Reality exists within Virtual Reality

The opinion of the OP is narrowed down to this topic: Reality exists within Virtual Reality

I noticed that when I try to present origins from this perspective that I have constantly not been recognized with any acknowledgment that this opinion is being understood. The challenge then becomes the many that say that reality must exist first before we ever consider anything about virtual reality. When I see this happen over and over, I deny ignorance.

To me it is simple when I start from a perspective that time is meaningless:

* there is no first
* there is no last
* there is no step by step process that can be achieved
* something either exists or it doesn't: nothing
* there is no creation
* there is no evolution

This doesn't mean I exclude time. I just deny that time is prior to everything possible. Time may be the very last thing that ever existed and maybe the only thing we ever really needed to "create" in order to experience anything ordinary.

Everything else just existed, always has, always will. There is no begin and no end.

There is only you that wants to believe time, yet can't even prove time itself.

I am nothing, but alive.

Your guess is as good as mine on this one!

LOL

reply to post by dzonatas


Everything exists and when we "create" something "new" we are only reassembling what already exists.

Our bodies are assembled out of the "big bang" or whatever it was.

The wheel exists before man created it.

If something didn't exist in some form, we wouldn't be able to think of it. Can I be wrong?? hmm

Us being observers, we create the world we see. The world exists, our minds interpret the atoms into objects or something like that... I'm sortof new to the observer effect. Something like the atoms exist anywhere, but they're only in 1 place when we look at them. Annnd this is all speculation, maybe someone can expand on the theories..

reply to post by digdeep




It's a perspective I use, and I think is not fair for someone to deny me, or others, in order to disqualify the obvious of what does exist. I'm a hard-core scientist.

When I use the perspective based on the OP opinion, I've had people say to me, "oh you are one of those religious fanatics"... yet same statement in another thread gets me the reaction... "oh you are one of those evolution darwinists"... or like.

It's like, why can't we just deny ignorance and say evolution and creation both don't exist.

Long story short, we wonder how it all happened, and I come to a conclusion that reality exists within virtual reality. People think computer are the only thing that can create virtual reality, yet computer are people in many people's opinion.

How else can we have an intelligent discussion without the usual "no you have it wrong because this became before that" or "you must prove this first" being in the way?

If we just exist, then we really can't prove what came first.

reply to post by nightrun


I appreciate the reply.

In this opinion, what made the Big Bang happen is mere addition of time itself. Before the Big Bang, everything exists, like you seem to agree. Instead of "nothing" before the Big Bang, we could say everything but time existed before the big bang.

I liked this theory here of how the "brane" was used to give the conceptual of an entire dimension of reality in an instant, as if only time was added to it:

New theory of before the big bang(article)

[edit on 24-2-2010 by dzonatas]

You will not be recognized until you give us some substance, something that can be analyzed.
Nobody has denied you a thing. What are you on about? Why do you create threads just to complain about the responses in the last thread you created? Why do you post irrelevant nonsense in someone else thread moaning and derailing it?
I have not seen a single obvious statement from you in any thread you have posted in or any actual proof of anything you claim, its just and endless circle of 'prove me wrong' when you have not actually provided anything to be proved wrong.
You are not a hard-core scientist either.

The opinion of the 'OP' is your opinion, not anybody else, you can't hide behind that. You are not a religious fanatic, in fact i doubt you have ever been in contact with one. And certainly never been called a Darwinist at least not here. It is all in your head and until you need to get it out of there and make some actual sense.

So you bring up string theory, why? You don't even want to understand that because it is all part of this grand infinite cycle, right?

Fact is you do not know that for sure, neither do i for that matter and nor anybody else.
But it does not matter anyway seeing as my points or anyone else's just does not matter in the first place, you are not even willing to talk about it yet you talk about critical thinking and denying ignorance? On ATS these are traits you must first display before one can be taken with any sort of consideration. If not you at least have to be good at what your doing.

Also your spelling is terrible, just saying. Mine is not great but yours? Awful.



