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.

 

Understanding Creation.

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb
The only way something can be in two different places at once is if space has no meaning and is therefore not real.


Nope.
Space does have meaning and is real.


Not to the electron that was in two places at once.


It's all a matter of perspective.


Okay, but without space your three dimensions plus the additional ones you're asserting cannot exist. You can't have it both ways.




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb
The only way something can be in two different places at once is if space has no meaning and is therefore not real.


Nope.
Space does have meaning and is real.


Not to the electron that was in two places at once.


It's all a matter of perspective.


Okay, but without space your three dimensions plus the additional ones you're asserting cannot exist. You can't have it both ways.


Yes, but in the 4th dimension, space only exists as a 3 dimensional concept. It still exists, but only in 3d.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


You just agreed earlier that energy can't be created or destroyed, it just changes forms, just like modern science believes.

So how do you personally reconcile that with theories like the "big bang"? Even if the energy wasn't physically present in the universe, it had to exist in some form, somewhere. So where do you think it all came from? Or do you think the physical universe has always been here too, and just keeps changing form?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Yep. Lots of weird things at the quantum level.

What does that have to do with your claims?


The electron was observed in two places at once. Same electron. Two different places. Imagine you are in two places at once. The only way something can be in two different places at once is if space has no meaning and is therefore not real.


Same electron?

Really.

And how did they determine that this was the same electron? Did they put a tracer on it? Was it wearing the same hat in both appearances? Maybe it was lying about being the same electron? I've seen this happen with twins, so don't tell me it's impossible.

Y'know, if I were you, and I didn't suddenly realize the ludicrous nature of my (your) assertion - after that small attempt (above) at mocking the notion of it - then I'd be concerned over my own capacity to determine reality from the inane crap that stumbles around between my ears and behind my eyes. I shouldn't have to explain why that assertion (from whomever it was that asserted it) that this electron, and the other electron, were absolutely and inarguably, the same electron, is absurd, and more than likely based on ignorance of what an electron (or any particle of matter, for that matter) actually is. I find it distressing that guys with letters strung out after their names haven't the capacity to realize when they've debunked the fundamentals of their own discipline. You'd think they'd be excited about such a revelation, but instead, they march right out there and declare reality to be malleable. You can't even hand some people a breakthrough on a silver platter without them spilling all over themselves.

When you have to reconstitute reality in order for an assertion to be remotely plausible, you've probably come to the wrong conclusion - even given the startling evidence as it exists. You may have to consider the possibility that your math is off somewhere along the determination chain, or that you haven't realized the existence of one or more factors affecting your processes. After all, while science is always debunking itself, quadrillions and quadrillions of perfectly, and seamlessly synchronized interdependent connections can't be wrong. This is why precedence is so popular with quality thinkers.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb
The only way something can be in two different places at once is if space has no meaning and is therefore not real.


Nope.
Space does have meaning and is real.


Not to the electron that was in two places at once.


It's all a matter of perspective.


Okay, but without space your three dimensions plus the additional ones you're asserting cannot exist. You can't have it both ways.


Yes, but in the 4th dimension, space only exists as a 3 dimensional concept. It still exists, but only in 3d.


Ahhh, so space does have meaning and is real.
Now you have to revisit your explanation of the double slit experiment.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Yep. Lots of weird things at the quantum level.

What does that have to do with your claims?


The electron was observed in two places at once. Same electron. Two different places. Imagine you are in two places at once. The only way something can be in two different places at once is if space has no meaning and is therefore not real.


Same electron?

Really.

And how did they determine that this was the same electron? Did they put a tracer on it? Was it wearing the same hat in both appearances? Maybe it was lying about being the same electron? I've seen this happen with twins, so don't tell me it's impossible.

Y'know, if I were you, and I didn't suddenly realize the ludicrous nature of my (your) assertion - after that small attempt (above) at mocking the notion of it - then I'd be concerned over my own capacity to determine reality from the inane crap that stumbles around between my ears and behind my eyes. I shouldn't have to explain why that assertion (from whomever it was that asserted it) that this electron, and the other electron, were absolutely and inarguably, the same electron, is absurd, and more than likely based on ignorance of what an electron (or any particle of matter, for that matter) actually is. I find it distressing that guys with letters strung out after their names haven't the capacity to realize when they've debunked the fundamentals of their own discipline. You'd think they'd be excited about such a revelation, but instead, they march right out there and declare reality to be malleable. You can't even hand some people a breakthrough on a silver platter without them spilling all over themselves.

When you have to reconstitute reality in order for an assertion to be remotely plausible, you've probably come to the wrong conclusion - even given the startling evidence as it exists. You may have to consider the possibility that your math is off somewhere along the determination chain, or that you haven't realized the existence of one or more factors affecting your processes. After all, while science is always debunking itself, quadrillions and quadrillions of perfectly, and seamlessly synchronized interdependent connections can't be wrong. This is why precedence is so popular with quality thinkers.


Whatever man. Thanks a whole lot for coming on here and trying your hardest to insult me, and make me doubt myself highly to the point of feeling like crap. But before you came on here with your destructive attitude, you should have at least had some context as to what my "assertions" are based on. You should at least know what you are arguing against and why I say what I say.

Why don't you watch this little cartoon. Maybe your attention span could understand animation a little bit better.

www.youtube.com...




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb
The only way something can be in two different places at once is if space has no meaning and is therefore not real.


Nope.
Space does have meaning and is real.


Not to the electron that was in two places at once.


It's all a matter of perspective.


Okay, but without space your three dimensions plus the additional ones you're asserting cannot exist. You can't have it both ways.


Yes, but in the 4th dimension, space only exists as a 3 dimensional concept. It still exists, but only in 3d.


Ahhh, so space does have meaning and is real.
Now you have to revisit your explanation of the double slit experiment.


It really depends on your perspective. Are you examining space from a 3d perspective or a 4d perspective?

From a 4d perspective that I am claiming to be more real than 3d, Space doesn't exist. It is real and has meaning to a 3d perspective.

It is hard to understand such a paradox so I sympathize with your doubt.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


You just agreed earlier that energy can't be created or destroyed, it just changes forms, just like modern science believes.

So how do you personally reconcile that with theories like the "big bang"? Even if the energy wasn't physically present in the universe, it had to exist in some form, somewhere. So where do you think it all came from? Or do you think the physical universe has always been here too, and just keeps changing form?


I don't know. What we recognize as the "Big Bang" could be a cyclical event. And I have no opinion on where the universe's energy came from. Any rational person would admit that nobody knows the answer to these mysteries right now.

But some claim they do know the source of that energy, and the source of the universe, and the source of life and they all attribute it to the activities of a deity. That's theoretically possible, though to date there's no evidence pointing that way and no rational reason to suspect such a hypothesis as truthful and accurate.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
It really depends on your perspective. Are you examining space from a 3d perspective or a 4d perspective?

From a 4d perspective that I am claiming to be more real than 3d, Space doesn't exist. It is real and has meaning to a 3d perspective.

It is hard to understand such a paradox so I sympathize with your doubt.


When I asked you what you meant by "4d" you pointed me to a thread wherein you described "4d" as time. Time and space are tightly woven and as far as we know in physics, time and space appeared at the same time.

I don't see how adding dimensions makes space non-existent. To make space non-existent you'd have to remove dimensions, not add them.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


You just agreed earlier that energy can't be created or destroyed, it just changes forms, just like modern science believes.

So how do you personally reconcile that with theories like the "big bang"? Even if the energy wasn't physically present in the universe, it had to exist in some form, somewhere. So where do you think it all came from? Or do you think the physical universe has always been here too, and just keeps changing form?


I don't know. What we recognize as the "Big Bang" could be a cyclical event. And I have no opinion on where the universe's energy came from. Any rational person would admit that nobody knows the answer to these mysteries right now.

But some claim they do know the source of that energy, and the source of the universe, and the source of life and they all attribute it to the activities of a deity. That's theoretically possible, though to date there's no evidence pointing that way and no rational reason to suspect such a hypothesis as truthful and accurate.



There is that double-slit experiment. That's about as good as it gets. But the implications of what the nature of the double slit experiment is about are profound.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb
It really depends on your perspective. Are you examining space from a 3d perspective or a 4d perspective?

From a 4d perspective that I am claiming to be more real than 3d, Space doesn't exist. It is real and has meaning to a 3d perspective.

It is hard to understand such a paradox so I sympathize with your doubt.


When I asked you what you meant by "4d" you pointed me to a thread wherein you described "4d" as time. Time and space are tightly woven and as far as we know in physics, time and space appeared at the same time.

