This was discussed at length in another thread, but no conclusion was drawn, and it was in the realm of being off-topic, so I'd like to start fresh.

These are a few assertions I use to function:

1. There is no true or false, only degrees of possibility.
2. Reality exists in 4 states. I will use me as an example. There is me. Then there is not-me. These states are inverse to each other. Then there is anti-me. Then there is anti-not me. The last two are also inverse. The first set and second set are a further inverse.
3. Perceived reality consumes us all. As it flickers to not reality, we cannot detect it's passing, and all energies required cancel out to 0.
4. No state intersects at any point, but flicker constantly. Each conscience within each state is incapable of defining themselves outside of that state.

Flicker?

Yes. I will use Electricity for an example. Electricity is transmitted in the united states as alternating current at 60 cycles per second. It is not perceptible, however, the buzz of a shock from forming a circuit fom hot to neutral wires is evident as it pushes you away and pulls you in 60 times per second. IOW it alternates from push to pull 60 times per second. Reality does domething similar, but in a more complex waveform. Possibly a parallel set of waveforms opposed to each other so they never touch. No energy is lost or gained.

What about the other consciousnesses?

That is something to wonder at. First, are the not's conscious, or simply a lack? Second, are the anti-me and me's actually seperately conscious? Thirdly, if all are conscious, are decisions made by the combined group, free will only existing as a group? Fourthly, If there is but one that is conscious, is it isolated to one state, or is it perceiving all states all the time?

Thoughts?

These are a few assertions I use to function:

1. There is no true or false, only degrees of possibility. .....

No, I don't think so, Ham. I don't believe that anyone can actually function if life or in society by holding to that assertion.

Baron Max

Why not?

Why not?

To make almost any kind of decision about almost anything, you first have to make a decision about what is the truth .....at that particular moment.

Even hungry and wanting a hamburger implies that 1.) it's true that you're hungry, and 2.) that a hamburger won't kill you with poisons.

Baron Max

Interesting re-start to the discussion.
It's refreshing to see someone start by actually providing definitions.

Overall, I agree with everything you state.

This, for example, is something too few people realize:



...
1. There is no true or false, only degrees of possibility.



There is a problem here however:


2. Reality exists in 4 states. I will use me as an example. There is me. Then there is not-me. These states are inverse to each other. Then there is anti-me. Then there is anti-not me. The last two are also inverse. The first set and second set are a further inverse.


Which would make for five states (actually, that would be six states).

To make almost any kind of decision about almost anything, you first have to make a decision about what is the truth .....at that particular moment.


Not at all.
All you have to do is believe a case to be true.

Sorry glaucon, unless you are talking about the various super states involved, I only count four. If we get into the superstates... my mind blanches at the thought. I'd like to limit things, if possible, although a list of superstates would be welcome, for later discussion, perhaps.

Do you have any ponderings to my questions in the OP, glaucon?

BM-Glaucon is right. More than one person bases all of their conclusions on simple falsehoods and misperceptions.

1. There is no true or false, only degrees of possibility. (OK, I'll be annoying.) What % chance is there that your number 1 is true?

4. No state intersects at any point, but flicker constantly. Each conscience within each state is incapable of defining themselves outside of that state.

This sounded interesting. Could you explain it? Concrete examples are always appreciated but this consciousness in this state.

1. some where between >0 and <100, I'd bet. ;)

4. ok... The various conscience's(I know it's unwieldy, but consciousnesses means the same, to me) cannot communicate with each other, however they all act the same within their various realities. The flicker is imperceptible, but I believe it is a single will among them all, not shared, just moving faster than perception. This places will on another plane entirely, I realise, and we can discuss it if you like, but it is my position, and I know I'm biased towards it. If you need more specific information, try to rephrase back to me what you think I mean, and I'll go from there.

This was discussed at length in another thread, but no conclusion was drawn, and it was in the realm of being off-topic, so I'd like to start fresh.

These are a few assertions I use to function:

1. There is no true or false, only degrees of possibility.

Degrees of possibility do not necessarily preclude a true or false.

This is a self denying proposition. If there are only degrees of possibility, you cannot show there is no true or false.

2. Reality exists in 4 states. I will use me as an example. There is me. Then there is not-me. These states are inverse to each other. Then there is anti-me. Then there is anti-not me. The last two are also inverse. The first set and second set are a further inverse.

This is contradicted by assertion one

You need to be more specific about why this do not collapse into a single polar opposite. By "not me" do you actually mean "all else?" what is "anti me?"

3. Perceived reality consumes us all.

Poetic, but I've no clue what you mean by this.