[edit on 24-2-2010 by pazcat]

reply to post by pazcat


Looks like we sniffed out one of the multiple persona! This forum works. What goes around comes around. I don't appreciate any of the "you make no sense" or "you spell bad" and such. None of that ever needs to be said openly in a public forum in order to attempt an intelligent discussion in that forum. There is U2U if you really felt you needed to make such comments.

I stated my opinion clearly.

If time is meaningless, we would not be able to prove anything step by step, like a scientific process. However, you expect time always exists and there is no excuse, and if anybody doesn't accept your view that time always exists, then you claim they make "no sense."

To be fair, I can't recognize your need to say time always exists if you can't consider time is meaningless.

To make the OP opinion clearer, let's say the difference between reality and virtual reality is this distinction. In reality, time must always exist, in virtual reality, time is meaningless. Are you able to comprehend this?



[edit on 24-2-2010 by dzonatas]

Looks like we sniffed out one of the multiple persona!

? Explain

I don't appreciate any of the "you make no sense" or "you spell bad" and such. None of that ever needs to be said openly in a public forum in order to attempt an intelligent discussion in that forum. There is U2U if you really felt you needed to make such comments.

Of course it matters especially when you are posting in an open forum, the need to actually make sense is quite what is expected of one. You can't honestly believe that does not matter? No need for u2u at all, all should be aware of our faults.
Being a grammar nazi is not my thing normally i think its being dirty too, but i will make an exception for the hardcore-scientist.

I stated my opinion clearly

Stated, yes. Give any evidence to back it up, No.

However, you expect time always exists and there is no excuse, and if anybody doesn't accept your view that time always exists, then you claim they make "no sense."

Me? No i never said such thing. You have made that bit up completely. That seems again to be just your opinion.

To be fair, I can't recognize your need to say time always exists if you can't consider time is meaningless.

Again with meaningless assumption. I did not at any point even mention time. Why do you claim i did? You know what they say about assuming to much.

To add to the opinions, let's say the difference between reality and virtual reality is this distinction.

What opinions? You gave none, you just basically slandered an opinion i did not make in the first place.

In reality, time must always exist, in virtual reality, time is meaningless.

That is of course assuming that a virtual reality or exists in the first place and there is no reason given for it to follow the rules that you suggest.

Originally posted by pazcat
No need for u2u at all, all should be aware of our faults.

One of the reasons I like ATS is because of the rules, deny ignorance, courtesy, decorum & mannerism. I don't expect everybody to be perfect, yet I do think we should at least expect dignity. Someone reason you think these rules are not important? Maybe not to you, but maybe others do.

Stated, yes. Give any evidence to back it up, No.

Let me remind you of this forum's statement:

This forum is dedicated to the all-important highly speculative topics that may not be substantiated by many, if any facts and span the spectrum of topics discussed on ATS. Readers and users should be aware that extreme theories without corroboration are embraced in this forum. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.

I actually think it seems quite a scandal to require "evidence" and "reason" to just simply state an opinion, especially in a forum where such opinion with no evidence is welcome.

The reason is simple: being fair in discussion and debate. If one can't consider the other side's opinion, any evidence, any theory, any fact, etc first, then why should we allow an entire thread to be derailed just to something that isn't even in the OP.

Based on that, I disagree when you said "Why do you post irrelevant nonsense in someone else thread moaning and derailing it" because do consider the OP's position and I also state my evidence to challenge it. I don't just go into a thread and say "give me evidence, give me reason, give me justification." And do that redundantly. I present evidence or at least substance to challenge it. This is a big difference.

If I disagree with the OP, I'm simply state that position. If I don't have much to offer to challenge it, I move on. I don't say "oh you can't give any reason for your evidence so you make no sense." Big difference.

Me? No i never said such thing. You have made that bit up completely. That seems again to be just your opinion.

I drew a conclusion because you said I make no sense. You left me no option. You gave nothing to present to challenge, or to challenge. It's just an attempt to bring about debate, not to prove someone wrong.

Again with meaningless assumption. I did not at any point even mention time. Why do you claim i did? You know what they say about assuming to much.

I mentioned time. I'm still in the mindset and context of this thread. I'm being "hard" (as in "hard-core") yet that doesn't mean I'm gonna prove you wrong (or anybody wrong). It means that I don't make it blatantly obvious (unless I have to). When I read your post, I read in the sense that you still think a 'step by step' process is needed in order to prove any critical thinking (or scientific evidence). I hope this is more clear.

I think any hard-core scientist knows exactly what a blackhole is and has actually proven it at least to themselves. I don't think they'll make it obvious to others that are still stuck in theory, as those that proven it probably found a good reason not to make it obvious. Simple things of science are "gotchas"... or as some say here on ATS... "it's evil... it divides and conquers... yet its ancient tactics."

That is of course assuming that a virtual reality or exists in the first place and there is no reason given for it to follow the rules that you suggest.

The reason is to clarify the opinion.

See here, you said "in the first place" as if time actually meant something for a "first" to exist in the "first" place. See? Where did time come from in order for you to claim some kind of ordinal sense of "first" here? How could you possibly require me to prove the existence of virtual reality (where time is meaningless) if you can't prove time existed as required by reality? You follow this dilemma?

One of the reasons I like ATS is because of the rules, deny ignorance, courtesy, decorum & mannerism. I don't expect everybody to be perfect, yet I do think we should at least expect dignity. Someone reason you think these rules are not important? Maybe not to you, but maybe others do.

OK again grammar, and nowhere in the rules does it state i cannot question an opinion that has no substance. It has nothing to do with decorum or mannerism, it just has to do with trying to find out what is actually being presented in the first place. You cannot just say one thing and pass it off as fact.

Let me remind you of this forum's statement: etc

So what? I am not allowed to question anything you say? I think not. Deal with it.

I actually think it seems quite a scandal to require "evidence" and "reason" to just simply state an opinion, especially in a forum where such opinion with no evidence is welcome.

Scandal? Nice. It never said you can't question any ideas brought forward.
Evidence is always welcome, in fact people need it. You can have an 'opinion' here no doubt, but you have to be man enough to back it up. Especially when you are making claims, because to rule out further conversations on the merits of said idea shows you really have nothing.

The reason is simple: being fair in discussion and debate. If one can't consider the other side's opinion, any evidence, any theory, any fact, etc first, then why should we allow an entire thread to be derailed just to something that isn't even in the OP.

Threads not being derailed, in fact i am only trying to find a rail in the first place so we can begin. You are the only one not considering 'the other side's opinion, any evidence, any theory, any fact, etc' and have not provided any sound reasoning why the OP(which is you by the way)
should be given any further thought

Based on that, I disagree when you said "Why do you post irrelevant nonsense in someone else thread moaning and derailing it" because do consider the OP's position and I also state my evidence to challenge it.

You can disagree all you like but it is what you do, the posts do remain unless you want to go delete them now. And again what? Which OP? You? Or one from another thread? It does not matter anyway because you have never stated any evidence like you claim. Just opinions, and like everything opinions are allowed to be questioned. Why bother otherwise.

I don't just go into a thread and say "give me evidence, give me reason, give me justification." And do that redundantly. I present evidence or at least substance to challenge it. This is a big difference.

Thing is you don't give any evidence at all, ever, its the very reason it may seem redundant to you because you never provide any evidence. I wonder why that is a reacurring theme.
I wouldn't even call it substance, at best an idea.

If I disagree with the OP, I'm simply state that position. If I don't have much to offer to challenge it, I move on. I don't say "oh you can't give any reason for your evidence so you make no sense." Big difference.

That simply proves you are not embracing the true mentality of this site, if you disagree you move on. I will question wether i believe it or don't know about it i am willing to learn. If you can do more than just say it is so you might have something. But you don't.

