Materialism

[webolife]

I've been away for jury duty... you guys sure talk a lot!!!

webolife wrote:
"To be or not to be, that is the question." By the way, try randomly altering even a single jot of that sentence to make it more "viable" or functional.


To be or fot to be, that is the question.
To bp or not to be, that is the question.
To be or not to be, that is the quention.
So be or not to be, that is the question.
To be or not to bc, that is the question.
To be or not to be, that is the auestion.
To be or ntt to be, that is the question.
To be, or got to be, that is the question.

But Alton, you totally missed my point! 7 of your 8 statements are junk, grammarically.
The last one doesn't make sense! None are more viable or functional by any English rules or allowances than the original statement. And the words in this example are about as simple as you can get. Yet the materialist's "natural selection" mechanism for evolution of life requires that every alteration in the DNA code represented from bacteria through humans and all biodiversity be viable, and ultimately, consecutively, more viable that the previous "code". How can you actually see this as "causal"?

[altonhare]

I've been away for jury duty... you guys sure talk a lot!!!

webolife wrote:
"To be or not to be, that is the question." By the way, try randomly altering even a single jot of that sentence to make it more "viable" or functional.


To be or fot to be, that is the question.
To bp or not to be, that is the question.
To be or not to be, that is the quention.
So be or not to be, that is the question.
To be or not to bc, that is the question.
To be or not to be, that is the auestion.
To be or ntt to be, that is the question.
To be, or got to be, that is the question.

But Alton, you totally missed my point! 7 of your 8 statements are junk, grammarically.
The last one doesn't make sense! None are more viable or functional by any English rules or allowances than the original statement. And the words in this example are about as simple as you can get. Yet the materialist's "natural selection" mechanism for evolution of life requires that every alteration in the DNA code represented from bacteria through humans and all biodiversity be viable, and ultimately, consecutively, more viable that the previous "code". How can you actually see this as "causal"?

From my perspective, you're missing the point, so let's see if we can both get on board here.

If each statement that isn't "junk" grammatically persists (stays around, doesn't fall apart, etc.) then surely with enough coin flips I would produce all possible combinations of letters that are not "junk"? Of course I don't have to do only single letter substitutions, I can do whole word subs, switches, etc. The point is, those sequences which are "viable" are defined as those that persist i.e. stay around.

The last sentence is entirely viable and functional. Whether it is "more so" is entirely a matter of opinion. Is an earthworm "more viable" than streptococcus or is a grasshopper "more viable" than both? The point is there are some specific arrangements that persist and some don't. The last sentence makes sense in English and it's meaning is fundamentally different. It may not sound as "poetic" *to you*, but someone who learned English as a second language may not appreciate Shakespeare. They may not see any difference between the "got to be" and "not to be" other than the defined meaning.

Every alteration has to be viable? What are you talking about? We make one that's viable and it replicates itself (one of the definitions of viability I believe). If it makes a trillion copies and 500B are altered such that they are now "junk grammatically" they die. Then if 500B-1 don't change they hang around. Then if 1 changes from "not" to "got" then we have a new organism. It replicates itself and we have a trillion "to be or got to be" now.

Of course the numbers are all completely made up. The point is that the "nonviable" sentences just fall apart. The viable ones replicate. The viable ones that change such that they are nonviable don't replicate and eventually fall apart. The viable ones that change such that they are still viable also replicate, a different viable sentence than before.

[altonhare]

Grey Cloud,

So when you said this:

You are looking at the problem through a modern Western lens (i.e. one with an Abrahamic tint). You assume that there are three entities involved: Man, Universe and Creator. What if there is only one entity involved - the Universe? (This latter is the way I currently view things).

you meant something like this?:

You are looking at the problem through a modern Western lens (i.e. one with an Abrahamic tint). You assume that there are three entities involved: Man, Universe and Creator. What if there is an entity involved - the Universe, from which life/man is/are constructed from its constituent entities? (This latter is the way I currently view things).

And was my interpretation/depiction of what you were saying (the undulations) a fair one?

[junglelord]

Wow, I don't see any difference. What are you splitting, hairs?


