Page 107 of 258 FirstFirst ... 75797104105106107108109110117157207 ... LastLast
Results 1,591 to 1,605 of 3858

Thread: An ongoing Chris Thomas thread for those who resonate with his alternative view of reality and history

  1. #1591
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    25th March 2018
    Location
    atlanta
    Posts
    435
    Thanks
    881
    Thanked 2,335 Times in 434 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Chris View Post
    I believe the edge quantum computing has over normal everyday computing, is its multidimensional nature. Not an expert here, but I recall reading about it a few years ago and what caught my eye was the assertion, however theoretical, that calculations were done not just in this universe and our paltry three dimensions, but in countless parallel universes and higher dimensions at the same time. That is apparently what makes Quantum Computers unbeatable in areas such as breaking encrypted information, that would take a normal supercomputer millions of years.

    We can't know for sure if the universe is a simulation, but there are many signs that it might be and this is accepted by some of the greatest scientific minds of our generation. My own experience would also nudge me towards the conclusion that what we call the material universe is not nearly as solid and real as we think. I really think it is some sort of holographic matrix. Whether it emanates from the will of a personal creator, or that of a supercomputer, I don't know, but in any case it does have all the hallmarks of an artificially generated reality, or a creation, if you prefer that expression.

    If the universe is indeed an artificially generated holographic matrix (think Giant version of Star Trek's Holodeck), it would stand to reason that the computer running it would be the most sophisticated and powerful we can conceive of and a Quantum Computer is as far as our minds can go in this field right now, though of course it may very well be an entirely different type of "beast" (pun intended).
    the way i look at it source creator IS a supercomputer and the holographic matrix you theorize IS the source creator...

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to palooka's revenge For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (15th August 2018), Chris (15th August 2018), Dreamtimer (15th August 2018), Elen (15th August 2018)

  3. #1592
    Retired Member Hungary
    Join Date
    10th July 2018
    Posts
    1,862
    Thanks
    4,696
    Thanked 8,908 Times in 1,858 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by palooka's revenge View Post
    the way i look at it source creator IS a supercomputer and the holographic matrix you theorize IS the source creator...
    That's a scary thought. I guess that is what the Gnostics believe, that Yadalbaoth (Yahweh) created this fake reality as a copy of the original one. That view would presuppose though that there is a "real" prime reality, of which this one is a bad copy.

    This gets into real complex philosophical and theological territory. My feeling is we are all just guessing here, because we really don't know how the universe came about, whether ours is the only or even the prime one or if there are others out there, perhaps even ones whose inhabitants created ours.

    But, I must paraphrase Elon Musk's logic on this, because I think it is rock solid. His contention is, that since universes can be created artificially, we know that for a fact, therefore intelligent beings in other universes must be creating new ones all the time, if for nothing else, curiosity or scientific experiments. If that is the case, there must be countless created universes, which greatly outnumber those that came about organically or always existed outside time in a ceaseless state. Due to this, it becomes exceedingly likely that our universe is also an artificial creation, especially since we can actually trace back its beginnings to the big bang. Some scientists have actually calculated the odds of our universe being a simulation or creation and it is astronomically more likely that we are in a simulated universe as opposed to an organic, self-emergent one.

    That still doesn't solve the problem of how the first, non-simulated universe came about, but I feel our concept of time is actually leading us into logical fallacies in this respect. In a timeless, infinite universe (which I will call the Source Universe for lack of a better term), there is no beginning and no end, therefore trying to find a point in time when it came about makes no logical sense. If there is no linear time in that realm, things aren't born or die, they don't start and then end, they just 'are'.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (15th August 2018), Dreamtimer (15th August 2018), Elen (15th August 2018)

  5. #1593
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,241
    Thanks
    88,440
    Thanked 80,975 Times in 20,256 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Chris View Post
    That's a scary thought. I guess that is what the Gnostics believe, that Yadalbaoth (Yahweh) created this fake reality as a copy of the original one. That view would presuppose though that there is a "real" prime reality, of which this one is a bad copy.

    This gets into real complex philosophical and theological territory. My feeling is we are all just guessing here, because we really don't know how the universe came about, whether ours is the only or even the prime one or if there are others out there, perhaps even ones whose inhabitants created ours.

    But, I must paraphrase Elon Musk's logic on this, because I think it is rock solid. His contention is, that since universes can be created artificially, we know that for a fact, therefore intelligent beings in other universes must be creating new ones all the time, if for nothing else, curiosity or scientific experiments. If that is the case, there must be countless created universes, which greatly outnumber those that came about organically or always existed outside time in a ceaseless state. Due to this, it becomes exceedingly likely that our universe is also an artificial creation, especially since we can actually trace back its beginnings to the big bang. Some scientists have actually calculated the odds of our universe being a simulation or creation and it is astronomically more likely that we are in a simulated universe as opposed to an organic, self-emergent one.

