I think it is very easy to present straw-man arguments of my stance that make it sound ridiculous.
Quantum Physics discovers that the Universe is most likely a simulation
Then you don't understand his position. He thinks he is just a reflection of you. A sockpupet in your universe.
in case my post is being misinterpreted, I wasn't attempting to make fun of anyone's beliefs
Muh meme, art, stupid image was an attempt to make fun of the fact that people thought/think I'm controlling various accounts on the forum
take your hand out of my fuckin ass Tuck!
why do you feel the need to apologise?
because you just cost the rest of us potentially 10 minutes of BM productive time (the time it took him to write his response to your post) when he could have been finishing up anon or bond mkt features on our wallet?
as long as you are not bitching then apology accepted.
i'll bend back on over so we can carry on now.
and this time start with just one finger at a time
preferably a small one
I just wish I were able to convince everyone else that my fingers were not up your butt, but I've grown tired of trying, so I'll be gentle. :P
Some more thoughts, because I just can't stop when the ball is rolling...
Science already shows, quite clearly that we are not our "ego." The ego is indeed an avatar. Why? Because everything you see around you, the colors, the objects, the sound, the shadows, in short, everything in your consciousness, is in your brain, a responsive representation of outside information. You are the "screen" where everything is displayed. So if you identify with your body or the space behind your eyes, you are suffering a magnificent illusion, because that "point in space" exists in a space that is wholly already inside the representation your brain creates.
You are the whole, no single part within it.
In the West Hume was one of the first philosophers to point out that try as you might, you can't find a the "ego" behind the eyes, or anywhere else, if you stop for a second and try. Then you will realize that you have an implicit, abstract belief in something that is not really there in the concrete; in other words a kind of illusion. I.e the "ego" is an illusion.
If we apply this insight to Descartes we find that the sentence, "I think, therefore I am," really can only mean "there is thinking going on," but who is aware of this thinking? Is thinking aware of itself? If you pay close attention, you find that no, thinking is not aware of itself, but speaks like the explicit word and is located specifically inside the whole conscious representation or field, and is understood within that complete light. Therefore, "Consciousness IS."
Finally, Kant nearly became an idealist because it was difficult to understand how consciousness could grasp anything outside itself. Whenever we are conscious of something, it is our consciousness that we are directly experiencing, not the thing itself. Kant grappled with how to get an objective science out of this position, and we are still largely living in his shadow.
If we want to unify Spirituality (What am I?) and Science (What is the World?) what is the best way to go from here?
Some more thoughts, because I just can't stop when the ball is rolling...
Science already shows, quite clearly that we are not our "ego." The ego is indeed an avatar. Why? Because everything you see around you, the colors, the objects, the sound, the shadows, in short, everything in your consciousness, is in your brain, a responsive representation of outside information. You are the "screen" where everything is displayed. So if you identify with your body or the space behind your eyes, you are suffering a magnificent illusion, because that "point in space" exists in a space that is wholly already inside the representation your brain creates.
You are the whole, no single part within it.
In the West Hume was one of the first philosophers to point out that try as you might, you can't find a the "ego" behind the eyes, or anywhere else, if you stop for a second and try. Then you will realize that you have an implicit, abstract belief in something that is not really there in the concrete; in other words a kind of illusion. I.e the "ego" is an illusion.
If we apply this insight to Descartes we find that the sentence, "I think, therefore I am," really can only mean "there is thinking going on," but who is aware of this thinking? Is thinking aware of itself? If you pay close attention, you find that no, thinking is not aware of itself, but speaks like the explicit word and is located specifically inside the whole conscious representation or field, and is understood within that complete light. Therefore, "Consciousness IS."
Finally, Kant nearly became an idealist because it was difficult to understand how consciousness could grasp anything outside itself. Whenever we are conscious of something, it is our consciousness that we are directly experiencing, not the thing itself. Kant grappled with how to get an objective science out of this position, and we are still largely living in his shadow.
If we want to unify Spirituality (What am I?) and Science (What is the World?) what is the best way to go from here?
I'm more fascinated by the sudden open-mindedness of "Science" (other than Rocket Science, naturally).
Historically, Science has lagged in that department. Flat earth. Geocentric Universe. F=ma. "God does not play dice."
But now serious scientists, extrapolating from the Giants of the 20th century, are seriously considering the Simulation Hypothesis. Without needing or even attempting to explain whether that simulation is an emergent property of hyper reality, some fiendishly clever software or the will of an Omnipotent Being.
It doesn't matter which. The point is they have discovered that "reality" behaves like a simulation. The Matrix. The implication is that the Laws of Physics are programmable. Non-linear. Non-causal. Like a scriptable blockchain.
The speed of light turns out to be a variable constant.
And that would imply that "magic" is possible. Even routine. Observed "miracles", like quantum entanglement, are thus something to be investigated, not ridiculed.
Those who say things like "man will never fly" are the ones who should be ridiculed.
Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke. They are:Once you get to that point, the most interesting area of scientific investigation is the so-called "supernatural".
- When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right.
When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.- The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Because that is merely the part of the "natural" that science has yet to concede.
Some more thoughts, because I just can't stop when the ball is rolling...
Science already shows, quite clearly that we are not our "ego." The ego is indeed an avatar. Why? Because everything you see around you, the colors, the objects, the sound, the shadows, in short, everything in your consciousness, is in your brain, a responsive representation of outside information. You are the "screen" where everything is displayed. So if you identify with your body or the space behind your eyes, you are suffering a magnificent illusion, because that "point in space" exists in a space that is wholly already inside the representation your brain creates.
You are the whole, no single part within it.
In the West Hume was one of the first philosophers to point out that try as you might, you can't find a the "ego" behind the eyes, or anywhere else, if you stop for a second and try. Then you will realize that you have an implicit, abstract belief in something that is not really there in the concrete; in other words a kind of illusion. I.e the "ego" is an illusion.
If we apply this insight to Descartes we find that the sentence, "I think, therefore I am," really can only mean "there is thinking going on," but who is aware of this thinking? Is thinking aware of itself? If you pay close attention, you find that no, thinking is not aware of itself, but speaks like the explicit word and is located specifically inside the whole conscious representation or field, and is understood within that complete light. Therefore, "Consciousness IS."
Finally, Kant nearly became an idealist because it was difficult to understand how consciousness could grasp anything outside itself. Whenever we are conscious of something, it is our consciousness that we are directly experiencing, not the thing itself. Kant grappled with how to get an objective science out of this position, and we are still largely living in his shadow.
If we want to unify Spirituality (What am I?) and Science (What is the World?) what is the best way to go from here?
I'm more fascinated by the sudden open-mindedness of "Science" (other than Rocket Science, naturally).
Historically, Science has lagged in that department. Flat earth. Geocentric Universe. F=ma. "God does not play dice."
But now serious scientists, extrapolating from the Giants of the 20th century, are seriously considering the Simulation Hypothesis. Without needing or even attempting to explain whether that simulation is an emergent property of hyper reality, some fiendishly clever software or the will of an Omnipotent Being.
It doesn't matter which. The point is they have discovered that "reality" behaves like a simulation. The Matrix. The implication is that the Laws of Physics are programmable. Non-linear. Non-causal. Like a scriptable blockchain.
The speed of light turns out to be a variable constant.
And that would imply that "magic" is possible. Even routine. Observed "miracles", like quantum entanglement, are thus something to be investigated, not ridiculed.
Those who say things like "man will never fly" are the ones who should be ridiculed.
Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke. They are:Once you get to that point, the most interesting area of scientific investigation is the so-called "supernatural".
- When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right.
When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.- The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Because that is merely the part of the "natural" that science has yet to concede.
As I see it the simulation hypothesis has two kinds of arguments going for it. The first is that we are approaching a physics that resembles information-theory more than it does a theory of matter (Konrad Zuse, John Wheeler, David Deutsch, Seth Lloyd, Max Tegmark, Stephen Wolfram, Juergen Schmidhuber). The second is that if it is possible to simulate a whole universe (and the evidence is mounting, Minecraft (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQqWorbrAaY) ;)) then it is in some sense more likely that it has already happened (Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Simulation_argument)).
To me the most significant upshot of these developments is not that it might be true, in an external sense, that we are living in a simulation. That might be true. The real significance seems to be that, if reality is info-cognitive at heart, it might be possible to bridge the schism between consciousness and reality without downplaying the existence of either in the process. This is important because it promises a bridge between "values" and "matters of fact" which is currently working as a schizophrenic agent dividing everyone, the objective scientists no less than the religious nuts, into fragments of what could be.
One of the nice things about simulations is you don't have to start them at the beginning.
This simple MATLAB simulation has non-zero initial conditions.(http://ctms.engin.umich.edu/CTMS/Content/Extras/html/Extras_lsim_01.png)
So, if you were only interested in the part of history that involved human civilization, you could theoretically start your simulation of a 14 billion year old universe at some convenient point like, say, 6000 years ago.
If that's what happened, how would Science know the difference?
:)
Time is relative, and flexible and, according to Einstein, "the dividing line between past, present, and future is an illusion". So reality is ultimately TIMELESS. This sounds pretty bizarre from the view of classical physics, but from the view of consciousness theory and spirituality, it fits in perfectly.
One of the nice things about simulations is you don't have to start them at the beginning.
This simple MATLAB simulation has non-zero initial conditions.(http://ctms.engin.umich.edu/CTMS/Content/Extras/html/Extras_lsim_01.png)
So, if you were only interested in the part of history that involved human civilization, you could theoretically start your simulation of a 14 billion year old universe at some convenient point like, say, 6000 years ago.
If that's what happened, how would Science know the difference?
:)
I think the statement that everything is "cause and effect" may be misleading. Can something simply exist without cause? We know that the very first thing in the "cause->effect" chain must have no cause.
For starters cause and effect assumes time is real and not an illusion. If you remove time from the equation there is no cause / effect.
All of history is merely a memory in the present moment much like all of the future is merely a dream in the present moment. Neither the past nor the future can be proven to exist. All we know right now is that you have a "memory" of something but that memory does not make that "something" real.QuoteTime is relative, and flexible and, according to Einstein, "the dividing line between past, present, and future is an illusion". So reality is ultimately TIMELESS. This sounds pretty bizarre from the view of classical physics, but from the view of consciousness theory and spirituality, it fits in perfectly.
Indeed. It might even go further than that to include the nutty scientists and the objectively religious!
All of history is merely a memory in the present moment much like all of the future is merely a dream in the present moment. Neither the past nor the future can be proven to exist. All we know right now is that you have a "memory" of something but that memory does not make that "something" real.
I found this interesting.
"Before I say, “everything we thought we knew about physics is wrong” let me qualify that statement. Modern physics isn’t wrong. It’s irrational."
The Grand Unified Theory of Physics Has Been Discovered
https://practicallawandjustice.liberty.me/the-grand-unified-theory-of-physics-has-been-discovered/
BILL GAEDE’S ROPE HYPOTHESIS
One of the nice things about simulations is you don't have to start them at the beginning.
This simple MATLAB simulation has non-zero initial conditions.(http://ctms.engin.umich.edu/CTMS/Content/Extras/html/Extras_lsim_01.png)
So, if you were only interested in the part of history that involved human civilization, you could theoretically start your simulation of a 14 billion year old universe at some convenient point like, say, 6000 years ago.
If that's what happened, how would Science know the difference?
:)
3. Life is a dream, I am just a first person avatar, all of life and everything I perceive is part of one consciousness which is beyond my ego and which many would attribute the qualities of God.
Some more thoughts, because I just can't stop when the ball is rolling...
Science already shows, quite clearly that we are not our "ego." The ego is indeed an avatar. Why? Because everything you see around you, the colors, the objects, the sound, the shadows, in short, everything in your consciousness, is in your brain, a responsive representation of outside information. You are the "screen" where everything is displayed. So if you identify with your body or the space behind your eyes, you are suffering a magnificent illusion, because that "point in space" exists in a space that is wholly already inside the representation your brain creates.
You are the whole, no single part within it.
In the West Hume was one of the first philosophers to point out that try as you might, you can't find a the "ego" behind the eyes, or anywhere else, if you stop for a second and try. Then you will realize that you have an implicit, abstract belief in something that is not really there in the concrete; in other words a kind of illusion. I.e the "ego" is an illusion.
If we apply this insight to Descartes we find that the sentence, "I think, therefore I am," really can only mean "there is thinking going on," but who is aware of this thinking? Is thinking aware of itself? If you pay close attention, you find that no, thinking is not aware of itself, but speaks like the explicit word and is located specifically inside the whole conscious representation or field, and is understood within that complete light. Therefore, "Consciousness IS."
Finally, Kant nearly became an idealist because it was difficult to understand how consciousness could grasp anything outside itself. Whenever we are conscious of something, it is our consciousness that we are directly experiencing, not the thing itself. Kant grappled with how to get an objective science out of this position, and we are still largely living in his shadow.
If we want to unify Spirituality (What am I?) and Science (What is the World?) what is the best way to go from here?
I'm more fascinated by the sudden open-mindedness of "Science" (other than Rocket Science, naturally).
Historically, Science has lagged in that department. Flat earth. Geocentric Universe. F=ma. "God does not play dice."
But now serious scientists, extrapolating from the Giants of the 20th century, are seriously considering the Simulation Hypothesis. Without needing or even attempting to explain whether that simulation is an emergent property of hyper reality, some fiendishly clever software or the will of an Omnipotent Being.
It doesn't matter which. The point is they have discovered that "reality" behaves like a simulation. The Matrix. The implication is that the Laws of Physics are programmable. Non-linear. Non-causal. Like a scriptable blockchain.
The speed of light turns out to be a variable constant.
And that would imply that "magic" is possible. Even routine. Observed "miracles", like quantum entanglement, are thus something to be investigated, not ridiculed.
Those who say things like "man will never fly" are the ones who should be ridiculed.
Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke. They are:Once you get to that point, the most interesting area of scientific investigation is the so-called "supernatural".
- When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right.
When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.- The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Because that is merely the part of the "natural" that science has yet to concede.
I think the statement that everything is "cause and effect" may be misleading. Can something simply exist without cause? We know that the very first thing in the "cause->effect" chain must have no cause.
For starters cause and effect assumes time is real and not an illusion. If you remove time from the equation there is no cause / effect.
All of history is merely a memory in the present moment much like all of the future is merely a dream in the present moment. Neither the past nor the future can be proven to exist. All we know right now is that you have a "memory" of something but that memory does not make that "something" real.
Time is relative, and flexible and, according to Einstein, "the dividing line between past, present, and future is an illusion". So reality is ultimately TIMELESS. This sounds pretty bizarre from the view of classical physics, but from the view of consciousness theory and spirituality, it fits in perfectly.
I found this interesting.
"Before I say, “everything we thought we knew about physics is wrong” let me qualify that statement. Modern physics isn’t wrong. It’s irrational."
The Grand Unified Theory of Physics Has Been Discovered
https://practicallawandjustice.liberty.me/the-grand-unified-theory-of-physics-has-been-discovered/
BILL GAEDE’S ROPE HYPOTHESIS
Remember those people saying that quantum mechanics is weird?
Well actually, if you define probabilities as the square of COMPLEX-valued probability amplitudes .. then quantum mechanics becomes LINEAR (as in 1+1=2)
Though it took physics about 30 years to understand that
(https://i3.wp.com/s3.amazonaws.com/liberty-uploads/wp-content/uploads/sites/1546/2015/10/02184228/atom-final-smallest.jpg)
That's it! All we have to do now is move from a block chain to a block rope.