Are we Space Itself?

Threads like this ..........


.... Are the reason I am still on ATS.


The greatest gift you can give is the inspiration of original thought, so thank you.

Now I am off to ponder the correlations between consciousness/reality/space/time.


also, ... it may not have taken off as you like because of the title, ... I'm sure it seems nonsensical and ludicrous to some. I expected to find a two line post and maybe an einstein reference, ..... I would change it.

Originally posted by ChaosMagician
reply to post by Michael Cecil
I think of time as a tool, a measurement. I think ALL of reality can be considered a mere perception of reality along with time.

The Ptolemaic description of the universe is retained in such words as "sunrise" and "sunset". The sun does not 'rise' or 'set'. Rather, the earth rotates so that the sun is seen and then not seen.

The verb "I think" depends upon the assumption that there is any such thing as time; and that time and thought are independent. (And, if you read Krishnamurti, you will be told that thought is time; and that, without thought, there is no time.)

What I am saying is that there is no verb "to think". That verb is a violation of Occam's Razor.

There are thoughts. But there is no 'thinking' of those thoughts'; nor is there a 'thinker' of those thoughts. There are only the thoughts themselves.

If time is a tool or a measuring rod, it is a tool or measuring rod which has been created by the consciousness of the 'thinker'. It is not an intrinsic element of reality.

Physicists such as Jack Sarfatti and many others who are operating at the very fringes of "science fiction physics" are beginning to come to the same conclusion. (You might want to Google time symmetrical quantum mechanics and "backwards causation"; or, for that matter, reverse speech analysis.)

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by ChaosMagician
reply to post by Michael Cecil
I think of time as a tool, a measurement. I think ALL of reality can be considered a mere perception of reality along with time.

The Ptolemaic description of the universe is retained in such words as "sunrise" and "sunset". The sun does not 'rise' or 'set'. Rather, the earth rotates so that the sun is seen and then not seen.

The verb "I think" depends upon the assumption that there is any such thing as time; and that time and thought are independent. (And, if you read Krishnamurti, you will be told that thought is time; and that, without thought, there is no time.)

What I am saying is that there is no verb "to think". That verb is a violation of Occam's Razor.

There are thoughts. But there is no 'thinking' of those thoughts'; nor is there a 'thinker' of those thoughts. There are only the thoughts themselves.

If time is a tool or a measuring rod, it is a tool or measuring rod which has been created by the consciousness of the 'thinker'. It is not an intrinsic element of reality.

Physicists such as Jack Sarfatti and many others who are operating at the very fringes of "science fiction physics" are beginning to come to the same conclusion. (You might want to Google time symmetrical quantum mechanics and "backwards causation"; or, for that matter, reverse speech analysis.)

Mi cha el

edit on 17-11-2010 by Michael Cecil because: add reference to Krishnamurti

Firstly, you said there was no thinker so you might not want to use that term to support your thought, even in irony.

Secondly, in quantum mechanics you learn about relationships in all instances of what we call reality... down to the very basic functions of matter and energy. Those relationships are in a sense "perceptions"... regardless of whether or not it is a human conscious that is perceiving it. Again, what I am saying is that ALL parts of reality could boil down to mere perceptions that leads to the interaction and apparently *real* results, so there is no point in repeating what is already known and has already been stated, unless of course you just like repeating yourself. If so, be my guest but if you want to "perceive" this as an argument for arguments sake, I will most likely get bored with it. In the practical sense, time is a measurement so to state that opinion not as fuel for debate even if time might be described in all sorts of other ways and to have it rebutted more than once for the sake of being verbally and intellectually grandiose is not only a waste of said "measurement" or "perception" if you will, but is also.... *yawn*

Actually, this is all fine and dandy if it were the correct time and place for colorful conjecture to teach someone how to think in new ways and to challenge them but it seems we've missed a beat here or something. I get what you are saying but you are now repeating yourself and this doesn't really have anything to do with what I was talking about so it seems somewhat contrived... as though you are playing a little charade of sorts... and this isn't my thread nor my topic in the first place... and please don't get the impression that I haven't had my head twisted and contorted all sort of meticulous ways but those who I allow to do that to me are those who are driving at something for important reasons, not casual conversation on a forum. Science is great... I don't pretend to be an expert- it's equally as important to know your own role.

Originally posted by ChaosMagician Secondly, in quantum mechanics you learn about relationships in all instances of what we call reality... down to the very basic functions of matter and energy. Those relationships are in a sense "perceptions"... regardless of whether or not it is a human conscious that is perceiving it.

Well, apparently I am disrupting your continuity of time with my observations, so I will refrain from further intrusions.

But not before saying that there is no such thing as perception independent of human consciousness.

Quantum physics clearly suggests that the "observer" is intrinsically inseparable from the "observation"; but that is with regards to a particular dimension of consciousness upon which the entire scientific method is based.

Now, if you want to pursue all of that as if it is the only dimension of consciousness, be my guest.

All I am saying is that that is not the only dimension of consciousness.

There is also the non-dualistic dimension of consciousness explained at length in the Buddhist and esoteric traditions.

I have no intention whatsoever of interfering with the progression of this thread from one thought to another thought to another thought, if that is the intention here--all of this is quite pleasurable to the 'thinker', of course.

I am just introducing my observations.

If there is no interest in those; I have no interest in continuing.

Mi cha el

This wasn't exactly the debate I was looking for...



Is there anyone that can provide any details of what laws this may break?

I realize ATS isn't exactly a leading edge physics forum, but I do know that there are many highly educated critical thinkers here who might be able to locate something obvious that I've overlooked.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by ChaosMagician Secondly, in quantum mechanics you learn about relationships in all instances of what we call reality... down to the very basic functions of matter and energy. Those relationships are in a sense "perceptions"... regardless of whether or not it is a human conscious that is perceiving it.

Well, apparently I am disrupting your continuity of time with my observations, so I will refrain from further intrusions.

But not before saying that there is no such thing as perception independent of human consciousness.

Quantum physics clearly suggests that the "observer" is intrinsically inseparable from the "observation"; but that is with regards to a particular dimension of consciousness upon which the entire scientific method is based.

Now, if you want to pursue all of that as if it is the only dimension of consciousness, be my guest.

All I am saying is that that is not the only dimension of consciousness.

There is also the non-dualistic dimension of consciousness explained at length in the Buddhist and esoteric traditions.

I have no intention whatsoever of interfering with the progression of this thread from one thought to another thought to another thought, if that is the intention here--all of this is quite pleasurable to the 'thinker', of course.

I am just introducing my observations.

If there is no interest in those; I have no interest in continuing.

Mi cha el

Needless to say it's pointless to debate over narrow wordings of theories.

Take a look at Bottom-up theory... granted a lot of the different bottom up theories are still talking about more simple functions of the brain before you ever get to the point of cognitive thought, but the basic idea is that perceptions builds up from primitives until you wind up with a cognitive system but that it is a foundation not influenced by higher cognitive thought. Now, for example, we are at least talking about anything with neurons... and I'm sure the theories can go much deeper in simplicity than that. I mean, life itself originated from simple arrangements of energy and matter that interacted. If you took the human mind out of the equation I'm sure all these things would still be happening *obviously* and to prove that it is happening without any form of perception is going to take more than just claiming it in simple narrow statements *obviously*... but I'm not challenging anything with this information and I'm not offering this because it has been a long time field of interest of mine, because it hasn't been. I'm having to defend my position in light of someone who seems to employ themselves as a freelance challenger of various ideas on the internet (regardless of whether or not the ideas are contrasting or not doesn't seem to be the case as I am not and have not put any of these ideas "into the box" which you claim I have put them in, in the first place) I simply stated that I saw time as a tool and from that point forward you seem to be holding onto to this view that I'm making time out to be some tangible thing and my position was never to challenge the intangible aspect of time... I was merely adding that many things in the world can be veiwed in such idealistic ways and when you go on and on about it all you are doing is rehashing already apparant ideas as though no one else gets it but you. Really, read what I said. Many things are relative. My statement was in support of that idea. I don't need to be told fifty ways from sunday that time is something to help man's cognitive processes. Then you start going on with all this "there is no thinker" stuff and made yourself sound like you are trying very very hard to be all scientifically philosophical and I don't see the point in engaging.

I already insinuated I wasn't interested in carrying on about this but you seem to need to extract conversation from people. I do have to say, my ego's pretty busy and I'm going to have to start having my ego receptionist screen my ego visitors because my ego calendar is booked. Maybe what you really want me to do is call belligerence security but be aware, I do have other angles.

I'm aware that there are many theories of things like perception, some of them sound pretty narrow, some are more open... They all seem to come from human minds though don't they? so to say that there is no perception outside the human mind as fact is easy for a human mind to say, and without being able to transfer perception outside of that mind, it's not only easy- it's typical and there is always the possibility of perception we have not yet perceived... and maybe some are even capable of grasping this on deeper levels. Never said they couldn't. I'm not here to prove it, I'm not here to disprove because I know the difference between fact and theory when I read it. If you want to just brag about being transcendent... just come out and brag about it instead of hiding behind arguments that were practically non-existent in the first place, instead of the one sided view that one must perpetuate such arguments to prove their own separate point. It's not necessary... at least not outside of your mind. I have no idea why you started debating with me about something so trivial. Do you think you have to in order to have a conversation?... because I'm telling you, I don't have a lot of respect for that approach.

Then you go on to say "Now, if you want to pursue all of that as if it is the only dimension of consciousness, be my guest."
"All I am saying is that that is not the only dimension of consciousness"

When did?... Where did?... What is this I don't even...I can't talk to you guy, you got me all wrong and now you are are trying to say I put the idea inside the box because I said time was a tool... What? The post you quoted specifically suggests that there is perception outside of the human and I never said all theories were correct, I threw an idea of quantum mechanics in there to add basic physical concepts together with a more expanded theoretical idea. You are just trying to argue on both sides of the street for the sake of arguing... and it's not how i want to spend my morning.

