God

[DmnStr8]

I am sorry for contributing to the derailment of your thread. And DmnStr8 i am sorry for calling you an egotistical dick. I still think you were being one, but no more so than i am at times. Shouldve kept my mouth shut...

Towel snap in the locker room.. yes immature..unnecessary..levity is involved though. You got your towel snap back, so it's all good. In my life I will be many things, a hypocrite, an egotistical dick, I will also be a loving father and thoughtful dispenser of sage advice. Balance I suppose. My bad if I offended anyone, this medium does not translate my shenanigans very well sometimes. I will tone down my vibe from now on.

The devil made me do it! :twisted:

 

[Loveall]

Let's str8ten out our mindlusions, embrace with xssive alkemical hugs, and endlessly love all (Fran included).

Or, us Entities could go on a Phantastica roundabout winter dragon ride in downwards from zero temperatures among ashes and confused acacias while Tony plays his six strings, I've been longtimewaiting for something like that.

k?

 

[0_o]

I'm partial to the Spinoza Einstein god myself.
Their observations and experiences are similar to my own.

God as a force of nature, logos, the intelligent universe but not one concerned with humanity nor one that thinks or feels like we do. I don't believe in projecting human qualities onto the universe, but I know a higher power exists.

People are often self centered and they want the universe to revolve around them.
Logos is a topic worth exploring but I always hesitate to engage in detailed discussions of religious topics as that they are seldom productive.

 

[hug46]

Let's str8ten out our mindlusions, embrace with xssive alkemical hugs, and endlessly love all (Fran included).

Or, us Entities could go on a Phantastica roundabout winter dragon ride in downwards from zero temperatures among ashes and confused acacias while Tony plays his six strings, I've been longtimewaiting for something like that.

k?

This warms the cockles of my heart. Love and respect to you.

 

[FranLover]

Let's str8ten out our mindlusions, embrace with xssive alkemical hugs, and endlessly love all (Fran included).

Or, us Entities could go on a Phantastica roundabout winter dragon ride in downwards from zero temperatures among ashes and confused acacias while Tony plays his six strings, I've been longtimewaiting for something like that.

k?

hahaha!!:lol:

 

[xss27]

I apologize for being abhorrent, I regretted posting that immediately after. Must have really not been in a good mood that day. It came out very ugly.

The difference I was trying to make is this, that single post might have made me come off as this highly rational pragmatist, prickly particle physics thumper, but really I am very much opposite of that. I have my own perceptions and ideas of reality, my own metaphysics. And I also believe there are some massive holes (hah) in the standard model, especially on the astronomical scale.

Yeah I did wonder if it was a bad day for you given you addressed me politely in your original post. No worries. And it is good to hear you have come to your own conclusions, everyone should hold the desire for truth above attachment to any theory (or indeed anything).

What I can't understand is where your assertions are coming from. You seem to be very inconsistent in your reasoning. Why do you accept some theories on faith but not others? Where do you draw the line and why? Help me understand your reasoning and why you draw your conclusions. I don't need you to give me evidence I would just like to hear how you came to these conclusions. It's a more productive to discussion rather than just stating "I believe this is true, don't ask me why, and nothing can change my mind".

Like yourself I have come to my own conclusions based upon my own journey of discovery through an interest in science and at the same time an on-going pursuit of a subjective nature. What really cracked the door was finding out about plasma cosmology, the work of Hannes Alfvén, Birkeland, and others who presented an alternative possibility for a cosmological framework. Up until that point I had no reason to really question the standard model of cosmology but once I was actually made aware of just how assumptive the standard model is it then it began to lose its hold. Personally I find plasma cosmology makes a much better fit of observable data without needing to resort to untested assumptions (blackholes, neutron stars etc) that defy what to me seems reasonable. One of the most obvious elements is the fact that magnetic fields and electric fields go together, and the standard model doesn't really address that properly. Another being that plasma formations and functions can be scaled from the lab right up to the galactic scale; we can see the patterns, forms, and functions at work.

When you compare the two paradigms on offer I really don't think it's that surprising that plasma cosmology makes a better shot at explaining things in cosmology. It may not have all the answers but then it hasn't had the full weight of scientific investigation that it perhaps deserves owing to a fixation upon a relativistic gravity obsessed paradigm.

Following that obviously the Big Bang theory was now open for question. It's not as if the Big Bang theory wasn't ridiculous to begin with, it is in all honesty. Even as a 7 year old the concept of space being anything other than infinite just assaults simple logic and felt reason. Without boring you and everyone else I really do believe we made a rush to judgement around the turn of the 20th century when we disregarded the concept of an aether in favour of Einsteins line of thinking and then the probabilistic world of quantum mechanics. Again I think assumptions were made in haste without exploring different options first. The most outstanding of which was the assumption of the aether being a medium through which matter and light moved, as something separate or apart, rather than a medium out of which light and matter appear to be manifest and is a dynamic unity.

I can't understand why you believe one thing but deny another, especially when the two are directly related to another. You seem to idolize Tesla, so lets start with electromagnetism.

On the grounds of probability I see it as far more rational to place faith in what Tesla had to say than that of the theoretical mathematicians. His record of invention is unparalleled, his attitude to work uncompromising and pure dedication, and by accounts his behaviour towards other humans (and animals) a league above the conniving selfish nature of so many other celebrated or noteworthy individuals. Idolize him is the wrong word - his genius and heart is self evident.

The mathematicians are brilliant in there own way. As I've said I don't doubt the maths is correct, it's the conclusions that have been drawn and the direction it has taken us that I disagree with and think is incorrect.

I don't understand why you wouldn't agree with quantum mechanics either, if you like tesla so much. He said "If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration."

Indeed. He also said;

"My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.”

I think what Tesla is referring to there is the idea that matter is essentially a standing wave formed out of the standing waves of other matter. The issue with QM is it rode in on the assumption that there is even such a thing as a particle rather than taking everything to be (real) waves in a real medium (aether/space). From my understanding I think Schrodinger held this concept in his mind too and was unhappy with the direction QM had taken with its probabilistic notions.

This is why I really think if you took a deeper look, took the time to really understand the concepts, I think you would find you like it. Its empowering to be a contrarian but its not very fulfilling.

But it is not a matter of understanding the concepts when you can see the illogical nature of them from the outset, when you can see there is something wrong with them. The maths may be right but the conceptual direction is wrong. This is not really a radical position, there's plenty of figures within the scientific world, big names, who take the same position I just described (i.e Schrodinger).

Accepting concepts which you know in your heart are incorrect is wholly unsatisfactory. I'd rather explore new ideas and ways of thinking about the problem than just accepting a castle made of sand. Having said that I do believe the truth has been known all along and since antiquity; one substance, infinite and indivisible, from which everything appears to arise.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, there is an interesting website that might provoke some thinking in regards to the standing wave idea (spaceandmotion.com), or youtube "Milo Wolff". I think that is heading in the right direction personally - an aether/space, waves (no particles), and I see room in there for geometry/sacred geometry, resonance/harmonics too.

 

[Loveall]

But it is not a matter of understanding the concepts when you can see the illogical nature of them from the outset, when you can see there is something wrong with them. The maths may be right but the conceptual direction is wrong. This is not really a radical position, there's plenty of figures within the scientific world, big names, who take the same position I just described (i.e Schrodinger).

Accepting concepts which you know in your heart are incorrect is wholly unsatisfactory. I'd rather explore new ideas and ways of thinking about the problem than just accepting a castle made of sand. Having said that I do believe the truth has been known all along and since antiquity; one substance, infinite and indivisible, from which everything appears to arise.

By believing you can know in your heart what is truth, I think you have separated yourself from it.

 

[xss27]

By believing you can know in your heart what is truth, I think you have separated yourself from it.

From a metaphysical standpoint I disagree, the Truth can be found through the heart (centre/self) because we are not separate from what is. From a scientific standpoint I would not dismiss intuition off the bat either. It only seems absurd if you believe in the idea of separateness, but if you know all thoughts are collective thoughts and they are not 'you' then intuition, insight, or direct knowing is very much possible.

 

[0_o]

Truth is independent of human feeling.

If something is true because it feels true in your heart, then if your feeling changes it is no longer true. However that simply doesn't work, try it with chemistry, carpentry or any math, science or technology. It fails.

Heart felt truth is nothing more than superstition, it's better to rip that bandaid right off. Superstition has its place in human life, but that doesn't make it true no matter what we feel in our hearts
Psychedelics taught me that.

Heart felt truth is a naked emperor your mind can see but your heart blinds you too.

 

[endlessness]

There is nothing that is going to convince me that time dilates or that space has any sort of geometry that can be distorted. Not until you can make either one of those variables tangible enough.

The way I interpret what you are saying is: "Either the universe fits in a simple model I can understand or it's not true".

What do you think of heliocentrism? Intuitively, and at first sight, it seems wrong, since we see the sun moving, not our planet. Do you believe that the sun moves around the earth?

Or if you think that we indeed move around the sun and not the sun around us, what "tangible" evidence that does not use mathematics have you found to explain it?

Do you believe the earth is flat? If not, what is your intuitive non-mathematical proof the earth is not flat?


Regarding truth and heart, you keep falling into a logical fallacy, appeal to intuition. You seem to disregard the possibility that your feelings and intuition might be wrong. Humans are wrong all the time despite being so sure they are right. Independent scrutiny and experiments are essential to help us eliminate personal bias and mistaken perceptions, and I'm sorry there are people that deny it (when convenient) in this day and age.

 

[dragonrider]

There is nothing that is going to convince me that time dilates or that space has any sort of geometry that can be distorted. Not until you can make either one of those variables tangible enough.

The way I interpret what you are saying is: "Either the universe fits in a simple model I can understand or it's not true".

What do you think of heliocentrism? Intuitively, and at first sight, it seems wrong, since we see the sun moving, not our planet. Do you believe that the sun moves around the earth?

Or if you think that we indeed move around the sun and not the sun around us, what "tangible" evidence that does not use mathematics have you found to explain it?

Do you believe the earth is flat? If not, what is your intuitive non-mathematical proof the earth is not flat?


Regarding truth and heart, you keep falling into a logical fallacy, appeal to intuition. You seem to disregard the possibility that your feelings and intuition might be wrong. Humans are wrong all the time despite being so sure they are right. Independent scrutiny and experiments are essential to help us eliminate personal bias and mistaken perceptions, and I'm sorry there are people that deny it in this day and age, despite benefiting daily from the scientific method.

I think there's a sort of basic human intuition about space and time, that space is empty and not a "thing", just like time, that is incredibly hard to ignore......and probably false.

The intuition is "true" from our human perspective, just like the flat earth model is true when applied to small scale activities like building a house.

But just like the earth isn't realy flat, it looks a lot like this intuition doesn't hold up either. Space probably does not equal emptyness. It is probably something instead of nothing. And somehow related to time as well.

 

[xss27]

The way I interpret what you are saying is: "Either the universe fits in a simple model I can understand or it's not true".

Ok firstly I don't appreciate the insinuations and tone in your overall post about your interpretation of my intelligence, please dispense with it or just come out and say what you're really thinking.

And what is so outrageous about models being conveyable in simple explanations? If something can not be explained simply and without having to resort to writing entire books or endless mathematical abstractions then it is likely to be in error. The face value concept should be conceivable and resonate with basic logic and reason.

Do you believe the earth is flat? If not, what is your intuitive non-mathematical proof the earth is not flat?

If we were back 400 years there would have been three things that twinged my intuition. First, assuming I had seen the wide ocean I would have observed a slight curvature. Second, the Sun in the sky is round as is the moon. Third, if it were flat that implies an edge - where are the stories of boats falling off the earth or such like?

Regarding truth and heart, you keep falling into a logical fallacy, appeal to intuition. You seem to disregard the possibility that your feelings and intuition might be wrong.

You pulled that one out of your backside, show me where I said I wasn't prepared to acknowledge I may be mistaken or where I believe myself or intuition to be infallible.

Question for you: If I were Schrodinger questioning the direction of thought in the Quantum Mechanics paradigm, despite having been one of its principal founders, what would you say of my intuitive value then? Would you still say it is fanciful? If not, why not.

 

[endlessness]

And what is so outrageous about models being conveyable in simple explanations? If something can not be explained simply and without having to resort to writing entire books or endless mathematical abstractions then it is likely to be in error. The face value concept should be conceivable and resonate with basic logic and reason.

The universe is under no obligation to fit simple explanations, and you seem to suppose that it MUST fit that simple explanation or be understood by common sense otherwise it is wrong.

If we were back 400 years there would have been three things that twinged my intuition. First, assuming I had seen the wide ocean I would have observed a slight curvature. Second, the Sun in the sky is round as is the moon. Third, if it were flat that implies an edge - where are the stories of boats falling off the earth or such like?

What curvature of the ocean can be observed?

How does the sun and moon being round explain, under "basic logic and reason", that we are actually moving around the sun and not the other way around, and that earth is not flat?

Also, what is it about 400 years back that is different in answering this question than you being in 2019?

You pulled that one out of your backside, show me where I said I wasn't prepared to acknowledge I may be mistaken or where I believe myself or intuition to be infallible.

First notice I said what it SEEMED to me you disregard the possibility you are wrong, I didn't say you absolutely think this or that..... Below I will quote a couple of things you said which led me to think this way, excuse me if I'm mistaken.

But it is not a matter of understanding the concepts when you can see the illogical nature of them from the outset, when you can see there is something wrong with them

(...)


Why is it my duty to become a subject expert and waste my life in order to try and disprove something I intuitively know already is incorrect?

These are arguments you wrote, which have a big caveat, which is, your intuition and reasoning must be right. I might have missed it, but I didn't see anywhere at all in all your posts the possibility that your intuition might be wrong and some sort of after-thought on how to account for that possibility. Did you ?

As for Schrodinger, please do enlighten me on what he said regarding quantum mechanics which you think is relevant to this discussion.

Lastly, can we please do without the passive agressive insults such as "pulled out of your backside" or similar? Thanks!

 

[xss27]

The universe is under no obligation to fit simple explanations, and you seem to suppose that it MUST fit that simple explanation otherwise it is wrong.

Why are you trying to make an absolute statement out of what I said. I did not say it must or has an obligation to, I said if something can not be explained simply and resonate with basic logic and reason then it is likely to be in error i.e it is our current explanation that is not whole. I accept a certain amount of mathematical exploration and sound boarding is needed to push us along from one plateau of understanding to the next, but once we reach the next plateau things should be congruent with the previous level and not generate a load of noise.. which is where we are now in regards to relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, big bang theory and so forth. There is no coherence - I believe that is because we're making/have made a mistake somewhere along the line.

What curvature of the ocean can be observed?

Definitely can't perceive it at ground level at the beach but when I've been at around 1000ft close to the sea (the med) on a perfectly still immaculate day with uninterrupted FOV the curvature is there albeit almost imperceptible. Must be a fraction of a degree of arc or something minuscule. Maybe it's helped by atmospheric refraction I don't know, but the horizon edge was definitely not perfectly level.

As for Schrodinger, please do enlighten me on what he said regarding quantum mechanics which you think is relevant to this discussion.

"Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum mechanics held today, I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody" - Schrodinger, 1952

 

[endlessness]

if something can not be explained simply and resonate with basic logic and reason then it is likely to be in error

According to which statistics?

Definitely can't perceive it at ground level at the beach but when I've been at around 1000ft close to the sea (the med) on a perfectly still immaculate day with uninterrupted FOV the curvature is there albeit almost imperceptible. Must be a fraction of a degree of arc or something minuscule. Maybe it's helped by atmospheric refraction I don't know, but the horizon edge was definitely not perfectly level.

Let's suppose you did see the curvature of the earth so you can think earth is not flat and cannot think of any other model that explains that curvature apart from round earth. Now what about heliocentrism, what's your intuitive argument?

"Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum mechanics held today, I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody" - Schrodinger, 1952

What was the context, what was said before and what did he say after? Where is this from?
What alternative model does he propose?

Also, as stated before, for those scientifically-minded, the only thing that matters is how good the model is, if it can be independently tested and confirmed, the predictions it makes. If an alternative model to quantum physics is proposed that fits the observation better, I'd be happy to adopt it. The name of the person who says one thing or another doesn't matter in the least, that's appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[xss27]

I'm not interested in discussing anything further with you in regards to myself, endlessness. You have enough to chew on.

What alternative model does he propose?

Also, as stated before, for those scientifically-minded, the only thing that matters is how good the model is, if it can be independently tested and confirmed, the predictions it makes. If an alternative model to quantum physics is proposed that fits the observation better, I'd be happy to adopt it. The name of the person who says one thing or another doesn't matter in the least, that's appeal to authority fallacy.

Schrodinger was one of the instigators of QM itself, Nobel Prize winner in Physics, I think his opinion on the subject should be taken with proper consideration. I should have brought this into the discussion earlier but it's a tad ironic that his cat thought experiment has become a thing in itself and mathematicians, yet again, are running away with something and conceptualising nonsense sand castles.. the thought experiment was actually his attempt to show up the nonsense in QM!

As far as I'm aware Schrodinger was working with Einstein as both men disagreed with the direction of QM and the interpretations it had spawned, but they never completed anything together before their partnership waned. Schrodinger seemed to be proposing the notion (and I believe Einstein agreed) that all matter is standing waves. As a result the whole plethora of sub-atomic particles that we are currently chasing with CERN are actually just illusions, mathematical misinterpretations of the wave centres - everything is waves.

"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances)" - Schrodinger

To my mind the whole quandary seems fairly self-made and perpetuated by forces inside the establishment of science, helped on my mathematicians who are obsessed with the fantasies their own mathematics creates.

 

[0_o]

The work at Cern is based on the fact that particles are wave effects.

Math can be useful, it helps us measure things.
Measurement is an important part of physics.
It's really hard to eyeball neutrons.

 

[dragonrider]

I'm not interested in discussing anything further with you in regards to myself, endlessness. You have enough to chew on.

What alternative model does he propose?

Also, as stated before, for those scientifically-minded, the only thing that matters is how good the model is, if it can be independently tested and confirmed, the predictions it makes. If an alternative model to quantum physics is proposed that fits the observation better, I'd be happy to adopt it. The name of the person who says one thing or another doesn't matter in the least, that's appeal to authority fallacy.

Schrodinger was one of the instigators of QM itself, Nobel Prize winner in Physics, I think his opinion on the subject should be taken with proper consideration. I should have brought this into the discussion earlier but it's a tad ironic that his cat thought experiment has become a thing in itself and mathematicians, yet again, are running away with something and conceptualising nonsense sand castles.. the thought experiment was actually his attempt to show up the nonsense in QM!

As far as I'm aware Schrodinger was working with Einstein as both men disagreed with the direction of QM and the interpretations it had spawned, but they never completed anything together before their partnership waned. Schrodinger seemed to be proposing the notion (and I believe Einstein agreed) that all matter is standing waves. As a result the whole plethora of sub-atomic particles that we are currently chasing with CERN are actually just illusions, mathematical misinterpretations of the wave centres - everything is waves.

"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances)" - Schrodinger

To my mind the whole quandary seems fairly self-made and perpetuated by forces inside the establishment of science, helped on my mathematicians who are obsessed with the fantasies their own mathematics creates.

A lot has happened since schrodinger and einstein.
Too many predictions have been made, that came true.

When we're talking about a world, too small for us to see anyway, a word like "wave" is not that much different from a mathematical formula.

 

[xss27]

When we're talking about a world, too small for us to see anyway, a word like "wave" is not that much different from a mathematical formula.

But if everything is waves, real waves in a real medium, and not imaginary or probability functions in conjunction with dozens of misinterpreted sub-atomic particles.. that makes a tremendous difference. It's a whole new paradigm. The maths could then become productive and meaningful again, because there's sure to be corresponding patterns that scale from the atomic upwards (think resonance, cymatics etc).

 

[Mindlusion]

As far as I'm aware Schrodinger was working with Einstein as both men disagreed with the direction of QM and the interpretations it had spawned, but they never completed anything together before their partnership waned. Schrodinger seemed to be proposing the notion (and I believe Einstein agreed) that all matter is standing waves. As a result the whole plethora of sub-atomic particles that we are currently chasing with CERN are actually just illusions, mathematical misinterpretations of the wave centres - everything is waves.

Not only do ascertain without a doubt what you believe to be true, but you are arguing against something that no one else actually believes in the first place.

As 0_o already stated, and I have stated multiple times in which you completely ignored in my post, that the very experiments that are done today rest upon the fact that the matter we are interacting with ARE standing waves. That oscillation in one field will affect oscillation in another field.

I already stated in my post clearly the exact conclusions that arose out of quantum mechanics, no endless mathematical abstractions necessary.
This is the direct implication of quantum mechanics, no interpretation necessary. No imaginary probability functions. There ARE corresponding patterns of the wave phenomena that are used in various forms of technology.

This has already been stated my myself and many others, multiple times now. But instead of addressing the honest questions about your ideas and your beliefs and your physics, instead you just ignore those completely and restate your initial belief, and restate your belief of what you think others believe. You're not listening.

You are pitting strawmen against each-other. You are rationalizing, post-hoc. That's not thinking. You are matching what you want against a weak imaginary opponent. You are using your conclusions to justify your proofs. You're hiding from the truth.

If you shirk the responsibility of confronting the unexpected even when it appears in manageable doses, reality itself will become unsustainably disorganized and chaotic. Then it will grow bigger and swallow all order, all sense, and all predictability. Ignored reality transforms itself. Reverts back into the great goddess of chaos, the great reptilian monster of the unknown, the great predatory beast against which mankind has struggled since the dawn of time. If the gap between pretense, and reality, goes unmentioned, it will widen. You will fall into it. And the consequences will not be good. Ignored reality manifests itself in an abyss of confusion and suffering.