Breaking free of delusion

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
deceit
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:04 am

Re: Breaking free of delusion

Post by deceit »

Jamesh wrote:
Deceit: How are you not sure that this Universe isn't cyclic and has already died a great many a deaths an rebirthed
Where would it go to?

At the same time, as everything is in a constant state of movement and change, all content rebirths constantly with different form.
Theres no point in me trying to even bother to Guess unless I meditated on it for some amount of Time and became a Yogi and some Source told me so.

But i'll try :)

It could become a Singularity by essentially getting to a point where it implodes on itself and reduces back to its original form. But thats just one Hoo Har against the many. I dont profess i know Im just merely flirting with the idea. Maybe Jack here does know?

But I imagine that it's more than likely the case that something exists outside of this Universe. I've seen a really eye opening documentary that hinted at the suggest of MultiVerses which lay flat in this Gigasmic SUPERSPACE Plane. Essentially giving birth to the idea of infinite universes.

But thats the thing. Space doesn't exactly quantify itself. Scientists theorize that inside Black Holes Time no longer exists. Similarly within other mediums space isn't space as we measure it? Is it possible that in a SUPERSPACE plane Universes could exist as they are like Stars in our Sky.

It's kind of like discovering yourself. It always seems to keep you guessing, learning and appreciating just how immense and infinite you and the world around you is. Gives more sense to the term Infinite.

Give it 30 years.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Breaking free of delusion

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:You don't understand a single thing about him or why I and others reject his theses. Did you not understand what I said about his failed epistemology? Do you not realise that his "theories" fail at every level to be demonstrable? This is a man who invented - literally invented (i.e. made up) - a particle that is necessary for his story, one that cannot be shown to exist and will never be shown to exist and that he doesn't have the foggiest idea how to demonstrate - and then he names it after himself. No, there's nothing at all wrong with Pincho's mind.
You and others reject his theses because you reject anything and anyone that dosn't share your view[s]. So what, if Pincho makes up his own interpretation.... most , if not all scientific theories are not proven as facts either.

His theories ARE demonstrable. Everything IS holes and fillers [literally form & space].
He is rejected because he is not a scientist with a degree....only a creative person, trying to take on what is normally never done by laymen....comming up with theories of the Universe...

I am defending him, because I respect his will to inquirey, and freedom of speech and mind [not harming and verbally abusing others], his spirit of freedom to think as he pleases [again without malace or ill-will towards others].

I would think a wise scientist would be amused and more light-hearted towards Pinchos' enthusiastic and creative interest in physics [ he also stated Enlightenment is to understand physics]. In that light-heartedness and openness, real communication and learning can begin. To use ad-hominems, will block any hope of learning/Enlightenment, in communication with another human being.


But we can only tolerate what we have patience for. I know too well, that my own patience runs short with some people in my life.

Anyways....hopefully something was learned by all this.
I have nothing but gratitude towards Pincho for sparking more interest in physics.
And I respect him for his talent as an artist too.


"To the poet, to the philosopher,
to the saint, all things are friendly and sacred, all events profit-
able, all days holy, all men divine."

Emerson


_/\_
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Breaking free of delusion

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kunga wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:You don't understand a single thing about him or why I and others reject his theses. Did you not understand what I said about his failed epistemology? Do you not realise that his "theories" fail at every level to be demonstrable? This is a man who invented - literally invented (i.e. made up) - a particle that is necessary for his story, one that cannot be shown to exist and will never be shown to exist and that he doesn't have the foggiest idea how to demonstrate - and then he names it after himself. No, there's nothing at all wrong with Pincho's mind.
You and others reject his theses because you reject anything and anyone that dosn't share your view[s]. So what, if Pincho makes up his own interpretation.... most , if not all scientific theories are not proven as facts either.
My my, we have quite the crush, don't we. A scientific Theory is built on demonstrated facts. I think you mean "hypotheses".
His theories ARE demonstrable. Everything IS holes and fillers [literally form & space].
That is not a scientific theory or hypothesis of any kind! It's nothing more than a rhetorical device.
He is rejected because he is not a scientist with a degree....only a creative person, trying to take on what is normally never done by laymen....comming up with theories of the Universe...
He's rejected by those who have an education in actual science for two essential reasons: 1) he doesn't really know any science and merely cherry picks stuff that appears to have relevance to his Story; 2) he does not follow any of the epistemic protocols that makes something scientific. I don't know how many times I have to make that point before it sinks in. He's having fun, basically, and that's swell, but he's a dick along with it.
I am defending him, because I respect his will to inquirey, and freedom of speech and mind [not harming and verbally abusing others], his spirit of freedom to think as he pleases [again without malace or ill-will towards others].
Your belief that he does not abuse others is ridiculous.
I would think a wise scientist would be amused and more light-hearted towards Pinchos' enthusiastic and creative interest in physics [ he also stated Enlightenment is to understand physics].
Yes, he said that, and it's stupid. Paul's interest in "physics" isn't scientific, for the love of God!
But we can only tolerate what we have patience for. I know too well, that my own patience runs short with some people in my life.
There are some things and some attitudes and mentalities that ought not receive much patience because the person interprets this as encouragement. Paul needs to be encouraged to think about the philosophy of science, but then he doesn't care, so it's a waste of time.
Anyways....hopefully something was learned by all this.
I have nothing but gratitude towards Pincho for sparking more interest in physics.
And I respect him for his talent as an artist too.
Well, that's all fine. By all means have fun over there with him.
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Breaking free of delusion

Post by Tomas »

Kunga wrote:Are you more concerned over what people would think of you if you began to understand his theories ?
I actually can see his logic, and he explains what he is talking about with examples that are simple & logical.
I enjoy and learn from Pincho also. Too bad Dan is (or should I say can be) wound so tight (the lack of patience).
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Breaking free of delusion

Post by Tomas »

Dan Rowden wrote:Actually it's word salad, but look, you're welcome to the notion that there's nothing wrong with Pincho's mind just as he's welcome to the view that the dinosaurs died out because gravity changed. Go start a fan club.
Gravity did change the makeup back then when the earth was hit with a celestial object of some sort. It knocked the earth into a different orbit (or different axis) perhaps 50,000 (maybe a million or two) miles further from (or closer to) the sun.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Breaking free of delusion

Post by Dan Rowden »

Tomas wrote:
Kunga wrote:Are you more concerned over what people would think of you if you began to understand his theories ?
I actually can see his logic, and he explains what he is talking about with examples that are simple & logical.
I enjoy and learn from Pincho also. Too bad Dan is (or should I say can be) wound so tight (the lack of patience).
Your learn what from Pincho? Seriously, exactly what?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Breaking free of delusion

Post by Dan Rowden »

Tomas wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Actually it's word salad, but look, you're welcome to the notion that there's nothing wrong with Pincho's mind just as he's welcome to the view that the dinosaurs died out because gravity changed. Go start a fan club.
Gravity did change the makeup back then when the earth was hit with a celestial object of some sort. It knocked the earth into a different orbit (or different axis) perhaps 50,000 (maybe a million or two) miles further from (or closer to) the sun.
I see you're an each way punter, Tomas.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Breaking free of delusion

Post by Jamesh »

Deceit
It could become a Singularity by essentially getting to a point where it implodes on itself and reduces back to its original form.

But I imagine that it's more than likely the case that something exists outside of this Universe. I've seen a really eye opening documentary that hinted at the suggest of MultiVerses which lay flat in this Gigasmic SUPERSPACE Plane. Essentially giving birth to the idea of infinite universes.
Well infinity is a certainty. As something exists then infinity exits.

The board founders are correct in using the term The Totality to get over the usurping of the word universe by scientists seeking fame. The phrase the totality means there can be no outside, nothing external.

Personally I find the concept of nothingness as impossible. For me, nothingness, including a nothingness from which the universe might grow into from a singularity is simply logically impossible. It is not possible to cause a nothingness or to un-cause a nothingness. A vacuum is not a nothingness, it just has minimal observable properties, minimal form relative to other things, but it still has multiple properties
Everyone makes the mistake of thinking that a first cause is necessary for existence. Initial causes are necessary only for particular forms we have identified to arise, the content and the freedom to arise in the first place, however does not require "first causes", it requires a constant cause. Any particular form is not inherent and thus does not permanently hold anything of its own making, content however is inherent and holds the power of causality. Newton's Laws of Motion express this causality process in a relative sense within a closed system (a closed system must have a start and finish and is bounded and thus not infinite).

My Law of Time :) explains (to a degree) this content and causality on an infinite basis. In the past I have made certain statements much like Pincho makes, but I was making the mistake like he clearly does of abandoning causality. It is not good enough to say 1 + -1 = O or that hole and filler particles just exist because they do. Anything with multiple properties, ie properties able to be observed or measured by scientific tools, must have a prior causal environment for this form to arise.

