Space & Consciousness

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Leyla Shen »

Sapius wrote:Hahahahaaa… Absolutely!
:)
I haven’t been to Istanbul for quite some time now if that’s what you are asking, but I just got back from London and Casablanca, will leave for Dubai, Milan and Geneva/Zurich in about ten days, and then back to Hong Kong in about two to three weeks. As far as I can see, it seems the world in more depressed (fear from yet more speculations, rumors, or exaggerated Chinese whispers) than in actual trouble, which is further chocking off the air supply (cash flow) to the world economy that is very much in need of, otherwise, the trade winds never really stop :)
But of course, Sapius, there's only so much confidence (money) can do, and nothing without properly managed resources and intelligence.

Viva la Marx!
Nice music link, somewhere in the middle I felt I have heard it, European classical piece perhaps, can't really place it though;
Mozart, mah deah.
...and this is what I enjoy more, (needs a good audio system), sounds like flowing life to me; and this is definitely quite interesting, nice tempo and rhythm ; and I have also attended gatherings such as these; its quite a different feeling attending it.

More - listen - listen and watch
Well, I'm definitely familiar with Loreena - The Book of Secrets, The Mask and The Mirror and Elemental being my favourites.
Between Suicides
marcothay
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by marcothay »

Leyla Shen wrote:
A cause – empirically, by logical necessity and by definition – necessarily has an effect(s). There would be no point to any discussion on the matter if this fundamental understanding were to be abandoned (and the word left meaningless, therefore). So, unless you accept this wholeheartedly, the attempt to proceed with a discussion on the matter should be abandoned forthwith until this rudimentary principle is resolved since such a discussion will be useless.

Accepting this, however, we can examine causes and effects (which are, in fact, articles of logic). (You ever spoken to a fish on the matter?)

If we take, for example, the phenomena “lightning” we can examine lightning as both a cause and an effect, no? It is like this with every cause and every effect. This speaks to the empty nature of all (existing - yes, existing) things—interdependence; the lack of inherent existence. So, logically, how do you extrapolate from that a single/first cause or source for any thing, or all things? Short answer? You don’t. In that way, cause and effect “don’t exist” (are illusory).

That is to say, if cause and effect existed INDEPENDENTLY (e.g., lightning can only be a cause) in some ultimately linear fashion with or as a definite, single beginning or source, it would not be possible for you to “change your mind” or “learn something new,” to “have a realization” because there could not be any cohesion between lines of cause-and-effect. Their separateness is illusory. Follow?

Existence is dynamic, not static.

Now, though there are many times where I have agreed exactly with David, David and I have actually disagreed on the point of (the lack of inherent) existence before - and since I'm not really sure exactly on what point or why, he may in fact not agree with this post. We'll see, eh? :)



I understand the concepts above which by the way you beautifully expressed.
Yes I agree, what I'm trying to do is to make people understand that "existence" being dynamic
has meaning only if compared to true static.
It is not a easy task however, I 'm trying to do it using the most basic element of this physical universe: Space.
Considerations, ideas, creative postulates, point of views of dimensions are not "things" but the creators of "things" and space is just a "thing". No?

But when you say that cause-effect separateness is illusory, I don't quite agree.
Viceversa it is an illusion of this M.E.S.T to see their inseparateness as
David and others see it.
Can you picture it? It is the other way around.

The following questions made me loose so many hours of sleep:
"how much one can be cause"?
"how much one can be effect"?
Thou the second one I can easily answer ( physical matter is fully effect),
I have some problems to answer the first one.
From that pondering I previously asked "what if a cause is causing no-effect at all, could it be
still considered a "cause"?
My answer was "yes" because effect or no-effect are still a result (effect);
from here the illusion or confusion of their inseparability, but illusion
means also "false", thus higher truths have to exist.
And I believe the right path is toward "full cause". :)
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Carl G »

The red writing is scary.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Leyla Shen »

marcothay:

Since, to my understanding, this conclusion:
[...] cause-effect separateness is illusory
necessarily follows from the concepts I expressed, it isn't possible for you to agree with the concepts but not the conclusion and remain logically consistent. Would you agree?
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Leyla Shen »

I 'm trying to do [show existence, being dynamic, only has meaning when compared to true static] using the most basic element of this physical universe: Space.
If you bear with my line of thinking, I reckon we'll get there soon enough. :)

PS: Why the qualifier "true" in "true static"? What makes it necessary, that is?
Between Suicides
marcothay
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by marcothay »

Leyla Shen wrote:marcothay:

Since, to my understanding, this conclusion:
[...] cause-effect separateness is illusory
necessarily follows from the concepts I expressed, it isn't possible for you to agree with the concepts but not the conclusion and remain logically consistent. Would you agree?
Yes. Concepts you expressed, logically (in this particular universe) lead to that conclusion.

What I'm trying to say is something that goes beyond this universe's logic
How do you know that is actually the future("EFFECTS" that don't even exist yet in this universe that is determining what past and present causes should be?
In that case (postulated) future events/effects are creating(causing) "causes"!

In any way you want to look at it...: effects are always apparent, "CAUSE " would never
disappear. That was my point.
Anyway...
continue
marcothay
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by marcothay »

Leyla Shen wrote:
I 'm trying to do [show existence, being dynamic, only has meaning when compared to true static] using the most basic element of this physical universe: Space.
If you bear with my line of thinking, I reckon we'll get there soon enough. :)

PS: Why the qualifier "true" in "true static"? What makes it necessary, that is?

Alright then, I don't have any problem bearing with your line of thinking, I understand it.

For the PS,
I placed the qualifier "true" to not confuse "true static" with that one defined in physic:
"Something" that doesn't have any position (space), form, mass, energy, wavelength or any movement is what I call a True Static.
In physic a static is defined as something that is holding its position in space because of different balanced forces.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Leyla Shen »

How do you know that is actually the future("EFFECTS" that don't even exist yet in this universe that is determining what past and present causes should be?
What reason do I have to believe that future effects "that don't even exist yet" are determining their own causes?
Between Suicides
marcothay
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by marcothay »

Leyla Shen wrote:
How do you know that is actually the future("EFFECTS" that don't even exist yet in this universe that is determining what past and present causes should be?
What reason do I have to believe that future effects "that don't even exist yet" are determining their own causes?
What reason do you have to not believe so?

Example: 2=1+1, 2=10/5, etc...How do you know that the result "2" is determining the many possible dynamics and not viceversa?

Example: Instead of the number "2" let's take "0" (nothingness), 0=1-1, 0=1-(3/3), etc...
How do you know that actually a 'nothingness" (0) is not a result but a source of many operations. Static vs Dynamic, which one is "coming" first?

Example: How come some individuals are able to see future happenings when these don't exist yet in this universe?

In any case, what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter what come first, Cause or Effect?
These two terms are complementary, but I believe that Cause will NEVER disappear!

Returning on the subject of Space, is your personal view point a product of space or is space a product of your point of view?
To Sapius it doesn't matter!
To me it matter because I know that a cause must to exist!
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE

Post by Leyla Shen »

Wow. The mind fucking boggles. :)
marcothay wrote:What reason do you have to not believe [that future effects "that don't even exist yet" are determining their own causes]?
It’s called pure logic, a very simple - yet apparently esoteric at the same time - tool of human reason.

A non-existent future effect is a non-existent future effect nonetheless and cannot cause itself, by definition.

Are you seriously asking me what reason I have NOT TO believe that non-existent things determine their own creation?

What could that possibly even mean?

For a start, if (as with a future effect that doesn’t even exist yet) a thing has no existence (form), by what criteria is it a thing and how is it the same thing it wasn’t before it created “itself” (determined its own causes) into some particular form of existence from and in the future?
Between Suicides
Ataraxia
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Ataraxia »

Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Leyla Shen »

marcothay wrote:For the PS,
I placed the qualifier "true" to not confuse "true static" with that one defined in physic:
"Something" that doesn't have any position (space), form, mass, energy, wavelength or any movement is what I call a True Static.
In physic a static is defined as something that is holding its position in space because of different balanced forces.
In physics, the term “static” is used to describe objects/bodies at rest in terms of the equilibrium of forces acting on the object. As you will already know, inertia is an object’s tendency to resist changes in its velocity (whether at zero velocity or otherwise).

