Lifegazer, you need to find the window.

[uruk]

In another thread I replied to you that there is no difference between an "illusion" and a "reality" if there is no way of telling one from the other.

Here is an analogy:

Take Einstien's equivelency principal for example:

A person who is in a box in space traveling with a constant accelleration of 1 meter per second/second (I think) (that means the box is gaining in speed 1 meter per second for every second). in a single direction, will not be able to tell the difference if the box were sitting on a planet with a gravitational field of 1g.
Any experiment he does in either box will give the person the same result. There is no way for the person to tell the difference unless there is a window on the box.

You are on the right track if you want to determine if this existance is really an illusion. Since all we can percieve is this "illusion", you can only find the proof within this "illusion"
In other words, you need to find the "window".

Be warned though. This "illusion" is extemely self-consistant. The "creator" of this "illusion" has done it's homework VERY well.

In essence you are going to have to find a mistake in this construct. That very well may be impossible. because if there is a god and if this god is perfect, then so would be this illusion.

You have your work cut out for you. I suggest you study what has already been written about the subjects. You know the old saying, Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Good luck!

 

[Upchurch]

1 meter per second/second (I think) (that means the box is gaining in speed 1 meter per second for every second).

Almost had it. it's one meter per second per second, m * 1/s * 1/s = m/(s^2). As opposed to, m/s/s = m.

Pardon the interruption.

edited to add:
and actually, 1 g is equal to a little more than 3 m/(s^2).

Pardon again.

 

[El Greco]

The Strange New World game may be helpful.

 

[lifegazer]

In another thread I replied to you that there is no difference between an "illusion" and a "reality" if there is no way of telling one from the other.

Here is an analogy:

Take Einstien's equivelency principal for example:

A person who is in a box in space traveling with a constant accelleration of 1 meter per second/second (I think) (that means the box is gaining in speed 1 meter per second for every second). in a single direction, will not be able to tell the difference if the box were sitting on a planet with a gravitational field of 1g.
Any experiment he does in either box will give the person the same result. There is no way for the person to tell the difference unless there is a window on the box.

You are on the right track if you want to determine if this existance is really an illusion. Since all we can percieve is this "illusion", you can only find the proof within this "illusion"
In other words, you need to find the "window".

Be warned though. This "illusion" is extemely self-consistant. The "creator" of this "illusion" has done it's homework VERY well.

In essence you are going to have to find a mistake in this construct. That very well may be impossible. because if there is a god and if this god is perfect, then so would be this illusion.

You have your work cut out for you. I suggest you study what has already been written about the subjects. You know the old saying, Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Good luck!

That was an interesting post and I must thank you again for your advice.
I'm absolutely certain that there's a link somewhere within what Einstein tells us (about relativity) and showing that, therefore, perceived reality is generated entirely by a Mind. So I will persevere.
I think the "window" to the whole thing is to show that there is no reality beyond that perceived by an individual and that each individual sees his own reality. This is consistent with my philosophy, I think. If we cannot find a reality beyond the individual's internal perspective, then how can we say that there is one?

 

[Nikk]

Re: Re: Lifegazer, you need to find the window.

Almost had it. it's one meter per second per second, m * 1/s * 1/s = m/(s^2). As opposed to, m/s/s = m.

Pardon the interruption.

edited to add:
and actually, 1 g is equal to a little more than 3 m/(s^2).

Pardon again.

I thought 1g was 9.8m/(s^2) or 32ft etc.

 

[UserGoogol]

It is.

 

[uruk]

Almost had it. it's one meter per second per second, m * 1/s * 1/s = m/(s^2). As opposed to, m/s/s = m.

Thanks Upchurch. My math is a little weak.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: Re: Lifegazer, you need to find the window.

I thought 1g was 9.8m/(s^2) or 32ft etc.

D'oh! This is why you shouldn't post when you're tired late in the day on a Friday.

My appologies. I don't know what I was thinking.

 

[Bentspoon]

the window....

Lifegazer said:
"I think the "window" to the whole thing is to show that there is no reality beyond that perceived "

I was under the impression that the window idea was that you would jump out of it thereby experiencing the reality of acceleration, as 32ft/sec^2 is applied to your head as it smashes into the ground. At that point, the reality of the concrete is, indeed, in your mind (at least there will be asphalt in your brain)

Bentspoon

sorry, I couldn't resist (I do understand the analogy)

 

[lifegazer]

Re: the window....

Bent.spoon - you're just a bad stirrer.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Lifegazer, you need to find the window.

Almost had it. it's one meter per second per second, m * 1/s * 1/s = m/(s^2). As opposed to, m/s/s = m.

