Merkabah

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
Also I wouldn't really use science to back nor refute itself because scientists are often full of stupid, and erroneous assumptions hang around for a very long time.

They're bound by ignorance, because if they knew better they wouldn't continue to teach these things that mislead people.

 

[sprinkles]

I think you missed his argument. He is saying the one that claim that there is no free will makes a self-refuting claim.

With regard to your response toward me, his argument would be that if there is no free will, then NOTHING from what you wrote to me is RATIONAL, meaning that if there is no free will, there is no RATIONALITY.

So if there is no reason, it means that what you wrote and disagreed with, is not because it makes any sense, but because you were forced by blind and irational causes to do so. But if it is thusly, then your argument is irrational, and therefore it refutes itself.

So, by his argument, you are the one who argues circular.

What makes sense is not my choice. If it were my choice then everything would always make sense 100% of the time.

 

[Skarekrow]

@Skarekrow
And I'm really sorry to continue to harp on that but a big reason this hasn't made progress is the persistent use of outdated premises. It just makes people continue to think in terms that they already know about and therefore nothing is further elucidated.

It's like talking to a baby in baby talk but you never stop doing it. Soon that baby is 40 years old and you've never increased its vocabulary.

I don’t think you are harping on anything that does not deserve it...it’s like calling chemistry and biology - alchemy.
I agree with you...but how should we (as a society, or those who understand it differently) propagate the proper terminology so people don’t roll their eyes and dismiss it as pseudo-science or hocus-pocus.
Just refer to it all as quantum physics or mechanics?
At the same time though, you yourself use the term “magic”, please clarify.

 

[sprinkles]

I don’t think you are harping on anything that does not deserve it...it’s like calling chemistry and biology - alchemy.
I agree with you...but how should we (as a society, or those who understand it differently) propagate the proper terminology so people don’t roll their eyes and dismiss it as pseudo-science or hocus-pocus.
Just refer to it all as quantum physics or mechanics?
At the same time though, you yourself use the term “magic”, please clarify.

Start using terms more properly, backing them up, and explaining them whenever necessary.

muir also explained magic fairly well earlier. Maybe I used the term but I wouldn't say I exactly 'use it', it's something I've rarely spoken of to anyone and now because of this I regret ever saying anything about it. Having an anecdotal experience that I'm not exactly wont to spread around is a lot damn different than publishing studies on it and 'educating' people on it everywhere. It's my private shit you know.

 

[Skarekrow]

That's great but it's not "a person" that does anything. That's simply not the truth at all so if they want to validate truth, they shouldn't continue to say this.

This idea about the double slit is KNOWN to be false but people keep propagating it, similar to the also false idea that entropy is disorder. The woozle effect that @Jacobi mentioned? This is it happening right now.

Actually, it IS true...though not in the way that some people describe it happening...yes, the act of measuring something does change the outcome...but if one takes the viewpoint of there being a Unified Theory...or that everything is interconnected even on it’s smallest scale, or even throughout multiple dimensions, then the act of observing does change the outcome of something...you are present displacing the air and gravity, the photons are interacting between YOU and what you are observing...logic says that will indeed change the outcome.

 

[Skarekrow]

Start using terms more properly, backing them up, and explaining them whenever necessary.

muir also explained magic fairly well earlier. Maybe I used the term but I wouldn't say I exactly 'use it', it's something I've rarely spoken of to anyone and now because of this I regret ever saying anything about it. Having an anecdotal experience that I'm not exactly wont to spread around is a lot damn different than publishing studies on it and 'educating' people on it everywhere. It's my private shit you know.

I’m not personally attacking you...please don’t think I am.
I am openly asking for clarification, that’s all.
I believe that there is something that transcends science in ways that our minds cannot comprehend...I would call that “magic” and I believe that there are indeed forces which we don’t understand and probably won’t in our lives here on this plane.

 

[sprinkles]

Actually, it IS true...though not in the way that some people describe it happening...yes, the act of measuring something does change the outcome...but if one takes the viewpoint of there being a Unified Theory...or that everything is interconnected even on it’s smallest scale, or even throughout multiple dimensions, then the act of observing does change the outcome of something...you are present displacing the air and gravity, the photons are interacting between YOU and what you are observing...logic says that will indeed change the outcome.

Indeed! To an extent I've said as much.

Anything changes things, including doing nothing, so therefore it is not necessarily your agency that does the changing - being inseparable, recursive, and co-arising is what does the changing.

