Reality is One

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Spellbound, Apr 23, 2015.

  1. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Global and Local Gauge Symmetry in the "Tetrahedron Model": Part I

    John A. Gowan


    (Revised June, 2014)

    Related Papers:

    PART I

    The phenomenon of "local gauge symmetry" is a ubiquitous and fundamentally important process in nature, essentially describing the normal activity of the field vectors of all four forces of physics. Although formidable in name, it is simple in concept: it comprises the process/mechanism of changing or protecting any conserved parameter of a single elementary particle. "Local gauge symmetry" is a necessary part of our world for two basic and interrelated reasons: 1) our universe is asymmetric in that it is formed of matter only, lacking a balancing antimatter counterpart; 2) our universe consists of an interacting mixture of a) free electromagnetic energy (massless light) in absolute "intrinsic" spatial motion at "velocity c", but with intrinsic rest in time; and b) bound electromagnetic energy (massive particles) at intrinsic rest in space but with an intrinsic temporal motion which is the metric equivalent of "velocity c". "Local gauge symmetry" activities in the short-range nuclear forces (strong, weak) are consequent upon 1); in the long-range spacetime forces (electromagnetism, gravity), such phenomena are consequent upon 2).

    This is yet further evidence that reality is One. That all things are actually one thing. And that this oneness has evolved to become a mind-like entity.

    The Upanishads take a holistic view of the universe as a whole, while western knowledge is symbiotic and constantly flowing in a similar but ever-changing process. I want to know if the universe has evolved to become a mind-like entity. That is why I study the CTMU. I have already given reasons for this belief in the Religion section of I want to know if God is a Being that has evolved due to the existence of observers in an observer-dependent universe that we are ignorant of at birth, and only does it become an apparent fact after we ourselves evolve. I do not believe that the universe started from an infinitely dense point, it simply does not make sense given the discrete nature of Quantum systems. Hence quantization.

    If reality is really one, then all points are really one point explaining the non-locality of Quantum systems. This is the only logical conclusion.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Oh look. Another "Reality is..." thread from Spellbound. Could you limit yourself to one reality?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    There IS... but One. Read it and open your mind a bit.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Are you Dywyddr aka Oli? Reason I'm asking is because you started your sentence with "Oh look," yet again.
  8. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    No. It's a way of saying "hey it's the same old shit".
  9. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Oh look, more "reality is X" from Spambound.

    How can reality be "one" when you previously said that reality was "Infinite, as Described by Friedmann Equations"?
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    No it's not.
    Nope, still not evidence for that.
    Nor for this either.

    At best one can define reality as all things, and thus say that all things are one (aka reality).
    But that's no different than saying a football team is 11 players, and thus they are all one (aka the football team).

    All you're doing is labelling something (a single thing - aka reailty) as everything, and then tautologically claiming that everything is this one thing (reality).

    So yet more pointless drivel from you, Spellbound, on your apparent crusade to fill the pages of this site with "Reality is..." and to worship at the feet of Langan and his CTMU.
  11. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    I do not expect much from you as simple logic tends to escape you. Reality is indeed one. Read the above again. Carefully this time. It's very, very simple logic. I.e. reality is electromagnetic energy.
  12. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    DO NOT condescend to Sarkus, Spellbound. He's far more intelligent, knowledgeable (and sane) than you are
    I don't think that you know the first thing about logic.

    Saying that 'x is real' isn't the same thing as saying that 'reality is x'.

    If 'reality' is the set of everything real, and if some particular x is real, then what justifies your repeated assertions that:

    'the set of everything real is this particular x'?

    It seems to be false on its face. No principle of logic supports making that move. That's what you need to address. Insisting that 'x is real' doesn't suffice. Insisting that 'reality is one' doesn't help either, certainly not without a lot more argument.
    Daecon likes this.
  13. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Taking a slice of humble pie I will agree with you and say he's certainly more intelligent but he doesn't appear more knowledgeable or intuitive otherwise he would not have disagreed with me on this subject. Nor does he have knowledge on such a diverse and varied scale as I.