If your going to get married, you better learn to put a fix on that way of thinking, just you wait and see what changes concerning how words get crossed....LOL. The man of silence is the man of power in a marriage, ask Homer....DOOH.


Love you brother, hope you enjoy the grandchildren, mine is just perfect.
The most material thing I ever experienced, a clone of my daughter.

[altonhare]

Wow, I don't see any difference. What are you splitting, hairs?

You don't know the difference between "only one entity" and "one entity plus others"? Instead of "proposing my own definitions" maybe the dictionary helps:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/only

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/one

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/many

[klypp]

You don't know the difference between "only one entity" and "one entity plus others"?

Yup, JL, you should have seen that!
You cannot just look at the universe alone - you'll have to take into consideration all the other entities!

Oh well, I can understand your mistake. I was also thinking the universe comprised all entities - until altonhare came along...

[junglelord]

I think its priceless, like chinese food. The personal "insights" with word gymnastics to some how seperate oneself as unique from anyone else. The Illusion that your actually an individual and somehow seperate from the space around you. That this collection of single cells is somehow due to its consciouness perpetuating a veil to keep you procreating.
The mystery of what life is all about is not found in being seperate, it is found in being whole. You do however need to seperate yourself to become whole. The dual self the mirror-mind, is the true identity and the whole. Your own revelations will be individual, but psychidelics and some sweat lodge and some sacred ceramony and journeys into the wilderness will enlighten you to no end....and not a speck of cereal, milage may vary.

[webolife]

Not sure what Klypp and JL are getting on about...
Alton, the issue of viability is key here. For each generation to perpetuate itself, any and all alterations must be "viable".
The organism doesn't have the luxury of reproducing altered forms 1000 times only to have all but one of its alterations lead to nonviability. As Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins, et.al. like to say, life on earth has proceeded through many extremely LUCKY steps. The likelihood of even a single left-handed protein with a code capable of reproducing itself could arise from a random collision of chemicals, even given the presence of those chemicals to begin with, has been variously calculated or estimated at 1 out of a number many billions of times greater than the sum of all atoms in the universe.
Sorry, that just doesn't fly with me as a good causal explanation. And 1 out of 1000 is a generous "give" considering no such alterations have ever been confirmed, only assumed.

[junglelord]

Left Handed Symmetry

PASTEURIZED UNIVERSE

Basic physics determines the laws of probability must be preserved. Crystals and molecules can be found in two mirror image forms, but these mirror images exist in equal measure --adhering to the laws of probability.

However, Pasteur had uncovered a startling anomaly. In living tissues, amino acid populations are entirely of one mirror image only. Amino acids in tissues invariably have a left-handed twist. That's like tossing a coin and having it come up heads virtually every time.

Imagine you stood in front of a very special mirror. In this mirror --as with a normal mirror-- when you raise your left hand, the image holds up its right hand. Suppose the special mirror could also mirror your amino acids, twisting them to the right --not the left.

That mirror must exist. Take our coin tossing analogy again. If I am tossing and getting heads only, then there must be somewhere a poor schmuck throwing tails only. Otherwise the laws of probability are broken. Those right-handed amino acids have got to be out there somewhere. No wonder Pasteur was intrigued. This issue was the first to enthrall him as a young scientist.

Now, our creation branes are somewhat of a mirror. The two membranes have mirrored topographical features, but they are not the same. One holds matter and energy, the other an unknown "dark energy." Could the "dark energy" brane of the cyclic model be the elusive mirror where the missing right-twist amino acids are to be found? You bet it could. This is getting curiouser and curiouser, as Alice might say in Looking Glass Land. Let's find out exactly what is on the other side of that mirror.




THE INFOLD OUTFOLD


A common mirror is strikingly similar to two adjacent creation branes. A mirror has two planes --the front and back of one sheet of glass. One side of the glass is silvered to produce the reflection, the other side is clear. Similarly, one of the creation branes matter, the other is "dark energy." By carefully examining the mirror process, we can discover how hyperspace and space-time to interract with each other.

