The issue of "exist" resolved

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby Divinity » Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:25 am

altonhare wrote:
So, you are or you aren't claiming the existence of aether (the connecting backwash between all things)?
-Divinity

>>Not sure what you mean by "backwash". However, I do propose that every entity in our world (and possibly the universe) is physically connected to every other entity.>>

Yes but how? If you don't believe in the presence of energised plasma/aether, WHAT connects them?




The above is a very long-winded way of saying that we are all connected and it's a Universe of Intelligent Consciousness.
-Divinity

>>I apologize for being long-winded but I strive to be very explicit and comprehensible. Someone who is not familiar or comfortable with the idea of everything being interconnected would not pick up on this as quickly as you, and I may not seem long-winded to him/her.

"Universe" is a shorthand for a listing of everything that exists (everything). The universe cannot have consciousness because consciousness is a characteristic of a single entity. For instance, a lion is alive but is a pride alive? In casual conversation you may say that a pride is alive but this is incorrect. A pride simply refers to a group of lions, it is a convenient shorthand. Instead of saying "The male lion on the cliff, the female lion next to him, the cub in the cave, the other cub in the cave... and on and on" you just say "the pride of lions". It is the individual lions themselves are actually alive. The word pride is simply a designation we place on a certain number of lions at a certain proximity! The lions are *entities*. A pride is not an entity itself but a concept, a relationship among entities. Likewise "universe" is a group of things, specifically a group of *everything*. It is a convenient shorthand term. Some of the individuals in the group may be alive, or may be conscious, etc. but the concept "group of X" cannot be ascribed these characteristics. Only the individual X's themselves have characteristics.

Does that make sense?>>

Can you say the same for bees and ants? I disagree. A pride IS an entity with a unique consciousness, like every other group. That group has a subconscious purpose - generally to maintain its status quo in the pack, to survive, to look after the 'whole', to procreate/stay healthy, etc. They do this with mutual co-operation and invisible communication (via the DNA). If you check out Complex Systems you will see this is the nature of flocks of birds. When one changes, they all change; when one learns, they all do.

I would go as far as to profess that the 'everything else in the universe' which is not you, is your God. Forget your logical mind for a moment. When you visit Los Angeles or Paris, do you not 'feel' the difference in the ambience/atmosphere/people? No different to working in an office, the environment of one will be totally unique to another because of the people or group inhabiting it. Is the group happy? Your senses are so fine-tuned, you will detect this immediately even if you don't think to ask the question. Can you smell fear? Yes, because it's a basic component of your survival instinct.


And if so, where do you see the role of Love? As far as I am aware, love is the glue which holds the universe together...it is the life-support mechanism.
-Divinity

>>Love is a dynamic relationship among entities such as humans or lions. It is my proposal that continuous discrete interconnected entities comprise the universe. One fits in the next which fits in the next and so on. So they each maintain their identity but are inseparable. The analogy to Love is perfect, the constituents of the universe are inseparable yet still retain their individual identities, just like the individual players involved in Love.>>

No, they aren't discrete. That's the whole point of inter-connectedness - we have a process of constant symbiosis in this universe. Although we appear to be separate, no distance can ever keep us apart from each other. It's the butterfly effect - when one is affected, we are all affected, at an energetic level. Just as we connect/affect (to) the weather and other aspects of our environment extending out way beyond the galaxy. The system is beautiful because it's consistent (as above so below). And because of that, we can obtain clues to what occurs at microscopic and macroscopic levels. Just as plasma scales up and down, so do universal principles.

Love is not restricted to individuals. Love is the whole dynamic. Love, intelligence, communication, connection...but I cannot prove this to you.



The Universe is energy which is information and what provides that information is consciousness (at the non-material structure stage) which is fundamentally, love.
-Divinity

>>Energy is an ambiguous term because it means different things to many different people. What do you mean by "non-material". To me this term means "nothing", so I have trouble commenting.>>


Energy, IMO, is the manifestation of information but at a more 3D level of understanding, it's that which makes things move. It manifests as sound, light, electricity, magnetism, electro-magnetism, matter, etc. Non-material structures are put in place in order to produce a 'thing' or a situation. The thought was present before 'the word', if you like. For more information on non-material structures, please read Junglelord's Tensegrity thread....Tensegrity Creates Matter.



Voila, something out of nothing is created.
-Divinity

>>Something cannot come from nothing anymore than a tree can be both above and below the ground. Identity means that A is A. To try to state otherwise results in a self-contradiction.>>

LOL, I knew you would say that! So, where do planets come from? Where do situations spring from? And synchronicities?

(A tree is above and below the ground..what do you mean?).



There is nothing in existence which doesn't have a purpose, even if it's to interconnect only with another thing to support it or hold it in place (it's called tensegrity or symbiosis).
-Divinity

>>Everything that exists has a single identity and acts in accordance with that identity. Tensegrity is the science of building structures and looks at macroscopic behaviors of materials. Fundamentally there are continuous objects (those that are not made of smaller parts) and they have a particular shape. That particular shape defines their identity and they can only interact with other entities in accordance with that one identity.>>


Structure and function can't be separated - is that what you mean? Tensegrity is the process of push/pull which brings things into existence and maintains the balance between Everything, as I understand it. I believe it's tensegrity, not gravity, which keeps the planets in correct alignment, no different to the relationships between organs and other parts of the body.




Would you agree or is this too simplistic?
-Divinity

>>I agree and disagree, as per my discussion above. I think you need to be careful about reifying concepts. There is a difference between a tree and a forest. A tree is an object, an entity. A forest is a concept, a relationship among entities. Concepts are for convenience, we use them as a shorthand. It is tempting to convert concepts into entities in our speech because it decreases verbage, but we must keep in mind it is the entities themselves that truly matter, because only the entities themselves can live, love, wave, fall, jump, etc. When you see a "forest swaying from a distance" it is each tree that is swaying. You say forest because it is easier than saying "The tree at (0,0) is swaying and the tree at (1,0) is swaying....">>


A forest is not a concept, it's a collective noun for a group of trees. No..we fundamentally disagree. No tree is an island. No man is an island. We are all part of the collective and the collective has a consciousness.


I guess we agree to disagree?
Divinity
Guest
 

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby altonhare » Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:45 am

A forest is not a concept, it's a collective noun for a group of trees. No..we fundamentally disagree. No tree is an island. No man is an island. We are all part of the collective and the collective has a consciousness.

I guess we agree to disagree?
-Divinity

Yes, it's a noun. We have concrete nouns and abstract nouns. Concrete nouns (person, rock, tree) can do things like run, have consciousness, etc. Abstract nouns like justice, forest, and embarrassment are relationships among these concrete nouns. A forest is a specific spatial arrangement of trees, a spatial relationship among concrete nouns.

I agree that everything is connected in the sense that the fundamental constituents fit together such that they are inseparable. However things can be connected/inseparable but still retain their individual identities. If I have a continuous (inseparable, undeformable) ball inside a continuous socket with a narrow neck the ball is inseparable from the socket. They will never exceed a certain distance apart because of how they are designed and put together. At the same time they are still individually a ball and a socket. We may name them a "joint" which refers to a ball inside a socket.

I would not like to "throw in the towel" just yet Div. Consider what you think carefully about my ball/socket example, where two objects are inseparable but retain individual identity as a ball and a socket. Everything can be interconnected without sacrificing the distinction between individual entities.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby Divinity » Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:50 am

altonhare wrote:This is not about belief or proof JL. This is about understanding.

If "universe" is a shorthand for a listing of everything that exists then "universe" is no more alive/conscious than a collection of fruit is red. The apple is red, the banana is yellow, the orange is orange, etc. The human is conscious, the lion is conscious, the rock is not conscious, etc.

Even if each piece of fruit in the collection of fruit is red, it is still each piece individually that is red. When we say "this group of fruit is red" we mean "this apple is red, this other apple is red, this cherry is red..." Similarly when we say "the universe is conscious" we mean "this human is conscious, this lion is conscious, this rock is conscious... etc."

Whether you consider every object in the universe conscious is a matter of how you, personally, define consciousness. However you define conscious, it is each entity in the universe that is conscious or not conscious, not the shorthand term you use to refer to all those entities.

It is each piece of fruit that is red, round, hard, soft, sweet, or sour. The collection of fruit is not red, round, hard, soft, sweet, or sour. Collection of fruit is your shorthand term, it is the objects you are referring to with this shorthand that have particular characteristics.

Does this make sense to you Divinity? I hope I have done a good job helping you to understand. If not, let me know what's unclear so I can do better.

These things are only red, yellow, etc. because that is what your retina and brain show you. The colour is a direct correlation to the spectrum, i.e. which frequency you are detecting, thereby proving all vibrates at particular frequencies and each receiver is unique in that interpretation.

A rock, bee or flower is not necessarily a decision-maker, with it's own free-will. It may reproduce, breathe and communicate, however, but more importantly, it radiates...energy and Information. Everything has an aura.
So what is YOUR definition of consciousness?

The characteristics each piece of fruit has is only determined by one thing: Information. The source of that information is from the Universe/the Force Itself OR from another imposing its will on something (ie. us/free-willer's).

