive substance to the discussion, or not... no harm, no foul... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree 100% that the only thing I know for certain is that I exist. But I can prove that there are billions of observers in this universe -- besides humans by my definition of an observer. It begins with the premise that everything is conscious (to a degree.) (Spiritual consciousness, an opinion) It continues on the premise that everything vibrates and has its own unique frequency and that vibrations are what everything is made of.(Scientific fact) An observer is anything (including a rock) that gives out and responds to vibrations. Therefore just about everything that exists, observes in its own unique way. my lady, by your definition - what are these vibrations "observing"? surely it cant be by the usual definition of whats being observed so please tell me what? is every vibration cognizant? what in your opinion is required for that observer to be aware of what it's observing? Is a rock aware of me? in its own way of observation? without cognizance how would it know or recognize me? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 11/14/08 02:04 AM
|
|
I agree 100% that the only thing I know for certain is that I exist. But I can prove that there are billions of observers in this universe -- besides humans by my definition of an observer. It begins with the premise that everything is conscious (to a degree.) (Spiritual consciousness, an opinion) It continues on the premise that everything vibrates and has its own unique frequency and that vibrations are what everything is made of.(Scientific fact) An observer is anything (including a rock) that gives out and responds to vibrations. Therefore just about everything that exists, observes in its own unique way. my lady, by your definition - what are these vibrations "observing"? surely it cant be by the usual definition of whats being observed so please tell me what? is every vibration cognizant? what in your opinion is required for that observer to be aware of what it's observing? Is a rock aware of me? in its own way of observation? without cognizance how would it know or recognize me? "What are these vibrations observing?" -A: Each other. Everything that vibrates does so from its own unique center, sending out, receiving and responding to vibrations. Everything that exists has it own unique frequency and a degree of awareness according to its conscious state. "what in your opinion is required for that observer to be aware of what it's observing? " -A: It is aware of what it is observing if it can receive (sense) and respond to any vibration of another. "Is a rock aware of me? in its own way of observation?" -A: Yes. If it were not, you would not be able to see it or pick it up, or crack it with a hammer, or stone a heretic with it. (I doubt a rock has an opinion of you though.  ) "Without cognizance how would it know or recognize me?" -A: Everything has a degree of awareness according to its conscious state. It recognizes and responds to vibration. It has its own unified field. It has its own unique frequency different from yours. It sends out its own vibration and senses and responds to others. If it did not, you would not be able to see or sense it, nor could it "see" or sense you enough to allow you to interact with it. It simply would not exist in your dimension or in your field of observation. That is how a parallel reality or dimension could exist at the same time and place as we exist. They would exist at such a different frequency that they could not be aware of us and would be invisible to us and we to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creative wrote: On change and fallibility... The fact that we live in an ever-changing world necessitates that our knowledge base change as our understanding of that which we experience changes. Human knowledge is fallible. That is not to say that all that is known should be blatently discarded without substantial cause. On the contrary, as we acquire new understandings through the discovery of new elements of actuality, the value placed upon the relevant parts of the knowledge base must change accordingly. That is the epitome of growth in knowledge. We must recognize and accept that human knowledge is fallible, if for no other reason, because of the fact that our understanding evolves. Therefore, holding an absolute certainty value to or label to human knowledge is to possess a naive and close-minded thought constitution. It follows then that absolute certainty is not necessary for a sufficiently justified belief. Beliefs can be self-justifiable enough to be acted upon with a high degree of confidence without holding the value of absolute certainty. That is to say that absolute certainty need not be present in order to maintain self-justification in a belief. The self-justification of a belief depends not only on how well it translates to to our experience in the past and present, but also how well it maintains it's validity in the future. Awareness of this concept's application requires discipline of thought in belief and understanding of it as well. Personal truthes will accommodate change as long as one does not maintain a sense of finality to that which they believe. Having a well-justified belief depends more upon the process by which it is arrived at then the actual substance of the belief itself. One must be able to repeat the process by which they have arrived at their conclusion(s) in order to maintain a genuine sense of understanding. One cannot maintain a genuine belief in that which they do not understand. Keep in mind, that individual understanding does not need to be accurate in order for it to be believed to be true. I agree with this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its all about frequency.