I mentioned time. I'm still in the mindset and context of this thread. I'm being "hard" (as in "hard-core") yet that doesn't mean I'm gonna prove you wrong (or anybody wrong). It means that I don't make it blatantly obvious (unless I have to). When I read your post, I read in the sense that you still think a 'step by step' process is needed in order to prove any critical thinking (or scientific evidence). I hope this is more clear. I think any hard-core scientist knows exactly what a blackhole is and has actually proven it at least to themselves. I don't think they'll make it obvious to others that are still stuck in theory, as those that proven it probably found a good reason not to make it obvious. Simple things of science are "gotchas"... or as some say here on ATS... "it's evil... it divides and conquers... yet its ancient tactics."

Well there you go, so you only mentioned something you claimed i was the one who said it. That's great critical thinking.
Hard? Hard-core? No you are being the weakest of the weak.
Step by step process? Its a start, I would just like to know how you have come to these life choices.
You know nothing of blackholes in reality, but then that's not where you operate is it? You should stop bringing things up you have no intention of clarifying.

See here, you said "in the first place" as if time actually meant something for a "first" to exist in the "first" place. See? Where did time come from in order for you to claim some kind of ordinal sense of "first" here? How could you possibly require me to prove the existence of virtual reality (where time is meaningless) if you can't prove time existed as required by reality? You follow this dilemma?

Really? That blind are we? I forget all of the above, we are. Nothing to do with time except your assumptions.
This is numbers, not time, questioning the existence of your virtual reality is not time related at all.


[edit on 25-2-2010 by pazcat]

Time always seems to move in the forward direction. Consider the broken egg paradox: once an egg breaks, as time moves forward that egg is 99.999999% sure not to re-assemble.

If time started to go backwards, the egg would re-assemble back to its intact condition. As we know that never seems to happen.

By the way, I think you have virtual reality and reality mixed up. Time is relative; time is the fourth dimension of space-time, which exists in our reality, but may not exist as such in some higher para-reality.

Originally posted by pazcat
So what? I am not allowed to question anything you say? I think not. Deal with it.

It's statements like this:

OK again grammar,

That show you are unable to fully compare and take a position of either side. For one, it show you have no idea what it is like to dyslexic to any degree. I said I don't appreciate such comments. If you notice, I do tend to edit my posts a lot as I try to correct what I intended to type. With dyslexia, what someone intends to type doesn't always get typed. It's like the hands think for themselves. If I have to go over and read, and re-read, and re-read, and re-correct everything I ever type or do, then that means I don't get to be treated normally as everybody else who is imperfect.

You certainly aren't perfect. I just don't call you out on all your imperfections and exploit them as subhuman. Did you complain about/to Steven Hawking's degeneration state every day on how he was unable to speak more and more until he became incapable... just to discredit him?

just has to do with trying to find out what is actually being presented in the first place. You cannot just say one thing and pass it off as fact.

Look at the assumption you pass off as fact here. You seem to have a "fact" that there is a ordinal "first." If you ignore that everything just exists, then maybe you would be right. Yet, you also ignore the position of the person that says everything just exists and there was no start. I could simply say there never needed to be a reason for things to just exist.

Of course, life is more than that. I just don't deny life.

Scandal? Nice.

To simply deny life is not nice -- it is a scandal.

That simply proves you are not embracing the true mentality of this site, if you disagree you move on.

Most of what you said still didn't present any evidence or position or reason why the opinion in the OP is wrong or right. I wonder why you, and many others, don't just "move on." There are books written about tactics on how to "win" debates without any credible reverse position, like the Hasbara handbook. It includes the usual tactics of name calling, glittering generality, transfer, testimonial, plain folks, fear, and bandwagon.

An example of 'glittering generality' how you, and others here in other threads lately, try to say evidence and reason must exist for the position they challenge. Those who use 'glittering generality' tend to say they are "combating ignorance" when in reality they haven't actually "denied ignorance."

People who use such tactics are out to just quickly dismiss and discredit anybody they don't agree with.

Step by step process? Its a start, I would just like to know how you have come to these life choices. You know nothing of blackholes in reality, but then that's not where you operate is it? You should stop bringing things up you have no intention of clarifying.