I don't see how adding dimensions makes space non-existent. To make space non-existent you'd have to remove dimensions, not add them.


Time is also a paradox. It is real here in the 3rd dimension, but in the 4th, it is all simultaneous and might as well be not real when viewing reality from a 4d perspective.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Its the duality of collapsing wave function.

When you observe you create what you observe. Its hard to comprehend this on a fully functioning level.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Its the duality of collapsing wave function.

When you observe you create what you observe. Its hard to comprehend this on a fully functioning level.


I understand. The universe would not even exist if it weren't for it being observed.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
There is that double-slit experiment. That's about as good as it gets. But the implications of what the nature of the double slit experiment is about are profound.


As good as it gets for what? A deity-created universe?
If so, the correlation isn't apparent.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
read everything i have written before you judge
i had a vision yesterday and i believe it was God talking to me. its not the first time this has happened. on my birthday i was sitting on my couch watching TV with a friend when something told me to get up. i listened and it lead me to my room. i closed the door and all of a sudden i fell to my knees and was crying for forgiveness with absolutely no control of my body. i felt as if i was watching myself go threw this but there was nothing i could do. when i finally realized what happen i was sitting on the floor with a feeling i cannot describe. i felt loved and embraced by something but i didn't even bother asking to myself what it was i just sat there smiling. as of that day i found myself researching on the Internet. but i was not researching religion i was searching Illuminati, new world order, and all types of government frauds and killings covered up from the everyday person.

yesterday i came home and was explaining everything to a friend of mine, showing him a video of the Illuminati when it hit me. i had a vision that was explaining the pyramids and how everything relates to the same evil. i don't even know where to start and how to translate my vision into words but ill try.

the pyramids is a sign given by other creatures that landed on our planet. it was a sign given to the most powerful at the time. it is meant to represent that they too can become a god. its all about control. (DIVIDE AND CONQUER why is Pangaea no more? shifting plates? yeah, right! the planet is easier to control if it is divided! this thing is bigger than what you know as reality) if you are the top point of the pyramid everything else is under you and under your control. nobody can tell you no or disagree with your ways because you have the power to eliminate anybody. you are ultimately seeing yourself as a god. that's what happen in ancient times with the Egyptians and the Aztecs, and that's whats happening to us now with the Illuminati.

i believe these people who are in power have seen and believe that their false gods have given them the power to be gods of this planet. threw technology and false religion they see this coming true for them. they see these false gods as giving them power of technology to finalize there power as gods. they see false religion as a way to control peoples feelings. they are working on chips that they will implant in you and you will beg them to. they will tell you it can unlock the other parts of the brain we never could on our own. when the world is one government as the plan on making it it will be ruled by one man with the power to turn any ones chip off if you do not live or agree to what he says your life must be. TOTAL CONTROL!!!

our governments are also just pawns in this master plan. just ask yourself what this man with all this power realized. all these countries come to me for loans and they are in debt to me. what does this mean? i basically own these countries and i can make these countries do whatever i want because if they don't i have the power to stop that country by not funding it.

turn your TVs and radios off for a minute and turn your minds on. do you need an Escalade on 24's? Do you need to have sex with every woman you can get your hands on? do you need more money to buy all the things TV tells you you want? does money, drugs, weapons, and violence make us happier? does working hard and waking up early to go earn a paycheck the way you really picture a beautiful life?

i believe we are spirits being tested! i believe whats happening is the devil is preparing for war with God and threw these lies the devil calls life he is building his army by making Gods children non-believers! he tells you in order to believe in god you need facts, but that is far from the truth! All you need is to believe that there is a God. you don't need someone or something proving it to you, you believe because you know life is more than just a job, house, and a car! will you be the devils soldier of war or will you believe in God and and let only God show you the way to life?

the only answer is GOD! i cant tell you who or what God is, i can only tell you that God is everything and everything is God. the only way to true Paradise is threw God. I'm not telling you to go to church or anything like that all i ask is that you believe in God and talk to God. God has not forgotten about you so don't forget about God!

am i crazy or just found God?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Whatever man. Thanks a whole lot for coming on here and trying your hardest to insult me, and make me doubt myself highly to the point of feeling like crap.


I didn't try my best. I never even broke a sweat.