I am wondering why, as a physicist, you so easily accept the use of this term (with the added qualifier “true”) to describe a “thing” without location in space or time and without form, mass, energy or wavelength? I mean, why not just stick with “thetan” or “soul” or “spirit." Indeed, why not just "life force" - or, are all these things necessarily interchangeable? What does the use of the term "static" solve, and how and why? Is there any reasoning behind it that you can fathom?
Between Suicides
marcothay
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by marcothay »

Leyla Shen wrote:
marcothay wrote:For the PS,
I placed the qualifier "true" to not confuse "true static" with that one defined in physic:
"Something" that doesn't have any position (space), form, mass, energy, wavelength or any movement is what I call a True Static.
In physic a static is defined as something that is holding its position in space because of different balanced forces.
In physics, the term “static” is used to describe objects/bodies at rest in terms of the equilibrium of forces acting on the object. As you will already know, inertia is an object’s tendency to resist changes in its velocity (whether at zero velocity or otherwise).

I am wondering why, as a physicist, you so easily accept the use of this term (with the added qualifier “true”) to describe a “thing” without location in space or time and without form, mass, energy or wavelength? I mean, why not just stick with “thetan” or “soul” or “spirit." Indeed, why not just "life force" - or, are all these things necessarily interchangeable? What does the use of the term "static" solve, and how and why? Is there any reasoning behind it that you can fathom?
Well, I had always found the definition of "static" in physics somewhat unsatisfactory for me.
Nothing is at rest in this universe because to see an object at rest you need to observe it in
a reference frame that is equivalent to the object's reference frame and so its "static" status
is just apparent.
You see, even the inertia principle asserts that you need to apply a certain force to change the status of an object, but that is only apparent because if you accelerate your reference frame (point of observation) you will observe that same object decelerate which means that you will be able to observe and measure also a kind of force acting to the object, a force that before didn't exist.
To make it short: Mass, Energy (force),Wavelength and Form, all go down to only these 3 factors: Motion, Reference frame and Space.
Which of the three is function of the others? In few words what is coming first?
I and a mathematician friend of mine many years ago tried to solve the question, we didn't actually solved it but we sensed that (for reasons to complicate to explain here) that
a reference frame (point of observation) had to be somewhat senior of the other two.
But in that case we had to explain what the "zero" often resulting in our equations really meant and also why it appear to be outside this physical universe. At that time we called it
"Absolute Static Observation Reference".
Anyway we were in a "dead end" and decided to forget it about.
Few months later I found the answer in a book of Ron Hubbard (SoS) who wrote something like this:
"a True Static doesn't have any position (space), form, mass, energy, wavelength, form or motion but being capable of considerations and beingness, is actually the creator of those things"
I love it!
So I guess it is my love for it (true static) that I continue to use it.
Using terms like thetan, (Mr. Hubbard called true static:"Theta" to differentiate it from the
physical universe which he called MEST), soul or spirit, is in my opinion a little bit "too much"
for many science lovers and philosophers.
I prefer to call it, instead, consciousness, and that's why I've titled this thread:
Space & Consciousness.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Leyla Shen »

Well, I had always found the definition of "static" in physics somewhat unsatisfactory for me. Nothing is at rest in this universe because to see an object at rest you need to observe it in a reference frame that is equivalent to the object's reference frame and so its "static" status is just apparent.
Oh, is that all? :)
You see, even the inertia principle asserts that you need to apply a certain force to change the status of an object, but that is only apparent because if you accelerate your reference frame (point of observation) you will observe that same object decelerate […]
If I accelerate my reference frame? You mean, if a certain force is applied to my body its velocity, and so too its relationship to other objects, changes? Or, do you mean if I decide to throw out the logic and observations of physics altogether?
… which means that you will be able to observe and measure also a kind of force acting to the object, a force that before didn't exist.
I believe we call it the gravitational constant?
To make it short: Mass, Energy (force),Wavelength and Form, all go down to only these 3 factors: Motion, Reference frame and Space.

Which of the three is function of the others? In few words what is coming first?
But you haven’t resolved the problem of gravity. From that, how on God’s green Earth do you arrive at the question of what “function” comes first?
I and a mathematician friend of mine many years ago tried to solve the question, we didn't actually solved it but we sensed that (for reasons to complicate to explain here) [I bet!] that a reference frame (point of observation) had to be somewhat senior of the other two. But in that case we had to explain what the "zero" often resulting in our equations really meant and also why it appear to be outside this physical universe. At that time we called it "Absolute Static Observation Reference".

Anyway we were in a "dead end" and decided to forget it about.
Um, news flash. I don’t know about your friend, but you clearly have not forgotten about it—you just used it as the very basis for creating this thread. It seems, therefore, like just a convenient statement to make when you can’t explain yourself?
Few months later I found the answer in a book of Ron Hubbard (SoS) who wrote something like this:

"a True Static doesn't have any position (space), form, mass, energy, wavelength, form or motion but being capable of considerations and beingness, is actually the creator of those things"

I love it!
Why?
So I guess it is my love for it (true static) that I continue to use it.
Sure, but that doesn’t make it reasonable, right?
Using terms like thetan, (Mr. Hubbard called true static:"Theta" to differentiate it from the physical universe which he called MEST), soul or spirit, is in my opinion a little bit "too much" for many science lovers and philosophers.
So, it’s just a PR thing used to attract…pseudo scientists? I mean, what are you saying here?
I prefer to call it, instead, consciousness, and that's why I've titled this thread: Space & Consciousness.
But, marcothay, you haven’t answered my question. You have only said that you wouldn’t use the qualified word “static” in place of what should really be “consciousness,” but confessed your unrequited love for it nonetheless. :)

Yes, in fact, theta is defined as a non-physical (non-MEST) thing with the ability to act on—nay, create, even—the physical universe. Alright, so that’s a really attractive idea—more attractive than a woman. But I am still left with these questions, previously directed at you:
I am wondering why, as a physicist, you so easily accept the use of this term (with the added qualifier “true”) to describe a “thing” without location in space or time and without form, mass, energy or wavelength? I mean, why not just stick with “thetan” or “soul” or “spirit." Indeed, why not just "life force" - or, are all these things necessarily interchangeable? What does the use of the term "static" solve, and how and why? Is there any reasoning behind it that you can fathom?
For the sake of simplicity (hopefully!), let me capture all those questions in one: if thought makes an idea an existing thing, what objectifies (gives space to) its existence in the MEST universe if not MEST itself?

In other words, I can get the idea of (postulate) a pink unicorn, but it's MEST universe relations that make it "an idea of a pink unicorn." Or, I can observe a black dog, and it's MEST universe relations that make it "a black dog." How is theta "the creator" "outside of" MEST?
Between Suicides
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Jamesh »

What does the use of the term "static" solve, and how and why?
To me it solves the question of "Why is the form of things of a temporary nature?"

Where the fundamental forces within nature are utilised against each other, then there will be less remaining force available to affect other things outside of the semi-static form of existence. It is like a infinite bath of water pouring into an infinite plughole, wherein the water represents matter, the bath represents space, and the plughole gravity. While the water is flowing down the plughole it will be relatively bounded by this action. Place your hand in the flowing stream and you will feel greater resistance than if the plug was in place.

These units of force-equilibrium alter the flows of causality, as they create a boundary of limited causality, fuzzy though it be, which in turn decreases the likelihood of forces external to the semi-static unit affecting that equilibrium. In creating a boundary, the law of the path of least resistance is created, and external expansionary forces will often partly flow around the static unit rather than break that equilibrium. The whole entity however will still be subject to gravity and will be drawn inwards to other matter, but the unit will not be caused to break until the strength of gravity being applied to that unit is of sufficient strength. When the equilibrium is broken, what remains reforms into smaller equilibriums, all the way down to radiation and beyond.

As a result of this there is never any less or more causality, merely more divided equilibriums surrounded by less divided equilibriums.

On the level of the totality however, the forces I refer to are also mere effects, they don’t exist as the first level of the causal pyramid, but rather are in turn caused by something that has a singular nature. What this is not describable, it has no form, so I choose to use the word Time.

Causality cannot exist without a complete dependence on Time. It is not causality that creates Time, causality merely creates observable changes in form, which we use to measure the physical flow of causality between defined things (ie a year is one rotation around the sun). That time measurement not the type of Time I'm using here. My definition considers Time to be that which exists that gives causality its energy, that which causes causality to be of a flowing nature rather than a static. Time of this type is instantaneous, not of a past, present, future nature.

This does not mean that past, present and future do not exist, but that these concepts are caused by the single affect of time. To be eternal time must be something inherent, something that has no beginning or end and is unchangeable, yet still has an existence that can cause. That being the case, time, the power of causality, must always be in a state of "becoming more".

It being the only "thing" then it must continually become more of itself, it does not unite or mix with any opposite in order to become more. To cause flows, it must continually be increasing in total causal power. This causes a power spectrum, wherein if one were to freeze the totality, the latest bit of Time that expanded becomes the strongest causal force, and a moment before, as the Time base was smaller, its increase in causal power is also smaller. This why some atoms are said to last for something like 4.5 billion years, they consist mostly of Time that is still expanding from a much smaller power base. All matter is simply less causally powerful Time than the newer time that causes Space. With this comparison, don't be fooled by the appearance of size and our absolute propensity to view power as belonging only to things of matter - the perspective of space being like nothingness needs to be reversed. It is expansion that is the power measurement criteria - spatial territory represents a stronger power. One can see this in the vast distances between stars and galaxies, and the very small amount of space that matter occupies - this would not be so unless space was indeed more powerful than matter.
marcothay
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by marcothay »

Hi Leyla, I don't know what you are up to :) Anyway...
"But you haven’t resolved the problem of gravity. " I don’t need to. My reasoning was general and could be applied to each fundamental forces .The dynamics of those forces, even their appearance or disappearance are ALWAYS a function of the status of an observer’s motion.

@ James, even Time is somewhat dependent on an observational reference frame tied to the state of motion of an observer:
# Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an OBSERVER s "stationary" clock.
# Relativity of simultaneity: Two events that are simultaneous to an OBSERVER A may not be simultaneous to an OBSERVER B if B is moving with respect to A.
Again, as I said before, no one seems to define what an observer actually is.
And do not fall to the wrong consideration that an observer is just a body with eyes (a view point “stuck” in a reference frame, btw.)

By Leyla:” If I accelerate my reference frame? You mean, if a certain force is applied to my body its velocity...”

No, in fact this “certain force” could only appear and measured ONLY by other observer’s prospective moving in a different way than your reference frame, not by you.
Example: an observer that is in a free fall can’t experience gravity and he can’t even experience weight (mass)
That is called gravitational mass (mass of an object measured using the effect of a gravitational field on it) which Einstein general theory of relativity demonstrated to be the same mass we used to call inertial mass (mass of an object measured by its resistance to accelerate when a force is applied on it).
Again , masses, forces and, in general, Energy are only manifestations or dynamics that exist only because there are interactions between OBSERVERS in different state of motion!

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out: ” From that, how on God’s green Earth do you arrive at the question of what “function” comes first?” then.

Leyla wrote: “But I am still left with these questions, previously directed at you: I am wondering why, as a physicist, you so easily accept the use of this term (with the added qualifier “true”) to describe a “thing” without location in space or time and without form, mass, energy or wavelength?”

It is all about changing your prospective!
Example: how many “factors” you can write in the second term in a in a simple equation like this one:
0 = x / y / z,? They are infinites!
Also, the 0 in a three-dimensional graphic space (where x,y,z, are the respective dimensions) in physics is called “POINT OF ORIGIN”.
Now, what is this “thing” called Zero, from where infinity of dynamics or operations are being originated?
It is obvious that this Zero doesn’t possess any motion,( true static) space, time. Etc... nevertheless seems actually to be the origin of those.
So, could an absolute zero be infinite? Yes because it allows or represents infinity of dynamics.
From there the assumption: dynamic or motion has a meaning only if it is compared to True Static (zero)

By Leyla: “For the sake of simplicity (hopefully!), let me capture all those questions in one: if thought makes an idea an existing thing, what objectifies (gives space to) its existence in the MEST universe if not MEST itself?”

It all depends on what you mean with “existing thing”
A mock up or a facs-simile? :)
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Talking Ass »

Wonderful thread, I feel, at last, like I've come home!

Carry on.
fiat mihi
Locked