Thoughts on holographic universe and existence in general

[rody084]

holographic universe and our very existence in general...

One night i was in a strange mood and wrote this... i don't really remember writing most of it... but i thought i would share with the community here and i am definately searching for any feedback on my ideas that anyone might have!

I am very interested in the holographic universe theory and i am interested in understanding the world more and understanding these ideas better... so please post up your thoughts!


Holograms…
A single energy source… a laser…
Capable of making infinite unique projections…by simply changing the angle…

What if…
There is a big energy field out there…an infinite energy field…
Like a hologram…this energy has infinite projections with infinite variations…

What if…
Every one of those infinite projections was a conscious...a conscious that is an individual...
Us individuals… are merely projections of this greater ONE energy field…

Science has proven…
That everything we see, touch, smell… is merely an electrical impulse going to our brain…
Therefore… The world that we perceive does not necessarily exist…

Time…
Is there really such a thing… called time?
Is there a determined future and destiny for us… fate?
Or are we living the moment… the moment…being created that very instant…
Projected by this energy field… through us… no such thing as time… only… The Moment.

The Sub-conscious…
Hypnotherapy… the act talking directly to the sub-conscious…
Hypnotherapy patients can be told not to bleed…and the body will respond accordingly…
The subconsciousefficiently and effectively resolves any task presented to it…
So it is in control!

What if…
This sub-consciousness… is connected to all the other sub-consciousnesses in this energy field… the source…
We are all connected through our sub-consciousnesses… to the collective of consciousnesses…
Being connected with the collective of consciousnesses…we have access to infinite knowledge and wisdom…

What if…
The world we perceive is merely a projection just as we are?
So we, as a collective consciousness, are in control of this projection…
In control… with our subconscious…

Stress…
Active stress and preoccupation diverts you from successfully accomplishing any task…
The more you stress and worry about it… the harder and harder it becomes to accomplish…
When you cease stressing… a solution to the problem seems to be magically presented to you…
It’s not magic… it’s your subconscious taking over the problem and efficiently resolving it…

Prayer…
People pray… to some unknown entity... to have their problems fade away…
By praying… one lifts the burden from their shoulders… or so they believe…
Stress and preoccupation are lessened… because now… it is in someone else’s hands…
NO! It is not in someone else’s hands… it is up to your subconsciousnow…

The Collective Consciousness
This source energy… an infinite collection of sub-consciousnesses… a collective…

“God”?
An unknown entity creating solutions… or an infinite collective of individuals?

 

[nix]

If this is all true, and our subconsiousness and the general population is incontrol of everything, then how was this general population formed in the first place, without God? Because if we control the world and what we see, then how did we come into being?

 

[rody084]

I honestly don't think that there is an answer to "where did it all start" because doesn't matter how far you go back...you always wonder what was before that?

ex:
earth and galaxies... how did that get there?
big bang... how did that get there?
gas cloud... how did that get there?
god... how did that get there?

i don't think that will ever end... i don't think there wil ever be an answer to that question... which is a really freaky thought.

what are your thoughts? do u think there is a way to explain where we came from?

and aside from where we came from...what do u think of the rest of my ideas...takin out the source concern

 

[Another God]

metaphysics

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Another God
metaphysics

Metaphysics should join Physics in a TOE.
One concept.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by rody084
I am very interested in the holographic universe theory ...
What if…
There is a big energy field out there…an infinite energy field…
Like a hologram…this energy has infinite projections with infinite variations…

Rody ... you questions are about the fundamental interconnectivity.
When there is such interconnectivity why would it be that - like in a hologram - everything is copied again in everything? That's a lost a energy and a more complex model.
Einstein said that the essence was the gravitational field: that's interconnectivity, yes?
So everything is still interconnected even if not ALL is contained in holograms. The gravitational field is the source of the causal relationship(s) between all spiritual and physical events.
David Bohm spoke about the Implicate Order to find such causal relationship, and also to him a holographic approach was logic, but to me this can be explained more simple by the building up of holons.

 

[the_truth]

There is no evidence for this, your idea is lunacy.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by the_truth
There is no evidence for this, your idea is lunacy.

Evidence for string theory?
Evidence for Superposition?
How much postulates do they have?

Calling someone or his idea lunacy is an intellectual weakness. If you don't like it ... attack it with arguments, and be specific in your remarks. When you say: 'There is no evidence for this' ... what do you mean?

 

[Canute]

A theory cannot be dismissed by calling it metaphysics. This should be obvious, since all theories are based in metaphyics. As Banesh Hoffman says:

“It is difficult to decide where science ends and mysticism begins. As soon as we begin to make even the most elementary theories we are open to the charge of indulging in metaphysics. Yet theories, however provisional, are the very lifeblood of scientific progress. We simply cannot escape metaphysics, though we can perhaps over-indulge, as well as have too little.”

The Strange Story of the Quantum (Penguin 1968)

Neither is it true, as someone here said, that there can be no explanation of existence because we cannot end the infinite regression of explanations. There are ways around this.

Still I don't think Rody's ideas are right, they don't work logically as they stand. But I'd argue that they are on the right track.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Canute
A theory cannot be dismissed by calling it metaphysics.

Sorry, I didn't mean to attract attention...let me rephrase:

"This post is a metaphysical question, it therefore belongs in the metaphysics forum, not the general philosophy forum."

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Another God
Sorry, I didn't mean to attract attention...let me rephrase:

"This post is a metaphysical question, it therefore belongs in the metaphysics forum, not the general philosophy forum."

I can see your point, but I suspect that if you banish metaphysics from the philosophy forum there won't be much left to discuss. Imo it is the segragation of philosophy, metaphysics and science that leaves us unable to explain anything properly. This is what I was trying to suggest in my previous post.

 

[rody084]

Originally posted by pelastration
When there is such interconnectivity why would it be that - like in a hologram - everything is copied again in everything? That's a lost a energy and a more complex model.

I don't think that they all contain it... i think that they are all interconnected with the source so they don't need to contain it...

there was an experiment done...where 2 electrons were shot off in exact opposisite directions and they had an "obstacle course" both electrons made the same decisions as to which way to go... now i doubt that they were both programmed with the same information, but they were deff interconnected to each other...and probably something bigger. (i am not sure who did this experment, i do remember reading about it and my explanation is deff a crude oversimplification of it)

Einstein said that the essence was the gravitational field: that's interconnectivity, yes?

I think its not some kind of physical force that has us interconnected like u say... i am kinda leaning toward Plato's ideas that we are merely projections...in which case all of these forces are merely something that we are imagning.

So everything is still interconnected even if not ALL is contained in holograms.

right here you say what i said in response to your first question/point... do you agree with what i said now?

The Strange Story of the Quantum (Penguin 1968)

what is that?


i definately think that metaphysics should be involved...because maybe what is really reality (tho we will probably never figure it out and all agree on it) might be sumthin metaphysical...and if we don't entertain those ideas we might never come to realize it.


i want to make clear that i am not lookin for people to agree with my ideas... i just want feedback on them like i have been getting because it helps me think about them more and review them based on problems and such that might arise... i am looking to make my own theory of reality right now... it might not be right... but if it is something that i strongly believe in and somehting that i have figured out (with the help of others of course) and bettered myself by learning more and more, then i am happy... i am not religious... so this would in its own way be my religion

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by the_truth
There is no evidence for this, your idea is lunacy.

The absence of evidence is no evidence of absence. Many things we hold to be so, just might not be. His idea is very similar to this physicists. http://www.quantummatter.com/tetrode.html

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by rody084
One night i was in a strange mood and wrote this... i don't really remember writing most of it... but i thought i would share with the community here and i am definately searching for any feedback on my ideas that anyone might have!

