Why so many people–including scientists–suddenly believe in an afterlife

reply to post by windword

Okay. However, the pyramids that are stuck in the sand, like in Egypt and other places around the world, have 5 sides. I don't know of any that are tetrahedrons, but maybe...........

pyr·a·mid
ˈpirəˌmid/Submit
noun
1.
a monumental structure with a square or triangular base and sloping sides that meet in a point at the top, esp. one built of stone as a royal tomb in ancient Egypt.

Now we can stop arguing semantics and get back to the actual topic. Especially seeing as how the post leading to this conversation wasn't directed to you and I have established that I do in fact know what the hell I am talking about. I don't mean to sound snarky; however, I do grow impatient of arguing a pointless argument. Particularly given that it could have derailed a conversation I deem to be of far more value and interest than the one I am about to end.

As the French so eloquently put it: Fin.

reply to post by Serdgiam

And therein lies the location of one of the more interesting rabbit holes I have found...

Study of a stellated octahedron (lets call it two interlocking three sided pyramids) and two interlocking four sided pyramids.

I have never seen a Merkabah composed of four-sided pyramids, nor have I heard of one. That's because the math only works with 4 sides and not 5.

AfterInfinity
I have never seen a Merkabah composed of four-sided pyramids, nor have I heard of one.

I have yet to use the term Merkaba due to its connotations It would be speaking about something different.

That's because the math only works with 4 sides and not 5.

Correct. Its up to those so-inclined whether or not they wish to look into it more. I would say its quite pertinent to the topic at hand. However, reaching that stage, if starting from "zero," is not an overnight thing. Patterns are the foundation of what we explore with science.

Merkaba or not, there just might be some connections.

reply to post by Serdgiam

I have yet to use the term Merkaba due to its connotations It would be speaking about something different.

It is based on the same principles that define the tetrahedron. It simply goes deeper. If I may ask, what connotations are you referring to? I know of nothing which would detract from its validity, particularly given how easily examined it is.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


The connotations are simply the different cultural interpretations that have happened over the centuries.

While it is referring to the same "shape," I prefer to look at it in terms of math and patterns, how those math and patterns relate to physical manifestation, and how the processes may apply to as yet unknown fields.

Exploring a topic using the same ideologies and patterns set forth by current and past interpretations will lead, roughly, to the same place. Using personal interpretations on the concepts (rather than the contexts) may lead to a different understanding of the pattern. It is using an individually unique pattern (my/your brain functions) to ideally find a new way to look at things rather than solely focusing on how others have done the same.

reply to post by Serdgiam

While it is referring to the same "shape," I prefer to look at it in terms of math and patterns, how those math and patterns relate to physical manifestation, and how the processes may apply to as yet unknown fields.

As do I. To describe it as a "fascinating study" does it no justice.

Exploring a topic using the same ideologies and patterns set forth by current and past interpretations will lead, roughly, to the same place. Using personal interpretations on the concepts (rather than the contexts) may lead to a different understanding of the pattern. It is using an individually unique pattern (my/your brain functions) to ideally find a new way to look at things rather than solely focusing on how others have done the same.

There's a reason we don't just copy and paste. We discuss.

AfterInfinity
There's a reason we don't just copy and paste. We discuss.

Indeed, but I seem to see that most discussions taking place are based on perspectives that have been copied and pasted by the brain itself.

Getting a bit OT now though.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Now we can stop arguing semantics and get back to the actual topic.

Semantics are important when discussing esoterics and metaphysics, as opposed to huge stone monuments.

Especially seeing as how the post leading to this conversation wasn't directed to you

Hey! This is an open forum. I have every right to interject.

and I have established that I do in fact know what the hell I am talking about.

I don't think you do!

I don't mean to sound snarky;

Yes you do. I have not been rude to you.

however, I do grow impatient of arguing a pointless argument.

Until we're in agreement that we're talking about the same thing, how do you know that my input is pointless?

Particularly given that it could have derailed a conversation I deem to be of far more value and interest than the one I am about to end.

You mean your very heady conversation about static electricity?

The "Tetrahedron Model" is a model of the devolution (asymmetric transformation) of light (free electromagnetic energy) into matter (bound electromagnetic energy), that is, of the relationship between the two forms of electromagnetic energy which constitute our Universe.

The "Tetrahedron Model" revolves around the conversion of light into matter and vice versa, as regulated by four conservation laws: the Conservation of Energy, Entropy, Symmetry, and Causality. These four conservation laws underlie the formulation of any Unified Field Theory.
www.johnagowan.org...

The Four Worlds of Kabbalah

Kabbalah relates the Merkabah vision of Ezekiel and the Throne vision of Isaiah (Isaiah 6:1-8) describing the seraph angels, to its comprehensive Four spiritual realms.

Merkabah mysticism

The God of the Bible isn't a "Trinity", it's a "Tetrahedron"! In this thread entitled "Why so many people–including scientists–suddenly believe in an afterlife", and since you're the one who brought up the Merkaba, the 4 letter name of god and the importance of the "pyramid" and all, I thought it might be pertinent, in a scientific and mystical sort of way.

reply to post by windword


To add on to that;

Quark behavior is quite interesting in that we currently know of a few "courses" of action. Top, bottom, left, right, charm, and strange.

How do the thread participants here feel those could be related to these geometric shapes, if at all?

reply to post by Serdgiam


I've been able to wrap my head around the numbers 1,2,3 and 4 and how they beget each other, and how, theoretically, this system creates matter, but I haven't really been able to grasp quantum behavior other than to suppose some "intention" that precedes creation.

reply to post by windword


I don't understand what you're continuing to argue. I have proven that I was right from the beginning in calling it a pyramid, which was the sole basis of your complaint. Not that I'm really at all interested in being "right", more that you insist on making an issue out of a nonissue.

Actually, a pyramid has 5 sides. One side is hidden from view, but it exists.

A tetrahedron has only 4 sides.

This was your original objection. I have proven it incorrect, in the quote definition defining a pyramid as having a square or triangle base. Do the math. I am done humoring you.

reply to post by windword


To be fair, I dont think anyone really "grasps" quantum mechanics. All we can do is share our interpretation!

And also to be fair, that "charm and strange" (ostensibly the five and six) have very, very interesting characteristics.

The top, bottom, left, and right seem straight forward enough. But, for me to apply them to these geometric shapes, it is easier for me to change the semantics to "north, south, east, and west." They do not align with these universally, but it is just a personal semantics change. The charm and strange tend to throw a "spin" on things ( ) though.

If we were to look at a wire carrying electrical current, it could be aligned along the spectrum of NSEW. In this, the "spin" of the magnetic field could be looked at as the charm and the strange. In a basic sense, it is 90 degrees out of phase. And, imo, has a base framework that is demonstrated by phi, or the golden ratio. However, this can change according to different variables.

So, perhaps we could look at it as a square pyramid, where the four corners represent NSEW, and where the peak represents either charm or strange. If a line is drawn 90 degrees to the bottom of the pyramid (perpendicular), charm/strange could simply refer to the direction of travel (floor to tip, or tip to floor). This could be attributed to the material universe (the one based in space-time).

Now, if we add in another of the same shape, such as in a stellated octahedral, perhaps this could be representative of the relationship between the medium of space-time, and whatever is "outside" of the bubble/torus of space-time. In this, the NSEW are 90 degrees out of phase with the physical, however, the "charm/strange" still runs straight through essentially "connecting" both sides.

This is kind of the "shape" that I see as the relationship between the magnetic and electrical fields of our perspective. Specifically in the stellated octahedral, the six points could point to the foundation that our senses evolved from, and the top point and bottom point could be representative of the "tie" that connects it together in a charmingly strange way.

At least, that is how I might relate the geometric shapes and quark behavior. And yes, I am aware of the flip flopping between a square pyramid and a three sided base pyramid.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by windword

 

I don't understand what you're continuing to argue. I have proven that I was right from the beginning in calling it a pyramid, which was the sole basis of your complaint. Not that I'm really at all interested in being "right", more that you insist on making an issue out of a nonissue.

I never had a complaint. I just made an observation and a correction. I don't know why you're so offended by it.

Actually, a pyramid has 5 sides. One side is hidden from view, but it exists.

A tetrahedron has only 4 sides.

This was your original objection. I have proven it incorrect, in the quote definition defining a pyramid as having a square or triangle base. Do the math.

There is nothing incorrect in stating that a tetrahedron only has 4 side. A pyramid can have many sides and there are many kinds of pyramids.

This is what you said:

The 4-sided one you just mentioned. I call that a pyramid, because it looks like one. Stick it in the sand and there isn't any real difference between it and the ones you see in books and around the world.

This^ is incorrect, and the basis of our misunderstanding. The pyramids in Egypt have a square base and 4 walls, equaling 5 sides. That is NOT a tetrahedron and not representative of the kind of pyramid being discussed.

I am done humoring you.

You haven't been humoring me. There's no need to be rude!

The tetrahedron is the basis of Jewish mysticism, not the pyramids of Egypt.

reply to post by windword


Dude. A freakin' tetrahedron qualifies as a freakin' pyramid. What about this are you not getting?!?!?!

And no, this was the beginning of our argument:

Do you know what has four sides? A pyramid.

Actually, a pyramid has 5 sides. One side is hidden from view, but it exists.

A tetrahedron has only 4 sides.

You stated a pyramid has five sides, which assumes a pyramid must have a square base. Which is incorrect according to the definition I posted earlier. It may, but it doesn't have to. Our argument escalated from there, building on your assumption. Are we clear now?

Can we please set aside the differences and try the discussion in a bit different way?

I know we can do it, and I think we all might be able to walk away each day from the conversation a little bit more curious instead of a little bit more set in our ways.

Just a question from another thread participant.

reply to post by Serdgiam


If you have something you want to discuss, by all means, share it. I was merely attempting to clear the confusion, albeit with some difficulty.

reply to post by Serdgiam


Hmm, the stange and charming forces that cause the universe to bend, perhaps, rather stay straight. The cause of the golden ratio....?

I like to do a meditation in which my feet are firmly planted atop a photon and my goal is to "surf the savuyah" in a straight line. Inevitably, I wind up circling some thought.

I think that the tetrahedron can represent the transfer of dimensionality, from the 1 point, 2, to a line, 3, to a triangle and 4, through attraction, the three point snap together and meet in the 4th dimension. Thus, creating the first basic 4th dimensional particle.

Quantum particles, it seems to me, are below the 1st dimension of "a point", and exist in a negative dimension, as do our thoughts. Therefore, in my mind, there must be some attraction in quantum mechanics that impinges on and affects other dimensions.

reply to post by windword


So how would a tetrahedron change to reflect five-dimensional reality?

This?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


The cube is the next object that represents the diminsion in which we reside. Now, with the cube, for the first time, we have up, down, north, south, east and west. 6 sides. We don't reside in a 4 sided reality or a 5 sided reality.

reply to post by windword


That's not what I asked. And yes, we reside in a 4 dimensional reality.

reply to post by windword


What I think is neat about the direction this thread is unfolding.. is that we are starting to discuss the actual processes and avenues that may be in place wherein these experiences are carried out. I absolutely love that! Because, its not necessarily a matter of if these things happen, its "how." If they dont happen, then there is no reason to have a discussion in the first place. If they do happen (life after death, and the other topics that invokes), then they have a process and pattern which can be explored.

You bring up a really interesting point, and that is "Where is the quantum taking place." The easy answer is simply "its the building blocks, what happens at the very small scale," but I am hoping you get where I am coming from on that question.

You place them:

"Quantum particles, it seems to me, are below the 1st dimension of "a point", and exist in a negative dimension, as do our thoughts."

I love that you say "negative dimension," and this is much along the same lines as my thoughts lead me. Not in the sense that it doesnt "exist," but more that it is an inverse function that is directly tied to the "positive," or what I see as the medium of space-time.

I think when we are looking and quantum interactions, we are looking just outside of the medium of space-time. That sentence alone has some very interesting implications, if its "true." I think what we are seeing is like a ripple along the surface of water. When it is still, it is a flat line. But, when a ripple occurs (due to various things), the surface tension has crests and troughs that exist above and below that original flat line.

I think this is essentially the same thing we see in quantum mechanics. Its simply the ripple between two mediums. The biggest difference is that one medium is space-time, and the other isnt. Which would be quite different from the change of mediums between air and water (keeping with the same analogy). And, I think its those major differences that are the "cause" of the various anomalies that we see when looking there.

In that though, if its an arena without space-time (and therefore relativity), it would not only encompass the space-time, but would pervade every bit of it (the all and the nothing, so to speak).