Just Think . . .

You are overstepping the boundaries of your own rhetoric here. Proposing
that reality is more than we believe is itself a belief that needs justification.

Its a paradox.

You are correct that it is a reduction, but wrong in that its incomplete.
The whole of physical composition includes the relationship between physical
entities. IE: gravity is an attribute of matter.

Its exactly this that makes words like 'supernatural' or 'ultimate reality' problematic
to anyone who understands what words like nature, and reality describes.

That's because describing the song alone does not describe the relationship the song
has with my chemical composition. Pressure describes exactly what I'm experiencing,
because the word "song" means a string of oscillated pressure (or notes), there is no way around it.

What moves me is not IN the song. The song is merely a circumstance that my
body (which is also a circumstance) reacts to. Like a rock bouncing
off of another rock. There is no bounce without two rocks.

 

Experience would suggest otherwise. I bet your knowledge of reality is far more than what you believed as a child. It is well worth considering that there is still more than what we understand today.

Imagine that

No one knows how gravity works. If you can explain the mechanics of it, they'll give you a Nobel. I'm not saying it's magic, just that the knowledge is outside of our experience.

Who said anything about "the Supernatural?" And as far as ultimate reality goes, I have only heard it used by people who understand there is always more reality than they could directly comprehend.

Fair enough, but it seems a very convoluted composition of questionable premises. Why that song and not another? In terms of physics and neuro-chemistry, why aren't they essentially indistinguishable from one another? Or is there some undefinable quality to your favorite song?

These are real questions, I am not trying to compete with your understanding of things.

 

Sure its worth considering, but I don't think its reasonable to demand that
there must be more than we understand, because a proposition like that
requires a complete understanding.

How much we can understand is as much a mystery as how much there
is to understand.

I think "why does gravity work" is a silly question. Why shouldn't it?
Why shouldn't the earth be round, and why shouldn't molecular machines
evolve on a tiny spec of dust suspended in a sunbeam? (Carl Sagan)

I'm not sure I understand the question. "why aren't they essentially
indistinguishable from one another" seems a bit like asking why gravity exists.
I don't think the question requires or deserves an answer.
But I've got a video if i can find it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM"]YouTube - Feynman 'Fun to Imagine' 4: Magnets (and 'Why?' questions...)

 

True happiness is believing in your lies.

That common human ability seems to be absent in my mind. I am a defective ultra skeptic.

I do not commit to any belief, I don't think subatomic particles even exist. I find most theoretical physicists sound as crazy as Islamic militants...

 

Its hard to take you seriously sometimes.

 

I'm not sure I understand your argument.

Sooner or later, an infinite universe must exceed the capacities of our finite minds.

I agree. Though, I would argue that these are two different (but overlapping) mysteries.

Why reality should, or should not do as it does is a whole other question entirely.

My question is HOW does it do what it does? How does gravity actually work? There is considerable information about the effects of gravity, we can predict exactly what gravity will do, but we have no real idea what mechanism creates the effect.

These are not easy questions. I would be pleasantly surprised if anyone could answer them. For whatever it's worth, I would be pleasantly surprised to know that I wasn't toying around with madness by even asking them. I'll happily risk it, however . . .

There are a few philosophies which argue that all reality can be reduced to its physical manifestation or it is simply not real. According to this logic, all experience is nothing more than electro-chemical transactions in our brains, and, therefore, no essential difference between any two experiences can be proven to exist.

It seems a tragic waste of infinity.

I am inclined toward an irreducibly primal quality uniquely expressed in every thing, every pattern, every abstraction, every ideal . . .

Music provides good, down-to-earth examples of this.

 

If the universe is infinite then it's constituent parts must be also.

Well it is certainly not worth getting worked up over.

No idle thoughts.

 

Our minds and the universe are the same thing. We consist of the infinite.

It still seems like we're banging heads on a paradox though....I don't
understand how someone can say that the universe must exceed the
capacities of our mind, while they are using a mind to say as much.

It takes an understanding to realize the depths of your own ignorance.

If you agree, then I haven't interpreted your post above correctly.

If you find out what mechanism drives gravity, you will only want to discover
what mechanism drives the mechanism, and so on. (its called the infinite regress)

Its also a great example of the ontological error made in the first bit about
how there must be more than we can know. Its another paradox, but at least
we can understand that both of these views are related.

You're thinking about infinite as if it was something that is ever increasing,
rather than something that, like gravity (and everything else) just is.

The essential difference between two experiences is that they are in fact
different experiences. Some people like peanut butter, some don't.

 

In form or in degree of intensity but not in substance, that is stimulus is stimulus.

 

I mean to say the difference is that two experiences are two separate things regardless how identical, and considering the nature of an experience, that the distinction is enough.

 

When I was a child I believed in magic. I believed in God, heaven, and hell. I believed in a universe that was much more complex and dynamic than I believe it is today. As I got older and wiser I started to rule out silly possibilities like heaven and God. I realized to explain the origins of an unconscious automatic universe we need to start as simple as possible. A consciously created universe would be the opposite, from infinitely complex beginnings.

Today I believe there is only one primary substance in the entire universe, you won't find it on the periodic table of elements, you won't find it looking up at the stars, it's not sub atomic strings or particles. It's not consciousness or God. The only real THING in the entire universe is SPACE. Einstein's equation told us that matter = Energy/Time. Matter is an effect not a cause. Yet people still insist on explaining the nature of the universe in terms of matter. We're programmed to think in terms of matter and what we can sense. Primitive society created language and numerical systems to explain what we see and feel and we're using that to make analogies of the universe we can't see.

Matter is not even a secondary effect, it is tertiary after energy. Energy is simply a propagation wave through SPACE. It is propagation of balance, Space is not perfect, imperfection = imbalance, imbalance = energy. Now that we've established that, I'm going to explain magnetism and gravity as best I can...

Imagine being on a beach watching waves approach the shore. The wave energy is directed toward you but why is there peaks and valleys moving up and down? The water has to move out of the way for the energy to propagate forward. Magnetism IS space itself moving out of the way for energy to propagate through it. Explained in two dimensions, if you have an energy wave flowing left to right then there is always a magnetic field flowing up and down. Matter is a collection of energy waves trapped in very tight circles or orbits within itself. If enough of these orbits are lined up in a dense material, a magnetic field is observed. If your looking at a typical magnet with the poles at top and bottom then you know that what we call electrons are spinning left and right.

Gravity is the effect of space being thrown or pushed away from an energy orbit. Again, matter is nothing but energy orbiting itself. the more matter you have, The more 'electron' orbits you have. Another water analogy would be When you pull the drain from your tub and water starts spinning, a vortex is created from the centrifugal force of the spinning water. More water is thrown away from the center. Think of the water as space itself, not mass. A large mass like our planet is pushing space away from the centrifugal force of all the combined electrons of every atom that makes up the planet. There is more space 7 miles above my head than there is at ground level, and even less space 7 miles below ground level. Put an object 7 miles above ground or any distance above ground it's going to fall towards "less space". That's why you often see gravity depicted as depressions in a graph of 'space'.

 

I agree with simplifying. All beliefs evolve over time.
There is no reason a consciously created universe should be at all complex, or conversely no reason an automated process would necessarily be simple.
There is no reason that the two should differ in complexity at all.

I don't think it is helpful to dispose of the word matter. There are loci of energy and matter is a good enough name. These loci can be counted on to display three properties in varying percentages or intensity and these are absorptive, reflective, and polarity.

You've just said that everything is of one substance, space, but that substance is not perfect. This statement is of itself inconsistent. There is no thing as "imperfect substance". You may say that space is unevenly distributed but then again why not the word matter to explain the appearance of energetic constructions. You haven't really established an appropriate description. How do things get "unbalanced" in the first place?

There are directional lines of force, polarity. In special relativity, electric and magnetic fields are two interrelated aspects of a single object, called the electromagnetic field tensor; the aspect of the electromagnetic field that is seen as a magnetic field is dependent on the reference frame of the observer.

Your description of gravity and your description of space are not aligned. If space and energy are equivalents, how is space "thrown out" of an energy orbit?
Gravity is intent, rate of accretion, polarity or direction of spin.

Since we aren't using mathematical symbols to express these ideas the only way we have of checking our assumptions is to regard their construction on the one hand with the idea that the predicate be consistent throughout. That is one element does not cancel out another element.

On the other hand, have we made statements based on an insufficient statistical sampling? Words like always and never most often come under this heading of too small a sampling to be supported as fact. In a running statement which substitutes as a mathematical formula to express essential nature, if one of the modifiers or measurements are incorrect, then the entire statement will posit the wrong conclusion.

 

Consciousness is ENORMOUSLY COMPLEX!
A consciously created universe in infinitely more complex than an intrinsically automatic unconscious universe.

Space must be imperfect or we would not exist, logical conclusion.

Space and energy are not equivalents, you are not understanding the analogy at all. Space must move to allow energy to propagate. Energy in a tight orbit constantly repels space outward. Every atomic molecule created from energy orbits REPEL space to exist. Gravity is the intrinsic repulsion of space. Multiple molecules repelling space will attract together and multiply the repulsion effect. That attraction is what we experience as gravity. The larger the mass (or collection of energy), the larger the force of gravity.

 

I imagine that if you think it to be complex then it is complex for you.

Nothing at all logical about it. Space must be imperfect or we would not exist
is a statement founded on no observation. It may be logical within your philosophy but so far I have found your statements to be self negating.

If everything is made of one substance, space, then energy and space are equivalent.

Creation is extension. In your scenario it would be consistent to say that energy is the growing of space, not that energy displaces space.

Actually, depending on duration and frequency, harmonization occurs, that is like calls unto like.

I can see where you would think things complicated.
There is no repulsion effect, but there is polarity, creation being a law without opposite. You know that there are light rays that pass through other bodies. There is integrity or completeness to all things of themselves.

 

The soul purpose of all your responses are intended to negate my hypothesis because it contradicts your own beliefs.

I'm not going to pretend I even begin to understand all the complexities of energy and interactions. My intention is to explain the very simple rudimentary mechanics of space and energy. You can babel on and on about our assumptions adapted to our limited language, mathematics and understandings but it's all pointless diversions from my basic logical explanations.

 

Your arguments are self negating, if they were not, I wouldn't have anything to say about them, whether corresponding to my beliefs or not. As self negating statements they do not "logically" explain anything.

The above statements illustrate what I mean by self negating predicates.
On the one hand you claim not to begin to understand, and on the other you seek to explain. On the one hand complex, and on the other hand simple.

If you don't understand all in one instance, how can you explain all , (simple rudimentary), in another?

What I point out is not at all a pointless diversion from "basic logical explanations". It is the illumination that the explanations are not at all logical.

 

I think it has to be acknowledged that you really can't explain consciousness. It's a blind spot, because you have to assume in the first place that human consciousness is good at explaining things, that it has perfect perspective. There's no possible way to be objective about it. The universe is essentially mysterious. You can pick it apart and still there's no way to distinguish fact from fantasy.

 

You can understand
the concept of
pi
without needing to know it to the trillionth fucking decimal places...

FUCK!! We can't find the end... dismiss the whole equation!

Oh NO! there's gaps in our knowledge and our analogies are flawed...

IT"S ALL A MAGICAL FUCKING MYSTERY!! WOO HOO LETS GET FUCKED UP AND NOT THINK ABOUT IT!



Ignorance wins again, my happiness will have to be in chemical form.

 

There is no stasis to be achieved call happiness, not because of ignorance, but because reality is emergent, new in every moment.

 

Heeh to Varuna:

But infinity is always increasing! Good old infinity! lol Where does it have to go? Itself? Ok, it'd had better hurry up then, or at least take its time, or ...use your imagination! Move!

There is room for consciousness to be simple, to become its own matter. It's like thedope was saying, infinity means everything is infinite. It's impossible that what we may perceive to be its finite constituents, existing within it, could 'themselves' pose limitation on perception. Existence is inherent. Makes me want to live! lol

Relaxxx,

I don't mind what your thinking is...it's still thinking! If the universe is perfect, the bastard, why don't we feel perfect? It's because it doesn't need us to. This is where thedopes 'creation as extension' can come into play ---since it doesn't really work as anything else.

lol You're getting it around the wrong way man! We think about it carefully, and then...supply liberally!