What, for example, tells a tornado or a tsunami to occur? It's not only 'natural cycles' is it? If it were, the weather would always be cyclical and pretty standard, i.e. we could always foretell when the next hurricane would appear. External conditions create environmental changes, and a huge influence on that process is extreme emotions emanating from mass human consciousness. Everything is connected or it's not. If it is, what are you prepared to believe are the consequences of it being connected?

Emotions are essentially Information (feelings in action), in a feeling/intelligent/sentient Universe. Emotions are radiated, for the purpose of affecting Everything (symbiotic exchange of information). (Wanna talk Global Warming, LOL?!) :D
Divinity
Guest
 

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby Divinity » Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:55 am

No sacrificing here. I'm very proud to be an individual and as unique as a snowflake. It makes the system more beautiful! Individuated pieces of the Godforce, in action....perceiving themselves to be separate from the whole yet constantly interracting and inter-playing with each other, affecting the whole and making It more than it was before.

No different to the forest. If one tree dies in a forest, does it affect the whole? Of course, it's an ecosystem all it's own.

Ding ding, dinner time..be back later, LOL :D
Divinity
Guest
 

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby altonhare » Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:14 am

These things are only red, yellow, etc. because that is what your retina and brain show you. The colour is a direct correlation to the spectrum, i.e. which frequency you are detecting, thereby proving all vibrates at particular frequencies and each receiver is unique in that interpretation.
-Divinity

We are getting off track here. Color is just an illustrative example. The point is that we ascribe characteristics (whatever they are, however we perceive them) to individual objects. A word like "fruit basket" or "universe" is a shorthand term for each object. "Atom" is a shorthand term for each continuous object that comprises the atom.

Let's stay focused and stick to the important question here. Is a collection of entities (like an atom) the same as the entities themselves? The fundamental constituents themselves are spherical, cylindrical, moving fast, moving slow, etc. and the atom itself is a specific spatial arrangement of the fundamental constituents. The atom isn't big, small, fast, etc. Rather, the fundamental constituents move further apart (to make the atom look bigger), or the fundamental constituents move faster, etc. The atom is just the designation we give to a certain number of fundamental constituents at a certain proximity. Do you disagree?
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby Divinity » Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:21 pm

I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you say all that in English, please? And you didn't answer my question about the nature of consciousness or the 'hive mind' such as bees, etc. Thank you.
Divinity
Guest
 

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby altonhare » Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:38 pm

Divinity wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you say all that in English, please? And you didn't answer my question about the nature of consciousness or the 'hive mind' such as bees, etc. Thank you.


We need to focus on precisely what we are agreeing and disagreeing on or we will be forever lost on tangents and only end up wasting a lot of time and accomplishing nothing. I will talk to you about anything you want after we have resolved these basic issues, then we can discuss more complex issues.

We agree:

You said:
No tree is an island. No man is an island. We are all part of the collective
-Divinity

Now, by "collective" I think you mean "everything that exists". We are all connected to everything else that exists right? That's what we already agreed upon. If you mean something else by "collective" please let me know what you really mean.

Everything is interconnected. Every atom/object in the Universe is capable of influencing every other object in the Universe regardless of spatial proximity. Everything is always affecting everything. An illustrative example of this is a massive chain of continuous ball/socket joints. If a ball at one end moves against the surface of the socket it is confined within then every joint will move too, on down the entire chain.

We disagree:

and the collective has a consciousness.
-Divinity

Now, if "the collective" is "everything that exists" then it is a shorthand term for a listing of each of these things that exist. Here is the question to ponder:

Can a pride of lions do something like run or jump? Or is it the lions themselves that do things like run and jump?

This is an issue of separating concrete nouns from abstract nouns. A lion is a concrete noun, s/he can do things like run and jump. A pride of lions does not run and jump, it is an abstract noun.

Lets stick to this question/issue before we go off on other tangents.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby junglelord » Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:52 pm

Collective Behaviour, Collective Consciousness.
One and the Same "species" collective mind.
Bees, Ants, Termites, the grand design of their handwork is amazing.
Even the ability for a croc to build a nest for its eggs that must maintain a proper temperature.
So much collective knowledge in the animal world, always chalked up as "instinct".
Thats a cheap interpertation. Dirt cheap and meaning less. Which is what they would have you believe.
I however know the speech of rocks, plants, insects, fish, birds, animals, earth. Each is alive composed of conscious units.
The universe is a conscious quantum holographic fractal mind which expresses itself as Aether and Charge and Gravity.
Thats my Knowledge. Not my belief, my Knowledge. I am in communication with the universe, earth and the collective mind.
Its not anything new. It is what Kevin Knows. What Grey Cloud Knows. Its what Divinity and Lizzie Know.
You will never know it because you refuse to know it. Thats your decision. Its sterile and dead.

Meanwhile the universe endows Consciouness and Knowledge unto its life. The word "instinct" is a man made invention to stroke his own ego. Mans Ego has created many false truths. Mans mind is open to brain washing. On the other hand he is born with an inate wisdom that we beat out of children. This wisdom is genius and due to a awareness of the universal teacher that bestows knowledge upon those of innocent heart and purity. This is open to the adult, but one must be pure of heart and body and mind and spirit. One can foster instant communication that never turns off. I have been able to achieve this state of openness. I remain open. I continue to experience huge states of knowing. I believe DMT is a source of knowledge. Thats my hunch. It involves fasting and chastity. Mental and Spiritual Purity. I know this is not the path most can maintain for they are too involved in the material world. The material world is not the only world, nor is it the one most illuminated.

I know life and abundently does it give and receive for In Too Me I See.
I am the Mirror Mind.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:09 pm

Altonhare wrote:
For instance, a lion is alive but is a pride alive? In casual conversation you may say that a pride is alive but this is incorrect. A pride simply refers to a group of lions, it is a convenient shorthand.

A pride is very much alive, ask a zoologist. An individual lion will wilt and die in a zoo if it is on its own (as will any animal which lives in a group). If a queen ant dies the individual ants are clueless and all wander off and die.
Stampeding bovines are another example.
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/Psychology/EPRG/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychology

Can a pride of lions do something like run or jump?

Can an individual whale? A lion is what it is, not what it can do. Likewise the pride, herd, colony etc.

Junglelord wrote:
Even the ability for a croc to build a nest for its eggs that must maintain a proper temperature.

Another good example, how does an animal with a brain the size of a walnut know this? How does it pass on the 'knowledge' when it has no conceopt of 'temperature', let alone concrete and abstract nouns?

BTW: Concrete crumbles eventually - it only lasts about a thousand years.


This is an issue of separating concrete nouns from abstract nouns
.
No, this is an issue of different types of consciousness. Concrete and abstract nuns are man-made, lions etc are Nature-made.

Now, by "collective" I think you mean "everything that exists". We are all connected to everything else that exists right? That's what we already agreed upon.

I agree with this. You also admit to there being consciousness in the Universe, which you describe as 'everything that exists'. Surely then, it follows that consciousness must be connected to everything that exists? (I would put it the other way around and say that everything that exists is connected to consciousness).
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby Divinity » Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:35 pm

altonhare wrote:We disagree:

and the collective has a consciousness.
-Divinity

Now, if "the collective" is "everything that exists" then it is a shorthand term for a listing of each of these things that exist. Here is the question to ponder:

Can a pride of lions do something like run or jump? Or is it the lions themselves that do things like run and jump?

This is an issue of separating concrete nouns from abstract nouns. A lion is a concrete noun, s/he can do things like run and jump. A pride of lions does not run and jump, it is an abstract noun.

Lets stick to this question/issue before we go off on other tangents.


My views addressed very aptly by J/L and GC, thank you gentle men :D


Junglelord:
Meanwhile the universe endows Consciouness and Knowledge unto its life. The word "instinct" is a man made invention to stroke his own ego. Mans Ego has created many false truths. Mans mind is open to brain washing. On the other hand he is born with an inate wisdom that we beat out of children. This wisdom is genius and due to a awareness of the universal teacher that bestows knowledge upon those of innocent heart and purity. This is open to the adult, but one must be pure of heart and body and mind and spirit. One can foster instant communication that never turns off. I have been able to achieve this state of openness. I remain open. I continue to experience huge states of knowing. I believe DMT is a source of knowledge. Thats my hunch. It involves fasting and chastity. Mental and Spiritual Purity. I know this is not the path most can maintain for they are too involved in the material world. The material world is not the only world, nor is it the one most illuminated.



Grey Cloud wrote:
A pride is very much alive, ask a zoologist. An individual lion will wilt and die in a zoo if it is on its own (as will any animal which lives in a group). If a queen ant dies the individual ants are clueless and all wander off and die.
Stampeding bovines are another example.
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/Psychology/EPRG/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychology

.


Divinity:
LOL, I knew you would say that! So, where do planets come from? Where do situations spring from? And synchronicities?


Things exist because of consciousness. Consciousness is the master creator of all things.

Divinity:
Yes but how? If you don't believe in the presence of energised plasma/aether, WHAT connects them?


Also, you didn't answer the question, Alton, about WHAT connects them? Or even better, WHY they are connected.
Divinity
Guest
 

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby mague » Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:18 am

Very good points Plasmatic,

Plasmatic wrote:
Plasmatic,

the word "mircale" exists. But lets name the event exception.

