Hi Oli Time never passed in the way we imagine it. There is a way out of this paradox. Stephen Hawking now believes that there was no past beginning... (and there was) - strange? He has attempted to model a history for the universe which has no boundary. By doing so, he looks back in time not through the glasses of real time, but using imaginary time. His work turns out to be able to wipe out the notions of beginning to the universe, and we are now allowed to say that the universe has no boundary, and from a relativistic veiw, this creates the past as a thing just as continuous as todays present state is... And even the future exists now, and it is also continuous. Oh and - sorry, this is my own interpretation. Physicist Fred Hoyle believed (died 2002) that the mind was time somehow. Not only this but leading physicsts such as Wolf, Penrose and Goswami all realize that without mind, any attempt to measure it to allow it to exist would fail. If this is true, which i believe it is, then all we need to do is extrapolate to when man first came onto the sceene. Reiku
Part II - Time is reality ! Papaver2005 Part IIa - Continued from Part 1 OK, so we've reviewed coordinate system and understand that the conventional 3D orthogonal or XYZ coordinate system is most commonly used. We also now understnad that hwne someone talks about a "1 dimensional" or "2 dimensional" or "3 dimensional" object they are usually inherently referencing this orthogonal XYZ coordinate system. In describing objects they will refer to height, width and depth, which usually correcpond to the X Y and Z dimensions respectively of this coordinate system. Now, this next part is important to understand. In reality, when someone talk about 1,2 or even 3 dimensional objects, it is important to realize that such objects as described do not truly exist in reality. But that these concepts are only models of real objects. For example, a line on a piece of paper or a plumb line or the edge of a piece of wood are very well approximated by the single dimensional line in our coordinate system. Flat shapes, pieces of wood of constant thickness, or imaginary triangles or lot lines are well modeled and approximated by the 2 dimensional version of this coordinate system. Finally, solid objects can be well modeled by the 3 dimensional version. However, it is erroneous to say that "1 dimensional objects exist in reality". They do not ! A line in euclidean geometry has 0 thickness, an impossibility in reality. Niether do 2 dimensional ones ! Nor do 3 dimensional ones exiast in reality strctly speaking. Thes are only models of reality. They are approximations of real object , nothing more. We can properly say thing like, a photograph is a 2 dimensional model of what is normally represented by 3 dimensions. 2 things need ot be remembered, these are models, and these particular "dimensional" descriptions inherently rely on this particular coordinate system. Alternatively, it is not incorrect to say that, any point on the surface of the earth can be represented by 2 dimensions, latitude and longitude. We can think of latitude and longitude as a polar coordinate system wher the 3rd dimension is constant.(well, even this is not true strictly speaking, but still using L & L only 2 dimensions are needed. I read errorneous stuff like this over and over again. The important point is to not confuse a model of reality from reality itself. A few posts here have repeated such an error. OK, I'm going to end this section which I'll call IIA and start on a new post. I dont want to lose this to a badly behaving computer or ISP conection
Bald statement: back it up. Source? So this is a mix of "if", "your interpretation", "belief" and unreferenced name-dropping? PS, Hoyle died in 2001.
Message to the last poster..You have apparently misread Hawking and what he is telling you about time. Have you read "God, Time, & Stephen Hawking: An Exploration into Origins" ? Papaver2005 Part IIb, continued Now, using our standard XYZ coordinate system (or any other like it), we can understand from simple observation of reality that we have a problem with our modeling. In reality, objects move. That is, they are in motion relative to one another, they change positions relative to one another as well as relative to some fixed point. Some move smoothly, other move erratically. Stars move acros the sky, the sn moves, people walk, etc, etc. The question now becomes, how can we model this motion using a coordinate system ? It is at this point that we need to express the basic idea of time. This IS reality, and as we will show, time is not imaginary. It is real. But more than that, it is the very essence of reality ! (for lack of a better way to say it) . So qualitatively, time is that property of reality that we see as motion. or movement or CHANGE . Qantitatively, we can say that time is a measure of the rate of change we observe in our reality. We can use any repeating cycle of events that appears to have a relative constant rate to measure time quantatively. Ancients used the motion of the sun,moon and stars. We use oscillations of a cesium atom and relate it to solar motion. So for us time is ; Of course, we choose some arbitrary reference point and we can count the cyclic or periodic events that we are using to measure the time. Whatever the cyclic events are, these become our basis for time. Thus, in a very real sense, (much like our spatial dimensions), we in fact are truly only measuring some of intervals of time relative to an arbitrary start point. Each time interval is one period (or fraction thereof) of our cyclic event. WE can start and assign numbers that correspond to the number of time intervals that pass. This will be our way of modelling time. Really, this not unlike our spatial dimensions of our coordinate system, which uses arbitrary but constant intervals of the axis (or using angles for those types of coordinate systems. ) for modeling position. So , now we have a way of modeling time or the changes that we see in its position. There are in fact 2 approaches that we can use to model reality using time and our spatial dimensions of our coordinate system. The first is to keep our coordinate system fixed at some arbitrary origin, and measure the changes in position (using our coordinate system) in sync with our time intervals. To do this, we can measure and express a rate of change of position. What we will call an object's position is the value of the dimensions (realative to our srbitrarily assigned spatial origin) at some time interval. The time interval is, as above, a number that represents the # of cyclic events from some arbitrary starting interval. We can now derive a quantity that represents the relative rate of the cjange of position of the object whose motion (or change of position) we want to track. We call this quantity velocity, and we can define it as ; Mathematically ,we can represent velocity with the symbol "V". We can call its position "S" and its change of position dS. We will call its change of time, or the change of intervals as dT. Thus, we can write velocity as ; V = dS / dT or Velocity = change of position / change in time intervals, where the "/" represents that mathematical operation of division. Notice that, in this way of defining things, the time has not been formally assigned to a dimension.(not yet, but we will get to that). Thus, by using the derived quantity velocity, we can calculate an objects position (relative to the arbitrary origin of our coordinate system) for some time interval (relative to some arbitrary cycle of our time system). Notice that, in this type of system, time is not a dimension. It is instead a value of intervals separate from the coordinate system. There is another way of modeling time or motion. Let us consider the polar system of latitude and longitude. In this system, we can learn from observation that the earth is in fact in constant motion. This is time (from our formal definition above, a rate of change). However, in this system, we are going to let the coordinate system move exactly with the rotation of the earth. Our time interval will be one rotation of the earth and we will count those, and use fractions of it for smaller intervals of motion.Thus, every point of our coordinate system moves with the rotation of the earth. . Thus, time is inherently part of our coordinate system. What is a bit tricky about this is that the origin of this system (that is, the center of the earth) does not move, but intervals are still nonethless counted,and are counted relative to any arbitrary point on the earth. WE could imagine this as 2 polar systems. One that moves with the earth, and another that is still, or does not move. The cyclic time is measured as these 2 same arbitrary points of the still and moving coordinate system overlap. Thus. for the moving coordinate system, the velocity (or change in position / change in time) is always zero ! In this system, no position on the surface of the earth ever changes with time. Every position is fixed on the mocing coordinate system. Now, this next statment is important to understand. In this modeling system,(that of the moving coordinate system, we can say that time is imaginary in this system From a certian point of view, this modelling system is very close to reality. For example, we humans are unaware of the motion of the earth but instead perceive that the sun and stars move. So, it is important to not confuse the modelling system with reality. In this coordinate system, the time and the motion of the earth, are imaginary relative to this cooridnate system. But this does not mean that time is not real nor that he earth is not in motion ! It is important that this be understood. It is because I have accounted for it in the defintion of the coordinate system. This is real ! In physics we say that ther are imaginary forces in coordinate systems that are in rotational motion and that we define as inertial. We can say that there are imaginary forces in this situation. To see an example of this see the page at physicsnews1.com slash question_5 dot html . The student doesn't seem to understand, but the answer to this is really very simple. Why do physicists say that there exist imaginary forces in these situations ? You should already have a major rhint as to the answer from the way I made time "imaginary" in the example above. Next, we are going to assign time to a dimension, and observe what happens in the model. Further, we are going to now see that in some models, time can be understood as imaginary relative to the modeling system. But to believe that this is the reality is absoltuely false ! I will also provide some evidence that in fact, distance and spatial dimension can be consider illusions, but not time. Further, that it is time that is the essence of and is essential to existence. We have a lot of ground to cover to get ot that point. To be continued