    That still doesn't solve the problem of how the first, non-simulated universe came about, but I feel our concept of time is actually leading us into logical fallacies in this respect. In a timeless, infinite universe (which I will call the Source Universe for lack of a better term), there is no beginning and no end, therefore trying to find a point in time when it came about makes no logical sense. If there is no linear time in that realm, things aren't born or die, they don't start and then end, they just 'are'.
    But that then in itself would render everything meaningless. It is the existence of events and processes — read: causality — which gives meaning to the subjective experiences that we all are and allows them to evolve. And you cannot have any meaningful causality without the concept of time.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Chris (15th August 2018), Dreamtimer (15th August 2018), Elen (15th August 2018), Shadowself (15th August 2018)

  7. #1594
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    14,610
    Thanks
    70,673
    Thanked 62,025 Times in 14,520 Posts
    This is a fun conversation:


  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (15th August 2018), Chris (15th August 2018), Elen (15th August 2018), Shadowself (15th August 2018)

  9. #1595
    Retired Member Hungary
    Join Date
    10th July 2018
    Posts
    1,862
    Thanks
    4,696
    Thanked 8,908 Times in 1,858 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    But that then in itself would render everything meaningless. It is the existence of events and processes — read: causality — which gives meaning to the subjective experiences that we all are and allows them to evolve. And you cannot have any meaningful causality without the concept of time.
    That question is actually a staple of science fiction. It was the primary mystery being explored in Star Trek: The Next Generation's final episode and was the central theme of Star Trek: DS9 as well. I thought they did a pretty good job of exploring linear time and causality, as far as our puny primate minds are capable of comprehending it, anyway. I'm not negating time as a factor entirely, only its linearity, the cause and effect relationship. One-dimensional time, flowing in one direction at a steady pace is the only one we are capable of imagining, because that is our prime experience. However, and this has been suggested by Russian scientists and reported on by the likes of Graham Hancock and David Wilcock, there is actually a real possibility that time itself is three-dimensional. That being the case, a higher dimensional being, one that can experience time as a three-dimensional construct, pretty much the same way we experience space, would be able to move about it freely. It could pop in and out of our timeline with no difficulty, see the future far ahead and go back to the past. It could also easily move between timelines, that run parallel to each other from our point of view. In fact, that is a pretty good description of the gods in ancient myth, something Physicist Michio Kaku also remarked upon.

    There is no real reason to suppose that cause always has to precede effect or that time can only flow in one direction or at a steady pace. We all have experiences where time slows down or speeds up based on our subjective experience. We all have premonitions, even dreams of the future, or a possible future at least. Treating time as non-linear and three-dimensional opens up all sorts of possibilities regarding creation. I remember reading the book "Who Built the Moon", written by two Russian scientists, where they came to the conclusion that life on earth would not be possible without the precise placing of the moon exactly where it is in relation to the earth and the sun. The evidence is overwhelming that the moon is not only an artificial construct, but was actually placed very carefully and precisely where it is, to enable life on earth to evolve and thrive in the first place. They explored several possibilities as to the builders and movers of the moon, but the most likely explanation they came up with is that humanity in the future time travelled back into the distant past to create the exact conditions that we find here now, creating a causal loop. This would be a classic example of effect preceding the cause. We have to grow beyond the concept of linear time to understand what is really possible.

    Personally, I believe that the chakras are actually mini-wormholes, creating bridges between different points in time, space and dimensions. The third eye chakra in particular connects us to our past and future selves, enabling us to use our own wisdom from past, future and parallel selves to avoid making the same mistakes over and over again. Even our higher selves may be nothing else but an amalgamation, a distillation if you will, of all of our past, future and parallel selves.
    Last edited by Chris, 15th August 2018 at 18:39.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (15th August 2018), Dreamtimer (16th August 2018), Elen (16th August 2018)

  11. #1596
    In Memoriam Shadowself's Avatar
    Join Date
    9th March 2015
    Posts
    696
    Thanks
    754
    Thanked 4,290 Times in 688 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    But that then in itself would render everything meaningless. It is the existence of events and processes — read: causality — which gives meaning to the subjective experiences that we all are and allows them to evolve. And you cannot have any meaningful causality without the concept of time.
    First man: I think, I think I am, therefore I am, I think.

    Establishment: Of course you are my bright little star,
    I've miles
    And miles
    Of files
    Pretty files of your forefather's fruit
    and now to suit our
    great computer,
    You're magnetic ink.

    First Man: I'm more than that, I know I am, at least, I think I must be.

    Inner Man: There you go man, keep as cool as you can.
    Face piles
    And piles
    Of trials
    With smiles.

    It riles them to believe
    that you perceive
    the web they weave
    And keep on thinking free.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AukFsBv2oDY


    ~

    ~ Time ~



    “I don’t understand you,” said Alice. “It’s dreadfully confusing!”
    “That’s the effect of living backwards,” the Queen said kindly:
    “it always makes one a little giddy at first—”
    “Living backwards!” Alice repeated in great astonishment. “I
    never heard of such a thing!”
    “–but there’s one great advantage in it, that one’s memory
    works both ways.”
    “I’m sure mine only works one way,” Alice remarked. “I can’t
    remember things before they happen.”
    “It’s a poor sort of memory that only works backwards,” the
    Queen remarked.

    ~ Tell 'em a hookah smoking caterpillar Has given you the call ~


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WANNqr-vcx0


    [...]

    All right,’ said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly,
    beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin,
    which remained some time after the rest of it had gone.

    ‘Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin,’
    thought Alice, ’but a grin without a cat!
    It’s the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!’



    No wonder Alice is surprised. In real life, assuming
    that cats do indeed smile, then the smile is a property of
    the cat – it makes no sense to think of a smile without a
    cat. And this goes for almost all physical properties. The
    polarization is a property of a photon, it makes no sense
    to have a polarization without a photon. Yet, as we will
    show here, in the interesting way of quantum mechanics,
    a photon polarization may exist where there is no photon at all.
    At least this is the story that quantum mechanics tells via:

    pre- and post-selected measurements.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.0631.pdf

    We have shown that Cheshire cats have a place in
    quantum mechanics – physical properties can be
    disembodied from the objects they belong to in a pre- and
    post-selected experiment. Although here we have only
    presented one example where a photon is disembodied
    from its polarization, it should be clear that this effect is
    completely general – we can separate, for example the
    spin from the charge of an electron, or internal energy
    of an atom from the atom itself. Furthermore it is important
    to realize that is not just that pointers of well prepared
    measuring devices indicate that the properties
    are disembodied – any external system which interacts
    weakly with the pre- and post-selected system will react
    accordingly.

    This therefore opens many intriguing questions, both
    conceptual and applied ones. First of all, how will
    an electron with charge and mass disembodied effect A nearby electron?


    In an atom with the internal energy disembodied from the mass, what will the resulting
    gravitational field look like? What sort of thermal equilibrium will achieved by a system whose two degrees
    of freedom are separated? Furthermore, when considering more than two degrees of freedom, can we separate them all from each other? Can photons impart angular momentum to one object while their radiation pressure is felt by another object?

    On the applied side, we may ask whether Cheshire
    cats are useful in precision measurements, just as weak
    measurements themselves have now shown to be useful
    as a powerful amplification technique .

    Suppose​

    for example that we wish to perform a measurement​

    in which the magnetic moment plays the central role,​

    whilst the charge causes unwanted disturbances. Using this scheme it would appear possible
    to remove this disturbance, in a post-selected manner (i.e. heralded), by producing
    a Cheshire cat where the charge is confined to a region of the experiment far from the magnetic moment.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.0631.pdf


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooLby5mluRo


    ~

    Can a Future Choice Affect a Past Measurement's
    Outcome?


    Our proof rests on two well-established findings: i) Bell's nonlocality
    theorem and ii) The causal asymmetry between weak and strong
    measurements.

    The EPR-Bell experiment proves that one particle's spin outcome
    depends on the choice of the spin-orientation to be measured on the other
    particle, and its outcome thereof. Relativistic locality is not necessarily
    violated in this experiment, as it allows that it was either Alice whose
    choices affected Bob's, or vice versa.

    This reciprocity, however, does not hold for a combination of
    measurements of which one is weak and the other strong. The latter
    affects the former, never vice versa. Therefore, when a weak
    measurement precedes a strong one, the only possible direction for the
    causal effect is from future to past.


    We stress again that attempt to dismiss the weak measurement's peculiar
    outcomes by invoking some subtle collapse due to the weak
    measurement, or any other form of contaminating the initial superposed
    states, have been thoroughly considered and ruled out.

    Also, while earlier predictions derived from the TSVF were sometimes
    dismissed as counter factuals, there is nothing counter factual in the
    experiments proposed in this paper. Our predictions refer to actual
    measurements whose outcomes are objectively recorded.

    ~

    “Could the laws of physics be pulling us inexorably toward our prewritten fate?”

    “if a particle’s past doesn’t contain enough information to determine its fate, then maybe its future does.”


    A series of quantum experiments seems to actually confirm the notion that the future can influence results that happened before those measurements were even made.


    looking into the notion that time might flow backward, allowing the future to influence the past. By extension, the universe might have a destiny that reaches back and conspires with the past to bring the present into view. On a cosmic scale, this idea could help explain how life arose in the universe against tremendous odds. On a personal scale, it may make us question whether fate is pulling us inexorably forward and whether we have free will.”

    ~

    "I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it,

    look before they cross the road..."

    Stephen Hawking​

    In other words Aragorn... in agreement with that statement.
    Last edited by Shadowself, 15th August 2018 at 20:53.

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Shadowself For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (15th August 2018), Chris (15th August 2018), Dreamtimer (16th August 2018), Elen (16th August 2018)

  13. #1597
    In Memoriam Shadowself's Avatar
    Join Date
    9th March 2015
    Posts
    696
    Thanks
    754
    Thanked 4,290 Times in 688 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Dreamtimer View Post
    This is a fun conversation:


    One of the basics of String Theory is SUSY or supersymmetry.

    Supersymmetry is a proposed extension of spacetime symmetry that relates two basic classes of elementary particles: bosons, which have an integer-valued spin, and fermions, which have a half-integer spin.

    For string theory to be consistent, supersymmetry appears to be required at some level (although it may be a strongly broken symmetry). In particle theory, supersymmetry is recognized as a way to stabilize the hierarchy between the unification scale and the electroweak scale (or the Higgs boson mass), and can also provide a natural dark matter candidate. String theory also requires extra spatial dimensions which have to be compactified as in Kaluza-Klein theory.

    The approach used to calculate all the quantities of interest in the theory remains old-fashioned perturbation theory, which assumes a reasonable starting point and then tries to home in on the correct result by adding an infinite series of corrections. In quantum electrodynamics, these perturbation corrections were represented by Feynman diagrams, and, on summing up infinite numbers of terms, results of surprising accuracy were achieved. On the other hand, when it came to gravity, the perturbation series failed totally to represent a curved space-time by adding a finite number of corrections to an initially flat space-time. Perturbation theory is often plagued with infinity, and infinite sum (when the coupling constant is not small). Superstrings are supposed to be a theory about gravity and matter. Yet physicists continue to treat them as if they exist in a flat background space-time, a picture they hope will be corrected by using a perturbation series. Clearly this whole approach is inadequate and obscures the power of the superstrings themselves.

    M-theory and duality were introduced to overcome the difficulty. Although this approach have yet to give us definitive information about four-dimensional vacua, they have already clarified much of the nonperturbative nature of string theory in 10, 8, and even 6 dimensions, giving us a complex web of dualities between different string compactifications.

    http://universe-review.ca/R15-18-string06.htm

    In mathematics, a duality, generally speaking, translates concepts, theorems or mathematical structures into other concepts, theorems or structures, in a one-to-one fashion, often (but not always) by means of an involution operation: if the dual of A is B, then the dual of B is A. Such involutions sometimes have fixed points, so that the dual of A is A itself. For example, Desargues' theorem in projective geometry is self-dual in this sense.

    Many mathematical dualities between objects of two types correspond to pairings, bilinear functions from an object of one type and another object of the second type to some family of scalars. For instance, linear algebra duality corresponds in this way to bilinear maps from pairs of vector spaces to scalars, the duality between distributions and the associated test functions corresponds to the pairing in which one integrates a distribution against a test function, and Poincaré duality corresponds similarly to intersection number, viewed as a pairing between submanifolds of a given manifold.

    Duality can also be seen as a functor, at least in the realm of vector spaces.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duality#Mathematics
    (mathematics)

    In linear algebra terms, the dual code is the annihilator of C with respect to the bilinear form <,>. The dimension of C and its dual always add up to the length n:

    \dim C + \dim C^\perp = n.

    A generator matrix for the dual code is a parity-check matrix for the original code and vice versa. The dual of the dual code is always the original code.

    A self-dual code is one which is its own dual. This implies that n is even and dim C = n/2. If a self-dual code is such that each codeword's weight is a multiple of some constant c > 1, then it is of one of the following four types:

    Type I codes are binary self-dual codes which are not doubly even.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_code

    "Doubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block code

    Now an oldie but goody!


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1LCVknKUJ4


    Type I codes are binary self-dual codes which are not doubly even.

    "Doubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block code"

    supersymmetry (SUSY)

    Do you know SUSY like I know Susy?

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A3WUF8YxMo




    Dr James Gates questions if we are living in a "Matrix"


    Retrocausality: Is any of several hypothetical phenomena or processes that reverse causality, allowing an effect to occur before its cause. Retrocausality is primarily a thought experiment in philosophy of science based on elements of physics, addressing the question: Can the future affect the present, and can the present affect the past?


    A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present.


    Does that mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us inexorably toward our prewritten fate?

    ~ AND / OR ~

    The Theater of the Parallel Universe doth beckon...


  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Shadowself For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (15th August 2018), Chris (15th August 2018), Dreamtimer (16th August 2018), Elen (16th August 2018)

  15. #1598
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,241
    Thanks
    88,440
    Thanked 80,975 Times in 20,256 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Chris View Post
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    But that then in itself would render everything meaningless. It is the existence of events and processes — read: causality — which gives meaning to the subjective experiences that we all are and allows them to evolve. And you cannot have any meaningful causality without the concept of time.
    That question is actually a staple of science fiction. It was the primary mystery being explored in Star Trek: The Next Generation's final episode and was the central theme of Star Trek: DS9 as well. I thought they did a pretty good job of exploring linear time and causality, as far as our puny primate minds are capable of comprehending it, anyway.
    Yes, I know, the episode "All Good Things...", which ended the "Star Trek: The Next Generation" series. But don't confuse science fiction with science fact, amigo.

    Quote Originally posted by Chris View Post
    I'm not negating time as a factor entirely, only its linearity, the cause and effect relationship. One-dimensional time, flowing in one direction at a steady pace is the only one we are capable of imagining, because that is our prime experience. However, and this has been suggested by Russian scientists and reported on by the likes of Graham Hancock and David Wilcock, there is actually a real possibility that time itself is three-dimensional.
    That's a fabrication of either Hancock or Wilcock — I'm not sure which one of them brought that meme into the so-called alternative community, but I heard Wilcock mention it first in an interview and then later in one of his lectures. But Wilcock is neither a scientist nor a scholar — he merely collates things he hears about and then sells it to the public as if he came up with it himself.

    Quote Originally posted by Chris View Post
    That being the case, a higher dimensional being, one that can experience time as a three-dimensional construct, pretty much the same way we experience space, would be able to move about it freely. It could pop in and out of our timeline with no difficulty, see the future far ahead and go back to the past. It could also easily move between timelines, that run parallel to each other from our point of view. In fact, that is a pretty good description of the gods in ancient myth, something Physicist Michio Kaku also remarked upon.
    This in turn is based upon a misunderstanding of timelines and of the linearity of time. Time is not a line that you move across from left to right. It is more like a zipper, in that what lies behind you has been locked in place, and what lies ahead of you is still wide open. There is no such thing as the future. There are many potential futures, and among these potential futures, there is a much smaller amount of probable futures, only one of which will come to materialize by way of elimination as the zipper moves up farther along its track.

    Furthermore, as Stephen Hawking has posited in his book "The Universe In A Nutshell", there appears to be a kind of temporal directive in place that prevents any kind of information from traveling back in time. So while it is possible that something would indeed be traveling back in time — which, as proven by General Relativity, would require traveling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, as in the case of the (hypothetical) tachyons — whatever that object would be cannot carry any information back in time with it, or at least, no information that would be usable for changing the course of history in any way, shape or form..

    Closed time-like loops might exist, but they would be closed, i.e. whatever happens within such a loop has no effect on the greater outcome of the timeline, because the loop departs from the timeline at one point and reconnects to it again at another point. This would then be (the temporal effect of) a wormhole.

    However, wormholes are not to be confused with the concept of quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement essentially illustrates that there is a quantum singularity underlying all of reality, and that the Big Bang was essentially an illusion. It did take place, but it took place within this universe, as — quite literally — the beginning of this universe, and of the existence of all dimensions.

    Now, as for parallel timelines, there are two possible interpretations. The first interpretation is that of a theoretical construct in which the statistical potentials of any possible decision we make are represented as actually having manifested in a parallel reality. And as such, there would be an infinite number of parallel realities, in which every possible collapse of the wave function is manifested.

    The second interpretation is the one where you travel back to the past and make a change to the timeline — which in this context should be interpreted as an interference with or disruption of causality. From that moment on, if the change cannot be reverted, you will be on a new personal timeline, parallel to the one you came from, but distinct from it. And you would be stuck there too.

    You could of course try traveling toward the future again, but the future you'd end up in and which would be the equivalent of "the present" that you left from on the original timeline, will be on this newly created timeline. I have elaborated on this elsewhere already by way of practical examples, so I'm not going to reiterate all that here, but you should get the gist.

    Quote Originally posted by Chris View Post
    There is no real reason to suppose that cause always has to precede effect or that time can only flow in one direction or at a steady pace.
    Yes there is. Information cannot travel back in time. Or at least, not within the confinement of the universe itself, and on account of information that would alter causality. At the level of the singularity, all is one and therefore all is connected.

    It is however important to realize that time does not progress from time stamp to time stamp on a clock, but from event to event. This is where the Akashic Records come into play. They don't record actual times, but events, and their causal relationships. And as I've also already posited before, Free Will is actually an illusion.

    Yes, you do have the power to make decisions and to choose, but that which you will be choosing is already known about in advance, because in the end, we're all just characters in a novel that has already long been written. It just so happens to be that we don't know what's on the next page. But the author of the novel knows.

    Quote Originally posted by Chris View Post
    We all have experiences where time slows down or speeds up based on our subjective experience.
    Time is relative for each and every individual observer, yes. But it's still flowing in the same direction.

    Quote Originally posted by Chris View Post
    We all have premonitions, even dreams of the future, or a possible future at least. Treating time as non-linear and three-dimensional opens up all sorts of possibilities regarding creation.
    But it is a tunnel vision. It is an explanation thought up by someone who has never studied and doesn't understand the laws of physics.

    Quote Originally posted by Chris View Post
    I remember reading the book "Who Built the Moon", written by two Russian scientists, where they came to the conclusion that life on earth would not be possible without the precise placing of the moon exactly where it is in relation to the earth and the sun.
    That is questionable. That would automatically rule out the development of life on other worlds.

    Quote Originally posted by Chris View Post
    The evidence is overwhelming that the moon is not only an artificial construct, but was actually placed very carefully and precisely where it is, to enable life on earth to evolve and thrive in the first place.
    I hear that all the time, except that nobody ever seems capable of coming up with this "overwhelming evidence". To the best of my knowledge, all evidence still suggests that the moon was formed from the debris of a collision between Earth and another planet before life had begun developing on Earth.

    Quote Originally posted by Chris View Post
    They explored several possibilities as to the builders and movers of the moon, but the most likely explanation they came up with is that humanity in the future time travelled back into the distant past to create the exact conditions that we find here now, creating a causal loop. This would be a classic example of effect preceding the cause. We have to grow beyond the concept of linear time to understand what is really possible.
    I'm sorry, but in my book that's all merely wild speculation. But as they say, your mileage may vary.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Chris (15th August 2018), Dreamtimer (16th August 2018), Elen (16th August 2018)

  17. #1599
    In Memoriam Shadowself's Avatar
    Join Date
    9th March 2015
    Posts
    696
    Thanks
    754
    Thanked 4,290 Times in 688 Posts
    As for the new member The Merlin...who chooses to post large blocks of information but does not want to discuss them:

    Not AI...not at all...but chooses to share large blocks of information and not answer as the prewritten blocks of information are indeed prewritten.

    Answers are most assuredly not obtainable as he most likely does not use english as a language in which to answer with as well as the prepared blocks of information given.

    But if that is true than large blocks of info shared were prepared/prewritten...

    But by who? when? ...and Why?

    Quite the conundrum.

    Adding an interesting part in first block of information where The Merlin stated he was an assassin....

    [...] if you have chosen to stay, and you are reading this
    it will be virtually impossible for anyone or anything to kill you as almost all
    of the good people we have reluctantly agreed to let die (assassinated) have
    already done so.

    Made me step back in caution!

    Either way not interested enough to read further. Not the Merlin I've got interest in fer sure.
    Last edited by Shadowself, 15th August 2018 at 20:12.

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Shadowself For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (15th August 2018), Chris (15th August 2018), Dreamtimer (16th August 2018), Elen (16th August 2018)

  19. #1600
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,241
    Thanks
    88,440
    Thanked 80,975 Times in 20,256 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Shadowself View Post
    As for the new member The Merlin...who chooses to post large blocks of information but does not want to discuss them:

    Not AI...not at all...but chooses to share large blocks of information and not answer as the prewritten blocks of information are indeed prewritten.

    Answers are most assuredly not obtainable as he most likely does not use english as a language in which to answer with as well as the prepared blocks of information given.

    But if that is true than large blocks of info shared were prepared/prewritten...
    Yes, I noticed that this was obviously a prepared text. It even features hard line breaks. But indeed, English is not his native tongue.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Chris (15th August 2018), Dreamtimer (16th August 2018), Elen (16th August 2018), Shadowself (15th August 2018)

  21. #1601
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    25th March 2018
    Location
    atlanta
    Posts
    435
    Thanks
    881
    Thanked 2,335 Times in 434 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Chris View Post

    This gets into real complex philosophical and theological territory. My feeling is we are all just guessing here, because we really don't know how the universe came about, whether ours is the only or even the prime one or if there are others out there, perhaps even ones whose inhabitants created ours.
    I agree. But I also hold that we can know as such knowing lay within the realm of “all knowing” with only one exception. AND, such knowing would make logical sense. So i'll go out on a limb here and ask, doesn't the totality of the Kundalini experience you've described to us here make logical sense to U somewhere within the vessel that U are?

    But the idea of 'provable logical sense' has much evolution to experience to get to that point of reversing misunderstandings and moving them along the path toward understandings. (but then, i think i read in your telling of your K experience that Inanna said understanding is not the agenda. did i just say that right?)

    The only experience highly likely NOT available to anything and everything else in U(s) is the experience of being source. And thus, such is the exception to 'all knowing' noted above.

    i see absolutely nothing in the way of reflections that indicate to me that source -- what many refer to as Dingir in one word or another -- has evolved to anywhere near the perfect being its made out to be by sooooo many. And thus, no where near 'all knowing'. Yet! But i do hold that creation is not only perfect in its design, it follows that design into manifestation.

    BTW, of the thousands upon thousands of subjective reports from individuals who have experienced the spirit molecule in one form or another there is one commonality threaded into all those narratives. Do U know what that is?

    And, in your studies of others who have described their own Kundalini experiences have U found a common thread there?

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to palooka's revenge For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (15th August 2018), Chris (16th August 2018), Dreamtimer (16th August 2018), Elen (16th August 2018)

  23. #1602
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    25th March 2018
    Location
    atlanta
    Posts
    435
    Thanks
    881
    Thanked 2,335 Times in 434 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    But that then in itself would render everything meaningless. It is the existence of events and processes — read: causality — which gives meaning to the subjective experiences that we all are and allows them to evolve. And you cannot have any meaningful causality without the concept of time.
    I’m all in on that argument except that at the time of the initial emergence of source, I highly suspect there was no concept of time. Nor would any of what we call the senses have emerged yet.

    Though emergence implies causality, some argue that any and all ‘realities’ are illusion. But even that argument begs an argument for causality in my mind. Personally I think that position relative at original emergence has a lot to do with point of view, judgements, imprinting, and belief systems of those scientists, theologians, ‘experts’, etc, etc who theorize and/or profess about this and even in context of those of us in this discussion.

    We can say the big bang was the initial emergence but It follows in my mind that it goes back further than that. I don’t have the background in study to confirm this but my hunch is there is nothing in the way of reliable evidence (ie in the realm of measurable physics – including quantum mechanics? ) at this point to confirm this.

    However, experience is evidence. Was a desire to know thyself the causality to the eventual emergence of form, the sin qua non to experience? I suspect somewhere (maybe everywhere?) in the primordial soup there existed what we might call thoughts and feelings. Yet, these only existed as a sort of awareness that had no means of expression. Expression wasn't possible until sound emerged as the blue in the chakra line.

    As chris pointed out one can peal this onion layer by layer toward infinity in either direction. Although an argument can be forwarded that nothingness is a part of an infinite everything (which in and of itself is a contradiction of terms cuz 'everything' is finite, yes?), i seriously suspect the only way desire to know thyself will ever end up in nothingness is if the source loving light goes out. Thus nothingness as an end is a distinct possibility. But as for it being the original causality? I doubt it.

    I often wonder, will all these brains pursuing answers ever ask themselves: is it possible to prove desire as the sin qua non to creation?

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to palooka's revenge For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (16th August 2018), Chris (16th August 2018), Dreamtimer (16th August 2018), Elen (16th August 2018)

  25. #1603
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    8th May 2016
    Posts
    2,106
    Thanks
    474
    Thanked 5,204 Times in 1,932 Posts
    Geez Aragorn, I can’t believe you responded to that rubbish.

    You don’t believe 99.9%? No kidding.

    I work too much to get involved anymore but since this is the only Chris Thomas anything I like to post to keep it from dying. Too late, it’s pretty much dead.

    Why is that? Hmmmm... let me see. Maybe because you can post original stuff and Ellen is the only one that says thanks. Do I detect some butt hurt here? I think I do...

    A good student applies what they learn. My cheap theory’s are based on application of letting my insane soul help me figure things out and at least ask decent questions.

    Nobody here answers. The dead thread. Don’t say thanks. That would be fun. Can’t have that...

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Orbs For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (16th August 2018), Elen (16th August 2018)

  27. #1604
    Retired Member Hungary
    Join Date
    10th July 2018
    Posts
    1,862
    Thanks
    4,696
    Thanked 8,908 Times in 1,858 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    Not on forums such as this one, and most certainly not here at The One Truth, although Shane "The Ruiner" Bales did tell his followers that yours truly would be an advanced A.I., simply because I speak and write better English than him and his groupies, and because I know how to use a spell checker and an online dictionary.
    I really like that remark 
    I’ve actually had similar experiences over at other forums, where I was accused of being an intelligence agent or hiding behind a false identity, because of my English proficiency. For the record, I also speak fluent German, as well as a bit of Polish and Russian, not to mention Hungarian, which is one of the hardest languages to learn. Even as a native speaker, I prefer to do my writing in English, which is such a simple language and very easy to learn. German I have a much harder time with, no wonder so few people outside Eastern Europe choose to learn it, it is so much more complex than English.

    „Not necessarily so. Some people just don't know any better than to troll other people. The psychological profile of the typical internet troll is that of a dark tetrad, i.e. a psychology which encompasses narcissistic personality disorder, psychopathy, Machiavellianism and sadism.”
    Boy, don’t I know it. That is why I suspect not all of these „people” may actually be human. No proof of course, just a hunch.

    „Artificial intelligence on the other hand is an entirely different thing, which encompasses machine learning through the collection and comparison of large amounts of data, but which is commonly also often misinterpreted as if it were some kind of artificial organism. It is not — it does not possess consciousness. It's simply a very sophisticated machine that uses statistical analysis and parallel processing to try and analyze a given situation — for which it must be carefully prepared — and come up with a solution. And quite often, artificial intelligence is intentionally "trained" to act as humanly as possible in its responses, so that it fools the human senses and human discernment.”
    I think it would be a mistake to limit our understanding of AI to only what is currently mainstream. Are we really that sure that they aren’t a few decades ahead of that in the secret projects? Also, assuming that machines cannot become conscious would be a mistake. I have a feeling that the World Wide Web as a whole is already a conscious and self-aware entity and who knows what kind of „HAL” devices are to be found in Deep Underground Bases.

    „I also think that it's a logical fallacy to try and think of Creation as being some non-physical kind of quantum computer, or otherwise put, that we would be living in a simulation. Of course Creation is in essence a simulation, but it is not a simulation created by some alien intelligence. It is the Creator's simulation of multiplicity and dichotomy, so as to manifest the Hegelian dialectic that out of thesis and antithesis follows synthesis. And thus, from the Creator's point of view, it is a simulation, because there is only one consciousness in all of Creation, and we are all part of that same consciousness field. „
    That would be the concept of „Maya” or illusion in Hinduism. Krishna talks about it extensively in the Bhagavad Gita. That work in itself is interesting, because Krishna is clearly a representative of Arjuna’s higher self in this story, as his charioteer, with a divine origin. The way I interpret this story is that the Creator is actually our higher Self, or at least a localised version of it. We co-create this reality and when we’re looking for some outside force to explain how and why we and this universe came about, we’re looking in the wrong place. We are the ones who created this place and whatever answers we seek about its origins, its purpose and our place in it, can be found by looking within. In effect, what we think of as gods and angels, are really just various representations of our own higher selves. Plato wrote about this, making a distinction between the Eidolon, the Ego and the Daemon, the higher Self, which is Us in our divine, original, Source consciousness form. He noted, that the Daemon has a habit of appearing in front of the Eidolon as a projection of whatever form he is most comfortable with. This happens in dreams, but also in waking consciousness as a vision. His interpretation was that visions of gods and other divine beings are really just the Daemon’s way of trying to communicate with the lower self. I am strongly inclined to accept that conclusion based on my own experience.

    „Yes, I know, the episode "All Good Things...", which ended the "Star Trek: The Next Generation" series. But don't confuse science fiction with science fact, amigo. ”
    Good Sci-fi is based on good science. A lot of modern science was inspired by science fiction, not least by the works of Jules Verne, but many others as well. Albucierre for instance developed a theoretical model of a working warp drive based on the idea presented in Star Trek. Nasa is currently testing it on a microscopic level, but the principle itself is sound.

    „Yes there is. Information cannot travel back in time. Or at least, not within the confinement of the universe itself, and on account of information that would alter causality. At the level of the singularity, all is one and therefore all is connected.”
    I would strongly disagree with that. Information does travel back in time. We all know this. I don’t care if scientists have no explanation for the phenomenon, it still exists. I would caution against relying too much on scientific explanations for unexplained phenomena. Our scientific understanding is rudimentary, crude and in its infancy. Most of the things I experienced in the last 6 years have no scientific explanation whatsoever and should be impossible, yet they did take place and not just in my head. Other civilisations are millions of years ahead of us in their scientific development and we should keep that in mind with our primitive science and technology. A bit of humility in this field and an admission that we know next to nothing, would serve humanity well.

    „the evidence is overwhelming that the moon is not only an artificial construct, but was actually placed very carefully and precisely where it is, to enable life on earth to evolve and thrive in the first place.
    I hear that all the time, except that nobody ever seems capable of coming up with this "overwhelming evidence". To the best of my knowledge, all evidence still suggests that the moon was formed from the debris of a collision between Earth and another planet before life had begun developing on Earth.”
    I would urge you to read the book. In fact, all the current scientific explanations for the moon’s existence are fraught with difficulty, not to mention that the odds of the moon being where it is in relation to the earth and the sun, as well as its rotation compared to the earth’s are astronomical and so improbable that you really have to be extremely gullible to think it is a coincidence. Artifice remains the best and simplest explanation, I really am convinced by that.

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (16th August 2018), Dreamtimer (16th August 2018), Elen (16th August 2018)

  29. #1605
    Retired Member Hungary
    Join Date
    10th July 2018
    Posts
    1,862
    Thanks
    4,696
    Thanked 8,908 Times in 1,858 Posts
    Originally posted by Chris

    This gets into real complex philosophical and theological territory. My feeling is we are all just guessing here, because we really don't know how the universe came about, whether ours is the only or even the prime one or if there are others out there, perhaps even ones whose inhabitants created ours.


    Quote Originally posted by palooka's revenge View Post
    I agree. But I also hold that we can know as such knowing lay within the realm of “all knowing” with only one exception. AND, such knowing would make logical sense. So i'll go out on a limb here and ask, doesn't the totality of the Kundalini experience you've described to us here make logical sense to U somewhere within the vessel that U are?
    It does make perfect logical sense to me, nevertheless it remains a subjective experience. I did my best to describe it, as have others, but nothing can replace actually going through the experience yourself. My analogy would be trying to describe lovemaking and the orgasm that comes with it to someone who has never had the experience. You can try, but no matter how much effort and detail you put into your description, it won’t even come close to expressing the real thing.

    „But the idea of 'provable logical sense' has much evolution to experience to get to that point of reversing misunderstandings and moving them along the path toward understandings. (but then, i think i read in your telling of your K experience that Inanna said understanding is not the agenda. did i just say that right?)”
    Understanding and Logic is a mind thing. Kundalini goes beyond the mind. We can understand and grasp the physical aspect of it and I hope scientists will actually start studying this phenomenon in my lifetime. We could gain a lot from scientific research in this field if only someone were brave anough to take it up. I asked Rupert Sheldrake about it, as he has already done research into telepathy, premonition, the sense of being stared at and other such exotic matters on the fringes of science, but he told me he knows next to nothing about Kundalini and doesn’t plan to do any research on it. I hope somebody from the next generation of scientists will step up to the plate.

    To me at least, Kundalini is mostly about Energy. It is about regulating and harnessing this incredible force that is latent in every one of us. It really is very similar to the concept of „the force” in Star Wars. It even has a light and dark side to it, just like George Lucas depicted it in his movies. The cabal are adepts at using the dark side to their advantage. It is up to us, ordinary decent people, to learn to use the light side to counter their evil.

    „The only experience highly likely NOT available to anything and everything else in U(s) is the experience of being source. And thus, such is the exception to 'all knowing' noted above.

    i see absolutely nothing in the way of reflections that indicate to me that source -- what many refer to as Dingir in one word or another -- has evolved to anywhere near the perfect being its made out to be by sooooo many. And thus, no where near 'all knowing'. Yet! But i do hold that creation is not only perfect in its design, it follows that design into manifestation.”
    We are the source. That is the big secret they don’t want us to know. All of us have access to infinite power and infinite possibility, if we want it and accept the responsibility that comes with it. Dingir is something else I believe. It refers to the sky god An/El, the forefather of the Anunnaki/Elohim. And you are right, he is indeed very far from perfection. He may very well be the creator of this universe, or the demiurge even. I really have no idea.

    This is just my opinion, but looking to gods, or aliens or whatever to solve our problems is not going to work in the long run. We have the power to pull ourselves out of the mud and grow into infinity, surpassing even the gods and whatever else is out there that we are desirous of worshipping. Certain individuals have already achieved that in the past, such as Gautama Buddha, Mahavira or Padmasambhava, but we must make sure that we all individually reach our potential in this lifetime. We are co-creators of this reality and we bear some responsibility for its current state. Changing our perception and state of mind will also change the world.

    „BTW, of the thousands upon thousands of subjective reports from individuals who have experienced the spirit molecule in one form or another there is one commonality threaded into all those narratives. Do U know what that is?

    And, in your studies of others who have described their own Kundalini experiences have U found a common thread there?”
    I have only ever experienced a Kundalini awakening, I have never taken synthetic DMT or Ayahuasca, so I can’t really compare those experiences. In fact I have never taken drugs of any kind, which, I know, makes me an oddball these days, but drugs just weren’t around when I was growing up in Hungary and I had no interest in them later in life either. I’d be interested to know what that commonality is, please do enlighten me 

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (16th August 2018), Dreamtimer (16th August 2018), Elen (16th August 2018)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •