The ABSOLUTE REFERENCE and the "c" absolute speed

[nameless]

Don't worry nameless, as someone 'of the street' I'm keeping up just fine.

Isn't that special! I'm not worried in the least, but thank you for your concern.

Yes, my theory does. If you wish to go into this farther, a new thread would be in order. It is an all inclusive theory, and has, to date, remained unrefuted and devoid of the paradoxes inherent in the notions of 'time' and 'motion'.

Surely if 'your' theory is all inclusive it must include you in it and therefore it seems egotistical to claim ownership of something that you had no part in creating but are simply part of.

It comes via 'me'. Happy?
I claim 'authorship' not 'ownership'. Do you understand the difference?
It comes 'through me' not from me. Understand?

An all inclusive 'theory of everything' simply is. No Nobel Prize will be awarded to the author because the theory will show that the author wasn't and that they had no choice in the matter.

I disagree. You fantasize a 'theory' and you fantasize the responses to your fantasy theory that you offer as some sort of fact.
There is no 'free-will/choice', other than as an egoic belief among certain Perspectives.
Whether or not there is a prize (couldn't care less), the fact remains that no one (other than me) has, to date, 'accomplished' an all inclusive ToE.

However I would be very interested in seeing your theory formally expressed so please start the thread as you suggested.

I don't think so... However I would be very interested in seeing you wash my car, so please start...

Feel free to read and attempt to understand my posts. They, in sum, express the nuts and bolts.

I do have to say that your context switches and word overloading do take some following, specifically when you overload commonly used temporal words like 'now' with atemporal meanings.

And I do have to say that it's always easier to bitch about someone else's semantics when you have nothing to contribute. All my words are carefully used and if you lack understanding, the 'problem' is your's, not mine.
If you have a respectful and intelligent question on some specific, feel free to inquire and I will elucidate, but your nebulous attack is old news and boring. If you have nothing to contribute, feel free to lurk.

This makes your 'Here! Now!' have the same meaning as 'Everywhere! Forever!'.

Everywhere is Here! Now! is timeless. Here! and Now! are all that are perceived in every moment/percept. When do you say that "I am not 'Here'"? When are you not Here 'Now!'? Even if you were thinking of a 'there/then' it is being perceived Here/Now!

If you wish to be understood by those who do not view things using a static model, then my I suggest using words which are not so highly preloaded with orthogonal or contradictory meanings.

The language changes with understanding. When you have some, so will the language that you use. Those who don't will, rather than try to understand, demand that you use the language describing the world to which they have become comfortable.
If you wish to understand, I repeat, if you have a respectful and intelligent question on some specific, feel free to inquire and I will elucidate. That presupposes a desire to understand what I offer, of course.

How can 'causality' exist in a Universe where all 'events' happen simultaneously?

Context, context, context. Causality exists in perceived universes where events happen consistent with the time separating them.

There is one Universe, hence the 'Uni-'.
But you are correct that 'causality' is an 'appearance' to of certain Perspectives and not a 'Universal'.

'Events' is a misnomer when viewed from outside the context of the universe,

There is nothing "outside the context of the Universe"!
From what position do you (fantasize?) that you can speak as if from "outside the context of the Universe"?

where it can be seen that the Universe does not literally exist, let alone anything that is within it.

Everything exists, literally! (Despite your fantasy vantage point.)

Outside the context of the perceived universe the words: 'causality' 'events' and 'simultaneously' are best used sparingly to avoid confusion.

There is not anything "Outside the context of the perceived universe".
All that is perceived, exists. There is no existence that is not perceived. Perception is existence!
Confusion is endemic when the world that we hold so dear, and identify with, is shown to be 'obsolete'.
Confusion eventually clears, or not. It is even today a quite common state of affairs.

It is exactly 'information' that is; Mindstuff, the 'information' of the quantum probability wave collapse perceived by Conscious Perspective.

Here you seem to be implying an 'event' where there is none.

I guess that it might have something to do with your personal definition of 'event'. Any manifestation is an 'event'.
I stand by what I wrote here, and your strawman (the term 'event' is not mentioned or necessarily implied) is irrelevent to my statement.
Before the wave collapses (is perceived) it is 'undifferentiated potential' information, after, it is our perceived 'Reality/existence/the Universe'.

Is this thrown in to simply confuse?

Only if that is how you perceive it to be.

A specific wave collapse is only meaningful from within a single perceived reality.

Nonsense. Every Perspective (and all Perspectives are unique) perceives a unique (-ly perceived) Universe every moment/percept.
'Meaning' remains in the 'eye of the beholder'.
There are many perceptions of any 'single' collapse, just as there are many Perspectives of any single elephant.

For someone who purports to support a static model you do seem to have a very strong sense of 'self'.

I support what I offer. If you find something that appears similar, support or attack is your problem. I never said that I support your "static model". What I offer might sound similar, but this model stands unoquely alone.
I don't see a problem, there. I am a feature of the Universe as this body, as 'that' body, and in a complete definition, we are (all features of) the one Universe.
Perceived and perceiver are 'one'.

[John W. Kelly]

Occam's razor anyone?

[Metazoan]

Hi JWK,

Occam's Razor is not really much use when dealing with an all encompassing TOE.

It is helpful to identify the most likely specific solution but in the end is only a statistical tool where you will be right most of the time.

Unfortunately, an all encompassing TOE contains all possible solutions, even those which would be rejected by Occam's Razor. As far as I can see, recursive (or rather, fractal) universes may not be impossible. In this instance the occupants of each iteration may place themselves in the first if they used the Razor.

Anyway, they don't allow me sharp objects any more.


_________________

[Metazoan]

Hi nameless,

If I asked you how big you thought your consciousness was, what would you say?


_________________

[nameless]

Hi nameless,

If I asked you how big you thought your consciousness was, what would you say?

1) Ask and find out.
2) I would ask if this is some form of (juvenile) humor (or perhaps defensive sarcasm).
If it were a serious question, I'd respond that I do not 'have' a consciousness, there is 'one' Consciousness, of which we are all unique Perspectives (of various 'included angles' at different moments/percepts).
Now, shall I feel the fool for taking your (possible/probable) sarcasm as if it were a serious question? No, I think not, mine is no disgrace. I simply gave you the respectful (no sarcasm) benefit of the doubt (this time).

[Metazoan]

Hi nameless,

Thank you very much for your response to my question. It is much appreciated.

Don't forget, it's just a game; in the morning, it won't mean a thing.

_________________

[Metazoan]

Hi nameless,

Isn't that special! ....

Bless....
You say the nicest things.
I can see we are going to get on like a house on fire.

I'm not worried in the least, but thank you for your concern.

I'm so glad, I didn't intend that particular post to evoke the emotion 'worry'.
However...

It comes via 'me'.

Ok, I get it, you're the messenger.

Happy?

I'd rather use the word 'content', happiness is such a fickle state, but yes, thank you.

I claim 'authorship' not 'ownership'. Do you understand the difference?

Heck, an English test, I'm naff a tests, I'll look it up.

My... : 1) belonging to. 2) associated with.

In the original context I took it as the former, now I read the above as you renouncing the first definition.

Authorship : The origin or originator or a written work or plan.

This is getting subtle, you claim to be the originator of something that you claim shows that 'There is no 'free-will/choice', other than as an egoic belief among certain Perspectives.'

Are you not simply proving that you are deluded?

It comes 'through me' not from me. Understand?

Yes, I've got it now; you're 'only' the messenger.

I promise I won't shoot you as you seem to be very good at drilling your own feet yourself.
You have ten ToEs, are you trying to reduce this to just one?

I don't think so...

It's ok, you have already revealed so much about yourself, if you don't want to do your job and deliver the message I'm cool with that.

It is an all inclusive theory, and has, to date, remained unrefuted and devoid of the paradoxes inherent in the notions of 'time' and 'motion'.

Good plan, keeping it unpublished, best way to keep a theory unrefuted.

However I would be very interested in seeing you wash my car,...

You are interested in seeing me wash your car???
You obviously haven't seen me wash a car.
What on earth could be interesting in seeing me wash a car? Are you some sort of anorak who likes collecting washing styles???

I didn't take you as an anorak. Let me think.....

The only other thing I can think of is that you are some sort of wannabe dom who likes playing games.

OK, I'll try anything once, however, I'm a strong believer in the golden rule and so I expect you to let me spank you in return.....OK?.......

OK. No message over my superluminary communicator to the contrary so I'll take that as a 'yes' and backdate it to the start of the post. It's so important to check for consent.

.. so please start...

Yes sir, right away sir.

Heck, I can't get it through the door.

Big car... You aren't compensating or anything are you?

I know.....

Wheeeee........ car crushers are fun, I can now get it on the back of my pickup and back to the Laundromat....

A quick reverse and brake should do it... oooops, well the plan was good, the implementation could do with a little more practice. It completely totalled one machine, you are insured aren't you?

I put it on the hottest setting as it was looking rather oily.

Wheeeee.... That was some spin cycle The machine ended up in the street. Handy though, for getting it back in the pickup.

There you go... clean as a new pin and now so much easier to park.

Don't worry about the knocking noise from the engine, I'm sure it will go away once it adjusts to its new styling.

Cool... That was fun...

Visualisation is such a useful skill. Did you 'see' me wash your car?