It depends on whether you consider the "per" operator to have the same precedence as the "/" operator. Since they mean the same thing, I think they should have the same precedence. This is consistent with normal usage, as "1 meter/second per second" also makes senses. Therefore, 1 meter per second/second is 1 meter/second/second or 1 meter per second per second or 1 meter per second^2 (which is OK because ^ has tighter precedence.[/b][/quote]

edited to add:
and actually, 1 g is equal to a little more than 3 m/(s^2).

I agree, as 6.8 qualifies as "a little."

 

[Martin]

Almost had it. it's one meter per second per second, m * 1/s * 1/s = m/(s^2). As opposed to, m/s/s = m

[pointless quibble]

m/s/s = (m/s)/s = m/(s^2), not m. At least, that's how I'd read it.

[/pointless quibble]

 

[uruk]

I'm absolutely certain that there's a link somewhere within what Einstein tells us (about relativity) and showing that, therefore, perceived reality is generated entirely by a Mind.

Acouple of points here. Einstien belived in god, but his theories say nothing of or about god. He was one smart cookie and he never saw anything that he would call proof. Then again he wasn't looking for it either. You have a very big mountain to climb.

I think the "window" to the whole thing is to show that there is no reality beyond that perceived by an individual and that each individual sees his own reality.

I think that is harder then it seems. For one you would have to prove that another individual (other than you) exists, and is not part of the "illusion". And if you have a set of criteria that proves the other individual exists then you would have to show that the criteria can't apply to existance.

I don't envy you.

 

[lifegazer]

Acouple of points here. Einstien belived in god,

Are you sure about that? Never heard that before.

but his theories say nothing of or about god.

Not directly no. But I contend that there is evidence of a God when the theory is analysed as a whole. I also think that quantum mechanics provides evidence for a God.

He was one smart cookie and he never saw anything that he would call proof. Then again he wasn't looking for it either. You have a very big mountain to climb.

Einstein was a physicist. A physicist can't say anything about anything that cannot be seen or explained mathematically. Science is limited to unveiling the order inherent within things. Enquiring to the origin of this order is, by default, beyond the scope of a physicist.

I think the "window" to the whole thing is to show that there is no reality beyond that perceived by an individual and that each individual sees his own reality.

I think that is harder then it seems. For one you would have to prove that another individual (other than you) exists, and is not part of the "illusion". And if you have a set of criteria that proves the other individual exists then you would have to show that the criteria can't apply to existance.

What?

My philsophy aims to show that everything is an illusion occuring within a single Mind. I have no business trying to prove that other individuals actually exist.

The reality we see is unique to ourselves. We all experience time and space differently. One must ask oneself what really exists beyond the mind. What is absolute space or absolute time? These questions relate to an external reality, if one exists. There really must be more than just relative space and relative time beyond our perspective of those things or else they do not exist.

 

[Atlas]

Einstien belived in god

Originally posted by lifegazer
Are you sure about that? Never heard that before.

In a coy moment Einsten was asked about his belief in God. He answered: "I believe in the same God all wise men do."
"Which God is that?", his questioner pressed.
He answered, "Wise men never tell."

But he was not always so coy. In a famous Einstein quote he says"
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

The quotation above may be Einstein's most familiar statement of his beliefs. These words are frequently quoted, but a citation is seldom given. The quotation can be found in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, The Open Court Publishing Co., La Salle, Illinois, Third Edition, 1970, pp 659 - 660. There the source is given as the New York Times, 25 April 1929, p. 60, col. 4.Ronald W. Clark, however, in Albert Einstein The Life and Times (The World Publishing Company, New York and Cleveland, 1971, pp 413-414) gives a detailed account of the origin of Einstein's statement:

While the argument over his birthday present had been going on, the theory of relativity had been used to pull him into a religious controversy from which there emerged one of his much-quoted statements of faith. It began when Cardinal O'Connell of Boston, who had attacked Einstein's General Theory on previous occasions, told a group of Catholics that it "cloaked the ghastly apparition of atheism" and "befogged speculation, producing universal doubt about God and His Creation."

Einstein, who had often reiterated his remark of 1921 to Archbishop Davidson-"It makes no difference. It is purely abstract science"-was at first uninterested. Then, on April 24, Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, faced Einstein with the simple five-word cablegram: "Do you believe in God?" "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists," he replied, "not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Years later he expanded this in a letter to Solovine, the survivor of the Olympia Academy. "I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza," he wrote. "[But] I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."

Spinoza Quotes

 

[uruk]

Are you sure about that? Never heard that before.

Yep!. No insult intented, but that's why it's a good reason to do some research. You will also find that a good percentage of scientists believe in a god of some sort.

Not directly no. But I contend that there is evidence of a God when the theory is analysed as a whole. I also think that quantum mechanics provides evidence for a God.

Quite possibly. The devil (or god) is in the details, or so the saying goes.

My philsophy aims to show that everything is an illusion occuring within a single Mind. I have no business trying to prove that other individuals actually exist.The reality we see is unique to ourselves. We all experience time and space differently. One must ask oneself what really exists beyond the mind. What is absolute space or absolute time? These questions relate to an external reality, if one exists. There really must be more than just relative space and relative time beyond our perspective of those things or else they do not exist.

Well another person's unique reality exists outside your own.
Both may be part of the same mind (god), but you can not directly access their experiance. Our perception is largely caused or stimulated by input of some sort. You would need to provide proof of where that stimuation comes from. And remember; you gotta back up the hypothesis.

Also, what is irrational about an "external" "absolute" reality that we develop a unique perception via input? (not a jab, just a question)

 

[lifegazer]

Well another person's unique reality exists outside your own.
Both may be part of the same mind (god), but you can not directly access their experiance.

We know that each individual has a unique perspective of [relative] space and time. Twin-paradox, for example. Lorentz and Einstein provided the mathematics to "access their experience".

Our perception is largely caused or stimulated by input of some sort. You would need to provide proof of where that stimuation comes from. And remember; you gotta back up the hypothesis.

Absolutely everything about human experience is completely subjective and intangible. Colours, sounds, tastes, emotions, thoughts, etc. - we live in an intangible realm of inner experience.
We live within a Mind's eye. Reality is mindful, as experienced.
It appears that we are looking outside of ourselves, but we are not. No mind has ever seen beyond its own awareness. Space and time - as perceived - exist within the Mind.
This is what I'm trying to convey - what really exists beyond the mind? What is absolute space or absolute time? These questions relate to an external reality, if one exists. There really must be more than just relative space and relative time beyond our perspective of those things or else they do not exist.
I.e., if an external reality exists, free of an observer's subjective and relative awareness of it, then it exists as an absolute entity or absolute realm with absolute space and absolute time. Otherwise, there's nothing there - there's just the mind's relative awareness of such a reality.

Also, what is irrational about an "external" "absolute" reality that we develop a unique perception via input? (not a jab, just a question)

I have a revelation for you. We do not measure the speed of light passing through an external universe - we measure the speed of the sensation of light passing through our unique relative awareness of space and time. Those stars you see exist inside your mind - the light you see is an abstract creation. The universe doesn't know what colours are... colour is a self-given experience. So, when you measure the speed-of-light, you are making measures within your mind that are not there. For there is no sense in saying that space or time exists between one part of your awareness and another.

As you approach the speed-of-light, time approaches stillness (not nothing) and space approaches singularity. We say that light passes through space and time, but it doesn't. That's just how it looks to us in our awareness.
The thing is that absolute space = singularity and absolute time = the eternal moment.
God is clearly evident here. I'm certain.

 

[csense]

Absolutely everything about human experience is completely subjective and intangible.

But this can't be true.
Even if we do not know what space and time are, in and of themselves, we do know that two objects can not occupy the same space, if they are in the same time frame...but may do so, in different time frames.

This strongly suggests that there is something fundamental about what we are all experiencing.

 

[lifegazer]

Absolutely everything about human experience is completely subjective and intangible.

But this can't be true.
Even if we do not know what space and time are, in and of themselves, we do know that two objects can not occupy the same space, if they are in the same time frame...but may do so, in different time frames.

Which two objects are you talking about? You can only confirm the existence of your mind. The "things" within that mind are abstract entities defined amongst your inner sensations.

This strongly suggests that there is something fundamental about what we are all experiencing.

There is something fundamental about the experiencer. The experience of the universe is happening within the mind.

 

[csense]

Which two objects are you talking about?


Any two objects
You're the philosopher, you know these things work by principles.







You can only confirm the existence of your mind. The "things" within that mind are abstract entities defined amongst your inner sensations.

There is something fundamental about the experiencer. The experience of the universe is happening within the mind.

The problem with your philosophy, is that in order to describe it, you need to draw on concepts and principles, which in and of themselves presuppose things about the nature of reality, which in turn your philosophy denies.

It's no doubt that many see your explanations as either nonsense or circular reasoning.

I've read many of your posts and you seem to be reasonably intelligent, so I find it hard to believe that you just don't understand the inherent confusion that is apparent within your philosophy, or at least in the substance and method of transmittal.

You seem to be more of someone who is just playing an intellectual game, rather than a devout adherent, but, that's just my personal opinion.