Ceating an alternative reality (or distortion of reality) through consciousness

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: DeadCat
My theory on this stems from the consept of string theory, and the quantum theory of reality being a mental construction...

There is no quantum theory of reality being a mental construction.

Assume that all reality is- is vibrations, as we are experiancing these vibrations through consciousness, we take them in as our life.

It isn't, though.

Imagine all that we accept as reality is a frequency, or wave length. A single line on an infinate musical scale.

Frequency of what? Measured how? Frequency has a very simple definition - how many times per unit of time something occurs.

It is theorized that our thoughts, our consciousness, and merely the act of observance, has an affect on your reality. The double-slit experiments have stated that particles act as waves, with infinate possibilities until observed, where they then take on one single direction in time and space.

And then you discover what universe you were randomly assigned to, if you believe Everett. But it doesn't mean you can wish and make it so, which belongs to another theory, that of 'magical thinking', a hallmark of young children and schizophrenics.

By changing your frequency, it may be possible to exist in or create another. Created through intention, emotion, and a special frequency which acts like a password for entrance.

Frequency of what? Measured how? Changed how?

Can you alter your state of mind, inorder to alter your state of reality? Can the power of coinciousness, emotional vibes, and belief, be the key to not only tapping into other frequencies of reality, but creating your own?

Reality doesn't have a frequency.

According to the theory of reletivity, the answer can be yes, when combined with vibrational and spiritual aspects.

Perhaps you can point out where in GR this term is.

Ah! You are my favorite, no surprise to see the same reaction out of you!

You need to have an open mind when touching on topics like this. You can't just stick to the text books, as you tend to do.

Topics like this entail the reader to question what is "known". There is a world outside of "reality" that is being fiddled with by many.

originally posted by: Elementalist

That is your pure ignorance commenting on what you know nothing of. Accept that you just haven't experienced are are not in the know of self.

No, the pure ignorance is calling happy moods 'frequency' when this is a totally bogus use of the term.

Vibration, a new agey terminology to express the internal state of MBS (mind, body spirit). When one is feeling good, it's said they have a "good vibe" , good vibration.

Except new agey terminology, whilst using words from physics, does not mean the same thing. You can't syncretize the two just because Blavatsky stole some science terms last century to make Theosophy sound more believable.

This indicates they are happy, in joy, in love, feeling good and their energy level is raised.

When one is in low vibe/ration, they are sad, grief, guilt, mad, angry, hateful, jeleous etc...

Moods have nothing to do with vibrations or energy. At least not in the way a physicist would use the terms.

If you want to keep it strictly in a theosophic (i.e. new age) concept, even then it's used so sloppily that it's essentially meaningless, but when you try to say something like 'string theory has the word vibration in, and theosophy has the word vibration in, therefore they are the same', it's not the same in any way.

That's Helen Blavatsky's legacy. Confusion.

originally posted by: DeadCat

You need to have an open mind when touching on topics like this. You can't just stick to the text books, as you tend to do.

Topics like this entail the reader to question what is "known". There is a world outside of "reality" that is being fiddled with by many.

Then make up new terms, because the ones you're arrogating to 'new age' have real meanings, and just because they're the same as physics terms doesn't mean you can accurately syncretize the two.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Elementalist

That is your pure ignorance commenting on what you know nothing of. Accept that you just haven't experienced are are not in the know of self.

No, the pure ignorance is calling happy moods 'frequency' when this is a totally bogus use of the term.

Vibration, a new agey terminology to express the internal state of MBS (mind, body spirit). When one is feeling good, it's said they have a "good vibe" , good vibration.

Except new agey terminology, whilst using words from physics, does not mean the same thing. You can't syncretize the two just because Blavatsky stole some science terms last century to make Theosophy sound more believable.

This indicates they are happy, in joy, in love, feeling good and their energy level is raised.

When one is in low vibe/ration, they are sad, grief, guilt, mad, angry, hateful, jeleous etc...

Moods have nothing to do with vibrations or energy. At least not in the way a physicist would use the terms.

Precisely my point. We are not physicists.

Anyone who dabbles in this sort of thinking, understands I don't mean these terms by textbook definition.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: DeadCat

You need to have an open mind when touching on topics like this. You can't just stick to the text books, as you tend to do.

Topics like this entail the reader to question what is "known". There is a world outside of "reality" that is being fiddled with by many.

Then make up new terms, because the ones you're arrogating to 'new age' have real meanings, and just because they're the same as physics terms doesn't mean you can accurately syncretize the two.

While I agree that it's unfortunate.. that's the terminology we have attributed to these sensations. I didn't make it up.

originally posted by: DeadCat
Topics like this entail the reader to question what is "known". There is a world outside of "reality" that is being fiddled with by many.

How would you know? How would you prove it?

I can say that the Unicorns and Serpent dictate the nature of multiple realities - expressed as a polar array of possible worlds suspended between the opposing tensions of Order and Chaos and mediated through the symbology of Pattern and Logrus.

It's even a good story. But it's a story.

originally posted by: DeadCat

Anyone who dabbles in this sort of thinking, understands I don't mean these terms by textbook definition.

"My theory on this stems from the consept of string theory, and the quantum theory of reality being a mental construction..."

"The double-slit experiments have stated that particles act as waves..."

"According to the theory of reletivity..."

Of course you are. But there's no way to syncretize the two - the terms are totally different. There's no common reference there.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: DeadCat
Topics like this entail the reader to question what is "known". There is a world outside of "reality" that is being fiddled with by many.

How would you know? How would you prove it?

I can say that the Unicorns and Serpent dictate the nature of multiple realities - expressed as a polar array of possible worlds suspended between the opposing tensions of Order and Chaos and mediated through the symbology of Pattern and Logrus.

It's even a good story. But it's a story.

It's becoming increasingly popular to believe that state of mind, alters individual reality. What I'm offering up is not too far fetched for the average person to comprehend as plausible.

The problem occurs when there is dissagreement about what "reality" is.

For you the shared common reality is the only reality. (I'm assuming.)

For me, there are billions of individual realities taken place all at once. You have yours, I have mine, and everyone in the world as such.

I'm talking about individual reality alteration through mental capacity and capabilities.

I hope that clears some of the waters for you.

originally posted by: DeadCat
I'm talking about individual reality alteration through mental capacity and capabilities.

I hope that clears some of the waters for you.

Oh, I know what you're talking about. But again, 'magical thinking'.

On the other hand, if you haven't had the pleasure, I recommend Roger Zelazny's "Amber" series. It's exactly what you're talking about.

It can be slightly offputting, because Zelazny sort of jumps into the action without explanation and doesn't have an exposition character show up to explain it to you, well, ever. He very deftly has various characters drop a bit here, a bit there until you slowly realize you understand what he's getting at.

It's a nice story.

a reply to: DeadCat

And there you have worded your own problem. What you propose is not alteration of reality, but of perception. Which does effectively zero to reality.
But an interesting topic in itself. Like if I use computers to find patterns can I be really surprised if the computer finds patterns close to its own "thinking"? No. Does it mean I can assume reality is made up of these patterns and therefore computer code? No.
You do the same just with your biological thinking device.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: DeadCat

And there you have worded your own problem. What you propose is not alteration of reality, but of perception. Which does effectively zero to reality.

I think DC is trying to put forth a sort of loosely shared solipsism. I'm not sure that will work at a philosophical level, since there's really no point to everyone (if there IS an everyone...) SORT OF sharing a common reality, but one in which each person has a totally separate reality which can be altered to anything, because that seems the opposite of commonality.

And the hallmark of solipsism is that there is only one person and the others are fakes conjured up for entertainment.

I suppose if one had hallucinations or liked to do a lot of perception altering drugs, one might want to believe something like this - there is a sort of consensus reality, but the things I see/hear are also objectively real and nothing is wrong with me, I just have 'better perception' or a more open mind or something of the sort.

It's pretty easy to do. Smile.

www.psychologytoday.com...

originally posted by: Templeton
It's pretty easy to do. Smile.

www.psychologytoday.com...

But that doesn't create a new reality, it just changes your perceptions.

Not that that's a bad thing. "Getting your mind right" is an amazingly powerful tool. I'm not belittling that at all. I've been in situations that had the potential to be overwhelming at the time, and got through it like a boss by finding a way to reframe the experience.

eta:

Or in other words,
"If you want to view Paradise, simply look around and view it.
Anything you want to, do it.
Want to change the world? There's nothing to it"