I am pretty sure the thread itself, since James created a "Reality Is" thread specifically for spellbound and instructed him to post all of his Reality Is ideas there.
Reality is...
- Thread starter Spellbound
- Start date
The fact is you have no idea what argument you are trying to make. You just quote other people that sound like they know what they are talking about.
It was the OP, for the reasons that OnlyMe said.
Moderator note:
New thread "Reality precedes itself" has been merged into the current thread.
Members are asked to hit "report" on any new "Reality is..." threads posted by Spellbound. He will receive warning points every time he starts a new thread on this topic from now on.
New thread "Reality precedes itself" has been merged into the current thread.
Members are asked to hit "report" on any new "Reality is..." threads posted by Spellbound. He will receive warning points every time he starts a new thread on this topic from now on.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I only asked because I had posted directly before you posted your comment. I was fairly confident you weren't commenting on my post. Thanks for confirming my optimism.....
,
This new theory of everything is a consequence of the thinking based on all my "Reality" threads.
1. The immaterial and the material are one and they are perpetual and eternal otherwise we would not be here. Matter is dependable. Or something was born from the Quantum vacuum and the idea that matter has always existed is an illusion.
2. Reality precedes itself. Reality would have always existed in some form or another. Quantum Physics says that matter sprung from the Quantum vacuum. So reality would have existed as a pure potential wave. Either that or we live in a single infinite and eternal, perpetual universe.
3. Reality generates itself in the sense that it has always existed. In that sense it is eternal.
4. Reality follows the rules of mathematics and logic in determining what can and cannot exist.
5. Regarding the subjective, there is an immaterial essence in us which feels great or ineffable and is experienced as God.
6. There are two ways which we are able to relate to the world, Quantum (subjective/ metaphysical/ unified field/ sprung from vacuum) or Classical (objective/ physical/ separate pieces of matter/ perpetual).
7. If as Physicists say, the fundamental level of reality is information, then we may be living in a Quantum Computer or mind. Specifically God's mind.
1. The immaterial and the material are one and they are perpetual and eternal otherwise we would not be here. Matter is dependable. Or something was born from the Quantum vacuum and the idea that matter has always existed is an illusion.
2. Reality precedes itself. Reality would have always existed in some form or another. Quantum Physics says that matter sprung from the Quantum vacuum. So reality would have existed as a pure potential wave. Either that or we live in a single infinite and eternal, perpetual universe.
3. Reality generates itself in the sense that it has always existed. In that sense it is eternal.
4. Reality follows the rules of mathematics and logic in determining what can and cannot exist.
5. Regarding the subjective, there is an immaterial essence in us which feels great or ineffable and is experienced as God.
6. There are two ways which we are able to relate to the world, Quantum (subjective/ metaphysical/ unified field/ sprung from vacuum) or Classical (objective/ physical/ separate pieces of matter/ perpetual).
7. If as Physicists say, the fundamental level of reality is information, then we may be living in a Quantum Computer or mind. Specifically God's mind.
At least it's in pseudoscience.
The big question is, will this be merged with the 'Reality is...' series and will an infraction be handed out?
The big question is, will this be merged with the 'Reality is...' series and will an infraction be handed out?
Thank you for the deep thoughts as always. No, it won't because it is not a "Reality is..." thread stupid. I won't be starting anymore "Reality is..." threads. But I will inevitably talk about reality in my posts.
The reason for my question was that it's basically a reskin of your usual sthick, dunce.
Which is precisely why this new thread should be with them.
origin no likee? Awww.
Almost all of my threads are a reality check. This time I did not include it in the title.
My point exactly.
We should probably tell paddo that Spellbound has joined the ranks of the ToE claimants. He likes to keep tabs on them.
James, shouldn't that be... every time he starts a new thread on this topic outside of 'Pseudoscience' ?
Then all your threads should be in the Reality Is thread.
And in the Cesspool.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
This thread isn't a 'theory of everything'. The OP is just seven rather bizarre numbered assertions.
What do the words 'material' and 'immaterial' refer to? Can you give examples of each? What does it mean to say that they are one?
Individual material things aren't eternal. Even sub-atomic particles seem to come into and go out of existence. They undergo change.
I don't know what you mean by 'immaterial', but things like numbers might arguably be eternal. (Plato thought so.)
Why does our existence supposedly depend on the material and immaterial being 'perpetual and eternal'? I don't know why I should believe that.
How? In what sense? Engineers know that physical materials can fracture and break.
'Born from the Quantum vacuum'? You lost me there. Is this an admission that you might be wrong about what you said above?
(It seems to be a law of nature that any sentence with the word 'quantum' in it is likely to be bullshit.)
I don't know what that means either. It doesn't sound logically consistent.
Verification of my law of nature up above. Do we really know whether quantum 'potential waves' possess physical reality? Or are they just calculating conveniences that aid physicists in making probabilistic predictions of experimental results? In other words, must we give wave functions a realistic interpretation, or can they be understood instrumentally? Assuming that fundamental question from the philosophy of science is answered, then why must we assume that a 'pure potential wave' must be eternal
I don't think that anybody really knows if reality is eternal or not. You just seem to be assuming that it has to be.
Physics and common sense certainly assume that it does. I don't know how anyone could possibly justify the truth of that assertion without circularity.
That's your own religious belief, based on your personal interpretation of your own subjective experience as something revelatory. I see no reason why others should share your belief. (See my remark #2 at the bottom of this post.)
Another verification of my new law of nature where any sentence containing the word 'quantum' is most likely bullshit.
Quantum mechanics doesn't call for or somehow justify an anything-goes 'subjective/metaphysical' mode of thinking.
How do 'mind' and 'God' enter into this speculation?Your grand conclusions just seem to appear out of nowhere.
I'll finish with two points:
1. There's nothing new in the speculation that the physical universe is somehow to be identified with God's mind. It's not an vision that's original with Langan by any means. It's common in throughout the age-old Platonic tradition. It seems to have originated with Middle Platonism which identified Plato's eternal 'ideas' (in the sense of forms) with the more psychological concept of 'idea' as mental content, imagining Plato's forms as eternal ideas in the mind of God. That understanding was fundamental to Christian and Islamic Neoplatonism and to a great deal of less orthodox 'Occult' speculation. Probably most medieval thinkers accepted it. Isaac Newton did, when he suggested that space and time were God's "sensorium", his subjective field of awareness. It's part of the context out of which German idealists like Kant and Hegel arose.
If you are grasping onto Langan because you think that his pantheistic speculations correspond to your own supposed mystical revelations, you probably should learn more about the history of ideas. You will find many of correspondences, some of them more profound, better argued and more comprehensible than Langan.
2. Subjective 'mystical' experience doesn't always lead to these kind of conclusions. Buddhists have turned meditation into an art-form, and they don't believe that there is any immaterial essence in us. They specifically deny the existence of any soul or self, arguing that no amount of introspection will reveal such a thing. All that introspection reveals is a constantly changing flow of percepts, feelings, concepts, associations and volitions. Buddhists also deny the existence or importance of anything like the Judeo-Christian God. Buddhist enlightenment consists of weaning ourselves away from the psychological need to believe in and grasp at illusory eternal unchanging things.
So if your views are based on your own interpretation of your own supposed subjective revelations, the strong possibility exists that you are misunderstanding them.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I was skipping from reality to reality so much, I almost lost sense of my own reality..
So then logically mathematics creates reality .
So mathematics controls atomic and sub-atomic dynamics?
How so ?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Wise words indeed, glasshopper.