Space & Consciousness
Re: Space & Consciousness
Is still there someone interested about the origins of Space?
Everything we observe HAS to exist IN a kind of space, isn't?
Even SPACE in itself need to be explained before "things" may exist in it.
I'm not talking about somethingness vs nothingness, cause those concepts are
dependent on Space or No-Space, isn't?
Everything we observe HAS to exist IN a kind of space, isn't?
Even SPACE in itself need to be explained before "things" may exist in it.
I'm not talking about somethingness vs nothingness, cause those concepts are
dependent on Space or No-Space, isn't?
Re: Space & Consciousness
I thought we settled that. Space can have no origin. There is no Prime Cause of Existence. Space is a component of Existence, hence Space can have no origin.
Re: Space & Consciousness
If by origin, you mean cause, then that's true, space can have no cause, and that's because a cause must be a thing, and a thing requires space to exist.Carl G wrote:I thought we settled that. Space can have no origin. There is no Prime Cause of Existence.
But riddle me this! Does space require a thing to exist? If there are no things, does that mean there is no space?
- Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: Space & Consciousness
Earlier you seemed to agree that to exist means to appear. How can space exist if there is no conscious thing observing? If you eliminate all things, then you eliminate existence. So basically, space cannot exist(appear) without a thing.Loki wrote:If by origin, you mean cause, then that's true, space can have no cause, and that's because a cause must be a thing, and a thing requires space to exist.Carl G wrote:I thought we settled that. Space can have no origin. There is no Prime Cause of Existence.
But riddle me this! Does space require a thing to exist? If there are no things, does that mean there is no space?
Re: Space & Consciousness
This whole "beyond existence and non-existence" seems stupid to me.
If existence means "appearing" then non-existence should simply mean "not-appearing"
I've heard David and others say something like: "while it's true that infinity doesn't exist, infinity doesn't not-exist either!"
Bullshit. If you define exist as appear, then "not-exist" is precisely what infinity does. It simply does not appear.
I'm not subscribing to this "beyond existence and non-existence" crap. There must be a better way than this.
If existence means "appearing" then non-existence should simply mean "not-appearing"
I've heard David and others say something like: "while it's true that infinity doesn't exist, infinity doesn't not-exist either!"
Bullshit. If you define exist as appear, then "not-exist" is precisely what infinity does. It simply does not appear.
I'm not subscribing to this "beyond existence and non-existence" crap. There must be a better way than this.
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Space & Consciousness
Don't give up on it. It is very deep and powerful, once you see it.
-
The Infinite does appear to our minds. It presents its many faces to us during every moment of the day. However, no one face expresses the Infinite in its entirety. The Infinite generates all the faces, but doesn't have a face itself.If existence means "appearing" then non-existence should simply mean "not-appearing"
I've heard David and others say something like: "while it's true that infinity doesn't exist, infinity doesn't not-exist either!"
Bullshit. If you define exist as appear, then "not-exist" is precisely what infinity does. It simply does not appear.
-
Re: Space & Consciousness
Finally, some sense! Though, it does depend on how you look at it.
There it is! There it isn't! There it is!
It's all a matter of perspective.
There it is! There it isn't! There it is!
It's all a matter of perspective.
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Space & Consciousness
DMSMH; Have You Ever Lived Before This Lifemarcothay wrote:I have to admit that your knowledge about Scn texts is better than mine.
In fact "responsibility" is not a dynamic.
But I still think it is important to assume responsibility for the existence of this MEST universe.
otherwise we will never be able to come out of it.
May be I need to study Scn basics before to really understand what Ron's philosophy and
discoveries are really about.
What is your advise?
Well, actually—I think that is written somewhere. Can’t remember where, though.But I stay with my own understanding on the definition of pan-determinism:
"the ability to synchronize (thus being above) two or more entity's considerations, be them
opposite or not. ( The Creation of Human Ability).
Or to experience two o more self-determinations (FOT)
I believe (not written anywhere) that an able "consciousness" (Thetan) could actually BE and controls two or more human bodies at the same time.
Do you know what “8-8008” signifies? The attainment of infinity by the reduction of the apparent infinity of the MEST universe to zero and the zero of the theta universe to infinity.I've to correct my self when I said:"absolutes are not obtainable",
what I meant was: "absolutes are not obtainable in this particular mest universe".
the second factor (Ron's Factors in 8-8008) says "the decision at the beginning and ever (no time thus the infinite ?) is the decision of TO BE".
That’s an interesting question. Doesn’t it take beingness for both decision and choice to exist?In my personal opinion means also that it could have been a decision of NOT TO BE.
I'm right? So there is/was a choice there, before deciding?
From memory (don’t have 8-8008 at hand), isn’t the first factor, “Before the beginning there was a cause and the sole purpose of this cause was the creation of an effect” then, “in the beginning and forever there is the decision, and the decision is to be . . .”
So, if the basic postulate is “to be” then “not to be” is necessarily a counter-postulate rather than a choice, no?
Heh. :)Or at this level we are just speculating? (the last factor of Ron)
You’ll have to tell me what that last factor is. I don’t remember it.
Between Suicides
Re: Space & Consciousness
Let me try if I can get this thread back on his original path.
Before to do that I need to give some kind of answers...
To Leyla Do you know what “8-8008” signifies? The attainment of infinity by the reduction of the apparent infinity of the MEST universe to zero and the zero of the theta universe to infinity.
Yes I do. Thank you anyway.
"That’s an interesting question. Doesn’t it take beingness for both decision and choice to exist?"
Yes, so how come Ron said "in the beginning and forever there is the decision, and the decision is to be . . .” if it takes first a BEingness to make a decision?
Is he talking about another beingness than ourselves(7 dynamic) ?
"So, if the basic postulate is “to be” then “not to be” is necessarily a counter-postulate rather than a choice, no?"
Humm...Yes, but it could have been the other way around, no?
To David Queen " every source or cause has its own source or cause. Or to put it another way, there is no SOURCE or CAUSE."
so the equation +1 confronting -1 is equal 0 and David's
consideration of "each cause has a cause, thus cause-effect could not exist",
could be right!
But in that case we should not experience a thing (absolute Zero).
I'm afraid that David is taking philosophy to the exact point in where physics is currently stuck !
Before to do that I need to give some kind of answers...
To Leyla Do you know what “8-8008” signifies? The attainment of infinity by the reduction of the apparent infinity of the MEST universe to zero and the zero of the theta universe to infinity.
Yes I do. Thank you anyway.
"That’s an interesting question. Doesn’t it take beingness for both decision and choice to exist?"
Yes, so how come Ron said "in the beginning and forever there is the decision, and the decision is to be . . .” if it takes first a BEingness to make a decision?
Is he talking about another beingness than ourselves(7 dynamic) ?
"So, if the basic postulate is “to be” then “not to be” is necessarily a counter-postulate rather than a choice, no?"
Humm...Yes, but it could have been the other way around, no?
To David Queen " every source or cause has its own source or cause. Or to put it another way, there is no SOURCE or CAUSE."
so the equation +1 confronting -1 is equal 0 and David's
consideration of "each cause has a cause, thus cause-effect could not exist",
could be right!
But in that case we should not experience a thing (absolute Zero).
I'm afraid that David is taking philosophy to the exact point in where physics is currently stuck !
Re: Space & Consciousness
By SAPIUS: but say if there is no velocity, which means there is no movement (say like a frozen frame) but there is of course Space (and say things perhaps), which should be possible because velocity is dependant on space and not the other way around, then how do you propose space initiated or created movement, or things that seemingly move, thereby observed and measured?
This is a great question, because if you can find an answer to it you could see that
is not even Space in itself causing MOVEMENT;
Think deeper and you may realize that only a change of VIEW POINT can create "movement"
Let say that you are observing a thing moving from A to B, right? (exterior view point)
Now, imagine that thing be you, from that point of view, A is moving away from you and B is getting closer to you, right? (same space different time)
Now, what happen if your point of observation is A?
That "thing" could still exist from that point of observation?
This is a great question, because if you can find an answer to it you could see that
is not even Space in itself causing MOVEMENT;
Think deeper and you may realize that only a change of VIEW POINT can create "movement"
Let say that you are observing a thing moving from A to B, right? (exterior view point)
Now, imagine that thing be you, from that point of view, A is moving away from you and B is getting closer to you, right? (same space different time)
Now, what happen if your point of observation is A?
That "thing" could still exist from that point of observation?
Re: Space & Consciousness
So I am, say view point O (the observer)Marco: Let say that you are observing a thing moving from A to B, right? (exterior view point)
What "that" thing being "me"? A or b? If A is moving away and B is getting closer, I still have the view point of O.Now, imagine that thing be you, from that point of view, A is moving away from you and B is getting closer to you, right? (same space different time)
If the point of observation is A, then the point of observation A will observe B, either coming closer or going away from A. So what?Now, what happen if your point of observation is A?
That "thing" could still exist from that point of observation?
What “thing”? Are you saying that either a point of observation or the point being observed disappears? Each point of observation as well as the point being observing is what we can define as a “thing”, if we need to have some logical coherency that is, in which the observing point or that point which is being observed cannot be one and the same point, or “thing” in other words. Now what exactly do you take a “thing” to be/mean, would be the point (a different meaning of point), or question.
Am I making any sense?
---------
Hi Leyla. Honestly, again I think I forgot the Turkish spelling of - Selam. I am dyslexic I guess, because I require a spell check with even the most trivial post I make, so I hope you don’t mind :)
---------
Re: Space & Consciousness
Sorry Sapius, I believe that I've not expressed the concept well enough.
Let's make an analogy:
Imagine yourself observing a cannon shooting at a wall, ok?
The cannon is point A,
The wall is point B,
The bullet (an heavy black ball) is the thing you are seeing to move from pointA
to the wall(point B), right?
You are able to see this movement because your point of view(reference frame) is, let say, O
Now, what happens from the view point of the bullet? I mean if you are riding that bullet,
what movement you will observe?
Simple, you will observe the cannon getting away from you and the wall getting closer and eventually hit you, not you(the bullet) hitting the wall. Right?
Before to continue I need to know if you can see what I'm saying here.
That is important to grasp, before to show you a little experiment on how
you can be able to experience movement even with your body standing still.
Let's make an analogy:
Imagine yourself observing a cannon shooting at a wall, ok?
The cannon is point A,
The wall is point B,
The bullet (an heavy black ball) is the thing you are seeing to move from pointA
to the wall(point B), right?
You are able to see this movement because your point of view(reference frame) is, let say, O
Now, what happens from the view point of the bullet? I mean if you are riding that bullet,
what movement you will observe?
Simple, you will observe the cannon getting away from you and the wall getting closer and eventually hit you, not you(the bullet) hitting the wall. Right?
Before to continue I need to know if you can see what I'm saying here.
That is important to grasp, before to show you a little experiment on how
you can be able to experience movement even with your body standing still.
Re: Space & Consciousness
Marco;
But as you put it, actually it might need further elaboration; you see, from my perspective the wall doesn’t hit me (nor the bullet), but I (or the bullet) hit the wall; and from the perspective of the wall, me (or the bullet) slam in its face. If it were a coconut that fell off a tree and landed on my head, I would say a coconut hit me, that is after and if I regained consciousness, but I could never claim that I hit the coconut; if I did, they would shift me to a different kind hospital I guess.
On the other hand, are you trying to say that it does not really matter whether I hit the wall or the wall hits me as far as Space is concerned? That ultimately it is but point of views in action? But you must remember one thing though, that although it doesn’t matter who rides on top, it will always be her that gets pregnant, so it will always be my head and not the coconut that ends up in the hospital.
I think something has to necessarily be RELATIVELY stationary in relation to some other thing, for motion to be detected by any thing at all, including the idea that there is something called Space, for it would require time/movement, for anything to even register the sense of Space to begin with.
Logically, I (or the bullet) will get away from something and closer to something else if motion is to mean something; would you agree? That is what we call "motion" I take it.Simple, you will observe the cannon getting away from you and the wall getting closer and eventually hit you, not you(the bullet) hitting the wall. Right?
But as you put it, actually it might need further elaboration; you see, from my perspective the wall doesn’t hit me (nor the bullet), but I (or the bullet) hit the wall; and from the perspective of the wall, me (or the bullet) slam in its face. If it were a coconut that fell off a tree and landed on my head, I would say a coconut hit me, that is after and if I regained consciousness, but I could never claim that I hit the coconut; if I did, they would shift me to a different kind hospital I guess.
On the other hand, are you trying to say that it does not really matter whether I hit the wall or the wall hits me as far as Space is concerned? That ultimately it is but point of views in action? But you must remember one thing though, that although it doesn’t matter who rides on top, it will always be her that gets pregnant, so it will always be my head and not the coconut that ends up in the hospital.
I don’t know… read the above carefully and tell me.Before to continue I need to know if you can see what I'm saying here.
Hey! I have been to Disney Land, and all of them if I may add, and a few other virtual reality dome theaters, like the one in Sydney, so I know all about experiencing movement even while remaining still, but I’m quite willing to try your version of visually (or otherwise) tricking the sense of gravity, which is felt otherwise through personal motion too.That is important to grasp, before to show you a little experiment on how
you can be able to experience movement even with your body standing still.
I think something has to necessarily be RELATIVELY stationary in relation to some other thing, for motion to be detected by any thing at all, including the idea that there is something called Space, for it would require time/movement, for anything to even register the sense of Space to begin with.
---------
Re: Space & Consciousness
Dear Sapius, or I should call you Ilarious?
You ask: "are you trying to say that it does not really matter whether I hit the wall or the wall hits me as far as Space is concerned?
Yes, that was the point!
But do not let commune sense overcome logic.
Commune sense says that if you are on a speed boat that is moving fast and if you jump
vertically, while you are in the air the boat will move on and you would land on a different
point on the boat, if not in the water.Right?
Logic and facts proves that it is false to think so, since you will still landing on the same and exact point where you jumped.
Returning to the point I was making ( cannon-bullet-wall),
from the bullet's view point of observation both events (shooting and hitting) happen
in the same place (no distance between them, thus no space between them).
However the time-laps is the same to what a different observer measures.
Now, what happens if instead of a bullet, it is a laser coming from the cannon?
From the view point of the photon AND for every observers that are moving equally with
the laser ray, the two events (shoot and hit) occurs in the same place and on the same time
(S=0, T=0), wow!... can a point of view actually experience No-Space and No-Time?
YES, and Einstein demonstrated it.
But what about the question: if no observers ( frame references, point of views) exist, could
movement, space-time, energy and "their" laws of interaction still make sense?
If the answer is 'yes', so, they make sense to who?
Again, I post what I already wrote on this thread:
# Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an OBSERVER s "stationary" clock.
# Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the OBSERVER.
# 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, when you are observing an electron moving, you will be able to contact a magnetic field around it. But if a different OBSERVER is moving equally and on the same direction with that electron, he would not register any magnetic activity.
So which one of them is right then? In other words, can a magnetic field exist by its own?
Dear Sapius, take it sapiiusly this time.
You ask: "are you trying to say that it does not really matter whether I hit the wall or the wall hits me as far as Space is concerned?
Yes, that was the point!
But do not let commune sense overcome logic.
Commune sense says that if you are on a speed boat that is moving fast and if you jump
vertically, while you are in the air the boat will move on and you would land on a different
point on the boat, if not in the water.Right?
Logic and facts proves that it is false to think so, since you will still landing on the same and exact point where you jumped.
Returning to the point I was making ( cannon-bullet-wall),
from the bullet's view point of observation both events (shooting and hitting) happen
in the same place (no distance between them, thus no space between them).
However the time-laps is the same to what a different observer measures.
Now, what happens if instead of a bullet, it is a laser coming from the cannon?
From the view point of the photon AND for every observers that are moving equally with
the laser ray, the two events (shoot and hit) occurs in the same place and on the same time
(S=0, T=0), wow!... can a point of view actually experience No-Space and No-Time?
YES, and Einstein demonstrated it.
But what about the question: if no observers ( frame references, point of views) exist, could
movement, space-time, energy and "their" laws of interaction still make sense?
If the answer is 'yes', so, they make sense to who?
Again, I post what I already wrote on this thread:
# Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an OBSERVER s "stationary" clock.
# Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the OBSERVER.
# 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, when you are observing an electron moving, you will be able to contact a magnetic field around it. But if a different OBSERVER is moving equally and on the same direction with that electron, he would not register any magnetic activity.
So which one of them is right then? In other words, can a magnetic field exist by its own?
Dear Sapius, take it sapiiusly this time.
Re: Space & Consciousness
Marco,
Further more, logic tells me that while I did jump in the boat, I have to necessarily assume that the boat was indeed traveling (moving) at a certain speed, otherwise there is no point in thinking about the experiment to begin with; now is there? Do you accept that the boat I was in was already moving at a certain speed in relation to something else or not?
An observer on the shore who observes a boat with me in it traveling across the lake, and me traveling in the boat across a lake observing a different observer on the shore, are of course different points of view; now are you asking which observer or point of view is right? First tell me which point of view serves which observer the best to help that observer navigate its immediate environment more coherently, and may be then I could tell you which point of view is right.
OK, so what about “motion”? Do at least ‘view points’ travel from point A to point B or not? Or does Space have no dimensions at all, and is actually a vacuum where nothing is actually happening at all?S: "are you trying to say that it does not really matter whether I hit the wall or the wall hits me as far as Space is concerned?
M: Yes, that was the point!
No, not right.But do not let commune sense overcome logic.
Commune sense says that if you are on a speed boat that is moving fast and if you jump
vertically, while you are in the air the boat will move on and you would land on a different
point on the boat, if not in the water. Right?
Right. And so would I be right in thinking that if I jump off the boat to the side, I will travel at the speed of the boat, (I think its called inertia), for a while at least, until I loose that inertia due to friction and the fact that the power boat engine is not attached to me, and then plunge in the lake.Logic and facts proves that it is false to think so, since you will still landing on the same and exact point where you jumped.
Further more, logic tells me that while I did jump in the boat, I have to necessarily assume that the boat was indeed traveling (moving) at a certain speed, otherwise there is no point in thinking about the experiment to begin with; now is there? Do you accept that the boat I was in was already moving at a certain speed in relation to something else or not?
You know what, as I told you, I’m not a physicist so I won’t really see your point, so why do you not discuss this with qualified physicists? As far as I can see... yes, it does not really matter which point of view seems to be in motion, be it the bullet moving away and hitting the wall, or the cannon moving away and simultaneously the wall being pulled towards the bullet. That sense of movement is what existence is all about, without that, I could just as well get up and walk away and leave you imagining that no movement happened.Returning to the point I was making ( cannon-bullet-wall),
from the bullet's view point of observation both events (shooting and hitting) happen
in the same place (no distance between them, thus no space between them).
However the time-laps is the same to what a different observer measures.
Are you comparing two different points of view and asking me which one is right?Again, when you are observing an electron moving, you will be able to contact a magnetic field around it. But if a different OBSERVER is moving equally and on the same direction with that electron, he would not register any magnetic activity.
So which one of them is right then?
An observer on the shore who observes a boat with me in it traveling across the lake, and me traveling in the boat across a lake observing a different observer on the shore, are of course different points of view; now are you asking which observer or point of view is right? First tell me which point of view serves which observer the best to help that observer navigate its immediate environment more coherently, and may be then I could tell you which point of view is right.
As far as I know, absolutely no one thing can exist on its own, let alone some magnetic field, but that is a philosophical point of view I’m afraid.In other words, can a magnetic field exist by its own?
I couldn’t take it any other way, Marco :D two different points of view cannot ever occupy exactly the same point of reference, otherwise, there would be no point to existence at all. So I will always have my own point of view, just as you yours.Dear Sapius, take it sapiiusly this time.
---------
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Space & Consciousness
marcothay wrote:"That’s an interesting question. Doesn’t it take beingness for both decision and choice to exist?"
Yes, so how come Ron said "in the beginning and forever there is the decision, and the decision is to be . . .” if it takes first a BEingness to make a decision?
Dunno. There are some things that don’t make any sense to me. This is one of them. :)
Is he talking about another beingness than ourselves(7 dynamic) ?
There is no dynamic apart from the beingness “ourselves,” though. There are, however, “conditions of existence [beingness].”
"So, if the basic postulate is “to be” then “not to be” is necessarily a counter-postulate rather than a choice, no?"
Humm...Yes, but it could have been the other way around, no?
Well, there’s a whole technology (the Tech) based on these fundamentals. For example, let’s say you have the (basic) postulate TO BE sick. Any effort to make you healthy, therefore, is a counter-postulate and rendered ineffective without addressing the basic postulate. No “choice” there, is there?
That’s essentially what auditing addresses.
To David Queen " every source or cause has its own source or cause. Or to put it another way, there is no SOURCE or CAUSE."
so the equation +1 confronting -1 is equal 0 and David's
consideration of "each cause has a cause, thus cause-effect could not exist",
could be right!
But in that case we should not experience a thing (absolute Zero).
I'm afraid that David is taking philosophy to the exact point in where physics is currently stuck !
I understand the point David is making. I don’t understand the point you are making, though—especially what you are trying to highlight with that “+1 confronting -1” equation. I keep thinking +1 plus -1 = 0 but have no idea of the suggested relationship to cause and effect. [shrug]
So, how is it that David can both be right and stuck?
~
Sapius wrote:Hi Leyla. Honestly, again I think I forgot the Turkish spelling of - Selam. I am dyslexic I guess, because I require a spell check with even the most trivial post I make, so I hope you don’t mind :)
:) Selam, ve hoş geldiniz [and welcome], Sapius. Yolcularınızdan ne haber [what news from your travels]?
Between Suicides
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Space & Consciousness
[laughs] Judging by the comments, I think I just found Turkey's equivalent of Jimi Hendrix!
Between Suicides
Re: Space & Consciousness
Hahahahaaa… Absolutely!Leyla Shen wrote:[laughs] Judging by the comments, I think I just found Turkey's equivalent of Jimi Hendrix!
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 :)
Nice music link, somewhere in the middle I felt I have heard it, European classical piece perhaps, can't really place it though; 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
---------
Re: Space & Consciousness
Leyla ask: I understand the point David is making. I don’t understand the point you are making, though—especially what you are trying to highlight with that “+1 confronting -1” equation. I keep thinking +1 plus -1 = 0 but have no idea of the suggested relationship to cause and effect. [shrug]
David is asserting that since each cause has to have a previous cause thus cause and effect
don't exist (zero existence)
Though I agree that an effect is apparent, I don't agree with his assertion that even cause
is an illusion. Take for example the action's cycle: Creation-Lasting-Destroying or Start-Change-Stop (the apparent law of motion, I hope that Sapius would follow me on this),
this cycle is only an illusion because in essence this cycle is:
Cause - Cause,Cause,Cause... - counter Cause.
So, Cause must always exist in order to experience something, no?
David is trying to demonstrate that cause and effect, being two opposites, they not exist;
hence 0= +1 plus -1
In my opinion he is also denying the existence of "postulates"
Leyla said: "That’s essentially what auditing addresses."
Leyla have you ever experienced auditing? If yes, let me know how was it.
Sapius wrote:"OK, so what about “motion”? Do at least ‘view points’ travel from point A to point B or not? Or does Space have no dimensions at all, and is actually a vacuum where nothing is actually happening at all?
Again,you seems to be stuck on the wrong consideration that space could exist without
"observation".
The basic unit of space is its dimension, and a dimension can only exist if the source
of observation create a point to look at.
I call this source of observation a VIEW POINT.
The trick part is to understand that a view point can't be seen, because it doesn't possess
any mass or wavelength or even position; a position has a meaning only if related to something else. A Point of view can't be localized because IT/HE is the source/origin of space!
Are you in motion in this universe or is the universe in motion only from your still point of view?
To make it simpler, Sapius, you said:"I have been to Disney Land, and all of them if I may add, and a few other virtual reality dome theaters, like the one in Sydney, so I know all about experiencing movement even while remaining still,"
Ok then, think about this physical Universe, picture it, think about all motions in it (galaxies, stars, planets, human bodies, neurons, cells, molecules, atom...)
Well... welcome to the virtual reality dome of Disney Land universal Theater :) !!
David is asserting that since each cause has to have a previous cause thus cause and effect
don't exist (zero existence)
Though I agree that an effect is apparent, I don't agree with his assertion that even cause
is an illusion. Take for example the action's cycle: Creation-Lasting-Destroying or Start-Change-Stop (the apparent law of motion, I hope that Sapius would follow me on this),
this cycle is only an illusion because in essence this cycle is:
Cause - Cause,Cause,Cause... - counter Cause.
So, Cause must always exist in order to experience something, no?
David is trying to demonstrate that cause and effect, being two opposites, they not exist;
hence 0= +1 plus -1
In my opinion he is also denying the existence of "postulates"
Leyla said: "That’s essentially what auditing addresses."
Leyla have you ever experienced auditing? If yes, let me know how was it.
Sapius wrote:"OK, so what about “motion”? Do at least ‘view points’ travel from point A to point B or not? Or does Space have no dimensions at all, and is actually a vacuum where nothing is actually happening at all?
Again,you seems to be stuck on the wrong consideration that space could exist without
"observation".
The basic unit of space is its dimension, and a dimension can only exist if the source
of observation create a point to look at.
I call this source of observation a VIEW POINT.
The trick part is to understand that a view point can't be seen, because it doesn't possess
any mass or wavelength or even position; a position has a meaning only if related to something else. A Point of view can't be localized because IT/HE is the source/origin of space!
Are you in motion in this universe or is the universe in motion only from your still point of view?
To make it simpler, Sapius, you said:"I have been to Disney Land, and all of them if I may add, and a few other virtual reality dome theaters, like the one in Sydney, so I know all about experiencing movement even while remaining still,"
Ok then, think about this physical Universe, picture it, think about all motions in it (galaxies, stars, planets, human bodies, neurons, cells, molecules, atom...)
Well... welcome to the virtual reality dome of Disney Land universal Theater :) !!
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Space & Consciousness
marcothay wrote:David is asserting that since each cause has to have a previous cause thus cause and effect
don't exist (zero existence)
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.by David Quinn on Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:19 pm
marcothay wrote:Tell me, what happens if a cause decide to cause 'no effect at all'
Could be considered a cause?
It is impossible for a thing to not have effects. Indeed, anything which comes into existence has countless effects. Even the most inert thing has effects - for example, it is not currently destroying other things. Its present form is contributing to the existence of other things.
by David Quinn on Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:38 pm
marcothay wrote:To Leyla and David
Yes!!
No.
At the beginning ( and every beginning ever) in any universe must to be a "SOURCE or CAUSE".
And every source or cause has its own source or cause.
Or to put it another way, there is no SOURCE or CAUSE.
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? :)
Between Suicides
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Space & Consciousness
Yes, but I shall have to reply to this (and you, Sapius) later.marcothay wrote:Leyla have you ever experienced auditing? If yes, let me know how was it.
Between Suicides
- sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
Re: Space & Consciousness
Leyla wrote:
Yes. I do. Your example of lightning as just a "cause" was fantastic. You obviously have a great imagination. You need to, eh, to wrap your mind around how anyone could possibly believe that there is an uncaused cause. It's absolutely meaningless!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).marcothay: David is asserting that since each cause has to have a previous cause thus cause and effect don't exist (zero existence)
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?
Yet there are some people who would still say that that doesn't prove that things haven't inherent existence. And that's after they just considered the dualistic concepts of 'dynamic' and 'static'! You really do have to laugh...Existence is dynamic, not static.
Seems pretty clear to me. : )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? :)
Re: Space & Consciousness
Marco,
You see, it does not matter who or what moves, or who or what is still, all that matters, and is a fact, is that movement is sensed as happening and THAT is what EXISTENCE is, including Marco and his ideas of Space, or mine for example; irrelevant of whatever that that may be, for the VALUE lies in logically and rationally COMPARING them, since there would be no point to existence if that RELATIVE COMPARISON did not exist, or was one and the SAME POINT, or had one and the same absolute source (which incidentally has to necessarily be another and besides that point) making the VALUE of relative comparisons actually redundant.
So as long as the movement is sensed, which requires at least two RELATIVE and necessarily DIFFERENT things, existence is, otherwise not; and given that existence (or Space if you like) cannot logically not be or cease to be, RELATIVE differentiation is a necessary must, irrelevant of what one thinks or senses as more/less still than something else, or is moving in one direction or another, it will always remain comparative, and that is the POINT I make, and on which existence dances on.
Irrelevant of virtual or non-virtual reality, there has to necessarily be TWO points interacting with each other which are not one and the same, otherwise no existence, and I don’t need to welcome anyone to this world, for in any which case, you already are.
And you my friend, seem to be stuck with the assumption that Sapius thinks that space or anything for that matter could exist without OBESRVATION. For me, the interaction of any two things in and off relativity, IS “observation” happening.Sapius wrote:"OK, so what about “motion”? Do at least ‘view points’ travel from point A to point B or not? Or does Space have no dimensions at all, and is actually a vacuum where nothing is actually happening at all?
M: Again,you seems to be stuck on the wrong consideration that space could exist without
"observation".
And irrelevant of who or what is the “source” of observation that “creates” a point to LOOK at, the POINT being LOOKED at and the POINT LOOKING at, cannot logically be the same, otherwise there is no POINT to think or talk about anything at all, or even any point to “space” as such. Do you realize that?The basic unit of space is its dimension, and a dimension can only exist if the source
of observation create a point to look at. I call this source of observation a VIEW POINT.
So be it - no mass or wavelength or even a DEFINATIVE position, and even if you consider it (view point) to be the “origin” of space, space itself implies measurable dimensions, and no two points in and off space could be absolutely the one and same point of view, or even be considered as a POINT to begin with, for there would be no other point to it, or even any point in discussing it.The trick part is to understand that a view point can't be seen, because it doesn't possess
any mass or wavelength or even position; a position has a meaning only if related to something else. A Point of view can't be localized because IT/HE is the source/origin of space!
It all depends on what a 'point of view' considers (or senses/feels) to be RELATIVELY more or less in movement or still when COMPARED. Are you saying that comparative relativity does not exist? What exactly do you think is actually happening otherwise? Would it not depend on what I take to be relatively still, and hence making measurements and discovery of natural laws possible, that give a sense of dimensions and space for a start? Or are you saying there is no space?Are you in motion in this universe or is the universe in motion only from your still point of view?
You seem to not pay attention, because you forgot about me saying earlier that it does not matter if the bullet is moving or the wall (as long as you are not in between ;)M: To make it simpler, Sapius, you said:"I have been to Disney Land, and all of them if I may add, and a few other virtual reality dome theaters, like the one in Sydney, so I know all about experiencing movement even while remaining still,"
Ok then, think about this physical Universe, picture it, think about all motions in it (galaxies, stars, planets, human bodies, neurons, cells, molecules, atom...)
Well... welcome to the virtual reality dome of Disney Land universal Theater :) !!
You see, it does not matter who or what moves, or who or what is still, all that matters, and is a fact, is that movement is sensed as happening and THAT is what EXISTENCE is, including Marco and his ideas of Space, or mine for example; irrelevant of whatever that that may be, for the VALUE lies in logically and rationally COMPARING them, since there would be no point to existence if that RELATIVE COMPARISON did not exist, or was one and the SAME POINT, or had one and the same absolute source (which incidentally has to necessarily be another and besides that point) making the VALUE of relative comparisons actually redundant.
So as long as the movement is sensed, which requires at least two RELATIVE and necessarily DIFFERENT things, existence is, otherwise not; and given that existence (or Space if you like) cannot logically not be or cease to be, RELATIVE differentiation is a necessary must, irrelevant of what one thinks or senses as more/less still than something else, or is moving in one direction or another, it will always remain comparative, and that is the POINT I make, and on which existence dances on.
Irrelevant of virtual or non-virtual reality, there has to necessarily be TWO points interacting with each other which are not one and the same, otherwise no existence, and I don’t need to welcome anyone to this world, for in any which case, you already are.
---------
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Space & Consciousness
I had 5 hours of Book 1 (Dianetics) approx. 25 years ago and it’s an absolute mind-opener when done properly. Course, I didn’t realise just how controversial it was until I went home and, in all my excitement, explained in wonderment the experience of a prenatal. It wasn’t too long before my loving family saw to an attempt at what I think was supposed to be some form of “deprogramming.” Not sure which experience impressed me more, really! Kidding. Definitely the auditing: I don’t recall anybody turning beetroot red, yelling and frothing at the mouth - though I did dribble a bit when I temporarily lost body control rolled up on the chair in the fetal position. Bloody extraordinary! :)marcothay wrote:Leyla have you ever experienced auditing? If yes, let me know how was it.
I also did the Purification Rundown (general detox), which noticeably did clean me up mentally and physically (and it was indeed a riot to see in detail my crocheted bikini marks and sunburn reappear as I sat in a sauna some 10 years after the fact). The trouble with me, however, is that I don’t even believe in “this life” let alone a past one (and that really deserves further explanation – hopefully forthcoming) and I was never able to reconcile the difference. So, things went awry for me right there. Having said that, as an auditor I delivered some pretty good results in applying the concept and techniques for auditing “past lives.”
Yes, I saw some “miracles.”
Between Suicides
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Space & Consciousness
[b]LS[/b] wrote:Follow?
Tell me about it. But, you know, I really can see how they manage it. Just consider your phrase "uncaused cause" without the appropriate context . . .[b]SH[/b] wrote:Yes. I do. Your example of lightning as just a "cause" was fantastic. You obviously have a great imagination. You need to, eh, to wrap your mind around how anyone could possibly believe that there is an uncaused cause. It's absolutely meaningless!
I have to say, it's pretty cool to think someone else actually comprehends the depth of imagination in that example. :)
Between Suicides