This idea that a person's consciousness causes anything implies that each person creates their own little universe independent of everybody else's universe but the thing is, if I observe something, the effect takes place in your universe without your volition or even your awareness.

So it's definitely not an "It only happens when you see it" kind of thing.

 

[Skarekrow]

Yes, I agree there was "something" there first, because the Universe actually had a beginning, according to today science. This is from the second link you posted:

“This cannot happen,” says Vilenkin. “So when you follow this space traveler’s history back in time, you find that his history must come to an end.”



"just like a universe popping out of nowhere." - so nothingness created all that existed...this is food for thoughts.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/


Check this video also, Alexander Vilenkin states that it seem physical laws are necessare and independent from the Universe...
[video=youtube;_XYGo3wjdoM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XYGo3wjdoM[/video]

So, the Universe had a beginning. It was created from nothing or not? Some people think yes...others say is the most silly thing one could "solve" the problem with...nothingness is...nothing.

And there is also the problem of the law of physics, like it says in the video.

Quantum physics has shown that the “normal” laws of physics really do not apply...yes, most of it is theory...but so is religion...I am not trying to disprove either of them....in fact I am trying to find the bridge between them.
The most recent theory for the universe it that it explodes, then implodes, then explodes again over an over and over...
But then there are so many theories of how our existence came into being it is virtually pointless for us to argue about whether it existed prior to the “big bang” or if there was nothing...it is beyond our knowing...and neither of us (not making assumptions about you) is a super-genius cosmologist of quantum physicist.
The whole point of this thread originally was to find the thread that connects us all both in this life and after.
It is tiring to continuously argue semantics about personal beliefs...I don’t mind debating thoughts and ideas, but I am not out to throw what I personally believe in anyone’s face.
For me, I am striving to find my faith...not necessarily in “God” per say, but in my own purpose here in this existence.
I am flawed...not everything I post or say is perfectly without flaws either...I am trying to figure it out within the confines of my own mind and heart.
We could go back and forth forever on the subject of what was before the universe...but it will get us nowhere...neither of us can prove the other wrong because no one has the answer currently...they are just theories, thoughts, ideas.
Let’s all take a step back and try to come together to present those to each other in a way that is the most constructive.
No one here has it right...not me...not you...no one that posts their thoughts on the subject.
It would be just as correct for me to assume that what you or anyone else posts is “truth”, as it would be for you to assume the same...but we should all keep in mind that we are not ineffable by any means.
In the past few months I have found the urge to argue my beliefs less and less...it gets me exactly nowhere.
I want to get “somewhere”...I want to believe what my heart tells me is right...who am I to argue the validity of that mindset with anyone who feels the same?
I am not just saying this to you @LucyJr...but to @sprinkles, @muir, @Jacobi, @say what, @Kgal, @efromm @Shaqie and anyone else I missed.
Correct me please if I am perfectly incorrect on a scientific principle that I misstate...but lets bring all our thoughts and ideas together without debating semantics or unprovable theories at every turn.
I wish to move beyond that...to let go of some of the doubts that bloom from my own ego.

 

[say what]

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]

Don't worry about the words. They just bother me because they imply a duality that I know doesn't exist. It can be hard to get around using them but I just feel that if we want to have a model of a one holistic universe then they can't be a thing.

Physical/metaphysical natural/supernatural normal/paranormal are all dualities which speak against unification. It's just the mind/body problem moved over which I don't think you want to do if one of them is only a projection of the other.

I'm just catching up on all the posts, and I'm curious how you know this. Do you know; or is it just your opinion? I would be interested in understanding how you're so certain about it!

 

[sprinkles]

I’m not personally attacking you...please don’t think I am.
I am openly asking for clarification, that’s all.
I believe that there is something that transcends science in ways that our minds cannot comprehend...I would call that “magic” and I believe that there are indeed forces which we don’t understand and probably won’t in our lives here on this plane.

Yeah and I'm not keen on explaining it and mentioning it here was probably a mistake on my part.

It's not my place to explain and it's not for people to just mess with. It'd be like giving people a chemistry set with shit that randomly explodes. If they want to use that they're going to have to find it themselves, I'm not encouraging it, not even encouraging safe and correct use of it.

What I said was meant for people who understand what it is to understand what it is.

 

[say what]

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]
And I'm really sorry to continue to harp on that but a big reason this hasn't made progress is the persistent use of outdated premises. It just makes people continue to think in terms that they already know about and therefore nothing is further elucidated.

