Something out of nothing

quote:

---

where does anti-matter and dark matter fit in to all this?

---

quote:

---

This barrier than separates space into positive & negative fields, Neutrons orbital alignment is parallel to these fields & therefore appear as uncharged particles of mass & positrons being associated to mass of the flux of the nucleus .

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

Thankyou very much cturtle for taking so much time an effort to look into this and reply to my question.

It is all a bit too complicated I think for me, but I am very interested in this idea that there is more to our universe than what is observable and understood by conventional science. I watched the video post about UFOs the greatest secret or whatever it was very interesting, thie possibilility of things from perhaps another dimension just popping in and out of existence because they are existing in a different way with different energies or matter etc. What do you think cturtle and have you seen the video clip I am talking about?

""Each child holds the world in an open hand to mould it into any shape they choose.""

Matter seems to me to be very much an illusion. It is simply an abstract concept--even more abstract and illusive than the concept of soul or spirit...Think about it...Does matter have a color, a texture, a taste, or even a distinctive smell?..No...In order for anything to be regarded as "real" or "physical" we generally say it must posses atleast some kind of distinctive physical qualities or characteristics...Matter as proposed by modern science possesses nothing of the sort...It is simply "stuff"...the stuff of which all things are supposedly composed of...stuff that can never be defined or described, or even imagined outside of what is visible to us...In fact, all we know is "earth" or "wood" or "stone"...does anyone find that strange?

"Each conscious mind is alone in the universe!"

Ultimately, I tend to believe that , in the end, matter will prove to be essentially metaphysical in substance, form and function.

"Each conscious mind is alone in the universe!"

wizardslogic, I don't find that strange. I think we've evolved somewhat recently to understand that matter does reduce into essentially something we can't fathom how it manifests itself ultimately. This of course, may always be the case.

We've unravelled a lot subatomically and there's more work to be done it seems. To assume matter is an illusion seems silly, unless you refer it in reference to delusion. Nonetheless, matter is real; in the sense that if I punch you in the face with my fist hard enough I'll hit you to the floor and you'll feel it. A metaphysical thinking of doing this but not; will not have such the effect; especially if you are niaave to emotion. As far as I can tell everyone I meet has a form of body andd their feet are joined to the earth so therefore they are, to me, quite obviously apart of a material world; however they receive the information.

Matter may in the end turn out to be illusion; but then at that time so must implicitly my body. This state of thinking is jumping rather than progressing; I dont like belief in speculation.

The point to me is to be on the brink of knowledge and to feel for new discoveries. In this sense, it dawns on me the questions such as how does an astronaut still self motivate without an outside stimulus in space? Well he eats food, consumes water and breathes oxygen and this sustains him. And this itself is made so by the presence on the surface by the sun and below it of the arrangement of molecules and to atoms and to subatomic particles. There must be, a structure to these, which we have found, ever more microscopically, and this has been revealed. The structure of the foundation of matter itself is still mysterious, hence the pea soup thing quantum phsyicists envisage. But we must keep looking for these patterns. We must look for the synethesis in arrangements on all scales and then the individual ideas or theories will coexist. To me, a fact is a fact. An illusion is a belef in a assumed or preassumed 'fact' held by enough to seperate it from delusion. To me, matter is a fact, its just we don't understand its roots.

wizardslogic, matter cannot be metaphysical simply because matter is the heart of physics. I do not need to waste my time on this but essentially you assume things flow, rather than existing in discrete packaging and then forming. However, in my experience, and from those that I have talked to, the most productive of minds is the one that can analyse patterns precisely and the synthesise them to create new patterns or assimilate new theories elsewhere. Scientific knowledge is second in my eye to the actual nature of that knowledge to want to find something-persistence. The tag of a creative person is given by others who see it as a mysterious thing, and these people are often the ones who muddy the pond. If only individuals knew how much time and effort it takes to actually find out something of its own to be sure, dogma would go away.

""No words""
[  Edited by heyjme1 at   ]

I understand your arguments, and they are the same arguments I've heard numerous times. It would take too much time and effort to give you my complete thoughts and arguments on the matter. However, I will say that, for me, the foundations of modern science are essentially dogma of an empirical kind...And when I say that matter is "illusion" I do not mean that it does not exist, just that our ordinary conception of its supposed nature is illusion...I probably will never be able to convince anyone with such a strong faith in the tenets of modern science of this position...Oh, well.

"Each conscious mind is alone in the universe!"

I can understand many things. And it depends, ultimately, upon th bias of the human in question.

Let me make things clear. There is all. And this is markedly different from every-thing. The spiritualist will, if closely inspected, tend to think they are the base-line of all-the thing from which everything, including matter, will manifest. The modern scientist, will claim that matter is all and that beyond this there is more yet to be unearthered. Two different ways of getting to something.

My point is that the creative person feels for things without a need for labels, the wise person knows that anything known is itself not holistic or whole or all-encompassing.

The difference, though, for me wizardslogic, is that for consistency in advancement of finding out, of adventure, of understanding, there is not a better tool than science simply because, as I said above, it knows what it knows and can show it and can know what he doent know and yearn to find it.

Wizadry is an aspect. Art is an aspect. Science is an aspect. Religion is an aspect. Astral projection is an aspect. Law is an aspect. All these aim to put meaning and ascertion of reality in contextual, communicative, practical terms, from the source of understanding and thereupon discovery to the fruit of creativity and invention. And, for the one systematic tool that does both these; discovery and invention; I cannot think of one better than science.

Science is a system, as indeed all these forms are. And as systems go, I cannot think of a more human, or more natural, one. The person behind the label, however, well that is a different story.

""No words""

For me, no one discipline can ever discover the true nature of man and the universe, not even science. The scientific method relies on findings based on sensory data which, in my opinion, may be flawed somehow and possibly entirely erroneous. The only way such knowledge can be attained is via the self. That's all I can say about the subject.

"Each conscious mind is alone in the universe!"

Yes, I agree its mostly based on sensory data; in theory that it is. But most scientific revolutions, have of course been made by a few men. And this isn't so much based on sensory data. What this source is I don't know. But its definitely a source of some kind. What made man go from moulding something to making something?

These are the people who carve science, like the lawyers who carve law. They are all creative in some sense; they do to things. They understand nature's patterns and arrangements, and then synthesise them with other patterns or arrangements; or thoughts.

Here, though, the scientist aims to be precise in this method. This precise language, that is at the heart of most science, maths, is thus the language of science. And its because of it that we are able to communicate succinctly, accurately and universally.

Because most scientific pinnacles were not, actually, based on sensory experience, but on imagination and thought, your assumptions are shallow. But the system must have order, as does any teaching, book, or system of knowledge. If we go back to the middle ages of alchemy, much of chemistry derives from this; but as it advanced it lost some of the more wild connotations that subsumed to it, by being examined, refined, tested.

Therefore, as systems go, science is the best. But it still requires individuals to progress it.

""No words""

Lol!...Shallow?...That's OK...I've been called worse...But I do understand your position with respect to science and even mathematics...but, once again, science is empirical and, thus, bases all of its findings on sensory perception...I once this subject with a professor of mathematics who relented on his opinion that science could ever be precise with respect to measurement...He soon realized that science could never be precise in that respect...On a human scale these measurements are adequate, but beyond this scale, science can never be precise...It is our unfortunate situation when confronted by the inescabable condition of infinity...Oh, well.

"Each conscious mind is alone in the universe!"

Just what is it that you are having trouble understanding?

quote:

---

It is all a bit too complicated I think for me, but I am very interested in this idea that there is more to our universe than what is observable and understood by conventional science

---

I wasn't calling you shallow; you seem far too reasonable to call you that; I refer to your shallow assumprion that you think you're right that science is based upon sensory perception. I think scientists themselves have propogated this so I'll try and dispell the myth that its all based upon sensory perception.

I woke up today and it was snowing. The weather forcecasters had told me it was going to snow; and they were right. How did they know this? The models told them so? why are the models accurate? because we have satellites looking at the earth?why do we have sattelites? because some took steps to understanding nature and then used all these ideas and though hey why don't we go into space?

Its said an apple fell on Newton's head and from this he discovered the law of gravity. This is a myth but still the idea is still the same. And that is that sometimes we get a feeling for something more than is obvious; more than is natural. We ask these questions like why am I not flouting around? what draws me to the earth? These are not wholly sensory perception; they go much deeper. Tey ask why? They are inquistive questions and they invoke on all kinds of imaginative ideas to invoke quite extraordinary claims.

It is here that the nature of science is the most effective. Science changes the extraoridnary that claims itself in one time to be oridnary in the future. And it claims the extraordinary is also extraordinary all the time too; for want of a better word unlikely. Its not really any different from an artist or a magician who thinks of something in a new way and paints it as such, or a new idea for a trick and how to perfom it. The difference is that science is always questioning itself; always leaves open room for doubt. It assumes and states its assumptions.

the key thing that it does more than any other is to si state predictions that could in principle serve to falsify it. Its like me saying I bet I'm better at playing pool than you. But instead of just saying this inviting the challenge to play ten games at different times and then see if I win and by how much.

Science is more social than anything else, more honest. It doesn't deny infinity but it doesn't assume something it its place because we are so inept at filling that void.

It is easy to criticise something. But thats only the first step. The geat next step is to suggest something in its place that is better than it. As is the case for maths, there is nothing more pure at the moment than maths; but it is only another language. Remember, there is no nobel prize in maths though. Why is this? that is because, in my view, math is a tool. We don't need to think about inifinty; no man knows what this is; and if he claims it he is a fool. So why fill a gap that is most probably wrong? why not fill that bag slowly and keep hope.

