Jeff Matthews Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 The waking world would have to be a collective dream, since we all pretty much accept the same reality and are a part of the same experience. Locally, we see the same bird or plane flying overhead. The plane has a number, it is verifiable as the plane that flew over and then landed at the nearby airport. That is why it is so hard to accept the waking state as just another dream. Other dreams are much more personal. No one who talks about their dream of the night before to another then gets the response "I had the same exact dream!" So there is a difference. That difference is what makes it so difficult, to answer the quote. Why do we all have the same waking dream yet other dreams never coincide? So if the waking world is all a collective dream, is it really a dream at all? You are just arguing against the odds that we could all be having the same collective dream because we all have individual dreams as well. To that, I think it is possible to envision a dream to be like a recursive event: Dream CollectiveDream = Dream(); private void Dream() { Dream(); } Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Jeff's spent too much time coding, Jeff has... Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Jeff's spent too much time coding, Jeff has... Dave You want to know what makes it start getting really interesting? A minor tweak in the program, and you have this: int time = 0; Dream CollectiveDream = Dream(time); private void Dream() { Dream(time++); } If this doesn't blow your mind, nothing can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 https://youtu.be/QZPaMc5HkHU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Prove God exists. Oh, you can't? Prove God does not exist. Oh, you can't? Big deal. Anthropic cosmological principle, or even worse, 5674's version, are tautologies that teach us nothing that we didn't already know, or not know, in the first place. A number of us no longer use the words "prove" and "proof." "Tends to support," is about as good as it gets. Us meaning including you? Yes, including me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Quantum Mechanics entanglement theory is the first step in proving that God does exist. JJK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 The fabric is just a ball, source, plane of energy. We are nodes on that energy field. The universe we observe with our mind is not that energy field itself, it is the rocks and moons and chairs and stuff which are artifacts of our perception, inventions of the mind. It is likely the first and second sentences are correct along with half of the third, but your conclusion is suspect and totally opinion based. M theory, which is science based, predicts 10 (some theoretical physicists predict 11) dimensions of reality. The dimensions other than the four dimensions that comprise the space-time continuum in which we live likely interact with the nodes on the energy field to produce matter. All humans can do is to observe, think, and use their bodies to manipulate the matter that is around us. Our perceptions do not create what actually exists, but are the results of observation of the objects generated by dimensional interaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 The fabric is just a ball, source, plane of energy. We are nodes on that energy field. The universe we observe with our mind is not that energy field itself, it is the rocks and moons and chairs and stuff which are artifacts of our perception, inventions of the mind. It is likely the first and second sentences are correct along with half of the third, but your conclusion is suspect and totally opinion based. M theory, which is science based, predicts 10 (some theoretical physicists predict 11) dimensions of reality. The dimensions other than the four dimensions that comprise the space-time continuum in which we live likely interact with the nodes on the energy field to produce matter. All humans can do is to observe, think, and use their bodies to manipulate the matter that is around us. Our perceptions do not create what actually exists, but are the results of observation of the objects generated by dimensional interaction. You're using the word "opinion" as if that was inferior to some other method of understanding the subject. But, that's the exact nature of metaphysics. Metaphysics comes before science. It describes a range of possibilities, from which science may try through empiricism to validate. String theory and M theory are scientific attempts to unify all the forces we know of from relativity and quantum gravity. Those theories do not ask, "what is being as such?" Science is empirical, metaphysics isn't. Metaphysics is a priori theoretical reasoning, and is therefore not factual as we use the term in science. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality. Areas of metaphysical studies include ontology, cosmology, and often, epistemology. One is not inferior to the other. They are different disciplines. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Our perceptions do not create what actually exists, but are the results of observation of the objects generated by dimensional interaction. Except in Jo's universe, where his own wacky thoughts are the fundamental reality, and it's his thoughts that give substance to the moon, chairs, the Denver Bronco's defense, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 Our perceptions do not create what actually exists, but are the results of observation of the objects generated by dimensional interaction. Except in Jo's universe, where his own wacky thoughts are the fundamental reality, and it's his thoughts that give substance to the moon, chairs, the Denver Bronco's defense, etc. "“Now Besso” (an old friend) “has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us…know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” Who do you think said that? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 Except in Jo's universe, where his own wacky thoughts are the fundamental reality, and it's his thoughts that give substance to the moon, chairs, the Denver Bronco's defense, etc. There are no cameras in the brain. We do not "look out from our skull" and capture images of the world, even though it seems like it. The brain is an electrical-chemical generator and the images in our consciousness are created just chemically. Every phenomenon is inside the brain. So, you take Mr. Smith, induce a chemical coma, and attach complex electrodes to his brain. In this manner an entire universe is created in that brain, by nothing more than the manipulators using electricity and chemicals. How exactly would Mr. Smith be able to doubt or challenge "his universe" of monsters, green aliens and two headed people, any differently than SkiBum is assured of his Denver Bronco football game? It takes very little thought to understand that there is no path to discovery for either of them. The only possible meaning of "fundamental reality" for both of them is "the images inside my skull." Unless you have never dreamed, you will easily understand that the people in your dream are acknowledging and participating in the same dream as you. That's a commonality of experience during the dream. Suppose you go to sleep and never wake up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 You're using the word "opinion" as if that was inferior to some other method of understanding the subject. But, that's the exact nature of metaphysics. Metaphysics comes before science. It describes a range of possibilities, from which science may try through empiricism to validate. String theory and M theory are scientific attempts to unify all the forces we know of from relativity and quantum gravity. Those theories do not ask, "what is being as such?" Science is empirical, metaphysics isn't. Metaphysics is a priori theoretical reasoning, and is therefore not factual as we use the term in science. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality. Areas of metaphysical studies include ontology, cosmology, and often, epistemology. One is not inferior to the other. They are different disciplines. Philosophies are opinion based. It's a great tool for those who can't handle facts and who think they are generating the universe by what they think or dream. It is the focus for those who think their opinion trumps facts and leads to circular arguments that can never be resolved. I prefer science-based knowledge, as it leads one to the truth. At that point those who understand the reality of the world we live in have the ability to create something that is real, something that actually works, something that has a useful function. PWK was such a person, who used scientific principles to create loudspeakers in the middle of the 20th century that are still used and enjoyed by many people today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 Philosophies are opinion based. It's a great tool for those who can't handle facts and who think they are generating the universe by what they think or dream. So, Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Kant, Descartes are irrelevant for the um, "inability to handle facts?" Whew! Only in K-World! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babadono Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 ZARABETH: What are you called?SPOCK: I'm called Spock.ZARABETH: Even your name is strange. Forgive me. I've never seen anyone who looks like you. Why are you here? Are you prisoners too?SPOCK: Prisoners?ZARABETH: This is one of the places Zor Kahn sends people when he wants them to disappear. Didn't you come in through the time portal?SPOCK: Yes, we came through the time portal, but not as prisoners. We were sent here by mistake.ZARABETH: The atavachron is far away, but I think you come from someplace farther than that.SPOCK: That is true. I am not from the world you know at all. My home is a planet millions of light years away.ZARABETH: Oh, how wonderful! I've always loved books about such possibilities. But they are only stories. This isn't real. I must be imagining all this. I'm going mad!SPOCK: Listen to me. I am firmly convinced that I do exist. I am substantial. You are not imagining this.ZARABETH: Oh, I've been here for so long, alone. When I saw you out there, I couldn't believe it. Is he dying? If you can't believe Spock, who can you believe? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 You are just arguing against the odds that we could all be having the same collective dream because we all have individual dreams as well. To that, I think it is possible to envision a dream to be like a recursive event: Dream CollectiveDream = Dream(); private void Dream() { Dream(); } There's a fine line between recursion and an infinite loop. This is a good example of the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 PWK was such a person, who used scientific principles to create loudspeakers in the middle of the 20th century that are still used and enjoyed by many people today. How does science teach you how to live? Where will you learn "the principles" about love, charity, compassion, respect, justice, morality? From Maxwell? Planck? Is it even possible that you have not studied any philosophy, any metaphysics at all? I seem to recall reading that PWK was a churchgoer**. Now, why would that be if all he needed was science? What use has a man for Saul, or Abraham, or Mark, when he has Einstein and Hertz and Feinman? Most people I know create a moral framework for life first, and then simply apply science as needed. **My apologies if that is mistaken 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 You are just arguing against the odds that we could all be having the same collective dream because we all have individual dreams as well. To that, I think it is possible to envision a dream to be like a recursive event: Dream CollectiveDream = Dream(); private void Dream() { Dream(); } There's a fine line between recursion and an infinite loop. This is a good example of the latter. LOL! Who says recursion must end? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 **My apologies if that is mistaken Not mistaken. He was rather as passionate about it as he was science. Recently read in the archives as to how he was extremely miffed at being scheduled for a demo at 10AM on a Sunday in Texarkana. So he played "A Might Fortress is our God" very loud indeed. Dave 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) PWK was such a person, who used scientific principles to create loudspeakers in the middle of the 20th century that are still used and enjoyed by many people today. How does science teach you how to live? Where will you learn "the principles" about love, charity, compassion, respect, justice, morality? From Maxwell? Planck? Is it even possible that you have not studied any philosophy, any metaphysics at all? I seem to recall reading that PWK was a churchgoer**. Now, why would that be if all he needed was science? What use has a man for Saul, or Abraham, or Mark, when he has Einstein and Hertz and Feinman? Most people I know create a moral framework for life first, and then simply apply science as needed. **My apologies if that is mistaken Yes. I'm not going to discuss religion here, just report as objectively as my memory will permit. If I remember correctly, at one point PWK was a Presbyterian, then found out that his particular local church gave credence to predestination, so he walked out. Later he attended the Episcopal church ("they had the best organ"), and one of his clergymen there used to be on this forum. Many scientists need more than science. Some embrace religion, for example, Francis S. Collins, longtime head of the Human Genome Project, and the author of The Language of God. Edited February 10, 2016 by garyrc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Later he attended the Episcopal church ("they had the best organ"), and one of his clergymen there used to be on this forum. All true. He donated the current organ at his Hope church. Fr. Bill Risinger was the one you are talking about. Fr. Bill was vicar at Magnolia where I went to school and it was he who introduced me to PWK. He dropped off the forum a few years ago. Fr. Bill had three children, and all had Klipschorns. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts