It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Understanding Creation.

page: 4
6
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:21 PM

There is dimensions that exist within the complexity of your mind and your thoughts. This does not represent a plain of existance. This is just a level of complexity at which you allow your mind to function at.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:22 PM

I would like to hear you explain the act of observation, not the affects of, but the actual act of which. How does "observe" happen objectively outside of perception and subjective experience? How does this, observe, happen, where does it come from, what defines it?

What i mean is, how are you interfacing and experiencing all of these scientific facts, and all of this trajectory and latitude? How are you able to know that you are seeing this?
edit on 9-6-2011 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:35 PM

Originally posted by smithjustinb
I'm talking about physical dimensions. There is obviously length width and height that come together to make 3 dimensions. I agree. There is only self, but I am not you from a 3d perspective, I am you from a 4d perspective. Each dimension is an aspect of Self.

A dimension is the range of data in anything measured. Temperature is a dimension. Color gradient is a dimension. There is no "The Fourth Dimension".

So exactly which dimension are you referring to with you claim to be "from a 4D perspective"?

di·men·sion
/dɪˈmɛnʃən, daɪ-/ Show Spelled[dih-men-shuhn, dahy-] Show IPA
–noun
1.
Mathematics .
a.
a property of space; extension in a given direction: A straight line has one dimension, a parallelogram has two dimensions, and a parallelepiped has three dimensions.

*Credit- dictionary.com

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:38 PM

Originally posted by onequestion

There is dimensions that exist within the complexity of your mind and your thoughts. This does not represent a plain of existance. This is just a level of complexity at which you allow your mind to function at.

Yes. Although like you said, all there is is self. This is a creation of self by self to be self. We are a multidimensional self concentrated or focused on a 3d self. I'm saying our next level of awareness is 4d.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:41 PM

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by smithjustinb
I'm talking about physical dimensions. There is obviously length width and height that come together to make 3 dimensions. I agree. There is only self, but I am not you from a 3d perspective, I am you from a 4d perspective. Each dimension is an aspect of Self.

A dimension is the range of data in anything measured. Temperature is a dimension. Color gradient is a dimension. There is no "The Fourth Dimension".

So exactly which dimension are you referring to with you claim to be "from a 4D perspective"?

di·men·sion
/dɪˈmɛnʃən, daɪ-/ Show Spelled[dih-men-shuhn, dahy-] Show IPA
–noun
1.
Mathematics .
a.
a property of space; extension in a given direction: A straight line has one dimension, a parallelogram has two dimensions, and a parallelepiped has three dimensions.

*Credit- dictionary.com

So exactly which dimension are you referring to with you claim to be "from a 4D perspective"?

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:51 PM

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by smithjustinb
I'm talking about physical dimensions. There is obviously length width and height that come together to make 3 dimensions. I agree. There is only self, but I am not you from a 3d perspective, I am you from a 4d perspective. Each dimension is an aspect of Self.

A dimension is the range of data in anything measured. Temperature is a dimension. Color gradient is a dimension. There is no "The Fourth Dimension".

So exactly which dimension are you referring to with you claim to be "from a 4D perspective"?

di·men·sion
/dɪˈmɛnʃən, daɪ-/ Show Spelled[dih-men-shuhn, dahy-] Show IPA
–noun
1.
Mathematics .
a.
a property of space; extension in a given direction: A straight line has one dimension, a parallelogram has two dimensions, and a parallelepiped has three dimensions.

*Credit- dictionary.com

So exactly which dimension are you referring to with you claim to be "from a 4D perspective"?

I'll try.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is the most physical explanation I can give you of it.
This is how to understand higher dimensions w/o attaching yourself to the aspect of it all. When you see the 4d as your self, you understand that 3d universe is your creation and we are all one.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:54 PM

This is where peoples idea of self go wrong. There is no dimension of self. There is no 4d self or 3d self. There are no atoms. There is no complex mathimatical algorithm or calculation that can explain an idea.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:01 PM

Originally posted by smithjustinb
I'll try.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is the most physical explanation I can give you of it.
This is how to understand higher dimensions w/o attaching yourself to the aspect of it all. When you see the 4d as your self, you understand that 3d universe is your creation and we are all one.

In that post you refer to "the fourth dimension" as time. We are already subject to that "dimension", experience it and operate within it.

I do not reckon the 3D universe to be "my creation", nor do I see any mechanism by which "we are all one", nor do I find any way to imagine "the 4D" (time) as myself.

Also, not brought up so far (to my knowledge) - what is this "creation" you're trying to help us understand?

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:04 PM

Here is the creation for you. Look around you, what do you see?

In this post, you ignore the fact that in order for you to interface objective reality, your mind must subjectively mirror, or create within itself this reality for you to experience.

Science is only the what, if that. This does not explain the why, or the how(completely its trying).

Dimensions are just a cosmic measuring scale used for different theories applied to the base fundamental idea of that theory to try and help explain it. They aren't real.
edit on 9-6-2011 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:20 PM

Originally posted by onequestion

Here is the creation for you. Look around you, what do you see?

A bunch of things. What determines that this stuff is a "creation" as opposed to the result of natural processes?

In this post, you ignore the fact that in order for you to interface objective reality, your mind must subjectively mirror, or create within itself this reality for you to experience.

The ways we perceive the world don't have much to do with determining whether the universe was created.

Science is only the what, if that. This does not explain the why, or the how(completely its trying).

Scientific theories explain the why and how.

Dimensions are just a cosmic measuring scale used for different theories applied to the base fundamental idea of that theory to try and help explain it. They aren't real.
edit on 9-6-2011 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

Dimensions are simply a range of data produced when measuring something. I'm not positive that "cosmic" or "theory" has anything to do with dimensions.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:02 PM

You refuse with your scientificlly proven theories to extropolate how we are able to know what we are experiencing. How do we percieve reality? Whats responsible for observation? Don't say the brain, because the brain is gravely misunderstood, or not understood at all. Or if you wan't to say the brain, then explain how it works on a base fundamental level, explain consciousness, and the awareness it requires to be conscious.

Cosmic has everything to do with measurement. Cosmically things don't exist dependant on the position of the oberserver creating the measurement. Dimensions are a tool of mathematics and geometry, yeah i get that.
edit on 9-6-2011 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:03 PM
delete
edit on 9-6-2011 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:07 PM

Originally posted by onequestion
You refuse with your scientificlly proven theories to extropolate how we are able to know what we are experiencing. How do we percieve reality? Whats responsible for observation? Don't say the brain, because the brain is gravely misunderstood, or not understood at all. Or if you wan't to say the brain, then explain how it works on a base fundamental level, explain consciousness, and the awareness it requires to be conscious.

All of our biological sensory mechanisms are processed by our brains.

Also, what does any of this have to do with determining that the universe is "a creation"?

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:28 PM
This video seems relevant to the discussion of dimensions going on here:

This is how theoretical physicists are beginning to vision dimensions beyond what we can directly sense with our physical sensory organs. These ideas have grown out of experiments like the one mentioned earlier on the thread involving entanglement transmitting "something" faster than the speed of light (Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance"), and how this has been verified. So the question then becomes, how/where is this "something" traveling that it can apparently bypass the speed of light, which was previously thought impossible? Physicists respond by modeling it with another dimension of space that we can't see except through this experiment, and where time is not as relevant or possibly not relevant at all. There are other "strange" occurrences that have been observed in quantum interactions involving time that physicists have described as time "flowing" in unconventional "directions." Dr. Michio Kaku, Ph.D. talks a lot about those sorts of things too.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:08 PM
You science minds will never get it. Its so useless. You have no idea what the base fundamental building block of consciousness is, or how we are able to observe. Consciousness is not some DNA related chemical process. I know i took that class in anthropology to. Please explain for me creativity through a brain inducing chemical process. And please don't say '___', or saratonin. If '___', or saratonin, or positive ions, or any of this nonsense were responsible for relaying creative information, and the formation of new ideas we would be able to extract those ideas from the DNA, or proteins or whatever it is you think is responsible for the act of creation as we saw fit.

CREATION EXIST BECAUSE I CAN CREATE MY OWN IDEAS WHENEVER I WANT.

Stop lieing to yourselves.

Bubbles, inside bubbles, inside bubbles, traveling faster then the bubble its in. Rediculous scientific nonsense.
edit on 9-6-2011 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:23 PM

Originally posted by onequestion
You science minds will never get it.

Comedy gold.

Its so useless. You have no idea what the base fundamental building block of consciousness is, or how we are able to observe. Consciousness is not some DNA related chemical process. I know i took that class in anthropology to. Please explain for me creativity through a brain inducing chemical process. And please don't say '___', or saratonin. If '___', or saratonin, or positive ions, or any of this nonsense were responsible for relaying creative information, and the formation of new ideas we would be able to extract those ideas from the DNA, or proteins or whatever it is you think is responsible for the act of creation as we saw fit.

Consciousness and sentience are by-products of the mind. If you claim otherwise, show us another source and, if you can, an example.

CREATION EXIST BECAUSE I CAN CREATE MY OWN IDEAS WHENEVER I WANT.

Sure, things get created by humans and other living things. That in no way implies that the universe itself is a creation.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:00 PM

Sure, things get created by humans and other living things. That in no way implies that the universe itself is a creation.

So you don't think the universe was created?

Even things like chemicals can be created by other chemical reactions. You don't think the universe just popped up out of nothing do you? I thought it was a law of thermodynamics that energy can neither be created or destroyed, just transmuted from one form to another. Then all the energy that's here, must have been here "forever" and there never was a time when it was not.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:09 PM

So you don't think the universe was created?

Not necessarily, and context plays a heavy role here. Usually when referring to the universe as a "creation" it is tacitly implied that it was intentionally created by some deity.

Even things like chemicals can be created by other chemical reactions. You don't think the universe just popped up out of nothing do you? I thought it was a law of thermodynamics that energy can neither be created or destroyed, just transmuted from one form to another. Then all the energy that's here, must have been here "forever" and there never was a time when it was not.

Exactly, and if that's the case then the universe didn't "pop out of nothing", either by deity or by natural processes. Hence, it couldn't justly be called a "creation", at least in the context I described above.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:14 PM
To understand any of this, you have to accept it first, and then ask questions about it.

I'm talking about accepting God into your life and he will show you everything there is to know.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:22 PM
It's as simple as saying "I Am"..

That's the human "label" that we came up with to explain self-realization.

Every other being in this universe has a label for the same essence..

Do you know why you were born? Not until you die..

Then you'll see why you want to be born again, and again.. and again....

When you know and experience everything, that would get a little boring!

top topics

6