First, let's take a closer look at ideas about infolding and encapsulation. The vacuum of empty space is not empty at all. It is full of scalar potential. Scalar means: order the unordered. This hyperspace potential is all around us; inside every part of space-time The universe is like a vast hologram, where every part contains the whole universe.


Enlarge


Here is a simplified model of the interaction between the complex brane and the space-time brane. As soon as the planes make contact, one plane infolds into a circle, encapsulating part of the other plane in a point inside. Then mirroring and counter-flows take place, the precise of which will be explored in a forthcoming article.

From the space-time perspective, it seems the hyperspace plane has infolded invisibly inside space-time But on the hyperspace side, the mirror reverse is happening: the space-time plane is outfolding into hyperspace, but in a diffuse fashion. This infold/outfold mechanism is bi-directional. And what seems infolded on one side is actually outfolded on the other.

When the Star Trek 'Enterprise' engages hyperspace drive, it does not really rush away at super-light speed as depicted on TV. Rather, It infolds, disappears and then unfolds elsewhere in space. In nature, a tree infolds it's structure into a seed, drops it to the soil below (the event horizon), and the seed outfolds into a new tree.

The fertilization of the ovum is also an infold/outfold process. Point-sized 'hyperspace' sperm infolds into the space-time circle of the ovum. Later, a child outfolds back into space-time.

Notice how the eye is similar to a womb. The eye and brain also operate by infold/outfold. The eye infolds space-time data into the brain where it outfolds into hyperspace. How? The vibrations of molecular bonds on proteins in the brain, resonate with the hyperspace around which they are wrapped. No wonder the brain can store so much and process it so fast --It has access to a storage/processing medium as big as a universe.

The brain works like a reverse tree. In the brain, sense data attach to a tree structure, which then grows backwards --shrinking to a point, thus expanding into hyperspace.

The mirror is also like an eye, in that it too focusses to a point. We can arrange a pair of mirrors so that they show a cascade of images diminishing to a point in the mirror distance. So, the back of a mirror is like the back of the eyeball, and like the matter creation brane. All three have hyperspace on the other side.


THE EYE IN THE SKY

On the other side of the mirror, the dimensions look the same as our own.
All seems properly to scale.

But, not always. The mirror world is only a true duplicate if the plane of the mirror is perfectly flat. When mirrors are curved, they transform the appearance of the mirror world. And when mirrors have complex curvature they entirely alter the picture. Just as mirrors can alter reality, quantum oscillators between the branes can do the same. As can black holes in space.

Here's how. A hi-fi speaker is an excellent model for comparison. The cone and membrane in the speaker vibrate (forward and back only) based on the modulations in the transmission from your favorite radio station. Now, imagine a membrane that not only moves forward/back, but can swivel up/down and left/right as well.

A Celestial Radio Station: in 1998 Draza Markovic and Frederick Lamb of the University of Illinois discovered wobbles in the inner part of the accretion disk that rotates around neutron stars. This Lense-Thirring precession is caused by dragging of inertial frames around a rotating mass. The wobble modulates the stars' X-ray emission by generating 'sidebands' on the strong kilohertz periodic oscillations.

Amazingly, just like a radio signal, the sidebands contain details of the stars' mass and spin, the local distortion of space-time, and the location of the stars' innermost stable orbit --all naturally encoded in the signal.

Like the neutron star at the macroscopic level, the quantum oscillators modulate reality on the microscopic scale. They sit astride the bridge between space-time and hyperspace. Like aircraft wings, the speed and angle of the two helical sweeps tweak the orientation of the plane bisecting the ball within the double vortices. So the wave function emitted by the quantum oscillator can alter reality much like a curved mirror transforms the image of reality, The shape of the vortex warps the curve of the branes.
http://www.treeincarnation.com/thecyclicuniverse.htm

[junglelord]

"In every polyhedral system, the sum of the angles around all the vertices is exactly 720 degrees less than the number of vertices times 360 degrees, or (360° × V) - 720°. True for the tetrahedron, true for the crocodile. In Fuller's words, every system has exactly 720 degrees of 'takeout.'" ~ Quoted from "a Fuller explanation"

"415.10 Yin-Yang As Two: Even at zero frequency of the vector equilibrium, there is a fundamental twoness that is not just that of opposite polarity, but the twoness of the concave and the convex, i.e., of the inwardness and outwardness, i.e., of the microcosm and of the macrocosm. We find that the nucleus is really two layers because its inwardness tums around at its own center and becomes outwardness. So we have the congruence of the inbound layer and the outbound layer of the center ball.