My theory is simple as. I’ve redefined Time as being expanding “energy”. To me it is the cause of the observable effect that is causality. Self-expansion is both engine and content, including the content that is space.

Time is the only true constant cause that must exist everywhere at once, it must be intrinsic to all content so as to be a factor in all form changes.

This energy is indescribable. It does not have properties that are divisible into different things, thus we are unable to observe it (it is however divisible by itself). One could say expansion is the action of self-evolution from non-dimensionality to dimensionality and that time is descriptor for “active dimensionality”. In other words, from a bottom to top viewpoint, time is first non-dimensional time, then space + ongoing time (aka spacetime).

There is a sense in which things of matter could be called “less dimensional” and the more dense the form the smaller the space occupied, the less dimensionality there is. It is interesting that since indicate that matter eventually falls/collapses into spatially minute black holes. Things are less dimensional as they are an overlapping of spacetime – more divisible form is contained in a lesser spatial area. Spacetime however is naturally of maximum dimensionality. Overlapping spacetime creates form (electrons microscopes show massive relative empty distances between each sub-atomic thing- what would ever better microscopes show – the same ad infinitum perhaps).
Space doesn't exactly quantify itself.
Under the current science paradigm, if spacetime is intrinsic then it must quantify itself. This would be the supposed Higgs boson from Higgs field process. I have a different view as outlined below in a few ad hoc posts I’ve made this year.

====================================================================

Time is actually the only "real" thing that does exist.

Why?

It is the only thing that could possibly qualify as being infinite.

Space could be thought of as infinite, but it is actually a coincidental by product of time.

Why is Time the only possibly for the term infinite?

It is that which logically must have always existed, it is without beginning and without end - thus is outside of the idea of a first cause.

To be infinite means to be endless, not bounded by anything else.

In other words the definition of the word infinite itself requires that which
is infinite to be "all there is".

As there is something, then by default the universe (or I prefer The Totality) must be infinite. The universe in its totality did not pop into existence from a timeless state.

What does time do?

Time is self-expanding pre-dimensional "space-energy". It is essentially a "plane of nothingness" that expands on an omni-directional basis. It is not really nothingness, but it only has 1 property - it expands - so in an observational sense it will always appear as if it were nothingness (we can only observe things that can be divided as it is by division into multiple parts that we sense things).

How Does Time become Things

The very act of Expansion creates differentiation. As Time expands on an omni-directional basis, that means it is expanding everywhere both outwards and inwards at the same time. This is where is at its most fundamental, where it stems from. That portion of Time that is expanding inwards we call Gravity.

What is "internal" is always lesser in expansionary power as the "newer" time expanding outside of it is limiting the speed of the outwards expansion. This creates a pressure imbalance, where almost instantly the internal pressure overcomes the inward power of times expansion and the perfect expanding Time circle bursts like a balloon (little big bangs and big big bangs happen everywhere at some point). There is only one true law of nature – The Path of Least Resistance.

This process happening everywhere, forever, causes an eternal time "soup" where time of varying ages reforms with different mixtures of time than before. The first level of the differentiation heirarchy is Space, which is pushed around by everything already existing - it curves and overlaps across all size scales. Then via evolution (the path of least resistance), this overlapping eventually gives us the spectrum of properties of things we can observe.

This process is all that is needed to create the immensity of the universe. But you require the continuous expansion/structural fracture/contraction to get any size whatsoever. Contraction is the overlapping of time planes that appears as if it were contraction, it is not true contraction. That is why atoms contain so much expansionary energy - why an atom converted to energy by fracturing
will take up so much space (as per E=MC2 where C2 represents the post
conversion space required for that mass).

The so-called first cause is always the current cause. It is Time's expansion that creates the power behind forces. Continuous expansion is the universes infinite battery. Times arrow is caused by this continual expansion - it is always pushing outward (creating more thingness) and inwards causing change within.

If you begin view Time as The Cause rather than as everyone seems to view it, namely, as a non-existent effect, as just a measurement relating to observed change, then you can get a very good grasp of how the universe works without needing the very much overly complex science. This theory does not reject anything science has observed, it just rejects false conclusions such as time commencing when The Big Bang occurred.

========================================

No, it does not have to be electromagnetic energy, it just has to be self-expanding “energy”. Self-expansion is the only property the universe needs. With anything that self-expands, as in creates more of itself, it immediately creates the fundamental differentiation required for relativity and it creates the energy for causality to occur. It requires no first cause, being The Cause, and thus is infinite in a pre-existing sense, a future sense and a hierarchical universe sense.

