The Metaphysical Consciousness

What does this have to do with a fantasy supa dupa level of consciousness that doesn't exist?
 
bruto said:
To presume, as you seem to, that nothing can be considered locally and apart from the entire universe is, in essence, to declare that nothing can be known or done.
Click to expand...
Universe, is exactly what it is: The unity of verses.

In other words, it is not less than the spectrum between locality and non-locality, where more you non-local more unbounded and non-changing you become, and more you local more bounded and changing you become, where both aspects are properties of the same reality, whether it is understood as mental or physical, it does not matter.

bruto said:
The same lever behaves the same whether or not it is moving through the universe
Click to expand...
The principle of lever can be demonstrated in different scales of the universe exactly because of the spectrum between stability (Nature's constants) and instability (Nature's variables) in the same reality, as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10151820&postcount=317 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10152093&postcount=319.

Moreover, the principle of lever is simple exactly because it is the same in any scale, as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10151820&postcount=317.
 
Last edited:
Bad vibe said:
What does this have to do with a fantasy supa dupa level of consciousness that doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

Apparently when you reach that fantasy supa dupa level of consciousness you no longer can figure out how a stick works.
 
doronshadmi said:
Universe, is exactly what it is: The unity of verses.
Click to expand...

Deepitatious, and poetical, and woo!-per dooper--

And meaningless. And factually incorrect. Check yer Latin...

doronshadmi said:
In other words, it is not less than the spectrum between locality and non-locality, where more you non-local more unbounded and non-changing you become, and more you local more bounded and changing you become, where both aspects are properties of the same reality, whether it is understood as mental or physical, it does not matter.
Click to expand...

In what language (seriously) will this word salad parse correctly, or meaningfully?

doronshadmi said:
The principle of lever can be demonstrated in different scales of the universe exactly because of the spectrum between stability (Nature's constants) and instability (Nature's variables) in the same reality, as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10151820&postcount=317 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10152093&postcount=319.

Moreover, the principle of lever is simple exactly because it is the same in any scale, as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10151820&postcount=317.
Click to expand...

Hint: "As shown" implies actually having shown something, as opposed to, for instance, simply making assertions couched in incorrect and inappositive use of misunderstood terminology (which is all your links lead to).

I am still hoping that you will present a source outside, or independent of, your own ramblings and incantations; a source which describes levers in terms of "stability" and "instability".
 
doronshadmi said:
Universe, is exactly what it is: The unity of verses.

In other words, it is not less than the spectrum between locality and non-locality, where more you non-local more unbounded and non-changing you become, and more you local more bounded and changing you become, where both aspects are properties of the same reality, whether it is understood as mental or physical, it does not matter.


The principle of lever can be demonstrated in different scales of the universe exactly because of the spectrum between stability (Nature's constants) and instability (Nature's variables) in the same reality, as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10151820&postcount=317 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10152093&postcount=319.

Moreover, the principle of lever is simple exactly because it is the same in any scale, as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10151820&postcount=317.
Click to expand...
I will not bother to try to sort out the nonsense here, except to point out that if, indeed, the principle of the lever is "the same at any scale," then it is independent of scale, and that means that a lever does not need to refer itself to the rest of the universe for explanation. If it did, it would not be the same at any scale.

Maybe if you want to figure out what a lever means in the grand scheme of life or something like it, you should consult the unity of verses or your local shaman. If you want to figure out how a lever works, all it takes is a little math. As the old Sesame Street song goes, you've got to put down the ducky.
 
bruto said:
if, indeed, the principle of the lever is "the same at any scale," then it is independent of scale,
Click to expand...
Exactly, therefore this principle is non-local exactly because it remains the same in any given scale.

bruto said:
and that means that a lever does not need to refer itself to the rest of the universe for explanation.
Click to expand...
This principle holds also if it refers to the whole universe, and it is based on stability (Nature's constants (the non-changing)) and instability (Nature's variables (the changing)).

bruto said:
If it did, it would not be the same at any scale.
Click to expand...
If this principle was only local, then it would not be the same at any scale.
 
Last edited:
A sausage depends on stability (Nature's constants (the non-changing)) and instability (Nature's variables (the changing)) for there are stable molecules and there are also unstable, variable, movements of molecules depending on the temperature that the sausage is heated to and there are unstable flavours that vary by the application of mustard and tomato sauce.
 
Slowvehicle said:
And factually incorrect. Check yer Latin...
Click to expand...

The word Universe derives from the Old French word Univers, which in turn derives from the Latin word universum.[26] The Latin word was used by Cicero and later Latin authors in many of the same senses as the modern English word is used.[27] The Latin word derives from the poetic contraction Unvorsum — first used by Lucretius in Book IV (line 262) of his De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) — which connects un, uni (the combining form of unus, or "one") with vorsum, versum (a noun made from the perfect passive participle of vertere, meaning "something rotated, rolled, changed").
Click to expand...
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Etymology.2C_synonyms_and_definitions)
In other words, also by Latin "uni" means "one" where "verse" means "something rotated, rolled, changed".

So the unity of verses is exactly the unchanged (Stability) AND the changed (instability).
 
Donn said:
A sausage depends on stability (Nature's constants (the non-changing)) and instability (Nature's variables (the changing)) for there are stable molecules and there are also unstable, variable, movements of molecules depending on the temperature that the sausage is heated to and there are unstable flavours that vary by the application of mustard and tomato sauce.
Click to expand...
Come on, you forgot the bun :bunpan
 
Last edited:
Slowvehicle said:
I am still hoping that you will present a source outside, or independent of, your own ramblings and incantations; a source which describes levers in terms of "stability" and "instability".
Click to expand...
Law of the lever

The lever is a movable bar that pivots on a fulcrum attached to a fixed point. The lever operates by applying forces at different distances from the fulcrum, or a pivot.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever#Law_of_the_lever)
Click to expand...
movable means unstable.

fixed means stable.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
movable means unstable.

fixed means stable.
Click to expand...
Only relatively stable, though. It is relative movement, not cosmic stability and instability. The universe does not care what moves relative to what.

Remember the brake equalizer. It's a class 1 lever, pure and simple.

e.t.a. How would leverage differ if the entire universe, fulcrum and all, pivoted, and the only thing standing still were the bar?
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
The universe does not care what moves relative to what.
Click to expand...
By using your expression, the universe also does not care what is stable relative to what.

In other words, no matter how you look at it, stability (constants) AND instability (variables) are essential properties of what is called universe.

bruto said:
Remember the brake equalizer. It's a class 1 lever, pure and simple.

e.t.a. How would leverage differ if the entire universe, fulcrum and all, pivoted, and the only thing standing still were the bar?
Click to expand...
Still you have at least stability AND instability, you simply can't avoid it, which is a good thing, because stability is the natural coordinator among the unstable, such that the unstable enables to develop harmony among changing phenomena, and this is exactly the development of higher states of consciousness in self-referential systems like us, which are expressed as harmonious phenomena, mantel or physical, exactly because they are actually the living linkage between stability AND instability (the evolution of life phenomena can be developed into biological systems that have properties of high-temperature superconductivity).

No mysticism is involved here (for example: http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/5/2084/pdf , http://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/faculty/daniel-rokhsar, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10948-010-1109-x#page-1 or more generally in http://scholar.google.co.il/scholar...mperature+superconductivity"&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5), unless one insists to exclude stability or instability form a given universe.

bruto said:
e.t.a. How would leverage differ if the entire universe, fulcrum and all, pivoted, and the only thing standing still were the bar?
Click to expand...
Moreover, the entire universe does not exclude the bar, or in other words, stability is included as one of its essential properties.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
movable means unstable.

fixed means stable.
Click to expand...

No.

RHWUD2 has it as:
movable: capable of being moved; not fixed; not permanent in reference to place.
Click to expand...
(that's on p. 1258, so you can find it)
unstable: unsteady; liable to fall or sway; of irregular movement; marked by emotional instability
Click to expand...
(that's on p. 2087, so you can find it)

My 5-legged leather couch in front of the bay window in the living room is "stable"; stable enough to support bodacious marital hanky-panky. It is also "movable"; it used to fact the other way (it used to be in a different house).

You are misusing all 4 terms for some supposed rhetorical advantage. You are certainly not building a useful analogy.
 
Designers of large seagoing vessels and spacecraft should hire Doronshadmi as a consultant. He would be able to convince them that since their products function in motion, stabilizing is counterproductive. Gyroscope sales would plummet, but cruising would be cheaper.
 
Slowvehicle said:
You are misusing all 4 terms for some supposed rhetorical advantage. You are certainly not building a useful analogy.
Click to expand...
movable: capable of being moved;not fixed; not permanent in reference to place.
Click to expand...
In other words, the given system is at least not fixed in reference to place, where place is the fixed state in that expression.

Once again, by using also this analogy, stability AND instability are both included.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom