-->
@Outplayz
Particles are transferring something to each other. I think that something must be tangible
The Game of Life: Consciousness, Cellular Automata, and Quantum Fluctuations
Posts
Total:
45
-->
@janesix
Well it is tangible for sure. Would that make it physical?
-->
@Outplayz
Not really sure. Not sure if anything is, even particles or fields.
-->
@janesix
That's true. If we define physical by being able to be felt than i would say energy qualifies. Beyond that i'm not sure either.
-->
@janesix
There is an excellent version of the game of life downloadable completely free from here:
Download, unzip and run golly.exe.
lots of fascinating moving, repeating and non-repeating patterns, but what it has to with consciousness I am not clear about!
but I could play with golly for hours and not get bored!
-->
@Outplayz
I don't think energy can exist without matter. They are both working together and a property of each other's existence.
Umm, I don't think so. I think it's safe to say energy before matter. Of course matter depends on energy but not the other way around......it's energy that is never created or destroyed but matter is formed through energy. My theory would make sense if consciousness is eternal and conscious activity produces energy they exist simultaneously. But the manipulation of energy and elements are what forms the universe. The amount of energy generated from an omnipresent reality is unreal...the Big bang would be like a fireworks show compared to it. So it was nothing for this sonic blast to take place within the universe bonding chemistry and creating elements. But before the bang of course was that static, fixed state of consciousness and God does this over and over learning and experiencing each time. Pretty darn cool.
Have you studied non-duality? For a lot of your ideas fit in such a platform that's taught in most eastern philosophies. But it also makes sense even if we look at it as an atheist. Everything is one.
Of course, non-dual Vedanta is one of my favorite interests and a teacher I admire very much teaches from this source.
The atheist thing I cant really get with, don't get me wrong I know what you mean but either way atheism seems to me to be more of a materialistic worldview. I know people claim there are schools of Buddhism that is atheist but that is baloney, if there is a reality outside this one then there is no atheism, period IMO. I'd be willing to argue about it but it seems silly to me to have any form of real spirituality and claim atheism, it's like an oxymoron. Spirituality, including any form of it means to observe from or recognize a transcendent objective reality beyond the physical sense experience and that means the concept of the soul is always intact and the soul belongs in the Theistic category not atheism. We've argued about it before and I get it, I just don't agree with it, if there is an overarching Reality to creation then it's safe to go ahead and call that God, which just means it's the original Source of all creation we don't have to assign any religion to that.
There is no proof where i end and a table begins. It's only awareness and ego that observes duality. Therefore, it is likely all of this is the source. Energy being the way the source creates. But all of it is one and all of it is eternal. That's why energy can never die, it is the tool that moves matter in accordance with the sources manifestations. Therefore, it is an eternal tool of the source. Quite possibly, energy and matter were created at the same time by the source, that's one possibility. Or, it's just all existed with the source. Very hard to pin point this since we are talking about before the big bang type stuff.
Agree with all of that except the "matter" part, I believe both energy and conscious activity came before and will always be...remember the Big bang took place to create an atmosphere of changing chemistry and movement. This in and of itself transformed the very atmosphere into a giant molding pot that the Creator can basically form whatever It wishes. It just takes a long, long time.
Duality is only experienced in the created worlds I agree, and of course that would mean just like you said, when you pull into the original Source there is no duality it's just a singular unit. We agree a lot really and we always have. Sorry I must have missed this post!
-->
@Outplayz
I'd be willing to switch out the term God for Creator, what do you think? The term God doesn't really bother me because I really have no straw man attached to the name. When I say "God" I'm not referring to any belief system or religion. I'm referring to the Creator, as we call it the first Source.
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'd be willing to switch out the term God for Creator, what do you think? The term God doesn't really bother me because I really have no straw man attached to the name. When I say "God" I'm not referring to any belief system or religion. I'm referring to the Creator, as we call it the first Source.
I personally call it source bc that wouldn't presuppose an individual where god and even creator sorta do. I truly do not think the source is an individual in any sense. I don't think it has thought process like hey let's create humanity. I think everything just happens through it bc everything exists within it. It doesn't bother me much to call it creator though since that fits, god presupposes religion so it bothers me but really, it's an appropriate word to use for the source. I don't really care with you bc you've made it clear what you are talking about. So whatever you're more comfortable with doesn't bother me.
The atheist thing I cant really get with, don't get me wrong I know what you mean but either way atheism seems to me to be more of a materialistic worldview.
I agree but all i'm really saying is that this world, even materialistically seems non-dual. Everything else you said i agree with.
-->
@Outplayz
I agree but all i'm really saying is that this world, even materialistically seems non-dual. Everything else you said i agree with.
But we have two distinct realities at play though, how can you deny duality in creation when that is all we see and observe?? duality means contrast, separation, opposing forces.. two things repelling each other ect ect...However when I'm referring to duality I'm referring to forms in creation. I do agree though that duality is only experienced at one level and at one level duality is but an illusion. But even if I agree it's an illusion it's still part of OUR reality even though at one level we are all connected. That is why I support both, in creation we obviously have duality other wise nothing would exist, but in higher consciousness there is no duality.
The only reason I suggest this original Source is not a thing but a being, is because you can't have the quality of being conscious at this level without it being an entity. Only intelligent entities can create and produce other living realities. If this consciousness is aware, I don't see why it's a problem to admit it's some form of a being. The problem maybe, is that we associate beings or personalities with forms or embodiments but look at it this way....pretend you as a soul left the physical body, you don't vanish or disappear just because you have no form, you are still what you were before you had any body. Same with the Creator, just because it has no embodiment it does not follow that it has no being or personality that is why I insist of relating God as a Being not some thing.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Oh i agree there is duality. We are dual type beings in order to experience. I mean, scientifically ... looking all the way down to atoms, it all seems as one. Which would make sense or be a tad bit of evidence pointing towards the source. Since it should all in one way correlate to being one if we are all from one consciousness. But i fully agree with your duality. Remember, i have even taken that duality to the source. I believe although we all become one, we individualize from that state towards duality again in order to manifest as an individual experiencing being in some other reality or this reality again. I believe the platform should look non-dual... but everything having to do with our experience should also look dual due to us individualizing within the source.
Oh i agree there is duality. We are dual type beings in order to experience. I mean, scientifically ... looking all the way down to atoms, it all seems as one. Which would make sense or be a tad bit of evidence pointing towards the source. Since it should all in one way correlate to being one if we are all from one consciousness.
Yeah bingo.
Remember, i have even taken that duality to the source. I believe although we all become one, we individualize from that state towards duality again in order to manifest as an individual experiencing being in some other reality or this reality again. I believe the platform should look non-dual... but everything having to do with our experience should also look dual due to us individualizing within the source.
Amen mon...
-->
@EtrnlVw
I put up a video in philosophy about spiral dynamics you should check out. Just you being able to grasp these concepts puts you in yellow / turquoise... which is the top of the spiral. Not that any one group is better than the other, but the higher up the spiral you are the better human you are... that's my opinion. But understanding it will really help understanding why you see things the way you do and others as they do. The interesting thing is tier 2 thinkers which is yellow and turquoise are the types that realize this oneness platform. That's what i found most interesting. You are most definitely in yellow, but i don't know how solid... bc i notice green traits from you too. Anyways, it's a cool system that was very well studied and used large sample sizes to come to its conclusions. I value big studies like that for i find they yield the best results.
-->
@Outplayz
Okay I'll check it out.
353 days later
-->
@janesix
Physical = energy = our Observed Reality via frequencies of fermionic matter and bosonic force phenomena ergo Observed Time /\/\/\/\/What is the nature of energy. What are it's properties. Is it a physical thing
This old news. Energy is occupied space that we observe and quantise PING!
Gravity and Dark Energy are also occupied space, but we have not and probably will never quantise them because they are ultra-micro phenomena.
Metaphysical-3 = Gravity aka spirit-3 is an occupied space isa positive shaped geodesic ( )
Metaphysical-4 = Dark Energy aka spirit-4 is and occupied space is a negative shaped geodesic )(.
.............................Space( Time *) i (* Time)Space.................................................................
Space = occupied and truly non-occupied. Old news for me
Time { /\/\/ } = frequencies of Observed Reality aka physical occupied space
* * = bilateral consciousnes again old news
i = ego ergo a metaphysical-1, resultant of biologic consciousness
None of the above has ever been invalidated. If Jane wants to understand the root source of consciousness, she needs to look at 87 primary great circle planes ergo 87 great inverting-outverting tori Ive developed and presented a few years now. 56 of these primary great circles/tori have a bilateral left and right skew version.
These 31 left and 31 right great circle planes are direct resultants of the 5-fold icosa{20}hedron. Humans have 31 bilateral nerves.
......right.............O|O..................left
and in the middle is the 4-fold set of 25 great circles, that have been flatten since those 25 are more transformable than are the 31.
Here below is another way of seeing this set of three where see that right and left set of 31 are overlapping each other ---not tangental---
......right ..............( ( | ) )...............left.................
The next thing Jane needs to know is how this relates to holography of black holes wherein whatever is inside the black holes event horizon, is expressed on the event horizons surface area.
The spherical set of 4-fold 25 great circles are direct resultants of the 4-fold cubo(6}-octa{8}hedron aka Vector Equilibrium{ VE } wherein we have 4 of the 25 great circles that define the spherical VE are bisecting great hexagons and their total area is equal to the surface{ event horizon } of that spherical VE.
Archimedes made this discovery 2000 years ago via his geometrical shape-of-space explorations.
Jacob Bekenstien comments in Scientific American, ...." we appear to be 2D creatures having an illusion of 3D".......to better understand black holes, there event horizon and possiblity of Universes as a black hole with event horizone watch Leonard Susskinds vidieo as follows,
#44 above is just a rough scenario that does not have all of details worked out.
Ex, the flatten version of the 4-fold, 25 great tori is an option I used in consideration of ' heat death of universe ' type scenarios.
Alternatively we can go back to the overlapping sent of 5-fold icosahedra great tori wherin the central VE 25 { underlined } are not collapsed. Below I underline the 25 great circle set
......right.................( ( ( ) ) )......................left
or as follows below
......right.................( ( ( ) ) )...................left........
So these are two alternative view, but the 31 left and right set of 31 always stay on the outside as Gravity ( ) and ( ) that contain the 25.
31 is numerically greater than 25, ergo, it is also logical that the 31 contains the 25.
The two sets of 31 ---ergo 62--- is actually even greater coverage of the 25
The question the becomes, --if we put aside heat death scenario--- which of the latter two above better present a hologprahic scenario of Universe as a complex black hole?