The Truth About Matter and the Material World

page: 8
15
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by absolutely
 


as if we didnt get it the first time,

as if this is my second line,


yea like evil oness, knowing that u cant possess what u get makes u want to kill what exist really for any invention of possible possessions

my point was to prove that existence is rights, freedom rights and truth rights
do individuals realisations values and objective absolute realities values




posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by absolutely
 


i understood everything but this part "do individuals realisations values and objective absolute realities values"



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by absolutely
 


i understood everything but this part "do individuals realisations values and objective absolute realities values"


individuals realisations values are out of absolute freedom rights
objective absolute realities values are out of absolute truth rights

the issue u never get, since getting for u is possessing so no way u could get the sense of getting as else right

and since truth is out of everything and everyone realities, then even if some dont ask for their rights truth force all to it



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
What is the substance of experience?

youtu.be...


Experience is the translation of perception. When ruminated upon, it is the translation of a previous translation of perception. It's not factual. It's completely subjective.



Does this mean that everything, every experience, is subjective and not factual?


If it is an experience, and not just a simple, "garden variety" event (meaning that the event is a perception-centric translation that involves a corporeal brain as the translator, and not a much more objective-centric event that is not a translation at all) then the specific event in question is an experience and not just an event. The truth is that while all experiences are events, not all events are experiences. Just as all ATSers are human, but not all humans are ATSers. This is a distinction that is important to note and keep in mind when trying to understand the distinction that you're trying to make with your question.

That distinction established, the answer is that while evetry experience is subjective, not "everything" is subjective. In fact, all events that are not experiences (as I've defined experiences here) are factually represented as information, and even experiences (as I've defined them here) are factually represented by residual information "fact clusters" once they have occurred. These residual fact clusters (representing subjective experiences that have emerged via the corporeal brain's interpretation of perception as the event that it is) collect within the involved brain's "memory cloud" as associated survival data that exists specifically for that brain's use. To explain exactly how this occurs would require a completely new thread dedicated to the information/event survival symbiosis process, and that's a hell of a digression to entertain - and one that would likely confuse and/or bore the hell out of most people here.

The take away here is that information - at a strictly primordial level - exists in two very different forms (due entirely to the emergence of the corporeal (material) brain. One form is Residual (raw fact representing occurrence and change that is occurring, and eventually adjusting in contextual relationship with the established reality structure to representing what did occur - of course, due to the nature of time) and the other form is Dynamic (actively configured survival directives produced by the corporeal brain to enable DNA base protocols to be effectively and efficiently translated into ongoing dynamic survival responses that are required to successfully manage the kinds of super-sophisticated extended corporeal enterprises that have developed within the material realm - like dogs, cats, Homo Sapiens, and who knows what else has evolved into material existence on whatever planets that also contain intelligent material life within this reality confine or any other reality confines)

Both forms of information "mass" (collect in-kind) under strict contextual association protocols, with "authoring identity" the principle commonality in all massing actions. Residual Information is "authored" as a default response within the reality confine itself, so the confine (contextual environment) is the "author". This is not true of Dynamic Information (DI), since it is the specific brain that authors it. Since this is how DI is authored, then only Dynamic Information from that one specific brain masses in-kind (based on authoring identity, of course) resulting in each DI mass to be contextually isolated from all other masses of Information - Residual and/or Dynamic.

In the case of massed DI that has collected and isolated after being authored by a corporeal human (in our case, Homo Sapien) brain, the resulting DI mass is self aware and conscious. This contextually isolated DI mass is the human being. We call it the soul, the human spirit, and several other names. This is information, even if it isn't data or facts based, and is therefore not subject to a half-life or material degradation (it's information, not material in physical nature) so it is as eternal as fact-centric information. That said, it is self aware, conscious and completely dynamic due to the fact that it was created by the brain to act as a dynamic facilitator within the corporeal body to manage the system and overall survival responses on behalf of the DNA directives that existed to ensure the survival of the corporeal body as a whole.

It was never intended to persist beyond the immediate requirement of the corporeal body's survival, but as information it simply cannot cease to exist. So, it collects as the brain creates it burst-by-burst, and persists as an identified existential whole within the reality confine, trying to understand what it is.
edit on 4/7/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


perhaps its factual in that,, its is recognized as an event which is occurring in reality,, but subjective because the experiencer is not even able to know how he ought to view this experience in its totality,, he is not let in on all the information available,, he hardly knows what he is. he is left to bounce around his perceptions back and forth in his mind, judging everything he can, or some things, or nothing, new things, a few things,...its subjective , in that this person was born with no personal views of reality and its constituents, and now after experience, this person has created a personal map and key, and personality, to weave his way through this world and time.
edit on 6-4-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Excellent.