It's like talking to a baby in baby talk but you never stop doing it. Soon that baby is 40 years old and you've never increased its vocabulary.

I do agree that this is likely why this information hasn't been pushed further into mainstream. There's a lot of negative connotations around the language and ideas. It's a vicious circle. You can't further the thinking without the funding and broader desire; yet, you'll likely never get this with the current stigma associated with this field of research.

 

[sprinkles]

I'm just catching up on all the posts, and I'm curious how you know this. Do you know; or is it just your opinion? I would be interested in understanding how you're so certain about it!

How do you know that I think I know that I know this? How do I think I know you know I think I know this?

 

[Skarekrow]

SPIRIT WORLD VIBRATES AT A HIGHER FREQUENCY

[video=youtube_share;adrwP7m4gIY]http://youtu.be/adrwP7m4gIY[/video]


In their book The Vortex: Key to Future Science David Ash and Peter Hewitt argue from Einstein's equation that since matter and light share a common movement, the actual speed of the swirling of the vortex, must be related to the speed of light. They argue that once the movement of the vortex exceeds the speed of light, then a person or thing will enter into superenergy, a new dimension, a new world.

But in that new dimension the person or thing will be as solid as you and me in this dimension. The only thing is that the vortices will be swirling at a speed faster than on the earth plane.
As a group, physicists are realizing that what we think of as reality is actually an illusion and there could well be other worlds, even other universes which include the afterlife.
Professor Fred Alan Wolf sums up this view when he writes:

" There is evidence that suggests the existence of a non-material, non-physical universe that has a reality even though it might not as yet be clearly perceptible [ able to be detected ] to our senses and scientific instrumentation. (1998:245)

[video=youtube_share;NxiGgxL5btA]http://youtu.be/NxiGgxL5btA[/video]
Other scientists like Dr. Charles Tart argue that traditional science has unnecessarily limited itself and it is possible to use scientific method to investigate spiritual subjects.
[video=youtube;Ofcp5UVLdAA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofcp5UVLdAA%20[/video]​

​

 

[say what]

No the scientists do not think there was nothing before the “Big Bang”...
There are many theories out there like this - http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point#.UuR3XGatuLI
Or this - http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm
or many, many others...but scientists generally agree that there was something there first.

I'm going to good off on a tangent, because accessibility of knowledge is a huge beef with me. Not that these sources of information aren't credible, but the public is so limited in their ability to access the original publications that these sources use...therefore, we're limited in out ability to accurately assess the research and findings. Any good researcher knows that you have to go to the source to back up your claims, yet the public is suppose to make their opinions and minds up based on second, if not tertiary information. I think this is especially relevant when it comes to these topics. A lot of issues come into play when discussing the "sources" and "details". The argument comes that people in support of these theories and ideas aren't supporting their claims with accurate and relevant information- but are we (the public) given access to it? No. It would be like a physician looking up a breast examine in Marie Claire (okay...maybe that's a bit extreme...but you get what I'm trying to say!).

The public should be make aware of all public-funded research...in reality, it should be ALL research, but that will never happen.

 

[54192&#cmy]

I think that their is a connection between science and creation. And I believe that we have not been told of these things on purpose. Religion is used to control the population. It has been successful for thousands of years. And still is so today. I am not sure how far people really want to go down the rabbit hole. Some people want to believe what they see. Never thinking about all the little things that make life possible. We are just beginning to find out such things with the help of science. It seems like every time they figure out something they realize that was just a piece of the puzzle and their is more too it than they thought.

[video=youtube;cXM9J77StL0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXM9J77StL0[/video]​

 

[say what]

His argument is already circular and problematic. There's nothing to say that you're not irrationally forced to 'accept' certain explanations or theories.

He says it can't be rational, and hes right. Nothing says it must be rational. What we accept is actually so often the very opposite of rational, and occasionally absurd and exceedingly stupid.

He says he chooses belief on the basis of rational credentials. Does he really, or does he just think he does? How does he know? How do you know?

How do you know it's not all a trick like these people who occasionally think they are guilty of crimes they didn't commit, or remember things that never actually happened?

Your argument is based on the idea that rationality is objective. Many would argue that it's subjective.

 

[say what]

I’m not personally attacking you...please don’t think I am.
I am openly asking for clarification, that’s all.
I believe that there is something that transcends science in ways that our minds cannot comprehend...I would call that “magic” and I believe that there are indeed forces which we don’t understand and probably won’t in our lives here on this plane.

I think we so often get caught up on the cultural, historical, society definitions associated with terms, when we need to focus on the idea behind it. Using 'magic' in another era, or even in another part of the word, could mean very different things.

It's like using the term "God"...."God" means many many things. However, typically when it is used within the western scientific world, we automatically default to the Christian idea of God...but that is just one idea of a larger or greater phenomenon that we're referring too.

I think there needs to be less emphasis on the semantics, and more emphasis on the epistemological background of the user - this is much more telling of what someone is speaking too than the terms they use to define their concepts.


Also...I'm not use to thinking like this on a Sunday...this is much more Tuesday-Friday thinking for me.

 

[say what]

Quantum physics has shown that the “normal” laws of physics really do not apply...yes, most of it is theory...but so is religion...I am not trying to disprove either of them....in fact I am trying to find the bridge between them.
The most recent theory for the universe it that it explodes, then implodes, then explodes again over an over and over...
But then there are so many theories of how our existence came into being it is virtually pointless for us to argue about whether it existed prior to the “big bang” or if there was nothing...it is beyond our knowing...and neither of us (not making assumptions about you) is a super-genius cosmologist of quantum physicist.
The whole point of this thread originally was to find the thread that connects us all both in this life and after.
It is tiring to continuously argue semantics about personal beliefs...I don’t mind debating thoughts and ideas, but I am not out to throw what I personally believe in anyone’s face.
For me, I am striving to find my faith...not necessarily in “God” per say, but in my own purpose here in this existence.
I am flawed...not everything I post or say is perfectly without flaws either...I am trying to figure it out within the confines of my own mind and heart.
We could go back and forth forever on the subject of what was before the universe...but it will get us nowhere...neither of us can prove the other wrong because no one has the answer currently...they are just theories, thoughts, ideas.
Let’s all take a step back and try to come together to present those to each other in a way that is the most constructive.
No one here has it right...not me...not you...no one that posts their thoughts on the subject.
It would be just as correct for me to assume that what you or anyone else posts is “truth”, as it would be for you to assume the same...but we should all keep in mind that we are not ineffable by any means.
In the past few months I have found the urge to argue my beliefs less and less...it gets me exactly nowhere.
I want to get “somewhere”...I want to believe what my heart tells me is right...who am I to argue the validity of that mindset with anyone who feels the same?
I am not just saying this to you @LucyJr...but to @sprinkles, @muir, @Jacobi, @say what, @Kgal, @efromm @Shaqie and anyone else I missed.
Correct me please if I am perfectly incorrect on a scientific principle that I misstate...but lets bring all our thoughts and ideas together without debating semantics or unprovable theories at every turn.
I wish to move beyond that...to let go of some of the doubts that bloom from my own ego.

I completely agree! I'm just here to learn more, and I hope that by doing that, I gain a greater understanding of myself. I know very little about any of this, and I'll admit, 9 times out of 10...I don't understand what you're saying until I've read it over 5-6 times!

I'm a full believer that to understand what you know, and to form beliefs, you need to know all sides of the story, and all possible ideas/theories.

 

[sprinkles]

Your argument is based on the idea that rationality is objective. Many would argue that it's subjective.

Yes I am and yes many would. Is this sentence you just made subjective, or is it objective?

Maybe it's both? I mean, it's there, I'm reading it aren't I? Or is it?

Did it travel across the internet in the form of electrons swimming in a river of other electrons in a common pipe with all the other stuff millions of people are typing, travel along the internet backbone as indiscernible clusters of data, and somehow get routed specifically to me out of billions of possible destinations and demodulated by my modem, sent through my router and to my computer which translated it back into text that appears on my glowy magic box of seeing (my monitor) or did I just imagine it?

But yet, even if it did all that, objectively, I still need to interpret the words, subjectively.

 

[say what]

How do you know that I think I know that I know this? How do I think I know you know I think I know this?

I am so confused by this. Maybe it's because it's Sunday...and I like to conserve brain power on Sunday...but I have no idea what you're getting at here.

You said:

They just bother me because they imply a duality that I know doesn't exist

I was just looking for the information that lead you to that conclusion! I'm curious to know how you know they don't exist. I wasn't trying to be smart, I just wanted you to explain to me how you knew they didn't exist. In my mind, it's a debate that has never been fully settled.