my own reality is now in question

[mack7963]

I'm really going to have to stop thinking so much, now i realise that literally everything happens as i understand it in my own brain, audio, visual, tactile etc. Although i have accepted that accepting it is fine and that's what most people do anyway, i can't stop wondering what it actually looks, sounds, and feels like outside of my brain.

It doesn't look, sound or feel like anything.

And of course that beggars the question how you know this, it could be nothing but it could also be everything.

[Age]

I'm really going to have to stop thinking so much, now i realise that literally everything happens as i understand it in my own brain, audio, visual, tactile etc.

Who and/or what is this 'my', EXACTLY which, supposedly, HAS or OWNS 'these things', here, like 'the brain', 'the audio', 'the visual', and 'the tactile'?

The ANSWER, by the way, is FAR SIMPLER and EASIER TO KNOW, FOR SURE, than you posters, here, even YET REALIZE.

Although i have accepted that accepting it is fine and that's what most people do anyway, i can't stop wondering what it actually looks, sounds, and feels like outside of my brain.

EXACTLY HOW 'it' DID, WHEN 'that body' WAS FIRST BORN.

SEE, it is ONLY 'thought' and 'thinking', themselves, which DISTORTS, TWISTS, FOGS, BLURS, or SKEWS what the ACTUAL Truth of things ARE, EXACTLY.

Also, and by the way, there REALLY IS 'A VERY SIMPLE and EASY WAY' to WORK OUT and DISTINGUISH what IS ACTUALLY True AND Right, in Life, FROM what IS JUST PRE/ASSUMED or BELIEVED is true, but which IS NOT.

[mack7963]

I'm really going to have to stop thinking so much, now i realise that literally everything happens as i understand it in my own brain, audio, visual, tactile etc.

Who and/or what is this 'my', EXACTLY which, supposedly, HAS or OWNS 'these things', here, like 'the brain', 'the audio', 'the visual', and 'the tactile'?

The ANSWER, by the way, is FAR SIMPLER and EASIER TO KNOW, FOR SURE, than you posters, here, even YET REALIZE.

Although i have accepted that accepting it is fine and that's what most people do anyway, i can't stop wondering what it actually looks, sounds, and feels like outside of my brain.

EXACTLY HOW 'it' DID, WHEN 'that body' WAS FIRST BORN.

SEE, it is ONLY 'thought' and 'thinking', themselves, which DISTORTS, TWISTS, FOGS, BLURS, or SKEWS what the ACTUAL Truth of things ARE, EXACTLY.

Also, and by the way, there REALLY IS 'A VERY SIMPLE and EASY WAY' to WORK OUT and DISTINGUISH what IS ACTUALLY True AND Right, in Life, FROM what IS JUST PRE/ASSUMED or BELIEVED is true, but which IS NOT.

the my is a reference point from which to work, am not at the point of exploring a god personality at this point, my ownership of these 'things' is based purely on my inability to perceive creation from any other perspective therefore leaving me concluding that i created them therefore i own them.

I'm not sure anything about this is simple, at least not for me, and im genuinely not being over dramatic, but this is the most terrifying answer to what i thought was a pretty simple question, now im looking at similarities between the human body and our universe, and something i found quite profound popped up, that makes me think differently about quantum mechanics.

[Age]

I'm really going to have to stop thinking so much, now i realise that literally everything happens as i understand it in my own brain, audio, visual, tactile etc.

Who and/or what is this 'my', EXACTLY which, supposedly, HAS or OWNS 'these things', here, like 'the brain', 'the audio', 'the visual', and 'the tactile'?

The ANSWER, by the way, is FAR SIMPLER and EASIER TO KNOW, FOR SURE, than you posters, here, even YET REALIZE.

Although i have accepted that accepting it is fine and that's what most people do anyway, i can't stop wondering what it actually looks, sounds, and feels like outside of my brain.

EXACTLY HOW 'it' DID, WHEN 'that body' WAS FIRST BORN.

SEE, it is ONLY 'thought' and 'thinking', themselves, which DISTORTS, TWISTS, FOGS, BLURS, or SKEWS what the ACTUAL Truth of things ARE, EXACTLY.