In our reality there are countless frequencies of radio and television and cell phones that are used to transmit information and pictures through the air or through wires. You can change the frequencies on your radio and get many different stations. Your television broadcasts each channel on a different frequency. A hundred years ago people would have thought the television and radio was a miracle or magic. Hulda Clark talks about how matching the frequency range of germs and viruses with her zapper will kill those germs and viruses. (She also speculated her concern that giant frequency generators could be created and used as weapons and tailored to specific individuals.) I use Hulda Clark's zapper when I feel like I am about to catch a cold right when it starts with a sore throat. If I do this at the start of a cold, the cold germs in the blood stream are killed and the sore throat disappears immediately. But if the virus enters living cells they are protected by the frequency or field of the cell. Her zapper can only reach the germs and viruses that are traveling in the bloodstream. The government is also experimenting with these kinds of weapons and they began with very low frequency generators. I have heard stories of frequency weapons and other advanced weaposn being experimented with in Iraq. jb |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 11/14/08 12:23 PM
|
|
that vibrations are what everything is made of.(Scientific fact) Science in no way says everything is made from vibrations. First think about that for a moment, what is vibrating? A vibrations is a thing (The simplest definition of vibration)The back and forth motion of an object. So you must have an object to have vibration, what is vibrating? If vibration make things, then what is vibrating, and what is that made of? Where does this chain end? God? If so that is why I made my flippant statement that at the end of it all, it still appears you are saying god did it regardless of how complex your ideas are, its science until we cant explain it, then its god (this is called god of the gaps) Saying spirit is vibrating = saying I don't know what is vibrating. If you are going to bring up string theory, then this is explicit in one regard to what is vibrating (energy) and says nothing about where this energy arises from. Also string theory isn't really a scientific theory. It has currently no testable results that we can match up against reality. I am not countering your ideas, I am merely putting them in the correct context, from your statement it makes it sound like science backs up your ideas, when it says no such thing to my knowledge. Now if you are referring to Brownian motion, then yes everything vibrates with the latent energy of heat or the kinetic energy of a system. If you are referring to the vibrations of the electromagnetic spectrum, then well we have more knowledge about that then almost anything in physics and can measure any vibration to an exact degree, we find no such emanations from common objects such as simple rocks. The vibrations of the electromagnetic spectrum is what has reveled the beginning of our universe to us in such detail that we know how it happened within millionths of a second from the singularity from which all universal energy arose. Heat transfer is not any kind of communication system and in QM has nothing to do with the observer effect(in fact heat flow isn't even evolved in qm at all ). We can examine every object and we understand precisely why some objects will emit electromagnetic waves,and some do not. So we can strike off the EM spectrum, and the kinetic vibrations of heat flow as to you vibrating medium, and science has not made conclusions that are deemed as science about string theory so . . . . . . .Your conclusion that this vibration in some way is a medium for observation based communication seems flawed from any perspective other then string theory which is a stretch and an unproven hypothesis to boot (when you mention the higgs particle, It makes me scratch my head even more, because the higgs field would be like gravity and would have no need to vibrate to serve its function it would be a repellent force that is much like anti gravity from a functional stand point, and this is again just a hypothesis albeit one with more substance then ST) So saying that science backs up these ideas is a misrepresentation. Have I missed something? Jeremy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Fri 11/14/08 12:29 PM
|
|
On change and fallibility... In order to determine that a thing has changed there must be some stable reference point by which to measure that change. In order to say an object has moved, there must be another stationary object relative to which that movement is measured. So the simple fact of “change” requires some complementary stationary reference point. Now if “everything changes” then the reference points, being part of “everything”, must change as well. And that is the epitome of uncertainty and the very definition of chaos – changing (or unstable) reference points. The more stable the reference points, the more order and certainty within the system. Now fallibility has only one practical determining criteria – does it work? Does it cause the desired effect? Does it produce the desired change? Whether or not it works or fails can only be determined by measuring some change. And for that, there must be a stationary reference point. But what is that stationary reference point? It is an idea. It is a desire in the mind of an observer. It is an imagined outcome. It is a planned future event. It has no substance. I has no actuality. It has no reality. It is relative to the observer. It is totally and completely subjective. And this reference point too can change. The observer can change his mind and desire a different outcome, in which case something that worked before, may no longer work because the criteria for success and/or failure has changed. So in all of this there is only one constant, absolute, universally unchanging reference point – the observer. Ultimately, everything is measured relative to the observer. That is, in fact, what defines the observer – the starting reference point against which everything else is measured. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that vibrations are what everything is made of.(Scientific fact) Science in no way says everything is made from vibrations. First think about that for a moment, what is vibrating? A vibrations is a thing (The simplest definition of vibration)The back and forth motion of an object. So you must have an object to have vibration, what is vibrating? If vibration make things, then what is vibrating, and what is that made of? Where does this chain end? God? If so that is why I made my flippant statement that at the end of it all, it still appears you are saying god did it regardless of how complex your ideas are, its science until we cant explain it, then its god (this is called god of the gaps) Saying spirit is vibrating = saying I don't know what is vibrating. If you are going to bring up string theory, then this is explicit in one regard to what is vibrating (energy) and says nothing about where this energy arises from. Also string theory isn't really a scientific theory. It has currently no testable results that we can match up against reality. I am not countering your ideas, I am merely putting them in the correct context, from your statement it makes it sound like science backs up your ideas, when it says no such thing to my knowledge. Now if you are referring to Brownian motion, then yes everything vibrates with the latent energy of heat or the kinetic energy of a system. If you are referring to the vibrations of the electromagnetic spectrum, then well we have more knowledge about that then almost anything in physics and can measure any vibration to an exact degree, we find no such emanations from common objects such as simple rocks. The vibrations of the electromagnetic spectrum is what has reveled the beginning of our universe to us in such detail that we know how it happened within millionths of a second from the singularity from which all universal energy arose. Heat transfer is not any kind of communication system and in QM has nothing to do with the observer effect(in fact heat flow isn't even evolved in qm at all ). We can examine every object and we understand precisely why some objects will emit electromagnetic waves,and some do not. So we can strike off the EM spectrum, and the kinetic vibrations of heat flow as to you vibrating medium, and science has not made conclusions that are deemed as science about string theory so . . . . . . .Your conclusion that this vibration in some way is a medium for observation based communication seems flawed from any perspective other then string theory which is a stretch and an unproven hypothesis to boot (when you mention the higgs particle, It makes me scratch my head even more, because the higgs field would be like gravity and would have no need to vibrate to serve its function it would be a repellent force that is much like anti gravity from a functional stand point, and this is again just a hypothesis albeit one with more substance then ST) So saying that science backs up these ideas is a misrepresentation. Have I missed something? Jeremy. When you can answer the question of "what is vibrating?" then you will probably win the Nobel prize and discover the true fabric of the universe. If you have to have an "object" in order to vibrate, then what is that object made up of? The basic building block is not the atom and the particle cannot be located and measured and looks more like a wave than any kind of "object." I know nothing about string theory or what this energy arises from. In a vacuum after all "things" have been removed, new "things" (particles) appear from nowhere. Scientists can't answer the question where this energy comes from. They have been chasing "zero point energy" for quite a while now and have not yet found a way to pull this energy into this reality for their own use. The very name "zero point energy" implies that it arises from "nothing" or no-thing which I call "infinity." I personally define infinity as an infinite existence and describe it as a place in the center of everything that does not vibrate. It is a place where no things exist but from which all things arise. So if you want to say that it is "God" or that I am calling it "God" thats okay with me. Unless science discovers where this "zero point" energy comes from and what it is, I will hold my current conclusions. Zero point energy arises from infinity which is a place of no things, no time or space, no movement or vibration. The answer to the question: "What causes the energy, what causes the vibration, etc. is not known by me. I just call it Prime Source. You can call it God and say it does not exist if you want. And you are right. It does not exist as a thing. ******************************************************* The Particle is Out, the Wave is in! "The basic building blocks of the universe seem to be either waves or vibrating strings, and most of the things they make up move in bigger waves and vibrations. If we hope to understand much about the physical workings of the universe, then, we need to have some idea about the way that waves and vibrations work. The details of wave motion vary, but many of the principles are universal." (from: http://oolong.co.uk/resonata.htm which has a really neat animated flash wave generating machine. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 11/14/08 01:31 PM
|
|
On change and fallibility... In order to determine that a thing has changed there must be some stable reference point by which to measure that change. In order to say an object has moved, there must be another stationary object relative to which that movement is measured. So the simple fact of “change” requires some complementary stationary reference point. Now if “everything changes” then the reference points, being part of “everything”, must change as well. And that is the epitome of uncertainty and the very definition of chaos – changing (or unstable) reference points. The more stable the reference points, the more order and certainty within the system. Now fallibility has only one practical determining criteria – does it work? Does it cause the desired effect? Does it produce the desired change? Whether or not it works or fails can only be determined by measuring some change. And for that, there must be a stationary reference point. But what is that stationary reference point? It is an idea. It is a desire in the mind of an observer. It is an imagined outcome. It is a planned future event. It has no substance. I has no actuality. It has no reality. It is relative to the observer. It is totally and completely subjective. And this reference point too can change. The observer can change his mind and desire a different outcome, in which case something that worked before, may no longer work because the criteria for success and/or failure has changed. So in all of this there is only one constant, absolute, universally unchanging reference point – the observer. Ultimately, everything is measured relative to the observer. That is, in fact, what defines the observer – the starting reference point against which everything else is measured. Everyone really does mix up things when we speak in general ways. Some things may apply, some things may not. When speaking of a spacial system, yes one needs a physical reference point, hence the use of the word "move". In a Newtonian system there is such a fixed system, it is the coordinate system (X, Y, Z) where the origin is the ultimate reference point. Which follows the idea of moving through space. If space is flat, and the speed of movement through space is low, then the change in relative movement is easily predictable using Newtonian physics (to extremely accurate calculations). In systems where the moving objects are moving much closer to the speed of light, space gets distorted. You cannot have any frame of reference (WITHIN) this space that is absolute, just cannot happen. If the frame of reference is not moving at the exact same speed as the other point then observations will not be identical. Again if you are making it out that the entire universe is its own frame of reference, and an observer . . . then again this is the god of the gaps argument in disguise. Just push it back beyond our current understanding and call it spirit and your good to go. _________________ JB you don't even understand the current science yet you are willing to extrapolate beyond it to suite your own conclusions . . . that is the crux of my argument, and the problem with your ideas. It seems to me to be extremely egotistical to believe that you have knowledge about what you claim. And again, the higgs field is like gravity in reverse . . . you say that the higgs field gains its energy from infinity, but that is as absurd as your understanding of physics is. If I stretch a rubber band, where does the energy come from? Where is the energy stored? When I release the rubber band where does the energy go? The higgs field, and "vacumn space" is the same. I do not want to label your ideas as silly or anything, it appears you read a lot, I think you are probably a very smart lady, I just think you are far too willing to go out on a limb in your beliefs before you have finished your study.(which is everyone also, but most people dont even know enough to be countered at all except to say god did it.) (Just my not so humble opinion) Every heard of the saying "know enough to be dangerous?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 11/14/08 01:44 PM
|
|
JB you don't even understand the current science yet you are willing to extrapolate beyond it to suite your own conclusions . . . that is the crux of my argument, and the problem with your ideas. It seems to me to be extremely egotistical to believe that you have knowledge about what you claim. That is not what I do. My conclusions are only temporary and they are just speculation and imagination. I realize that. I don't claim them to be proven facts. I am metaphysical and artistic and creative. I don't have the time for science or getting lost in the details. I believe in spirit. So what? That is what I am and who I am. I know who I am. If you know where the energy comes from then lets hear it. I am waiting for your answer. But if you are telling me to stop speculating, that is not going to happen. If you don't know the answers, then join the club. Yes I have a vision of what infinity is. (It is the closest thing to "nothing" you are going to find.) But "nothing" is unstable. How can "nothing" exist? How can zero exist? Can it exist? I don't thing so. And again, the higgs field is like gravity in reverse . . . you say that the higgs field gains its energy from infinity, but that is as absurd as your understanding of physics is. If I stretch a rubber band, where does the energy come from? Where is the energy stored? When I release the rubber band where does the energy go? The higgs field, and "vacumn space" is the same. I do not want to label your ideas as silly or anything, it appears you read a lot, I think you are probably a very smart lady, I just think you are far too willing to go out on a limb in your beliefs before you have finished your study.(which is everyone also, but most people dont even know enough to be countered at all except to say god did it.) (Just my not so humble opinion) Every heard of the saying "know enough to be dangerous?" Well then, I will just say, for your satisfaction, that I don't know. I don't know anything except that I exist. Beyond that, everything I have speculated is just speculation imagination and ideas. These things are not dangerous. For anyone who is disturbed by my ideas, I say to them, then forget them. Be of your own opinion. Don't concern yourself with my silly ideas. I know nothing of science or God. I just know that I exist and that to me is a miracle, and I can't explain it and neither can anyone else. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sky...
While I would not agree with many of the conclusions that you have drawn, I will choose to not spend much time refuting it. I see little if any relevance belonging to some of the material you proposed to the matter at hand... Can we not just agree that human knowledge is fallible?  It is a simple fact. Now that the foundational distinction between an observation and actuality is apparent, it must follow that there also exists a foundational difference between reality as translated by the observer, and actuality. Reality is indeed subjective to the observer's perceptual faculty, for it is this physiological mechanism that first encounters new information, thereby allowing or disallowing further contemplation. Reality simply holds value by how things relate to our personal life. Reality is thus a subjective version of actuality. In this sense, I see no reason to make a distinction between reality and personal truth, as they are one in the same thing. The whole of the distinction between actuality and reality, or between actuality and personal truth, lies deeply rooted within the foundations of belief and disbelief. These things require two facts to be considered. We can think about something on more than one occasion, and we can change our minds regarding whether to believe it or not. All propositions are believed through the fact of being conceived, unless they contradict other things already believed. If something is believed to be true and it exists without contradiction of any kind, it has an absolute value. The fact that we can think about things while simultaneously, and perhaps unconsciously, comparing those things with previously accepted personal truthes is at the very heart of our intellectual constitution. Everything we accept to be true regarding our life's experiences becomes our personal truth. How well that corresponds to actuality depends completely upon our foundational beliefs which guide the perceptual faculty's consideration and the assessments that follow. New information is immediately judged against old and if there exists a contradiction, then one must disregard one while accepting the other. One cannot think in two or more contradictory ways at the same time. Thus the spotlight is placed upon that which we already "know". It is this previously accepted foundation against which we assess the validity of new information. Therefore, do we not want this base to be an accurate representation of actuality? How then do we attain a higher degree of accuracy between what we believe and what is actuality, other than to build upon what is already known? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JB you don't even understand the current science yet you are willing to extrapolate beyond it to suite your own conclusions . . . that is the crux of my argument, and the problem with your ideas. It seems to me to be extremely egotistical to believe that you have knowledge about what you claim. That is not what I do. My conclusions are only temporary and they are just speculation and imagination. I realize that. I don't claim them to be proven facts. I am metaphysical and artistic and creative. I don't have the time for science or getting lost in the details. I believe in spirit. So what? That is what I am and who I am. I know who I am. If you know where the energy comes from then lets hear it. I am waiting for your answer. But if you are telling me to stop speculating, that is not going to happen. If you don't know the answers, then join the club. Yes I have a vision of what infinity is. (It is the closest thing to "nothing" you are going to find.) But "nothing" is unstable. How can "nothing" exist? How can zero exist? Can it exist? I don't thing so. And again, the higgs field is like gravity in reverse . . . you say that the higgs field gains its energy from infinity, but that is as absurd as your understanding of physics is. If I stretch a rubber band, where does the energy come from? Where is the energy stored? When I release the rubber band where does the energy go? The higgs field, and "vacumn space" is the same. I do not want to label your ideas as silly or anything, it appears you read a lot, I think you are probably a very smart lady, I just think you are far too willing to go out on a limb in your beliefs before you have finished your study.(which is everyone also, but most people dont even know enough to be countered at all except to say god did it.) (Just my not so humble opinion) Every heard of the saying "know enough to be dangerous?" Well then, I will just say, for your satisfaction, that I don't know. I don't know anything except that I exist. Beyond that, everything I have speculated is just speculation imagination and ideas. These things are not dangerous. For anyone who is disturbed by my ideas, I say to them, then forget them. Be of your own opinion. Don't concern yourself with my silly ideas. I know nothing of science or God. I just know that I exist and that to me is a miracle, and I can't explain it and neither can anyone else. JB I completely accept that answer. I don't know either JB. That is why I call myself an atheist, because I don't know, and belief requires