Now it's my turn.

Feel free to read and attempt to understand my posts.

Thank you, I'll do my best to give them the attention they deserve.

They, in sum, express the nuts and bolts.

I do see a lot of what you are saying but I think I may be missing something. I am trying to get it to hold up in a coherent manner but I can't find any of the bolts you mention to secure it together. From where I am standing it looks like it's entirely nuts.
(Scream if you want to go faster.)

I disagree.

Wouldn't it be dull if no one did?

You fantasize a 'theory' and you fantasize the responses to your fantasy theory that you offer as some sort of fact.

Couldn't agree more.

There is no 'free-will/choice', other than as an egoic belief among certain Perspectives.

I know, I see it every day. All these people with such fragile and over inflated egos. Why doesn't anyone tell them how ridiculous they make themselves look?

Whether or not there is a prize (couldn't care less),...

When you get around to doing some psychology, that one is going to sting.

..the fact remains that no one (other than me) has, to date, 'accomplished' an all inclusive ToE.

Hey Rick, was it you who wrote a cautionary note about such claims? Darned if I can find it, but it was a good one.

And I do have to say that it's always easier to bitch about someone else's semantics when you have nothing to contribute.

Isn't that a non sequitur? How does contribution correlate with ease? I can't make the connection.
However you are right and you do make it especially easy, you make almost every sentence a gift. It is almost impossible not to bitch about it.
Do you like it when I am a bitch?
Is that why you do it?

All my words are carefully used....

You do like it then.
So your style is deliberate and you intentionally wish to appear as you do. Who on earth are you trying to attract? Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

... and if you lack understanding, the 'problem' is your's, not mine.

My lack of understanding is simply inherent in this instantiation of me at this time, it strikes me as odd that you think it is either a 'problem' or anything either of us can do anything about.
I do start to think that you are only saying the words, are you sure you are not just saying this rather than believing it?

If you have a respectful and intelligent question on some specific,..

OK I'll give it a go..................................................................................
Darn, No, I can't do it, I got intelligent but then failed on the other bit.

..feel free to inquire and I will elucidate, but your nebulous attack is old news and boring.

Did I get you in the nebules? Sorry, they weren't the focus of my 'attack'. I'll try to be more careful in future.

If you have nothing to contribute, feel free to lurk.

Would it be too bitchy to enquire if that may be thought of as an unconditional 'if', another non sequitur, or were you just too afraid to leave the 'if' out altogether?

Everywhere is Here! Now! is timeless. Here! and Now! are all that are perceived in every moment/percept. When do you say that "I am not 'Here'"? When are you not Here 'Now!'? Even if you were thinking of a 'there/then' it is being perceived Here/Now!

I didn't argue otherwise, right answer, wrong reason. Now I'm convinced you don't see it.

If you wish to be understood by those who do not view things using a static model,...

The language changes with understanding. When you have some, so will the language that you use. Those who don't will, rather than try to understand, demand that you use the language describing the world to which they have become comfortable.

My suggestion was not to use comfortable words, but to avoid using language that is likely to obfuscate meaning. If it is your intention not to be understood, then by all means carry on as you are going.

If you wish to understand, I repeat, if you have a respectful and intelligent question on some specific, feel free to inquire and I will elucidate. That presupposes a desire to understand what I offer, of course.

My desire is to see if you understand what you offer.

There is one Universe, hence the 'Uni-'.

Only if you overload the more usual meaning of 'Universe', which relates to the one we perceive as humans on this planet, with a meaning that includes everything that an all inclusive ToE predicts, which I suspect is not how most perceivers use it.
There is a perfectly good word 'Omniverse' why not use that?

But you are correct that 'causality' is an 'appearance' to of certain Perspectives and not a 'Universal'.

Darn, I goofed; we came to a common understanding.

There is nothing "outside the context of the Universe"!

I agree again, buckets of it, all over the place. Double goof.

From what position do you (fantasize?) that you can speak as if from "outside the context of the Universe"?

Oooops, I think you just tripped up. You need contrast to see your Universe. If you haven't found a new perspective, you cannot be seeing the whole picture. It is absolutely the key to the whole thing.

where it can be seen that the Universe does not literally exist, let alone anything that is within it.

Darn, real goof this time, Arising picked me up on this earlier:-

I think you need to think about what "exists" means?

I meant 'physically' not 'literally'
I will rephrase what I said as:-
'...where it can be seen that the Universe is purely notional and so is anything that is within it.'

All that is perceived, exists. There is no existence that is not perceived. Perception is existence!

I agree, everything is notional.
I am not sure I agree that perception is a prerequisite for existence. I have not ruled out existence by inference.

<aside> Wow Richard, you are a god!

It sounds like you guys would be interested in the difference between constructive and non-constructive proofs of the existence of things.

</aside>

Confusion is endemic when the world that we hold so dear, and identify with, is shown to be 'obsolete'.

You are wise, there are those who like nothing more than to spread confusion by using 'Humpty Dumpty' semantics. I'm glad they haven't found this forum yet.
I didn't spot when the world became obsolete but the way the inhabitants are trashing the place I think you must be right though. The new model must be coming along very soon and so everything will be alright.

Is this thrown in to simply confuse?

Only if that is how you perceive it to be.

Wow your theory gets weirder yet, How does my perception of what you write modify your intentions prior to writing that which I will later perceive.
Loops in perceived spacetime, that I didn't see.
I promise not to perceive that the next post you write is because you caught something in your zip.

For someone who purports to support a static model you do seem to have a very strong sense of 'self'.

I never said that I support your "static model".

I didn't say 'my' static model, I said 'a' static model and you implied your model was static.
From where I stand any static model that produces the perceived universe that I experience will call into question any sense of self.
Again, I don't think you can see what your own model predicts.

I can see two likely reasons for your style. Either you do see and understand but wish to be coy so are obfuscating like mad, or you have come across and idea which you don't understand but comes from an 'expert' source and you are pretending your confusion is obfuscation to appear coy in the hope of implying you know some 'secret'.

...there are many Perspectives of any single elephant.

Nice elephant, why do you keep an elephant in your room?

Are you sure you aren't just reading this from a book? You have the words but seem to lack a coherent understanding of them.

You sound a little befuddled.

_________________

[nameless]

Authorship : The origin or originator or a written work or plan.

I am the 'author' of a book. The words are typed by me yet I am not the Source. Therefore I am the author, yet not the originator or origin. Therefore your definition is inaplicable.

This is getting subtle, you claim to be the originator of something that you claim shows that 'There is no 'free-will/choice', other than as an egoic belief among certain Perspectives.'

Are you not simply proving that you are deluded?

See above.
Your lack of understanding and word games does not make for my delusion.
You claim that I claim to be the "originator" of something; link me or stand down.
This trite and pedantic word crap is getting boring.

It comes 'through me' not from me. Understand?

Yes, I've got it now; you're 'only' the messenger.

I promise I won't shoot you as you seem to be very good at drilling your own feet yourself.

Your lack of understanding is not my problem.

You personal ad-hominem attack highlights your inability to refute and/or deal philosophically with what I present. Fine. I won't wast another post on ye.

The rest of your post has been *snipped* because it has no value. Its petulant, childish, disrespectful and simply too boring to bother with. We obviously have nothing else to say to each other.
Welcome to my 'ignore list', I'm sure that you'll fit right in! *__-

(This discussion with you reminds me of the chess-playing pigeon; you knock over the pieces, poop on the board and return to the flock claiming victory. Good show!)
nameless out

[Metazoan]

No.... Wait.... Don't go.....

Oh dear.

Was it something I said?


_________________

[Arising_uk]

No.... Wait.... Don't go.....

Oh dear.

Was it something I said?

Met.
Touchy isn't he.

[nameless]

No, he just doesn't waste time with juvenile egos and pseudo-intellectual crappola.
At least as little time as possible.
I don't suffer fools well.

The great Acarya Maitreya says in his Saptadasa-bhumi-sastra-yogacarya:

"Before accepting a challenge for a debate, one should consider whether his opponent is a person worthy of carrying on debate through the process of proposition (siddhanta), reason (hetu), example (udaharana), etc. He should, before proceeding there, consider whether the debate will exercise any good influence on his opponent, the umpire, and the audience. But first of all, he should consider whether a debate - even won - would not bring him more harm than benefit."

[Arising_uk]

See what I mean?

Did Met 'challenge' you? What 'harm' would he have 'brought' you?

That you view all conversation as a 'challenge' to your 'perspective' is apparent. Hence, touchy. As evidenced by your twitchy finger upon the ignore trigger.
p.s.
(told you all that this ignore function was an unphilosophical idea).

[nameless]

^^^
You are embarassing yourself.
You sound like a little girl that has just been dumped.

[Wootah]

See what I mean?

Did Met 'challenge' you? What 'harm' would he have 'brought' you?

That you view all conversation as a 'challenge' to your 'perspective' is apparent. Hence, touchy. As evidenced by your twitchy finger upon the ignore trigger.
p.s.
(told you all that this ignore function was an unphilosophical idea).

Good on you Arising. Nameless has been one rude person since joining the forum.

[Arising_uk]

^^^
You are embarassing yourself.
You sound like a little girl that has just been dumped.

*sob* - a_uk gathers his petticoats and runs to his bedroom to weep at the insight of the nasty man.