Is human sexuality actually slavery?

a reply to: vethumanbeing


You know Multiverse theory was developed as a result of a problem in Chemistry in relation to the matter of the Electron Cloud.

Scientists can't be sure what the shape of space-time is, but most likely, it's flat (as opposed to spherical or even donut-shape) and stretches out infinitely. But if space-time goes on forever, then it must start repeating at some point, because there are a finite number of ways particles can be arranged in space and time. So if you look far enough, you would encounter another version of you — in fact, infinite versions of you. Some of these twins will be doing exactly what you're doing right now, while others will have worn a different sweater this morning, and still others will have made vastly different career and life choices. Because the observable universe extends only as far as light has had a chance to get in the 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang (that would be 13.7 billion light-years), the space-time beyond that distance can be considered to be its own separate universe. In this way, a multitude of universes exists next to each other in a giant patchwork quilt of universes. [Visualizations of Infinity: A Gallery] - See more at: www.space.com...

Source


Our frame seems akin to a facet in a diamond which contains as well an infinite numbers of everything.

From there, their are other facets in the sense of other Universes.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Kashai: You know Multiverse theory was developed as a result of a problem in Chemistry in relation to the matter of the Electron Cloud.

This is very random (forgive me); there is a new media development (Glenn Beck started it) of taking thoughts and placing them in a cloud form. Why?

Kashai: Scientists can't be sure what the shape of space-time is, but most likely, it's flat (as opposed to spherical or even donut-shape) and stretches out infinitely. But if space-time goes on forever, then it must start repeating at some point, because there are a finite number of ways particles can be arranged in space and time. So if you look far enough, you would encounter another version of you — in fact, infinite versions of you. Some of these twins will be doing exactly what you're doing right now, while others will have worn a different sweater this morning, and still others will have made vastly different career and life choices. Because the observable universe extends only as far as light has had a chance to get in the 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang (that would be 13.7 billion light-years), the space-time beyond that distance can be considered to be its own separate universe. In this way, a multitude of universes exists next to each other in a giant patchwork quilt of universes. [Visualizations of Infinity: A Gallery]. Our frame seems akin to a facet in a diamond which contains as well an infinite numbers of everything. From there, their are other facets in the sense of other Universes.

I understand multi-universes; on a smaller scale YOU split yourself into differing paradigms depending upon significant life decisions (forks in the road). Regardless of your choice in that critical choice opened another parallel life you are participating in; just not aware of. You could reasonably have 10 of yourselves in differing lifestyles existing at the same time. My only problem is your defining the diamond as the most complex crystal formation. It is the Garnet that is the ultimate TOP DOG crystal in describing shape/complexity of angles.

a reply to: vethumanbeing


The idea of "facets in a diamond" serves as good analogy.

To appear in Science and Ultimate Reality: From Quantum to Cosmos, honoring John Wheeler’s 90th birthday, J.D. Barrow, P.C.W. Davies, & C.L. Harper eds., Cambridge University Press (2003)

space.mit.edu...

Raphael Boussoa and Leonard Susskind
a Center for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A. b Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A. c Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics and Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, U.S.A.


Abstract: We argue that the many-worlds of quantum mechanics and the many worlds of the multiverse are the same thing, and that the multiverse is necessary to give exact operational meaning to probabilistic predictions from quantum mechanics. Decoherence—the modern version of wave-function collapse—is subjective in that it depends on the choice of a set of unmonitored degrees of freedom, the “environment”. In fact decoherence is absent in the complete description of any region larger than the future light-cone of a measurement event. However, if one restricts to the causal diamond—the largest region that can be causally probed—then the boundary of the diamond acts as a one-way membrane and thus provides a preferred choice of environment. We argue that the global multiverse is a representation of the many-worlds (all possible decoherent causal diamond histories) in a single geometry. We propose that it must be possible in principle to verify quantum-mechanical predictions exactly. This requires not only the existence of exact observables but two additional postulates: a single observer within the universe can access infinitely many identical experiments; and the outcome of each experiment must be completely definite. In causal diamonds with finite surface area, holographic entropy bounds imply that no exact observables exist, and both postulates fail: experiments cannot be repeated infinitely many times; and decoherence is not completely irreversible, so outcomes are not definite. We argue that our postulates can be satisfied in “hats” (supersymmetric multiverse regions with vanishing cosmological constant). We propose a complementarity principle that relates the approximate observables associated with finite causal diamonds to exact observables in the hat. arXiv:1105.3796v3 [hep-th] 22 Jul 2011

arxiv.org...

www.youtube.com...

