Philosophy Now Forum

ken wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:08 am The word "theory" gives away the clue about some thing there could be flawed. Both of them are theories. "Theories" are just human made speculations about what is the truth, but only what is IS the actual truth. If only what is is looked at and seen, then the truth is already known and understood. And, as I always ask, Why assume some thing BEFORE the truth is actually known already?

And you are using the word "theory" as an ignorant layman would use it when a scientific theory is a well supported idea that is supported by facts and is therefore better than facts. A scientific theory is just about the most proven form of knowledge there is and a great deal better than speculation, you need to stop using theory in such an ignorant manner.

ken wrote:
What I have done is question those people who use the word Universe and who also
speak of other universes at the same time as to how do they actually define Universe

Universe is all there is while universe is the observable part of that but if this is too confusing then Universe can be substituted
for Multiverse. Though it does not actually matter what an actual word is long as its meaning is clearly understood by everyone

ken wrote:
sadly when they say other universes exist they are diminishing what the Universe once meant and which
makes more sense and more sadly is that they are only confusing themselves more and more by doing this

The possible existence of other universes would increase rather than diminish the Universe because
it would then be more complex than was previously assumed. But what did the Universe once mean

ken wrote:
Theories are just human made speculations about what is the truth

Gravity is a theory
Evolution is a theory
Special Relativity is a theory
Electromagnetism is a theory
General Relativity is a theory
Quantum Mechanics is a theory

They are more than just speculations

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:49 am _______

(Continued from prior post)

ken wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:17 pm I do not see any complexity in any thing, "multidimensional" or not...

Yes, and I am certain that an amoeba or a fly sees no complexity in anything either. However, is that due to the actual nonexistence of complexity, or more to their lower level of consciousness and awareness?

I have on multiple times explained that I am very simple and slow, maybe just like an amoeba or a fly if you like (if that makes you feel even better). This being slow and simple might explain WHY I see things the way the I do.

To Me, everything is relative to the observer.

I do NOT witness any complexity in life. Like the amoeba and fly I just live, look at, and accept what is. I see things for what they actually are. I do NOT try to understand and know things until I do understand and know them. All non human animals just live. They do not try to work out and understand every thing around them. They do not look for complexity, so they do not see it. Now, of course human beings can and do try to understand, every thing, which is a natural disposition of being a human being. ALL human beings are curious, but just because things are not YET known and/or understood, that in of itself does not mean any thing is complex and/or hard. Life, Itself, is NOT complex. There is no actual complexity in and to Life. Human beings just make things complex by the way they ask questions and perceive things.

As for levels of consciousness and awareness, are you able to answer the question of Who am 'I' correctly?

By the way only on the realization and awareness of who/what 'I' actually am that I was really able to come to fully understand how simple and easy Life really IS. And, how it is only human beings who make Life seem hard and complex. Of course there is a lot to Life, but that certainly does not mean Life is complex nor hard to understand.

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:49 am

ken wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:17 pm ...so I am not necessarily wanting to see others perspectives on simple matters like this. If I did, then I would not be able to spend as much time here learning how to communicate more efficiently.

Setting aside the shameless presumptuousness of your last few statements, what exactly is it that you are attempting to communicate?

Just maybe My last few statements were not actually as shameless presumptuousness as you assumed them to be.

What I am attempting to communicate in this thread is that the word 'christian' and 'atheist', like every other word that is also just a misplaced wrongly descriptive label, which is placed onto human beings, detracts human beings from being able to fully see and understand what it is that the word 'convert' in the heading of this thread is actually alluding to here.

It is near impossible to "convert" a human being who believes (in) one thing to believe (in) another thing. The very act of believing, in the first place, prevents the human being from being open to learn some thing new, in the second place.

What I am attempting to communicate, by learning how to express better in this forum, is if any human being really wants to find out who/what God actually IS, then they first have to be able to look at, see, and understand who/what they actually are themselves. In other words, whenever a human being is trying to "convert" another human being into believing what the former believes is true, then they are missing the whole point of what being human is. The purpose of being a human being is to learn and teach, what is right and true, from the Life that they are in. Not to preach what is believed to be true, but to learn how to find what is true. The best and only true way to learn is to be open. If, however, you are believing (in) any thing, then you are NOT open to learning HOW to learn.

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:49 amNow admittedly, I have not read all of your posts on this forum, however, from what I have read, I have yet to see anything of a revelatory nature.

How about the Mind is God, in the spiritual sense, and, absolutely every physical thing is God, in the physical sense.

How about the 'I' is the Mind, of which there is only One, and the 'you' is each and every person. The 'person' being the thoughts and feelings within the body. The body is NOT the person.

Of course this may not be revolutionary to you. But things can only be revealed to those who are open.