The Sub-conscious…
Hypnotherapy… the act talking directly to the sub-conscious…
Hypnotherapy patients can be told not to bleed…and the body will respond accordingly…
The subconsciousefficiently and effectively resolves any task presented to it…
So it is in control!

preamble:
what is evidence but a set of arbitrary criteria? no words are truth just as the word "cup" is not a cup, though words can describe the truth.

first of all, you can see the reaction you get when you put yourself out there. for a various network of reasons, people will object to what you have to say. in part, the reason may be that one clings to a concept of a proof, the concept of words being the truth (or not), and one clings to the notion that nothing is truth without evidence that fits certain criteria.

what you have described in the two quoted paragraphs above could roughly be described as you hypnotizing yourself and talking to your subconscious. it is letting you know that is what is happening. rather, more accurate to say it is partially talking through you. the effect of forgetting what you write during this and being in a strange mood when you write it is very common among those who practice this; it is part and parcel with "the process." the first waypoint is to find your true self and by obtaining these "writings" you can help yourself get closer to yourself.

the way i contextualize it is the following: it's not your subconscious that is doing the writing, or is the source of the writing, though it is very much you. it is your "higher self" that is writing. freud has his way of mapping out the nonphysical components of the human and the way i map it can be explained via the following analogy: you are like a car. the engine is your true self. it supplies the power. without it, the car would go nowhere. the higher self is the transmission (with the double entendre intentional). it delivers the power to the wheels. without the transmission, the car would go nowhere. you can "install" a "high-tech" transmission by practicing these forms of writing to try to obtain power from the "engine" more directly rather than letting it haphazardly seep into your "wheels." the chassis and tires are the "little self": the ego and physical body. most people, i imagine, identify their 'i' with the chassis and tires rather than the whole car. in truth, you're not just the engine or just any part: you're the whole car. the question is who drives the car. well what is the purpose of all cars? to journey. and when you journal from the higher self perspective, your journey has hit another waypoint.

how do i know any of this? an appropriate question in an epistemology thread. but really, how do i know anything? it just seems self-evident to me as far as i am aware.

I am very interested in the holographic universe theory and i am interested in understanding the world more and understanding these ideas better... so please post up your thoughts!

Time…
Is there really such a thing… called time?
Is there a determined future and destiny for us… fate?
Or are we living the moment… the moment…being created that very instant…
Projected by this energy field… through us… no such thing as time… only… The Moment.

there is also some loose connections between the holographic universe theory and the concept of everything, including time, being a kind of illusion. i compare it all to a mirror. in the bible, it says we are created in God's image. to me, that suggests we are a reflection of God. a room full of convex mirrors that shrink down the original image. time is connected to entropy. the arrow of time advances as entropy increases. but entropy is also related to information distribution. the way i see it, time is totally nonlinear and is more aptly measured as a shift in awareness. from a certain perspective, the function f(x)=x^2 is not a constant. this is the local perspective. but the global perspective sees f as the set including the elements (0,0), (1,1), (2,4), etc. this set is completely static. so depending on your perspective, this thing is dynamic and static. our consciousness is locally oriented most of the time but from a global perspective, it is seen as all being static. time then is the advancement of the awareness of that static thing called reality which when viewed from a local perspective seems to change.

as far as illusions go, the word cup, as i wrote earlier, is not a cup itself. i believe that the cup is not a cup itself either. rather, it is only the physical component of the cup. i believe the totality of the cup is the combination of its physical component plus the "form" of cup that its physical component is a reflection of. the word cup is an icon for the cup. the physical cup is an icon for the whole cup. so, in a sense, the word cup is closer to the whole cup than the cup is because they are both abstractions of the physical cup. it's not that holograms are not real, they're just hollow.

Holograms…
A single energy source… a laser…
Capable of making infinite unique projections…by simply changing the angle…

What if…
There is a big energy field out there…an infinite energy field…
Like a hologram…this energy has infinite projections with infinite variations…

What if…
Every one of those infinite projections was a conscious...a conscious that is an individual...
Us individuals… are merely projections of this greater ONE energy field…

that one energy field has some popular and less popular names, depending on who you are:
God
Truth
the universal mind
Logos
the christ consciousness grid
the holy spirit
consciousness
the tree of knowledge
the tree of life
the gift of design (G.O.D.)
the grand order design (G.O.D.)
Reality
I
unity
duality
there are probably some scientific names too

it's not correct to be equating those together within any belief system I'm aware of.

