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.
Originally posted by bb23108
The findings that led to the Uncertainty Principle are certainly relevant to objective existence - as the experiments were conducted on an elementary or fundamental particle - considered to be "a basic building block of the universe from which all other particles are made" (Wikipedia: Elementary particle).
The Uncertainty Principle does point to the unknowability or paradoxical nature of one of the basic building blocks, so cannot be casually dismissed. I agree that such findings do not provide the necessary grounds for a complete theory of everything, but these findings certainly do point to the paradoxical nature of trying to KNOW what everything is, in our objective reality.
I think we need a very clear definition of "knowable". I am not talking about being able to predict the behavior or pattern of some "thing", nor simply describe it, nor even being able to know its exact chemical make-up, etc. I am asking you if you know what the "thing" itself IS? What it actually is, in reality - not just a very detailed description about it, its characteristics, patterns, etc. No such complete knowing is possible, and the Uncertainty Principle also supports this at a most basic level of objective reality.
Originally posted by NorEaster
I'm saying that YES I can specifically state that the actual sub-structure of physical reality is objective, constant, predictable, and knowable, and that I do believe that I have identified it and factored how it develops as default progression to what we know and experience as human beings. And this is why I launched this thread concerning how it might be that a person could objectively find out if they had "done it" or if they were hopelessly lost in the outfield.
Originally posted by NorEaster
As you must be able to appreciate, given our exchange, this is a possibility that one cannot simply assume to be true. It has to be challenged, and yet, after 4 years of ongoing challenge, it seems very much to be holding up as bullet-proof. I guess that I'm a little intimidated by the implications of what I may have done here.
I certainly appreciate your passion and well-considered thought processes relative to this. I still am unclear about what you are actually presenting as your total view of reality, though I did finally get a chance to catch up on your other posts in response to others, and see that you subscribe to Holon theory. I assume your insight into reality is an extension of this philosophy or theory?
Okay, if it is true and holds up to various challenges, can you actually prove it altogether or is it (or at least aspects of it) simply self-evident to you? I guess I will just have to wait to hear more about what you are actually presenting...
Right, that was my point - reality cannot be known, nor can even the simplest object be known exactly as it is. I never said that the limit is relative to reality - the limit is relative to knowing.
Originally posted by NorEaster
It has to do with being able to measure what is being observed. It has to do with the limitations that are inherent in observation. Not the structure of reality.
So this substructure has no atoms, no matter, no elementary particles of any kind?
Originally posted by NorEaster
The sub-structure of reality isn't a "thing" with a chemical make-up. You've proven here that we're having two distinctly separate conversations. Knowing the fundamental existential platform that all that exists rests upon isn't the same as knowing the minute details of every thing that rests on that platform. Who would ever insist that they know every minute detail of everything that exists. Who could ever mistaken what I've been discussing here with that sort of claim? The platform isn't the crap that's piled on top of that platform.
Okay, then I am still unclear about what you are actually proposing as truth.
Originally posted by NorEaster
It's not an extension of holon theory. Holon theory is the result of the existential imperative that is Identity Survival. I only referred to holon theory in relation to a question concerning Identity Survival. As an example of how much it affects how progressive development results in increasing complexity.
I am glad you got something out of our exchanges - they have been useful to me too. Are you saying you already have proven it altogether here somewhere that we can all read? If you don't want to elaborate, I understand - but if you already have proven something here and wrote it down here or elsewhere, I would like to read it (again). Thank you.
Originally posted by NorEaster
I guess that I honestly believe that I've already proven it altogether, and our exchange here has given me a lot of renewed confidence in (at least) my capacity for disciplined critical thinking. I'm glad I started this thread, and I'm glad you joined in to challenge me. I'm feeling better about my chances that I've actually cracked this nut, and I want to thank you for your help in putting me through a few paces here. I needed to know if I could manage a little pressure at this end of the premise without a crack opening up here or there. I work in solitude, and robust challenge is hard to come by.
Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by NorEaster
Right, that was my point - reality cannot be known, nor can even the simplest object be known exactly as it is.
Originally posted by NorEaster
It has to do with being able to measure what is being observed. It has to do with the limitations that are inherent in observation. Not the structure of reality.
So this substructure has no atoms, no matter, no elementary particles of any kind?
Originally posted by NorEaster
The sub-structure of reality isn't a "thing" with a chemical make-up. You've proven here that we're having two distinctly separate conversations. Knowing the fundamental existential platform that all that exists rests upon isn't the same as knowing the minute details of every thing that rests on that platform. Who would ever insist that they know every minute detail of everything that exists. Who could ever mistaken what I've been discussing here with that sort of claim? The platform isn't the crap that's piled on top of that platform.
Regardless, the example I gave still applies - can you actually know what any thing is? What it IS! Not just a description of it's attributes, but what it actually and simply, is.
If so, can you tell us exactly what something actually is? I am not asking for endless details - simply, what is it? No one can know this, but this consideration can give us at least a glimpse of the unknown, reality itself, when fully considered.
Also, are you talking about unconditional Conscious Light or Consciousness (not just human perception) as the "platform" in which everything arises and is a modification of? I haven't gathered that is what you are talking about, but what else could be without any chemical make-up whatsoever?
Okay, then I am still unclear about what you are actually proposing as truth.
Originally posted by NorEaster
It's not an extension of holon theory. Holon theory is the result of the existential imperative that is Identity Survival. I only referred to holon theory in relation to a question concerning Identity Survival. As an example of how much it affects how progressive development results in increasing complexity.
I am glad you got something out of our exchanges - they have been useful to me too. Are you saying you already have proven it altogether here somewhere that we can all read?
Originally posted by NorEaster
I guess that I honestly believe that I've already proven it altogether, and our exchange here has given me a lot of renewed confidence in (at least) my capacity for disciplined critical thinking. I'm glad I started this thread, and I'm glad you joined in to challenge me. I'm feeling better about my chances that I've actually cracked this nut, and I want to thank you for your help in putting me through a few paces here. I needed to know if I could manage a little pressure at this end of the premise without a crack opening up here or there. I work in solitude, and robust challenge is hard to come by.
Nor can I reach you, it seems. The question is simple, what IS any object in reality? We do not and cannot know this inherently. You seem to be saying that you do, but do not demonstrate it.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Again, you let my point slip right through your fingers. I'm sorry, but I obviously can't reach you here.
So this substructure has no atoms, no matter, no elementary particles of any kind?
Originally posted by NorEaster
The sub-structure of reality isn't a "thing" with a chemical make-up.
But you just said it has NO chemical make-up and now you say the opposite. These are contradictory statements, it seems to me. Can you explain this further? Edit: I am now assuming you are saying quanta are not part of a chemical make-up? But still I can ask you, what are quanta in reality? It is unknowable.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Of course not.
And now you are saying that the Holon theory is an essential part of your consideration - when I just asked you this, you said it was not or at least minimized its importance. It is no wonder there are at least two conversations going on here! In any event, this is an interesting notion.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Here's a small taste of what matter is. A particle is a entangled density of event trajectories that has developed as a means of each involved quantum unit of action pursuing Identity Survival within the largest holon structure presently available. I'll let you consider that small bit of reality, and imagine the implications it suggests. It's actually worth more than you might suspect, but I'll show it to you anyway.
That is not the Consciousness I was speaking of. You are only defining consciousness as an evolved characteristic, when I am speaking of Consciousness as the acausal infinite field in which all modifications are perturbations of Consciousness' own self-aware Light. It is unconditional, prior to all objective reality but not separate from it. Objective reality arises in Consciousness.
Originally posted by NorEaster
No such thing as primordial consciousness. That's putting the caboose in front of the engine.
No - Truth is simply Reality and is self-evident when recognized, and perfectly self-evident when realized.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Truth? Truth is a determination.
Okay, fair enough, and the best to you!
Originally posted by NorEaster
It will be available eventually.
Originally posted by TheomExperience
What is your take on the "uncertainty principle" where a wavelength becomes a particle when observed. You seem obsessed with scientific observations are you going to dismiss this also because it contradicts your last four years work which you are confident tells the whole story of all that has ever been and will be.
Originally posted by MoonSage
Just butting in to say that I am totally enthralled by this thread. So many mind blowing concepts & nerdy words...but I love it!
I am just an old crone...but my gut instinct tells me when I am wrong, although it is not verifiable to anyone else.
So, nevermind me, but I am following...
Originally posted by TheomExperience
reply to post by NorEaster
Not trying to upset you here but i have observed that you are working in a closed box and that is it. Not prepared to change the way you choose to see things.
Well, sweeping away my yet-to-be-answered questions with a statement like this, rather than fully considering them, simply tells me that you are also not comprehending what I have tried to share with you and/or perhaps avoiding them and their implications altogether.
Originally posted by NorEaster
I'm sorry, but you're not comprehending anything that I've tried to share with you.
Originally posted by bb23108
You do not know what even the most elementary particle IS, not to mention what anything more complex IS. This is not something scientists like to open up to - Sheldon Cooper would be appalled at such a statement!
Here's a small taste of what matter is. A particle is a entangled density of event trajectories that has developed as a means of each involved quantum unit of action pursuing Identity Survival within the largest holon structure presently available. I'll let you consider that small bit of reality, and imagine the implications it suggests. It's actually worth more than you might suspect, but I'll show it to you anyway.
Originally posted by TheomExperience
reply to post by NorEaster
Ok so back to the subject, in your experience have you discovered a fail safe? A way to know that your wrong?
Originally posted by NorEaster
Originally posted by TheomExperience
reply to post by NorEaster
Ok so back to the subject, in your experience have you discovered a fail safe? A way to know that your wrong?
No. I wish I could, but I haven't been able to find such a fail safe. It helps to have a theory challenged, and to be required to explain it in detail, but in this case, that would take hours of one-on-one, and with a professional logician who is also well versed in physics and neurobiology.
Originally posted by TheomExperience
reply to post by NorEaster
Ok so back to the subject, in your experience have you discovered a fail safe? A way to know that your wrong?
Originally posted by BlueApple
There is no fail safe. As far as we know. : )
That is the beauty and magic of being a thinking human being.
And the foolishness of having convictions about anything. We simply can't avoid theorizing about the world, but I think it's cuz we're meant to.... we just haven't unraveled the Mystery...
yet
Saying that, there are things you can do to keep your mind in check. And I think you have to revisit your beliefs over and over again and challenge them over and over again (in a real, meaningful way). It's also good to create your criteria by what amount and type of evidence you require to believe a specific point.
It's also just plain okay to be on the fence about something, maybe leaning toward one opinion but not giving in entirely. There isn't a ton of value to giving into a belief system so fully, you need to be willing to change it upon new evidence. That is your test, sort of.edit on 9-5-2013 by BlueApple because: (no reason given)