Fundamental differentiation – newest is “bigger” than not than what is the preceding newest, but not bigger than all that precedes newest. This is the core differentiation, lacking the introduction of division.

Expansion – Not describable as it is too fundamental, however I use the term Time to refer to this affect. Time is observed to run at a set but relative rate. Time must pre-exist and permanently exist for change to occur. Causality is meaningless without the assumption of time. Time is a sort of physical nothingness, which a singular property thingness would also be until the inclusion of relativity.

Energy = expansion + pressure.

Flow – Where energy is less bounded then that is where it will shift to equalise internal pressure.

Division – As what is not newest is also expanding, that expansion is bound by what is newer, ad infinitum. This creates internal pressure that builds up over time, until eventually the internal expansionary “energy”, exceeds that of it’s “shell”, the shell only being that expansion that is newer. This is the Big Bang effect – one that happens constantly on different scales. This fracturing of the shell causes “energy” whirls, where it has changed from a uniform pattern of differentiation to a mixed pattern of energy flow.

Space – A mixed energy flow is a change from a 3 dimensional expansionary sphere to a more flattened 2 dimensional existence and as a result creates planes of existence. Space is the totality of these planes.

Things – Interwoven space.

Relativity – Expansion always results first is the growing out from a centre in all directions. It is spherical and has a floating centre, not of gravity, but of the brick wall caused by internal expansion. It is unable to expand into that centre it can only expand outwards and around the centre (causing spin, once in a relative state). Once the shell is fractured, then that becomes a second level of differentiation and a division from what is not in a fractured state. This has always existed so relativity has always existed – there was always a past that was lesser than now.

Evolution (of matter) – the result of the above.

========================================

People view the universe incorrectly. The universe grows from the outside in, as well as the inside out. Science sees everything as growing from the inside out (ie a big bang).

Atoms, black holes etc are regressions from the present – they do not grow from inside via quantum strings and gravity, they merely recede observationally from the present as in a russian doll scenario.

View galaxies as whirlpools – it is the ocean that creates the whirlpool.
The first cause is a continuous cause. All everything is is time creating more of itself from itself alone. Galaxies are expanding away from each other only because in the relatively empty spaces between galaxies, time’s expansion is less bound (less relativity, less equalisation, less static) than for things of matter such as suns and planets.
deceit
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:04 am

Re: Breaking free of delusion

Post by deceit »

Oooo!! I was tired a moment ago but you've managed to spike the hairs up on my head. Thats impressive because I have a massive FRO! haha!

Jamesh wrote:Personally I find the concept of nothingness as impossible. For me, nothingness, including a nothingness from which the universe might grow into from a singularity is simply logically impossible. It is not possible to cause a nothingness or to un-cause a nothingness. A vacuum is not a nothingness, it just has minimal observable properties, minimal form relative to other things, but it still has multiple properties
I suppose that you should not give too much credence to the whole "Logically Possible" in a realm where anything is Possible even the Impossible . Take the Laws of the Universe. They are unfathomable in their creation and existence. The fact that these Law's where created and somehow harmonize is imponderable. So nothing Could create nothing. 0 + 0 = 1 .'. 1+1=3 .'. Father + Mother = Son+Mother+Father.
Jamesh wrote:My theory is simple as. I’ve redefined Time as being expanding “energy”. To me it is the cause of the observable effect that is causality. Self-expansion is both engine and content, including the content that is space.

Time is the only true constant cause that must exist everywhere at once, it must be intrinsic to all content so as to be a factor in all form changes.
Today I was intrigued by Tesla's idea that Time does not exist. As everything is in Motion constantly Time doesn't have to exist. For example everything around me is in a constant state of change why is Time the cause of this?

What is responsible for the process of human ageing. Is it Time? Time doesn't actually age me. hahaha.

What does age me is the wear and tear of daily toil. Its the fact that my genes are designed for me to reproduce at a certain age and I have a certain lifespan. It's the effect of all the daily flux's of the world that eventually recede my physical body. My body is constantly in a state of Change.

And sometimes I look around and it certainly doesn't look like much has changed over the past 100 years ;)

Could Time so to speak be a man made measuring stick? Or would we have to boil down to some serious maths and physics.

I think your idea of non-dimensional Time could be something similar cause it does appear that everything is in one Motion moving together. (no such thing as forward in time). But I could definitely see Time dynamic in different circumstances ie its not A Constant.
Locked