It's a slap in your face to point out the obvious, like this next website, first one that came up in a google search, so it really can't be that unclear, especially if you are a scientist or act like in the position of a scientist and demand evidence:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/412365b394fd.png[/atsimg]
Source

Really? That blind are we? I forget all of the above, we are. Nothing to do with time except your assumptions. This is numbers, not time, questioning the existence of your virtual reality is not time related at all.

See, right there, where it says in the image "when light reaches the event horizon of a black hole, time stand still to the observer."

The opinion in the OP merely just takes position of being in a black hole where time stands still. That is backed up with normal mainstream science. Just do a search for black holes, time, speed of light, and count how many hits you get. Yes, you are really that blind.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by ForAiur
Time always seems to move in the forward direction.

I starred your post mainly for that right there. It is nice to feel as if time always seems to move in the forward direction. It's better to at least have that sense rather than not have it all.

Consider the broken egg paradox: once an egg breaks, as time moves forward that egg is 99.999999% sure not to re-assemble.

If time started to go backwards, the egg would re-assemble back to its intact condition. As we know that never seems to happen.

If the egg existed in a blackhole (where time stands still), who says the egg would ever break. If the egg started at being faster than the speed of light (where time stands still), and started to slow down, wouldn't that be going backwords?

By the way, I think you have virtual reality and reality mixed up. Time is relative; time is the fourth dimension of space-time, which exists in our reality, but may not exist as such in some higher para-reality.

We can prove the existence of four dimensional and greater dimensional objects in computers. The 4th dimension is not static to time itself. It's just a paradigm to say it is the 4th. If we consider multiple dimensional or pandimensional objects, we can't use that paradigm to describe them, as time would get in the way.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by dzonatas]

Well a nice dose of Firefox should clear that dyslexia right up. Anything else is just being lazy, dyslexia is not just contained to you. You clearly don't edit enough either. Like i said Firefox is your friend.

You can't be comparing yourself to Hawking now, can you?
And again with the assumptions.

You seem to have a "fact" that there is a ordinal "first." If you ignore that everything just exists, then maybe you would be right. Yet, you also ignore the position of the person that says everything just exists and there was no start. I could simply say there never needed to be a reason for things to just exist.

This is nothing but gibberish, bad grammar aside( and it does matter because if you can't string together a cohesive sentence it is even harder to follow what you are saying), I ask for some sort of clarity from you and that is your response? Asking questions of how one came to these conclusions is not ignoring a position at all.

Of course, life is more than that. I just don't deny life.

To simply deny life is not nice -- it is a scandal.

Who said anything about denying life? What does that mean anyway in the context of this. You wouldn't be accusing me of that would you. Again it shows how nonsensical your statements are.

Most of what you said still didn't present any evidence or position or reason why the opinion in the OP is wrong or right. I wonder why you, and many others, don't just "move on."

Neither did you to be fair. Thoughts are not evidence. But lets address that now shall we.

I noticed that when I try to present origins from this perspective that I have constantly not been recognized with any acknowledgment that this opinion is being understood.

This had nothing to do with this thread, or any other for that matter. It was just a pointless rant. Its nice to vent sometimes.

To me it is simple when I start from a perspective that time is meaningless: * there is no first * there is no last * there is no step by step process that can be achieved * something either exists or it doesn't: nothing * there is no creation * there is no evolution

This is where you are getting confused, regardless of time existing or non existing.
First and last do exist, its clear and its measurable. The OP you keep mentioning, is the first post in this thread, you can deny it but its true.
I doubt there is a step by step process that can be achieved, not in this thread anyway, but there are many good 12 Step programmes around. Again deny it all you like it does not change a thing.
Yes things either exist or they don't. And in one way or another it will always exist. Its possible there is no creator but there is creation. Evolution is clear and observable, therefore it exists.

To claim any different would mean you are already in your virtual reality where these things may not exist, but you are stuck in this one and it has a clear and measurable way it functions. You will need to provide something that can back up your claims nothing exists. Its fine to deny it, just doesn't make it true.

