Reality as Self-Contained

think of the restraint is the brain(physical form)it restricts(limits) access to which are called levels.
it's like floor levels in an apartment building.
frequencies and other such methods can access levels.
including so called drugs.
or just the old fashion way of input(learning and such)(which is primitive)
when able to access such levels, access to a cosmic intelligence is more accessible.
but even then, it's still limited, higher access is need to levels of what this topic is referring to.
basically tapping into energy it's self.(consciousness)

now from here it,
it should make sense when the greats talk of reality and not being real.
einstein, tesla, bohr ,ramanujan and such.(as a joke, morpheus)
ever here of inter-dimensional beings ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am familiar with all of that. You said you were experimenting. How? And what are you finding?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no one here ridiculing apart from you.
One person claimed the language being used to be gibberish, and they validated their opinion.
Since then you have assumed everyone who doesn't understand is ridiculing, yet it is you who have insulted them, you who question their intelligence, you who have tried to ridicule them. If asking you to stop being so childish resolves the matter then so be it.

If you are going to tackle the issue with some level of decency then please at least provide evidence and support of your claims. Otherwise you are still relying on nothing but your self-proclaimed authority.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes, yes.....
AND I'M THE ONE TROLLING(as you put it) ???? (shrugs)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...lf-Contained&p=3197386&viewfull=1#post3197386

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...lf-Contained&p=3197589&viewfull=1#post3197589

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...lf-Contained&p=3197666&viewfull=1#post3197666

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ds-shoes-!!!&p=3197685&viewfull=1#post3197685

i see my responses that pertain to the topic.
where's yours?

no, what resolved it for me with them is,
they showed that they are actually interested in discussing the topic.
not arguing like some still.:argue

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

you make yourself obvious, and do not realize it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

comical,as if i was completely.
i work with a team of actual scientist.(can you say the same ?)
also, why would i not ?
this was the point of being educated and receiving a PhD, then lead to my career.
do you see how pathetic and ridiculous you sound yet ?

this topic alone is support.
no one has claimed you have to accept or believe anything i'm saying.
also, no one claimed you have to continue in this topic,
without addressing the actual topic.:argue:
if you do not want to pertain to this discussion,
then the simplest thing is to just shut up.
it's that simple. move on already.

 

If I may reply to the main topic, Reality as self contained. I'm just a philosophical writer here I look at two basic reality's, human reality as self contained to some decree and the cosmic nonhuman world yes perhaps it is a fact is somewhat limited by the human world. I only refer to human reality as being self contained in a relativism as Einstein did give practical positive logic in his theory of relativity,, if one assumes giving words to his numbers and letters.

 

human is an element of existence along with all biological /organic elements,(organic machine)
when you say, " human world ",
this is the physical state.

i always keep this word and meaning in my mind,
anthropocentric
2.from point of view of humankind:
seeing things in human terms, especially judging things according to human perceptions,
values, and experiences

you have to take the above out of all thought.

 

Time is a sequence of logical axioms.

Conceivably, it might make a little more sense if the word 'axiom' was replaced by 'lemma'.

'Moves forward' in what dimension?

Logical forumulae imply other logical forumulae. Is Langan imagining something like a logical proof, with each line being produced kind of sequentially, each one deductively generating the next one? If so, there's still a problem. Logical implication seems to be timeless. Everything that a particular set of axioms implies is seemingly already implied as soon as the axioms are specified. The implications don't come into being one after another sequentially. That idea might be more of a description of how proofs are constructed.

(The idea of time unfolding as a series of logical implications would also suggest a very strong form of logical determinism.)

Logic = Reality

Even false propositions have implications.

"If X is the current King of France, then X is a King."

That appears to be a logical truth and hence necessarily true, despite the fact that there isn't really any present king of France.

Logic is a language, therefore reality is a language

Doesn't that collapse together representing and being? I'd prefer to say that reality is space, time and object. Our human languages are intended to represent that, but the linguistic representations shouldn't be confused with the realities that they hopefully represent.

The ground state of reality is UBT (Unbounded Telesis)

From what? What assumptions has he embraced as his initial unproven axioms? What justifies his choosing those initial assumptions and not others?

That doesn't answer the question.

Reality is perceptual, perceived by the mind, bound by logic. An isomorphism between the mind of the perceiver and the object being perceived.

Logic = Reality = Mind = God

I might agree with that if we exchange 'perceptual' with 'perceptible'. (Of course if we did that, the logic = reality = mind = God equation would probably collapse.) Saying that reality (or some large subset of it at least) is perceptible by human beings isn't the same thing as saying that reality consists of what we might call percepts, that it consists of some kind of mind-stuff (let alone that it's actually the mind of God, seen from inside, so to speak).

 

yazata,
time is a physical state entity,
it only exist in the physical state.
also, keep in mind,teleportation.
i always keep this word and meaning in my mind,
anthropocentric
2.from point of view of humankind:
seeing things in human terms, especially judging things according to human perceptions,
values, and experiences

you have to take the above out of all thought.

 

No. It is a dual self-containment. On the one side you have topological (state/ physical) and on the other descriptive (syntax/ information/ language/ reality). Reality is dual.

Reality. It is apparent that what is "real" has the ability to come into being or to self-actualize.. But how do we define that word (it is locked away in our subconscious somewhere)? Perhaps everything is already real and therefore it already exists, if only in another universe.

 

Do they always appear dual or does the topological state give rise to the descriptive or is it the descriptive that gives rise to the topological state. In other words does reality give rise to physical, or does physical give rise to reality, or do they always appear at the same time giving rise to eachother just as much?

Potentiality, things must first have potential, pretty much like a field in QM, the field is there and gives the potential for particles to exist as vibrations in the field, at the same time the particles gives rise to the field, at least in some cases. The conscious analogue would be "urge" I think, or "need".

We've never actually seen anything come into existence, we do know that things exist though and therefor either has existed always or have at some point come into existence. Langans theory seem to imply the latter. Is there a order in which things come into existence, does space or time come first if so?

 

yes,
just like time/space, it's reality/physical state
time gives reality, space gives physical state.
this is where physics/mathematics(what's the difference?) and other sciences is supposed to occur.
individual consciousness(as you, your self)(or individuals in general,or all conscious living entities) gives a platform for all
this is where the wave function collapse, physics/mathematics(what's the difference?) and other sciences supposed to occur.
now, what would be the " god " consciousness is where metaphysics is supposed to occur.

 

Reality.

Whatever is real. The CTMU mirrors reality as a theory.

The M=R principle, a tautological theoretical property that dissolves the distinction between theory and universe and thus identifies the universe as a self-reifying theory; makes the syntax of this theory comprehensive by ensuring that nothing which can be cognitively and perceptually recognized as part of reality is excluded for want of syntax.

(...)

Most theories begin with axioms, hypothesis and rules of inference, extract implications, logically or empirically test these implications, and then add or revise axioms, theories or hypothesis. The CTMU does the opposite, stripping away assumptions and then "rebuilding reality" while adding no assumptions back.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3vc...ZTg/edit?pli=1, page 15.

Of course it does. We have to distinguish between what is real and what is not. The CTMU says that mind is real. Therefore that the universe is a mind in the global sense, whereas we are localized. Reality is mind.

 

Everything is everything then. Seems I've heard that somewhere else...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3_dOWYHS7I

 

I would agree that consciousness is needed (subjectivity), what else would the difference be between everything and nothing?

There is a theory out there that the structure of space is that of a particle with all it's properties set to zero. Does this apply also to Langans theory? (it seems so as space is described as a physical state, and most (if not all) of physics deals with particles).

Does Langan's theory have anything to say why time moves forward? (or rather why entropy increases?)

 

Is this CTMU a scientific theory, able to be falsified.
Or is it unscientific?
I appreciate this is in the philosophy section, so no need for it to be scientific.
Just want to understand what it is claiming to be in that regard.

If scientific, where is the support/evidence for the theory?
If unscientific, of what relevancy is your PhD and/or your career as a scientist (neither of which is unique to you at this forum)?

Ultimately, why should this theory (scientific or otherwise) be granted credibility?
What is it telling us that we either don't already know or that is in any way useful to us?
I don't ask to ridicule it, as you might wrongly conclude, but to begin to understand whether this is something worth my time considering further or not.

So is it scientific or not?
Is it falsifiable or not?
Thanks.

 

no, try again.
at least read all post.
still not interested in discussing , i see.
(

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

shakes head)

 

the ultimate question is,
can " nothing " actually exist or is it an illusion.

keep in mind, zero IS NOT " nothing"

the question of why forward is not fully understood yet.
but it does pertain to the way physical state functions and such.
think of it like a massive amount of water moving through a river, it's flowing with great force. in order to change this force of direction,
you need a lot of energy and fields to change it's direction of flowing.
think of time like, a massive electrical cable, it's all bounded together, but in that cable is individual wounds of little wires(each independent of the over all cable.)but all make one cable.(each wire is shared to make an over all cable.)
also, i should clarify,
this langans thing-y is not his theory completely,
it's a collection of what he has come across,and then him explaining it.
now i do agree there are some added sections of his own.
but the actual core concept is real.

 

It looks to me like a collection of speculations, obscured behind a wall of almost impenetrable ideosyncratic vocabulary. (Kind of like Hegel or Heidegger!) It may be philosophical in a speculative system-building sense, but it clearly isn't scientific.

I don't believe that Krash has a PhD or is a scientist. I don't believe that he has any higher-education at all. He doesn't seem to have much experience in writing expository prose. My guess is that he's a middle-school student, twelve or thirteen, with an attitude. He just likes to play games and keep things stirred up.

 

unfortunately,
it's meaningless and irrelevant what your flawed mentality comes up with.

like i never heard about the way i talk/write ?
i do not like to type or write, i'm vocal,
so it leads to me to do less as possible.
it's also amusing you would base such a thing on how an individual writes/ talks,
are you seriously implying my writing implies i'm not educated,
why would it ? i choose how i talk and write, not the education given to me.
no one has claimed you have to accept or believe anything i'm saying.

you are massively clueless of what is science, all you think you know or even understand is what ever link you click on. nothing else.
also, no one claimed you have to continue in this topic.
now again, if you are not interested in the topic,
the simplest thing to do is just shut up and move on already.
:argue:

please tell me what do you know about working underground,
without seeing daylight for most of the time,
working 16-20 hours a day, majority of the time seven days of the week,
3 1/2 or so weeks of the month.
what do you know about trying to find places to sleep in labs and such.
please tell me.

 

yzarc,

individuals whine they do not understand,
so i try to help with them understanding,
and the end result is nothing but
ridiculing and the typical pathetic nonsense.
FIGURE IT OUT YOURSELF THEN.(WHICH OBVIOUSLY, THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO)

everyone is at different stages of consciousness.
there is a certain stage you reach where your intent is to only speak your truth,
not to convince others of it.
you begin to realize that everyone has their own path.
in other words, you cannot convince a baby they should be walking
when they are at the stage of crawling.
to convince them of that truth, is irrelevant.