There ends up being two very distinct versions of information that emerge from each perception-interpretation event. One version is Dynamic Information, which is 100% incapable of anything but ongoing perception translation, and the other is static, factual, and while directly associated with the brain responsible for its emergence (while that corporeal brain exists, of course) belongs completely to the contextual environment (full reality confine) that the event itself occurred within. When that brain dies, this information remains as part of the environment's Informational Continuum as raw fact. It never changes, itself, but the brain it was specifically associated with (as part of that brain's "memory cloud") has ceased to exist - changing that information's contextual relationship with it, of course. The Dynamic Information mass (see my extended overview in the post above) is affected by the death of the brain in a very different way that will be the subject of my next thread, focused on Information. I may grab some of this stuff for that thread too. There's a lot of pretty good information-related subject matter in this "material" thread already.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


"It was never intended to persist beyond the immediate requirement of the corporeal body's survival, but as information it simply cannot cease to exist."

i have a hard time understanding why the subjective information contents of a temporal material creature ( human) is so much more important and deserving of eternal existence, then the subjective information an ant or rat acquires in its material existence, about its family and traits, and smells, and sense of direction,, or the information of a computer,, if a computer is inactive or destroyed, does the totality of information accessed by that computer drift off into the informational realm?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 




Okay, that does it. "Subjective objectivity"? Yeah, right. You're just goofing on the whole subject....


Hell, it's miles more valid that the horsesh*t that you've been ballbusting with here. Especially that last attempt at esoteric elitism. Subjective objectivity? That's where you outed yourself

Hey NorEaster,
The poster that brought this up is actually right ....there is a Subjective Objectivity. I too have had glmpses and moments with such a state.

Best I can explain it is this way.
You operate on the level of mind. You think you are that mind functioning in that body. That's it.

Eventually somewhere along the line, you read some philosophical/spiritual material that brings your subjective perspective bubble into question.

So you start to inquire. You are aware of thoughts and aware of the thinking process. You later realize that since you are aware of thoughts, you are no the thoughts. So who is this "Awarer of thoughts?"

As you investigate this Awarer or source of Awareness(for some weeks, for some years, for some a few minutes to realize), you come this center of yourself, which seems to be Pure subjecticviy without content without thought.

Later on, you find that this Pyre Subjectivity is not merely bound by the body (as the mind once thought) so using this new found faculty (which has actually been there the whole time) you begin to investigate more of what this awareness consists of, what is the source of this Awreness, and where is its home.

Upon further investigation, eventually this Awareness (real you) seems to drop into an Ocean of Objectivity. Where there is no reference point, and yet everything and everywhere is a reference point. It is the Ultimate experiential paradox. You can't know this with the mind, but you can experience this with Awareness, for this State is the source of Awareness. Prior to mind and prior to Awareness... this Objective Infinite State exists.

And so an experiencer of said state, thought they are no longer in this Oneness and can;t directly know it, are somehow merged within like a drop of water merged with an Ocean. It is the subjectivity of a drop of water experiencing the objectivity of an Ocean.

Yet this Oneness is not Bound. It is in everything and everywhere almost like Air, yet it itself is self aware from all points and from no points at all. So in a sense it is like "Subjective Objectivity".

Imagine if you will, the point of atoms. There is still space between them. Now imagine the space between the atoms itself. That space doesnt have any points of space between itself, or is there any separation in that space so there is no separate atom having its own existence. We can even find this in Bose-Einstein condensate when they take atoms down to absolute zero and they turn into strings and they pop in and out of existence and are everywhere at once. This has been certified by labs to be so.

Well this state they are popping in and out of is a unified Objective Oneness like all perspectives equally at the same time, the space between all things. This can be experienced subjectively by a person.

It is true and when others discuss this it is not hogwash. Even though the experience itself is entirely beyond words, you have to experience yourself to know it first hand. If you dont experience it yourself, or at least first handedly take the steps to get to the experience, then you are merely a hypothetical theorist living in a world of concepts, while those who have tasted this are folks who have experienced trth and first hand wisdom of such realities.

Battle and cry about it all you want trying to define how this is not possible by basing all your arguments within the confines of logic and reason and the rules and principalities that mankind has invented and is limited to. What we are discussing as experiencers of this state, is that this state has always been, is and will always be prior to what you conceptualize about it, completely beyond and transcending your concepts about it, and will remain as something real long after you and your arguments are long gone and dead.

Taste it for yourself first. Thats what I did and it destroyed everything I once thought was true. Subjective Objectivity is a real Phenomona and there are quite a number of folks backing it. Get with the program. We discussed this years ago on ATS and you are still fighting against it for some reason



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 





posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus

Hey NorEaster,
The poster that brought this up is actually right ....there is a Subjective Objectivity. I too have had glmpses and moments with such a state.

Best I can explain it is this way.
You operate on the level of mind. You think you are that mind functioning in that body. That's it.

Eventually somewhere along the line, you read some philosophical/spiritual material that brings your subjective perspective bubble into question.

So you start to inquire. You are aware of thoughts and aware of the thinking process. You later realize that since you are aware of thoughts, you are no the thoughts. So who is this "Awarer of thoughts?"


This is the mind. The "observer". The "music" of the brain - if one reaches for an apt analogy for how the brain works as being akin to how music is produced by the musical instrument, but is not the instrument itself any more than the instrument is the music.


As you investigate this Awarer or source of Awareness(for some weeks, for some years, for some a few minutes to realize), you come this center of yourself, which seems to be Pure subjecticviy without content without thought.


Let's suggest that you translate your perception of an experience that you've had as being this arrival to your center. Seriously.


Later on, you find that this Pyre Subjectivity is not merely bound by the body (as the mind once thought) so using this new found faculty (which has actually been there the whole time) you begin to investigate more of what this awareness consists of, what is the source of this Awreness, and where is its home.


Again, this is a personal interpretation of a perceived indication.


Upon further investigation, eventually this Awareness (real you) seems to drop into an Ocean of Objectivity. Where there is no reference point, and yet everything and everywhere is a reference point. It is the Ultimate experiential paradox. You can't know this with the mind, but you can experience this with Awareness, for this State is the source of Awareness. Prior to mind and prior to Awareness... this Objective Infinite State exists.


Perceptions and translations aside, I have no idea what you're trying to describe here. That it exists is your belief, but that is - again - your translation of a perception that you had. Nothing more.


And so an experiencer of said state, thought they are no longer in this Oneness and can;t directly know it, are somehow merged within like a drop of water merged with an Ocean. It is the subjectivity of a drop of water experiencing the objectivity of an Ocean.

Yet this Oneness is not Bound. It is in everything and everywhere almost like Air, yet it itself is self aware from all points and from no points at all. So in a sense it is like "Subjective Objectivity".


The English language has failed you, These 5 sentences mean literally nothing at all.

I'll try a 2nd reply for the rest of it, since there's no room left if I try to go on from here.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Okay, now where were we....?



Originally posted by dominicus
Imagine if you will, the point of atoms. There is still space between them. Now imagine the space between the atoms itself. That space doesnt have any points of space between itself, or is there any separation in that space so there is no separate atom having its own existence. We can even find this in Bose-Einstein condensate when they take atoms down to absolute zero and they turn into strings and they pop in and out of existence and are everywhere at once. This has been certified by labs to be so.


Ill need a link to verify that you know where such research is located on the Internet. That "popping in and out of existence" thing has become challenged as an inaccurate interpretation of the data, but let's not get lost in that digression.


Well this state they are popping in and out of is a unified Objective Oneness like all perspectives equally at the same time, the space between all things. This can be experienced subjectively by a person.


Again, that whole popping in and out idea isn't really well established, nor does it have very many defenders - certainly not as many as you'd think if you only ran into the notion here and nowhere else. Some refer to it as junk science, but there are theories that suggest better interpretations of particles "winking in and out of existence". In this thread I've proposed a much better theory myself, but go on....


It is true and when others discuss this it is not hogwash. Even though the experience itself is entirely beyond words, you have to experience yourself to know it first hand. If you dont experience it yourself, or at least first handedly take the steps to get to the experience, then you are merely a hypothetical theorist living in a world of concepts, while those who have tasted this are folks who have experienced trth and first hand wisdom of such realities.


Experience is the translation of individual perception. It's subjective. Not objective.


Battle and cry about it all you want trying to define how this is not possible by basing all your arguments within the confines of logic and reason and the rules and principalities that mankind has invented and is limited to. What we are discussing as experiencers of this state, is that this state has always been, is and will always be prior to what you conceptualize about it, completely beyond and transcending your concepts about it, and will remain as something real long after you and your arguments are long gone and dead.


Quite a suggestion, and from what I'm seeing, this is the crux of your personal biscuit. You had an experience, and you believe in that experience. Fine. Whatever. That's wonderful, and good for you. It was, however, your experience, and not objective reality. I'm sorry, but that's the nature of experience. It's a translation of what you perceived. Translation is subjective and so is perception. Two subjective stages of an observational event do not equal one objective truth, and I'm not interested in what it takes in linguistic convolutions to "prove" that it does.


Taste it for yourself first. Thats what I did and it destroyed everything I once thought was true. Subjective Objectivity is a real Phenomona and there are quite a number of folks backing it. Get with the program. We discussed this years ago on ATS and you are still fighting against it for some reason


You go ahead and guzzle that swill. I'm all set. The term objective doesn't work with the term subjective, and that's the nature of the language that we're working with. I'm a writer, and have been a poet for decades. I know the language. Your attempts to make this discussion esoteric have been entertaining, but in the end, you've provided nothing but opinions and 1st hand accounts of psychological adventures that you've taken. They sound fascinating, and sometimes I wish I was prone to such adventures, but that's just not how my own brain is wired, I guess.

If something is not pervasive and completely woven into the very fabric of common experience, then it takes a lot more than cumbersome purple prose to convince me that it's authentic - let alone primordial. Subjectivity exists, and can be readily produced. Objectivity is also readily available, without a lot of whatever it takes to have a transcendent experience. Each is diametrically opposed to the other, and combining the two isn't like mixing black with white and finding gray. It's like mixing yes with no and cancelling out the entire determination. Like combining left with right and, in the end, going nowhere at all.

It sounds like it must be interesting to be you, though.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



This is the mind. The "observer". The "music" of the brain - if one reaches for an apt analogy for how the brain works as being akin to how music is produced by the musical instrument, but is not the instrument itself any more than the instrument is the music.

An instrument is not the music, it is more a medium for it. One can play beautifully or horridly, but the instrument itself is neutral. So to w/ Awareness which is neutral, and in front of that awareness could be neg or pos or complete redirection by letting go and staying awareness itself.


Again, this is a personal interpretation of a perceived indication.

As I traverse my own path to reconciliation, wholeness, & the Absolute Truth along the way I come across experiential sign posts. After the fact, I research them and find that others on this quest have also past these sign posts, hence verifying my own subjective experience as something substantial & verifiable.


Perceptions and translations aside, I have no idea what you're trying to describe here. That it exists is your belief, but that is - again - your translation of a perception that you had. Nothing more.

Yes its true that in retrospect my translation is filtered through a set of beliefs, mind, culture words and so forth, but by no means was the direct experience merely a perception but again something verifiable that One can go back to, can show others how to get there, and written about throughout history.


Ill need a link to verify that you know where such research is located on the Internet. That "popping in and out of existence" thing has become challenged as an inaccurate interpretation of the data, but let's not get lost in that digression.





Again, that whole popping in and out idea isn't really well established, nor does it have very many defenders - certainly not as many as you'd think if you only ran into the notion here and nowhere else. Some refer to it as junk science, but there are theories that suggest better interpretations of particles "winking in and out of existence". In this thread I've proposed a much better theory myself, but go on....

Again, see vid above. Prior to that Bose & Einstein theoretically proved mathematically that this would happen in said conditions.


Experience is the translation of individual perception. It's subjective. Not objective.

By default if something is subjective, we need to consider its opposite. Objectivity also exists as its own realm, its own thing so to speak. Who are we to say that we are incapable of experiencing the opposite of subjective?


Quite a suggestion, and from what I'm seeing, this is the crux of your personal biscuit. You had an experience, and you believe in that experience. Fine. Whatever. That's wonderful, and good for you. It was, however, your experience, and not objective reality. I'm sorry, but that's the nature of experience. It's a translation of what you perceived. Translation is subjective and so is perception. Two subjective stages of an observational event do not equal one objective truth, and I'm not interested in what it takes in linguistic convolutions to "prove" that it does.

