It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who observed us into existence?

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   
SPACE=TIME

ENERGY=MATTER

t=0 equals the moment on the particle energy level the rules were set

what dictates our level of "reality" is how WE observe and react to it

why an apple should be an apple is duly because of us

not all is due to intelligence or sophistication

the apple will not or need not protest ,
it is happy being an apple or XPT233994 if we so please




posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


To make such a remark as you have is nothing short of rude. Better not to acknowledged my post at all. You began your remarks by making the statements that time did not exist, and you make these opinions in an arrogant way indicating you are the only one who has the real "truth". This is the truth for you, and to peddle that opinion as the only viable option is a little annoying. There is also the implication that your thoughts are so lofty others are having trouble "understanding" and you are "teaching". Is that not just a tad grandiose? Maybe a little on the self-inflated side? What makes your opinion more valid than anyone else's?
The Bell Theorem? The title is self-explanatory.

But having caught up on comments this morning, I see you have indeed alluded to both the past and the future. So, you stumble a little in your original conjecture....which, by the way, is all it is.

My thought here is that the question is anybody's guess. Some of the reasoning is based on faith and philosphy. Others have more of a scientific take on things. Others have combined the two in some way.

But the answer is this: There is no answer. At least not one that we may prove without doubt, and without depending on faith, and theories which may or may not prove to be valid in the end. (Considering there is an "end". To accept there is an "end" is to accept there is a future").



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr. Toodles
 


I merely ask who or WHAT observed us into existence.

Every interaction between particles is an observation in the sense you mean.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Wheeler's delayed choice experiment
www.bottomlayer.com...
has proven that assumption wrong.

I have explained several times now, on several different threads, why your understanding of this is wrong - and that, moreover, the site you keep linking to is highly confusing and misleading.

Clinging futilely to ignorance is hardly in the spirit of ATS. And continuing to mislead others when you have already been shown your error is disgraceful.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr. Toodles
 


You said "Humans did invent time". hm. I'm not so sure we invented it, as much as we organized it in such a way as to keep us grounded and to have a reference point. Without some form of reference things would become very chaotic very quickly. It's just a practical and rational response to our way of life, so we made it true., and it became accepted in our reality. We humans can be very practical. I like that about us!



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Humans only invented the concept of time as we define it. Time may very well be our imperfect perception of a fourth-dimensional occurrence in which past, present, and future all exist at the same instance; we may be seeing only pieces as we live, hence the interpretation that "time" is passing.
Remove that boundary and the world becomes a much larger place, and one can see how easily perception shapes the world.

This thread is one of the few I'd call good; these questions are seldom asked, and its refreshing to turn from the standard chatting about "indigos" and telepathy.

As pertaining to the original post, though, I would assume that whomever observed us was observed by another, and another, long before our concept of time was born. I would imagine that it has been one chain reaction throughout the multiverse. Though I can't begin to imagine the source, I would think it must have been something very simple rather than very powerful.
The atom, the cell, and the systems of the macrocosmic world share very definite qualities which have long raised questions in my mind. I do not believe I'm mistaken in stating that bridging the gaps between the finite and infinite has been one of the highest priorities of scientists such as Stephen Hawking. Anyhow, I digress; the point I was attempting to make at the beginning of this paragraph is that it is entirely possible that the multiverse and the systems therein evolve in much the same way cells do. I mean this in a much more literal way than the obvious train of thought; perhaps the source of observation was a function within the formless worlds. Perhaps it was by chance, or more likely it was inevitable, but it may be that the universe as we know it observed itself, and in so doing gave itself form. Is it so ridiculous to think that the iron-clad laws of physics and life are held intact by the observation of the Laws themselves? I don't think so.
The idea becomes complicated from this point on, delving into macrocosmic consciousness and possibly biological function; I'm too damn tired to write it all down.
As a matter of fact, I should be at work right now, but I decided to come home and nap. I chose not to observe the rules of my employers, so in my reality tunnel, they don't exist. Quantum theory at its best.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


To make such a remark as you have is nothing short of rude. Better not to acknowledged my post at all. You began your remarks by making the statements that time did not exist, and you make these opinions in an arrogant way indicating you are the only one who has the real "truth". This is the truth for you, and to peddle that opinion as the only viable option is a little annoying. There is also the implication that your thoughts are so lofty others are having trouble "understanding" and you are "teaching". Is that not just a tad grandiose? Maybe a little on the self-inflated side? What makes your opinion more valid than anyone else's?
The Bell Theorem? The title is self-explanatory.



Thankyou, i realised the poster was a rude person too.