Also, and by the way, there REALLY IS 'A VERY SIMPLE and EASY WAY' to WORK OUT and DISTINGUISH what IS ACTUALLY True AND Right, in Life, FROM what IS JUST PRE/ASSUMED or BELIEVED is true, but which IS NOT.

the my is a reference point from which to work, am not at the point of exploring a god personality at this point, my ownership of these 'things' is based purely on my inability to perceive creation from any other perspective therefore leaving me concluding that i created them therefore i own them.

BUT, WHO and WHAT the 'I' IS, EXACTLY, is, STILL, completely UNKNOWN TO you, correct?

I'm not sure anything about this is simple, at least not for me, and im genuinely not being over dramatic, but this is the most terrifying answer to what i thought was a pretty simple question, now im looking at similarities between the human body and our universe, and something i found quite profound popped up, that makes me think differently about quantum mechanics.

Okay.

But just as the 'human body' is made up of 'visible matter', itself, just like the Universe is made up of 'visible matter' ALSO, there is ALSO ANOTHER 'part' of BEING a 'human being' and of the Universe, Itself.

By the way, and contrary to the popular belief in the days when this is being written, there is NOTHING inconsistent WITH 'quantum mechanics' and the 'classical viewpoint' of the Universe.

[mack7963]

By the way, and contrary to the popular belief in the days when this is being written, there is NOTHING inconsistent WITH 'quantum mechanics' and the 'classical viewpoint' of the Universe.

So let me explain why i referenced quantum mechanics, there was a study done by two scientists that looked at the similarities between the universe and the human body as a system of interconnected systems, and they found quite a few, self organisation was one, I'll see if i can find the report and link it, anyway, it stood out to me that the results would only show a limited result and wouldn't have been looking in the right place because the scales didn't match and so comparatively the results they concluded would be of something that we wouldnt find anything useful from except to tell us they have similarities, to me it makes much more sense to begin with an equal scale, so for instance take an atom in the body and scale it up to the size of the earth, at the same time everything else scales up along with it, what you end up with is a distance between the brain and say the toe larger than our observable universe, if the toe is pricked and the reaction time hasnt changed that means that either information can travel faster than light ....much faster or that quantum entanglement exists and can be proven.
thats where my thoughts are now taking me and i now have the freedom to not be worried about being wrong.

[Age]

So let me explain why i referenced quantum mechanics, there was a study done by two scientists that looked at the similarities between the universe and the human body as a system of interconnected systems, and they found quite a few, self organisation was one, I'll see if i can find the report and link it, anyway, it stood out to me that the results would only show a limited result and wouldn't have been looking in the right place because the scales didn't match and so comparatively the results they concluded would be of something that we wouldnt find anything useful from except to tell us they have similarities, to me it makes much more sense to begin with an equal scale, so for instance take an atom in the body and scale it up to the size of the earth, at the same time everything else scales up along with it, what you end up with is a distance between the brain and say the toe larger than our observable universe, if the toe is pricked and the reaction time hasnt changed that means that either information can travel faster than light ....much faster or that quantum entanglement exists and can be proven.
thats where my thoughts are now taking me and i now have the freedom to not be worried about being wrong.

So-called 'quantum entanglement' can never be proven, as the measurements needed could not take place.

[mack7963]

So let me explain why i referenced quantum mechanics, there was a study done by two scientists that looked at the similarities between the universe and the human body as a system of interconnected systems, and they found quite a few, self organisation was one, I'll see if i can find the report and link it, anyway, it stood out to me that the results would only show a limited result and wouldn't have been looking in the right place because the scales didn't match and so comparatively the results they concluded would be of something that we wouldnt find anything useful from except to tell us they have similarities, to me it makes much more sense to begin with an equal scale, so for instance take an atom in the body and scale it up to the size of the earth, at the same time everything else scales up along with it, what you end up with is a distance between the brain and say the toe larger than our observable universe, if the toe is pricked and the reaction time hasnt changed that means that either information can travel faster than light ....much faster or that quantum entanglement exists and can be proven.
thats where my thoughts are now taking me and i now have the freedom to not be worried about being wrong.

So-called 'quantum entanglement' can never be proven, as the measurements needed could not take place.

in this scenario i disagree, if we had a human scaled as mentioned earlier the reaction alone would suggest quantum entanglement, for information to travel that distance in such short time leaves very few alternative explanations.

[Age]

So let me explain why i referenced quantum mechanics, there was a study done by two scientists that looked at the similarities between the universe and the human body as a system of interconnected systems, and they found quite a few, self organisation was one, I'll see if i can find the report and link it, anyway, it stood out to me that the results would only show a limited result and wouldn't have been looking in the right place because the scales didn't match and so comparatively the results they concluded would be of something that we wouldnt find anything useful from except to tell us they have similarities, to me it makes much more sense to begin with an equal scale, so for instance take an atom in the body and scale it up to the size of the earth, at the same time everything else scales up along with it, what you end up with is a distance between the brain and say the toe larger than our observable universe, if the toe is pricked and the reaction time hasnt changed that means that either information can travel faster than light ....much faster or that quantum entanglement exists and can be proven.
thats where my thoughts are now taking me and i now have the freedom to not be worried about being wrong.

So-called 'quantum entanglement' can never be proven, as the measurements needed could not take place.

in this scenario i disagree, if we had a human scaled as mentioned earlier the reaction alone would suggest quantum entanglement, for information to travel that distance in such short time leaves very few alternative explanations.

1. you said 'IF' ... However, and OBVIOUSLY, the 'IF', here, could NEVER BE TESTED.

2. Because the 'thought experiment' could NEVER BE TESTED you will NEVER KNOW, FOR SURE, how long the information will take.

3. you are just PRESUMING that because the information from a toe to a brain appears to be relatively very, or just, quick, then this 'duration' would the SAME on a much larger scale.

[mack7963]

So-called 'quantum entanglement' can never be proven, as the measurements needed could not take place.

in this scenario i disagree, if we had a human scaled as mentioned earlier the reaction alone would suggest quantum entanglement, for information to travel that distance in such short time leaves very few alternative explanations.

3. you are just PRESUMING that because the information from a toe to a brain appears to be relatively very, or just, quick, then this 'duration' would the SAME on a much larger scale.

I'm actually not, the scale was just to make it easier to understand the size of the human body compared to that of the universe if we had a starting reference point, the journey the information makes is already traversing a vast distance over a very short time without any scaling.

[Age]

in this scenario i disagree, if we had a human scaled as mentioned earlier the reaction alone would suggest quantum entanglement, for information to travel that distance in such short time leaves very few alternative explanations.

3. you are just PRESUMING that because the information from a toe to a brain appears to be relatively very, or just, quick, then this 'duration' would the SAME on a much larger scale.

I'm actually not, the scale was just to make it easier to understand the size of the human body compared to that of the universe if we had a starting reference point, the journey the information makes is already traversing a vast distance over a very short time without any scaling.

Are you saying and claiming, here, that the distance from a toe to a brain on ANY of the actually sized human bodies is a so-called 'vast distance'?

By the way, 'we' ALREADY have a starting so-called 'reference point'. That 'reference point' being the EXACT SAME size or scale of 'that body' writing under the label "mack7963", here, in this forum. The 'time' that it takes information to get from the toe of 'that body' to the brain of 'that body' is NOT instantaneous. It, literally, 'takes time' for information to traverse 'that distance'. And, 'scaling up' 'that body' to 'the scale' you are talking about, even if it was possible, does NOT mean that 'the time' it takes for information to traverse the distance from the toe to the brain would NOT necessarily be 'the same', at all. AGAIN, you are ONLY PRESUMING or BELIEVING you ALREADY KNOW 'how long' the information would take to traverse 'that distance'. And, until 'an experiment' is actually performed you will NEVER KNOW, FOR SURE, how long it takes for information to traverse 'that distance'.

you might well think, or even believe, from 'the toe' to 'the brain', at 'the scale' 'that body' is at 'now', when this is being written is a 'vast distance' and the journey traversed by information is 'a very short time', but what you think or BELIEVE has NO bearing AT ALL on what is ACTUALLY True AND Right.

[mack7963]

you might well think, or even believe, from 'the toe' to 'the brain', at 'the scale' 'that body' is at 'now', when this is being written is a 'vast distance' and the journey traversed by information is 'a very short time', but what you think or BELIEVE has NO bearing AT ALL on what is ACTUALLY True AND Right.

so your saying that the distance from the toe to the brain is not a vast distance, does that statement not depend on the perspective of the observer, from an observer such as you or i then the distance from head to toe is not that vast, approx. 2 meters, yet from the perspective of lets say a sub atomic particle, the distance is vaster, much much vaster, so from the perspective of a sub atomic particle or even just the electrical impulse that carries the information from toe to brain is no different from the distances our current universe travel.

[Age]

so your saying that the distance from the toe to the brain is not a vast distance, does that statement not depend on the perspective of the observer, from an observer such as you or i then the distance from head to toe is not that vast, approx. 2 meters, yet from the perspective of lets say a sub atomic particle, the distance is vaster, much much vaster, so from the perspective of a sub atomic particle or even just the electrical impulse that carries the information from toe to brain is no different from the distances our current universe travel.

It is 'I' who has been SAYING that ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing is RELATIVE TO 'the observer'. So, 'that statement', and EVERY STATEMENT', depends on NOT just 'the perspective' of 'the observer' but ALSO ON 'the observer', 'itself'.

What do you mean by, 'the distance our current universe travels', EXACTLY?

1. HOW MANY 'universes' are there, TO you, EXACTLY?

2. if 'this universe' is 'our universe', then who OWNS the 'other universes', EXACTLY?

3. What IS 'the distance' 'our universe' has traveled, EXACTLY?

4. IN which 'direction' IS 'our universe' traveling, EXACTLY?

5. What is 'the distance' AND 'the direction', here, in relation TO, EXACTLY?

Also, HOW, EXACTLY, does the relationship between 'the distance', varying greatly, in regards to a sub-atomic particle and human beings, in relation to the size of A 'human body', have TO DO WITH the size of the Universe, Itself.

Also, what has ANY or ALL of 'this' got to do with the Fact that just because IF 'we' SCALED UP A 'human body' that it then MEANS, for ABSOLUTELY SURE, that 'the information' FROM 'the toe' of A body to 'the brain' of A body WILL TAKE the EXACT SAME DURATION, as you CLAIM that it WILL?

[mack7963]

Also, what has ANY or ALL of 'this' got to do with the Fact that just because IF 'we' SCALED UP A 'human body' that it then MEANS, for ABSOLUTELY SURE, that 'the information' FROM 'the toe' of A body to 'the brain' of A body WILL TAKE the EXACT SAME DURATION, as you CLAIM that it WILL?

the scaling was simply a device to illustrate the size comparison between us and the size of the universe from the perspective of the information being transmitted, the vast distances covered already exist from the perspective of the information and to further question our assumption concerning distance and time, why is it that if you tap your head with two fingers and tap your toe at the same time, all of that information reaches the brain at the same time, one clearly has a larger distance to cover, and remember the distances used her are of the atomic scale.

[Age]

the scaling was simply a device to illustrate the size comparison between us and the size of the universe

The size of the Universe is infinite. What else there to know, here?

And, you human beings already know, roughly, the, varying different, sizes of human bodies, so what else is there to actually compare, here?

from the perspective of the information being transmitted, the vast distances covered already exist

What is the actual 'vast distance' that you are talking ABOUT a d REFERRING TO, here, EXACTLY?

from the perspective of the information and to further question our assumption concerning distance and time, why is it that if you tap your head with two fingers and tap your toe at the same time, all of that information reaches the brain at the same time,

How do you KNOW this, FOR IRREFUTABLY SURE? Or, in other words, what, EXACT, measuring instrument did you use when you carried out an experiment, here?

one clearly has a larger distance to cover, and remember the distances used her are of the atomic scale.

ONCE AGAIN, from the perspective at the atomic scale, or even from perspective at the sub-atomic scale, this size of a human body, STILL REMAINS ALWAYS AT up to less than 10 feet, ONLY.

Which means the so-called 'vast distance' that you speak of and are talking about, here, are, ACTUALLY, relatively NOTHING DISTANCES, compared to the Universe, or even the galaxy and the solar system, themselves.

[mack7963]

ONCE AGAIN, from the perspective at the atomic scale, or even from perspective at the sub-atomic scale, this size of a human body, STILL REMAINS ALWAYS AT up to less than 10 feet, ONLY.

Which means the so-called 'vast distance' that you speak of and are talking about, here, are, ACTUALLY, relatively NOTHING DISTANCES, compared to the Universe, or even the galaxy and the solar system, themselves.

so you're saying that at the atomic scale space has no meaning, explain.