Well of course anyone who was to experience objectivity has no other choice but to describe said event in a candy coated wrapper of subjectivity. There is no other way to say it or tell other than a perspective Gun. But in no way does "describing it subjectively" in anyway discredit that it was in fact Objectivity that was experienced.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   


You go ahead and guzzle that swill. I'm all set. The term objective doesn't work with the term subjective, and that's the nature of the language that we're working with. I'm a writer, and have been a poet for decades. I know the language. Your attempts to make this discussion esoteric have been entertaining, but in the end, you've provided nothing but opinions and 1st hand accounts of psychological adventures that you've taken. They sound fascinating, and sometimes I wish I was prone to such adventures, but that's just not how my own brain is wired, I guess.

Nothing personal, but your decades of poetry comes with the possibility that you live within the confines of grammatical rules and styles that you may feel can't be broken. The way it is, is that everyone exists within their own subjective programmed bubbles. When that bubble is burst and you have no rules, no filters, no confines, no prejudice, then a that state you are closer to a state which all of reality is In. Reality is not in a subjective bubble and it all exists prior to what we think of it, prior to how we take it all in, and completely beyond what are limited senses are able to comprehend. We can only hear, smell, see, feel, know within certain limits and it is scientific fact that sounds exists beyond what we are capable of hearing, same with frequencies of light, and so on.


If something is not pervasive and completely woven into the very fabric of common experience, then it takes a lot more than cumbersome purple prose to convince me that it's authentic - let alone primordial.

Everything we know with our modern day world, was at a certain time in the past an unknown. Many of today's "knowns" were brought about or discovered by one person somewhere who history shows over and over again, had an up hill battle to add to our collective database. Someone once predicted in the 1800's that the future will have horse-less carriages and was labeled a heretic and lunatic. And now we laugh at those folks who considered him a lunatic, as our reality contains these magical carriages.


Subjectivity exists, and can be readily produced. Objectivity is also readily available, without a lot of whatever it takes to have a transcendent experience. Each is diametrically opposed to the other, and combining the two isn't like mixing black with white and finding gray. It's like mixing yes with no and cancelling out the entire determination. Like combining left with right and, in the end, going nowhere at all.

How AWESOME is this last quote above? This is exactly how it is. I searched for this truth, and at the end of the day it was right here in front of my nose and included me and everything else in it, and at the same time there is no me in it.



It sounds like it must be interesting to be you, though.

Totally!!!!! While since childhood, this realm and reality always felt not right and artificial and this feeling came from somewhere deep within again prior to the mind. It has been a quest to figure out what exactly is going on and to escape what I have always deemed as an insane world with death, war, disease, rape, murder. The opposites of those of course are great things in themselves, but it has come down to the question of "Is enlightenment real? DOes God exist? Can said God be experienced being that some say he is infinite, omni-present, etc etc" Not just go to "said religions house of worship" and be a good boy. But more so, "Let's see if I can experience this for myself"

And thus far it is proving to be real and I am finding many others that correlate what I myself taste of.

At the same time its interesting to be you. Your trying to wrestle with what I have presented and I can see how it destroys all your rules and its like I can see your thought process in all this. You to come with all your pre-programmed baggage (perspective bubble) as we all do, and I'm all about popping that, as I myself had mine popped by others and have never been the same since.

All of these Bubbles thinking they "know" and yet right in front of our faces, everything lays bare naked and obvious.
edit on 9-4-2012 by dominicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by NorEaster
 


"It was never intended to persist beyond the immediate requirement of the corporeal body's survival, but as information it simply cannot cease to exist."

i have a hard time understanding why the subjective information contents of a temporal material creature ( human) is so much more important and deserving of eternal existence, then the subjective information an ant or rat acquires in its material existence, about its family and traits, and smells, and sense of direction,, or the information of a computer,, if a computer is inactive or destroyed, does the totality of information accessed by that computer drift off into the informational realm?


The "generated" dynamic information from any corporeal brain persists in the same manner that the dynamic information from the human brain persists. There's no difference as far as the eternal nature of it. All information is eternal in nature. What is different is that the dynamic information that emerges as a result of the human brain is aware of its own existence and has the capacity to examine that awareness. This one difference is what makes the human being what it is. We are the Homo Sapien version of human being. There are other versions. The best way to look at it is like this...

The violin instrument, when played, generates music.

The Homo Sapien brain, when tasked with managing the survival of the corporeal whole, generates the human being.

That's a pretty good analogy of the relationship between the Homo Sapien hominid and the human being. The violin doesn't generate music that you'd get from a piano. It generates music that you'd get from a violin. Likewise, a Homo Sapien brain can only generate the kind of human being that such a specific brain can produce.