As it flickers to not reality, we cannot detect it's passing, and all energies required cancel out to 0.

What's "not reality?" And what happened to "anti reality" and "not anti reality?"

4. No state intersects at any point, but flicker constantly.

How would you know this?

Each conscience within each state is incapable of defining themselves outside of that state.


Electricity is transmitted in the united states as alternating current at 60 cycles per second.

So do you mean "flicker" which implies a loss of power, or "cycles" which implies that like electricity there is a change in polarity.

It is not perceptible

It sure seems perceptible.

a more complex waveform.

A complex wave form is just an aggregate of simple wave forms.

Thoughts?

so far this really isn't making a lot of sense yet.

Degrees of possibility do not necessarily preclude a true or false.

True and False are just high degrees of possibility agreed upon by consensus.

This is a self denying proposition. If there are only degrees of possibility, you cannot show there is no true or false.

Not at all. I invite you to show me something that has always and will always show 100% possibility.

This is contradicted by assertion one

I'm sorry you think so.

You need to be more specific about why this do not collapse into a single polar opposite. By "not me" do you actually mean "all else?" what is "anti me?"

not is a zero value. Anti is a negative value. Thus me and not me consider all values between 0 and 1, Not anti-me and anti me consider all values between 0 and negative 1. Not me and not anti-me occur at a rate diametrically opposed to one another, occuring only in the presence of me and anti me respectively.

Poetic, but I've no clue what you mean by this.

Each me is in it's own perceived reality, and cannot perceive the other realities, or truly perceive it's own.

What's "not reality?" And what happened to "anti reality" and "not anti reality?"

Not reality is the reality that exists for not me. I was just simplifying, anti reality and not anti-reality working in the same way as their opposites, just diametrically opposed.

How would you know this?

As pointed out by crunchy cat-no explosions. If not me and not anti-me meet, then me and anti-me meet. The values cancel, so if they meet there ceases to be any reality at all.

So do you mean "flicker" which implies a loss of power, or "cycles" which implies that like electricity there is a change in polarity.

Both work, really. More like a change of potential, or push and pull. Combine all values in a ac waveform, and once again you get 0. No potential.

It sure seems perceptible.

Not from within the realities.

A complex wave form is just an aggregate of simple wave forms.

Right, so parallel wave forms could be condensed into a single waveform, it just wouldn't show the different forms seperateness. I don't know math well enough to properly show this total waveform.

so far this really isn't making a lot of sense yet.

I'm sorry, I hope this helps.

If this is unclear, help me to make it more easily understood.

True and False are just high degrees of possibility agreed upon by consensus.

That's a redefinition of true and false, which usually you want up front to avoid confusion.

Not at all. I invite you to show me something that has always and will always show 100% possibility.

No one dead for a year gets up and complains about it.

I'm sorry you think so.

I appreciate the sympathy but that doesn't really move your argument forward.

You need to be more specific about why this do not collapse into a single polar opposite. By "not me" do you actually mean "all else?" what is "anti me?"

not is a zero value. Anti is a negative value. Thus me and not me consider all values between 0 and 1, Not anti-me and anti me consider all values between 0 and negative 1. Not me and not anti-me occur at a rate diametrically opposed to one another, occuring only in the presence of me and anti me respectively.

This is not yet making any sense to me yet.

Each me is in it's own perceived reality, and cannot perceive the other realities, or truly perceive it's own.

If they cannot perceive the other realities how do you know this?

What's "not reality?" And what happened to "anti reality" and "not anti reality?"

Not reality is the reality that exists for not me. I was just simplifying, anti reality and not anti-reality working in the same way as their opposites, just diametrically opposed.

How would you know this?

So do you mean "flicker" which implies a loss of power, or "cycles" which implies that like electricity there is a change in polarity.

Both work, really. More like a change of potential, or push and pull. Combine all values in a ac waveform, and once again you get 0. No potential.

Um, not exactly.

So far this still isn't making a lot of sense yet.

I think you are getting lost in trying to make metaphors for something which is not yet well defined.

I would suggest presenting your ideas in as simple a form as possible. Start with your base assumptions and their immediate implications. Also an overview of what you are trying to accomplish would help.

1. There is no true or false, only degrees of possibility.Swarm approached this with less coyness than me and more clearly. This statement seems to undermine itself. I also think it is very hard to live by. I am not sure human can think this way even if it were true.