But seriously, did you even consider what I just revealed to you in my post?


But before you came on here with your destructive attitude, you should have at least had some context as to what my "assertions" are based on. You should at least know what you are arguing against and why I say what I say.

Why don't you watch this little cartoon. Maybe your attention span could understand animation a little bit better.

www.youtube.com...



The double-slit experiment and the follow-on erasure experiment have been beaten to death in this forum, and if you do a post search on me, you'll see that I've put in my own time on that debate. You'll also learn what I discovered when I dug into that revealing bit of fun with machinery, and compared/contrasted/associated their results with what I've learned from my own research. Like I said, those baboons have no idea what they revealed.

If the emperor has no clothing, is it really destructive to let him know? I suppose that it is if you're the poor monarch's tailor.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bubusmells
am i crazy or just found God?


I think it would be a good idea for you to get a check-up.
.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bubusmells

am i crazy or just found God?


I don't know, but what I do know is why the Great Pyramids are shaped the way they are. It has to do with the sun, the original surface of these pyramids, and the realization that the Pharaoh was considered to be decended from the Sun God Ra.

If you take a flat surface and tilt it at the angle of the Great Pyramids - let's say, the 1st one built - and put a glassy finish on it (just highly polished stone will do), and walk out to a specific distance with the sun blazing in the mid-day sky, the flash-reflection from the sun off that surface will be blinding.

Now, if you were to build a temple to honor the Pharaoh - literally placing him within the sun after his corporeal death - you'd want that temple to be "the sun on Earth", as this man was the human representative of the Sun God. Of course, your engineers would already understand the physics of reflected sunlight, and would understand things like line-of-sight. They'd be perfectly capable of designing a structural concept that would - when viewed from 3-10 miles (the human line-of-sight if no other obstructions exist besides normal terrain variable) - shine like the sun itself from the 4 points (figuratively from everywhere) of the compass (so to speak).

The only structure that could possibly accomplish this incredible display is a properly polished pyramid, and with Egypt's climate, I would imagine that the first Great Pyramid was spectacular most days of the year. It even forced two subsequent Pharaohs to build their own pyramids, so that they could be entombed within the sun-on-Earth, like that first one.

Walking up on one of those things, from line-of-sight, must've been overwhelming, since it would've looked (to the human eye) like the sun itself had come down to the Earth, even as it hung high in the sky.

And this is why the Great Pyramids are shaped like they are.

As to whether you're crazy....maybe. More bizarre things have occurred to people without their brains being cooked, so I wouldn't worry too much. Still, I'd give the whole thing a jaundiced eye.
edit on 6/10/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


If you believe that energy is intellegint, how do you believe that energy gets its intellegence? Or how do i understand what intellegence is to energy? Is it direction?
edit on 10-6-2011 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by AlphaZero


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

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


That's quite an assertive statement. Have you investigated theories of consciousness other than materialistic explanations? I recommend David Chalmers' work, which definitely contrasts with materialist philosophers' work like Daniel Dennett's.

As for an example, research the "hard problem" of consciousness.


Yes, I've investigated some of the current research on consciousness by Dennett and others. But, I'll pose to you the same question: can you show me an example of consciousness existing somewhere other than a mind?


I'm not sure how to answer that. The whole issue is that we don't even know what the mind really is, or how it arises from interactions of neurons in the first place. Consciousness isn't something that can be found in any one part of the brain.

You'd likely agree that subjective experience has no role in empirical scientific studies. This is exactly what I mean. It's literally impossible to know what a given experience is like for another person; for example, the sensation of "pain." We already know how the nervous system works and how signals are sent to the brain, but none of this will actually tell us what the "pain" actually feels like.

The error that Dennett and other materialist philosophers make is equating stimulus inputs and behavioral reactions with internal qualitative feelings. Dennett basically says that "internal qualitative feelings" don't exist at all, which is in direct contradiction to our daily experience. It doesn't make any sense to call subjective experience an illusion. If I am experiencing pain, then I am experiencing pain; there is no disputing that fact. Attempting to prove that pain and other subjective feelings don't really exist is contradictory to the entire phenomenon of consciousness.

To me, some form of dualism makes more sense to explain consciousness, rather than flat-out materialism. But again, you are free to interpret the evidence for both sides the way you like. I'm just trying to open people up to alternative philosophical theories.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join