Oli, for that info, you will find his lecture if you google: ''Stephen Hawking and the No Boundary Proposal'' I'm sure you will find many references on this discussion. Anyway, em... yes... my own interpretation > but, all the rest applies from all ready known physics. Dr. Wolf says, ''And time would not exist if mind did not exist.'' From Dr. Wolfs book, ''Mind over Matter: A new alchemy.'' Just assume these following statements, each describing a universe that is observer-dependant... They are interesting > 'We ourselves can bring about into existence only very small-scale properties, like the spin of the electron. Might it require intelligent beings, 'more conscious' than ourselves to bring into existence the electrons and other particles? Barrow and Tipler, 'the Anthropic Principle.' 'No photon exists until a detector fires, only a developing potentiality. Particle-like and wave-like behavior are properties we ascribe to light. Without us, light has no properties, no existence. There is no independent reality for phenomena nor agencies of observation.' Niels Bohr 'The world in Copenhagen interpretation is merely potential before our observation, and is actual afterwards.' Bryce S. DeWitt 'We have to imagine the system a-attentively trying out all potentialities out of which one actually emerges.' David Bohm 'There is always a triple correspondence; 1. A mental image, which is in our minds and not in the external world 2. Some kind of counterpart in the external world, which is inscrutable in nature 3. A set of pointer readings, which exact science can study and connect with other pointer readings To put the conclusion crudely - the stuff of the world is 'mind stuff'. ' Sir Arthur Eddington Time is also a entangled with mind. I make a bold proposal because it has a bold arguement. Reiku :m:
Googled, second hit: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html Hmm real time and imaginary time: different things. Imaginary time is a quantum physics thing... Sorta missed the point, didn't you? Wolf:hmmm How about this sentence from Wiki?
Archimonde, I wouldn't call you a materialist. Belief in time increases in a materialist culture. The prevalence of all types of devices and means for measuring and monitoring time as well as the strict synchronisation required for industry in work and leisure make time appear an inescapable, concrete phenomena in an industrial society. As a means of measurement of course the whole area becomes a playground for mathematicians but its origins lie in the purely sensory realm of vision and feeling not in number. "Time is money". "A stitch in time saves nine" "Time waits for no man", etc...etc... These are just a few of the maxims that associate time with a material phenomena that will become exhausted. Poeple in the east say that "time flows through them", but in the West time is something outside of us that we are constantly chasing but which there is never enough of. In the eastern sense there is still a connection between time and feeling which has been lost to us in an industrial society.
Oli No. Not at all. I already know of the concepts of real time (which is imaginary space) and real space which is (imaginary time). Stephen Hawking has swapped the conventional vision of what we mean by past. No longer does a big bang necesserally count because there is a limit of no boundary. But paradoxically, in the realm of real time, big bang still happens regardless. I have to admit, i am not entirely sure what his work acheives. In the end all we can really do is that we have a philosophy to tackle the question of a beginning, but whilst we are able to cover it up, it still exists... :shrug: As for Wolf, he is a pioneer, and we don't get many of those. He has tackled some of the most controversial theories concerning consciousness, parallel universes and the origins of the universe. At some attempts, his work may seem superfluous, and maybe even unorthodoxical, but in the end he acheives his direct mission. I like this unorthodoxy because he reminds me of Frank J. Tipler, also known for his astonishing claims of reality. He is a Christian-mathematician-physicist/astrophysicist, (quite a combination), and is known for his extraordinary claims, such as as a rapidly rotating cylinder capable of global causal violation to describing the entire universe as a single super boson. But we have learned a lot from these idea's. It was Dr. Wolf who brought in the mathematicak expression of 'qwiffs', and postulated that quantum tunnelling had something to do with consciousness and perhaps phsychic abilities. He is also known to have had a very good education, and met some of the most brilliant minds in the world, to work with and for breif discussions. One of these people i can recall was Werner Heisenberg. His credibility is not in question... but perhaps his method of thinking, but even Einsteins method of thinking was critically harsh during his declaration of relativity. It wasn't until light was observed bending around the sun was it really taken seriously. I think a true scientist does need to consider all possibilities, not just astrology, physics, relativity but also metaphysics... The accountable reasons why something should have done what it did... The basis of origin and character... If all these things need to be included, then no unified theory will ever be made, because we may be intrinsic to its design. This is what i mean by an observer-dependant model of the universe. We are apart of the whole as we are made of matter, space, time and energy, and we constitute a single collapse in the wave function. Out of the distortions of spce, consciousness arose. This field of self not only disturbs, but it creates it reality. If our realities are the only spacetime projections that are ever real, then no other reality exists. We manifest external reality through our interpretations made in the internal world, and unravel and encapsulate its mysterious pages as it unfolds around us, like some intricate dubious murder mystery - without us, in effect, the universe would be devoid of any such meaning, thus if all experience, all emotion and every thought can be pin-pointed to the internal world of awareness and perception, then consciousness is next to being trapped in a lucid dream, in which none of us can awake from and which the laws of the universe cannot escape... the lie that is the most terrifying in physics, is the truth about the world of consciousness. Reiku :m:
Some confusion here methinks. Ah well, philosophy... yeah can ask the questions, but you won't get definitive answers. That's one word. Yup, ol' Frank went slightly um, pioneering, as well didn't he? Yeah yeah, Physical review D etc. Nothing extraordinary about it, he just took the calculations a step further. Are you aware of the SIZE of his cylinder? Hence the comments in Wiki perhaps? Psychic abilities?? Oh, MEETING people and talking to them helps your credibility... 'kay. I'm now a credible CERN particle physics specialist and have worked on the W & Z bosons. I'll add it to my CV. So you didn't read the Wiki quote? So that would be why the suggestions have been made that the results were fudged to conform to Einstein's equations? Because they weren't taken seriously? So a true scientist should consider things that have not been shown or demonstrated to have any factual, reliable, repeatable basis? Interesting point of view. Maybe you should check the definition of "science".
Oli No. I believe you don't know what quantum theory i am talking about, I thought these concepts you would have known. Take us. Whether we are made up of bosons and tardyons, which we are i.e. photons, graviphotons, gluons (boson), quarks, electrons, hydrogen atoms, neutrino's... just to mention a few but we are one single figure describing one value. If we were a particle, we would be a tardyon, or also known as a bradyon. We experience real time. Now this is the time we know of as a presence everyday. In relativity, ''real time'' is the same as ''imaginary space.'' Hawking wishes to see the universe's history as a realm of imaginary dimensionsion... Imaginary time, which is of course, ''Imaginary space.'' This is a quantum rule. Oli, i never made a confusion. You are assuming in a discussion a topic which you know nothing about. If you did, you would know all of this? No? Reiku :m:
I madw a mistake. It gets confusing all of this real imaginary stuff...!!! Instead... ''In relativity, ''imaginary time, which is of course ''real space.'' '' Though remember. We experience ''real time,'' which is imaginary space. Instead we want to imagine an ''imaginary time'' and a real space. Sorry Reiku
And, forgive me that i am persistive, but physics attempts to explain conscious experience. Whilst it makes sense of the spacetime projection the neural networks create, it still has to answer how anomalies are answerable, such as hallucinations and psychic ability, predicting or telekonisis. These concepts should never be left out. A true scientist would admit that the paranormal warrants an investigation. Wikipedia is very misleading. I have even found errors in their work before. The wikipedia are created by the public... Not every time will it be written by a professional. That is why found these discrepencies... not naturally mistakes thought. But one slice would say one thing, and another slice would say another thing... You get the picture? Materialistic Effects of Consciousness Some scientists will have the model of the mind very black and white, and extremely pragmatic. One of these veiwpoints is that all the action in the mind gives rise to consciousness, not a specific localization to any neuronic function. Basically, its the hydrogen atoms and the electrons and the photons, and all the other particles whizzing about in the brain that causes cognitive phenomenon. Spin-Mediated Consciousness The spin-mediated consciousness theory is a theory that says ''spins'' - that intrinsic property of subatomic matter - carried by nucleons in neural membranes and other proteins are the ''linchpins'' between mind and brain. This theory was initially proposed by biophysicist Huping Hu and his counterpart Maoxin Wu. But what if the idea can be extended to more than simply spin of matter... what if the transferral of energy is intimately related? Electromagnetic Theory of Consciousness The electromagnetic theory of consciousness is a theory that states that the electromagnetic field generated by the electromagnetic materials of the brain (known for a long time, and measured by EEG's) is the actual carrier of conscious experience. We might find Biomagnetites and Photons being supreme carriers. This theory was initially proposed by scientists such as Jonjoe McFadden, Susan Pockett and Roy John. But what if this can be taken further? We know that isolated forces maybe a bit of an illusion. We have already linked electroweak, electrostrong, electromagnetism all together as simply different sides to a single force... So perhaps the different sides play different roles to give rise to the same goal... Consciousness? Gravity then, also has something to do with it all. These are just two different theories... But they are many more questions to be asked and answered with hesitation. Here is a list of all the problems i know of... 1. Perception and Self-Reflection 2. Thoughts and Memory 3. Dream States 4. Hallucinations 5. Psychic Experience 6. The Subject-Object Paradox 7. The Binding Problem 8. Conscious Explanation of Neurological Functions and Coherence 9. Psychological Determinative Phenomena 10. Artificial Intelligence and Computation 11. The Collapse of Single Neural Calculations 12. Social Phenomena 13. The Spacetime Projection Phenomena 14. The 2-D Spacetime Phenomena Cast into the Three Dimensional Phenomena 15. Metaphysical Theory of Consciousness I am sure there are more, but this covers the in's and out's of what needs to be conceptually grasped when we speak about the complications of consciousness. Indeed, if it was an easy task, we would have solved the problem a hundred years ago. I have a theory that consciousness, if it represents the world, and universe as a whole, then if we have an incomplete theory of consciousness, then so will our theory of the universe. In fact, a Grand Unification of QFT will be to have the observer included in this theory...
And our personal experience of relativistic effects is....? Real time and real space is what we experience. Maybe, but you keep making errors: Real time - imaginary space: imaginary time - real space. Keep on track. Assumptions? There's one right there. Physics does? Been investigated: didn't hold up. Not IS, but CAN BE. It's a useful start for an overall view. Speculation.
God created Himself/Herself. It cannot be more plausible. Natural sacrifice of intuitive thinking are disposed of, and we must adopt similar idea to how we imagined space and energy to appear out of the blue. The only reason i can imagine us having the God we have, i beleive, cannot be answered. First of all, i would need to know what kind of God i was dealing with. Second, i would need to know if He/She is connected to all events beyond time... If He/She is, why am i not? Also, what is the plan? Why that plan? And why does He/She not just wipe out evil? It seems like the Chinese Yin-Yang come into play now. Even a passage of the Bible (i think it might have been Isaiah), that God has power over both good and evil...! For me, this suggests that the universe is totally at His/Hers disposal. By the way, i will not decide on a particular sex. As far as i would be concerned, since not born of another source, He/She is a hermophradite. I also know that God could not know everything. Thus he is not Omnipotant. Please; for all those who are religious and are shocked by this claim, i need to tell you that Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principles disallows the principle of anyone knowing any full result of the system. We have Chaos systems, we have inpredictability to solve the unification and we don't knw how to involve the observer. God, if he knew everthing, would violate the uncertainty principle, and also as a by-product create a collapse in the wave function. If God knew (lets say) the location and path of 10^10 particles, the universe would become very disruptive, and every bit of matter would errupt in a violence of energy. But, if God knew their paths and didn't know their locations, he would be able to know of any blue print without worrying of any specific locations through time. This all depended on one rule. The if God had to obay quantum rules, he needed to be the quantum rule. This would make sense actually. If God unravelled because of His/Her presence, then everything was created under His/Hers divine collapse. Such beings should not be disregarded. Just because there are statistics against God, there are many for its existance. God could easily exist in a multiverse. If you have an infinite amount of universes, as Everete shows us, then we have an infinite amount of answers possible for a universe that will shed light on such a being. In an infinite amount of universes, you can find: Helll worlds, parallel worlds very similar, universes made of nothing but a light and dense energy, with very little space and with time passing very slowly. In other universes, you will have a sheet of heavy energy that will cover all spacetime, but it will be rarer than the material of the other universe. In fact, this universe could be in its ground state. The universe with the light and dense energy could be a universe in an excited state. Excited energy is attracted to ground state energies. This is well known. This would mean that two universes, either total opposites and/or total reflections of each other, will have a connection over distences which we would call ''nothing.'' In string theory, a prediction it makes answers for how universes can be in superpositional states... Even Hugh's theory did not attempt to answer this theories superpositional state. In this theory, there are 10 x 10^500 universes. That is a lot of universes. You would need to flip a coin in the coventional theory of Everetts conventional multiple universe theory 1670 times before you can create 10^500 universes. However, you can still create 10^30 universes if you sit down and flip a coin 100 times! So, it is still a lot. Life and God must work with each other. A single being cannot be measured for how much energy one may contain. If we wanted to unify everything, then we would need to measure God, because surely God would have a place in a unified theory? But for God to exist, He/She would need to observe themselves... In fact, not only this, but also observe the universe from the outside, because you need to be outside of the system to observe it, otherwise you are contributing to the energy, and there is no known equation describing conscious force. But we learn (for those wh follow Christianity), many passages saying that after dark times, we will inexorably celebrate God name through praying and worship. If man did not exist, then the Bible would not exist... THAT CANNOT BE DISPUTED... But if we understand this, then the bible wouldn't exist either, then the living word of God would not exist... Then we wouldn't have either God or Man. Imoportance only enters these origins if the divine is involved. To ignore evidence that cannot be refuted would be a mistake of multiple errors. Whilst i beleive > + (There is a subspacetime realm stooping into the neural network of the human psyche, and it hangs off a linear concept of reality. The linear concept comes in two forms. One states that there is no beginning using Mr. Hawking's idea of using imaginary time. This world hangs off real time and real space. A direct collapse is made with their complex-conjugates.) In short, God would need to be real to make sense of big bang... Ekpyrotic doesn't come into this, because the universe existed in a frozen state for trillions of years before meaning anything. On the other hand, he would need to be time-reversed. This is my own prediction. An anti-termed entity would exhibit appropriate abilities. This means an anti-energy, anti-inertia ''?'' or perhaps even all combined with an anti-gravity and pressure? Some antiparticles have relationships with time reversal. Reiku p.s. Oli... your wrong. You ask the relative difference between real time and imaginary space... but there is no difference :bugeye: You said i ande errors. Perhaps you will elaborate on this? Yes of course physics answers for consciousness...??????????? Why would you not beleive this? Does Penrose work in an invalid area of phsyics? Has Goswami got the interdepency wrong? In don't think so... and everyone who understands the concept of (''Observer Effect'') is very appliable to ay situation which involves an intelligent recording machine. Reiku :m:
God's existence is supposition. His creation even more so. Unsubstantiated. Speculation. Great, show them. Shows is possible maybe, not shows that such is the case. Of course it can't: the bible was a creation of man. Assuming (ooops, assumptions!) that god exists and has a "living word" Er, if there's no mankind there's no bible, no bible no god, no god no man? Slightly circular. Ah, that would explain all those rgeories from physicists about the origins of the universe... oh, wait. Speculation. Yeah? I asked where, and how, do we experience relativistic effects. Since we don't we live in real space and real time. Your two quotes contradict each other: Define "intelligent recording machine". Observer effect is a concept, an explanation and not proven to be the actual case.
Right... Ok... I'll answer these, but please let it be the last. You have asked absolutely naive questions. You said... “ If God knew (lets say) the location and path of 10^10 particles, the universe would become very disruptive, and every bit of matter would errupt in a violence of energy. But, if God knew their paths and didn't know their locations, he would be able to know of any blue print without worrying of any specific locations through time. ” Unsubstantiated. Speculation. '' > Well, its not. I you believe in God, then you will beleive that He/She must be subject to quantum rules. >The uncertainty principle is needed. We can not answer for the strange unpredictable nature if we tried. Let us assume that energy is regarded for every concept. Any superfluous results from the vacuum must then be added as hidden variables. Here we find static situations creating single value creations through a reality of real things. These things are created through a 4-dimensionsional veiwpoint. A four dimensional object is exactly like 3-dimensional ball that is stretched into the poles through an expansions of the sides. A four-dimensional ball is seen as a ball that is stretched outward. Reiku
You mean you want to ramble on with unsubstantiated speculation, given as fact, without questions? Fine. I'm out. Naive questions? You mean I don't share your basic assumption, and that you can't respond with anything better than "god"? If you believe in god you can assign to him any properties you wish, properties that aren't testable, therefore: unsubstantiated speculation.
Sure man, here: God's Cricket Chorus © 1992 David Carson/Jim Wilson Performed by Crickets "This unusual recording contains two tracks: 1. the natural sound of crickets chirping 2. the sound of the crickets slowed down to match and mirror the length of the average lifespan of a human being. The angelic chorus you hear accompanying the sound of the crickets is NOT a synthesizer or a chorus singing. It's the crickets themselves (slowed down) creating the effect. Really an amazing thing they've accomplished here. This recording can be played continuously in the background to create a natural soothing atmosphere for calming and healing. This recording has been created by Jim Wilson." More info
'Originally Posted by Reiku I'll answer these, ''but please let it be the last. ” You mean you want to ramble on with unsubstantiated speculation, given as fact, without questions? '' Fine. I'm out.'' '' > Really > well, then perhaps you can describe the system i was relating to. I am talking about God half in and half out. Half virtual and half real. A being of V< -c+V> c = 0. Reiku :m:
