The Truth About Matter and the Material World

reply to post by NorEaster


Can you separate yourself from the event? Do you believe there is an event AND a you?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Can you separate yourself from the event?

I just explained this to you. Try again. The answer is definitely there if you'll simply put in the effort.

NE ~ Id like a link to the published material
Thanks

reply to post by NorEaster


I was confirming as I've done in the past... Not nearly as long-winded and backed by scientific literature to promote the mechanics (behind the scenes). We're on the same page. By now, you should have built on your analysis. The disperser of consciousness along with the transport it utilizes, so at the very least, you'd be able to string everything together.

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I was confirming as I've done in the past... Not nearly as long-winded and backed by scientific literature to promote the mechanics (behind the scenes). We're on the same page. By now, you should have built on your analysis. The disperser of consciousness along with the transport it utilizes, so at the very least, you'd be able to string everything together.

This thread is just a very small segment of what I've worked together. I'll be posting other threads to try and fill in some of the other fundamentals and how they work together. Then again, in this thread I've been able to tackle a little bit of the information side of the existential partnership as well, so who knows how this effort will actually work out in the end. It's been over two years of aggressively vetting the entire premise on a wide range of Internet portals, and it's survived brilliantly. Now it's time to start sharing instead of challenging.

reply to post by NorEaster


When you say information is not physical,, what then is it? and i think you also said information cannot be destroyed? the language we use to communicate, and the act of communicating is a physical act,,,,, books and hard rives that store information can be destroyed..

reply to post by NorEaster

It's been over two years of aggressively vetting the entire premise on a wide range of Internet portals, and it's survived brilliantly. Now it's time to start sharing instead of challenging.

It's been over seven months now since I've been reading your work and in some way I've been wanting to ... I was going to say "debunk" it but that's a bit of a harsh word. At least try to either corroborate or confute from the experience that I had.
But so far ... I got nothin.

I was wondering if, from all the research you have done into NDE's and OBE's, if you have found any cases to substantiate what you're putting forth here in this thread and maybe future ones. And by that I mean, a more 'scientific' NDE or OBE than white-robed deities, golden cities, representations of hell etc.

(Sounds like a good idea for a thread)

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Can you separate yourself from the event?

I just explained this to you. Try again. The answer is definitely there if you'll simply put in the effort.

I am sorry i must be thick, would you mind helping me out with a yes or a no please.
Can you separate yourself from the event? Do you believe there is an event AND a you?

The bottom line in all of us may not actually be here. We may all be living inside a simulation.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by NorEaster

 

When you say information is not physical,, what then is it? and i think you also said information cannot be destroyed? the language we use to communicate, and the act of communicating is a physical act,,,,, books and hard rives that store information can be destroyed..

Information is physical. It's not material. Big difference between physical and material.

The medium that we humans use to record information is not information. It's just the material medium. As self-aware beings that are working our way through a corporeal (material) development stage, we rely on material means of recording ideas and factual information, so that we can better share this information with each other. The information itself is the facts and/or perceptions (ideas, translations, creative notions, reactions) that we materially translate into language (speaking, recording, printing, drawing) so that we can preserve that information in material representation effectively and efficiently. This isn't novel or breakthrough knowledge. It's just the way that the Homo Sapien solved the problem of losing contact with information that it felt was important.

You must separate the concept of information from the concept of materially recording information. This will free you to better understand the true physical nature of information, in the way that physicists understand what information is.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Can you separate yourself from the event?

I just explained this to you. Try again. The answer is definitely there if you'll simply put in the effort.

I am sorry i must be thick, would you mind helping me out with a yes or a no please.
Can you separate yourself from the event? Do you believe there is an event AND a you?

The complete and completely accurate answer to your question requires a master's class in a form of physics that does not yet exist as a university syllabus, so I'm a bit unsure of how to answer it in a yes/no manner. You have to agree that there are questions that require a lot more than a simple yes or no. This is one of those questions.

The reason for this is that what I am (and what you are) is a true existential hybrid that developed naturally as a result of what the corporeal brain does with DNA protocols and directives on behalf of the body that it serves. That hybridization involves the only existential unit-level forms of physical existence - activity and information - and the evolved requirement that information become dynamic so that the ultra-sophisticated corporeal matrix (like a dog or a cat or a person) would be effectively served by the DNA directives that exist within each cell of that corporeal matrix. The brain became necessary. This was due to the need for the static information that the DNA provides to be a lot more immediately responsive to the survival requirements of the corporeal whole. If not for the brain, the progressive development of the material (corporeal) whole would have been restricted to very primitive creatures, like protozoa and bacteria and plant species. The brain's emergence solved the problem of managing multiple assemblies and sub-assemblies within the material whole itself.

However, to make it possible for the brain to actually be able to manage this extended enterprise, it needed to be able to configure new and responsive information configurations (which would thereby extend the DNA information's "reach" into the many layers of contributive organization that would eventually develop, in an effective and efficient manner) that would, then, as event trajectories in their own right, actually "reach" into those layers and do what the layers needed done (managing the ongoing survival responses). That required the natural development of a hybrid of information and activity, since before the brain, these two primordial forms of physical existence had only affected each other in a default manner (activity causes information to emerge - immediately and by default - and information creates avenues of potential - again, by default - by way of contextual precedence and historical ramification in service of the existential imperative Survival) Before the brain, information had only been static and activity had only been externally directed via default avenues of possible progression.

How the brain creates "dynamic information" is going to be covered in a future thread, so why don't we allow that thread to have its own thunder to enjoy when it comes. It's not mystical, but it is pretty fascinating. And, as we all know, the Homo Sapien brain creates dynamic information that is self aware and extremely sophisticated (relative to other types of corporeal brains, at least on our planet), and the human mind is what we call that dynamic information as it gathers together with each burst the brain creates in its own effort to be what it is and do what it's designed to do. After all, information is eternal, since the fact of an occurrence is always a fact and it can never cease to be a fact that the occurrence occurred (the simplest proof concerning the eternal nature of information that I know of).

So, your answer to that question is right here, and no...it's not a yes or no answer. This is because while you are an event, you're also information. Dynamic information. An existential hybrid, even as your corporeal (flesh and blood) body is nothing more than an event that someday will stop happening. That specific event (your flesh and blood body) generates you. That body isn't you, but it does physically create you. That said, you (as the human mind that you are) do have a lot of direct input into how your brain creates you, so the process does include you as a primary manager of how that process develops. Like everything that actually exists, nothing is cut and dried and physically isolated from all affecting aspects that gather to make the process what it ultimately is. Every instant that you exist affects your eventual creation as an eternal human being.

You are what you think - is probably the best way to encapsulate it as a bumpersticker.

Originally posted by libertytoall
The bottom line in all of us may not actually be here. We may all be living inside a simulation.

Not really backed up by either empirical evidence or logical inference. You can believe whatever you like, but that doesn't change the reality that you exist within.

I know that it's popular on this forum to toss out the most extreme assertions and to insist that there's no proof that exists to debunk those assertions, but the truth is that there are layers and layers of proof that exist all around us to debunk the theories that involve simulations, illusory time, superposition, infinite consciousnesses, redundant incarnations, and most other adventurous suggestions that stumble through this forum on a daily basis.

And the thing that amazes me is that the reality itself is so overwhelming and almost frightening in its expansiveness that the few people I've known to finally completely visualize it for the handful of seconds that it's at all possible to do so, have been staggered - literally - by just how overwhelming it is to simply perceive the full nature of it. And just for that moment or two. This other stuff - the matrix simulation, superposition, elastic illusory time, and reality as a conscious projection - ends up coming across as cheap plot lines in comparison. Not even in the ballpark when compared to the truth that sits right in front of each of us.

Then, when you factor in the direct ramifications that exist, involving the beliefs and convictions that have developed within the collective culture of all human beings on this planet, and apply them to what exists as real and absolutely definable, you're slammed once again with a realization that's impossible to describe. The visceral reaction that I've seen to this breakthrough is kind of upsetting, but then I have to remember when I first realized it myself. I had a very hard time controlling my emotional reaction. It extremely powerful, and only hits you when you've suddenly realized that it's been completely verified and proven to be true. Faith is one thing. Being presented with absolute proof, requiring no faith whatsoever, is something completely different. It's like taking a full breath of fresh air for the first time in your life, and suddenly realizing what a full breath of fresh air actually feels like.

That said, it can be a bit intimidating as well. Especially when you fully realize the implications of what you've just discovered. Trillions of dollars have been invested in the reality narrative as it exists for humans on this planet. This breakthrough reveals it all as sophomoric at best and craven manipulations for the most part. When considering where the fundamentals of that narrative originated and from where these fundamentals are constantly reinforced, you can get a bit intimidated by the fact that you now know better.

So, go ahead and be dissident with your simulation matrix movie plot line if it makes you feel special. It doesn't really affect anyone but you, and we're all free to craft our own eternal lives while we're in this development stage. My agreement was to make the information available. Not to convince anyone of it. I'm holding up my end regardless of its success or failure.