It is not about valid and invalid. It is about locking out the exception from thoughts, equations and theories.


Im talking about the proposed existence of miracles not the word.This criteria makes the word invalid. Its not about "locking out exceptions". I have partaken in hundreds of experiences you would call a miracle. I used to do the same . That is until I understood what affirming the consequent meant and learned the Law of Identity.

Which is your decision. It is how you decided to deal with the experiences you had. There are different possibilities and none of them is invalid as long as the decision was a true decision. You moved to your current position which is hopefully the best possible position for you at the current time marker. However, the potential exists that you again will change direction and probably move to an old position, just to move somewhere else again. We need that 0,0001% chance of a exception or we stagnate. Without the miracle concept we freeze in time.
Plasmatic wrote:
The rule is that a certain species is a cat. Period. This is wrong in another framework. In a different framework a cat is a cat but sometimes on rare occasions its a spirit.



If you define "spirit" I can show you the misintegration.

"Spirit" is a complex topic. Lets stick to the cat for an example. The cat is always the same cat. Everyone knows her for what she is as an individual and for what she is as representative of the cats. The birds, the mice, the trees and the humans know her individual character and appearance.

When the exception occurs she isnt the cat anymore. She then might be venus or a sun in a distant galaxy or a dead person or even a representative of a group consciousness like the master group spirit of all rivers . While the exception occurs she turns into sort of mount point for a different "thing".

Plasmatic wrote:
It is not about showing something that is not what it is. Its not about prooving something. It is about having an "open slot" for exceptions in anything we do or think.


The only exception to the law of Identity would be non-identity. This is an axiomatic contradiction therfore an invalid concept .

Why is it impossible that identity, non-identity and any shade of grey between them co-exist at the same time ?
Again it is about frameworks. If a picture doesnt fit a frame we go buy a bigger frame. Same goes for concepts. Contradictions are not exclusive, just the current frame is to small to hold the whole picture. I regard causality as a valid concept, almost a law. But then exceptions occur and dump the whole concept to nothingness, just to erect it again. Then either i am scared and turn left, right or freeze or i go get me a bigger frame.
Plasmatic wrote:
Plasmatic wrote:
Any exception has "endless" potential. This includes miracles and negation of any rule or reality.

Nothing is 100%, never. Logic does not allow to drop options. If we drop an option for the sake of conveniance then we play the game risc vs. chances. Playing is not logic, just conveniant or faster rewarding.


Its very simple M. You just made a "100 %" statement ["nothing"]. You have to use identity to try to refute it ,thats why its an axiom.As soon as you learn that the statement "anything is possible " is impossible youll regrow your minds wings and rejoin the realm of the living.

I didnt say: Nothing == 100% ;) Nothing is 100% or Nothing is impossible or Anything is possible are all valid expressions with.. well.. a certain amount of potential for exceptions. "I know i know nothing" is an ancient proverb describing it well.

I am among the living, most of the time. But my doors are open. I leave the gap open intentionally. A ring with a gap grows with me, a closed ring has no opening for light..

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.


I agree, a closed ring has no gap for darkness aswell. This is where the tree-hugging nature link becomes crucial. You need a healthy base "resonance" to survive in this universe. But thats different topic.

Plasmatic wrote:
Those gaps are the points where we loose idendity and become part of something bigger


And now you know why these ideas are poison. Every tyrant has ascended to power on the backs of those who preached this message of self abnegation.

Or vice versa ? Or is the frame to small ? How comes you read abnegation in my words ? I didnt ask you for abnegation. Your past experiences did. I am not them. I want you to be you at the fullest possible potential. That includes a working interface to exceptions and multiple simultaneous valid concepts. Some shamans say the gap is there so you soul can breathe...

Plasmatic wrote:
What is real anyway? This gives a whole new spin to philosophy


Theres nothing "new" about it. its the subject of the science of Metaphysics /Ontology. You dont know this because you dont
"play" philosophy.

Metaphysics is like physics. A rule forging concept. They are absolutely identical but with different topics. Ah well, i guess every group has it own share of evil retards.

Reality is what your consciousness in its current state is able to observe.
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby altonhare » Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:34 pm

A pride is very much alive, ask a zoologist. An individual lion will wilt and die in a zoo if it is on its own (as will any animal which lives in a group). If a queen ant dies the individual ants are clueless and all wander off and die.
Stampeding bovines are another example.
-GC

When the zoologist says a pride is alive he is either speaking metaphorically/incorrectly or he means "This lion at this location is alive, that lion at that location is alive.... etc. and all the lions mentioned are grouped in one or more spatial arrangement(s) that I refer to as a pride".

A lion dies on its own because other lions perform actions that we correlate with keeping it alive. Individual ants die if the queen dies because the queen performs actions that appear to keep them alive. Again, when we say "pride" or "hive" we are referring to a group of entities, not an entity itself. It is the entities themselves that do things like be alive or be conscious. Just because one lion hunts and the other one defends territory, doesn't mean the two lions are a single living entity. They are two living entities that perform different actions which we correlate with staying alive. Our correlation means nothing to Nature. There is some chance that, if the hunter dies, the remaining lion will continue to meet the criteria which we use to define "alive". Just because it has never been observed to happen doesn't "prove" that the two lions were really one living entity. We don't prove things with experiments or observations, we define our words, develop a hypothesis, conceptualize, and explain what happened with our hypothesis and concepts. Trying fallaciously to prove existence is an absurd pursuit relativists and quantum physicists engage in. If we fail to explain an experiment we formulate a new hypothesis!

We don't prove existence and we don't prove something is alive. We define exist, alive, etc. and then what we refer to either meets the criteria or it doesn't. Doing otherwise results in fallaciously relying on observation to "prove" things. Observation is subjective. This is why I harp on definitions so much, not to be an ass, but because they make or break a theory. The definitions have to be consistent before we can explain observations with them.

So, your argument is moot.

Can an individual whale? A lion is what it is, not what it can do. Likewise the pride, herd, colony etc.
-GC

Yes, a whale can perform actions. It is an entity. You attack a straw man, I never said an entity is what it does. I have always said an entity is what it is. I said an individual entity can perform actions while a group of entities cannot. These are different statements.

Another good example, how does an animal with a brain the size of a walnut know this? How does it pass on the 'knowledge' when it has no concept of 'temperature', let alone concrete and abstract nouns?
-GC

You have no idea if the croc has a concept of "temperature". It is immaterial. The croc does what it does. It can perform actions because it is an entity. Brain size is only loosely correlated with what people call "intelligence". Intelligence itself is extremely vague. This is a horrible argument.

No, this is an issue of different types of consciousness. Concrete and abstract nuns are man-made, lions etc are Nature-made.
-GC

Concrete and abstract nouns are symbols that refer to something. This is an issue of making clear what they refer to and being consistent about it. Non self-contradiction. I'm not sure if this argument works for you since you haven't decided if A is A or not.

I assure you, however, the crocodile "knows" the difference between an egg (concrete noun) and heat (dynamic concept). The crocodile knows he can move or squash the egg but cannot move or squash heat. It's not really a matter of "knowledge", he squashes the egg because it's a concrete object (which we refer to with the concrete noun "egg"). He does not squash heat because it's not an object. To him the egg has shape. He doesn't know them explicitly as these symbols we use to refer to them. It is only humans that try to move concepts i.e. reify them.

Even the croc uses the scientific method. He does not "prove" the egg exists. He does not "prove" heat exists. He formulates a hypothesis (an egg, a nest, himself, the sun, etc. whatever things he knows of). He conceptualizes (him sitting on the egg vs. not sitting on the egg, or the sun's presence, etc.). He defines the concept heat in terms of how the eggs feel before/after sitting on them or after they've been out in the sun. He explains why the eggs hatch or don't hatch in terms of these objects and concepts. They hatch because of heat and don't hatch if there is no heat. Obviously he doesn't go through this process via the words/symbols I am using to explain it, but he must go through this process, even if he does so implicitly. Only humans deliberately attempt to skip the hypothesis step and go straight to theory/explanation without having any idea what objects are involved.

Could you clarify "nature-made"? What does that mean?

I agree with this. You also admit to there being consciousness in the Universe, which you describe as 'everything that exists'. Surely then, it follows that consciousness must be connected to everything that exists? (I would put it the other way around and say that everything that exists is connected to consciousness).
-GC

Everything is interconnected by individual continuous objects. Consciousness is some successive spatial relationship(s) between those objects (a dynamic concept). When a particular successive arrangement of continuous objects that we identify as consciousness assumes some arrangement that we do not identify as consciousness, then the consciousness we identified before no longer exists by definition and we must identify this new arrangement somehow.

Things exist because of consciousness. Consciousness is the master creator of all things.
-Divinity

No, entities exist whether we think about them or perceive them. I do not create this table by thinking about it or by looking at it.

Also, you didn't answer the question, Alton, about WHAT connects them? Or even better, WHY they are connected.
-Divinity

I answered both of these questions. My hypothesis is a continuous cylindrical object with a socket on one end and a ball on the other. The ball fits inside the socket and cannot escape by definition (continuous objects cannot deform or break). There is no "reason" they are connected, they are connected and have always been connected. They remain connected because of their structure. The one thing JL harps on that I agree with is that structure and function cannot be separated, although I am not confident he means the same thing as I.

Reality is what your consciousness in its current state is able to observe.
-Mague

Incorrect. Reality is what it is whether we observe it or not. Every object in the universe has shape whether any individual consciousness observes it or not. Every object is some distance from every other object (location). This is regardless of our perception. This is why we define object in terms of shape and location. It is observer-free. I think some of your errors come from defining reality in terms of perception, a fallacy the quantum physicists and relativists often engage in (they try to "prove" existence, an absurd logical fallacy that has led them down so many blind alleys http://www.youstupidrelativist.com).

In science we don't prove existence anymore than we prove a single rotation is equal to 360 degrees of rotation. We define our terms, make a hypothesis, theorize/conceptualize, and attempt to explain what happened with out hypothesis and theory.

Let's do a quick example to help me illustrate the "lion vs. pride" issue. Someone points at a lion to define the word. Then they point at a group of lions to define pride. Since this is online we will have to satisfy ourselves with pictures instead of the real objects or models of them. Here I will point to a picture of a circle:

O

That's a circle. I describe it as round. I define motion of the circle:

O

_O

(I put an underscore because this forum interprets leading spaces as nothing, so I can't put the second O to the right without a leading character)

Motion is two locations of an object (in this case a circle).

O O O

Is that a circle? Is this a picture of a circle that is round?

No, this picture is obviously not the same as the first. This is not a picture of a round circle. It is a picture of 3 round circles. We need a new word/words to refer to the second picture. Perhaps we will call it a "row of circles". We define a row of circles as 2 or more circles where, if a line passed through the centers of two of the circles, it would also intersect the center of every other circle in the row. We define a line as an object that has uniform width. Now, we may say "the row of circles moved":

0 0 0
_0 0 0

However, when we say "the row of circles moved" we mean "There is a row of three circles, the first circled moved X distance to the right, the second circle moved Y distance to the right, and the third circle moved Z distance to the right, after which they are still a row of three circles (still meet the definitions of a row of circles after each circle moved). The concept "row of circles" is a convenient shorthand. It leaves out details like how far each circle moved, how quickly it moved there, etc. It conveys the information we want to convey without cumbersome detail (that each circle moved and still retained a specific relative spatial arrangement). This is why we use concepts so much. Speaking only in terms of objects is cumbersome. Concepts are fine as long as we do not reify them, i.e. forget that it is the objects the concept refers to that matter.

On the other hand, we may say "the row of circles moved into a triangle of circles":

O O O


__O

O O

Now we see clearly how a concept can leave out important information. We know that the circles moved in some way to get into the triangular arrangement but simply using the concepts "row of circles" and "triangle of circles" do not tell us anything about the individual circles.

Instead of circle, we can have lions, tigers, bears, balls, or even continuous objects (fundamental constituents). We point to a lion and say "lion". Then we point at an arrangement of lions (or multiple arrangements to account for the fact that the females can go out hunting but we still refer to this collection of lions as a pride) and say "pride". Then we say "the pride is alive". We don't mean that particular relative arrangements of lions are alive. We mean each lion in the pride is alive. If an atom is composed of a continuous proton and a continuous electron as long as they are within a specific maximum distance, then when we say "the atom moved" we mean "the proton and the electron moved and retained relative positions defining it as an atom".

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby lizzie » Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:10 pm

Alton Hare said: So, I came to this forum with a very narrow view of "exist" and have, with the help of some of the users (and some on a philosophical forum), resolved my philosophy and physics. This may seem pedantic, tiring, or even trivial to some. However, it's vitally important. The inability to distinguish an existent from a non-existent or an entity from a non-entity is exactly what got science into such a pathetic state. Without further ado, here we are.


You don't exist; therefore, you are not? Indeed without further ado, there you are; or there you are not. That is the question.
lizzie
Guest
 

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby altonhare » Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:15 pm

lizzie wrote:
Alton Hare said: So, I came to this forum with a very narrow view of "exist" and have, with the help of some of the users (and some on a philosophical forum), resolved my philosophy and physics. This may seem pedantic, tiring, or even trivial to some. However, it's vitally important. The inability to distinguish an existent from a non-existent or an entity from a non-entityis exactly what got science into such a pathetic state. Without further ado, here we are.


You don't exist; therefore, you are not? Indeed without further ado, there you are or are not.


Your statement is redundant. Something that doesn't exist "is not" by definition. We don't prove existence. We define the term then whatever we refer to either meets the criteria or it doesn't. As I have defined it, I exist.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby Divinity » Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:24 pm

altonhare wrote:
Things exist because of consciousness. Consciousness is the master creator of all things.
-Divinity

No, entities exist whether we think about them or perceive them. I do not create this table by thinking about it or by looking at it.


Also, you didn't answer the question, Alton, about WHAT connects them? Or even better, WHY they are connected.
-Divinity

I answered both of these questions. My hypothesis is a continuous cylindrical object with a socket on one end and a ball on the other. The ball fits inside the socket and cannot escape by definition (continuous objects cannot deform or break). There is no "reason" they are connected, they are connected and have always been connected. They remain connected because of their structure. The one thing JL harps on that I agree with is that structure and function cannot be separated, although I am not confident he means the same thing as I.


How do you know you don't create or maintain the stability of the table with your thoughts? (Recall what can happen when you take DMT - materials can appear to 'fall apart'). If the table is within your realm of experience, I'm confident you created the table. Similarly with all the situations/events in your life. That's the purpose of consciousness - to co-create/bring forth the material from the non-material.

You seem very hung up on structured definitions, which is almost impossible in a quantum universe, I would think, but is a requirement for mainstream physics. So what they do is invent or make phenomena up to explain what we witness because they lack understanding. I understand your example above but cannot explain why they are inseparable other than the structure does not permit the ball to escape. I'm not sure what that has to do with the backwash of all existence, i.e. aether.


http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/phantom2.htm

To make a long story short, after six years of research, I had publicly reached the conclusion that there is an aether, and that aether is composed of subquantum particles, smaller than the Planck length, perhaps even infinitely small, perhaps in several layers of ever smaller sizes. Then I realized that an infinitely small mass is not constrained to light speed, since the considerations of relativity theory do not apply to an infinitesimal mass.

By this, I came to realize that the quantum property of "non-locality" is caused by superluminal transports of these infinitely small particles, where the informational content of the "quantum field" is carried by the vehicles of the subquantum particles. Now, similar to the non-linear projective Moebius transformation solutions to the Maxwell equations, first discovered by V. Fock of Germany in 1946, then studied extensively by R.M. Keihn during the 1980s and 1990s, these propagations are not constrained to any specific velocity, and indeed are allowed to have any velocity, from zero velocity, to an infinite velocity. So too, are the subquantum particles. They can possess any velocity, from zero to infinity.

As a result of this sequence, I publicly stated a theory of gravitation which relied on superluminal propagations of subquantum particles, as being the actual cause of gravity. Then, when I ran across an article which showed that a density gradient in a gaseous media is behaviorally indistinguishable from the so-called "curved space" of relativity theory, I knew I was on the right track.

Then, last year, I was reading the book "History of Aether and Electricity" by Whittaker, and ran across the model developed by LaPlace in the 1850s, which has gravitation being caused by a constant influx of subquantum particles ("infinitesimals"),each of which has an intrinsic velocity millions of times faster than the speed of light. Stellar and interstellar plasma processes involving subatomic particle dissociations as the result of high dv/dt charge separation events in stellar and interstellar plasmas are the origin of this constant in-streaming of subquantum particles which can easily attain superluminal velocities by such plasma dissociation events. Then, when these anisotropic superluminal subquantum entities encounter pre-existing matter, they are refracted and slowed down by interactions with the pre-existing matter. The reaction which occurs is experienced by matter as the pressing-down force we call gravitation.




http://www.meru.org/Advisors/Torun/cmplethr.html

Something very similar to an æther is to be found in the world of quantum electrodynamics, which views the vacuum as being far from empty. Both theory and experimental observation suggest that the fabric of space is a turbulent plasma-like realm comprised of virtual particles continuously appearing from and disappearing into a physical hyperspace. This virtual particle flux has an enormous energy density, the "zero point energy", of about 1093 g/cm3.1 It is termed zero-point because the motion imparted by the virtual particle flux is not thermal in nature and is present even at the "zero-point" of zero degrees Kelvin, where all atomic motion is supposed to stop.

Investigators attempting to interact with this hyperdimensional "æther" will probably need to establish some type of resonant system. There have been a number of interesting proposals for doing this, and the most promising among them would produce oscillation of ions in a plasma. Moray B. King describes the positive ions in a plasma as being capable of "polarizing" the vacuum, that is, establishing coherent lines of zero-point energy flux directly from the hyperspace where the zero-point energy resides. There has also been speculation that a rotating mass, particularly one bearing a high electrostatic charge, will produce vacuum polarization along with gravitational and inertial anomalies.
Divinity
Guest
 

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests