# The Theory of Relative Motion and Natural Purpose



## New Age United (Jan 1, 2015)

Physics and Metaphysics

I have a theory which combines the Physical and Metaphysical, a theory of everything, but it has not been organized into a coherent doctrine. So I would like to discuss my theory with other philosophers so that I may formulate a coherent Theory of Physics and Metaphysics.

To summarize the theory of relative motion and natural purpose I will state this; all things in existence are energy, and all energy is space bending in on its self and creating relative motion (time). That is the physical. The metaphysical is the fact that everything is happening for a reason, e everything is fulfilling it's natural purpose. 

Everything happens for a reason. By this I do not mean that there is a cause for every effect, I mean that there is a later purpose for everything that is happening now, just as there was a purpose for everything that has happened prior, the entire universe is relative motion guided by natural purpose. 

Any questions and arguments are more than welcome.


----------



## Hugo Phurst (Jan 1, 2015)

I believe somethings happen for a reason, but not everything. Elsewise there'd be no free will.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 1, 2015)

Hugo Phurst said:


> I believe somethings happen for a reason, but not everything. Elsewise there'd be no free will.


Very good observation, no there wouldn't be free will and I do not believe in free will, e everything is just cause and effect taking place, this may cause many to reject this theory.


----------



## TBoneJack (Jan 1, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Physics and Metaphysics
> 
> I have a theory which combines the Physical and Metaphysical, a theory of everything, but it has not been organized into a coherent doctrine. So I would like to discuss my theory with other philosophers so that I may formulate a coherent Theory of Physics and Metaphysics.
> 
> ...


What was/is the purpose of racism? Child pornography? Pedophilia?

Plz forgive me if these questions don't make sense. I'm interested in understanding your theory.


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 1, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Physics and Metaphysics
> 
> I have a theory which combines the Physical and Metaphysical, a theory of everything, but it has not been organized into a coherent doctrine. So I would like to discuss my theory with other philosophers so that I may formulate a coherent Theory of Physics and Metaphysics.
> 
> ...



This is not a theory, not even close. It is a hypothesis in this Webster definition of the word - _a_ *:* an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument . Energy is not space bending in on itself, it is the potential to do work. Spacetime is independent from energy and matter, though energy and matter do affect spacetime.Time is a measure in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them. So, the physical section of your idea doesn't seem sound. As far as a purpose, if you are speaking of a conscious or intentional purpose, there is no empirical evidence for that notion. In fact, that notion just adds a layer of complexity that is not needed in discovering and describing our cosmos and objective reality. It seems that your knowledge of physics is poor, why not learn more about the subject before attempting to generate new theories? Seems like your ego is leading you astray...


----------



## New Age United (Jan 1, 2015)

No the questions are certainly credible. I once argued with a man, he said that God must support homosexuals because he created them, I said then by your Logic god must also support pedophiles and psychopaths. I often wonder why people think that the creator is good when every instinct in you tells you that God is evil, god very well could be a sick sadistic being that created humanity just to watch us suffer, that's if you believe in god, I am agnostic. 

These questions baffle me as well, and I can neither find the purpose nor the cause of such things. This presents the possibility that not everything happens for a purpose, perhaps some things do happen strictly out of chaos.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 1, 2015)

Glad to see you mister Durden lol. Are you familiar with time dilation, simultaneity, time is relative motion, frames of reference. Physics is also one of my favorite fields of study. It is my personal belief (theory) that all 4 forces are caused by the bending of space time and that unaffected forces do not exist, Space and matter are not actually separate. It is all the relative motion of space - time bending. It creates the illusion of a solid massive universe.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 1, 2015)

I am offering my intuitive insights, trying to find the rational explanation, trying to find the truth, perhaps you can help me with that.


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 1, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Glad to see you mister Durden lol. Are you familiar with time dilation, simultaneity, time is relative motion, frames of reference. Physics is also one of my favorite fields of study. It is my personal belief (theory) that all 4 forces are caused by the bending of space time and that unaffected forces do not exist, Space and matter are not actually separate. It is all the relative motion of space - time bending. It creates the illusion of a solid massive universe.


Yes, I am familiar with those Einsteinian discoveries. I still don't know how that fits into your idea that 'all energy is space bending in on its self and creating relative motion (time)'. You'll have to explain that and link to some credible data. Space and matter are not separate entities? Really? Please link to that. What do you think happens when we remove matter from space? It's easy to see for yourself, move all objects out of a cubic meter of space, and the space still exists. It is the strong nuclear force that holds matter together into the illusion of solidity, not the relative motion of space.

Also, it is fine to use the common vernacular of the word 'theory' if you are speaking of common subjects. When you enter the realm of science, you must use the word theory in its actual, scientific meaning. In Websters listing these include -

*:* a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave _theory_ of light>

_c_ *:* a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <_theory_ of equations>

New Agers, like Chopra, are consistently attempting to lend credibility to their specious ideas by using scientific language, like the type found in quantum mechanics. When pressed by people who know what the fuck they're talking about, he admits that he is simply using the language metaphorically. Don't be like his ilk, be honest. If you're going to play in the realm of science, you need to be precise and use precise terminology. One's personal beliefs are not theories...


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 1, 2015)

New Age United said:


> I am offering my intuitive insights, trying to find the rational explanation, trying to find the truth, perhaps you can help me with that.


The truth and rational explanation for phenomena already exists, why bring your subjective intuition into it? What is that supposed to accomplish?


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 1, 2015)

TBoneJack said:


> You physics guys really irk me. Yall got all the mental talent that the rest of us wish we had.
> 
> I'm not a stupid person. I earned a BS in math, a masters in computer science, and I make $140K per. So I can't be accurately described as "stupid". But as hard as I've tried, I can't visualize the things you advanced physicists can.
> 
> I'd like to ask a valid question, not to flatter or to degrade in any way. I've always wanted to ask this question of someone like you: what the fuck does it feel like to know you're smarter than 95% of the people in the world?


I think it's mostly a matter of practice. When I first started down this path, my brain cramped all the time trying to understand what seemed so simple to these geniuses. I'm naturally a slow reader and retain 90+% of the material, but I had to reread physics paragraphs DOZENS and dozens of times to really understand and mentally picture what is actually happening. Having said that, yes I feel that I am much smarter than most people I've met. It often sucks, because it is a lonely place to be when you can easily understand what most others seem unable to. In a certain way, ignorance is bliss. If it's any consolation, you make more money than I do


----------



## TBoneJack (Jan 1, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> I think it's mostly a matter of practice. When I first started down this path, my brain cramped all the time trying to understand what seemed so simple to these geniuses. I'm naturally a slow reader and retain 90+% of the material, but I had to reread physics paragraphs DOZENS and dozens of times to really understand and mentally picture what is actually happening. Having said that, yes I feel that I am much smarter than most people I've met. It often sucks, because it is a lonely place to be when you can easily understand what most other seem unable to. In a certain way, ignorance is bliss. If it's any consolation, you make more money than I do


Well, I deleted my post before you replied to it. I was afraid I sounded stupid and disrecpectful. But I appreciate the honest answer. I really do.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 1, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> Yes, I am familiar with those Einsteinian discoveries. I still don't know how that fits into your idea that 'all energy is space bending in on its self and creating relative motion (time)'. You'll have to explain that and link to some credible data. Space and matter are not separate entities? Really? Please link to that. What do you think happens when we remove matter from space? It's easy to see for yourself, move all objects out of a cubic meter of space, and the space still exists. It is the strong nuclear force that holds matter together into the illusion of solidity, not the relative motion of space.
> 
> Also, it is fine to use the common vernacular of the word 'theory' if you are speaking of common subjects. When you enter the realm of science, you must use the word theory in its actual, scientific meaning. In Websters listing these include -
> 
> ...


OK. Point well taken, than this is my hypothesis, let us discuss my hypothesis.


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 1, 2015)

TBoneJack said:


> Well, I deleted my post before you replied to it. I was afraid I sounded stupid and disrecpectful. But I appreciate the honest answer. I really do.


No worries. Your post seemed honest, I did not sense any malice or stupidity in it...


----------



## New Age United (Jan 1, 2015)

I can't link to data when this is all original


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 1, 2015)

New Age United said:


> I can't link to data when this is all original


What? You can link to data from established, credible physical theories that would support your ideas. For example, you stated that space and matter are not separate entities, so if you cannot link to any data that supports that statement you'll have to admit that you are incorrect...


----------



## skunkd0c (Jan 1, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> It is the strong nuclear force that holds matter together into the illusion of solidity, not the relative motion of space.


the mysterious nuclear force that keeps the protons and electrons segregated 

UB says 
the nuclear force is a racist !


----------



## New Age United (Jan 1, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> What? You can link to data from established, credible physical theories that would support your ideas. For example, you stated that space and matter are not separate entities, so if you cannot link to any data that supports that statement you'll have to admit that you are incorrect...


What? So I can not come up with original insights lmfao, your starting to lose your credibility. "I never made one of my discoveries through the process of rational thinking" Einstein


----------



## New Age United (Jan 1, 2015)

Honestly Mr Durden, you are seriously limiting your own mind.


----------



## mudballs (Jan 1, 2015)

the word 'insight' is not being used correctly. insight implies seeing a truth, a provable theorem. your non connective thoughts are little more than a madmans prose.and attacking Durdens scientific challenge to your thoughts has annihilated any chance you had.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 1, 2015)

mudballs said:


> the word 'insight' is not being used correctly. insight implies seeing a truth, a provable theorem. your non connective thoughts are little more than a madmans prose.and attacking Durdens scientific challenge to your thoughts has annihilated any chance you had.


any chance I had at what, connecting my thoughts perhaps, was that not implied, not very perceptive.


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 1, 2015)

New Age United said:


> What? So I can not come up with original insights lmfao, your starting to lose your credibility. "I never made one of my discoveries through the process of rational thinking" Einstein


It is possible for you to come up with new insights. It is also possible that they all be wrong. That is what we are witnessing so far from you, a lot intuition and insight that easily falls apart with even a cursory examination. The reason your insights seem to be incorrect is because they are not based on the facts of reality. You make statements as facts and claim that you are well versed in physics, and when I point out your mistakes in knowledge you say that I am being close minded. You should thank me instead, and use my criticism as an opportunity to correct the errors in your knowledge. That way, your future insights may hold more merit...



New Age United said:


> Honestly Mr Durden, you are seriously limiting your own mind.


You seem afraid to acknowledge your many limitations, and seem to desperately need not only to protect, but to tout your poorly formed thoughts on a public forum. You state that you want to discuss your ideas, and when I join the discussion to point out errors and ask for clarification, I am accused of limiting my mind.  Rational inquiry and valid criticism are a large part of putting forth one's ideas in a public forum. Get used to it...


----------



## mudballs (Jan 1, 2015)

oh i'm settling in here man. if by some outstanding miracle i've met the dude that can write a dissertation explaining the metaphysical and physical worlds interconnectivity on a ganja forum i will be beside myself. i would like to narrow your expoundings to a molecular level. how does an atom know another atom is near it? if you can get passed that we can proceed.


----------



## skunkd0c (Jan 1, 2015)

New Age United said:


> any chance I had at what, connecting my thoughts perhaps, was that not implied, not very perceptive.


have you been watching Nassim Haramein ?

you might also want to look into the theory of "space jets" (Nevaeh420)


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Jan 1, 2015)

skunkd0c said:


> have you been watching Nassim Haramein ?
> 
> you might also want to look into the theory of "space jets" (Nevaeh420)


Yes, SPACE JETS are for the future.

I am sure that in the future, we will have a craft that can fly through the air, swim through the water, and rocket into outer space.

~PEACE~


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevaeh420 said:


> Yes, SPACE JETS are for the future.
> 
> I am sure that in the future, we will have a craft that can fly through the air, swim through the water, and rocket into outer space.
> 
> ~PEACE~


Who cares what you are sure of? Your certainty means nothing to anyone but yourself. Now keep quiet, Georgie, the adults are having a discussion...


----------



## Moebius (Jan 1, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> New Agers, like Chopra, are consistently attempting to lend credibility to their specious ideas by using scientific language, like the type found in quantum mechanics. When pressed by people who know what the fuck they're talking about, he admits that he is simply using the language metaphorically. Don't be like his ilk, be honest. If you're going to play in the realm of science, you need to be precise and use precise terminology. One's personal beliefs are not theories...


I like Chopra .. although I don't believe he has all the answers, he's interesting enough. I don't think he's being dishonest. All language when describing the material world is somewhat metaphorical and imprecise. Even maths is insufficient when attempting to explain, describe or speculate upon fundamental 'truths' whatever they may be.

One of the most freethinking physicists of our age 'Richard Feynman' completely made up a language to describe his own ideas, he called them Feynman diagrams. Essentially they were squiggly lines and arrows. These were metaphorical too.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 1, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Physics and Metaphysics
> 
> I have a theory which combines the Physical and Metaphysical, a theory of everything, but it has not been organized into a coherent doctrine. So I would like to discuss my theory with other philosophers so that I may formulate a coherent Theory of Physics and Metaphysics.
> 
> ...


Everything is happening because of 'entropy' ... maybe that's the ''reason' you're looking for. Out of disorder comes what appears to be order. In the end, things fall apart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe


----------



## Moebius (Jan 1, 2015)

mudballs said:


> how does an atom know another atom is near it? if you can get passed that we can proceed.


Electromagnetic force?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 1, 2015)

This all sounds so exciting.


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 1, 2015)

Moebius said:


> I like Chopra .. although I don't believe he has all the answers, he's interesting enough. I don't think he's being dishonest. All language when describing the material world is somewhat metaphorical and imprecise. Even maths is insufficient when attempting to explain, describe or speculate upon fundamental 'truths' whatever they may be.
> 
> One of the most freethinking physicists of our age 'Richard Feynman' completely made up a language to describe his own ideas, he called them Feynman diagrams. Essentially they were squiggly lines and arrows. These were metaphorical too.


Here's a short snippet of Chopra getting caught being dishonest about his use of quantum jargon. When cornered, we see him start his craziness of science hijacking quantum language for their own purposes. WTF? He then predictably switches into irrelevant ad hominems that scientists are arrogant and exclusive. I'll post more like this from him later on, gotta do some stuff...


----------



## gorillagrower0840 (Jan 1, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> I think it's mostly a matter of practice. When I first started down this path, my brain cramped all the time trying to understand what seemed so simple to these geniuses. I'm naturally a slow reader and retain 90+% of the material, but I had to reread physics paragraphs DOZENS and dozens of times to really understand and mentally picture what is actually happening. Having said that, yes I feel that I am much smarter than most people I've met. It often sucks, because it is a lonely place to be when you can easily understand what most others seem unable to. In a certain way, ignorance is bliss. If it's any consolation, you make more money than I do


Dude, I feel exactly the same way. I read your statement and thought it must be my clone writing it. I'm not trying to be arrogant or cocky, but I too feel that I am smarter than most people I ever come in contact with in life. And you are right, it can be a lonely place. Most people would think that being so smart is such a wonderful thing, but they don't realize the negative aspects of it as well, like the feeling of being alone and on your own. You can almost feel trapped sometimes. Often people might perceive your intelligence as being disrespectful, rude, or condescending towards them, but that's not the case. It can be very aggravating sometimes. You just wish people could operate on higher levels of thought like you do, and you believe it would be better for the world to do so. I too tend to read things relatively slowly, but thoroughly. I don't make great money either.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 1, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> Here's a short snippet of Chopra getting caught being dishonest about his use of quantum jargon. When cornered, we see him start his craziness of science hijacking quantum language for their own purposes. WTF? He then predictably switches into irrelevant ad hominems that scientists are arrogant and exclusive. I'll post more like this from him later on, gotta do some stuff...


We first heard Chopra state 'If you feel genuinely attractive, you'll attract other people to you' .... I tend to agree with him here.

Then he stated, 'if you create a shift in consciousness, you create a shift in biology, that's it' ... he's correct here also. Many studies into placebo's, Human psychology and neuro-psychology also concur to some degree.

Regarding Dawkins claim that Chopra has hijaked quantum terminology to describe his own idea ... isn't this what great physicists/thinkers do all the time to describe their concepts?

Einstein had little time for the idea's of Schroedinger's 'Quantum entanglement' among other principals of QM he disagreed with. 'Spooky action at a distance' I think he disparagingly called it, but Einstein appears to be wrong about this.

I just feel that only through the discussion of ideas can we debate and progress. We need more free thinkers and ideas in this world NOT fewer. This is my main gripe with Dawkins approach to science and metaphysics. The man is too quick to point the finger of quackery at those that fall outside of the conventional paradigm.


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 2, 2015)

Moebius said:


> We first heard Chopra state 'If you feel genuinely attractive, you'll attract other people to you' .... I tend to agree with him here.
> 
> Then he stated, 'if you create a shift in consciousness, you create a shift in biology, that's it' ... he's correct here also. Many studies into placebo's, Human psychology and neuro-psychology also concur to some degree.


Chopra is brilliant, no doubt, plus he's an MD. He wouldn't be nearly as effective as he is if that weren't the case. He's also a competent MD, so he knows a thing or two regarding biology...


> Regarding Dawkins claim that Chopra has hijaked quantum terminology to describe his own idea ... isn't this what great physicists/thinkers do all the time to describe their concepts?


No. Chopra takes the terminology from quantum physics and attempts to alter the terminology's meaning to disingenuously give credibility to his own specious and unproven ideas in order to sell his media. This is why he is facetiously called The Profit, and why we refer to it as hijacking. When great minds are honest and they use other great thinker's terminology, they are true to the original meaning and context of the words. So they are simply using others' terminology as opposed to hijacking it...


> Einstein had little time for the idea's of Schroedinger's 'Quantum entanglement' among other principals of QM he disagreed with. 'Spooky action at a distance' I think he disparagingly called it, but Einstein appears to be wrong about this.


Einstein may not have personally liked the quantum entanglement theory, but afaik he did recognize it as fact. He did not like the uncertainty and probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics in general, he was fond of saying, "God does not play dice".


> I just feel that only through the discussion of ideas can we debate and progress. We need more free thinkers and ideas in this world NOT fewer. This is my main gripe with Dawkins approach to science and metaphysics. The man is too quick to point the finger of quackery at those that fall outside of the conventional paradigm.


I agree about progress being attained through the discussion of ideas. I don't see a shortage of 'free thinkers', as Nevaeh and New Age United fall into this camp, along with anybody else who likes to be seen as 'thinking outside the box'. What is of value are free thinkers that base their work on credible theories and the facts about objective reality, as opposed to the ones that are largely uneducated or attempt to warp the facts of objective reality to further there own bias agendas. Dawkins has little tolerance for this type of thing, so he rubs many people in both camps the wrong way. I don't think he harsh on people because the are outside they conventional paradigm, I think it is because they make statements of fact that cannot be proven or supported, or are spreading misinformation via some other form.

Chopra's circular reasoning and logic is often used against him in TED Talks and the like. It seems the more educated the audience, the worse he fairs. His bread and butter seems to be those that don't know enough to see what he's up to. Here's a cute snippet of such an instance -






Here's the full length interview from which I took my earlier video snippet, it is very amusing -






Here's 2 hour debate with Shermer and Harris vs. Chopra and one of the worst picks I've ever seen anyone make, Jean Houston. She is an idiot. I could think of several people that would have lent more credibility to his position, especially against such skeptic heavyweights like Shermer and Harris! It is a very amusing debate, but spoiler alert, Chopra and Houston clearly get owned, as their ideas and positions cannot stand up to world class scrutiny. I've seen it several times, being a fan of Chopra, I think you'll enjoy it -

Ten minute clip -






Full 2 hour debate -


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 2, 2015)

This is also a fun site, I like to generate random Chopra quotes sometimes when things are slow. Try it and post your favorites! -

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

"Imagination meditates on subjective balance" 
"Intuition reflects the flow of destiny" 
"Interdependence transcends precious sensations"


----------



## New Age United (Jan 2, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> It is possible for you to come up with new insights. It is also possible that they all be wrong. That is what we are witnessing so far from you, a lot intuition and insight that easily falls apart with even a cursory examination. The reason your insights seem to be incorrect is because they are not based on the facts of reality. You make statements as facts and claim that you are well versed in physics, and when I point out your mistakes in knowledge you say that I am being close minded. You should thank me instead, and use my criticism as an opportunity to correct the errors in your knowledge. That way, your future insights may hold more merit...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem afraid to acknowledge your many limitations, and seem to desperately need not only to protect, but to tout your poorly formed thoughts on a public forum. You state that you want to discuss your ideas, and when I join the discussion to point out errors and ask for clarification, I am accused of limiting my mind.  Rational inquiry and valid criticism are a large part of putting forth one's ideas in a public forum. Get used to it...


Yes thank you Mr Durden, I am learning from you, you are very well educated. I never said that I was well versed in physics I said I like to study physics, now many of my perspectives about the subject are astray from the norm, and yes I am well aware that I could be wrong. I'm not touting my intellect I am actually coming to you and admitting my own limitations and uncertainty.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 2, 2015)

http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/VasavadaK2.php


----------



## New Age United (Jan 2, 2015)

I will heed your advice Mr Durden, I can use time dilation and simultaneity to support my hypothesis on relative motion. I will try to track down credible links and build an actual theory before I present this again. Very good responses from everyone, I wanted to present the idea because I know that there are some very intelligent people on here, I too am aware of my keen intellect, just as I am aware that I am grossly uneducated, their is a difference between stupidity and ignorance.


----------



## mudballs (Jan 2, 2015)

Newton had a hunch about how the world worked and ended up creating calculus to explain it. Maybe you can find a path to explain yours.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 2, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> Einstein may not have personally liked the quantum entanglement theory, but afaik he did recognize it as fact. He did not like the uncertainty and probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics in general, he was fond of saying, "God does not play dice".


Einstein did not recognise the principal of Quantum Non-locality and as you correctly state the uncertain and probabilistic nature of QM but this IS the defining nature of Quantum Entanglement. He felt that entangled particles must have had an inherent 'DNA' within them that allowed the state of these particles to be determined before hand. The notion that the spin state of one particle could instantaneously effect the spin state of another across infinite distances was an anathema to him, it violated his general theory of relativity that states 'Nothing could travel faster than light'. '' it appears however that on the Plank scale Space/time does not exist in the classical sense. .. Einstein argued for years about this with Niels Bohr.

Einstein also felt reality existed independent of the observer. 



> I agree about progress being attained through the discussion of ideas. I don't see a shortage of 'free thinkers', as Nevaeh and New Age United fall into this camp, along with anybody else who likes to be seen as 'thinking outside the box'. What is of value are free thinkers that base their work on credible theories and the facts about objective reality, as opposed to the ones that are largely uneducated or attempt to warp the facts of objective reality to further there own bias agendas. Dawkins has little tolerance for this type of thing, so he rubs many people in both camps the wrong way. I don't think he harsh on people because the are outside they conventional paradigm, I think it is because they make statements of fact that cannot be proven or supported, or are spreading misinformation via some other form.


But the so called 'facts' of 'objective reality' ARE debateable. This was what Niels bohr and Einstein argued about throughout their lives. Bohrs felt there was no objective reality that is knowable or that reality on the atomic scale didn't even have any meaning. The mere act of observing a particle would change the state of the particle. .. So when new-agers/freethinkers discuss the relationship between consciousness and matter I tend to believe this is in the tradition of the great physcist, Niels bohr. ..... When Einstein stated 'God does not play dice' he was basically saying the Universe is ultimately deterministic, Bohrs reply was 'Einstein should stop telling God what to do'.

In 1963, John Bell (physicist) proved the non-deterministic, non-localised nature of photons with his experiment using polarized light. This was in keeping with Niels Bohr view of the nature of reality.



> Chopra's circular reasoning and logic is often used against him in TED Talks and the like. It seems the more educated the audience, the worse he fairs. His bread and butter seems to be those that don't know enough to see what he's up to. Here's a cute snippet of such an instance -
> 
> Here's 2 hour debate with Shermer and Harris vs. Chopra and one of the worst picks I've ever seen anyone make, Jean Houston. She is an idiot. I could think of several people that would have lent more credibility to his position, especially against such skeptic heavyweights like Shermer and Harris! It is a very amusing debate, but spoiler alert, Chopra and Houston clearly get owned, as their ideas and positions cannot stand up to world class scrutiny. I've seen it several times, being a fan of Chopra, I think you'll enjoy it -


I never said I was a fan of Chopra, I enjoy listening to the guy and pondering his ideas. I think I would like having a drink with him and talking about his concepts. I suspect calling me a 'fan' suggests by you that I blindly follow his teachings, an attempt to disparage and stiffer debate perhaps?. I'll certainly watch that video later.

I don't think it's useful if we get bogged down too much discussing Chopra, he is but one individual and exponent of this 'new-age', 'non-scientific' thinking of which you seemingly have such disdain for. I just say, that in our attempts to form an understanding of our physical world we cannot rely on empirical raw data alone. There is a place in this discussion for meta-physical freethinkers.

Niels Bohr (physicist) wrote -* 'We must look towards thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzo who try to harmonize our position, both as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence'*.

Below is a worthwhile documentary on the topics discussed here. I have quoted from this video.






and here is a short video (5 min) from David Bohm, physicist and protege of Einstein on perception and reality


----------



## Moebius (Jan 2, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Yes thank you Mr Durden, I am learning from you, you are very well educated. I never said that I was well versed in physics I said I like to study physics, now many of my perspectives about the subject are astray from the norm, and yes I am well aware that I could be wrong. I'm not touting my intellect I am actually coming to you and admitting my own limitations and uncertainty.


Richard Feynman said " Anyone that tells you they understand quantum physics, doesn't understand quantum physics".

You are not alone in admitting your uncertainty. peace.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 2, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> This is also a fun site, I like to generate random Chopra quotes sometimes when things are slow. Try it and post your favorites! -
> 
> http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/
> 
> ...


I recently read a book by Rachel Carson 'The Sea around us' (1951) ... The book is an attempt to understand the oceans and sea's on our planet from a geological perspective. From the first page I was captured by the eloquence and clarity of her writing and finished the book in 2 days.

She was quoted as saying .. '*If there is poetry in my book about the sea, it is not because I deliberately put it there, but because no one could write truthfully about the sea and leave out the poetry.'*


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 2, 2015)

^^ Excellent post (#40). I gotta do some stuff again, but I'll watch your videos and respond when I return...


----------



## Moebius (Jan 2, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> Ten minute clip -








@4.08 one of the speakers criticizes Chopra by saying .... "He (Chopra) claims that everything in the Universe is interconnected, and it just isn't". 

A quote from Wikipedia -
_*All matter can exhibit wave-like behaviour. For example a beam of electrons can be diffracted just like a beam of light or a water wave. Matter waves are a central part of the theory of quantum mechanics, an example of wave–particle duality. The concept that matter behaves like a wave is also referred to as the de Broglie hypothesis*_

Now if all matter behaves like waves, how is it 'woo woo' to state they are interconnected. .. In our great oceans are the waves that break on the shore of one beach unconnected to the waves that break on the beach further down the coast? Although the relationship may be immeasurably small, none-the-less the inter-connectivity is undeniable. I think.


----------



## mudballs (Jan 2, 2015)

i wouldn't say that's a valid example. Waves are energy moving through a medium.


----------



## god1 (Jan 2, 2015)

eye exaggerate said:


> http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/VasavadaK2.php



It'd be interesting to know Kashyap Vasavada take on Chopra?

Any published material or known links?

As a practicing eng, heavily planted in Newtonian physics, I'll bet this nut (Chopra), couldn't calculate the thermal cycle on closed loop grow room to save his life. Albeit, he's probably a big proponent of "fuzzy" logic.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 2, 2015)

mudballs said:


> i wouldn't say that's a valid example. Waves are energy moving through a medium.



Both the kinetic energy of a wave in water or the electromagnetic wave of light behave in much the same way and actually have the same origin.

Its perfectly valid and grounded in physics ... why do you say it's not? Please explain.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/wave-energy1.htm


----------



## mudballs (Jan 2, 2015)

i don't feel they explain the innerconnectivity in the context of this thread.how does a wave hitting a beach detail how an atom in a grain of sand is connected to the energy in the wave? ergo they stand behind the statement 'the universe is not interconnected. to back such a statement that it _is _interconnected you'd have to come up with an axiom or something like Schrödinger's cat.

@god1 that's not fair could you calculate capillary pressure without looking something up? for the record i hate chopra


----------



## New Age United (Jan 2, 2015)

Moebius said:


> Everything is happening because of 'entropy' ... maybe that's the ''reason' you're looking for. Out of disorder comes what appears to be order. In the end, things fall apart.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe





mudballs said:


> i wouldn't say that's a valid example. Waves are energy moving through a medium.


Yes it is my belief that the medium is space, which actually is a fabric and is not actually separate from energy, the bending of this fabric on a quantum scale creates the wave, the accumulated bending is what creates gravity on the astro- scale, the strong nuclear force could be considered a minute quantum gravity which causes just the slightest bend in space - time and thus matter is created, the infinite vastness of space becomes a singularity, Space becoming Time in a continuous seemingly perpetual function, the space - time continuum.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 2, 2015)

When space bends time bends with it, because ultimately they are inseparable, the relative motion of energy in space is time, so if space bends, dilates, then the the relative motion of energy has not choice but to be effected, it dilates as well.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 2, 2015)

god1 said:


> I*t'd be interesting to know Kashyap Vasavada take on Chopra?*
> 
> Any published material or known links?
> 
> As a practicing eng, heavily planted in Newtonian physics, I'll bet this nut (Chopra), couldn't calculate the thermal cycle on closed loop grow room to save his life. Albeit, he's probably a big proponent of "fuzzy" logic.


That's a good question. At any rate, Chopra is blending the terms of his heritage in most cases, which increases probability that he'd be misunderstood in some instances (o% - 100% - or 70%). I'm not making a case for him, I don't know him personally.


----------



## mudballs (Jan 2, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Yes it is my belief that the medium is space, which actually is a fabric and is not actually separate from energy, the bending of this fabric on a quantum scale creates the wave, the accumulated bending is what creates gravity on the astro- scale, the strong nuclear force could be considered a minute quantum gravity which causes just the slightest bend in space - time and thus matter is created, the infinite vastness of space becomes a singularity, Space becoming Time in a continuous seemingly perpetual function, the space - time continuum.


what you talk about here is already studied in The Casimir Effect. They claim to have found the Higgs Boson, the particle believed to give all things mass so that right there defuncts the claim 'fabric and is not actually separate from energy'
Honestly I'm having a hard time following your train of thought. I was enticed by your metaphysical wording but we're pretty far from that now.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 2, 2015)

Let's take a photon of light for example, it may not be the strong nuclear force that binds the photon but it is still the minute quantum gravity at work, Space bending to a lesser degree. It is as if this bending is calculated to perfection and all comes together as a synchronistic orchestra, with everything physical fulfilling it's natural purpose.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 2, 2015)

mudballs said:


> what you talk about here is already studied in The Casimir Effect. They claim to have found the Higgs Boson, the particle believed to give all things mass so that right there defuncts the claim 'fabric and is not actually separate from energy'
> Honestly I'm having a hard time following your train of thought. I was enticed by your metaphysical wording but we're pretty far from that now.


Yes I am aware that it is not an original idea of mine, but none the less I have a strong intuit that it is true.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 2, 2015)

Here, let me try to clarify. If space bends, it dilates from one frame of reference to another, thus the distance that an object has to travel is shortened, so if the object maintains the same velocity it will actually be moving faster because the space between the two frames is dilated, thus time is effected. Of course the speed of light can not be broken, it has it natural purpose as the governor of space - time, and when two frames of reference travel towards each other at nearly the speed of light we experience time dilation, because the relative motion between any two frames can not exceed the speed of light.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 2, 2015)

mudballs said:


> i don't feel they explain the innerconnectivity in the context of this thread.how does a wave hitting a beach detail how an atom in a grain of sand is connected to the energy in the wave? ergo they stand behind the statement 'the universe is not interconnected. to back such a statement that it _is _interconnected you'd have to come up with an axiom or something like Schrödinger's cat.



I don't see how the thought experiment of Shroedinger's cat can be thought of as axiomatic in any way. but ill attempt to explain the 'inter-connectivity' paradigm as I understand it

Firstly the waves at different parts of the ocean are connected through the 2ndt law of thermodynamics, which states that in an isolated system, concentrated energy disperses over time. This energy passes through the system as a whole.

On a more fundamental level, matter is considered both a wave and a particle and behaves like so. The solidity we perceive is very much down to our subjective perception and is an emergent property of our conscious 'living' minds. We exist in a big quantum soup of atoms and sub-atomic particles. at a deeper level matter it is all made up of quarks and fields called gluons etc.

so in this sense we can imagine it (the universe) like an ocean. It's all made up of the same stuff.. A disturbance on the shore at one end will have an effect on the waves at another end. .. this is beyond our current ability to measure.but none the less they are linked.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 2, 2015)

Moebius said:


> I don't see how the thought experiment of Shroedinger's cat can be thought of as axiomatic in any way. but ill attempt to explain the 'inter-connectivity' paradigm as I understand it
> 
> Firstly the waves at different parts of the ocean are connected through the 2ndt law of thermodynamics, which states that in an isolated system, concentrated energy disperses over time. This energy passes through the system as a whole.
> 
> ...


And perhaps by the unity of Space (Eternity), it can defeat the speed of light and simultaneously occurring events can take place relative to each other across such great distances.


----------



## mudballs (Jan 2, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Here, let me try to clarify. If space bends, it dilates from one frame of reference to another, thus the distance that an object has to travel is shortened, so if the object maintains the same velocity it will actually be moving faster because the space between the two frames is dilated, thus time is effected. Of course the speed of light can not be broken, it has it natural purpose as the governor of space - time, and when two frames of reference travel towards each other at nearly the speed of light we experience time dilation, because the relative motion between any two frames can not exceed the speed of light.


i believe things can travel faster than light. Something i use but can't further develop is black holes. They say that anything that enters can not escape, _not even light._ That right there tells me that light has now been accelerated beyond the speed of light, it's going away faster than it can come towards us.Then there is the whole infinity thing in black holes. If something gets infinite gravity then that extrapolates to infinite speed by proxy. On top of that is one infinity can be larger than another.


Moebius said:


> I don't see how the thought experiment of Shroedinger's cat can be thought of as axiomatic in any way. but ill attempt to explain the 'inter-connectivity' paradigm as I understand it
> 
> Firstly the waves at different parts of the ocean are connected through the 2ndt law of thermodynamics, which states that in an isolated system, concentrated energy disperses over time. This energy passes through the system as a whole.
> 
> ...


well that is just interacting particles.they don't know the wave is coming.i use Schroedinger as a thought experiment where we need to come up with a similar conjecture or thought experiment detailing the relationship. it can be called an axiom but i wasn't using it in that context. it's an axiom because it can not be disproved, it can be said to be an understood truth in reality. the cat is either alive or dead upon observation but can be both until observed. just like the photon through paper slits experiment. yes all the world can be waves and particles, read 'Holographic Universe'. but i think we're going down our own tracks here. to determine inter connectivity beyond regular Newtonian 'for every action there is an equal...' we touch quantum entanglement. ok that's proven but EVERY atom entangled with EVERY OTHER atom? now that's a big statement.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 2, 2015)

mudballs said:


> i believe things can travel faster than light. Something i use but can't further develop is black holes. They say that anything that enters can not escape, _not even light._ That right there tells me that light has now been accelerated beyond the speed of light, it's going away faster than it can come towards us.Then there is the whole infinity thing in black holes. If something gets infinite gravity then that extrapolates to infinite speed by proxy. On top of that is one infinity can be larger than another.


Steven Hawking postulates something called 'Hawking radiation' that is emitted from the event horizon of a black-hole. I really don't know much more about it.


----------



## mudballs (Jan 2, 2015)

Moebius said:


> Steven Hawking postulates something called 'Hawking radiation' that is emitted from the event horizon of a black-hole. I really don't know much more about it.


that has to do with how the universe might die.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 2, 2015)

mudballs said:


> i believe things can travel faster than light. Something i use but can't further develop is black holes. They say that anything that enters can not escape, _not even light._ That right there tells me that light has now been accelerated beyond the speed of light, it's going away faster than it can come towards us.Then there is the whole infinity thing in black holes. If something gets infinite gravity then that extrapolates to infinite speed by proxy. On top of that is one infinity can be larger than another.


When photons are absorbed by an electron the photon is essentially destroyed. This is what happens inside a blackhole. The energy is simply absorbed by matter which is then pulled further into the singularity. No need for faster-than light travel to explain why they cannot escape.

Photons are being absorbed and effectively destroyed by your eyes just by reading this post


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 3, 2015)

Moebius said:


> Einstein did not recognise the principal of Quantum Non-locality and as you correctly state the uncertain and probabilistic nature of QM but this IS the defining nature of Quantum Entanglement. He felt that entangled particles must have had an inherent 'DNA' within them that allowed the state of these particles to be determined before hand. The notion that the spin state of one particle could instantaneously effect the spin state of another across infinite distances was an anathema to him, it violated his general theory of relativity that states 'Nothing could travel faster than light'. '' it appears however that on the Plank scale Space/time does not exist in the classical sense. .. Einstein argued for years about this with Niels Bohr.


Yep, I remember all that Einstein showed some surprising rigidity in his attitudes for a dude that was famous for going against convention himself.


> Einstein also felt reality existed independent of the observer.


It does. No one seriously thinks that the universe didn't exist before sentient creatures evolved, or that to cosmos would disappear if sentient creature weren't around to observe it...


> But the so called 'facts' of 'objective reality' ARE debateable. This was what Niels bohr and Einstein argued about throughout their lives. Bohrs felt there was no objective reality that is knowable or that reality on the atomic scale didn't even have any meaning. The mere act of observing a particle would change the state of the particle. .. So when new-agers/freethinkers discuss the relationship between consciousness and matter I tend to believe this is in the tradition of the great physcist, Niels bohr.


This is where understanding breaks down for the layman, and what Chopra and his ilk capitalize on: the observer effect only takes place on a quantum scale, it has no effect on our classical or macro world. The reason why observing particles has an effect is much like why measuring our tires air pressure has an effect; we have to let some air out of the tire while measuring the pressure, so the tire's pressure ends up being lesser because of the act of measuring. Similarly, measuring electrons requires firing photons at it in order to see where it is for the measurement. By observing things in this way, we necessarily alter the object being measured. Nothing far out or supernatural about it. What does seem far out is that measuring quantum systems seems to make them choose a definite state in which to exist: before measuring these systems, they exist in more than one state, but the act of measuring collapse the probability waves and the state of the system becomes concrete. New age charlatans state that since this is true in certain quantum occurrences, it must be true for the macro world as well. Fail. Also, the ignore the fact that probability waves also collapse whenever they interact with ANY object from our classical/macro world, so the observer is not even necessary for the collapsing of probability waves. Which is why reality exists independent from any observer…



> ..... When Einstein stated 'God does not play dice' he was basically saying the Universe is ultimately deterministic, Bohrs reply was 'Einstein should stop telling God what to do'.


Love the back and forth between these two giants. It really was not even a debate, Einstein was dead wrong. It seemed like a debate at the time because they did not have the tech we do today to run experiments to show Bohr was correct on everything concerning this theory. It was basically Bohr attempting to convince Einstein about the probabilistic reality of QM...


> In 1963, John Bell (physicist) proved the non-deterministic, non-localised nature of photons with his experiment using polarized light. This was in keeping with Niels Bohr view of the nature of reality.


This is true, and very cool. Again, the phenomenon only exists on the quantum scale…



> I never said I was a fan of Chopra, I enjoy listening to the guy and pondering his ideas. I think I would like having a drink with him and talking about his concepts. I suspect calling me a 'fan' suggests by you that I blindly follow his teachings, an attempt to disparage and stiffer debate perhaps?. I'll certainly watch that video later.


I used the term fan simply because you stated that you like Chopra. I don’t think the term fan denotes a blind devotion, and no disparagement was meant. Strange that you would take it that way…


> I don't think it's useful if we get bogged down too much discussing Chopra, he is but one individual and exponent of this 'new-age', 'non-scientific' thinking of which you seemingly have such disdain for. I just say, that in our attempts to form an understanding of our physical world we cannot rely on empirical raw data alone. There is a place in this discussion for meta-physical freethinkers.


I feel that we can and do rely solely on logical and objective conclusions based on empirical, raw data to understand our physical world. It is explaining our subjective experience in the physical world where empirical raw data falls short. For this, we may need some brand of meta-physics. It is important to note that these are two very different things; the physical world, and our subjective experiences of it…



> Niels Bohr (physicist) wrote -* 'We must look towards thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzo who try to harmonize our position, both as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence'*.


This quote seems to be referring to understanding our subjective experience, not of understanding the objective physical world. Beside, Bohr didn’t go to university on a poetry scholarship 




> Below is a worthwhile documentary on the topics discussed here. I have quoted from this video.
> 
> and here is a short video (5 min) from David Bohm, physicist and protege of Einstein on perception and reality


Thanks for posting these vids, I will make time to watch them this weekend. Gotta reply to all the posts first…[/QUOTE]


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 3, 2015)

Moebius said:


> @4.08 one of the speakers criticizes Chopra by saying .... "He (Chopra) claims that everything in the Universe is interconnected, and it just isn't".
> 
> A quote from Wikipedia -
> _*All matter can exhibit wave-like behaviour. For example a beam of electrons can be diffracted just like a beam of light or a water wave. Matter waves are a central part of the theory of quantum mechanics, an example of wave–particle duality. The concept that matter behaves like a wave is also referred to as the de Broglie hypothesis*_
> ...


Great question. Your metaphor is not accurate: most of the water on Earth is interconnected, save for isolated bodies of water, so movement somewhere affects movement everywhere. All the matter in the cosmos is clearly not interconnected as there is empty space between the separate masses of matter. Just as the movement of water in the interconnected oceans does not influence the isolated bodies of water on this planet, the movement of some matter doesn't affect other matter separated by space. If this doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll try again...


----------



## Moebius (Jan 3, 2015)

> Einstein also felt reality existed independent of the observer.





tyler.durden said:


> It does. No one seriously thinks that the universe didn't exist before sentient creatures evolved, or that to cosmos would disappear if sentient creature weren't around to observe it...


I don't think my comment implies that sentient creatures are essential for a reality to exist but rather that our universe/reality is changed through our observations. Maybe I could have phrased it different but that's semantics.



tyler.durden said:


> This is where understanding breaks down for the layman, and what Chopra and his ilk capitalize on: the observer effect only takes place on a quantum scale, it has no effect on our classical or macro world. The reason why observing particles has an effect is much like why measuring our tires air pressure has an effect; we have to let some air out of the tire while measuring the pressure, so the tire's pressure ends up being lesser because of the act of measuring. Similarly, measuring electrons requires firing photons at it in order to see where it is for the measurement. By observing things in this way, we necessarily alter the object being measured. Nothing far out or supernatural about it. What does seem far out is that measuring quantum systems seems to make them choose a definite state in which to exist: before measuring these systems, they exist in more than one state, but the act of measuring collapse the probability waves and the state of the system becomes concrete. New age charlatans state that since this is true in certain quantum occurrences, it must be true for the macro world as well. Fail. Also, the ignore the fact that probability waves also collapse whenever they interact with ANY object from our classical/macro world, so the observer is not even necessary for the collapsing of probability waves. Which is why reality exists independent from any observer…


Au contraire, this is where much of the conventional paradigm get over-turned by the cutting edge. Your statement that the observer effect only takes place on a quantum scale is correct but it's complete supposition to suggest it has no effect on the macro scale. That maybe what scientist felt just a few years back but recent discoveries suggest otherwise. Quantum processes including superpositions and entanglement are now being shown to have very real, non-trivial effects on our world and biology. I'll post studies and references a bit later.

So really the physicists being shown disagreeing with Chopra cannot be blamed for not knowing what is only now being revealed to science. .. although, long discussed by those unhindered by a biased, 'so called' scientific methodology.

EDIT: references

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/oct/26/youre-powered-by-quantum-mechanics-biology

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n1/full/nphys2474.html


----------



## Moebius (Jan 3, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> Great question. Your metaphor is not accurate: most of the water on Earth is interconnected, save for isolated bodies of water, so movement somewhere affects movement everywhere. All the matter in the cosmos is clearly not interconnected as there is empty space between the separate masses of matter. Just as the movement of water in the interconnected oceans does not influence the isolated bodies of water on this planet, the movement of some matter doesn't affect other matter separated by space. If this doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll try again...


There is no such thing as empty space

... http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/11/why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-empty-space.html


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 3, 2015)

Moebius said:


> I don't think my comment implies that sentient creatures are essential for a reality to exist but rather that our universe/reality is changed through our observations. Maybe I could have phrased it different but that's semantics.
> 
> Au contraire, this is where much of the conventional paradigm get over-turned by the cutting edge. Your statement that the observer effect only takes place on a quantum scale is correct but it's complete supposition to suggest it has no effect on the macro scale. That maybe what scientist felt just a few years back but recent discoveries suggest otherwise. Quantum processes including superpositions and entanglement are now being shown to have very real, non-trivial effects on our world and biology. I'll post studies and references a bit later.
> 
> So really the physicists being shown disagreeing with Chopra cannot be blamed for not knowing what is only now being revealed to science. .. although, long discussed by those unhindered by a biased, 'so called' scientific methodology.


Perhaps I phrased things badly myself. I didn't mean that the observer effect has no effect on the macro world, how would I know something like that? I meant that there is no reason to believe so because afaik there has been no evidence of it. Yes, you would have to link to credible data regarding these recent scientific discoveries. I tried a few different Google searches, and I cannot find anything...


----------



## Moebius (Jan 3, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> Perhaps I phrased things badly myself. I didn't mean that the observer effect has no effect on the macro world, how would I know something like that? I meant that there is no reason to believe so because afaik there has been no evidence of it. Yes, you would have to link to credible data regarding these recent scientific discoveries. I tried a few different Google searches, and I cannot find anything...


Please find the references in the edited section of my post #64.... or google the term 'Quantum biology'


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 3, 2015)

Moebius said:


> There is no such thing as empty space
> 
> ... http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/11/why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-empty-space.html


Yes, technically there is no 'empty' space, as virtual particles and their anti-particles are constantly popping into and out of existence on the quantum scale, even in a vacuum. Even if the universe ends in a Big Rip, the only thing left would be this quantum soup of particles and their anti-particles popping into, and back out of, existence. This again happens only on a quantum scale, and the popping into and out of existence seems to net a zero sum. While it's cool, it still seems to amount to nothing in a practical sense...


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 3, 2015)

Moebius said:


> Please find the references in the edited section of my post #64.... or google the term 'Quantum biology'


Thanks for the references. You have given me a lot of reading and watching to do, thank you for that, too. I'll have to pour over it all, but it initially looks very exciting! I read slowly and have a busy weekend ahead, so I hope to be able to respond intelligently on Sunday night...


----------



## Moebius (Jan 3, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> Yes, technically there is no 'empty' space, as virtual particles and their anti-particles are constantly popping into and out of existence on the quantum scale, even in a vacuum. Even if the universe ends in a Big Rip, the only thing left would be this quantum soup of particles and their anti-particles popping into, and back out of, existence. This again happens only on a quantum scale, and the popping into and out of existence seems to net a zero sum. While it's cool, it still seems to amount to nothing in a practical sense...


Amounts to nothing? WHOA ... thats like saying the foundations of a skyscraper amount to nothing because we cannot see them. In fact they're fundamental to the integrity of the building. In the same way as these sub-atomic particles (we can also call them waves) are fundamental to the structure of our universe, our physics and our existence.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 3, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> Thanks for the references. You have given me a lot of reading and watching to do, thank you for that, too. I'll have to pour over it all, but it initially looks very exciting! I read slowly and have a busy weekend ahead, so I hope to be able to respond intelligently on Sunday night...


respond in your own time bro .. Ive enjoyed and learnt through our discussions. peace.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 3, 2015)

Well, here's another thing I didn't know. <-- Good thing I'm used to that.


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 3, 2015)

Moebius said:


> Amounts to nothing? WHOA ... thats like saying the foundations of a skyscraper amount to nothing because we cannot see them. In fact they're fundamental to the integrity of the building. In the same way as these sub-atomic particles (we can also call them waves) are fundamental to the structure of our universe, our physics and our existence.


Those metaphors again  Using your metaphor regarding my statement of empty space in a big rip scenario, the building foundations (sub-atomic particles and their anti-particles popping into and out of existence) would be meaningless with any materials (enough energy and/or matter) with which to build the upper floors...


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 3, 2015)

Moebius said:


> respond in your own time bro .. Ive enjoyed and learnt through our discussions. peace.


Thanks. This is the most fun I've had on this sub-forum in a while


----------



## New Age United (Jan 3, 2015)

Wow, you guys seriously know your shit, thanks for the education, I have some reading and watching to do too.


----------



## mudballs (Jan 3, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> Yes, technically there is no 'empty' space, as virtual particles and their anti-particles are constantly popping into and out of existence on the quantum scale, even in a vacuum. Even if the universe ends in a Big Rip, the only thing left would be this quantum soup of particles and their anti-particles popping into, and back out of, existence. This again happens only on a quantum scale, and the popping into and out of existence seems to net a zero sum. While it's cool, it still seems to amount to nothing in a practical sense...


well if i may for a moment touch on this. there are two moments where it is plausible to have empty space, imo. one is the near zero temperature end of the universe. entropy has expanded it so much and cooled it so low that there is arguably empty space present is there not? there would be no anti-particles or particles they've been eaten or too distant from one another. the second would be the edge of the expanding universe. sort of like first the railroad track is laid before a train arrives. as you mentioned there has to be someplace for the something to exist. however minute that cross section may be, logic would discern that is empty space unless quarks and such can already be in position. and if that provides for empty space then the universe is not inter connected. the continuity can not be provided. what the hell were we talking about again?


----------



## mudballs (Jan 3, 2015)

Moebius said:


> When photons are absorbed by an electron the photon is essentially destroyed. This is what happens inside a blackhole. The energy is simply absorbed by matter which is then pulled further into the singularity. No need for faster-than light travel to explain why they cannot escape.
> 
> Photons are being absorbed and effectively destroyed by your eyes just by reading this post


thete is nothing for the photon to hit. everything in front of it is moving away exponentially and itself is moving away from stuff behind it exponentially. and it can only bump into something at the singularity.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 3, 2015)

mudballs said:


> i believe things can travel faster than light. Something i use but can't further develop is black holes. They say that anything that enters can not escape, _not even light._ That right there tells me that light has now been accelerated beyond the speed of light, it's going away faster than it can come towards us.Then there is the whole infinity thing in black holes. If something gets infinite gravity then that extrapolates to infinite speed by proxy. On top of that is one infinity can be larger than another.


Thank you for presenting this idea to me, it has allowed me to ponder. I know that it is not necessary to explain why light can not escape but the idea holds merit to my understanding.

According to my understanding if a particle of mass were to travel faster than the speed of light it would then be existing in the future, it would not even be possible to observe such an event because it would be existing in a future frame of reference. Because all mass is governed by the speed of light, if any mass were to exceed the governor it would be moving ahead of the relative motion of the rest of the universe, a future frame of reference.

So it is possible that if the infinite gravity could accelerate mass past the speed of light then it would then dissappear from our frame of reference and would no longer be observable, it would appear to be a void in space - time, a black hole. If that is the case then the object would not be destroyed but would simply be existing in the future, we could then look at a black hole as an infinite vortex of time, an infinitely accelerating future, thus the singularity is created and infinite gravity is experienced.

Yes one infinity can be larger than the other.

Infinite:
Philosophy- endless
Calculus- not measurable; no possible derivative

Edit: or rather it is not infinite gravity that accelerates it past the speed of light, for whatever reason the mass accelerates past the speed of light and causes infinite gravity, an accelerated future.


----------



## mudballs (Jan 3, 2015)

unobservable future or not the following statement nags at me; you can always add 1. 186,000mps+1.


----------



## god1 (Jan 3, 2015)

mudballs said:


> i don't feel they explain the innerconnectivity in the context of this thread.how does a wave hitting a beach detail how an atom in a grain of sand is connected to the energy in the wave? ergo they stand behind the statement 'the universe is not interconnected. to back such a statement that it _is _interconnected you'd have to come up with an axiom or something like Schrödinger's cat.
> 
> @god1 that's not fair could you calculate capillary pressure without looking something up? for the record i hate chopra



Are you implying that the fundamental theory describing fluid dynamics is different based on the material properties of the hose? Why does it matter if it's copper pipe strung around your house vs some bio-tubes strung about in your head?

I don't hate Chopra, I don't even know the dude. I just think Chopra is more of a philosopher than he is a physicist. My bet is the other dude would kick his ass all over hell. Chopra will be fairly evaluated when he tosses out some mathematical derivation to support his claims ... talk is cheap, anybody can yap --- until then Chopra is a "woo-woo" guy. 

On the other hand, he makes a whole lot more money than me, so he must be playing something right.


----------



## heckler73 (Jan 3, 2015)

god1 said:


> On the other hand, he makes a whole lot more money than me, so he must be playing something right.


Benny Hinn became rather wealthy, too. 
So long as there are people who can be influenced by woo, they can equally be influenced to have digits in their bank accounts make 'quantum leaps' into the higher energy levels of Chopra's wallet. It's not so much a case of him doing something right; rather, it is the people being wooed who are doing something _wrong_.

RE: Bohr's Quantum model
Bohr's model is only really useful for S-orbitals of a hydrogen or Helium atom IIRC. When p, d, or f orbitals become involved, one needs to move into Schrodinger's equation with separation of variables, Laguerre Polynomials and Spherical Harmonic solutions, etc. That's where the equations get bloody ugly  But they do wind up working out nicely in the end, surprisingly. At least I am always gobsmacked when I reach the end of one of those calculations by the subtle beauty that falls out of it. There are other problems with Bohr's model which can be quickly found if one google's it.


----------



## mudballs (Jan 3, 2015)

god1 said:


> As a practicing eng, heavily planted in Newtonian physics, I'll bet this nut (Chopra), couldn't calculate the thermal cycle on closed loop grow room to save his life...


this what i was referring to. you made a broad detractive statement against his ability to do math off the top of his head. i retorted it isn't fair and countered that you (many engineers) forget things but once they look them up they can do it.


----------



## warble (Jan 3, 2015)

mudballs said:


> unobservable future or not the following statement nags at me; you can always add 1. 186,000mps+1.


Smoke a bowl, and let it stop naggin'. I figered it out it equals 186,001mps. It only equals that, its not exactly 186001mps, and not an approximation. I don't think I can always add 1. Sometimes I have couch lock and I am so heavy, it is so hard to accelerate while at rest. I just want to eat. Sometimes I don't have the time. You math zealots have your beliefs. I try not to believe in numbers, I just believe that I'll have another bowl.


----------



## heckler73 (Jan 3, 2015)

warble said:


> Smoke a bowl, and let it stop naggin'. I figered it out it equals 186,001mps. It only equals that, its not exactly 186001mps, and not an approximation. I don't think I can always add 1. Sometimes I have couch lock and I am so heavy, it is so hard to accelerate while at rest. I just want to eat. Sometimes I don't have the time. You math zealots have your beliefs. I try not to believe in numbers, I just believe that I'll have another bowl.


But you are never at rest anyway. It's an illusion of the non-inertial frame. The fact you want to eat shows you are consuming energy, even when in this perceived state of 'rest'.
Wasn't it the the Grateful Dead who said, "the faster we go, the rounder we get"?


----------



## warble (Jan 3, 2015)

The illusion is that we are moving, In the multiverse everything has occurred and we are just perceiving moments in one path. So it all exists, but we only get the pieces, a little at a time. I think it was the dead that said "A foolish heart will call on you to toss your dreams away, then turn around and blame you for the way you went astray."


----------



## mudballs (Jan 3, 2015)

Robert Hunter wrote most of it, the Dead just sang em.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 3, 2015)

Moebius said:


> When photons are absorbed by an electron the photon is essentially destroyed. This is what happens inside a blackhole. The energy is simply absorbed by matter which is then pulled further into the singularity. No need for faster-than light travel to explain why they can not escape


Argument from Ignorance. Please explain how you know that matter is destroyed inside of a black hole when there are other possibilities.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 3, 2015)

Hypothesis: when a star collapses the mass creates such an extreme dilation in time that everything gets sucked into the accelerated future and does break the speed of light.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 3, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Argument from Ignorance. Please explain how you know that matter is destroyed inside of a black hole when there are other possibilities.


What happens when an object from space falls to earth? The friction tends to burn it up creating light as it passes through our atmosphere.
The same thing happens to Black holes but on an unimaginable scale, as matter approaches the Black hole it burns up creating light. This actually makes Black holes some of the brightest objects in the Universe. (more specifically the halo around them).

Any object that is able to make it's way past the event horizon then has to deal with the intense gravity. The object it elongated before it is pulled apart in a process commonly called 'Spaghettification'.



So in answer to your question, I don't really 'know' but this is what the maths tell's us is happening.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 3, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Hypothesis: when a star collapses the mass creates such an extreme dilation in time that everything gets sucked into the accelerated future and does break the speed of light.


but time is relative. That is to say - the time dilation effect is only significant when compared to another object NOT experiencing the effect.
I can't see how it is applicable in the example you gave.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 3, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Hypothesis: when a star collapses the mass creates such an extreme dilation in time that everything gets sucked into the accelerated future and does break the speed of light.


I'm afraid that general relativity shows us 'faster than light' travel is IMPOSSIBLE.

The problem is our mass. .. Current, physicists believe that it is the interaction with the 'Higgs field' that gives particles their mass. and E=MC^2 shows us that even with all the energy in the observable universe, you would not be able to accelerate an object even as small as an electron to light speeds.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 3, 2015)

Moebius said:


> but time is relative. That is to say - the time dilation effect is only significant when compared to another object NOT experiencing the effect.
> I can't see how it is applicable in the example you gave.


In this case the object not experiencing the effect is the present universe.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 3, 2015)

Moebius said:


> I'm afraid that general relativity shows us 'faster than light' travel is IMPOSSIBLE.
> 
> The problem is our mass. .. Current, physicists believe that it is the interaction with the 'Higgs field' that gives particles their mass. and E=MC^2 shows us that even with all the energy in the observable universe, you would not be able to accelerate an object even as small as an electron to light speeds.


I am aware and concur, it's just mudballs has me thinking of other possibilities, it's just a thought.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 3, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Hypothesis: when a star collapses the mass creates such an extreme dilation in time that everything gets sucked into the accelerated future and does break the speed of light.





New Age United said:


> In this case the object not experiencing the effect is the present universe.


For the time dilation effect to happen, objects do not need to travel faster that light. Obviously the faster they go the more pronounced the effect is on the observer.

I believe this is what occurs in the movie 'Interstellar' .. although I have not seen it yet, I think the Astronaut comes home to find a daughter his own age. This is despite time appearing to have passed normally for both father and daughter. ... (gonna wait for a decent torrent  )


----------



## mudballs (Jan 3, 2015)

enough of that let's get back to metaphysical shit. what purpose would sentient forms of energy have in the physical universe?


----------



## New Age United (Jan 3, 2015)

Moebius said:


> For the time dilation effect to happen, objects do not need to travel faster that light. Obviously the faster they go the more pronounced the effect is on the observer.
> 
> I believe this is what occurs in the movie 'Interstellar' .. although I have not seen it yet, I think the Astronaut comes home to find a daughter his own age. This is despite time appearing to have passed normally for both father and daughter. ... (gonna wait for a decent torrent  )


Perhaps I will watch it myself. No objects do not need to travel anywhere near the speed of light to experience time dilation. If an object travels for long enough in the opposite relative motion it will experience a degree of time dilation no matter what the speed. 8 believe there is an astronaut that is projected to be existing 2 seconds Into the future because he has been revolving in the opposite direction of the earth (relative motion).


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 3, 2015)

mudballs said:


> enough of that let's get back to metaphysical shit. what purpose would sentient forms of energy have in the physical universe?


To understand its sentience (remove the i from sentience and there's the one verse) (I guess it's the same at any level of description) ( )


----------



## mudballs (Jan 3, 2015)

eye exaggerate said:


> To understand its sentience (remove the i from sentience and there's the one verse) (I guess it's the same at any level of description) ( )


sorry but....what was that all about? is that another one of those veiled insults that go over my head? n/m bored of thread

peace out


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 3, 2015)

mudballs said:


> sorry but....what was that all about? *is that another one of those veiled insults that go over my head?* n/m bored of thread
> 
> peace out


God no, lol


----------



## New Age United (Jan 3, 2015)

mudballs said:


> enough of that let's get back to metaphysical shit. what purpose would sentient forms of energy have in the physical universe?


OK, you like metaphysics, I am open to discussing it. Why is nature so beautiful, did it not know that a Witness (sentient being) would come to behold it's beauty?


----------



## New Age United (Jan 3, 2015)

mudballs said:


> enough of that let's get back to metaphysical shit. what purpose would sentient forms of energy have in the physical universe?


OK, you like metaphysics, I am open to discussing it. Why is nature so beautiful, did it not know that a Witness (sentient being) would come to behold it's beauty?


----------



## heckler73 (Jan 3, 2015)

Reason? That's part of the "hard question".
It also implies a _conscious intent_ is behind our existence. As such, it means an assumption must be made of there being a _creator_. The question which falls out of that idea, for me, becomes "is there a hierarchy of sentience"? Are we to assume our _forms_ are the pinnacle? Or are their _gardeners_ (for lack of a better term) who oversee our development, or may have initiated it, at least?
A skim of esoterica suggests a hierarchy. But again, to what end? For example, if "the greys" were our _gardeners_, then who is above them?
What is the reason for watching 'reality TV' ? Perhaps we are just amusement...maybe we are a future labour pool for higher dimension infrastructure development? 
Reason...that is far harder to answer than the question of 'relative motion'.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 3, 2015)

mudballs said:


> enough of that let's get back to metaphysical shit. what purpose would sentient forms of energy have in the physical universe?


To answer your question, we must revert to hypothetical and intuitive expression, logic and reasoning are for explaining the physical. The reason for sentient beings to exist in the physical universe may very well be the reason that the physical universe exists. The Earth is paradise and the reason for sentient beings to exist is to experience this paradise. I
The metaphysical can not be explained by logic, you have to express the metaphysical.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 3, 2015)

mudballs said:


> enough of that let's get back to metaphysical shit. what purpose would sentient forms of energy have in the physical universe?


I wanted to reply but was genuinely struggling with the question. _Sentient forms of energy_ had me scratching my head. ... Sounds a bit like GOD


----------



## Moebius (Jan 3, 2015)

New Age United said:


> OK, you like metaphysics, I am open to discussing it. Why is nature so beautiful, did it not know that a Witness (sentient being) would come to behold it's beauty?


Is it beautiful? I guess it's all perspective. Nature seems to be driven by death, it's a horror show out there folks. .. We may go out for a walk and admire the colourful moss clinging to a tree. How pretty. no, the moss is actually a parasite devouring the tree from the inside out.

Maybe an extra-terrestial species would admire the aesthetics of our conflicts and pollution whilst out for an interstellar joy-ride.

OK ..thats gibberish.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 3, 2015)

Moebius said:


> I wanted to reply but was genuinely struggling with the question. _Sentient forms of energy_ had me scratching my head. ... Sounds a bit like GOD


I'm afraid to post!


----------



## Moebius (Jan 3, 2015)

eye exaggerate said:


> I'm afraid to post!


Why? You may offend a sensitive soul? LOL


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 3, 2015)

Moebius said:


> Why? You may offend a sensitive soul? LOL


+ How? Where? When?


----------



## New Age United (Jan 4, 2015)

Moebius said:


> Is it beautiful? I guess it's all perspective. Nature seems to be driven by death, it's a horror show out there folks. .. We may go out for a walk and admire the colourful moss clinging to a tree. How pretty. no, the moss is actually a parasite devouring the tree from the inside out.
> 
> Maybe an extra-terrestial species would admire the aesthetics of our conflicts and pollution whilst out for an interstellar joy-ride.
> 
> OK ..thats gibberish.


Yes the metaphysical is completely subjective, and even the decay of matter has its natural purpose, it is a balance. Still cannot find a purpose for conflict and pollution, although with a little psychology we could determine the reason, the cause. Just because it is subjective doesn't mean it can not hold meaning and truth, but you do make a good point, what is true to me is not necessarily true to you.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 4, 2015)

Are personalities energetic? (In the sense of actual energy)


----------



## Moebius (Jan 4, 2015)

eye exaggerate said:


> Are personalities energetic? (In the sense of actual energy)


Personalities certainly cannot exist without energy. .. Try skipping breakfast and lunch, whilst remaining sunny and cheerful, lol.

Personalities cannot exist without a body. Bodies are composed of matter. Matter is energy.

so, it depends on how one chooses to approach that question I suppose.


----------



## reddan1981 (Jan 4, 2015)

Why is there consciousness? To observe? Observe then do what with the observation? What if..... Energy originated FROM our emotions and thought.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 4, 2015)

Psychology is a mash of physics and metaphysics, yes the mind is energy and is a physical object, but the perspectives, the causes and effects that take place within the mind are metaphysical. The process of the computer is physical but the data is metaphysical and can only be perceived by a subject and can only be interpreted and understood by a human conscious. 

Btw if you guys were referring to me as a sensitive soul, believe me, as all children it was once very sensitive, but I think you can relate, my soul has been through more he'll than a public forum could ever present to me, and thus it has been made strong (intuitive expression).


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 4, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Psychology is a mash of physics and metaphysics, yes the mind is energy and is a physical object, but the perspectives, the causes and effects that take place within the mind are metaphysical. The process of the computer is physical but the data is metaphysical and can only be perceived by a subject and can only be interpreted and understood by a human conscious.
> 
> Btw if you guys were referring to me as a sensitive soul, believe me, as all children it was once very sensitive, but I think you can relate, my soul has been through more he'll than a public forum could ever present to me, and thus it has been made strong (intuitive expression).


And psychology aims to center the being in the being, assimilating all aspects of self. Cooperation, I think that is the sum.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 4, 2015)

Psychology deals more with the metaphysical, understanding cause and effect within the mind. Psychiatry deals more with science of the mind and how different medicines effect the mind.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 4, 2015)

Can't wait for Mr Durden to come back and continue that discussion. If it happens on another thread can someone please message me and let me know.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 4, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Can't wait for Mr Durden to come back and continue that discussion. If it happens on another thread can someone please message me and let me know.


I'd like to know his thoughts about the recent research into the effects of quantum processes on biology. Many of the criticisms of people like Chopra's use of QM in explaining consciousness and nature have stated that these effects have no relevancy on the macro scale.

IMO. Many of these so called men of science attempt to build a career on shooting down free-thinkers. They write books, travel the world and present lectures in the vain, self-serving attempt to shoot down people who break from the conventional paradigm, all while criticizing Chopra for making money. Only time will tell but I suspect many of these physicist's will end up with egg on their face as has happened countless times before.

However many scientists don't engage in this battle of personalities and quietly do their research. The more they look, the more they find that QM processes may be very much a part of our daily lives as organisms on this planet.

Examples:

Within the last year or two cutting edge research suggests QM may be responsible for the efficiency in photosynthesis. 
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0114/090114-Quantum-mechanics-explains-efficiency-of-photosynthesis
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v10/n9/full/nphys3017.html

Avian navigation
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/gadgets/electric-field-disruption-magnetic-compass-birds-hints-quantum-action
http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/birds-that-use-quantum-mechanics-to-migrate/

Human sense of smell
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-bolsters-quantum-vibration-scent-theory/
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/146986-olfactory-breakthrough-a-theory-of-quantum-smell

In conclusion, earlier I stated I am not a fan of Chopra or even New-Age thinking, I remain a sceptic. I just don't discredit them easily because I realize our understanding of science, consciousness and existence is on a continuum that as a species we have barely started.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 4, 2015)

So when we enter our grow-rooms and appreciate the dank smell of bud, it's quite possible many Quantum mechanical processes are being employed. In the ability of Cannabis to convert the light into energy and our ability to appreciate the sweet smelling bouquet.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 4, 2015)

Moebius said:


> [...] IMO. Many of these so called men of science attempt to build a career on shooting down free-thinkers. They write books, travel the world and present lectures in the vain, self-serving attempt to shoot down people who break from the conventional paradigm, all while criticizing Chopra for making money. *Only time will tell but I suspect many of these physicist's will end up with egg on their face as has happened countless times before.*


Or maybe it'll be chicken that used to be an egg which was laid by a bird that was not a chicken


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

eye exaggerate said:


> Or maybe it'll be chicken that used to be an egg which was laid by a bird that was not a chicken


Q. What came first the Chicken or the egg?
A. Neither. The Rooster  (guess that's a males prerogative)


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Jan 5, 2015)

It seems like we have an astute bunch in this thread, so I will ask My question here:

How fast are we moving relative to the most distant galaxies on the opposite side of the universe?

Are we approaching light speed, compared to these distant galaxies? And if so, what are the implications for time travel?

I hope you guys can understand My question. I have been wondering this for many months now.

Thanks in advance.

~PEACE~


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

Nevaeh420 said:


> It seems like we have an astute bunch in this thread, so I will ask My question here:
> 
> How fast are we moving relative to the most distant galaxies on the opposite side of the universe?
> 
> ...


This is a good question and I think I know the answer but I'm going to eat my supper, consider, then double check my facts before i do present my answer.

But I can say now that there are few or no implications with respect to time travel or general relativity. .. ..... back soon.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> Why is there consciousness? To observe? Observe then do what with the observation? What if..... Energy originated FROM our emotions and thought.


I love this quote from Brian Cox (British Pop-Star turned Physicist)

_“We are the cosmos made conscious and life is the means by which the universe understands itself.”_


----------



## New Age United (Jan 5, 2015)

Nevaeh420 said:


> It seems like we have an astute bunch in this thread, so I will ask My question here:
> 
> How fast are we moving relative to the most distant galaxies on the opposite side of the universe?
> 
> ...


I was going to pose my own question but that is a very good question and I want Moebius to consider that first, I will take my time pondering it as well and see if I can respond.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 5, 2015)

Moebius said:


> I love this quote from Brian Cox (British Pop-Star turned Physicist)
> 
> _“We are the cosmos made conscious and life is the means by which the universe understands itself.”_


I am agnostic, but I have wondered if the ultimate purpose of creation is for God to know itself and realize it own being, the cosmos acts as a medium for God (Space) to come into being, the purpose of thought and logic is for god to eventually figure out that it is in fact god existing in human form, the purpose of emotions is for god to express it's inner heart, it could be said that it is the heart(subconscious) of God that is driving the cosmos (conscious)

Therefore God would have aspects of both good and evil, just as we do, in a sense we would be created in God's image, or at least in its imagination, imo, there very well could be a conscious God that is aware and alive (effective) in the universe, but I refuse to accept a supreme being that is male or female, masculine and feminine would be ying and yang expressions of God's being.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 5, 2015)

Nevaeh420 said:


> It seems like we have an astute bunch in this thread, so I will ask My question here:
> 
> How fast are we moving relative to the most distant galaxies on the opposite side of the universe?
> 
> ...


No I think general relativity and time travel both have implications here. There is no possible way that they are traveling faster than the speed of light relative to each other. Space - time must be bending (dilating) at an infinite number of relative frames, thus makes me wonder, how does it all come together as a synchronistic and coherent universe?


----------



## New Age United (Jan 5, 2015)

I'm pondering, I think simultaneity may hold the key to how it all comes together, this is the very purpose of having a governor (speed of light)


----------



## New Age United (Jan 5, 2015)

No there is a possible way, because they are separated by time, relative motion is governed by the speed of light but because light takes so long to travel any distance there is no instantaneous or simultaneously occurring events, therefore as far as coherent space - time is concerned they are not actually traveling faster than the speed of light but as far as an observer who could observe the entire universe at once they are. You see an observer can not possibly perceive an event of faster than the speed of light.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 5, 2015)

If not for the speed of light as the governor space - time would be all contorted and the universe would be a mangled mess, which very well may be what is happening with black holes, but perhaps black holes serve their natural purpose of creating the means for other big bangs to occur, they are like seeds in the soil of space, collecting energy for the singularity, for another big bang. Like you say entropy, out of disorder comes what appears to be order and then it all falls apart again.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

Damn this question LOL ... Ive almost composed my answer though.


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Jan 5, 2015)

New Age United said:


> If not for the speed of light as the governor space - time would be all contorted and the universe would be a mangled mess, which very well may be what is happening with black holes, but perhaps black holes serve their natural purpose of creating the means for other big bangs to occur, they are like seeds in the soil of space, collecting energy for the singularity, for another big bang. Like you say entropy, out of disorder comes what appears to be order and then it all falls apart again.


Yes, I have often pondered if black holes are a wormhole to a parallel multiverse.

This might help explain dark matter, because gravity could travel through these parallel dimensions, while still being invisible.

For every galaxy, there might be a super massive black hole, that leads to an invisible parallel galaxy?

I would love to travel through a black hole, or die trying.

~PEACE~


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

FAILED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm going to have to approach this tomorrow ... I'm having difficulty grasping the concept in my own mind of the nature of space expanding like a ballon and the principals of non-inertial reference points etc.. I wrote out a detailed explanation twice but am not satisfied with the clarity of my answer.

I'll get back on this one. ... GREAT BUT CHALLENGING QUESTION. .. I'm actually quite pissed at myself.


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Jan 5, 2015)

Moebius said:


> Damn this question LOL ... Ive almost composed my answer though.


Haha, you're funny.

Take your time, I've got another 3 or 4 hours before I go to bed.

Thank you for trying.

~PEACE~


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

My brain hurts now.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

Will have a coffee and try again ... luckily I saved my 2nd draft. .. its like a puzzle Ive got to crack.


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Jan 5, 2015)

Moebius said:


> FAILED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I'm going to have to approach this tomorrow ... I'm having difficulty grasping the concept in my own mind of the nature of space expanding like a ballon and the principals of non-inertial reference points etc.. I wrote out a detailed explanation twice but am not satisfied with the clarity of my answer.
> 
> I'll get back on this one. ... GREAT BUT CHALLENGING QUESTION. .. I'm actually quite pissed at myself.


Okay, I will have to wait until tomorrow then.

Remember, the OBSERVABLE universe is about 14 billion light years across, but we don't know how big the total universe is wide. Just something to think about.

Also, remember that the universe is accelerating as its expanding, so a million years from now, the galaxies will be traveling much faster away from eachother. But, the universe should last for billiions of more years, and still accelerating faster away from galaxy to galaxy.

So, maybe the galaxies are not traveling at the speed of light, but maybe its possible in the future?

And how fast are the galaxies traveling that are not in the observable universe? because we can only detect the observable universe.

Just some things to ponder before you draw any conclusions, and make your rebuttal.

~PEACE~


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

New Age United said:


> No I think general relativity and time travel both have implications here. There is no possible way that they are traveling faster than the speed of light relative to each other. Space - time must be bending (dilating) at an infinite number of relative frames, thus makes me wonder, how does it all come together as a synchronistic and coherent universe?


This question from Navaeh is something I don't think ive considered for a long time, if ever. .. Its like the answer is on the tip of my mind but I cannot access it. Not suprising when considering the Infinitesimally and insignificant small we are in comparison to the Universe. At this point I'm throwing in the towel and will attempt tomorrow. LOL


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

Let me share this

*1. This is the Earth! This is where we live.*








*2. And this is where you live in your neighborhood, the solar system.*






*3. Here’s the distance, to scale, between the Earth and the moon. Doesn’t look too far, does it?*





*4. THINK AGAIN. Inside that distance you can fit every planet in our solar system, nice and neatly.*





PerplexingPotato / Via reddit.com
*5. But let’s talk about planets. That little green smudge is North America on Jupiter.*





NASA / John Brady / Via astronomycentral.co.uk
*6. And here’s the size of Earth (well, six Earths) compared with Saturn:*






*7. And just for good measure, here’s what Saturn’s rings would look like if they were around Earth:*


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

*8. This right here is a comet. We just landed a probe on one of those bad boys. Here’s what one looks like compared with Los Angeles:*


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

*9. But that’s nothing compared to our sun. Just remember:*


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

*10. Here’s you from the moon:*





NASA
*11. Here’s you from Mars:*





NASA
*12. Here’s you from just behind Saturn’s rings:*


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

*13. And here’s you from just beyond Neptune, 4 billion miles away.*





NASA
To paraphrase Carl Sagan, everyone and everything you have ever known exists on that little speck.

*14. Let’s step back a bit. Here’s the size of Earth compared with the size of our sun. Terrifying, right?*





John Brady / Via http://astronomycentral.co.uk
The sun doesn’t even fit in the image.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 5, 2015)

Let me try to clarify my point. You have a chain, it is 10 ft in length and has 26 links, we will asign a letter to each link and each link is a frame of reference. So we have the first link A and the last link Z. Now in terms of the universe both the length of the chain and the number of links would be infinite. 

If you were to whip this chain the relative motion of link A and Z would exceed the speed of light on the scale of the whole universe, but in fact you are not an observer of the entire chain, you are an observer from let's say point D, now the chain can only physically accelerate to the speed of light, each link traveling away from the other at the speed of light in a perfect synchronistic sequence when it is whipped. So as far as the relative motion of each observable link is concerned no nothing exceeds the speed of light.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

*15. And here’s that same sun from the surface of Mars:*





NASA
*16. But that’s nothing. Again, as Carl once mused, there are more stars in space than there are grains of sand on every beach on Earth:*





Via science.nationalgeographic.com
*17. Which means that there are ones much, much bigger than little wimpy sun. Just look at how tiny and insignificant our sun is:*





Via en.wikipedia.org
Our sun probably gets its lunch money stolen.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

*18. Here’s another look. The biggest star, VY Canis Majoris, is 1,000,000,000 times bigger than our sun:*





Via youtube.com
………

*19. But none of those compares to the size of a galaxy. In fact, if you shrank the sun down to the size of a white blood cell and shrunk the Milky Way galaxy down using the same scale, the Milky Way would be the size of the United States:*





Via reddit.com
*20. That’s because the Milky Way galaxy is huge. This is where you live inside there:*





Via teecraze.com


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

*21. But this is all you ever see:*





Via Twitter: @lucybrockle
(That’s not a picture of the Milky Way, but you get the idea.)

*22. But even our galaxy is a little runt compared with some others. Here’s the Milky Way compared to IC 1011, 350 million light years away from Earth:*





Via Twitter: @smokeinpublic
Just THINK about all that could be inside there.

*23. But let’s think bigger. In JUST this picture taken by the Hubble telescope, there are thousands and thousands of galaxies, each containing millions of stars, each with their own planets.*


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

*24. Here’s one of the galaxies pictured, UDF 423. This galaxy is 10 BILLION light years away. When you look at this picture, you are looking billions of years into the past.*





Via wikisky.org
Some of the other galaxies are thought to have formed only a few hundred million years AFTER the Big Bang.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

*25. And just keep this in mind — that’s a picture of a very small, small part of the universe. It’s just an insignificant fraction of the night sky.*





Via thetoc.gr
*26. And, you know, it’s pretty safe to assume that there are some black holes out there. Here’s the size of a black hole compared with Earth’s orbit, just to terrify you:*





THE END!


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Jan 5, 2015)

Interesting stuff @Moebius 

For some reason, I feel very small and insignificant... thanks, haha.

Maybe tomorrow, you can answer My question.

~PEACE~


----------



## dannyboy602 (Jan 5, 2015)

I read like two pages and already my brain hurts. 
But here's pic of some nice sempervivums for a little levity


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

Nevaeh420 said:


> Interesting stuff @Moebius
> 
> For some reason, I feel very small and insignificant... thanks, haha.
> 
> ...


HAHA ... I'll try .... I'm also practicing my planche every day .. not sure which is harder.


----------



## Moebius (Jan 5, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Let me try to clarify my point. You have a chain, it is 10 ft in length and has 26 links, we will asign a letter to each link and each link is a frame of reference. So we have the first link A and the last link Z. Now in terms of the universe both the length of the chain and the number of links would be infinite.
> 
> If you were to whip this chain the relative motion of link A and Z would exceed the speed of light on the scale of the whole universe, but in fact you are not an observer of the entire chain, you are an observer from let's say point D, now the chain can only physically accelerate to the speed of light, each link traveling away from the other at the speed of light in a perfect synchronistic sequence when it is whipped. So as far as the relative motion of each observable link is concerned no nothing exceeds the speed of light.


Gonna think on this some more .. when my brain cools down


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 6, 2015)

Nevaeh420 said:


> It seems like we have an astute bunch in this thread, so I will ask My question here:
> 
> How fast are we moving relative to the most distant galaxies on the opposite side of the universe?
> 
> ...


I think you would need to define 'we'; do you mean Earth only, our solar system, our part of the Local Group, or our galaxy? Then you would need to be specific on which galaxy (or other object) whose motion you would like to compare to our own. Even with those data, I don't think there is anyway you could calculate what you're asking. Remember that the light from the galaxies we can see from that distance is billions of years old, a lot of those galaxies that we see have not existed for a long time so we'd be measuring against a ghost in those instances. Also, take these facts into account: the universe has no edges and no center. That should fry your brain a bit. We can tell from the color shift if an object is moving away or headed toward us, and at what approximate relative speed. We also know that the universe is not only expanding, but its expansion is accelerating. And not only is spacetime itself expanding out into... whatever... but the space in between objects is also expanding... and accelerating. In about 10,000 years we won't be able to see any light from the sky save for our very local group. Just blackness for the most part, so we're very lucky to have lived in the time we have. Future astronomers of other sentient species (assuming there are other sentient creatures) will likely come up with the general makeup of our cosmos via math and the laws of physics, but we got to actually witness it. Good timing. As for asking if we (our planet?) are approaching light speed, I'd have to ask relative to what? Since space is expanding and dark energy is pushing all objects apart from one another, our relative speed is constantly accelerating, but it makes no difference from our perspective as we cannot feel it. Regardless, faster than light travel is not possible for objects with mass. There are no implications of time travel from our perspective, regardless of our relative acceleration...


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 6, 2015)

I just finished reading Mobius' articles on quantum biology. Holy fucking shit, was that challenging for me to understand. It took hours to get it all straight. Fascinating stuff. I will give my impressions and opinion on its implications soon. Hopefully tomorrow...


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Jan 6, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> I think you would need to define 'we'; do you mean Earth only, our solar system, our part of the Local Group, or our galaxy? Then you would need to be specific on which galaxy (or other object) whose motion you would like to compare to our own. Even with those data, I don't think there is anyway you could calculate what you're asking. Remember that the light from the galaxies we can see from that distance is billions of years old, a lot of those galaxies that we see have not existed for a long time so we'd be measuring against a ghost in those instances. Also, take these facts into account: the universe has no edges and no center. That should fry your brain a bit. We can tell from the color shift if an object is moving away or headed toward us, and at what approximate relative speed. We also know that the universe is not only expanding, but its expansion is accelerating. And not only is spacetime itself expanding out into... whatever... but the space in between objects is also expanding... and accelerating. In about 10,000 years we won't be able to see any light from the sky save for our very local group. Just blackness for the most part, so we're very lucky to have lived in the time we have. Future astronomers of other sentient species (assuming there are other sentient creatures) will likely come up with the general makeup of our cosmos via math and the laws of physics, but we got to actually witness it. Good timing. As for asking if we (our planet?) are approaching light speed, I'd have to ask relative to what? Since space is expanding and dark energy is pushing all objects apart from one another, our relative speed is constantly accelerating, but it makes no difference from our perspective as we cannot feel it. Regardless, faster than light travel is not possible for objects with mass. There are no implications of time travel from our perspective, regardless of our relative acceleration...


How fast is our galaxy moving relative to the most distant galaxy?

But this is a tricky question, because there is the observable universe, and than there is the universe we can't observe.

I would assume that all of the galaxies in the observable universe are not moving away from our galaxy faster than the speed of light, because we would not be able to observe it: but what about the most distant galaxy in the "unobservable" universe? I am sure that even an astronomer can't answer this question, but it should be interesting to ponder.

Also, here is another question that I don't know the answer to: how many galaxies are in the total universe, including the galaxies that we cannot observe? Does the universe go on forever? or is there an end to how far the galaxies reach? Hypothetically speaking, is the multiverse an infinite amount of universes that go on forever and ever, or is there an end to the multiverse.

Thats enough mind boggling questions for now, and anyone can give Me a rebuttal, not just tyler, because I would like to hear different opinions too.

Thanks.

~PEACE~


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Jan 6, 2015)

When we put all three of these things together, what we get is the concept known as eternal inflation. The big idea is that what we call “our Universe” is just one place — which we can only see a part of — where we’ve successfully slid down the hill. But the vast majority of the “true” Universe, outside of our little pocket, is still inflating, and still expanding exponentially!

Based on what we currently think about inflation, this means that the Universe is at least 10^(10^30) times the size of our observable Universe! And good luck living long enough to even write that number down. Thanks to Rob Knop for making me think about this, and isn’t that a mind-blowing thing to think about? All that we know, see, and observe is just one tiny region that slid down that hill fast enough to end inflation, but most of it just keeps on inflating forever and ever. Aren’t we the lucky ones?!

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/10/27/how-big-is-the-unobservable-un/

~PEACE~


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Jan 6, 2015)

this means that the Universe is at least 10^(10^30) times the size of our observable Universe!

~PEACE~


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Jan 6, 2015)

So, once again, I will ask: how many galaxies are in our universe? (Forgetting about the multiverse for now.)

~PEACE~


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 6, 2015)

A quick Google search yielded this info - 

According to the best estimates of astronomers there are at least *one hundred billion galaxies* in the observable universe. They've counted the galaxies in a particular region, and multiplied this up to estimate the number for the whole universe.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 6, 2015)

Moebius said:


> *15. And here’s that same sun from the surface of Mars:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Nevaeh420 said:


> How fast is our galaxy moving relative to the most distant galaxy?
> 
> But this is a tricky question, because there is the observable universe, and than there is the universe we can't observe.
> 
> ...


Infinite:
Philosophy - endless
Calculus - not measurable; no possible derivative

No one can say with certainty if the universe is endless or not, but it most certainly is infinite in terms of math, it's vastness can not possibly be calculated.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 6, 2015)

Nevaeh420 said:


> When we put all three of these things together, what we get is the concept known as eternal inflation. The big idea is that what we call “our Universe” is just one place — which we can only see a part of — where we’ve successfully slid down the hill. But the vast majority of the “true” Universe, outside of our little pocket, is still inflating, and still expanding exponentially!
> 
> Based on what we currently think about inflation, this means that the Universe is at least 10^(10^30) times the size of our observable Universe! And good luck living long enough to even write that number down. Thanks to Rob Knop for making me think about this, and isn’t that a mind-blowing thing to think about? All that we know, see, and observe is just one tiny region that slid down that hill fast enough to end inflation, but most of it just keeps on inflating forever and ever. Aren’t we the lucky ones?!
> 
> ...


It is possible that space - time is infinite in terms of endless and the multiverse seems probable and intuitive, it is completely rational.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 6, 2015)

Ok so now I will pose a question, correct me if I'm wrong. According to my understanding it is the mathematical definition of infinity that is required to accelerate a particle of mass past the speed of light. Is it not possible that a collapsing star could create an infinite amount of energy and accelerate mass past the speed of light?


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 6, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Ok so now I will pose a question, correct me if I'm wrong. According to my understanding it is the mathematical definition of infinity that is required to accelerate a particle of mass past the speed of light. Is it not possible that a collapsing star could create an infinite amount of energy and accelerate mass past the speed of light?


No, it is not possible. A collapsing star, or any other cosmic event, could never create an infinite amount of energy. As far as we know, infinity is a concept with no counterpart in objective reality...


----------



## New Age United (Jan 7, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> No, it is not possible. A collapsing star, or any other cosmic event, could never create an infinite amount of energy. As far as we know, infinity is a concept with no counterpart in objective reality...


Excuse me Mr Durden, I am honestly trying to learn here. Isn't this an argument from ignorance, just because it is not a mathematically logical number does not mean that infinite numbers do not exist, there can be larger and smaller infinities, am I wrong. Also can you please explain what you mean by infinity having no counterpart in objective reality.


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 7, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Excuse me Mr Durden, I am honestly trying to learn here. Isn't this an argument from ignorance, just because it is not a mathematically logical number does not mean that infinite numbers do not exist, there can be larger and smaller infinities, am I wrong. Also can you please explain what you mean by infinity having no counterpart in objective reality.


I see that you are learning. Infinities in math are purely conceptual, and they can be useful in that regard. Not so in physics. From wiki's infinity page -

In physics, approximations of real numbers are used for continuous measurements and natural numbers are used for discrete measurements (i.e. counting). It is therefore assumed by physicists that no measurable quantity could have an infinite value,[_citation needed_] for instance by taking an infinite value in an extended real number system, or by requiring the counting of an infinite number of events. It is, for example, presumed impossible for any type of body to have infinite mass or infinite energy.

As far as we know in reality, everything is finite. Physicists have estimated even the number of particles in the known universe, and while the number is mind-bendingly huge (like a googleplex) it certainly is not infinite...


----------



## New Age United (Jan 8, 2015)

Moebius said:


> *8. This right here is a comet. We just landed a probe on one of those bad boys. Here’s what one looks like compared with Los Angeles:*


If you were to ignore metaphysics and use strict rationality, this should make you feel like a tiny germ crawling on a rock, and that rock is but a pebble cast into the sea.

I believe that by expressing natural purpose we can find reason and logic in the metaphysical to explain how we are more significant than physics tells us we are, we may very well be the means of all creation, imagine, such a massive cosmos came together so that you could be alive. Have you ever tried to imagine absolutely nothing, not even space, it is impossible, because as you try you are still aware, it is as if all of this had to be, both the experience and the experiencer, It is only when you lose consciousness that absolutely nothing is achieved and everything physical and metaphysical loses its significance, to realize that nothing is important, that is to find peace and understanding.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 8, 2015)

I know that a lot of people reject metaphysics all together, you look at truth as something solid and tangible, but there are subjective truths, remember that you are the subject after all, when contemplating metaphysics you must find what is true to you, you must trust your own logic and intuition.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 8, 2015)

I guess I just don't understand how people can so easily reject metaphysics when it is such an integral part of human experience, it is one half of the whole of understanding, physical and metaphysical, objective and subjective, form and formless. I guess it has a stigma of supernatural attached to it and that is not true metaphysics. 
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 8, 2015)

New Age United said:


> If you were to ignore metaphysics and use strict rationality, this should make you feel like a tiny germ crawling on a rock, and that rock is but a pebble cast into the sea.
> 
> I believe that by expressing natural purpose we can find reason and logic in the metaphysical to explain how we are more significant than physics tells us we are, we may very well be the means of all creation, imagine, such a massive cosmos came together so that you could be alive. Have you ever tried to imagine absolutely nothing, not even space, it is impossible, because as you try you are still aware, it is as if all of this had to be, both the experience and the experiencer, It is only when you lose consciousness that absolutely nothing is achieved and everything physical and metaphysical loses its significance, to realize that nothing is important, that is to find peace and understanding.


Your thinking process is full of contradictions. I can't imagine anything more immature and egocentric than holding the notion that this entire cosmos has a purpose, and that purpose has to do with one specific primate species on one tiny planet in a relatively average galaxy in a nondescript area of the universe. Really? That makes sense to you? The universe was cruising along just fine for 10 billion years or so before this planet was even formed, another couple of billion while this planet serendipitously forms an atmosphere complete with liquid water, life begins and evolves into millions of diverse species and creatures that are beautifully adapted to their environment. This all meant little to nothing until about 200k years ago, we show up and now Natural Purpose can begin? This seems like a child's mentality. The cosmos did its thing well before we were here, and it will continue to do so with or without human existence. 

In the next sentence you say that nothing is important (it would seem like your Natural Purpose would be important if it existed, but whatever). This seems much closer to what reality shows us. Just because the universe by all indications doesn't assign a purpose to humanity doesn't mean that we can't choose one for ourselves. Which seems to be what we have always done. Human affairs including art, music, love, science, etc., doesn't have to mean anything to the universe in order for them to be important _to us_. Our importance seems subjective, not objective. I find it liberating, really; I was not born burdened with a pre-ordained purpose, so I'm free to choose my own...


----------



## New Age United (Jan 8, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> The truth and rational explanation for phenomena already exists, why bring your subjective intuition into it? What is that supposed to accomplish?


How are we supposed to find the truth and understanding without first destroying what we intuitively feel is true, because as we know it is so often wrong. We have to accept truth(objective) over belief (subjective)


----------



## New Age United (Jan 8, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> Your thinking process is full of contradictions. I can't imagine anything more immature and egocentric than holding the notion that this entire cosmos has a purpose, and that purpose has to do with one specific primate species on one tiny planet in a relatively average galaxy in a nondescript area of the universe. Really? That makes sense to you? The universe was cruising along just fine for 10 billion years or so before this planet was even formed, another couple of billion while this planet serendipitously forms an atmosphere complete with liquid water, life begins and evolves into millions of diverse species and creatures that are beautifully adapted to their environment. This all meant little to nothing until about 200k years ago, we show up and now Natural Purpose can begin? This seems like a child's mentality. The cosmos did its thing well before we were here, and it will continue to do so with or without human existence.
> 
> In the next sentence you say that nothing is important (it would seem like your Natural Purpose would be important if it existed, but whatever). This seems much closer to what reality shows us. Just because the universe by all indications doesn't assign a purpose to humanity doesn't mean that we can't choose one for ourselves. Which seems to be what we have always done. Human affairs including art, music, love, science, etc., doesn't have to mean anything to the universe in order for them to be important _to us_. Our importance seems subjective, not objective. I find it liberating, really; I was not born burdened with a pre-ordained purpose, so I'm free to choose my own...


Very good expression at the end. I believe everything physical has a natural purpose, I think I have to come to terms with the fact that no not everything happens for a reason.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 8, 2015)

Btw you argue from incredulity quite frequently Mr Durden.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 8, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> Your thinking process is full of contradictions. I can't imagine anything more immature and egocentric than holding the notion that this entire cosmos has a purpose, and that purpose has to do with one specific primate species on one tiny planet in a relatively average galaxy in a nondescript area of the universe. Really? That makes sense to you? The universe was cruising along just fine for 10 billion years or so before this planet was even formed, another couple of billion while this planet serendipitously forms an atmosphere complete with liquid water, life begins and evolves into millions of diverse species and creatures that are beautifully adapted to their environment. This all meant little to nothing until about 200k years ago, we show up and now Natural Purpose can begin? This seems like a child's mentality. The cosmos did its thing well before we were here, and it will continue to do so with or without human existence.
> 
> In the next sentence you say that nothing is important (it would seem like your Natural Purpose would be important if it existed, but whatever). This seems much closer to what reality shows us. Just because the universe by all indications doesn't assign a purpose to humanity doesn't mean that we can't choose one for ourselves. Which seems to be what we have always done. Human affairs including art, music, love, science, etc., doesn't have to mean anything to the universe in order for them to be important _to us_. Our importance seems subjective, not objective. I find it liberating, really; I was not born burdened with a pre-ordained purpose, so I'm free to choose my own...


Argument from incredulity and ignorance, perhaps space - time has to be so vast in order for the the correct proportions for life to form, and therefore it could make sense, but I do get your point.


----------



## reddan1981 (Jan 8, 2015)

*reality is that of the observer, both of you are correct in your interpretation. *


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 8, 2015)

New Age United said:


> I guess I just don't understand how people can so easily reject metaphysics when it is such an integral part of human experience, it is one half of the whole of understanding, physical and metaphysical, objective and subjective, form and formless. I guess it has a stigma of supernatural attached to it and that is not true metaphysics.
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics


I don't think most people consciously reject metaphysics, it is just that speaking about the way things are in objective reality is a completely different subject than how we experience those things subjectively. The trouble and confusion seeps in when we try to insert our subjectivity into an objective process like the scientific method. If one wants to talk about metaphysics, cool. If one wants to speak about science and objective reality, also cool. Some people are more interested in the inner workings of the human experience, and some are more interested on how the cosmos around them works...


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 8, 2015)

New Age United said:


> How are we supposed to find the truth and understanding without first destroying what we intuitively feel is true, because as we know it is so often wrong. We have to accept truth(objective) over belief (subjective)


That is what the scientific method is all about, suppressing our bias and intuition to objectively observe nature and draw logical conclusions. Preferably we form our beliefs based on these findings, rather than what we are subjectively drawn to...


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 8, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Btw you argue from incredulity quite frequently Mr Durden.


This will be a good exercise: you show us where you think that happens and we'll examine those instances together...


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 8, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> *reality is that of the observer, both of you are correct in your interpretation. *


There exists an objective reality that is independent from the human experience, and subjective "realities" that exist within each of us. When speaking scientifically, we are usually speaking of objective reality...


----------



## reddan1981 (Jan 9, 2015)

yes reality might exist outside our own perspectives but to record them, we use human perception. True reality is outside our scope of understanding so no-one could confidently argue one potential over another, or again one could but it would be unfounded.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 9, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> yes reality might exist outside our own perspectives but to record them, we use human perception. True reality is outside our scope of understanding so no-one could confidently argue one potential over another, or again one could but it would be unfounded.


Yes all measurement, all science, is a matter of subjective perception, but it is grounded in logic, I believe that some aspects of objective reality are beyond the scope of our finite minds but the finite is observable and understandable.

I do get your point, even though we have logic to base our understanding, and as practical as it may be, it is still subjective, to attain a realization of ultimate reality we must snap out of logic all together, we must stop thinking and become directly aware of Space, the Space in the Present Moment, we must be directly aware of the universe as it truly exists, and not as our minds perceive it.


----------



## gorillagrower0840 (Jan 9, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Yes all measurement, all science, is a matter of subjective perception, but it is grounded in logic, I believe that some aspects of objective reality are beyond the scope of our finite minds but the finite is observable and understandable.
> 
> I do get your point, even though we have logic to base our understanding, and as practical as it may be, it is still subjective, to attain a realization of ultimate reality we must snap out of logic all together, we must stop thinking and become directly aware of Space, the Space in the Present Moment, *we must be directly aware of the universe as it truly exists, and not as our minds perceive it*.


Isn't that the goal of science, the whole point of science, and what science attempts to do?


----------



## gorillagrower0840 (Jan 9, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> Your thinking process is full of contradictions. I can't imagine anything more immature and egocentric than holding the notion that this entire cosmos has a purpose, and that purpose has to do with one specific primate species on one tiny planet in a relatively average galaxy in a nondescript area of the universe. Really? That makes sense to you? The universe was cruising along just fine for 10 billion years or so before this planet was even formed, another couple of billion while this planet serendipitously forms an atmosphere complete with liquid water, life begins and evolves into millions of diverse species and creatures that are beautifully adapted to their environment. This all meant little to nothing until about 200k years ago, we show up and now Natural Purpose can begin? This seems like a child's mentality. The cosmos did its thing well before we were here, and it will continue to do so with or without human existence.
> 
> In the next sentence you say that nothing is important (it would seem like your Natural Purpose would be important if it existed, but whatever). This seems much closer to what reality shows us. Just because the universe by all indications doesn't assign a purpose to humanity doesn't mean that we can't choose one for ourselves. Which seems to be what we have always done. Human affairs including art, music, love, science, etc., doesn't have to mean anything to the universe in order for them to be important _to us_. Our importance seems subjective, not objective. I find it liberating, really; I was not born burdened with a pre-ordained purpose, so I'm free to choose my own...


No offense intended.


----------



## gorillagrower0840 (Jan 9, 2015)




----------



## gorillagrower0840 (Jan 9, 2015)

Moebius said:


> I love this quote from Brian Cox (British Pop-Star turned Physicist)
> 
> _“We are the cosmos made conscious and life is the means by which the universe understands itself.”_


Gotta love this guy.


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 9, 2015)

reddan1981 said:


> yes reality might exist outside our own perspectives but to record them, we use human perception. True reality is outside our scope of understanding so no-one could confidently argue one potential over another, or again one could but it would be unfounded.


Yes, we use human perception to record and analyze data from our objective experiments, but human perception is on a wide continuum. The mind can be trained to be objective, suspend its biases, and to think logically and critically. Most people do not achieve this or are even interested in doing so. There is overwhelming evidence that objective reality (you use the term true reality) is well within our scope of understanding. Consider our efficient theories that led to the technology, medicine, food production, clean water, air and land travel, etc., that we all use everyday. Not to mention our landing machines onto objects in outer space millions of miles away within a three meter accuracy. It is not luck that these things work so well, it is the human mind's capacity to understand true reality that make these things not only possible, but commonplace. It is not difficult to confidently argue one potential over another when one view/potential/methodology produces the amazing values I listed that advance humanity, and other methodologies that produce only comfort, warm fuzzy feelings or talking points. What are your reasons and support for your belief that reality is outside our scope of understanding?


----------



## allinat420 (Jan 9, 2015)

This....


----------



## New Age United (Jan 9, 2015)

gorillagrower0840 said:


> Isn't that the goal of science, the whole point of science, and what science attempts to do?


I like it, cuz I see your point entirely, but you fail to see that science is still subjective, it is the analytical mind at work. By the way atheism is an argument from ignorance, all though I do love the quote about open mindedness, and all of the others, an open mind is required not to neglect possibility by assuming probability as absolute truth, this is why I'm agnostic.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 9, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> Yes, we use human perception to record and analyze data from our objective experiments, but human perception is on a wide continuum. The mind can be trained to be objective, suspend its biases, and to think logically and critically. Most people do not achieve this or are even interested in doing so. There is overwhelming evidence that objective reality (you use the term true reality) is well within our scope of understanding. Consider our efficient theories that led to the technology, medicine, food production, clean water, air and land travel, etc., that we all use everyday. Not to mention our landing machines onto objects in outer space millions of miles away within a three meter accuracy. It is not luck that these things work so well, it is the human mind's capacity to understand true reality that make these things not only possible, but commonplace. It is not difficult to confidently argue one potential over another when one view/potential/methodology produces the amazing values I listed that advance humanity, and other methodologies that produce only comfort, warm fuzzy feelings or talking points. What are your reasons and support for your belief that reality is outside our scope of understanding?


In my experience it is not to try and attain a secular view of strict objectivity, that is good for a whole understanding of science but not for a whole understanding of life. Great picture quote.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 9, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> This will be a good exercise: you show us where you think that happens and we'll examine those instances together...


You thinking that me quoting the prophets makes me less credible and I recall you saying that " no one honestly believes that the cosmos did not exist before consciousness evolved". Now I see your point entirely but it is still incredulity. You can not possibly prove that anything exists other than what is right in front of you, but we can use logic and intuition to know what is truth and what is not, but it is a fallacy to simply deny a possibility just because you can't imagine it being true.


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 9, 2015)

New Age United said:


> I like it, cuz I see your point entirely, but you fail to see that science is still subjective, it is the analytical mind at work. By the way atheism is an argument from ignorance, all though I do love the quote about open mindedness, and all of the others, an open mind is required not to neglect possibility by assuming probability as absolute truth, this is why I'm agnostic.


The scientific method itself is purely objective. Humans may make errors of bias or subjectivity, which is why all serious science goes through the process of peer review: to provide checks and balances for any subjectivity that tries to seep in. It seems like you will eventually learn how science actually works. Atheism is not an argument from ignorance, it is a rejection of all the specious positive claims that are made concerning deities. Atheism addresses _belief_, not knowledge. Atheists do not say that there is no creator, they couldn't possibly know that because there is no way to look everywhere in the cosmos at once. Atheists are claiming that they lack belief in a creator. There is a small subset of atheists that claim that there is absolutely no gods, but they are relying on faith as most theists do. Agnosticism is a question of_ knowledge_, not of belief although modern vernacular has hijacked the term from Thomas Huxley from what he originally meant. The possibilities are - 

Agnostic Theist - One who believes in god(s), but realizes he cannot know if one exists 
Gnostic theist - One who believes in god, and claims absolute knowledge god exists (this is most theists)
Agnostic Athiest - One who lacks belief in gods, but realizes he cannot know if one exists. This is most atheists (and me)
Gnostic Atheist - One who lacks belief in gods, and claims absolute knowledge god does not exist (only Pad IME)

To know whether or not you are an atheist, ask yourself if you believe in a god. If the answer is anything but yes, you are an atheist. If you realize no one can know for sure, you are also agnostic...


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 9, 2015)

New Age United said:


> You thinking that me quoting the prophets makes me less credible and I recall you saying that " no one honestly believes that the cosmos did not exist before consciousness evolved". Now I see your point entirely but it is still incredulity. You can not possibly prove that anything exists other than what is right in front of you, but we can use logic and intuition to know what is truth and what is not, but it is a fallacy to simply deny a possibility just because you can't imagine it being true.


Good. The reason my statements are not an argument from incredulity is because I did not make a positive statement _of fact_, I qualified them as my thoughts or opinions. One can only be committing a logical fallacy if they are making a positive claim of fact, i.e. 'There are no gods', 'there is a purpose to mankind and the universe', ect.. If one states, 'I think there are no gods', or 'IMO that saying x makes you less credible', these are not positive claims of fact, they are subjective claims outside the realm of facts and reality. So, it is wise to qualify a statement as opinion, belief or fact; the first two genres cannot be fallacies, but the last category can be...


----------



## gorillagrower0840 (Jan 9, 2015)

New Age United said:


> I like it, cuz I see your point entirely, but you fail to see that science is still subjective, it is the analytical mind at work. By the way atheism is an argument from ignorance, all though I do love the quote about open mindedness, and all of the others, an open mind is required not to neglect possibility by assuming probability as absolute truth, this is why I'm agnostic.


I must disagree with you there. I don't think atheism is an argument from ignorance. If that's the case, then religion or theism is an argument from _extreme_ ignorance. If anything, atheism is an argument against ignorance and is the most enlightening system of belief known to exist.

What is religion and theism ignorant to? All the scientific evidence and contradictions against their beliefs. And logic, reasoning, and rationality.

What is atheism ignorant to? Illogical, unreasonable, irrational, or highly improbable or highly unlikely things.

I know it may not technically be possible to make an outright claim that there are absolutely no god(s), but I do see that as how reality truly is.
The simple fact that we have incredibly so much scientific knowledge and evidence and understanding about nature, especially in certain fields like biology and physics for example, is enough for me to realize that no god(s) exist. I don't know about you, but it's enough for me.

Even if we didn't have all the knowledge and evidence that we have today (say, similar to 2015 years ago), I still wouldn't consider god(s) a good explanation or even a remote possibility.


----------



## gorillagrower0840 (Jan 9, 2015)

And I'm also gonna have to disagree that science is subjective. Although I can and do see where you are coming from with that. I understand your point completely.

But then, isn't _everything_ subjective then? If that's the case, then science is surely the least subjective thing.

Science is about as objective as it can get I'm afraid. 

I don't believe in science, I understand its logic and evidence based conclusions.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 10, 2015)

I'm debating in my head whether I'm theist or atheist. I believe in a conscious and effective intelligence that operates the universe, but no a separate, singular supreme being, what does that make me?

Can you be atheist and still believe in providence. 

These beliefs are not irrational I have good reason and will try to collect my thoughts some more on the subject.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 10, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> The scientific method itself is purely objective. Humans may make errors of bias or subjectivity, which is why all serious science goes through the process of peer review: to provide checks and balances for any subjectivity that tries to seep in. It seems like you will eventually learn how science actually works. Atheism is not an argument from ignorance, it is a rejection of all the specious positive claims that are made concerning deities. Atheism addresses _belief_, not knowledge. Atheists do not say that there is no creator, they couldn't possibly know that because there is no way to look everywhere in the cosmos at once. Atheists are claiming that they lack belief in a creator. There is a small subset of atheists that claim that there is absolutely no gods, but they are relying on faith as most theists do. Agnosticism is a question of_ knowledge_, not of belief although modern vernacular has hijacked the term from Thomas Huxley from what he originally meant. The possibilities are -
> 
> Agnostic Theist - One who believes in god(s), but realizes he cannot know if one exists
> Gnostic theist - One who believes in god, and claims absolute knowledge god exists (this is most theists)
> ...


A part of me strongly attaches itself to atheism, but I can not deny my own logic and reasoning, I guess I would have to classify myself as an agnostic theist. Can you read the previous post and give me your honest opinion.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 10, 2015)

God damn you guys and your intelligence, I can actually feel your knowledge eroding my beliefs. This is gonna be a book some day, if you see it "the Theory of Reative Motion and Natural Purpose". If you see it pick it up, I promise it will be an actual theory and I will wait till I'm much more educated.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 10, 2015)

What if, there was a way to intuitively express the truth, but the only way is to use the notion of God and Satan. What if I were to refer to Awareness as God and to the Ego as the devil, Satan, Lucifer. You are either following the will of God or you are following the will of Satan. From my book- Jesus speaking to Satan. "What is it worth to win the world and lose your soul, what is it worth to lose the Vastness of Eternity, to fall into this little trap of words that you have set, what is it worth to lose the Glory of the Kingdom, where righteousness is an easy way of life, to fall into the darkness, where your cleverness is a powerful deception"

Would this make me less credible in your opinion, could you ignore all of the religious dogma and find the truth that I am to express.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 10, 2015)

Btw my book is free of charge, i'am no woo - woo charlatan con - artist. "You shall not charge a mean price for the word" Muhammad. It is entitled The Vision of Humanity- The Immortal Truth. It was written quite fast because I was honestly in fear that Satan would off me before I got it written lmfao. No worries it's all good now and I did take the time to properly edit the book.

If you are interested you can email me at [email protected]. I will reply with the pdf.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 10, 2015)

Continued from my book. ......."I can not deny the power of your deception, truly you have already conquered the world, but you know just as well as I do that you can not destroy the Light". It is Satan trying to conquer Jesus' will.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 10, 2015)

Continued from my book. ......."I can not deny the power of your deception, truly you have already conquered the world, but you know just as well as I do that you can not destroy the Light". It is Satan trying to conquer Jesus' will.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 11, 2015)

Another thing you might want to look for in the near future is newageunited.com, it will be a forum for philosophy, education and enlightenment. I will try to put more effort into getting it started, money's kinda tight right now. I will try to message you all and let you know. It would be nice to find the same format as RIU.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 11, 2015)

I will make sure to include a section for philosophy, psychology and different sciences, most certainly physics, I can not think of a more practical subject for revealing the genius within. Any suggestions for the site would be greatly appreciated.

I will make sure to keep spirituality and philosophy separate.


----------



## god1 (Jan 11, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Yes all measurement, all science, is a matter of subjective perception, but it is grounded in logic, I believe that some aspects of objective reality are beyond the scope of our finite minds but the finite is observable and understandable.
> 
> I do get your point, even though we have logic to base our understanding, and as practical as it may be, it is still subjective, to attain a realization of ultimate reality we must snap out of logic all together, we must stop thinking and become directly aware of Space, the Space in the Present Moment, we must be directly aware of the universe as it truly exists, and not as our minds perceive it.


This is just so wrong; really nothing but "mumbo - jumbo". 

Let's say I stick you in a box. Your only ability to determine anything about that environment is dependent upon two things:

1) your sensors/acquisition system
2) your ability to process that data correctly

There's nothing mystical about the process, only in your head. People spend life times developing these systems.

Logic is nothing more than a tool; just like math.

You can think of your body, your bedroom, your house, the planet and even the universe as a box.

Get it?


----------



## New Age United (Jan 11, 2015)

god1 said:


> This is just so wrong; really nothing but "mumbo - jumbo".
> 
> Let's say I stick you in a box. Your only ability to determine anything about that environment is dependent upon two things:
> 
> ...


Yes I get it, it is all in your head lol!!!. Think outside the box, it has you trapped.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 11, 2015)

Ok, let's say you have a measurement of three feet, does that measurement actually exist or is it a subjective perception of human consciousness? This should be a good test of intelligence.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 11, 2015)

The one thing that I am grateful for is being an autodidact, formal education trains you to think inside the box imo.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 11, 2015)

I do respect a formal education, as proven here and elsewhere it can be very valuable.


----------



## god1 (Jan 11, 2015)

New Age United said:


> The one thing that I am grateful for is being an autodidact, formal education trains you to think inside the box imo.



Consider a formal education as nothing more than a "ticket" to see a show. It's not a guarantee that you'll be successful at your chosen career or even remotely happy.

There's nothing wrong with self education; after all, we all do it one way or another.

Btw, you appear to possess a couple of admirable qualities that can't be taught, "curiosity" and "passion".


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 11, 2015)

'The box' contains the best knowledge we have today, accumulated over centuries of painstaking observation and effort. The great minds that thought 'outside' of it were very well versed in what it contained. You are not there yet, not even close. You have much to learn before you can teach or lead, if you don't, what would be the point? The world is already full of delusional hacks full of ignorance and half-baked ideas with little or no correlation to reality. Why not become a student and accumulate valid knowledge and train your mind to think critically? Maybe then you could come up with something valuable to offer. You may want to drop a lot of your pet ideas regarding enlightenment, ego, etc.. They don't seem to correspond to reality and seem to be getting in the way...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 11, 2015)

Be the teacher and the taught.

The top of one field (etc.) is the bottom of another.


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 12, 2015)

eye exaggerate said:


> Be the teacher and the taught.
> 
> The top of one field (etc.) is the bottom of another.


Or better yet, be a Taut Teacher! Happy to be at the bottom or top of this other...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 12, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> Or better yet, be a Taut Teacher! Happy to be at the bottom or top of this other...


You read my mind. I thought that wasn't possible?? lol


----------



## New Age United (Jan 12, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> 'The box' contains the best knowledge we have today, accumulated over centuries of painstaking observation and effort. The great minds that thought 'outside' of it were very well versed in what it contained. You are not there yet, not even close. You have much to learn before you can teach or lead, if you don't, what would be the point? The world is already full of delusional hacks full of ignorance and half-baked ideas with little or no correlation to reality. Why not become a student and accumulate valid knowledge and train your mind to think critically? Maybe then you could come up with something valuable to offer. You may want to drop a lot of your pet ideas regarding enlightenment, ego, etc.. They don't seem to correspond to reality and seem to be getting in the way...


Yes I am considering going back to school and taking philosophy, I already have my career set and would never consider anything else, but I do understand the value of a formal education.


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 12, 2015)

New Age United said:


> Yes I am considering going back to school and taking philosophy, I already have my career set and would never consider anything else, but I do understand the value of a formal education.


Cool. Maybe squeeze in a couple of physics and cosmology books, as well  If you don't mind me asking, what is your profession?


----------



## New Age United (Jan 12, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> Cool. Maybe squeeze in a couple of physics and cosmology books, as well  If you don't mind me asking, what is your profession?


Yes definitely, maybe psychology as well. I am a contractor, painter, crack filler, drywaller, it has its pros and cons but I like it.


----------



## New Age United (Jan 12, 2015)

tyler.durden said:


> Cool. Maybe squeeze in a couple of physics and cosmology books, as well  If you don't mind me asking, what is your profession?


And how about you Mr Durden, what do you do for a living, did you major in Philosophy?


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Jan 12, 2015)

New Age United said:


> And how about you Mr Durden, what do you do for a living, did you major in Philosophy?


Mr. Durden is a marijuana grower, and he once claimed to be a musician too.

Tylers mother worked in the field of science, so I assume his mother taught him some things.

Tyler doesn't have a real job, because he makes enough money from growing herb, so he has plenty of time to study his favorite passion- science.

This is all assuming that Mr. Durden is telling the truth in his posts, and this is what I have gathered from his rhetoric.

Is this correct, Tyler?

EDIT- But Ceepea claims that he majored philosophy in college, and I believe him, because he knows his stuff.

~PEACE~


----------



## New Age United (Jan 12, 2015)

Nevaeh420 said:


> Mr. Durden is a marijuana grower, and he once claimed to be a musician too.
> 
> Tylers mother worked in the field of science, so I assume his mother taught him some things.
> 
> ...


That's cool, I have no problem with Marijuana and music, I'm a pothead ledhead, and aspiring horticulturist myself. "If a law is unjust it is our duty not to obey it". I forget who said that, some one around 1790's Philadelphia. "If it is not an openness to all beings then it is not enlightenment " Tolle


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 12, 2015)

New Age United said:


> And how about you Mr Durden, what do you do for a living, did you major in Philosophy?


I make the majority of my income from growing uber-dank shit for a small, discerning clientele. I am also a professional classical violinist which provides legit income. I have taken some classes in philosophy, biology, physics, and psychology, but I am very much an autodidact, like yourself. I am an avid reader, but I have not read fiction for more than 15 years. The reality of the cosmos is MUCH more interesting than any sci-fi or other genre of fiction imo. The lion's share of my day is spent practicing my music, studying science and philosophy, and tending my perpetually harvesting garden. A couple times a week I get out of the house to play tennis, or to attend chamber music jams with my friends/colleagues. Weekends are mostly for gigs and raising my son. Life is good...


----------