Are you truly prepared to see and understand any thing of any revelatory nature? In other words are you truly prepared to ask continual clarifying questions and/or ask continual challenging questions till some thing new is revealed to you, or do you prefer to express that what you have already understood and know, and which you believe is already true?

I know which one i prefer to do. Personally i could not be bothered asking a multitude of questions to learn some thing new. I prefer to express what I already see and think is true. I will, however, ask questions to learn how to express better.

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:49 amTherefore, if you have some important insight for us, ken, then lay it out in a clear and concise manner (preferably, in one or two sentences – see below).

If you want to learn and understand the true nature of Life, Itself, and the true nature of who/what 'you' and 'I' are in relation to Life, ('you' including ken, 'I' being far different then what you had previously imagined, 'i' being different again), then you have become open. If you want to continue learning and understanding all there is to learn and understand about the meaningful things in Life, then you have to remain open ALWAYS. But unfortunately for most people their previous experiences have taught them to believe (in) things as being true, which more unfortunate closes them off from learning and understanding what is the real truth.

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:49 am

ken wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:17 pm When you say, "... what our ultimate purpose may possibly be" what is the 'our' you are referring, and in relation, to exactly?...

...Are you able to write in one or two sentences what the 'our' is and what 'our' purpose is here? I am curious and it just saves Me reading lots of stuff somewhere else.

The link I provided earlier (again, here: http://www.theultimateseeds.com/murmurings.htm) does not have a lot of reading in it, but is more of a pictorial guide to what our ultimate purpose may “possibly” be. If you check it out, you will then have a better understanding of where I am coming from.
_______

I read it and I did not see any reference to what our "ultimate" purpose is or may "possibly" be. Nor did I see any reference to what could 'our' possibly mean. Why did you just not answer My clarifying question?

You are alluding to what could possible come about and be, but never actually did express what 'our' (whatever that is) purpose may possibly be. But if and when I propose that I have already come to understand and know a lot of what you say "we" may possible come to understand and know, you seem to refuse and reject completely that I could possibly know and understand this, before you have actually listened to all of what I have to express yet.

Why the seemingly instant refusal?

I ask questions like this some times not to learn what the answer is, but so as to try to find another way in which human beings can find the answers, they are looking for, by themselves. If and when the questions I ask have actually had some thought put into them and people are truly honest with themselves, then they start to find the answers that they have been looking for.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2017 4:18 am The fundamental structure of DNA is the same in all organisms but the order or sequence and complexity
of DNA in them does vary. Anything non biological is DNA free and so that would be all inanimate objects

Do you have any examples of non biological dna free things that are inanimate objects?

I ask this because I see all physical things as being alive, and just as much a part of Life, as every other thing.

thedoc wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:19 am

ken wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2017 3:36 am You just wrote that the same form of dna is found in everything but some things, like non-living things, do not have dna. What is the difference between the form of dna and dna itself? And, what objects do you suggest are non-living, dna free things?

Rocks don't have DNA.

All DNA has a form that determines the form of the living organism.

Is earth a living organism?

If so, is earth made up of rocks?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:20 pm

ken wrote:
What things do you propose cannot be known

Things that be beyond human knowledge and imagination

So, you KNOW that things that be beyond human knowledge and imagination can not be known. Therefore, in a particular way ALL things can be known. Also, how do you KNOW that there are/will be things beyond human knowledge and imagination? Are 'you', individually, so clever to KNOW this, or in a round about way ALL things can be known?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:20 pmThings coming into existence only after human extinction

Is there going to be human extinction? Do you KNOW this for sure?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:44 am

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

That would be a violation of the law of non contradiction for that which is infinite cannot also be finite
Finite infinity is a paradox and an oxymoron and so is therefore impossible both logically and physically

But I never used the word finite here, so why did you assume I did

I used it because it is the opposite of infinite and so is more appropriate

Using a word just because it is the opposite of some thing, which has nothing at all to do with what the other is talking about, I do not see as being appropriate.

But what reason do you have for understanding that infinity is complete

Thank you for now asking clarifying question before you made an assumption and jumped to a conclusion.

Infinity is complete in the sense that there is only NOW, in which learning, understanding, and reasoning is never-ending.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:26 am

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

So can you explain the incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and General Relatively

If I was to read up on this subject then I could give either an interpretation
of why there is incompatibility or of why there is a perceived view of incompatibility

Can you provide a short over view of what you see is the incompatibility between
quantum mechanics and general relativity? If so then I could give some sort of an explanation

The incompatibility arises because the laws of physics are not uniform across the spectrum but instead fundamentally different at both levels.

I am still curious as to their being two different levels across the spectrum. Where is the defining level, and what exactly causes or creates that definition of distinction?

What are the actual two laws of physics that are meant to be incompatible with each other?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:26 am So
at the classical level space is flat.

I have never understood the word 'flat' in relation to 'space'. There might be an easy explanation for this but I have yet to see it. To Me 'space' is just the distance between objects or particles of matter. This applies from the smallest of objects to the largest of objects. Ah, unless they mean the space between two objects being measured in a "flat" or straight line.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:26 am Something can only be in one place at any one time. The law of cause and effect applies. Absolute nothing can
not exist. Two particles cannot synchronise faster than information can travel between them. At the quantum level the reverse of all that is true

Are you saying that some people say that at the quantum level that;

One thing can be at two places at the exact same time?
The law of cause and effect does not apply?
Nothing can exist?
Two particles can synchronise faster than information can travel between them?

If that is what you say some people suggest happens, then what actual evidence has been provided for this?

(By the way just saying something similar to, "Experiments have shown this to happen" is NOT actually providing evidence.)

And, how is it proposed that any or all of them happen? Also,

What was the some thing that was supposed to be at two places at any one time? Where did it happen, when did it happen, and how did it happen?
What was caused without a previous effect? Where did this take place, when did it happen, and how did it happen?
Where is the 'nothing' alleged to exist in relation to ALL-THAT-IS? When did this take place, and how did it happen?
What were the two particles that supposedly synchronized with each other before information traveled between them? Where did this happen, when did it take place, and how did it happen?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:26 amTrying to unify them is the single greatest problem in physics today and has been unresolved for over a century.

There is a few clarifying questions I need answered before I would even begin to try to unify this.

If you do not know the answers directly to those clarifying questions, then can you provide a link that answers those questions?

To Me, if human beings made these things actually happen over a century ago, then human beings should be able to make them happen much easier and better now. There must be some sort of video evidence of this occurring in this day and age. But if human beings did not make these things happen and they just occurred, over a century ago, then how often do they occur?

I am not expecting human beings to be able to answer how, nor why, these things occurred but they surely must be able to easily answer what they were, when they happened, and where they happened? If they say these things happened, then they must have some sort of evidence for it.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:26 amAnd so if you want to know more about this you should read up on it like you say. As you will understand it a lot better than from what I have said here which is the bare minimum

You are right in that if you want to know more about a subject, then you should read up on it. But sometimes what you read is not true, or not accurate, and if you start believing what you read, is true and accurate, when it is not, then confusion is caused, and can set in. And, when beliefs are in place and being held but the full and big picture has not yet been clearly seen, then distorted views are formed. Then confirmation bias can take place and this mixed with confusion disputes are inevitable.

Usually just the bare minimum is really all that is needed to understand any thing meaningful fully, as Life really is just, simple and easy to understand.

thedoc wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:40 am

ken wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:08 am

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:23 pm

Because there would still be no living animal to hear the sound so people who hold a very narrow definition of sound would reject that data.

So, are you saying more or less that proof, evidence, and truth is depended solely upon people's own views on things?

I'm not saying that, I'm imagining what some others might say about it. There are some on this forum who claim that a consciousness must perceive the vibrations for them to be sound, I do not agree with that.

I have not seen any person claim that, but maybe some do. Who are the some you imagine might say this, and claim what you have said here? We could then just ask them if this is what they claim. How I read what others were saying was not how you see it here. But I have been told that I am wrong countless times before.

By the way, I just asked you that question because that is how I see and understand 'truth'.

thedoc wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:40 am I say that vibrations in the air are sound whether someone hears them or not.

Well would not a sound recording device be able to pick up vibrations in the air, whether a human being was there or not. If 'sound' is vibration, then it could be captured. A video recording device could be used in conjunction with the sound recording device to show what the sound/vibration was in relation to exactly. The video recording device could also be used for those people "I imagine" might ask the question; "If a tree falls in the forest, and no-one is there to see it, does it make a picture?"

thedoc wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:44 am

ken wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:36 am

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:37 am

He has provided an example as you can see but you did not provide one with your claim and did not clarify the incompatibility between
GR and QM that exists between them. They are two entirely separate domains and so your claim of transferability is therefore false. As
what happens at the quantum level does not happen at the classical level and vice versa so there is no smooth transition between them

Is what humans propose happens at these supposed and alleged different levels or scales of the Universe 100% factually true and indisputable?

No, but so far there is a great deal of evidence that supports the idea that QM and classical physics do not coincide and no evidence against it.

So, there is absolutely 100% no evidence at all, anywhere at all, that remotely or even slightly suggests that "quantum mechanics" and "classical physics" coincide?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:46 am

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

What happens at the quantum level does not happen at the classical level as the laws of physics are different for each

The human theorized laws are different at those levels

And according to your logic That would be a violation of the law of non contradiction. Two different or contradictory laws is a paradox
and an oxymoron and so is therefore impossible both logically and physically So how could it be possible for one thing to happen at one
level but not at another level in regards to how the Universe works? What and where is the defining line between the two different levels

One of the theories [ in all probability General Relatively ] is incomplete or inaccurate hence the incompatibility. And the solution to the
problem will be a theory of Quantum Gravity which will unite all four of the fundamental forces as at the moment only three of them are

So, the the incompatibility between the two, in all probability, is because the theory of general relativity is incomplete. So, now we know, most likely, why they are incompatible. And, the solution to fixing the problems within this, or both, theories is by coming up with just another theory, right?

And I was thinking that the solution might lay in what is and in what is the actual thing, which supposedly makes up the distinct difference between the two supposed and alleged levels or scales here. I can not see any distinct thing that separates the so called larger scale from the so called smaller scale. So, I am unaware how there could be two distinct different things allegedly happening.

By the way, I am not sure how you expect Me to learn and understand more, and thus become wiser, if My clarifying questions are not answered? Some times I ask clarifying questions so that if and when others stop, think about them, and answer them honestly, then they can learn more, for and by themselves. But some times I just ask clarifying question so that I can learn far more My Self.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:46 am

ken wrote:

The human theorized laws are different at those levels

And according to your logic That would be a violation of the law of non contradiction. Two different or contradictory laws is a paradox
and an oxymoron and so is therefore impossible both logically and physically So how could it be possible for one thing to happen at one
level but not at another level in regards to how the Universe works? What and where is the defining line between the two different levels

One of the theories [ in all probability General Relatively ] is incomplete or inaccurate hence the incompatibility. And the solution to the
problem will be a theory of Quantum Gravity which will unite all four of the fundamental forces as at the moment only three of them are

So, the incompatibility between the two, in all probability, is because the theory of general relativity is incomplete. So, now we know, most likely, why they are incompatible. And, the solution to fixing the problems within this, or both, theories is by coming up with just another theory, right?

And I was thinking that the solution might lay in what is and in what is the actual thing, which supposedly makes up the distinct difference between the two supposed and alleged levels or scales here. I can not see any distinct thing that separates the so called larger scale from the so called smaller scale. So, I am unaware how there could be two distinct different things allegedly happening.

By the way, I am not sure how you expect Me to learn and understand more, and thus become wiser, if My clarifying questions are not answered? Some times I ask clarifying questions so that if and when others stop, think about them, and answer them honestly, then they can learn more, for and by themselves. But some times I just ask clarifying question so that I can learn far more My Self.

Also, as to seeing how ALL things are united or unified is done by just looking at how Everything works together as One.

Every thing has an opposite, with equilibrium.

thedoc wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:53 am

ken wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:36 am There is no supposed smooth transition between human beings and what was before them also. But, obviously there was a smooth transfer. Unless of course human beings were created completely different from all other animals and things in one instant random moment. Either ALL things are linked in a compatible fashion and that link is transitioned smoothly or random events and things occur, and come from nothing? If we look at what is, then what It is is clearly seen.

If you can show the smooth transition between QM and classical physics, then you should do so and potentially win a Nobel prize.

I am showing the smooth transition, in My own way. I have never thought about this before AND I am not getting many answers to My clarifying questions, so it is not a fast process. I am in no hurry as I very slow and simple, anyway. If it was explained to Me what the actual thing is that supposedly separates the "large" from the "small", then we could all move a step closer to discovering and learning more and anew.

The last reason I am here learning how to express better is to "win" any thing, especially some human made up "prize". Living is NOT about winning prizes. Living, being alive, for Me anyway, is about discovery and learning. For all I care if we did come to showing a smooth transition, then you could get and take some nobel prize (whatever that actually is).

thedoc wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:53 am The Human story doesn't apply as both present and former humans are both of the same kind of material and there was no translation from one scale to the other in either.

Did I mention anywhere about any thing about present and former humans? I was in now way talking about the human story. What I said was, "There is no supposed smooth transition between human beings and what was before them also." Meaning there is an alleged "missing link" between human beings and what was BEFORE human beings. Human beings have a tendency to compartmentalize and see things in distinct and separatist terms. They have a tendency to jump from one thing to the next without ever looking at the actual transformation between things. Even your own statement here is highlighting this fact. Saying that present and former humans are both of "the same kind of material", is in a way saying that humans are separate and apart from other things - of "a different kind of material". Absolutely Everything made up of the exact same material AND thus IS linked together. Looking at and seeing this fact is revealing in a way.

thedoc wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:53 am One of the theories state that events do happen randomly and things do come from nothing.

And, I did not think I had to still remind human beings that theories have been KNOWN to be wrong.

One of those theories, for example, was that A being created every thing all at once, and it was believed to be true because it was told and written in a book. Now, what evidence is there that events do happen randomly and that things do actually come from nothing? Have you seen and/or experienced this personally? Do you have any actual evidence for these two things? Or, are you also just repeating what has been told to you and is written in some book, some where?