What is actually happening right NOW?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Light is light. Not a contradiction.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yet it is wave and particle simultaneously. Even Einstein acknowledged the nature of light to be a contradiction, yet he said that one complimented the other.

We've already talked about this before if I'm not mistaken.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

It behaves like a particle and wave, just like you can behave like a dog and a monkey. It's not a contradiction.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That doesn't mean I'm a dog or a monkey though does it? Light is both though. How can light be a dog and a monkey at the same time?

The computer you see is 99.999999% empty space, it is virtually non-existant. But there it is for you to see. That goes for the entire world and universe too. How can an empty room be full of furniture?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

That doesn't mean I'm a dog or a monkey though does it? Light is both though. How can light be a dog and a monkey at the same time?

Light is light. It behaves like particles and waves. That doesn't mean it is particles and waves, just like it doesn't mean you are a monkey or dog if you behave like a monkey or a dog.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The computer you see is 99.999999% empty space, it is virtually non-existant. But there it is for you to see. That goes for the entire world and universe too. How can an empty room be full of furniture?

An atom is 99.9% empty space. A computer screen isn't.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Your computer screen is made up of atoms.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The computer you see is 99.999999% empty space,

That's a gross simplification

it is virtually non-existant.

That's literally incorrect.

"Empty space" is filled with energy and virtual particles which apparently wink in and out of existence. Exactly what may be going on in the 'gaps' is yet to be determined, but empty and full are relative terms. If someone picks up the computer you see and klonks you with it, it'll relatively hurt.

a reply to: Andy1144

It does contradict. The intellectual explanation of it does. The experience of it is true however , because it is not a belief, but rather a direct experience of things. The self being an illusion is pretty obvious in science now. The experience of the computer is happening inside your experience, not separate from you. There is no subject perceiving an object, there is only experience of something.

The "self" science is speaking about as an illusion is the idea that a little observer in the head is observing experience, which is the exact same illusion you are trying to sell now.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Your computer screen is made up of atoms.

Then show me this empty space in the computer screen. Should be simple; after all it is 99% empty space.

Atoms have no discernible boundary. How can it contain anything if there is nothing to contain it in? Atoms are not like little balloons.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You just said atoms were 99.99% empty space yourself, your computer screen is made up of 100% atoms. That means your computer screen is 99.99% empty space.

How can I show you the empty space? That's exactly what I'm pointing out to you. Empty space is full of everything.

a reply to: yeahright

If the particles are virtual, they are not physically real, they are only conceptual. Virtually empty, virtually non-existent.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You just said atoms were 99.99% empty space yourself, your computer screen is made up of 100% atoms. That means your computer screen is 99.99% empty space.

How can I show you the empty space? That's exactly what I'm pointing out to you. Empty space is full of everything.

I was being facetious. You're pointing at a computer screen and saying it is mostly empty space. As I already said, an atomic radius is not some container in which space is contained. It only illustrates the distance of the electron cloud from the nucleus. It's like you're assuming atoms are like little balloons full of air all pushed up against each other.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm not assuming that at all. What I'm saying is that according to science atoms are virtually empty. I haven't said anything about atoms having boundaries, you assume that's what I believe.

According to science, what we see is virtually empty space. Yet... read carefully because this is the point I'm making... what we see isn't exactly empty space because it has substance. That's the contradiction.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

How can something be empty if it has no boundary? Simple question.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

How do the two correlate exactly? Are you saying that something with a boundary is empty space? Your question isn't making sense to me. Can you elaborate?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

How do the two correlate exactly? Are you saying that something with a boundary is empty space? Your question isn't making sense to me. Can you elaborate?

Take a basket of apples and empty out all the apples. The basket is now empty. Would you say that basket is now mostly empty space? Or is the basket the container?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

How do the two correlate exactly? Are you saying that something with a boundary is empty space? Your question isn't making sense to me. Can you elaborate?

Take a basket of apples and empty out all the apples. The basket is now empty. Would you say that basket is now mostly empty space? Or is the basket the container?

Well everything is made up of atoms, the basket and the contents therein.

What you percieve as a basket is how your mind percieves and defines it to be a basket.

At a molecular level, everything is just atoms vibrating at different frequencies.

As far as Science goes, atoms are just empty space, however we don't fully understand how this atoms hold together to form solid matter, depends if it has any meaning to you.

Knowing everything is atoms vibrating at varies frequencies, is sufficient to shift frequencies to attain substances that are of relevances to you as the perciever.

Hence, creating the reality as you prefer, as the saying goes.

Peace

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Ah, you could add that up close a billboard is hard to read, but when you back up it all comes into focus.
Just like the atom..... when you have many clumped together and you back up it appears to be solid mass (computer screen).

This is merely perception. Up close or far away they look different.
It is the measurement we are using to describe things.

I agree with you on most of what you said here, was just trying to help 'ya.
He's gonna use his atomic binoculars to explain how the basket was mostly empty all along.
But with a different measurement stick it was not mostly empty.

a reply to: Andy1144

Gotta disagree with some things here.
I am experiencing and thinking about how little the post makes sense, in the present, right now as I am typing. But my experience is different than yours because I have a very pretty girl smiling at me from across the room at this moment and this moment is different from yours. I see and experience this screen, the hot woman smiling, and my mind is processing the information in the now in my individual perception of the world.

As far as experiencing now.... We are always in the present, but as humans we have brains that remember the past and we can think about the future, and plan ahead to do things. Our brain is always working when we are awake.
But a little more into this subject... ever heard the term "living in the past"?
Post-traumatic stress disorder is quite about living in the past -- the remembrance of such an ordeal makes the person's perception of the world to actually be in the past. Also the smile you get when you remember your grandmother telling a funny joke many years ago, you are experiencing the past in the present by means of your brain's ability to remember.

Oh, and thoughts can be used to describe the here and now - that hot chick still smiling has me wanting to ask for her phone number so I can see what my future will be like with her (if any). She's hot [that's a thought and my brain is telling me that being close to her would be a nice feeling ]