10F² + 2
F = 0
10 × 0 = 0
0 + 2 = 2 (at zero frequency)
Because people thought of the nucleus only as oneness, they for long missed the significant twoness of spherical unity as manifest in the atomic weights in the Periodic Table of the Elements. ~ Quoted from Synergetic's"

Unity is plural and at minimum two.
720 is one, 360 is 1/2.
Welcome to Quantum Reality, vs Newtonian Truths pushed on every domain.

Then I plugged in the known outer sphere shell value of four, into the equation for a zero nucleus shape to see what happened. But, not before removing the 10, which, as I touched upon earlier, must correlate to the presence of one central sphere and relates to the one complete cycle of the first frequency, so, as we're not accounting for a central sphere, we can remove to multiplicative 10 for now.

10F²+2=N
becomes
F²+2=N.

Placing in the known values for the zero nucleus and the four 'outer' spheres, we get
0²+2=4.

If our classical arithmetic logic is correct, 0 'squared' equals 0, then our equation reads
0+2=4
which cannot be.

Therefore
0²=2
completes the sum
2+2=4.

0²=2

I immediately stood up, it felt like a thousand thoughts went rushing through me all at once, what a rush !! This went against everything we've been thought, this challenges our fundamental understanding of basic algebra. I eventually came down from the excitement of that early realization and got together some strategies for explaining what had happened.

There was never a thought that this might be wrong, my intuitions made it clear, this was how it really was, in a very real sense, I was never more sure of anything else in my life. The logic of how I arrived at this, was and still is, telling me that this is the case, 0² is 2.

But there was never a feeling that I had made some 'new' discovery, it felt like this was something that was staring us in the face, it was already known, and that deep down, subconsciously, it was always known. Needless to say, the implications of such a fundamental behavior of number, would require a lot more than a simple explanation on my part. Although I have already made some progress on applying this new perspective and found some more interesting characteristics and correlations within other number behaviors.

I can however, relate it to the insights gained from exploring some of Fuller's work. Fuller's experimenting with the VE at a frequency of zero showed that the inherent twoness of the central sphere related to its convex and concave surface. From my experiment with the VE equation, I can say that just like the second powering of the speed of light in E=MC² describes a spherical surface, 0²=2 is showing that the 'surface' of 'nothing' has both a convex and a concave, i.e. it has twoness. The difference is subtle but profound, Fuller looked at the topological properties of a conceptually zero shape and showed that it had a twoness, whereas I ended up looking at the function of number in basic arithmetic and found that zero multiplied by zero was not zero, it was two.

Echoing Fuller's words, it seems obvious: "Unity is plural and at minimum two".

I would suggest at this early stage that the plus 2 in the topology equations may have some relation to this hidden property of second powering in relation to volumetric polygons, for example, the equation 10F²+2=N would read 10F²=N, if the 2 was already accounted for in our second powering of the frequency.

My inspiration for starting these explorations into such outer-limits of science and metaphysics came from a researcher and broadcaster named Fintan Dunne, his ability to see through the 'smoke and mirrors' of reality is an inspiration to many. Soon after I became familiar with Fintan's 'Science of Meaning' at Treeincarnation.com, I remember him suggesting that "space itself, is enantiomorphic", exhibiting a fundamental mirroring, having both an inside and an outside, essentially two. I never could have predicted that this fundamental nature of reality, would reveal itself to me in the simplicity of the nature of number itself.

0²=2 simply states, that the surface of 'nothing', in a very real, arithmetical sense, has an inherent twoness at it's surface, it has it's In'side' and it's Out'side'.

In conclusion, this simple topological experiment is asking a fundamental question, could our understanding of this basic property of arithmetic be wrong, have we misunderstood the Mathematics of Nothing?

Justin Lawless ~ January 21, 2007
http://www.treeincarnation.com/articles ... f-Zero.htm

[bboyer]

Unity is plural and at minimum two.

1 - individuality
2 - plurality
3 - unity

[Grey Cloud]

Unity is plural and at minimum two.

1 - individuality
2 - plurality
3 - unity

Ha! I was just thinking that Unity is three. Yin, Yang and the circle; Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu; Osiris, Isis and Horus. Two opposites and the third element which unites them.
It might take two to tango but it takes three to do everything else.

[junglelord]

Mirror Mind my dear Sir. It is not defined by words, but by paradigm and revelation.
http://www.treeincarnation.com/thecyclicuniverse.htm
http://www.treeincarnation.com/thecyclicuniverse.htm
Structure and function cannot be seperated. There is a deep reason your eyes are round, your ears are spirals, that your eyes are at right angles to your ears, that your senses are the number they are, that your hands are the way they are and the number they are. The L handed thing called Life is also a deep reason that your made the way you are. Your brain being two is a deep seated thing you need to thing about, as well as being three...two hemispheres and a hindbrain/brainstem.
Also that your visceral ganglion are as numerous as your neurons in the old nogin upstairs.


Your heart sense, gut sense, these visceral brains are as real as your nogin. This way to pass time talking about words when never getting to the heart of any philosophy, is fun to watch. Some times I like to step in and say, any of you guys ever drop acid? The DMT experinece of a vision quest? Take mushrooms in college? Or are you all straight laced drinking alcohol smoking cigerattes right winged supremists?


Me thinks Boyd Bushman is correct, the universe does not speak english. Life is a big mystery as Joe Rogan says when talking about DMT and dreams. You tell me why your brain does psychidelics to dream? You tell me why taking a psychidelic will cure addictions? You tell me why they keep you full of alcohol and cigarettes? Big Brother is drugging the nations children with ritalin and no one bothers to care. Then you call smoking pot "illegal" taking mushrooms "illegal", meanwhile alcohol realted driving deaths, marriage breakups, bar fights and cancer are the results of "legal" drugs. The minds have been immeresed in government created "education" that delites in you wasting your time doing what your doing. This word game is their creation and since you have been forced to play it for so long, your now driven to it like pavlos dog.

Life is not english, nature is not english, the internet is not conductive to proper exchange due to the fact it is only words. Adding more limitations to try to re-define the word is beyond me. You guys not have mental images????
When you read words, you do not see anything?

Does the universe not talk to you?

Do you not have psychic experiences?


What is going on with your gut and your heart, forget where your mind is concerning words.
Its what you mean, not what the words mean, therefore if you cannot see the meaning in your minds eye,
then your blank....your not connecting.

Try using your six sense, try to rise out of the material world of words on a screen and actually try to connect to the person on the other side with you own inner ability. Use the force Luke.


Then ask back in words if the mental image was right....kapesh?

[bboyer]

Ha! I was just thinking that Unity is three. Yin, Yang and the circle; Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu; Osiris, Isis and Horus. Two opposites and the third element which unites them.
It might take two to tango but it takes three to do everything else.

And even they need a common ground to dance their rhythm of unity.

[bboyer]

Life is not english, nature is not english, the internet is not conductive to proper exchange due to the fact it is only words.

Which is why I fully agree with what Solar wrote elsewhere a while back,

It has taken me some effort but I've long ago reached the point wherein I can state my case and move on whether or not another agrees or disagrees with that point. There is no forum wherein everyone is in agreement. We have a situation wherein people obviously "feel" very strongly about their ideas, theories, hypotheses etc.Personally, I don't post "sacred" things on internet forums. You're asking for trouble when you do no matter who you are or what the subject may be. Members, and potential members would do well to "detach" from theories and rebuttals by not further characterizing the individual(s) in derogatory terms if and when they are in disagreement.

If nothing else and for the most part, by the very nature of the medium, I think the posting of "sacred" things on public discussion forums transforms it to the profane. Some may get this, I think.