Breaking free of delusion

[Pincho Paxton]

Much like your entire ontology, but hey, I'm actually impressed you didn't take the bait. I'll respond to one of your posts in this thread piece by piece tomorrow. Hopefully it will highlight how meaningless your statements really are.

It's worth mentioning that you never, ever respond when your glaring errors of scientific history are pointed out to you. Wonder what that's about...

My errors are never pointed out. What happens is that somebody has misread what I actually wrote, so they point something out. I would have to re-write the same post in different words to answer them, which is a waste of my time. So I don't bother. I expect people to use their own brains to figure out what I posted.

Ah, right. My bad. So Einstein was in fact involved in the Big Bang Theory (and made errors therein) and Newton was the first person to use Math in Science. Sorry, you're right, I must have mis-read you.

This...

It's worth mentioning that you never, ever respond when your glaring errors of scientific history are pointed out to you. Wonder what that's about...

Does not work with this...

Ah, right. My bad. So Einstein was in fact involved in the Big Bang Theory (and made errors therein) and Newton was the first person to use Math in Science. Sorry, you're right, I must have mis-read you.

Because a response is required for corrections. No corrections are required for historic accuracy, because the subject matter was about science, and not history. What response would you expect from me in history? It's not relevant. How does enlightenment relate to history?

No, what you are trying to achieve is an artificial win situation based on the wrong rules. Change the rules to history, and try to sneak a win in there. It doesn't work, and shows low self esteem.

None of my theory is based on Newton, or Einstein, so to use them as examples of where I have got facts wrong doesn't help your case.

[Dan Rowden]

Yes, my self esteem is terribly low these days. Must be if I'm engaging you. I shall now go away and beat some sense into myself with a rubber chicken.

[Pincho Paxton]

Yes, my self esteem is terribly low these days. Must be if I'm engaging you. I shall now go away and beast some sense into myself with a rubber chicken.

What you should really do is take a blank piece of paper, and start the Universe from the very beginning. Figure out the physics from scratch. Ignore history, ignore me, and do it for yourself.

[Dan Rowden]

Your notion that physics matters in relation to Enlightenment is wrong. Or, put more accurately, it's wrong with respect to the way enlightenment is conceived of here (something about which you have no actual grasp at all). You're obviously correct with respect to your own idea of enlightenment, but that idea is meaningless to me and essentially self-serving. i.e. you are simply saying that to be enlightened is to understand your personal theory.

[Pincho Paxton]

Your notion that physics matters in relation to Enlightenment is wrong. Or, put more accurately, it's wrong with respect to the way enlightenment is conceived of here (something about which you have no actual grasp at all). You're obviously correct with respect to your own idea of enlightenment, but that idea is meaningless to me and essentially self-serving. i.e. you are simply saying that to be enlightened is to understand your personal theory.

It's not a theory. The Universe exists. That's a fact not a theory. If your conception of Enlightenment says otherwise, your information is coming from the Universe, and so it is a paradox. If you think that the Universe is a dream state, then that information comes from a dream state, and so it is also a paradox. There are 2 none paradox versions of the Universe...

1/ This Universe exists.

2/ we are in a simulation, but the Universe exists outside of the simulation.

Either way... the Universe exists.

You can make up as much as you like... dream states... cloud states.. the void. None of it works logically without physics. It's impossible to have a state with no physics. It's possible to delude yourself into believing in such a state, but you would not be able to describe it in words. As soon as you use words, you will be having to use physics in those words... the delusion is broken, you feel like a fool, so you stop. Easy to break.

[Dan Rowden]

Your notion that physics matters in relation to Enlightenment is wrong. Or, put more accurately, it's wrong with respect to the way enlightenment is conceived of here (something about which you have no actual grasp at all). You're obviously correct with respect to your own idea of enlightenment, but that idea is meaningless to me and essentially self-serving. i.e. you are simply saying that to be enlightened is to understand your personal theory.

It's not a theory.

Yes it is.

The Universe exists.

Actually it ultimately doesn't (in the sense that finite things exist), but for the sake of this discussion let's say it does.

That's a fact not a theory.

Yea, and....?

If your conception of Enlightenment says otherwise, your information is coming from the Universe, and so it is a paradox. If you think that the Universe is a dream state, then that information comes from a dream state, and so it is also a paradox. There are 2 none paradox versions of the Universe...

1/ This Universe exists.

2/ we are in a simulation, but the Universe exists outside of the simulation.

Either way... the Universe exists.

Um, so you're basically saying that your life's work in physics is to declare that the Universe exists? Man, that's awesome!!!! Nobel Prize here you come!

[Pincho Paxton]

Your notion that physics matters in relation to Enlightenment is wrong. Or, put more accurately, it's wrong with respect to the way enlightenment is conceived of here (something about which you have no actual grasp at all). You're obviously correct with respect to your own idea of enlightenment, but that idea is meaningless to me and essentially self-serving. i.e. you are simply saying that to be enlightened is to understand your personal theory.

It's not a theory.

Yes it is.

The Universe exists.

Actually it ultimately doesn't (in the sense that finite things exist), but for the sake of this discussion let's say it does.

That's a fact not a theory.

Yea, and....?

If your conception of Enlightenment says otherwise, your information is coming from the Universe, and so it is a paradox. If you think that the Universe is a dream state, then that information comes from a dream state, and so it is also a paradox. There are 2 none paradox versions of the Universe...

1/ This Universe exists.

2/ we are in a simulation, but the Universe exists outside of the simulation.

Either way... the Universe exists.

Um, so you're basically saying that your life's work in physics is to declare that the Universe exists? Man, that's awesome!!!! Nobel Prize here you come!

Your reply...
1/ Actually it ultimately doesn't....

Your reply...
2/ Um, so you're basically saying that your life's work in physics is to declare that the Universe exists? Man, that's awesome!!!!

It awesome if you are speaking to someone who is going between both scenarios. Like I said.. your words will let you down, you accidentally keep switching to real physics. Your delusion is too weak to sustain itself for very long.

[Kunga]

Yes. The reason i posted the link was to show Dan, that you are not the only one thinking about the connection to physics & enlightenment.

What you have shown me is how big an imbecile you can sometimes be. There's precisely zero connection between Pincho's waffle and that article. Stop fucking pretending, Kunga.

The only thing I said was, that Pincho is not the only one that correlates an understanding of physics & enlightenment. I never said the article was the same thing as what Pincho was talking about.

That article was just a brief synopsis/outline of the book Quantum Physics and Enlightenment, by James Higgo.


But one thing the article did mension, [that relates to Pincho], is that of Occam's Razor : "We should always prefer the simplest explaination consistent with the facts."

I don't know all the facts related to physics, so I can't critisize his theories.
I at least give him credit for his passion & drive to figure things out on his own, in his own way.
I thought being a genius was to think outside the box, and not have herd mentality.

You seem more interested in staying within the box, and going with the status quo .
I know you only are concerened with the hard facts and empirical truths.....but sometimes you have to step outside of those boundaries, and be brave enough to go against all that when you follow your own conclusions.

No true artist or explorer/thinker would ever discover anything new, if they only followed the rules.
How many people have been burned at the stake for going against what is accepted as truth ?

[Pincho Paxton]

The only thing I said was, that Pincho is not the only one that correlates an understanding of physics & enlightenment. I never said the article was the same thing as what Pincho was talking about.

I understand. It makes sense. Enlightenment is to find reality, and reality is physics.

[Kunga]

Also....a basic understanding of physics, [how form/ material phenomena] arrise...is fundamental to comprehending emptiness...and if you comprehend emptiness..enlightenment is possible...

[Kunga]

Enlightenment is to find reality, and reality is physics.

How do things exist ?
How are physical objects real ?
Is something real that is impermanent ?
Is a bubble reality ?
Bubbles pop....where did reality go ?

[Dan Rowden]

I don't know all the facts related to physics, so I can't critisize his [Pincho's] theories.

That's fair enough, as far as it goes. Maybe you should ask Pincho about his theory of how and why the Dinosaurs died out? That involves some physics, but not a lot.

[Pincho Paxton]

Enlightenment is to find reality, and reality is physics.

How do things exist ?
How are physical objects real ?
Is something real that is impermanent ?
Is a bubble reality ?
Bubbles pop....where did reality go ?

Reality is the smallest building block of a structure. Then you count them all as you. So I am billions of combined particles. I am not a single object. The bubble was never a single object, so it never popped, it displaced its parts. Humans name things as single objects to make things simple, but we all know that we are billions of combined parts. Names are not reality. particles are reality.

[Kunga]

Reality is the smallest building block of a structure. Then you count them all as you. So I am billions of combined particles. I am not a single object. The bubble was never a single object, so it never popped, it displaced its parts. Humans name things as single objects to make things simple, but we all know that we are billions of combined parts. Names are not reality. particles are reality.

Where did the first particle that began this reality come from ?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

At first everyone is drawn toward what seems to be important or fundamental, they end up places that are usually wrong. I myself was told I must pick a subject when I went to uni, I chose physics because I was interested in it, in fact this was around the time I was realizing emptiness/illusory nature of form. At one point I had the idea that I could one day use physics to demonstrate it.

I stayed for about a month before it become much too clear how utterly stupid and deluded scientific/mathematical minds were.



Kunga you said that a race who was a million years more civilized will have much more understanding and insight,etc.

This is just plain wrong because we now have no more insight about the universe than was achievable 10,000 years ago, progress in such a thing is impossible.

For example, if you imagined a super advanced computer showing a view that flies through the universe on every scale, does that make you advanced?

No, it means the sensations/mental formations arising in consciousness altered to show you different shapes and colours, wow.

There is no such thing as progress ultimately because the universe itself exists only of the mind. The only thing that exists is changing 'feelings' (form), that's it.

For example, ask yourself how the computer your on works, your mind's best answers won't go much further than being able to name a few concepts such as 'electricity', 'internet', 'wires'. Hence to you it is a magical computer.

Ask the guy who makes computers. He will give you a whole outline of how he puts it together, the process, now ask him what he has put together, his best answers end up where Pincho is, "matter', "atoms", that universe stuff. It is as much a mystery to him as the process of soil to plant life. Pretending to know is a disease.

The truth is that we are not in control of our actions, of our thoughts, of the feelings and sensations that arise in consciousness. So when you think someone displays great knowledge or skill, remember that they didn't do anything, tao/mind manifested a nice appearance, that's it.




I know you are open minded so I won't say this without providing an exercise that will demonstrate exactly what I mean, if you are willing. I will message it to you as I am not keen on hearing Pincho's response to this already.

[Kunga]

The truth is that we are not in control of our actions, of our thoughts, of the feelings and sensations that arise in consciousness. So when you think someone displays great knowledge or skill, remember that they didn't do anything, tao/mind manifested a nice appearance, that's it.

I don't quite understand this...so I can't totally agree. I think we do have control...to a degree....like if you have to pee... :)

There is no such thing as progress ultimately because the universe itself exists only of the mind.

Conventional wisdom vs. Ultimate wisdom ? It is wise to find wisdom in both I think. Walking out into the street when a truck is comming may be only in your mind....the mind can play tricks on you :)

we now have no more insight about the universe than was achievable 10,000 years ago, progress in such a thing is impossible.

Well 10,000 years ago they belived it was nessesarry to appease the Gods by human sacrifice....I think [in the so-called civilized world], we realize this was a big mistake.....

[SeekerOfWisdom]

People do just as idiotic things today.


Being aware of emptiness 10,000 years ago would not have been different from being aware of emptiness today.

[Kunga]

People do just as idiotic things today.

Being aware of emptiness 10,000 years ago would not have been different from being aware of emptiness today.

True

[Russell Parr]

Where did the first particle that began this reality come from ?

I'd like to see pincho answer this. Also, where/how did the particles get its specific characteristic of creating reality?

[Dan Rowden]

Give him time. He's running his simulator to get an answer. Then he has to pass the answer through the "Patented Paxton Word Salad Generator". It's a complex process.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

hahahah.

[Pincho Paxton]

Reality is the smallest building block of a structure. Then you count them all as you. So I am billions of combined particles. I am not a single object. The bubble was never a single object, so it never popped, it displaced its parts. Humans name things as single objects to make things simple, but we all know that we are billions of combined parts. Names are not reality. particles are reality.

Where did the first particle that began this reality come from ?

The first particles that create reality are called zero particles, because they create zero. The electron is -1, and the positron is +1 so... 1 + -1 = 0. Two particles create nothing. The Universe starts from nothing, so the Universe starts from an equal number of positrons, and electrons overlapping. The electrons are holes, and the positrons fit in the holes. If you put them together they disappear in a flash to become nothing. But that nothing still contains the two particles, you just can't interact with them.

The mistake is that people think of nothing as just 0. zero on its own doesn't exist. zero is a positron, and an electron overlapping. When this nothing is created from two particles it has always been nothing, and has always been infinite nothing. The mistake is in humans creating a new nothing that they call zero. We invented something that never existed.

Somebody posted an example of it....
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/ ... nergy2.htm


And in the example they explain how you can get the particles back again as well.

[Kunga]

The first particles that create reality

But my question to you dear, is where did the first particle come from ?

How did it begin ?
What caused it to begin ?
Why did it begin ?

[Pincho Paxton]

The first particles that create reality

But my question to you dear, is where did the first particle come from ?

How did it begin ?
What caused it to begin ?
Why did it begin ?

The first particles are zero, so they exist as zero, they create nothing. There is nothing that comes before nothing. You can't have a cause for nothing.

[Kunga]

The first particles that create reality

But my question to you dear, is where did the first particle come from ?

How did it begin ?
What caused it to begin ?
Why did it begin ?

The first particles are zero, so they exist as zero, they create nothing. There is nothing that comes before nothing.

You said particle(s) , meaning in the plural.
I want to know where did the first particle (singular), come from ?


Ok....say that (what you said) the first particle(s), exist as zero & create nothing....
so nothing created nothing ?
and zero isn't really no thing (0) it is actually something ?

What IS ZERO besides a particle ? What IS a particle ???

HOW/WHY did something come from nothing ?

Or is everything nothing but appears to be something ?
WHY ?