Science has proven…
That everything we see, touch, smell… is merely an electrical impulse going to our brain…
Therefore… The world that we perceive does not necessarily exist…



What if…
This sub-consciousness… is connected to all the other sub-consciousnesses in this energy field… the source…
We are all connected through our sub-consciousnesses… to the collective of consciousnesses…
Being connected with the collective of consciousnesses…we have access to infinite knowledge and wisdom…

i believe we're all like psychic islands in the sea of consciousness. note that the network of islands are all connected though under the water so we can't see it. the connection is there nonetheless.

What if…
The world we perceive is merely a projection just as we are?
So we, as a collective consciousness, are in control of this projection…
In control… with our subconscious…

there is some degree to which we can control it and to some degree it controls us. it's a lot like how matter and space-time interact. it is incorrect to say one really controls the other though there is mutual influence.

Stress…
Active stress and preoccupation diverts you from successfully accomplishing any task…
The more you stress and worry about it… the harder and harder it becomes to accomplish…
When you cease stressing… a solution to the problem seems to be magically presented to you…
It’s not magic… it’s your subconscious taking over the problem and efficiently resolving it…

the higher self is not omniscient though it tends to carry with it the ability to tap into a greater resource than the little self can specifically because it is not embedded in a 3D world as our little selves are. the simple exercise is to write directly to it, let that "strange mood" come on and just write. one way to go about it is to write "what do i need to know at this time" and just let the words flow. if nothing comes out, then write that down. it's really no more mystical than being hypnotized and talking while hynotized. the boon is that when you write it down, you're recording what you're saying.

Prayer…
People pray… to some unknown entity... to have their problems fade away…
By praying… one lifts the burden from their shoulders… or so they believe…
Stress and preoccupation are lessened… because now… it is in someone else’s hands…
NO! It is not in someone else’s hands… it is up to your subconsciousnow…

you can obtain writings for advice though i generally find that my higher self can be about as concerned about things as a father would be if his child dropped their ice cream. mine only tells me what it thinks i need to know. the truth is that God has no needs. God doesn't need you to find yourself, become the savior of the universe, worship it, pray to it, praise it, etc.

The Collective Consciousness
This source energy… an infinite collection of sub-consciousnesses… a collective…

there is a theory that on this planet people fall into one of three categories. those with a collective soul, those with an individual soul, and those who began with a collective soul and are transitioning to one with an individual soul. these souls are ultimately still connected. the ones with a collective soul are called droids for their typically robotic-style mentality which is common and the other types are called beings. much more information on this is available at the universal sight discussion forum under "self."

 

[phoenixthoth]

“God”?
An unknown entity creating solutions… or an infinite collective of individuals?

the totality of all that is; so yes, a collective. putting it that way conjures up images for me of the borg collective and assimilation and as something to fear. fear is akin to the tires on that car slipping or being flat: a product of the little self in the guise of the ego.

 

[phoenixthoth]

question for canute

Neither is it true, as someone here said, that there can be no explanation of existence because we cannot end the infinite regression of explanations. There are ways around this.

i'm intruigued. please explain.

 

[rody084]

wow phoenix! i haven't been able to really sit down and think about all the stuff you said yet... i work 56 hours a week and i have school so its hard to find sum peace time... i did kinda read over it and i am very anxious to read it deeply and understand what you are saying so that we can discuss it further!

 

[rody084]

the function f(x)=x^2 is not a constant. this is the local perspective.

could you explain this further?

as far as illusions go, the word cup, as i wrote earlier, is not a cup itself. i believe that the cup is not a cup itself either. rather, it is only the physical component of the cup. i believe the totality of the cup is the combination of its physical component plus

the "form" of cup that its physical component is a reflection of.

the word cup is an icon for the cup. the physical cup is an icon for the whole cup. so, in a sense, the word cup is closer to the whole cup than the cup is because they are both abstractions of the physical cup. it's not that holograms are not real, they're just hollow.

the bolded part is where i don't quite follow you... are you saying that its the reflection of the physical component which you just mentioned right b4 that? could you clarify for me?

this is all i could get through for now... i am lookin forward discussin the rest with you though!

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by rody084
could you explain this further?

"Proof is only possible in mathematics, and mathematics is only a matter of arbitrary conventions."
--aliester crowley, liber CCCXXXIII, chapter 45.

the arbitrary convention for constancy is that a function f is not constant if there are two inputs that lead to different outputs. if '=' means 'equals' and '!=' means 'does not equal' then that means the function f is not constant if f(x)!=f(y) for some x and y. from this convention, one can see that f(x)=x^2 is not 'constant' because
f(1)=1!=0=f(0).

this is what i call a local perspective.

if you view a function as a set of ordered pairs of the form (x,f(x)) then it is static always. for example, if f(x)=x^2, then a few of the ordered pairs in the function f are (0,0) (because 0^2=0), (1,1) (because 1^2=1), and (-2,4) (because (-2)^2=4). on this 'level', notice how this set of ordered pairs is static and it doesn't change. sure, you can swap the ordering of the ordered pairs around, but the result is considered the same set of ordered pairs by convention. so, by this convention of constancy, any function is actually constant. whether a function is constant depends on your perspective.

i think there's an analogy here between what happens with functions and what's true about reality in general. by one convention, it 'obviously' changes and there is a perception of time which 'explains' why it changes and then there is another convention by which reality doesn't change, only our awareness of it changes. our awareness of it changes on a totally nonlinear, non-sequential basis, ultimately. in a sense, awareness shifts in a domain not subject to the passage of time. it's like a dvd-disc. it has a movie on it which appears to change over time as the laser beam moves along the disc but the whole contents of the disc are static and not changing. the characters in the movie even seem to have individual personalities and even free will, though the truth is that they are bound by the script, a script which the actors choose to act out in their own way with their own style. the disc is reality and the laser beam is awareness. in truth, the laser beam is not separate from the disc and it is self awareness.

the bolded part is where i don't quite follow you... are you saying that its the reflection of the physical component which you just mentioned right b4 that? could you clarify for me?

by 'form' i refer to my own loose interpretation of what plato meant by the word 'form.' some authors use form as the exact opposite meaning such as saying form is what you can touch and taste and even x-rays and neutrinos. form is space, matter, and energy. the way i meant form was a kind of abstraction of the cup. the concept of a cup is its form; the 'cupness', the qualia of cupness, so to speak, is what i meant when i wrote that the physical cup is a reflection of the 'form' of a cup. but they are mutual reflections of each other in a kind of symmetric way. i refer to these as concretes and abstracts. most things have both an abstract component and a concrete component. other authors would say the concrete component is the form while plato might say the abstract component is the form. in the first case, the abstract component is formlessness. the concrete-only view is hollow; the concrete is contained in the abstract.

to me, the word 'spirit' is what i call an abstract. there's nothing supernatural about it though it isn't concrete. i think that evolutionarily we haven't 'needed' to develop a 'sight' of abstracts, universally speaking, because we didn't need to in order to survive. though for one reason or another, people have been thinking about this stuff and finally writing it down for millenia. it does seem, however, that only recently, within the last century or two, have people been attempting to synthesize it 'all.' i write that though my knowledge of history is very poor, especially the history of spiritual thought.

i wrote about these things from the higher self perspective in a way similar to how you did and realized that 'i' was reinventing the wheel; a ton of people before me have come to the same conclusions and it really seems like there is something we all can tap into, a source of it all, that 'produces' this. call it consciousness itself if you will. it does not matter what you call the source or how you define it; one can still investigate Its properties.

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i'm intruigued. please explain. [/B]

I was suggesting that not only is there a single finite explanation of existence but that we can know for certain what is is.

However I doubt that I can explain this coherently without writing a weighty tome. The explanation wanders across around all over the place and is unprovable ex hypothesis. I'd find easier to respond to specific questions or objections.

Fundamentally this view is based on a synthesis of 'non-dual' epistemology and ontology with a little bit of personal experience thrown in. It makes sense to me but perhaps I've missed something.

 

[phoenixthoth]

i'd like to read it.

i am curious if these sentiments have anything to do with it; maybe a small part. these words are from the gnostic gospel of thomas. i mention this because it speaks of beginnings and endings, which one normally assumes existence has.

The Gospel Of Thomas
The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?"
Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is.
Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death." 19 Jesus said, "Congratulations to the one who came into being before coming into being.

and speaking of beginning and end, it reminds me of alpha and omega. i wrote a poem about alpha and omega whose first letters spell, "absolute infinity." maybe you can summarize what you want to write in a poem?

alpha and omega

alpha, the dawn of time ever changing
beings abstract and concrete contained in abstracts
superfluous are all words that describe It
omnipresent and omniscient included
luxurious manifolds we call home
under the twinkling projections we call stars
toward the beginning of time toward the end of time
emptiness is the root of the ygdrasil

indeterminate expansions unfolding
nothing is the key to the universe (and fools know nothing)
fools mistaken for buddha have said with glee
insight upon outsight within It
netherworlds beyond time and all dimension
inside Itself It dwells and in It all dwells
time will be obsolete in the future says this fool
ygdrasil is the root of never changing omega Is
[…repeat from beginning…]

 

[Canute]

Yeah, I'd like to read it as well. I've been trying to get it on paper for a long time with no success.

I didn't know that quote from Jesus about 'coming into being before coming into being'. Thanks for posting it, I'll check out the rest of Thomas. Funny how everybody arrives at the same conclusion.

“For Chuang Tzu, the Tao does not remain self-same and things transform from and into one another. Therefore, reality is the setting up of unitary opposites and is itself self-erasing; it shuttles perennially and dialectically between "being" (yu) and "nothingness" (wu)(aa), between "beginning" (yu-shih)(ab) and "not yet beginning to be a beginning" (wei-shih yu-shih)(ac), and between "not yet beginning to be a beginning" and "not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning" (yu wei-shih fu wei-shih yu-shih)(ad) as accomplices of one another. “

The Conception of Langauge And The Use of Paradox In Buddhism And Taoism, Edward T. Ch'ine Journal of Chinese Philosophy Vol. 11 1984 P.375-399

If you're interested this is a great article. It's online somewhere.

A poem? I can;t even write it down in bad prose. Still, here's one. Not quite so lyrical as your very good one I'm afraid.

Just in case - G(F) refers to a Goedel sentence G within formal system F.

An Ontological Argument from G(F)

Whatever matter’s made of, it’s made out of it still,
For if it weren’t we wouldn’t be here, and we are. Or, if you will,
Our parts may be elusive, even virtual so they say,
But if we exist then they do, and we do, so so do they.

And whatever matter’s made of it is one of just two things,
(By one of the two views to which our dualism clings),
But it can’t be made of matter, and nothing makes no sense,
So it’s made of something sitting on the something-nothing fence

Still, whatever matter’s made of, it must be just one thing,
And be everywhere inside us and outside of everything,
A set of sets of systems, complete unto the day,
Where, answered and unanswered, G(F) simply fades away.

And however you explain things, however you aspire,
To end all your regressions and give answer to the liar,
G(F) will be beyond you, one last step beyond your brink,
For if it exists then you do, and you do, or so you think.

 

[phoenixthoth]

now perhaps the way to begin your treatise is to reverse the projection which is to say that you projected your "hypothesis" onto a lyrical verse (which i rather enjoyed reading, btw) and one way to go about it now is to explain bit by bit what it means in "lay" terms. it can be done to a high degree of accuracy though i think never perfectly. i think using double meaning and paradox to stimulate one is definitely one way to go. the other way is to try to be as direct as possible.

i just wrote a new poem you might like (another one whose first letters spell something out):

underneath it all in itself all is
morbid fascination consternation at dark following
behind the scenes keen seeing
reveals that tenth of an inch separating
all from naught glowing eyes
lupine lore universal lore where does it end where does it

begin to dismay as we sidestep that infinitesimal separation
ludicrous sayings making perfect senses
attain perfection by Saying and Waying, not sideways but direct
calling choosing confusing all but one from a hundred and two from a
kilogram of mass converted into energy that's right
open the way for the saying direct not like this
unconscious minds disunited through unity's whim
to create to behold through the eye of the I

behold. be... hold... be bold and plunge direct not like this
yes is never the truth though "yes is never the truth" is truth not like this

memory is biochemically concrete so there can't be any "over there"
open minds filling
orifices with vulgarities, absurdities, and more lies
noctem lives vicariously per diem
luna I eye you from above you inside you and outside you
integral of unity over the boundary of I is I
gargantuan pomegranates rotten fallen off the tree of life
heaving and leaving this tree does
to encapsulate It in One Word Is I

i'm sure rader will appreciate it in view of his current title "the eye of the I" which is the title of the second of an excellent trilogy masterfully written, imo, on subjects including reality, consciousness, and God. at times it's "watered down" for the lay person and other times it reads like stereo instructions written in a foreign language.

rader, have you read 'I' yet? my avatar can also be viewed as an eye. it also looks like a rotating universe with three layers corresponding to the little self (body and ego), higher self, and true self. well, eye plus universe gives you universal sight.

 

[Rader]

poems

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
now perhaps the way to begin your treatise is to reverse the projection which is to say that you projected your "hypothesis" onto a lyrical verse (which i rather enjoyed reading, btw) and one way to go about it now is to explain bit by bit what it means in "lay" terms. it can be done to a high degree of accuracy though i think never perfectly. i think using double meaning and paradox to stimulate one is definitely one way to go. the other way is to try to be as direct as possible.

i just wrote a new poem you might like (another one whose first letters spell something out):

i'm sure rader will appreciate it in view of his current title "the eye of the I" which is the title of the second of an excellent trilogy masterfully written, imo, on subjects including reality, consciousness, and God. at times it's "watered down" for the lay person and other times it reads like stereo instructions written in a foreign language.

rader, have you read 'I' yet? my avatar can also be viewed as an eye. it also looks like a rotating universe with three layers corresponding to the little self (body and ego), higher self, and true self. well, eye plus universe gives you universal sight.

phoenixthoth, I will read the last when the moment is right. Which will not be long. I have found a partner to test kinesiology, he is an expert and has read power verse force. Testing is immininate. I would like to test some math, we will set up a thread when we do this.
Do you have to be poets like you and canute to post on this thread? I have no credentials.

When roses were red, and the beginning was fusion;
Then violets became blue, to follow the confusion:

While roses are red, when particles cue;
To make violets blue, to give us a clue:

If roses are red, and life is an illusion;
Then violets are blue, and reality is an intrusion:

So roses are red, and that leaves in the head;
Maybe violets are blue, to then lead us ahead:

While roses are red, for a purpose or too;
Cause violets are blue, to tell us what’s true:

Why roses are red, is something of a meaning;
Why violets are blue, is to make us start seeing:

 

[phoenixthoth]

i'm curious to know how various posts calibrate according to your test. maybe you could, when the spirit moves you, decide to post in your reply some calibrations of replies. I'm interested in knowing how my article under "the search for absolute infinity" calibrates. it's on page 2 under general math unless i reply to it between then and now.

i don't have credentials either as far as poems go and i enjoyed yours.

in canute's poem, i liked that something-nothing fence reference in particular. so holograms are real but they're hollow; that's how i'd interpret it. i think the holograms are some kind of projection, or reflection, of some kind of "higher truth." i imaging the totality of all that is as being projectible onto the following self-similar diagram:

...((((((...))))))...

the big picture is the whole picture but notice how if i take a finite sub-picture i get this picture which is similar to the original picture, it has finite boundary, and still has infinite depth:

(((...)))

in a way, it's almost a copy of the original picture and perhaps when there are three times as many right parentheses as left parentheses you get a quark with spin 3 (i obviously don't know what I'm talking about) and maybe when they satisfy other significant relations they turn into people, etc. all such little pictures are contained in this picture sort of interleaved with each other:

...((((((...))))))...

and then when you project that onto the 3D human consciousness, you get stars, galaxies, what appear to be totally separate entities. perhaps there is a tenth of an inch between the parentheses. maybe a Planck length. maybe it's infinitesimal. or maybe if you let the parentheses approach one another you get this self-similar picture:

.

no words are the truth though "no words are the truth" comes close to truth. the maximum level of truth words can have is expressed arbitrarily by a number which can apparently be calibrated. david hawkins has put this at 1,000. see his phd thesis "quantitative and qualitative analysis and calibration of the levels of human consciousness." after reading that i may have more of an opinion on the whole calibration technique; let it suffice to say that i find the idea interesting but I'm also not sure if it works.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i'm curious to know how various posts calibrate according to your test. maybe you could, when the spirit moves you, decide to post in your reply some calibrations of replies. I'm interested in knowing how my article under "the search for absolute infinity" calibrates. it's on page 2 under general math unless i reply to it between then and now.

You are reading my mind, i hand thought of doing this while reading the books. The levels of posts calibrate as you would expect, according to the book. The Rule" be consciously one step up in everything you think, say or do. Ok i will try and find it and calibrate it.

i don't have credentials either as far as poems go and i enjoyed yours.

thanks

in canute's poem, i liked that something-nothing fence reference in particular. so holograms are real but they're hollow; that's how i'd interpret it. i think the holograms are some kind of projection, or reflection, of some kind of "higher truth." i imaging the totality of all that is as being projectible onto the following self-similar diagram:

If you read things over and over... that is over time, the meaning changes as you do.
...((((((...))))))...

the big picture is the whole picture but notice how if i take a finite sub-picture i get this picture which is similar to the original picture, it has finite boundary, and still has infinite depth:

If we are all connected, no further evidence might be needed, to realize that the universe is finite, although it may be expanding in a continuum which is infinite, mind and matter must certainly be in contact inside a limited boundry. Like a bubble expanding through liquid.[/
(((...)))

in a way, it's almost a copy of the original picture and perhaps when there are three times as many right parentheses as left parentheses you get a quark with spin 3 (i obviously don't know what I'm talking about) and maybe when they satisfy other significant relations they turn into people, etc. all such little pictures are contained in this picture sort of interleaved with each other:

If everythig is there was, was there, is there was. In a big barrel filled with white paint and a rainstorm of raindrops of infinite colors, fell upon the spinning barrel. All the colored rain drops would melt into a unified color, to untangle the raindrops, you would only have to spin the barrel in the opposite direction.
...((((((...))))))...

and then when you project that onto the 3D human consciousness, you get stars, galaxies, what appear to be totally separate entities. perhaps there is a tenth of an inch between the parentheses. maybe a Planck length. maybe it's infinitesimal. or maybe if you let the parentheses approach one another you get this self-similar picture:

I have pondered this at much length. Could it be that the material world does not do the projecting but consciousness projects itself into everyting like the wind does to a open window.

no words are the truth though "no words are the truth" comes close to truth. the maximum level of truth words can have is expressed arbitrarily by a number which can apparently be calibrated. david hawkins has put this at 1,000. see his phd thesis "quantitative and qualitative analysis and calibration of the levels of human consciousness." after reading that i may have more of an opinion on the whole calibration technique; let it suffice to say that i find the idea interesting but I'm also not sure if it works.

I am aware there are levels, and if we use the postulate that we are all connected, I am aware that you are aware that there is levels.