As a side Newton conceived of gravity; but he also said that the earth must be warped in the centre if this is so and therefore the earth is not a sphere. This was later shown by sensory observation but it was first realised not by sensory perception; This is deductive reasoning, and is the opposite to empiricism. Strong proof to refute your claim.

""No words""

Good arguments...but, unfortunately, I'm a mystic at heart and I doubt if that will ever change...It would take me forever to explain how I came to this state of mind (It developed when I was very young)...I tried to incorporate all my ideas into a system of thought which, of course, you will undoubtedly regard as narrow-minded...It was fun putting it together as best I could, though...I posted it online for a few people who were interested in incorporating these ideas into their own systems...It's pretty crude, and some of it is gimmicky and a lot of it just for fun...I'll give you the address starting with the second "lesson" of this crazy philosophy of mine:

http://www.angelfire.com/magic/wizardslogic/l2.html

...Ignore the first "lesson"...Just a lot of preliminary crap and some theatrics you would probably not appreciate (Lol!)...This will give you just a general idea of my direction of thought although, once again, you will probably not agree...and that's OK...I like disagreements and positions contrary to my own...I learn from them whether they change my opinion or not...That's the most rewarding aspect of this kind of discourse, don't you think?

"Each conscious mind is alone in the universe!"

Yes, I agree.

I read the paper and I too have come to the same conclusion; the problem with the point and the example of the apple and the grape I'll tackle now. The point, which has no dimensions, also has infinite dimensions. This is the paradox of infinity. Likewise, the infinitely large also has the paradox of being infinitely small because of its obvious unity-it cannot be altered by anything outside of it for that is in vast contradiction.

We could leave it there and be done and say we are bounded by infinity at all scales. However, you fail to realise that my perceptions are of themselves proof that there is an observer of limits within the bounds of infinity: me. This therefore extends to the other bodies relative to me, the observer. Science, implicitly, recognises this, and so does your unconcious and your concious. Therefore, by the very fact I am able to judge via, by as you call sensory perceptions, is of itself proof that the world of the finite exists; and it at least constitutes reality; for the composites, if you wish to so argue of these sensory perceptions themselves allow for the observable coherence of the finite.

It is, precisely, the continual arrangements of order of patterns, matrices, logic, that replicate themselves which science pursues. Some have been unravelled; some are yet to unravel. I do not dispute the content of teh paper; but I think it misses the point of adventure and finding out these marvels, rather than trying to reduce them to 'its all the same; its just we percieve it differently'. This I agree with but some of this perecption is illusionary and some delusion. As for example, some theories of earth history; that is the geological formation of the earth, differ and yet some are more accurate than others. These are the problems we face; its quite clear gravity isn't caused by radio waves for example, but could quite plausibly be caused by waves of interaction between the centre of masses. Hence the hunt for the gravity wave.

Look at my point again; and hopefully surely you will see that at least one sense of our existence here must be to learn what is between that bound by infinity, not least the excitement we can get from some of these 'things'

I've peered over some of the later lessons and was pleased to see a good interpretation of flatland in lesson six. One thing that dawned on me was this third eye. I don't like this term. What essentially its doing is clumping all that which is outside of science into spritual connotation, which is mystical, and is subject to a vast degree of variance about what could be true.

I think science has moved on in recent time; and you'll be surprised to know that a scientist has maybe now logically proved that time must be band up by infinite periods, all flowing. And science has also learnt that space and time are not so concrete; that they may themselves be warped. So, rather than the empirical world, much is very tehoretical and moving into this space. It is uncovering the mysteries of the self and self-referral. Its asking these questions. Its paving away to unravel the finite, and in so doing is actually understanding infinity in some respects. Its asking questions of time travel; its asking about wormholes; its asking about the warping of space and the jumping between caused by it.

The question pertinent to me is: would you have been able to ask some of the questions you yourself pose without the history of science?

""No words""

No!..of course not!...Science and its efforts are the greatest and most effective means by which man can at least approach Truth within the confines of physical perception...but those confines limit man's ability to go any farther...And, true, it is human imagination that allows a scientific mind to go a bit farther than empirical experimentation and mathematical limits will allow....But , once again, they can only go so far because of these limitations...But I agree with you in the sense that an imaginative and creative scientific thinker can bring us to the outermost boundaries of the physical world, but when he begins to realize that a true understanding of man and the universe extends far beyond the physical world, he attempts to “tie up loose ends,” to create an insulated package that stays within the limits of physical science, of physical perception...and that's OK, I guess, because we have attained some amazing technical advances despite this "clipping" of what goes beyond empirical investigation...I think that if we could absorb all the knowledge accumulated by science while still being able to step off into the unknown courageously, we would then begin to approach Truth...That would be exciting, but would be supported and understood only by ourselves, and no one else, because of the fact that this Truth goes beyond the realm of empirical testing and verification…And, yes, science is wonderful for what it has done and what it is capable of doing, but limited nonetheless…Oh, well.

"Each conscious mind is alone in the universe!"