knowing, even if only on faith. That is also why I have dedicated my life to trying to understand as much as I can. I do think it is dangerous for people to perceive that others have all the answers. This may be something that is misconstrued by them with no desire to misrepresent by you the thinker. I think that is there problem if you state as much as you just did. You do have a lot of ideas, that are based to lesser or greater degrees on a great deal of scientific knowledge. I think we need folks like you with lots of imagination. I think the greatest scientists are just like that. Usually the itch to explore reality comes from sci-fi, and really out there ideas, at least that is how it happened for me  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On change and fallibility... In order to determine that a thing has changed there must be some stable reference point by which to measure that change. In order to say an object has moved, there must be another stationary object relative to which that movement is measured. So the simple fact of “change” requires some complementary stationary reference point. Now if “everything changes” then the reference points, being part of “everything”, must change as well. And that is the epitome of uncertainty and the very definition of chaos – changing (or unstable) reference points. The more stable the reference points, the more order and certainty within the system. Now fallibility has only one practical determining criteria – does it work? Does it cause the desired effect? Does it produce the desired change? Whether or not it works or fails can only be determined by measuring some change. And for that, there must be a stationary reference point. But what is that stationary reference point? It is an idea. It is a desire in the mind of an observer. It is an imagined outcome. It is a planned future event. It has no substance. I has no actuality. It has no reality. It is relative to the observer. It is totally and completely subjective. And this reference point too can change. The observer can change his mind and desire a different outcome, in which case something that worked before, may no longer work because the criteria for success and/or failure has changed. So in all of this there is only one constant, absolute, universally unchanging reference point – the observer. Ultimately, everything is measured relative to the observer. That is, in fact, what defines the observer – the starting reference point against which everything else is measured. When speaking of a spatial system, yes one needs a physical reference point, hence the use of the word "move". In a Newtonian system there is such a fixed system, it is the coordinate system (X, Y, Z) where the origin is the ultimate reference point. Which follows the idea of moving through space. If space is flat, and the speed of movement through space is low, then the change in relative movement is easily predictable using Newtonian physics (to extremely accurate calculations). In systems where the moving objects are moving much closer to the speed of light, space gets distorted. You cannot have any frame of reference (WITHIN) this space that is absolute, just cannot happen. If the frame of reference is not moving at the exact same speed as the other point then observations will not be identical. Again if you are making it out that the entire universe is its own frame of reference, and an observer . . . then again this is the god of the gaps argument in disguise. You’re saying that can be no absolute, unchanging reference point. I agree. You’re saying that the observations will be different for each observer. I agree. You’re saying that if an observer is moving, he will observe something different from that which he would observer if he were stationary. I agree. I’m saying that in order for there to be “motion”, there must be at least two objects – a moving one and a stationary one. I think you agree with that. I’m saying that it is the viewpoint of the observer that determines which object is moving and which object is stationary. I think you agree with that. And I’m saying that “viewpoint of the observer” is always the reference point when a statement is made as to what has been observed. And I think you agree with that. No god. No universal or absolute frame of reference. Just everything relative to everything else and each observer being its own reference point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m saying that it is the viewpoint of the observer that determines which object is moving and which object is stationary. I think you agree with that. And I’m saying that “viewpoint of the observer” is always the reference point when a statement is made as to what has been observed. And I think you agree with that. No god. No universal or absolute frame of reference. Just everything relative to everything else and each observer being its own reference point. Amen to that!!  That proves that I am in the center of the universe. err.... according to me of course.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 11/14/08 04:35 PM
|
|
Yes we agree on determination. To determine things we need observations.
But when does reality get created? I think it was created when time and space merged. Irregardless of any observers. There is no doubt that nature is weird and observers (mechanical and Biological) can have an effect on what we observe. But I don't go as far as to say that actually observing is what creates the reality, only what make it possible to determine the reality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But I don't go as far as to say that actually observing is what creates the reality, only what make it possible to determine the reality. Let us not forget the main theme is human knowledge... The side issue here, as I see it, lies in the use of the term reality. It's use has been violated in languge as much as the term truth. A distinction must be made between between what we think and believe reality is and what we use as a reference to do so, which is actuality, actual reality. As proof has been already provided, we must consider the distinction. Our personal truth and reality have no distinction that can be made between them. When we build upon our personal truth, whatever new proposition is introduced must pass the initial plausibility test given to it immediately by one's perceptual faculty. It is not by our "free" will that one assesses the value of plausibility. Rather, it is determined by our personal truth(reality). For example, one who has a strict belief in a subject matter cannot will into existence a genuine belief in an oppositional matter of similar sort. We do not and cannot "freely" change our mind. It takes "knowing" about the existence of something other than what we believe to be true, and it also takes some element of relevance to be contained within the new proposition which does not directly conflict with some part of our previous personal truth. That element is what I would call a transitional truth of the personal sense. This is where the importance of what constitutes our foundation of knowledge comes into play. For if a new proposition directly conflicts with an absolute personal agreement, it must be discarded. It is only when the new proposition agrees somehow within our personal truth is it considered to be plausible. If the evidence is so overwhelmingly convincing and yet it conflicts some strongly held belief, it is often held in a sort of secret place of opposition, often unconsciously. Personal truthes such as transitional ones often are the completely external type, they are completely justified by the person's experience which gave rise to their existence. This is often the case when what is experienced directly conflicts that which was believed prior to the experience being had, especially concerning the ethical or moral elements of one's personal truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes we agree on determination. To determine things we need observations. But when does reality get created? I think it was created when time and space merged. Irregardless of any observers. There is no doubt that nature is weird and observers (mechanical and Biological) can have an effect on what we observe. But I don't go as far as to say that actually observing is what creates the reality, only what make it possible to determine the reality. Three things... 1) Ok, maybe I don't understand it well enough, but I thought that the double-slit-with-observer experiment showed that the observer did exactly that - created a new reality simply by observing. 2) I don't see any difference between the determination and the observation - except possibly a temporal one. And considering the possibility of backward causation, even that becomes questionable. 3) (Most important of all.) Supposing observation-created reality were a fact. What difference would it make? It wouldn't change anything that had already been observed. It wouldn't change the results of any scientific experiments. It wouldn't change any of the laws of nature that have already been discovered. It wouldn't even change any of the unproven theories. There would be no discernable difference in anything physical, either past, present or future. The only thing that would change would be in people's minds. And as best I can figure, all those changes would be in the direction of more freedom and self-determinism for everyone. Pretty much a win-win as I see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bushidobillyclub said:
...when does reality get created? I think it was created when time and space merged. I just can't get my wits wrapped around that one. I'm sure you have a conceptual understanding of that phrase, but I don't. Is there some quick-and-dirty, Dr. Quantum/Physics-for-Presidents style micro-sminar I could view or read to at least get some idea of what it means?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/15/08 09:43 AM
|
|
Bushidobillyclub said:
...when does reality get created? I think it was created when time and space merged. And you call my ideas unscientific? That idea does not make sense at all. Time and space did not "merge" (as if they were once independent of one another.) Time and space are perceptions which are vibrations coming at the observer from all angles. (360 degrees.) When you dream, you perceive time and space and objects. In a sense, it (your dream) is your own personal three dimensional holographic reality manifested or projected from your mind, probably from the pineal gland. Ask yourself when did all of that get 'created." It got created when your dream began. (I know, you don't think of this reality as a dream because of ... er.... it just seems so real, and after all, "science works." That's it from the peanut gallery. jb |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creative said:
The side issue here, as I see it, lies in the use of the term reality. It's use has been violated in languge as much as the term truth. Are you the official word police for the human language? A distinction must be made between between what we think and believe reality is and what we use as a reference to do so, which is actuality, actual reality. As proof has been already provided, we must consider the distinction. Now you have put yourself into the position that you are the single observer who determines what is actuality, actual reality is; implying that your proof is indisputable. That is much too all inclusive and all encompassing to be true, as you stated before, science in not infallible and is subject to error. I believe we must consider each statement of actuality on an individual basis for the point of any discussion of what is real. To state that "this is all real" including everything the observer thinks he sees or believes could be in error. jb |
|
|
|
|