If (let's say, for sheer example and for no other reason) dolphins have been self-aware and planning and ponderous all along (in their own way of being so, of course), then their brains would be generating dolphin versions of the human being, and it may even be true that the Homo Sapien version of the human being, in the eternal realm, will be able to communicate with the dolphin version of the human being. Not that either would necessarily seek the other out - what with there being so little to connect the two once the material bodies have been cast aside.

Of course, we Homo Sapien humans will always "see" ourselves as being unique, but it's the brain's ability to use its residual "memory cloud" to reflect, ruminate, emote, examine, ponder, and intellectually initiate that makes us human. All other corporeal brains that are fully capable of this are also human, even if their version of human isn't readily recognizable to us.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus

At the same time its interesting to be you. Your trying to wrestle with what I have presented and I can see how it destroys all your rules and its like I can see your thought process in all this. You to come with all your pre-programmed baggage (perspective bubble) as we all do, and I'm all about popping that, as I myself had mine popped by others and have never been the same since.

All of these Bubbles thinking they "know" and yet right in front of our faces, everything lays bare naked and obvious.
edit on 9-4-2012 by dominicus because: (no reason given)


I'm not actually wrestling with what you've presented. I've run across this before, and it wasn't a struggle then either. I think you'd be surprised at just how far outside all the established boxes I actually sit. If you do a post search on me, you'll discover soon enough that what I've discovered isn't very compatible with anything that's ever been published, let alone embraced by baggage programmers. My point of focus is between the raindrops, anchored only on the primordial drivers and qualifiers, and allowing them to show me how progressive development was pulled along and reality was shaped by relentless default along the way.

You and I are positioned at the extreme opposite ends of the human being's whole reality spectrum. You inspect it as it emerges as expression, and I examine it before it begins its journey through the mind. Each point of focus has its own inherent value, and neither is more valuable than the other. The value is determined by how the revelations are applied. In this thread, the focus has been on extremely primitive and fundamental sub-structure tenets. Not on extreme experiences in human perception. Frankly, that sort of thing has nothing at all to do with primordial reality anchors, so to be honest, the only thing I'm wrestling with is why you felt that this thread was the right place to make your presentation.

Maybe you should author a thread about your alleged mastery over existential dichotomy. Hell, why not. I'm sure that there are plenty of folks here that would be eager to share how they transcended similar restrictions and baggage. You could all have a convention or something. Even sell t-shirts.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


There are a lot of ideas in your post, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that you have ended the debate on material existence. You neglected to mention that with Planck's discovery of "h", that it opened the door to a world of Indeterminacy and Probabilities that completely violate the laws of causality that constitute our daily perceptions.

I would also like for you to define "matrixed linear trajectories" as well as how they can co-exist with orbital trajectories, as they as very different as I understand them, but maybe there is something I am missing.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirrormaker326
reply to post by NorEaster
 


There are a lot of ideas in your post, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that you have ended the debate on material existence. You neglected to mention that with Planck's discovery of "h", that it opened the door to a world of Indeterminacy and Probabilities that completely violate the laws of causality that constitute our daily perceptions.


I haven't ended any debate on material existence. I've offered the event unit as the indivisible, identical basis of material existence. The ramifications that evolve aren't part of my examination. Depending on the contextual environment, I can imagine a lot of plausible potentials developing. Keep in mind that point of perspective can cause anomalies to appear when working with perception (which is what we're working with, regardless of the tools we use). Pulling back from a previous point of perspective can broaden the whole and reveal the contradictions to be consistencies that were too large to perceive from such a close point of observation.


I would also like for you to define "matrixed linear trajectories" as well as how they can co-exist with orbital trajectories, as they as very different as I understand them, but maybe there is something I am missing.


An atom - if we're working with the classic structural model, of course - consists of orbiting event trajectories (the electron(s)) and the linear trajectory of the atom's span of physical existence as a composite whole. Add a bunch of them and all those orbital event trajectories and linear event trajectories grouped together as a linear event trajectory (the span of the group's own existence as a gathered identified whole) and you've got a "matrixed linear trajectory". If you sketch it out, you'll see what I mean.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



This isn't a philosophical exercise. This is the way reality is, and why you perceive it the way you perceive it. I'm posting this so that I can refer to it whenever I get into a debate concerning reality and the issue of perception versus objective reality.


What kind of proof would you accept as directly countering your ideas?
edit on 11-4-2012 by rwfresh because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join