Reality Defined by Physics - The Truth is Obvious - Only on ATS! The Mirror Revealed.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Olise

 

Read the OP on the link supplied in post 19/7 06.36 AM.

Didn't find anything beyond any other preachings.

lol, Beloved bogomil,

At the deepest part of what you call Reality nothing is solid; it is all bit rate information: and I know you know this; therefore that which you refer to as Preaching is simply delivering information: at least what I do. Then again, if you see it as preaching, then it is no difference from what you do either, which means you are also preaching, regarding your belief!

As MamaJ suggested, open your mind, you will be amazed at what you will find, given your intelligence. Your focus is on the experience, what is referred to as the Universe; what we speak about is the source of the experience, known as the Spiritual realm, or Heavenly realm. That's the difference.

Peace be with you bogomil!!!

reply to post by MamaJ


You wrote:

["Can you possibly think outside the box with a more open mind to see what new ideas you come up with? I think it would be most interesting."]

If this had come from a run-of-the-mill preacher, it was to be expected. But it's surprising to see it coming from you, who has demonstrated a will of staying clear of simplistic tactical maneuvers sofar.

It's completely beyond anyone's capacity to follow another person's thinking from square one and onwards. Most people hardly know, how this happens in themselves. All we can do is to notice (in ourselves and others), that somewhere along a more or less justified methodology, e.g. ranging from Cartesian epistemology to "it's true because it's true" there are 'platforms', we use axiomatically.

Some of such 'platforms' are well-considered, and deserve status of axiomatic. Others are passively accepted pre-digested material, which only is pseudo-axiomatic, in reality based on faith-assumptions. These last truly being 'boxes'.

Rhetorically ignoring the difference between the two, to make claims like 'the moon is made of green cheese' legitimate areas for examination is a mind-game. Not a truth/reality-seeking method.

reply to post by Olise


You wrote:

["At the deepest part of what you call Reality nothing is solid;"]

I sincerely doubt, that you have ANY idea of what I call reality.

Quote: ["it is all bit rate information:"]

I'm not familiar with the expression 'bit rate', but just staying with 'information'...yes.

Quote: ["therefore that which you refer to as Preaching is simply delivering information"]

This postulate is bad semantics trying to justify bad semantics (and what's worse than just bad semantics).

Existence = information (correct statement)

doesn't lead to

information = existence (as equally true).

Quote: ["Then again, if you see it as preaching, then it is no difference from what you do either, which means you are also preaching, regarding your belief!"]

Fake relativism; needing a reference-point in epistemology.

Quote: [" As MamaJ suggested, open your mind, you will be amazed at what you will find, given your intelligence."]

And as I answered, such a mindgame direction as you are trying to establish now is only a debate-tactical maneuver.

Quote: ["Your focus is on the experience, what is referred to as the Universe;"]

Which would be very convenient for your pseudo-rational argumentation chain. Unfortunately it's not the case.

Quote: ["what we speak about is the source of the experience, known as the Spiritual realm, or Heavenly realm"]

First of all you don't speak about it. You preach it. A secondly your version is in sharp competition with a myriad of other versions, arrived at through the same methodology you use. If this methodology had any general value, you would expect somewhat similar answers to be the outcome.

reply to post by bogomil


This that you wrote is VERY true. THIS my friend is what we agree on. This is not a stance to get you to think like me or vice versa. There is a world of its own outside this Planet (and inside) and we have yet to understand an inkling of it. There is a mystical sense that surrounds us and we are not able to reach it unless we go within and seek Truth within the realm of our own perception AS WE also search the knowledge base of our family here we call human beings. The intelligence of such minds are not thinking outside the box in all instances (biased). WIth that said it is quite possible when you add enough information together you come up with the Sum of God. This is not only possible but I see one day it coming around together like a doughnut.

It's completely beyond anyone's capacity to follow another person's thinking from square one and onwards.

If you are not "open" to a possibility of a "God" then you are limiting yourself. Why do that when you may possibly experience another realm all together that fulfills your "self" in a way you have never experienced before as a "biased" entity. You can only be aware of this world and the next when you are aware of ALL possibilities.

