Logical answers for questions

reply to post by Mr. Toodles
precisly. but only as an answer to one of the many directions, the Q
so worded can be taken. or if the poser so chooses it is the one
logical answer to the Q so worded. follow?



[edit on 8-7-2009 by randyvs]

reply to post by randyvs


I catch you. You are talking about priorities as subjective and objective. The whole, being objective as a template for most human priorities. The subjective being the personal preference to which one priority gets top on the list.

Originally posted by Mr. Toodles
Ok. I will pose a question and see who can come up with the most logical conclusion.

If we as a human race are so destructive and primal, then why is it MANY individuals can be rational and loving and continue to function in a society that is obviously very different?

(remember, logical. Nothing spiritual)

[edit on 8-7-2009 by Mr. Toodles]

Because the majority of us are loving and compassionate, except it is those who are greedy and do not care of the consequences of others that often, or at least used to seek power.

The nice people just want normal parts in the world, and it is these bad people that we let lead us...

I am not talking about all leaders or even any current leaders, while there certainly are some.

You give 1000 people a gun or 1 person a bomber. Open field combat...

Doesn't matter what the 1000 people are/think.

The only way this world will ever end are from natural causes or if "one" wrong person gets whatever power is needed for a very powerful weapon. The problem is then, everything is so intertwined, a whole group would be needed. Unless a new virus is created by some mad scientist.

reply to post by FritosBBQTwist


So you are saying, Make one man a god, and he loses his humanity. Loses the ability to be a compassionate human. Corruption brings power and power is corruption.

reply to post by Mr. Toodles


I would say Power attracts corruption...and that is that.

There are many people I know who live normal lives, but if given the chance at leading some mighty with no real consequences...I foresee many mistakes.

It is the system of the world in which we live and IMO, there is no escape.

If we can acknowledge that, then it will be all the much easier to deal with it as it comes.

Here is another question.

If A leads to B leads to C. Then we can Logically assume that some interaction between A and B lead to the outcome of C. Now if we went back in time and made it so A leads to D leads to C. Then have we avoided a paradox? Considering the end outcome is the exact same, although the events leading to it have been altered?

Originally posted by Mr. Toodles
If we as a human race are so destructive and primal, then why is it MANY individuals can be rational and loving and continue to function in a society that is obviously very different?

Because those two different kinds of people you mention usually don't room with each other.

I know when I'm getting a bad vibe from someone, I don't stick around to see how it plays out. You have Buddhist monasteries on one side of the Earth, NYC on the other.



Btw I noticed your sig:

"For every good thought, there is an equally as powerful bad thought that KILLS IT WITH AN AXE!"


There's a 3rd thought, neither good or bad, that always watches, unattached. If your signature was a Yin/Yang, I'd be talking about that S-like line between them: the Tao. I find it more interesting. In fact, by picking any side at all, you submit to it and do work for it, while it dances between the two sides eternally, never extinguished.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


I suppose it has a yin/yang kinda ring to it. Although it was just something I once said when I was a teenager. It stuck with me cause I liked it lol.

But I totally agree with you on the middle thought that just watches all that goes on.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by Mr. Toodles]

Here is a question that I have never been able to answer for myself.

Why are humans so paradoxical? Why do our minds contradict its own thoughts almost hourly? You could say it is because our moods change and therefore our state of minds change. But that is not a good enough answer. Even though our state of minds may change, the memory of having a certain opinion remains with us, as well as the reason for having that opinion.

reply to post by Mr. Toodles

Even though our state of minds may change, the memory of having a certain opinion remains with us, as well as the reason for having that opinion.

That is not true for me so much. I actually can not remember my emotional states after they have changed. When I am angry for example I can want to kill you, when no longer angry I can remember wanting to kill you but not the why because I don't remember the feeling of anger. But then I might have an emotional disorder.

As for why we are paradoxial, I guess it depends on what the paradox is. My best guess is that we lie to ourselves. You may say that you want your child to be able to speak 2 languages, but then you never take the time to teach them. We obviously don't want it that bad, or maybe it is we do want it as in the past tense, we want to have done something but not have to put the effort in now. We want to be a calm intellectual person, but we don't want to put in the effort to become one and so still let our emotions get away from us.

I think I am saying the paradox happens because we want one thing to happen, but we are only willing to do something else, often the opposite.

reply to post by Histopherness


So basically, the inherent laziness of humans is the reason we are paradoxical. Or at least a partial reason. Makes sense.

reply to post by Mr. Toodles


Well maybe the inherent laziness coupled with the desire to be more. I often have grandiose ideas, but contradict myself due to the effort involved. Mind you it isn't a conscience thing. I don't decide "Bah that is too hard" More like little excuses I make to myself and then I don't end up doing whatever it is I had convinced myself earlier that I should.

the ripening mind must make its course to fullness

Enjoyable dialogue.

I believe science is an avenue for finding spirituality and that god(or whatever name you want to give it) and science can coexist.

So much can be explained through math and all its applications. Why not search for what is truely unexplainable and then maybe we can find the true essense of "god"

As for your question of paradoxes of human thought or it's contradictions.

The mind is a vehicle of moving through the various dimensions of our constantly evolving universe. In the same regards, The mind is what allows us to manipulate the universe consciously. furthermore, thoughts are educated guesses and inferences of what could happen to the universe as a result of various decisions or variables. Think of it as seeing into the future or past. And with the innumerous possilibilites of the future, contradictions are bound to happen. I will explain this better on a later thread... it is much to complex for now.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by CosmicYahtzee]

[edit on 10-8-2009 by CosmicYahtzee]

reply to post by CosmicYahtzee


You are correct in regards to the mind moving through various dimensions. There is a youtube video that outlines this type of theory. Another person posted a thread about the video not too long ago, can't remember who though. It explains that each dimension is a divergence of the last, an expansion upon the previous. Here we experience length, width and depth. The 4th would be time. We see ourselves as moving along a straight path called time. A second dimensional being would see itself as moving in a completely straight line even it it was moving in circles along the outside of a 3 dimensional sphere.