And when i presented an arguement, i got completely ignored. I guess some people are just pseudo-academics and have barely brushed the topic, yet speak arrogantly like experts, and dismiss all other opinions.

Thankyou for backing up my point.

peace



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by Mr. Toodles
 


But I am convinced that time bound consciousness is the root and source of the insanity of the egoic structure of the world - note the responses to that theory of no time but now where the primary concern involved money, survival and the desire for something better than what we have.



Maybe the problem with the egoic structure of thew world is the idea that people are lacking in humour and fail to see that my real concern was NOT money per se, and was simply an example of relating to points of time together.

I guess it went over your head.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by Mr. Toodles
 


You said "Humans did invent time". hm. I'm not so sure we invented it, as much as we organized it in such a way as to keep us grounded and to have a reference point. Without some form of reference things would become very chaotic very quickly. It's just a practical and rational response to our way of life, so we made it true., and it became accepted in our reality. We humans can be very practical. I like that about us!



I probably should have stated better, what I meant. Humans invented the method for measuring of movement through the past to the future. Time as we know it, has been a fundamental part of our existence since the dawn of 3rd dimensional material existence. We see it through aging and deterioration. But, like I said before. Time may be just a figment of our minds trying to rationalize what we see as "mortal" existence and may very well be non existent in the rational sense when we move to higher planes or realities. But for us in THIS reality, it cannot be denied.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


I like to think of Mr. Omega as a person with a very strong opinion on what this existence really is. Just like I have a very strong opinion on what Indigo children really are. Some people see me as rude in that sense also. But, this thread has turned out to be very eye opening and so far very intense. I hope omega comes back with more. And I do hope to hear more of your opiniions ladyinwaiting.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Ouboros.

We observed ourselves.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I didn't mean to offend anyone, but it is interesting the reaction an "eternal now" provokes in the mind. Within the contextual framework of "our way of life" it does come as a bit of an insult, but I would suggest that the part of us which reacts to it negatively, is the very part which needs to surrender to the truth that now IS all there is. If we cannot get present to the present, and be here now, then how can we really live and BE alive? Sure dishes and laundry need to be done, but if all we do is for the most part either conditioned by the past (who we THINK we are) or in anticipation of the future (what we WANT to be or have), then we can really miss out on LIFE which is always fresh always new and always now.

I believe there is an insane program running which generates suffering, and in that sense it's helpful, provided it runs its course, because
"the more that suffering carves into your being, the more joy you can contain." ~ Gibran

I'm with Eckhart Tolle on this, that all our problems can be dissolved in the now and then in presence, thoughtful and needed action CAN be taken, without any worrry or fear or suffering or strife.

For example just notice how many people like to complain about things and bemoan their problems, or rant and rave about the evils of the world, but they never for a moment pause to consider in what way they are at cause or how their own thinking and ways of being is contributing to the fundamental problem. Their solutions always collapse in judgement and project away from the present moment, and in this way our mindset, and our timebound consciousness may be thought of as a mental illness, where the definition of insanity is to keep on doing the same thing, over and over and over again, while expecting a different result.

So yeah, I'll risk being a fool, or a a-hole or seemingly arrogant if need be, to get in people's faces and confront head on the underlying cause of the disorder which has a LOT to do with our conception of time, throwing us right out of the present and out of the very flow of life itself in the process. It's out of alignment with reality, which indeed does flow through an eternal now.

We simply MUST be committed to the truth and reality at all cost except at the cost of truth and reality itself. Some things are true, and this is one of them. And if you can bear with me, and get to that place, you might just have an "ah ha" moment, and find some much needed relief from the quagmire of our BS "way of life" which is ruining everything and sucking the life out of life.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
I am beginning to wonder. If all life and everything we perceive is only the brains interpretation of electromagnetic forces (I am speaking in the 3rd dimensional world, strictly matter related) then how do we explain feelings and emotions? Perhaps we are only observers and data crunchers, but an unreal world surely cannot produce real feelings, can it? And if our emotions effect the environment, then who is observing THEM that make them real? Still ourselves?

I think it to be a valid question, considering emotions vibrate as energy and energy is classified as a quantum force.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
The truth of the matter, and even I have a hard time admitting this, as Mr. "woo woo" quantum everything
but it would appear that we, our awareness, is solipsistically involved in our own creation as consciously aware beings, and, that there is a part of us, including our feelings, as a mirror image reflection of thought, which is not time, or matter bound, but which arises independantly of the physical body in the form of choice or distinguishing, and which at some level, even at the most fundamental level, IS part of the larger observing awareness responsible for creation itself, and that's trippy, and it's in perfect congruent alignment with the
Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics plato.stanford.edu...