A way of looking at it is that; whatever separates the sets of electrons consciousness can transcend.

a reply to: Kashai
I agree; thanks for your replies Kashai.

In so far as the separation inherent within the doppelgangers in each facet (metaphorically), implied is this issue of they each being related in relation to interconnectedness at the quantum scale.

a reply to: vethumanbeing


Thank you for yours this is a very interesting conversation.


My compliments.

You know the you tube I sent you...

www.youtube.com...

In relation to Multiverse and awareness in context and in potential, it is not that different.

originally posted by: Kashai
You know the you tube I sent you...

www.youtube.com...
In relation to Multiverse and awareness in context and in potential, it is not that different.

I look forward (very much) to seeing this.

a reply to: vethumanbeing


In context and from a Universal scale our individuality in relation to transcendence is primary to comprehending ourselves.

There is essentially an orientation where words/symbols in relation to what mankind has generated, have no meaning.


Everything at once in relation to all potential perspectives could relate to a singular sensory experience.

Or perhaps at least and effort to relate to such an orientation in meditation.

a reply to: vethumanbeing


What do you know about Mandalas?

en.wikipedia.org...

Similarly I am offering some equivalent.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: vethumanbeing

In context and from a Universal scale our individuality in relation to transcendence is primary to comprehending ourselves. There is essentially an orientation where words/symbols in relation to what mankind has generated, have no meaning. Everything at once in relation to all potential perspectives could relate to a singular sensory experience.
Or perhaps at least and effort to relate to such an orientation in meditation.

I can tell you what that singular sensory human experience is. Its is 'desire'; that which is the downfall to our unique normal state of tranquility/happiness (when out of body). Desire is a never ending torture; it is never satisfied as wants all one can possibly possess and more. Get rid of desire and one frees oneself from a form of slavery.

a reply to: Kashai

Answered that PM; do you want me to answer here?

a reply to: vethumanbeing


Its not about Desire.


Its about relating to a potential logically and in this case a potential relationship does exist.

a reply to: vethumanbeing


I am suggesting a methodology in respect to an orientation that works for me personally in Meditation.

As the saying goes, "don't knock it till you try it".

I would be more than happy to elaborate.

a reply to: Kashai
Tell me more; others may benefit as well. What is the method?

a reply to: vethumanbeing


Meditating upon complex structures in relation to consciousness and then unifying such structures altogether as one perspective, during meditation.

a reply to: Profusion

Me being asexual and all...I don't understand any of this. HA! You may be a slave...but I'm certainly not.

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Profusion

Me being asexual and all...I don't understand any of this. HA! You may be a slave...but I'm certainly not.

A2D

I was thinking of the following definition when I started this thread:

sexuality

the sexual habits and desires of a person
www.merriam-webster.com...

According to that definition, if a person has no sexual habits and/or desires then they have no sexuality.

Going by my thesis in the original post, such a person would also not be a slave in terms of sexuality.

That brings up an interesting point...

Why are so many people pro-slavery? If you go around telling people that you're asexual, most usually will act like you're a lost soul who needs to be helped.

Why do most people consider slavery to sexuality to be a thing we should all be proud to have to endure? Not to mention a thing we should gleefully endure? And, it's weird not to want to endure it?

I have no idea what those people are thinking. That's why I started this thread.

originally posted by: Profusion

Why do most people consider slavery to sexuality to be a thing we should all be proud to have to endure? Not to mention a thing we should gleefully endure? And, it's weird not to want to endure it?

Endure it ?? Wow, this is a bit of a drastic point of view.

It is certainly not a case of "close you eyes and think of England for me". Perhaps it is the latin in me. Surely , sexuality is all part of our experience and also something to be enjoyed as well as other great things in nature. Do I detect a bit of british stiff upper lip here ?

I don't mean to often but I don't regard sex as something to "endure". Rather , it is something to enjoy just like many other things in life.

Talking about slavery, I am a slave to chocolates though.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Profusion

Me being asexual and all...I don't understand any of this. HA! You may be a slave...but I'm certainly not.
A2D

Its a question of whether or not the soul has a gender. It does not. It is placed within a body that is of a specific gender is all (you chose it). Have you always been asexual; as in before and after puberty?