I believe, the sub structure of reality, does not lie in the manifestation of an event , but in the purely conceptual possibility that it might.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Can you separate yourself from the event? Do you believe there is an event AND a you?

edit on 3-4-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

yes there is always the event and u, bc truth exist so there is always objective facts while u r a reality of too in absolute terms that relate existence reality with absolute freedom superiority terms, any individual move as a whole one u, make u realize ur individuality freedom still out of it

so any is at the same time absolute real with all reality of absolute freedom superiority but also individual freedom superiority alone
when that individual freedom superiority is positive still mind reality like in humans fact, then the mind is the event reality with absolute mind existence related to that absolute freedom of individuality superiority in truth
while u become out of it the free out of ur mind
that is why it is very important to b constant by being real objectively first as last, so u can keep being constant positive free back, in adding smthg objectively to ur own reality u protect urself back from else realities incursions, since u can b positive through ur own energy moves right in truth, while u can also keep meaning to b truly free

it is always the same truth, absolute superiority, that is why individuals are meant so existence can be really true when more then one absolute superiority freedom exist individually too

positive is absolute superiority
superior is absolute positivity

so individuality is from knowing that realizing how positive is same superior is the way of free existence still constancy, where there is no need to get through absolute objectivity but only for the relation with the whole existence in truth through objective realisations of else and others individuals rights too

what is positive is rarely absolute fact
what is superior is rarely absolute out

that is why the relation is constant ways, in all perspectives and dimensions of existence not only individually in subjects minds

there is always relative positive and relative superior, which also make the always of positive superior same constant fact

what matter really is the plus so true freedom out of truth, that is why what matter objectively is truth first

Originally posted by Netties Hermit
reply to post by NorEaster

 

It's been over two years of aggressively vetting the entire premise on a wide range of Internet portals, and it's survived brilliantly. Now it's time to start sharing instead of challenging.

It's been over seven months now since I've been reading your work and in some way I've been wanting to ... I was going to say "debunk" it but that's a bit of a harsh word. At least try to either corroborate or confute from the experience that I had.
But so far ... I got nothin.

I was wondering if, from all the research you have done into NDE's and OBE's, if you have found any cases to substantiate what you're putting forth here in this thread and maybe future ones. And by that I mean, a more 'scientific' NDE or OBE than white-robed deities, golden cities, representations of hell etc.

(Sounds like a good idea for a thread)

I've been doing some research into NDEs, and have discovered some fascinating correlations between the personality trajectory and the nature of the NDE (and OBE, if they do, in fact, exist as people claim). The premise is extremely easy to understand once you have established how the human mind works with the human brain, and almost seems like a no-brainer once you've realized that only 30% of people experiencing body and temporary brain death actually experience an NDE. I think it was that statistic that really made the connection crystal clear for me. I'd actually thought - originally - that the NDE was a standard experience when the brain's activity was shut down completely, but that's not true. The fact that there have been absolutely verified cases of true NDEs and that they seem to not be a default response to the shutting down of the brain, is evidence that the personality trajectory is in charge of whether a person has an NDE or not. That aspect of the mind being in charge is important for too many reasons to list here.

As far as the OBE, I spent three months (January, February, March) working to initiate an OBE, and worked with what's recognized as the best method available, with no success whatsoever. The sessions were done three times a week (as suggested) and involved emerging from naps (again, as suggested) with very controlled environmental settings. I've been hypnotized many times in the past and have even become extremely good at self hypnosis, and still, I did not have even the slightest hint of slipping the bonds of my mortal POV. I don't know. My youngest brother used to brag a lot about astralling around the universe and visiting heaven and all kinds of sh*t, but whenever I'd ask him to stop by and knock a picture off the wall (as proof) he'd dismiss me as an ignorant doubter. He died last June, and I still haven't had him show up around here yet, and I've provoked the crap out of the poor guy to try and force him to punch through.

My friend Rhonda, on the other hand, has made herself quite at home here, so it's not a case of my not being "sensitive" enough to discern him if he were to stop by. I just think that his imagination had him enthralled, and that enthrallment wasted years of important preparation time for him. Now he's no more capable in dealing with his new world than somebody who's never even bothered with the larger issues of human existence. That's the problem with being sidetracked or hoodwinked by myths and mysticism while you're still dealing with the corporeal realm. Ignorance is ignorance regardless of how it's dressed up. Inaccurate "metaphysics" is just as crippling as sheer, belligerent materialism once you've dropped the body and moved on. Neither prepares you for what's ahead.

Originally posted by rom12345
I believe, the sub structure of reality, does not lie in the manifestation of an event , but in the purely conceptual possibility that it might.

edit on 4-4-2012 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)

Clever line, but it doesn't stand up to examination. Besides, the emergence of the concept that you suggest is an event, so with that being the case, even the existence of that concept is predicated on the existence of the event of its physical emergence. It's really just that simple. The concept of possibility is an existent concept. It must emerge in order to exist. That emergence is an event. That event - therefore - is more primordial than the concept itself.

In fact, since you brought it up, the very first event was the establishment of the concept of nothing. Yes, it may sound like semantics, but only if you're wedded to a particle-based material world. If you've moved past that relatively ancient notion concerning material existence, and have embraced the fact that material existence is actually event-based, with particles being the most primitive layered event-trajectory manifestations that the human being has been able to detect with its technology, then the first-ever event becomes relatively easy to determine.

Physical existence requires relative identity (one thing identified as being unique from everything that surrounds it). If something can't be identified as being delineated from what surrounds it, it can't be said to exist as physical. This is simple logic, and very well established in literally every field of thought. The void - an absence of anything at all - had no identity at all until it was conceptually defined as being nothing. So, what defined it? The primordial qualifier - the yes-no determination that qualifies everything. We call it truth, and it involves the process of logical determination, which can involve extremely simple yes/no comparisons or exceedingly complicated Set Logic extrapolation structures that puzzle mathematicians and drive physicists right up a wall.

The definition of the absence of anything as the concept of nothing (not to elevate the word "nothing" to the status of a primordial actor, but I think you understand what I mean even if I do use the word "nothing" to communicate the emergence of a conceptually identified something as opposed to the absence of there being any identity at all - even conceptually - before that emergence) was the very first determination, and that determination was an event. That event caused the first fact cluster to emerge as permanent physical existence, reflecting the fact that this determination was occurring, occurred and then had occurred, and that it would always be true that it did occur.

The event itself was actually a very, very primitive event trajectory (as it is regardless of the size of duration of the event - see Holon Theory), and the event units involved (see Planck's Constant for a similar realization of the identical unit nature of action) had a very defined span of physical existence before being replaced by the next unit within that specific trajectory. That span of existence is what we refer to as "now". I call that span the Unit Rate of Change (URC), and this rate is the common clock that sets the immutable rate of actual time within a given reality confine. Change that rate, and you've launched a brand new reality confine that cannot be physically compatible with a reality confine that is based on a different URC.

When this first occurred, it established the very first reality confine. This was the actual moment of genesis, and required no conscious initiation by any universal mind. Just a very primitive default response that set off an endless chain reaction of similar default responses, with information fact clusters emerging to keep track of it all. You can imagine the enormous amount of fact clusters that have emerged since then, with all of them strictly structured in permanent contextual relationships with one another, and defining the "natural law" within whichever reality confine they exist within. Who knows which reality confine we exist within, or how removed from that original reality confine ours is, but we do know - due to what we human beings fervently believe about ourselves and our reality - that we definitely do not inhabit that very first reality confine.

Just a little going off here. Truth is that I find the genesis moment to be the most fascinating aspect of what I've discovered. It's so nonchalant and almost too casual, but when you really dig into it and try to kill it off as a reliable premise, it's pretty resilient. Much more resilient than the Big Bang Theory or an infinite God that explodes itself into uncountable bits theory, or even the Judeo-Christian-Islamic narrative that involves 6 days of work and a day of vacation. Of course, if particles are primordial for you, nothing works.

I find your concepts interesting, however the concept of emergence and that of an event, paradoxically requires the precedent of time. I am not sure how this can be resolved with any logic I may muster, but as we are all confined by the same information 'event horizon', I am not sure these matters can ever be described as 'quite simple'

I am still on the fence, as to where a concept requires to emerge following and event.
I am of the opinion that a 'possibility' may exist outside any temporal framework, and thus certain possibilities may never emerge.

Independent of any event, are abstract mathematical principles.
the square roots of −1
The concept of zero,( 0 ), the concept of enumeration (1...), the concept of difference (-) etc

I believe these to be systemic, and not emergent properties of reality.

I would imagine the most primordial concept to be self negating difference (not) ein sof
which by negating it's self can cause enumeration to begin. (not not)

This then offering a framework for time/space/matter/motion

reply to post by NorEaster


The dynamic processing of information you've relayed is commonly referred to as multiple personality disorder. Our brains create filters/ egos ahead of the subconsciousness to organize more effectively. In most cases the connections are seamless. For the less fortunate, those same filters/ egos stage a particular life of their own. In almost all cases the latter is brought on by extreme situations. The "reach" is a culmination of understanding often induced by the relaxation of giving where harmony receives a greater influx.