2. Reality exists in 4 states. I will use me as an example. There is me. Then there is not-me. These states are inverse to each other. Then there is anti-me. Then there is anti-not me. The last two are also inverse. The first set and second set are a further inverse.
The me and the not-me I think I understand. I and other. Me and world. I am not sure what the antis mean.
3. Perceived reality consumes us all. As it flickers to not reality, we cannot detect it's passing, and all energies required cancel out to 0. I took this to me we are overwhelmed by what we perceive. Before we can gain perspective on it or an overview we are in the next moment. The last part with energies I do not understand.
4. No state intersects at any point, but flicker constantly. Each conscience within each state is incapable of defining themselves outside of that state. Can I translate state into 'now'. As in each now is discrete?

We can start with that.

I'll try my best to restate my position more clearly.

1 Truth. You can't know the future. The dead may rise and complain about it. Just because something has not happened before does not mean that it will never. Never is a long time, theoretically infinite. Funny things can happen in infinity. Denying the possibility of anything happening is thus a fallacy.

2. Reality exists in 4 states. I will use me as an example. There is me. Then there is not-me. These states are inverse to each other. Then there is anti-me. Then there is anti-not me. The last two are also inverse. The first set and second set are a further inverse.

It is my opinion that this is true. There is at least a 1% possibility of it being true, and I choose to embrace the idea. Would it be easier to assign values to each state? The idea of not me and anti not me would be difficult to define seperately, then. Perhaps the idea of matter, anti-matter, and their associated states of being and not being would be a comparison. I believe that a zero value is still a value, that's where the more complex double waveform operating in parallel comes into play. Let us forget about 'sense' for a moment, do you understand what I'm trying to get across to you?

3. Perceived reality consumes us all. As it flickers to not reality, we cannot detect it's passing, and all energies required cancel out to 0.


ok. I don't know which state we exist in, or whether perhaps we exist non-physically in all of them. If the physical reality you are a part of ceases to exist, you go with it, and time within that reality stands still. How do I know this? Mostly reasoning. It doesn't follow that you can prove or disprove this anymore than you can anything else.

4. No state intersects at any point, but flicker constantly. Each conscience within each state is incapable of defining themselves outside of that state.

This might be better considered 3a. For there to be no immolating matter-antimatter reaction, no reality can possibly come into contact with the others. Whether flickering is fading from existence to non-existence and back, or the operations take their turns doesn't matter, for the effect is still the same.

What does it all mean?

This all simply suggests a question. Are we the sum of our states of being, or are we an individual state of being? I think we all experience a certain amount of multiplicity, and the flickering reality allows for this. An accidental slip of awareness between realities causes us to experience the same thing at the same time from different perspectives.

reality or now both work.

100% possibility of something becomes belief. There is no evidence that any held "truth" will always be 'true' into infinity. There is no undisputable evidence that any of history is absolutely correct. For that matter there is no undisputable evidence, to me, that I exist, much less what I am told is reality. I base decisions on what will probably work in the reality I have been told is the proper one. It's plenty functional, and removes much fear of the unexpected, as many possibilities as possible having been considered.

I'll try my best to restate my position more clearly.thanks.

1 Truth. You can't know the future. The dead may rise and complain about it. Just because something has not happened before does not mean that it will never. Never is a long time, theoretically infinite. Funny things can happen in infinity. Denying the possibility of anything happening is thus a fallacy. I can sort of go along with this. I tend to think belief plays a stronger role in possibility than statistics.

2. Reality exists in 4 states. I will use me as an example. There is me. Then there is not-me. These states are inverse to each other. Then there is anti-me. Then there is anti-not me. The last two are also inverse. The first set and second set are a further inverse.

Could you describe for me what an anti-you might do, as opposed to a not you.

ok. I don't know which state we exist in, or whether perhaps we exist non-physically in all of them.
I really think we have a distorted sense of reality based on 'physicality' and materialism. It is as if a newtonian billiard ball was a good model for most experience.

Amazing the power of such a thought to make reality so dense and filled with inelastic collisions (not that elastic ones are much better though they are more friendly) and a world of outlines that are boundaries.


This all simply suggests a question. Are we the sum of our states of being, or are we an individual state of being? I think we all experience a certain amount of multiplicity, and the flickering reality allows for this. An accidental slip of awareness between realities causes us to experience the same thing at the same time from different perspectives.

Actually I think most people do not notice that they experience a certain amount of multiplicity. I absolutely agree with the flickering being involved, but I am not sure which is causal: the fragmentation we are right now or what you are calling the flickering.

Perhaps as one of the small 'i' s take over it seems like a flicker.

Gurdjieff's stress on individual growth and empowerment was unique among the strains of mysticism that flourished during the early decades of the 1900s. Moore writes that Gurdjieff had a "sense of'I' so powerful and discrete it almost seemed to rattle inside him" (124). While other teachers under the influence of the East stressed self-abnegation and eventual self-dissolution, Gurdjieff taught pupils to look for the "real I" among the multiple, mechanical Is that directed their lives (Hulme, Undiscovered 41).