It's what many quantum physicists abhor talking about, but whisper in the dark of night to their wives before they go to sleep at night.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


Forgive me, but I seem to be having difficulty understanding exactly what you meant in that post. Are you saying that emotions are a direct reflections what we, as conscious beings, process? and nothing more?

[edit on 22-7-2009 by Mr. Toodles]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr. Toodles
 

No, he's saying it isn't us who create reality after all, but our ghosts.

Woowoo indeed. Voodoo too.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Do we believe that the tree is also part of the forest ... ?

Eco bio system ....... a giant organism ... that is inclusive of us.

That's a start



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Very, very good thread, It inspires much insight, and spurs thoughts in new tangents, I couldn't ask for anything more, and is the very reason I joined ATS, kudos.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr. Toodles
 


Personally I think they (emotions) are resonant frequency vibrations which can emanate acausally outside of the body, but I have no proof of that at all. Indeed emotions are at the very least a mirror image reflection of thoughts, and all emotions arise from a thought, or an interpretation of some kind - absent perceived meaning, there's no emotion.

But what I AM saying is that CHOICE is determinate for consciousness, and that such a choice may be percieved, prior, as a realm of possibility or a probability wave, and then, when the choice is made, there's an actuality, and a path is then created or actualized through the present moment (and into the future and future-past?) as an act of co-creation.

Example - hold up a finger and then CHOOSE not to move it, or, to move it, then ask yourself precisely who made the choice and where that who resides prior to and in the making of the choice to move it, not move it or move it this way and that. Furthermore, consider when making that choice and taking the action, that the entire universe has been altered by that very degree, and remember, that we really do live in a non-localized universe. (see Bell's Theorem)

The "I am" who chooses is a self referencial Von Neumann catastrophe (linked earlier in this thread), a self referencial eternal recurrence, which is actuallized in a participative act of co-creation, but otherwise existing in a realm of infinite possibility via the eternallly unfolding present moment, functioning in relation not to any past, but to an as yet unborn future realm of infinite possibility.

And how do you know that YOU are an "I am" which is nothing more than a predetermined response mechanism running on some program absent free will - because you CAN choose, and be aware of the one who chooses. And remember the discussion earlier, in that video about self and qualia HAVING to be considered linked together in any explanation for consciousness..? It's because qualia cannot be determined by any amount of analysis of a neuronal or physiological configuration, since it is subjectively experienced, and no one can really and fully 100% communicate it to someone else, since it is a unique experience to them and them alone.

Some would say that the human being is absolutely nothing BUT a meaning making machine, however complex, and an automatic response mechanism, and that there is no escaping this, but one is forced to disagree with that if they assign to the observing, consciously aware self, the role of a causal free will agent of choice, as well as a self referencial observing awareness who cannot pinpoint their own first cause except in terms of free will.

It's not "I think therefore I am", but rather "I choose therefore I am", but here's the thing, are we not first chosen by the creator, as created beings?

As someone pointed out earlier, we didn't really create it all, and neither did we create ourselves.

And so the issue, the most fundamental issue, regarding the true nature of the human being IS consciousness, and the materialist monists, they are therefore forced to deny that free will is real ie: that you're a computer, a machine, a program, and there is no "I am" who can freely choose, but this is not congruent with the truth and the reality and therefore must be a false paradigm to be discarded.

And at least I'm couragious enough to express myself and try to get these ideas across without trying to take myself too seriously, and sure I'm putting myself up for ridicule by making these statements, but I don't give a #e what some people may think because I know that it's of value to others.

And yes, it makes the materialist monist atheists very nervous, any discussion involving conscious choice and quantum entanglement, so they HAVE to deny it, but the delayed choice experiment does show that choice, born of consciousness, is the determinate factor in the actualization of a possibility or probability wave, and the group led by Neils Bohr they arrived at the same conclusion, though of course I do not profess to fully comprehend QM, but the principal involved and the logic and reason are self evident howver "woo woo" they may appear at first glance.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Then please locate the choosing self.

It's not localized in the scull.

It's nowhere in particular!

It's interesting how you cannot think in any other way than physical materialism. Won't you find that somewhat constraining as things progress..?

Tell us your theory about consciousness, the nature of the self and emotion, in a purely physical context and please adress the points I raised.

But just to clarify I didn't mean ghosts when I said outside of the physical body, I meant indeterminate, or nowhere in particular, and therefore anywhere and everywhere.

So it's not even I am because I choose, since the I am is a precondition of the act of choosing. No it's merely I am because I am or "I am that I am".




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join