Everything else just existed, always has, always will. There is no begin and no end.

How can you be so sure? It would seem to me nobody can lay any claim to truly knowing that, they can speculate though. How did you come to that conclusion?

There is only you that wants to believe time, yet can't even prove time itself.

Again putting words in everyone's mouth, you cannot know what others believe or don't believe. Time is proven though, your so called slap in the face goes to correlate that fact For somebody who denies time exists you can't therefore argue a point using it.

There are books written about tactics on how to "win" debates without any credible reverse position, like the Hasbara handbook. It includes the usual tactics of name calling, glittering generality, transfer, testimonial, plain folks, fear, and bandwagon. An example of 'glittering generality' how you, and others here in other threads lately, try to say evidence and reason must exist for the position they challenge. Those who use 'glittering generality' tend to say they are "combating ignorance" when in reality they haven't actually "denied ignorance."

Lol, a Jew handbook on an Anti-Jew website. Way to keep things relevant, i was wondering how you were going to tie your ideals into this.

No people ask for evidence in threads because if you are making a point you need prove it. Is there an echo in here? Without having any evidence things are just fairy tails and the definition of being ignorant. Hardly one to talk.

It's a slap in your face to point out the obvious, like this next website, first one that came up in a google search, so it really can't be that unclear, especially if you are a scientist or act like in the position of a scientist and demand evidence:

Again covered in part above, great work. Didn't clarify a thing, its merely a diversion. What does this prove exactly? That time stands still in a Black hole and time decreases and increases at points. Yeah, so that's nothing new. How is this relevant to nothing existing and virtual realities? It isn't relevant is it?
Its only my position to act like somebody who needs to know why Reality exists within virtual reality. It is your position state why this is so, not just say it is so. But that really is the bit you are having trouble with.

The opinion in the OP merely just takes position of being in a black hole where time stands still. That is backed up with normal mainstream science. Just do a search for black holes, time, speed of light, and count how many hits you get. Yes, you are really that blind.

No it does not take that position in the OP, and it is not implied either. How could one possibly come to that decision. Black holes have nothing to do with the OP at all, it just seems to be about you personal take on things. It does not back up your claims of nothing existing, maybe if we were all in a black hole but we are not. Nothing to do with virtual realities at all.


[edit on 25-2-2010 by pazcat]

reply to post by pazcat


You missed the entire point of the observer being in the center of a black hole where time is meaningless. It stands still, which also means, by logic, time is meaningless.

You are unable to challenge that viewpoint. You only have shown to simply try to dismiss and discredit any viewpoint of the observer being in the middle of black hole.

What you don't seem to realize from this is that, by logic, no step by step process is needed. Logical conclusions can happen in an instant, as if the observer is in the middle of a black hole.

But that point was not and is not being made by you, it has nothing to do with what you are claiming, it is merely to the observer, the person in the black hole. I don't challenge that at all, there is no way any person can claim to know what kind of experience existing without time would be, it is not comparable to the here and now where time exists. And certainly know way of knowing it would become meaningless, that's not logic its speculation.

And i have not tried do discredit any person or person's in the middle of any black holes . I do however dismiss it as having anything in the slightest to do with what you are saying.

Logic may not exist within the black hole but again that's not where we are.
There is not much logic being used here at all.

Just because time is known to appear to stand still in one place does not equate to it not existing at all in other places. As i said before the very reasoning that proves time stands still also proves it existence.


The OP makes no mention of black holes, it claims nothing exists.
It also does not even mention virtual reality which after all is in the title of the thread. So you have either gone off base with your original theory which has no substance, or it should be amended to accurately portray everything you are adding as an afterthought.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by pazcat]

Originally posted by pazcat
But that point was not and is not being made by you, it has nothing to do with what you are claiming, it is merely to the observer, the person in the black hole.

Did you miss this point: the reason is to clarify the opinion.

The opinion is based on "I", the eye, the observer, in the middle of a black hole.

I don't challenge that at all, there is no way any person can claim to know what kind of experience existing without time would be, it is not comparable to the here and now where time exists.

I disagree. This is what the whole conjecture about Schroedinger's cat is about: Your 3rd eye can't see your brain.

Consider "reality" your brain and the middle of the block hole your "3rd eye" just to get the right perspective on such conjecture and theory.

I've presented this kind of position before years ago, yet most of my argument was taken down simply with the claim of "it's undeniable." In other words, it's as if you always "deny" the possibility of the observer, even me, being in the middle of a black hole and being able to communicate with you right now.... by computers. If you can't deny it, that doesn't make it true... it's just undeniable. Therefore, if you can't deny time, it doesn't make it true.

What you've done is taken your position and made it undeniable.

And certainly know way of knowing it would become meaningless, that's not logic its speculation.

Everything that doesn't meet your undeniable truth you simply claim as speculation. That is not science.

And i have not tried do discredit any person or person's in the middle of any black holes . I do however dismiss it as having anything in the slightest to do with what you are saying.

I disagree because the OP is me, as a person, in the middle of a black hole, where time is meaningless (or time stands still), and you have tried to discredit me.

Logic may not exist within the black hole but again that's not where we are.

How do you know such undeniable truth? Burden of proof is on you.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by dzonatas]

It is abundantly clear you do not exist outside of this fantasy life you have created for yourself. You cannot answer simple questions, your ignore most questions and then take your own thread off course so much its ridiculous. 3rd eye's can't see a thing because they are not real. But that does not matter to you.
The things which you throw out as diversionary tactics either have no correlation with the OP or no correlation with real life or both.

You are not in a black hole end of. If you think you are then you have issues. I suggest you sort them out. You can keep posting rubbish on ATS, there will always be someone to question it and since you don't believe it is ok to question, it will make it all the more special.
I could continue this forever but i grow weary because you fail to bring anything of substance, why you don't feel that is necessary is anybody's guess. But it is.

reply to post by dzonatas


Sorry to slip this comment in while there's quite an argument going on, if I disrupt the flow it wasn't my intention.

Anyway I agree with you dzonatas, because you're saying things that I've said before. I've made threads on similar subjects in the past, none of them have been successful, but I can't complain because I'm just rambling on about some revelations I had about how the universe exists; with nothing but my own enthusiasm to back it up, so the odd criticism is A-ok as far as I care. The fact is YOU believe so that's it.

But yes, I believe that there is reality in virtual reality too (but then again, I believe lots of things). I wrote a fictional short story about it too, wherever that is...

But, the only problem is, I find, this: if we discover what reality is, and there is reality in virtual reality, what actually is reality? Because then there's probably some other reality above is in the list of realities and then virtual reality isn't really virtual reality it's reality, and therefore, because virtual reality can't be reality for the fact that it is called 'virtual', there is no such thing as reality; as such nothing exists and you'll prove that not only does time not exist (something that I've specified before) but that reality doesn't exist- which you cannot do I wouldn't have thought, because we know that we do exist, and therefore all reality is one reality and everything exists.

Yes, so time doesn't exist, it's something that we invented to organise things. Therefore the same must be said about other things that we've developed, such as language. How can we say that language has any significance in the grand scheme of things when for one there's so many of them, and two we use them for our own benefit? And Religion too, there's so many of them, and they're still coming out of people's imaginations to this date, so why bother?

Despite all of this I do believe that time and language are very important in life, and they are both beautifully well thought out. Anyway I'm not sure whether what I've just typed out makes much sense, but thanks for your time

Ramadwarf on many realities, a lack of time time and other irrelevant creations

No one really knows how an object moving at the speed of light would appear at the speed of light because we don't have any way of travelling at the speed of light. In fact, as far as I know, light is the only thing that can travel at the speed of light. As an object's speed approaches the speed of light, the object contracts relative to the observer and therefore never actually attains the speed of light, no matter how fast it accelerates.

If something were moving at the speed of light, theoretically it would be invisible to us.