The video goes as far as to explain that to travel through time, we would have to traverse the 5th dimension in order to go to a different point in the 4th dimension to change things in the 3rd dimension. Brain warping stuff. Time mechanics at its best.

Transcendence may never be possible for humans, as we see with slugs that they cannot suddenly evolve into 3 dimensional conscious beings. But, who knows.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by Mr. Toodles]

reply to post by Mr. Toodles


This is not exactly true... under all conditions light travels at 100% the speed of light denoted as C. This is why C is a constant.

for instance if i were traveling at 90 percent the speed of light and i threw a ball at 20 percent the speed of light, the ball would still reach only 100 percent the speed of light or C.

how does this happen??? well according to newtons law, space and time must change.

here is the math equation: velocity= distance/time

When light travels in a vacuum, it always travels at a velocity of, C, there is no way around it. therefore

C=Distance/time

If, C, is constant then the dependant variables are space and time and they are able to change.

------In addition,

e=mc^2 describes the properties of inertia at light speeds.

Inertia can be thought of as a point-masses reluctance to changing forces that is why bicycles stay upright easier when in motion.

The e=mc^2 equation inherently states (not doing the proof) that it would take an infinite amount of energy to move a partical of any mass because of its inertial properties. Its like if you were being pushed by someone until you reached full speed: Eventually you would get to a point where you nor the person pushing you has the energy to make you move faster. It is because of your mass, no offense. The same goes for a particle that is moving near the speed of light.


To tie it all together, your probably asking where does the extra 10 percent of energy go from the ball throwing example. Well the e=mc^2 equation said that infinite energy is required to travel at lightspeeds for any massive object. so that is where the 10percent extra energy goes. It is simply used up before the object reaches C.
Isn't physics fun!!!

[edit on 11-8-2009 by CosmicYahtzee]

reply to post by CosmicYahtzee


Question. Why does light speed have to do with moving through dimensions? It would be required to move through time in the 3rd dimension. But we know that travel to the past is impossible.

We technically could travel back in time, if we can understand the correct rules of physics that would allow that.

There are in fact rules for our universe... light will only travel so fast, temperature can never reach 0 kelvin, density can never equal zero. theres alot more...

Think of it as someone traveling from point a to c. it is impossible to go to point c directly without reaching point b first. It is a rule.

The amazing thing is what happens when all these rules reach their limits (zero or infinity) strange things begin to happen with space and time. ie the stretching of space when velocity equals lightspeed, or the absense of energy and mass at zero kelvin

So what really should be asked is how can we manipulate these rules to infact change space and time.

As for traveling back in time,

I don't think traveling back in time will be anything like star trek. here is why:

According to star trek, traveling back in time would be like the impossibility of traveling from a directly to c. or in this case c -a.

One solution suggest that the only way to travel "back in time" would be to change universes, to a place that has always existed but is considered by the individual as the past. that fulfills the a-b-c rule.

Another less interesting solution is that traveling back in time would require the absense of the memory of it because we would have reverse all our actions. c-b-a

Technically we could be any combination of back in time, in the future, or in the present. It all depends on the relativety of the reference position or origin in space.






[edit on 12-8-2009 by CosmicYahtzee]

I propose a new perspective of looking at the light wave / particle duality and constant riddle

light is detected as a wave because we are only able to detect it as wavelike with the instruments available at the moment of detection when light is in a environment where there is a condition to affect waves as is with the case of it being particle like

the constant of light is only because we are able to detect it with the means available to us at this point in time, not only equipment technology wise but also physically and spiritually / dimensionally

time travel is impossible because it affects both the past and future "concurrently"
impossible NOT because it can't be done ...... but because WE CAN'T achieve it with our concept of time/space and material capacity

reply to post by CosmicYahtzee


We should all keep in mind you are talking pure theory, where the actual lab science surrounding these subjects can get pretty bizarre and unexplainable even to our best scientific minds, thus all the debate with unification theories based on a lot of these bizarre observations. Obviously we have never had anything approach the speed of light, but photons. No single object of any significant amount of mass anyway.

The theory that was most thought-provoking to me was MIT's Dr. William Tiller's. He basically says time dissolves at the speed of light, and you enter a realm where the relationship between time and space is inverted. And magnetic particles he calls "magnons" are predicted to exist there, explaining electro/magnetic coupling despite an equivalent magnetic particle being discovered to complement the electron of electrical current. It also ties into magnetism being associated with memory, which has been done for hundreds of years at least, because according to Tiller what you "see" in this part of space may be more determined by the amount of some unquantified amount of energy, ie the amount of emotional energy or etc. that any event happens with, than what is happening "now" because "now" doesn't exist. So, Civil War soldiers still being sensed beyond their time could potentially be explained by this magnetic "phantom" phenomena tied to more subtle energies in the universe.

His actual work is much more scientific and rigorous than how I've probably made it sound, so anyone interested in theoretical physics should definitely pick up one of these guys' books. He's scientist tying the most hard sciences into body awareness, chakra systems, and the very frontiers of other theoretical physics. His approach to a grand unification theory: Consciousness itself. Definitely a big step for an MIT scientist.