New perspectives on Relativity

[uruk]

I just wanted to note that the whole relativity thing just applies to measured or observed quantities of distance and time. Not about what we are observing. (i.e. trains, stars, people, etc.)

The train may appear shorter or time may appear to proceed slower on board, but we are both still observing a train. If LG is right, why stop at just time and distances being different. Why not "I observe a train moving at relatvistic speeds, but you observe a cat at rest rest relative to you"? If everything is so variable, why the arbitrary limit? I think the consistancies speak volumns

 

[jmercer]

I just wanted to note that the whole relativity thing just applies to measured or observed quantities of distance and time. Not about what we are observing. (i.e. trains, stars, people, etc.)

The train may appear shorter or time may appear to proceed slower on board, but we are both still observing a train. If LG is right, why stop at just time and distances being different. Why not "I observe a train moving at relatvistic speeds, but you observe a cat at rest rest relative to you"? If everything is so variable, why the arbitrary limit? I think the consistancies speak volumns

I'm not sure that's strictly true. Aren't there relativity effects near an event horizon that can only be observed from inside the event horizon? (Or is that a special case?)

 

[RussDill]

I'm not sure that's strictly true. Aren't there relativity effects near an event horizon that can only be observed from inside the event horizon? (Or is that a special case?)

probably the fact that time is now firmly attached to a direction. One direction is before, another direction is your future.

 

[lifegazer]

And where is your proof there is only one universe? You kake a statment of fact that there is only 1 universe, please show me this proof.

There is only one reality. What that reality is, is what we are discussing.
If there is a real "out there" (beyond self/awareness), then there can be only one of you, one of me, one country called Britain, one called America, one planet Earth, one Sun, one moon, one solar system.
Or perhaps you'd like to argue the case for 6 of you, 8 of me, 5 Britains, 27 Americas, 14 planet Earths, 3 moons, 12 Suns, and 58 solar systems.

We are discussing the possibility of a TANGIBLE reality full of objects and spaces/time that separate those objects. Those objects are singular. The distances/time separating one object from another - if real - would be of a definite and singular value.
This is your "absolute world" - if it exists.

Absolute space and time (definite/singular values of space & time) would exist if there was an absolute world full of definite/singular objects, all separated by such space-time.

But there's no such thing as absolute time or space = no such thing as an absolute world.

Kuroyume suggests that absolute spacetime is "the very fabric upon which events can be mapped". But he's wrong. The very fabric upon which events are mapped is your own awareness.

Given all this and a rational explanation for why lightspeed is seen as a constant (the Mind is the source of the light it imposes upon it's own awareness), I have no doubts that Einstein provided us - involuntarily and inadvertently - with enough information to realise that there is no "out there".

As such, the conclusion is that existence is You.

 

[uruk]

I'm not sure that's strictly true. Aren't there relativity effects near an event horizon that can only be observed from inside the event horizon? (Or is that a special case?)

I'm sorry, do you mean that if I obseve a train outside a black hole from inside an event horizon I will see a cat instead? (sorry just being facetious)

Well technically speaking you would see the light entering the event horizon but it would be severly distorted. I think the example used was of somesort of scaffolding which encircled the black hole just outside of the event horizon. The author said the scaffolding would appear to diverge away from the event horizon rather than around the event horizon. (?)
(Darn! I can't find the article!!!)

But, I found this Googleing around:

The Horizon

The Schwarzschild surface, the sphere at one Schwarzschild radius, is also called the event horizon of a black hole, since to an outside observer, even one positioned just outside the Schwarzschild surface, nothing can be seen beyond the horizon. In truth the observer would see all matter that had fallen into the singularity over time but observed as if it were traveling at speeds very near that of light so all objects would appear stationary as if time had stopped for them and stretched out in the direction of motion rendering them two dimensional and effectively invisible. These images would not be detectable and thus all matter would seem lost and destroyed. This is an idealised case as will be discussed below. The actual Schwarzchild radius is most commonly obscured by infalling, superheated materials.

Cambridge Relativity and Cosmology public home pages

 

[RussDill]

There is only one reality. What that reality is, is what we are discussing.

How can you know that?

If there is a real "out there" (beyond self/awareness), then there can be only one of you, one of me, one country called Britain, one called America, one planet Earth, one Sun, one moon, one solar system.
Or perhaps you'd like to argue the case for 6 of you, 8 of me, 5 Britains, 27 Americas, 14 planet Earths, 3 moons, 12 Suns, and 58 solar systems.

Nobody is arguing that we exist in multiple realites or have access to multiple realities.

We are discussing the possibility of a TANGIBLE reality full of objects and spaces/time that separate those objects. Those objects are singular. The distances/time separating one object from another - if real - would be of a definite and singular value.
This is your "absolute world" - if it exists.

Absolute space and time (definite/singular values of space & time) would exist if there was an absolute world full of definite/singular objects, all separated by such space-time.

But there's no such thing as absolute time or space = no such thing as an absolute world.

You want to tell me why? Why does reality have to conform with the way that you experience things day to day? Seems rather naive to me. Especially considering the outlook of your philosophy.

Kuroyume suggests that absolute spacetime is "the very fabric upon which events can be mapped". But he's wrong. The very fabric upon which events are mapped is your own awareness.

Now you are just preaching. "He is wrong" is not an argument. Maybe you should write a holy book for all your dogma.

Given all this and a rational explanation for why lightspeed is seen as a constant (the Mind is the source of the light it imposes upon it's own awareness)

cough cough, speed of sound! The more you ignore this, the more of an absolute fool you look like.

I know you don't know how to address it, but in your mind, you know that you are right, and I must be wrong, so addressing it would gain you nothing.

 

[uruk]

But there's no such thing as absolute time or space = no such thing as an absolute world.

I think you've become completely boogered on the word "absolute". First, tell us what you mean by "absolute".

And also, why would variable observations of time and distances negate a real world? You see a train 3 meters shorter that I do, why does that make the train nonexistant? We both see the train do we not? Could we not say the train is absolute but our observation of the train is variable. the train would be the same, but just our observation of it is different. The difference in length we see the train is ony due to a differential of our comparitive velocities. How does that negate the existance of the train?

the Mind is the source of the light it imposes upon it's own awareness

The mind is the source of the internal experiance of light. If there was no light to percieve, how could the mind experiance light? There has to be stimulus or sensory input before there can be experiance. otherwise how would mind know how to create the sensory image of an object and it be consistant with someone elses sensory image of that object?

Kuroyume suggests that absolute spacetime is "the very fabric upon which events can be mapped". But he's wrong. The very fabric upon which events are mapped is your own awareness.

So an event that you have no awareness of does not exist? You had no awarness of the post I typed before you read it. does that mean that my post did not exist untill you read it? Isn't that a bit like the chicken or egg puzzle?

 

[Upchurch]

Absolute space and time (definite/singular values of space & time) would exist if there was an absolute world full of definite/singular objects, all separated by such space-time.

But there's no such thing as absolute time or space = no such thing as an absolute world.

Kuroyume suggests that absolute spacetime is "the very fabric upon which events can be mapped". But he's wrong. The very fabric upon which events are mapped is your own awareness.

You do realize that you are using at least two, if not three, different forms of the word "absolute", do you not?

 

[RussDill]

So an event that you have no awareness of does not exist? You had no awarness of the post I typed before you read it. does that mean that my post did not exist untill you read it? Isn't that a bit like the chicken or egg puzzle?

He's getting his concepts confused as possible here to plug a hole in his philosophy. Andromeda exists within awareness according to his philosophy, just not your awareness, it exists in the god part of awareness. Don't tell lifegazer, but this means that the perception of andromeda comes from outside your own awareness.

 

[RussDill]

You do realize that you are using at least two, if not three, different forms of the word "absolute", do you not?

silly upchurch, that isn't possible, the definitions of words are absolute, otherwise, they don't exist.

 

[Filip Sandor]

Re: Re: Re: New perspectives on Relativity

Prove to me that there is something external to yourself and I will gladly listen to your theories about real light and real brains.

LG, I think you misunderstood some of the information I posted.

When I speak of 'external' phenomena to the mind or 'real' phenomena, such as light, I am referring to the phenomena which we cannot control mentally lest we 'internalize' the phenomena into our mental space. (Please don't confuse mental phenomena with the perceiver of mental phenomena.)