I am not a follower. I call myself a "Seeker" and I have done my due diligence to acquire an un biased mentality when researching throughout my years. I wanted to know if there was indeed a God at a time I was not only mad at him if there was...but what kind of God would let a young child suffer to his death?
I did not follow anything except my intuition in regards to subjects I felt would push me to think "outside the box". I do not take peoples words for anything. Not until I research for myself will I accept an idea to be true or false. There is no religion I follow. My conclusions in regards to self is my own conclusion but I do think one must leave everything on the table when searching for Truth. Piece the puzzle pieces together but in doing so do not deliberately leave out pieces of the puzzle as it will never come together correctly. It will be half of what the True picture is.

I guarantee one thing. NONE of us have the answer. We may collectively but how do you know. We don't. Why be limited though. It could be that we are all or separately in a bubble inside another bubble and so on. We could be inside our own mind....whatever the case. We do not know. Our minds are said to be like rocks. I believe it.

Intellectually though....you are very intelligent. With this intelligence I give you a challenge to think in ways your mind does not want to go because when I did....it was truly one revelation after another. This is where the Spirit may be experienced/ felt.

Don't be grumpy.....

reply to post by MamaJ


You wrote:

["This that you wrote is VERY true. THIS my friend is what we agree on. This is not a stance to get you to think like me or vice versa."]

I would like to think, that this wouldn't be a part of a communication between you and me. Standing on soap-boxes and orating messages.

Quote: ["There is a world of its own outside this Planet (and inside) and we have yet to understand an inkling of it."]

Well, we maybe just have about an inkling, but...yes, there's much, much more to learn and understand.

Quote: ["There is a mystical sense that surrounds us and we are not able to reach it unless we go within and seek Truth within the realm of our own perception AS WE also search the knowledge base of our family here we call human beings."]

'Mystical' can mean so many things, and I'm not inclined to follow a direction starting with a definition not my own of a word. That we, as the ultimate tool of any search must refine this tool of our being first, is apparant to me. Agreed.

Quote: ["The intelligence of such minds are not thinking outside the box in all instances (biased)."]

True. But it doesn't mean I have to consider all assumption-based claims. There exist functional, basic 'sorting' procedures to throw out trash from the start.

Quote: ["WIth that said it is quite possible when you add enough information together you come up with the Sum of God."]

Being open for the option, as in an agnostic position, is VERY different from including it as a goal. But we have been here before.

Quote: ["This is not only possible but I see one day it coming around together like a doughnut"]

So you have already decided on a very high approximation of this beforehand, instead of waiting for the searching process to take its time.

Quote: ["If you are not "open" to a possibility of a "God" then you are limiting yourself."]

I don't want to be rude, but you keep repeating this postulate, which isn't necessary. I understood it the first time. Refine it somehow, adding a direction, which eventually could be a common communication-point. And please remember that we're not talking about anything so simple as just 'answers', we're talking advanced methodologies, for FINDING answers.

I'm not 'limiting' myself, because I from the start won't waste time on a 'moon made of green cheese', alternatively discard a methdology, which has proven worthless.

Quote: ["Why do that when you may possibly experience another realm all together that fulfills your "self" in a way you have never experienced before as a "biased" entity. You can only be aware of this world and the next when you are aware of ALL possibilities."]

If you want to use this extended version of what basically is relativism, present its structure and demonstrate the value of its procedures, before you start using it.

Quote: [" I did not follow anything except my intuition in regards to subjects I felt would push me to think "outside the box"."]

Am I correct in guessing, that this is a kind of inspired trial-and-error process. I do the same initially, when new perspectives pop up.

Quote: ["My conclusions in regards to self is my own conclusion but I do think one must leave everything on the table when searching for Truth."]

Such a far-reaching 'exclusion' is not practically possible, neither is it constructive/creative. The only thing we really need to leave out is the fabulations from our self-organizing potential. You saw my example of random nonsense gathered in a structure "%¤l)3...oops and tomorrow, mr Teapot.&". Your answer to that was incomplete, but essential to what you mainly center around.

Quote: [" NONE of us have the answer."]

Few have even a decent methodology.

Quote: ["With this intelligence I give you a challenge to think in ways your mind does not want to go because when I did...."]

And I have already once declined it. If you wish, you can dig deeper as to my motives for this. It could turn out, that I have a legitimate reason, though I don't consider such a direction important myself.

reply to post by bogomil

True. But it doesn't mean I have to consider all assumption-based claims. There exist functional, basic 'sorting' procedures to throw out trash from the start.

Why consider assumptions.....the sky is the limit in regards to knowledge. Seek...and you will find. True? Seek by not being biased would be a grand ole idea. This is my opinion.

Being open for the option, as in an agnostic position, is VERY different from including it as a goal. But we have been here before.

Options are what we deal with all day every day.... why not have a goal within the option? Truth shall set you free, and besides.... Who says you can't have both? I don't.

So you have already decided on a very high approximation of this beforehand, instead of waiting for the searching process to take its time.

I see it as limited right now....you can't understand the ALL if you do not take the ALL into consideration. What is conceivable may be a reality. Unless you search the cosmos and everything in it....how do you know what lies "Out there".

I base my knowledge on observable and or measurable knowledge from myself and other entities and then dissect the information as true, false, maybe.

Did she really die and see herself hovering over her body? Did she really have this experience seeing Jesus? On to the next one....Did he really have the same experience? Wow...ok....now we have a hundred, now we have a thousand people who experienced almost the same exact thing AFTER they died. Many explanations were put to the curb...while others remained a maybe and others a true and false. Its up to me to decide and you to decide what is Truth. BUT....by not being open to all possibilities (you or me..anyone for that matter) is undoubtedly missing the ALL no matter how you want to analyze the words. I say the same thing over and over again in hopes you will engage in how you suppose to FIND answers when the mind is limited. The direction I go in is ALL directions for advanced thought.

Quote: ["Why do that when you may possibly experience another realm all together that fulfills your "self" in a way you have never experienced before as a "biased" entity. You can only be aware of this world and the next when you are aware of ALL possibilities."] If you want to use this extended version of what basically is relativism, present its structure and demonstrate the value of its procedures, before you start using it.

Had I stayed in College I would have been an anthropologist. Does this answer your question? I am not about to get into the value and procedures if you will not at least entertain me more.

And I have already once declined it. If you wish, you can dig deeper as to my motives for this. It could turn out, that I have a legitimate reason, though I don't consider such a direction important myself.

Don't be a party pooper. I would love to know your motives and reason ....I find everything important until I know different.

reply to post by MamaJ


You wrote:

["Why consider assumptions.....the sky is the limit in regards to knowledge. Seek...and you will find. True? Seek by not being biased would be a grand ole idea."]

Pleeease.

Quote: ["I base my knowledge on observable and or measurable knowledge from myself and other entities and then dissect the information as true, false, maybe."]

You don't HAVE to answer my questions, but it does make a dialogue easier. I was talking about including pre-determined goals into a search of the unknown.

Quote: [" Wow...ok....now we have a hundred, now we have a thousand people who experienced almost the same exact thing AFTER they died."]

Valid, ofcourse, as a basis for study/examination.

Quote: [" Many explanations were put to the curb...while others remained a maybe and others a true and false. Its up to me to decide and you to decide what is Truth."]

In a subjective frame, yes.

Quote: ["I say the same thing over and over again in hopes you will engage in how you suppose to FIND answers when the mind is limited."]

I search for the proper 'tools' first. And even in the mind-department, we have already a small, but functional toolbox. Ranging from hard science to mind-'enhancing' techniques (both traditional and modern) and the soft-science comparative analysis. Add philosophical interpretation, mathematical representation, edge-science and create a systematic methodology suitable. There's enough for 10 life-times here.

Quote: ["The direction I go in is ALL directions for advanced thought."]

Which either ends in total confusion or can become coherent through the use of extensive syncretism (/integration). REAL syncretism, not the common theist 'hack a heel and cut a toe' version. (There may be other methods than syncretism, I don't know).

Quote: ["Had I stayed in College I would have been an anthropologist. Does this answer your question? I am not about to get into the value and procedures if you will not at least entertain me more."]

It doesn't really answer my question, but I can at least recommend your sound attitude by (imo) not turning 'answers' into a question of 'authority'. (One can have authority on knowledge of position, i.e. what's what).

Quote: ["I would love to know your motives and reason"]

This should refer to the inclusion of 'boxes'. I have some background in 'non-box' methods, both theoretically and practically. E.g. certain meditation-forms, where the practise consists of seeking 'silence' (some call it emptiness). I've had some personal success in that direction, and consequently do I know, what a 'zero-point' search (if one can call it that) is. No expectations, not even expectations of expectations.

I know the theory behind such practical methods (both the doctrinal and 'psychological) and can integrate them with various philosophical and (semi)theological positions. Even with some edge-science.