    It absolutely is. This is because reality is real as well as one. Take a piece of cheese for example. It is real. Therefore we can say reality is cheese. This is because if reality is multiple things, then it is also a single thing. It can be used as a noun in declarative sentences as well as a complement to an indicative mood.

    I now see where your logic goes awry here. You assume that I am saying that "the set of everything real is a particular x" when that is not what I am saying one whit. What I am saying is that reality is not only the set of everything real, it is also a single real thing.

    But it is one. It's doesn't require much of a leap in logic to come to this sound conclusion. If you read the above quote from the theory of everything by John A. Gowan in the OP and you apply logic you too will reach the same conclusion.
  14. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    He disagrees with you for precisely the same reasons I do.

    I realize that you believe that you have received some kind of intuitive revelation about the oneness of reality. But you aren't communicating it very well. Your endless 'Reality is...' threads do nothing to elucidate what reality is or what it means for something to be real.

    The best we can say is that 'reality', in this instance meaning whatever property, predicate or ontological status that we attribute to x when we say that 'x is real', is exemplified by cheese.

    You wrote yourself that "reality is all things". Substituting 'all things' for 'reality', your assertion

    Reality is cheese


    All things are cheese

    That's an obvious absurdity.

    Or at least that's your metaphysical belief. You're preaching pantheism, aren't you?

    When you say that "Reality is all things", what you really mean is "All things are God", right?

    But the world we see around us is a world of diversity and multiplicity. We still need a convincing account of how that diversity is consistent with God's/reality's supposed unity and oneness.

    When you announce (in effect)

    God is cheese


    God is electromagnetic energy

    Why aren't you contradicting yourself? Cheese isn't electromagnetic energy.

    How is it that God can be so many inconsistent things at once? Is God literally identical with these things, are these things all that there is to God, or is God something incomparably greater than any one of them, that you believe is manifested somehow in the reality of all of them?

    We seem to have arrived back at the same problem we had when you seemingly were trying to equate members of a larger set with the set itself. Now it's particular worldly manifestations of God and God himself in all of his transcendental fullness.
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2015
  15. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Seriously? That's what you're going with? I'm guessing you don't tend to frequent many threads that you don't start, and that aren't titled "Reality is..." or aren't about the CTMU?
    Maybe it's the English language you are struggling with - but you are fallaciously ascribing equivalence of the part to the whole - a compositional fallacy.
    Oh, wait, simple logic (or in your case fallacious logic) tends to escape me...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Of course, if someone doesn't agree with you then they clearly can't be "more knowledgeable or intuitive".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Given that you have no knowledge of me other than what I write on this forum, I'm intrigued as to how you intend to support this claim of yours?
    Further, if what you write is supposed to be evidence of the level of your "diverse and varied scale" of knowledge then I honestly don't think you are a particularly good judge: your entire interest shown in this forum seems to be either "Reality is..." or involve the CTMU. Or both.

    And I see no "knowledge" in what you write - merely claims - as you can not seem to demonstrate the veracity of those claims.
  16. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Tiresome spammer is becoming tiresome.
    Light Travelling likes this.
  17. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Cheese is the label we give to a piece of matter/ energy that everything else is made up of.


    Reality is dual. Being and matter. God is a whole. Energy/ consciousness. He is no different that anything else in reality.

    The OP says that everything is either free massless electromagnetic energy as in light or bound massive electromagnetic energy. So cheese is indeed this electromagnetic energy, E=MC2.

    Yes. I believe God is manifested and a part of all things. I believe we are products of an intelligent reality, however God does not play a part in the process of a chemical reaction or the polymerase reading of a DNA molecule.

    Every statement I have made about reality, or most of them, is correct.
  18. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Even the ones where you contradict yourself?
    Kristoffer likes this.

Share This Page