If You think I EVER said said you were wrong that time is a concept... then your being paranoid. What I don't understand about your argument is the need to drive points into the ground (a game which I don't like but am going to show you I know how to play) and these grandiose descriptions you attempt to make because of my simple statement that time was a tool of measurement. That is not an argument, dude. Relax.

I realize that you might have just come off of an intense interlude with some mushrooms or something but there is no need to go through all this philosophical brow beating. I get it. You're an idealist to challenge conventional traditions. Many of us are. You don't need to flap your big brightly colored idealistic male bird feathers in my face while making squawking noises to point it out because now all you're doing is instead of having a nice conversation where people can present their opinions without one person having to prove the other person wrong in order to support their claims... this is just pointless debate and I don't even know why it started in the first place other than bait.

I mean, are you trying to narrow MY ideas or YOUR ideas with a simple need to debate?
...because the way I see it, number one importance to you is debate above all else. I can't say I feel the same.
AGAIN, I don't care to have this conversation with someone who seems they need to prove something like "nobody gets my unconventional thinking"... and prove it by making other people out to have only rigid fundamental ideas. This is not about you, this is not about me, this not even about the argument. This is about a socio-philosophical offense that has surfaced in your presence and you are now adding to it by assuming that other people aren't already aware of how to avoid such things as confining the ideas of another. When will you ever learn something about pre-conceived notions? Before you worry about stopping such thinking in me, stop it in yourself first. before you become a teacher, you should first be a successful student.

Dude, I get it!... I just really don't want to go back and forth about it because someone wants to pick something out of a totally random theoretical conversation and put it under a high powered microscope because saying the word "time" or "thinker" is just blasphemy to their need to be mentally unrestrained at all times (or so they project). I mean jesus, are you living inside a cave and can't get out by regular laws of physics and made to be obsessed about brow beating people with the insistence of looking outside the box because you have no other choice?... with or without eyes?... with or without the box?... with or without looking for that matter in order to even expand the theoretical ideas of looking outside the box? because if you are, I will come with a stick of dynamite and blow up the cave wall for you so you can escape if for nothing more than so we never ever ever have to have to go up the hogs ass to get the damn ham sandwich by having this conversation to establish the fact for the five hundredth time by now that time is an intangible aspect of man's ideas that he uses to help him calculate and understand things. I get it... I swear!... but we all know this isn't the point.

Can I please go tell knock-knock jokes or pick my nose or say insane things about the origins of space and time... oops, I mean space since time doesn't exist but since space is the thing in between other things it is essentially nothing and therefore doesn't exist either!.... so I guess I can't say that... You seem to think thoughts exist but if I speak of mine, I guess that makes me a thinker, and there is no such thing as that so I don't exist either... and guess, in some ways- I already knew that... WELP, Back to the drawing board that exists only in the minds of thinkers despite there is no such thing.

Do you get what I'm saying when I say "pointless conversation"

I mean...are you the captain of the debate team or something or life coach? I could be on a debate team but have *chosen against it*!!... but to answer your question personally... no, I'm not interested. Debate is fine but it's one thing to present ideas because you feel like it, it's another to saw and grate at ideas as though we plan to build rocket ships and this is uber-important stuff we're talking about here. I don't get paid to enter into continuing streams of bantering. The minute I do get paid or am somehow reimbursed for my time for going back and forth on any issue regardless... you will indeed have my full attention and not a second sooner. Also, I don't want a life coach.

As for now, I think I'll pass. Again... I *elect to pass*...pass!...pass! I told you before that I believe there is a time and a place for it and I will decline not only for salvaging my *time* in order to have more *time* on other things but because I feel like you are trying to prove a point which has nothing to do with physics at all... and that is that some people, especially if you rub them the wrong way, will challenge every idea you have regardless of what it is just to be annoying and for some reason, you don't think I'm familiar with this concept and need to be formally introduced to it. I'll be the judge of how I handle my own interactions with others.

Save your time.
My experiences with others compared to your experiences with others?
My experiences with conflicting minds and the mechanics behind that and your experiences with conflicting minds?
TOTALLY different points of perception... try to remember that because it's probably going to stay that way until we become the same person, ok? Your role is yours, mine is mine. You be you, I'LL be me.

... and the last time that somebody was brow beating you with with intangible concepts and ideals, incessantly and persistently, that you in turn must now display to me for some reason... perhaps they were just trying to get on your nerves... it *does* happen.

Originally posted by lernmore
This wasn't exactly the debate I was looking for...

Is there anyone that can provide any details of what laws this may break?

I realize ATS isn't exactly a leading edge physics forum, but I do know that there are many highly educated critical thinkers here who might be able to locate something obvious that I've overlooked.

No... and I am going to make every possible attempt to not ever look at this thread or post in it again.

Carry on and good luck with your plight.

Originally posted by ChaosMagician
I am going to make every possible attempt to not ever look at this thread or post in it again.

Yea, me too.

*gathers notes and switches off the lights*