We are not one person. There is no "I am," but many "I's" coming from numerous places within us. There is the "I" who is in command when it is hungry. There is the "I" who is in a bad mood, there is the "I" that loves to read poetry, and on and on. This work enables us to look at this phenomenon while it is happening. In the state of sleep, we just assume that we always act as the same person. Inner knowledge tells us that we are made up of many disconnected, fragmentary facets without unity. When such information is verified, then a presence besides those many "I's" is also present. You can no longer fall entirely for the illusion of unity.

More here:
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/sufi/transformation2.html

Not that I want to sell the guy, but what you were saying reminded me of him and I think he was partially on to something.

Your quotation skips three steps past what I am talking about. I'm talking about the relationship we have to reality and higher. The inner workings are lower and more within.

Not I does everything that I did, or perhaps will do. Anti-I and not anti-I do the same. Anti-I and I can't meet, without causing reality to cease. For a poor example-positrons and electrons. They behave similarly, just in opposition, and destroy themselves upon coming into contact with each other. Anti-me and not-me operate off of opposing rules, but can coexist, because the realities at the time involve different occurences.

You don't even have to go so far as to defining these "non-intersecting magisteria". It is suspected that it is impossible to know both the position and speed of a sub-atomic particle. So, all of matter is a mysterious thing that cannot be fully characterized. Maybe they are in more than one place at a time. Your flickering could be the resolution of a particular state out of an infinite number of potential states. We cannot predict the future due to this effect. If we could measure everything about the smallest particles, it would be theoretically possible to predict the future.

Your quotation skips three steps past what I am talking about. I'm talking about the relationship we have to reality and higher. The inner workings are lower and more within.

Not I does everything that I did, or perhaps will do. Anti-I and not anti-I do the same. Anti-I and I can't meet, without causing reality to cease. For a poor example-positrons and electrons. They behave similarly, just in opposition, and destroy themselves upon coming into contact with each other. Anti-me and not-me operate off of opposing rules, but can coexist, because the realities at the time involve different occurences.
I have vague laymen ideas about anti-particles. I just don't know how to connect these with my experience of an 'anti-me'.

What led you to believe there was one?

I'll try my best to restate my position more clearly.

cool.

1 Truth. You can't know the future.

You can't know that with complete certainty in your system.

The dead may rise and complain about it.

There is no possible means by which a pattern lost to entropy can be reinstated.

Just because something has not happened before does not mean that it will never.

If it has not happened before because it is not possible, then no amount of time will alter this.

Denying the possibility of anything happening is thus a fallacy.

No its not.

2. Reality exists in 4 states. I will use me as an example. There is me. Then there is not-me. These states are inverse to each other. Then there is anti-me. Then there is anti-not me. The last two are also inverse. The first set and second set are a further inverse.

This seems problematic. You seem to be implying that the pattern which the matter that forms you has taken is some how equally represented, as it is here, in three other disjoint and some how "opposite" realities.

There doesn't seem to be any means by which you could establish the truth of this claim since the realities are disjoint. Also you don't explain why your pattern should be preserved.

It is my opinion that this is true.
Opinion is irrelevant.

There is at least a 1% possibility of it being true, and I choose to embrace the idea.

I see no way you can justify that value. Choosing to embrace is irrelevant.

Let us forget about 'sense' for a moment, do you understand what I'm trying to get across to you?

Not entirely. You seem to feel that there are four opposing states in opposing and disjoint realities and each of these and an equivalent you. The moment I guess shifts through each of these, making it "active."

How you could know this is vague. Why there is this shifting is vague (why not run in parallel, for example). Why you are in all 4 is vague. Why we need this theory is vague.

3. Perceived reality consumes us all.

Again I'm not sure what you mean here.

As it flickers to not reality, we cannot detect it's passing, and all energies required cancel out to 0.

Or here.

I don't know which state we exist in, or whether perhaps we exist non-physically in all of them. If the physical reality you are a part of ceases to exist, you go with it, and time within that reality stands still. How do I know this? Mostly reasoning. It doesn't follow that you can prove or disprove this anymore than you can anything else.

I would have to conclude your reasoning is faulty since it is based on thing you don't know.

Actually many things can be proved and disproved to a reasonable level. Something which can't and yet claims to be about reality, would seem de facto in error.

4. No state intersects at any point, but flicker constantly. Each conscience within each state is incapable of defining themselves outside of that state.

Yet this seems to be precisely what you are trying to do.

What does it all mean?

That is a good question.

This all simply suggests a question. Are we the sum of our states of being, or are we an individual state of being?

I think I would have suggested just positing this question and leaving the rest off. I'm guessing by sum of our states you mean the not, anti and not anti in addition to the current? Since you have no access to these, even to the point of knowing if they exist, how could they contribute?

However with a bit of modification I think you could have an interesting question, at least for me. :)

We often think of "me" as being what is delineated by this physical being and not me as being everything else, yet the social aspects of our "me" are arguably far more pervasive than we might care to admit.

Some go so far as to posit the "me" is entirely an illusion created to provide comfort and a sense of control and continuity.

Considering where me begins and ends and how flexible and permeable these boundaries are might be interesting.

I think we all experience a certain amount of multiplicity

Not particularly.

An accidental slip of awareness between realities causes us to experience the same thing at the same time from different perspectives.

Or the processing of sense data gets out of sync between the two hemispheres causing that feeling when they resync.

For a poor example-positrons and electrons.

Positrons and electrons exist in the same reality.

Ok. Some observations, please take it as a request for some informative correction.

1. I wasn't aware that philosophy had to be based on "that which can be known". My mistake.
2. Show me a truth that is irrefutable, even through speculation. My "truth" is the idea that anything can and occasionally will happen.
3. This theory is advanced as one possibility out of many, need is irrelevant.
4. Anything that is proven or disproven to less than 100% is a possibility, thus not certain at all.
5. As an outward looking thought, or consideration of "that which is more than reality", the major question becomes, are we a small consciousness within one reality, or the sum consciousness across all realities, or is there a greater consciousness that controls all small consciousnesses.
6. I guess multiplicity is an experience that some notice and others don't, then.
7. Positrons and Electrons were a poor example, because they do exist in the same reality. They destroy each other if they come into direct contact, and that's all I was trying to demonstrate.
8. This reasoning is based upon a bit of number symbology and thought concerning it.

1 can be considered the opposite of zero, but not the equal opposite of zero. -1 can be considered the opposite of 0 as well, but not the equal opposite of zero. 1 is the equal opposite of -1, when combined they equal zero. I propose that the zero that is opposite to 1 and the zero that is opposite to -1 are in fact opposite, and equal at the same time.

1=Reality
0=not reality
1=anti reality
0=not anti reality
0=0 but 0 is the opposite of 0 at the same time, because the opposite of 1 and the opposite of -1 should not be the same value, and should be the same value.

Thus 0=0 at different times. 0 cannot equal 1 or -1, so these must occur at different times. 1 cannot equal -1, so these must occur at different times. 1 without the existence of -1 lends itself to an unbalanced system, the system we have appearing balanced, but missing some information.

One example of this would be the 'weak' force of gravity. Here, it is a "pull", an attraction of matter to matter. In an opposite reality, it might be a universal push, forcing matter into clumps, while matter tends to repel other matter, and as a universal push, it would be a strong force.

The two gravities are mutually exclusive, and cancel if combined. If this is all still opaque, let me know and I will try a new thread, one point of contention at a time.

[QUOTE]1. I wasn't aware that philosophy had to be based on "that which can be known". My mistake.

Doesn't have to be, but basing it on what can't be known is pretty tricky, since it can't be known. What usually happens is people claim it can't be known and then immediately start acting like they know all about it. IF it can't be known, you can't even know that it can't be known.

2. Show me a truth that is irrefutable, even through speculation. My "truth" is the idea that anything can and occasionally will happen.

The speculation of fools knows no bounds.

Quantum mechanics sort of addresses this, but it is generally considered a weakness of the theory. But once again there is a difference between anything possible and anything you can imagine. There is an extreme small, but finite probability that all of your atoms will simultaneously jump 1 foot to the left. It hasn't happened yet.

3. This theory is advanced as one possibility out of many, need is irrelevant.

hmm?

4. Anything that is proven or disproven to less than 100% is a possibility, thus not certain at all.

You confuse our understanding of what is, with what is.

5. As an outward looking thought, or consideration of "that which is more than reality", the major question becomes, are we a small consciousness within one reality, or the sum consciousness across all realities, or is there a greater consciousness that controls all small consciousnesses.

There is not yet any reason to consider the question.

6. I guess multiplicity is an experience that some notice and others don't, then.

I guess.

7. Positrons and Electrons were a poor example, because they do exist in the same reality. They destroy each other if they come into direct contact, and that's all I was trying to demonstrate.

You are assigning properties to realities you know nothing of.

8. This reasoning is based upon a bit of number symbology and thought concerning it.

1 can be considered the opposite of zero

no, not really