I can manipulate the objects in my mental space freely using will; however, I can't do this with 'external' or 'real' phenomena. By real and unreal I only mean objective and subjective, respectively. If you can picture in your mind, flying elephants in a floating Elephant University you should be able to see the difference between the subjective mental phenomena in your mind that can be arbitrarily manipulated by you and the objective physical phenomena, which you can't manipulate freely. Both are real, but one can be freely manipulatred, the other abides by a set of fixed laws.

This distinction between 'internal' arbitrary and 'external' fixed phenomena is in fact one of the most basic philosophical distinctions we can make in my opinion.

By no stretch would I call this a complete theory of everything though.

 

[uruk]

He's getting his concepts confused as possible here to plug a hole in his philosophy. Andromeda exists within awareness according to his philosophy, just not your awareness, it exists in the god part of awareness. Don't tell lifegazer, but this means that the perception of andromeda comes from outside your own awareness.

I told him this before, but he seemed to ignore it. The existance of all things may be in god's awareness but the existance of some of those things are outside the awareness of "that which believes itself to be me".

He won't buy it because it means that are things that exist out side our awarness (that is untill we encounter them) which goes against what he said earlier.

And spin his convoluted web he must, but it seems he left a few threads dangleing (pun intended)

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

lifegazer

Im sure you have explained this somewhere else, but, what makes the objects to persist when Im not watching them? how can we make accurate predictions based on the idea that the "external world" is "really there"?

Im somehow familiar with Berkeley's philosophy, he needed god to have objectivity, and he aknowledged that god was "outside the souls", so he had an objective world, even if its nature was not materialistic.

 

[Pahansiri]

Lifegazer, I ask this with respect. Please stop dancing around the questions I ask and just be honest and answer them.

You said

. However, since there is only one real universe

Prove it. Prove there is but one universe. There very well may be and very well may not be, personally I lean towards heavily there is more then one but I do not make a statement of fact either way. You have now prove what you say is fact.

Once again I see you say that I am God, you ignored what I posed in the “The testing of lifegazer's powers and philosophy” where I posted your post from the site named sciforums the following

You are confusing monistic-Idealism with Solipsism, I believe.
A philosophy which posits one Mind (God) as the essence of everything, does not posit 'me' as that God. 'i' am merely within its mind, and am no different to anyone here.

Again I will ask, you now tell us we are God yet here you say we are not God and only God exist and we are but thoughts in his head.

Which is it?

 

[Filip Sandor]

Again I will ask, you now tell us we are God yet here you say we are not God and only God exist and we are but thoughts in his head.

Which is it?

Hi Pahansiri,

I don't mean to interrupt your debate, but maybe I can shed some light on this theory that we are all God, LG can correct me later if I am wrong.

LG probably believes we are all non-phyiscal Souls. Since it is difficult to imagine some kind of resevoire of an infinite number of Souls living in darkness, some of who might not be incarnated for billions of years as a justified kind of reality, maybe LG is seeking a different answer. If there were a limited number of Souls it would seem to contradict nature, you might babies popping out dead from animals when the Soul pool runs out.

So maybe LG made the next most logical conclusion (and I think this would be the most logical conclusion to make) that there are not an infinite number or a limited number of Souls, but one single being expressing itself through a multi-facetted reality of different life forms, each life form supporting a different level of awareness within the one. A theory like might also explain the 'false perception' of the self as depicted in certain religions like Buddhism. The non-physical nature of the one Soul also seems to transcend the physical conception that all things have to be somehow physically connected to the things they interact with. In this case, every Soul essentially exists in the same 'place' - the non-physical plane, but can somehow express itself in many different (what we perceive to be) physical locations.

 

[lifegazer]

Im sure you have explained this somewhere else, but, what makes the objects to persist when Im not watching them? how can we make accurate predictions based on the idea that the "external world" is "really there"?

Im somehow familiar with Berkeley's philosophy, he needed god to have objectivity, and he aknowledged that god was "outside the souls", so he had an objective world, even if its nature was not materialistic.

I've not read any Berkeley, but am aware that we have similar philosophies. But we don't have the same philosophies.
... If God exists, then nothing else can - according to my philosophy - which rules-out the existence of "other souls" or "outside" (there's nothing outside of God - 'outside' is a meaningless word with regards to the existence of a boundless and omnipresent God).

Didn't you read my analogy, the other day, about computer games and observed reality?
... In a game, events unfold as you turn a corner or a bush or go over a hill, etc.; but until you turn that corner or bush or go over that hill, no events are actually occuring. There's just stored information (knowledge, if you like) of what will happen if anyone turns a particular corner/bush or goes over a particular hill.
The game-disc has enough information to create a mini-world, but no events happen unless someone seeks for them to happen.

... It's a decent analogy, for in my philosophy The Universe is "the game" which God has knowledge of - but which only awareness can experience.
In my philosophy, nothing actually happens unless there is an observer present to see it happen. Until that moment, there's just the blueprint (knowledge) of everything that can happen - stored within God's memory, if you like.

So, to answer your first question, objects persist within the memory of God. The universe is first a thought... and then an experience.

 

[lifegazer]

So maybe LG made the next most logical conclusion (and I think this would be the most logical conclusion to make) that there are not an infinite number or a limited number of Souls, but one single being expressing itself through a multi-facetted reality of different life forms, each life form supporting a different level of awareness within the one.

Correct. One God, with boundless potential, expressing the diversity of that potential through the various experiences of being many species. And as if that weren't enough - giving the individuals of each species the capacity to dream of realms not hindered by order or law.

As man, in this ordered existence, I can be anything from Hitler to Jesus Christ. And when I close my eyes, I can be a purple Rhino living on a comet. There are no limits to what I can experience within myself. That is why I must be God. That is why you must be God.

 

[P.S.A.]

As man, in this ordered existence, I can be anything from Hitler to Jesus Christ

So why on earth did you choose to be the incomprehensible, confused and lonely lunatic you currently are?

I however chose to be Evil, and I'm greatly enjoying killing your God... Hey, how did that appeal to the JREF go? Did the Establishment bow to the weight of support for your "philosophy" as you claimed?

{evil laugh} Bua ha haaaaa {/evil laugh}

 

[Filip Sandor]

Correct. One God, with boundless potential, expressing the diversity of that potential through the various experiences of being many species. And as if that weren't enough - giving the individuals of each species the capacity to dream of realms not hindered by order or law.

As man, in this ordered existence, I can be anything from Hitler to Jesus Christ. And when I close my eyes, I can be a purple Rhino living on a comet. There are no limits to what I can experience within myself. That is why I must be God. That is why you must be God.

Don't forget about the starving children of Africa when you're a purple, flying rhino.

Edited to add:

I think you give too much credit to your fantastic conception of reality. You obviously have a sense of a 'bigger reality' than what we commonly know, but don't forget that everyone has these similar feelings. Exploiting your fantastic visions only brings people down, it doesn't help them. On the other hand, you practice some really vigorous philosophy in your mind to determine what really is useful and what really makes sense. So far your philosophies are interesting at best in my opinion, but they don't shed enough light on all the 'in betweens' to be of any 'higher use' in this forum.

 

[RussDill]

I've not read any Berkeley, but am aware that we have similar philosophies. But we don't have the same philosophies.
... If God exists, then nothing else can - according to my philosophy - which rules-out the existence of "other souls" or "outside" (there's nothing outside of God - 'outside' is a meaningless word with regards to the existence of a boundless and omnipresent God).

Such a concept

A) assumes the definition of god as omnipresent and omnipotent

B) Assumes god exists

C) Assumes that any conscious being existing as part of god shares consciousness with god and vice versa.

Didn't you read my analogy, the other day, about computer games and observed reality?
... In a game, events unfold as you turn a corner or a bush or go over a hill, etc.; but until you turn that corner or bush or go over that hill, no events are actually occuring. There's just stored information (knowledge, if you like) of what will happen if anyone turns a particular corner/bush or goes over a particular hill.
The game-disc has enough information to create a mini-world, but no events happen unless someone seeks for them to happen.

And did you read my reply to that? Why did you ignore the reply?

... It's a decent analogy, for in my philosophy The Universe is "the game" which God has knowledge of - but which only awareness can experience.

Exactly, in your philosophy, only God has knowledge of the universe, the lifegazer ego does not, it experinces the universe by receiving sensations fed to it by god. The universe is outside of the lifegazer ego, you sensations are telling you about a reality beyond yourself.

In my philosophy, nothing actually happens unless there is an observer present to see it happen. Until that moment, there's just the blueprint (knowledge) of everything that can happen - stored within God's memory, if you like.

Which means that the reality we observe does not exist within our own awareness, something you keep trying to prove