Does God Exist?

Wait a second...I thought the superfluid was going to describe quantum gravity, this is saying a geometrical object is... Which is it?

 

If you watch the Wilcock video he will describe both and how they are one thing.

 

Basically, the seed or center of the universe is a Mandala-like geometric Crystal that is Timeless, which everything emanates from (ex: when you vibrate sand in water to sound frequencies, the sand takes the form of a Mandala), and space-time would be the superfluid.

This also suggests that everything is One, and that since we are conscious beings, that the Universe itself must also be Conscious, since everything is emanating from this same Transcendental Object.

And if that's true, then the interaction between human Consciousness takes on a new meaning, and Magick doesn't sound so hocus pocus anymore. If the Universe itself is Conscious, then certainly our Consciousness would be able to interact with it, and create manifestations that have a root in our Imaginative Will.


If you have a problem with how i word things, well...http://astrology.about.com/od/mercury/p/MercurySadge.htm

 

I gave it 20 mins, found it had some inaccuracies and very bold claims in that time span.

In the article about the superfluid, it said it was unknown, so how does that make the space which we do know in spacetime part of this, we should be able to observe it in that case right?

How does the cymatics analogy work more than a coarse analogy? it involves the introduction of sound frequencies and changing shape of the sand too and electromagnetism is involved as well.

 

If the Jewel turns out to really be the case, then space-time might not even be what we think it is.

 

Dude, to be very honest I just threw that out there. Seemed like an obvious place to start, since everything we could possibly contend with mentally, emotionally and spiritually is derived from experience or mutations of that experience.

But here's a way to ground this a little bit. We were conceived through living parents, and though I have no proof of this I'm going to assume they held consciousness. Rather than considering just our subjective lives, perhaps it might help to create a model incorporating our lineage, and in that respect consciousness does exist outside the body-mind and the only way currently known for humans to experience this is to pass on the torch to the spawning parasites we call children.

Unless you're suggesting that consciousness is some sort of field we inhabit, but I mean, shit, nice use of the razor bro.

 

Yeah, that one's very interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pup3s86oJXU

 

He merely gave a possible explanation to your baffling question of how it was an answer to your question Don't read to much into a like, it sometimes just means that we liked the person's effort. It doesn't necesserily has to mean the people who like a post fully agree with it or assume it is a check mate answer or something. He doesn't pretend to know things he doesn't know. I'm going to have to kindly state that it seems you are projecting assumptions on people again

 

My position is "I don't know, please show me any evidence". I've also stated before numerous times that I feel it's completely possible that consciousness is a field throughout the entire universe, and I've made numerous tips of my hat to panpsychism.

You are conflating the concept of particle non-locality with the actual (highly controversial and so far un-reproduced) experimental results, in which DNA moved a few cm apparently through an EM field. There is no reason on the face of it to think that this movement is the same thing we see with particle non-locality.

If empty space can be there without matter, in what sense does empty space "rely" on matter?

Please quote where I have said this. This should be easy, since apparently I have communicated to you that I am sure of this. Please, I'm waiting. I'm also STILL waiting for all the other sources I have requested so that this conversation can move along and not just be hot air coming out of your mixed up head.

The link between the earth and the sun is something I can provide evidence for.

The link between consciousness and DNA is something I cannot provide evidence for.

It's that simple.

Until this changes, all you can do is speculate, and in your case, take your speculations far too seriously.

Wrong. Everything else you've said could be true; the universe could emanate from a timeless geometric transcendental object; DNA could be a quantum field; Consciousness could permeate the universe; and still the practice of "Magick" is completely bogus. You've snuck in that term "imaginative will" as a functional root of this interaction between a person's consciousness and the universe; you've still, in all this time chinacat, since your very first thread, STILL not been able to to EVEN DEFINE these words.

I would bet my entire life savings that spacetime is not what we think it is. I can say this with an extremely high degree of confidence. I can also tell you that consciousness is not what we think it is, and that there are things about DNA and life which we cannot begin to imagine.

This is why we have science, to KEEP LOOKING.

Actually Immanuel Kant showed that there are things we know which we cannot derive from experience; that actually, they form the basis around which the experiences we have are structured, and we arrive on this earth with these frameworks already in place in the very structure of mind.

This is a very surface-level connection between DNA and consciousness. You're not actually offering anything new when you say "well, we have kids, and that's DNA stuff, and kids are conscious, so there's your DNA-consciousness connection". We're not talking about it on that level. That level is plainly obvious. Read Chinacat's posts. He is talking about something much, much spookier.

It's actually Chinacat who is insisting that this is the case. I think it might be the case, but I await evidence.

This is fundamentally an epistemological debate, where one side of the debate is frequently in the habit of pretending to know things they don't know, and I'm going to keep applying pressure on that point until hopefully a cognitive shift occurs in those participants (if I have the patience).

 

I'm loving this video, but i hate to say it that at the 10 minute mark when he's saying that ever since Newton, 400 years ago, and the dawn of Science, that it's been a slow breakdown of finding out that fewer and fewer principles govern more and more things...

...It just once again makes me feel that Science is CATCHING UP with what Mystics have been saying for centuries. This is all obviously going to lead to Science declaring that the Universe is One at some point probably in the near future.

The thing is, you don't need the Scientific Method to understand that. You can just understand that through your own Subjective contemplation, perception, and intuition.

 

Does it have to be any more complicated than that?


Watch the vid I posted above by the way, I think you'll find it interesting.


Here's a rough quote a friend found interesting. I found it particularly helpful as philosophical allegory, since, there's not too much difference between the two.

 

You are conflating the concept of particle non-locality with the actual (highly controversial and so far un-reproduced) experimental results, in which DNA moved a few cm apparently through an EM field. There is no reason on the face of it to think that this movement is the same thing we see with particle non-locality.

Please explain how there can be no way to link particle non-locality to this?

If empty space can be there without matter, in what sense does empty space "rely" on matter?

You wouldn't be able to register empty space without some kind of matter.

Please quote where I have said this. This should be easy, since apparently I have communicated to you that I am sure of this. Please, I'm waiting. I'm also STILL waiting for all the other sources I have requested so that this conversation can move along and not just be hot air coming out of your mixed up head.

and how long have I been waiting for your Astrology info? I'm not posting anymore links. I already did that and you instantly just shrug it off. Posting a link for you is pointless.

Um, we've already gone over your views on what happens to Consciousness when you die. You have stated that it's a hunch of yours that when you die that consciousness also dies. This may not be you presenting yourself as "sure of yourself", just to save face on your end, but then you make comments like this that show me that you are "sure of yourself" regarding consciousness...

I would bet my entire life savings that spacetime is not what we think it is. I can say this with an extremely high degree of confidence. I can also tell you that consciousness is not what we think it is, and that there are things about DNA and life which we cannot begin to imagine.

so you would bet your entire life savings on something that we don't even have Scientific evidence for?

This is why we have science, to KEEP LOOKING

Yeah, I've never said that Science shouldn't exist. I've just talked about what I think Science should look into, which are Spiritual and Esoteric concepts that Mystics have been talking about for ages while Science is slowly catching up with it.

I've always been about linking Spirituality and Science.


The link between the earth and the sun is something I can provide evidence for.

The link between consciousness and DNA is something I cannot provide evidence for.

It's that simple.

Until this changes, all you can do is speculate, and in your case, take your speculations far too seriously.

The link between DNA and Consciousness is that the human and other beings need both to have its incarnate existence. What's so complicated about that? You have the same evidence with the Earth and Sun. If there's no Sun or no Earth, then there's no life for us. If there's no DNA or no Consciousness, there's no life for us at least in this realm.


Wrong. Everything else you've said could be true; the universe could emanate from a timeless geometric transcendental object; DNA could be a quantum field; Consciousness could permeate the universe; and still the practice of "Magick" is completely bogus. You've snuck in that term "imaginative will" as a functional root of this interaction between a person's consciousness and the universe; you've still, in all this time chinacat, since your very first thread, STILL not been able to to EVEN DEFINE these words.

I have defined it actually. Multiple times. What is so complicated with the notion that our Consciousness interacts with Matter? If I yell at a plant, it actually dies and withers. If i chop wood, then the wood is chopped. These are both interactions between me (and my Consciousness) and matter, are they not? So why suddenly, especially if the Universe is a field of the same aware Consciousness that we have, wouldn't a thought of mine focused upon be able to lead to its manifestation?

There's nothing really that "out-there" about that in my opinion. The only thing that makes it "out-there" is where we're at in History. In the future, this will be common knowledge, in my opinion.

He is talking about something much, much spookier.

Read those Science articles again and they use the word spooky to describe the implications multiple times.

 

Yes, science is a slow method but it's a sure method and as it progresses we can build our philosophy on hardened terms. Like tuning a guitar, some people are pitch perfect and that's great for them but a guitar tuner is a brilliant piece of equipment.

It's all intuitive at the end of the day, experiments have to be conceived through the mind and are just an extension of a philosophy. We all experience this feedback loop in some way or another and if we're paying attention we'll refine it along the way. What dictates the path we take is what we deem useful for our subjective circumstances.

 

unk:

 

Ja, but now refine bro. You're still an incoherent mess.

 

I'll keep working at it, but i will re-emphasize http://astrology.about.com/od/mercury/p/MercurySadge.htm

 

Please read. I didn't make this statement, so I won't have to explain it. I said that you have NO EVIDENCE that dna moving from one test tube to another is an instance of the phenomenon we call "particle non-locality". I didn't say it ISN'T, or that it's NOT POSSIBLE for it to be. I'm saying SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE THAT IT IS, before you claim that it is! This is about your ATTITUDE towards knowledge, and how you arrive at it.

What does this mean? What does "register" mean? Do you mean that it wouldn't be possible for a conscious entity to KNOW that space is empty without there being matter in the form of that conscious entity? First off, this flies in the face of your "consciousness is a field" assertion, since now you NEED matter for space to exist (notice how tangled up you are making yourself).

I say, ignore the registering. It's secondary. Can you not imagine empty space without matter?

Posting a worthless link for me is pointless. Posting a proper source is the foundation of all discussion, a fact you have still not learned, a fact which sits at the bed of all inquiry, which you do not practice, and yet try and engage in theoretical astrophysics with a high school education.

I've never said that consciousness dies. Quote me and I will admit I did. Show me the money chinacat.

I've said that awareness ends; that's different. That's SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS. I don't believe that you continue to be aware in the same mode that you are aware while alive, once you die. But I'm also open to evidence to the contrary, because this is not a dogmatic position for me.

I have TONS of scientific evidence that our scientific understanding goes through regular periods of upheaval and at any given time contains numerous errors. That's why I'm confident that in the case of something we understand so little about, space-time, it is highly likely that we are wrong about what we think it is.

Where we disagree is that something like Astrology is a spiritual endeavor. Astrology is a dogma. True spirituality comes from the contemplative traditions, and science IS linking up wonderfully with these today. There is tremendous enthusiasm about this in the scientific world. There is not tremendous enthusiasm about Magick and Astrology, because those two are shams and have been proven bunk.

You are invoking a third participant in the relationship; the existence of humans. You said there is a relationship between DNA and consciousness, but when asked to explain, you say "well both are needed to make humans"; that's great, I don't care what's needed to make humans. What's the connection between DNA and consciousness outside of the fact that they are both on a bewildering list of things needed to make a person?

Because if you twirl a medallion and chant "make me money", you're not going to get money. Plants react to human intentions because they are conscious living beings. Wood gets chopped when you chop it because you exert a physical force, not psychic. Don't conflate pouring a glass of water with "Magick"; they are not the same thing and you know it. You're being so slippery that you don't even have a place to stand anymore . . . if you define Magick so broadly that it includes literally every single possible activity a human being can do, then you've defined it away.

We already established that your basis for doing my astrological reading is flawed, so until you can come up with a proper foundation for investigating astrology that is not "provide a single reading to a single person and if they agree with it, astrology is real, and if they don't, then they are wrong and dogmatic", I'm not going to waste the time of this forum. I've had my reading done before in several different ways, and so have thousands of scientists, in controlled experiments, and astrology fails every single test we throw at it.

 

Hopefully the shifts in consciousness brought upon by the Mayan Calendar will offset and override this.

 

Please read. I didn't make this statement, so I won't have to explain it. I said that you have NO EVIDENCE that dna moving from one test tube to another is an instance of the phenomenon we call "particle non-locality". I didn't say it ISN'T, or that it's NOT POSSIBLE for it to be. I'm saying SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE THAT IT IS, before you claim that it is! This is about your ATTITUDE towards knowledge, and how you arrive at it.

You're the one who brought up particle-nonlocality, not me. Here is a link regarding nonlocality http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_nonlocality.html

Non-locality on its own, besides the DNA talk, is an argument FOR Magick.


What does this mean? What does "register" mean? Do you mean that it wouldn't be possible for a conscious entity to KNOW that space is empty without there being matter in the form of that conscious entity? First off, this flies in the face of your "consciousness is a field" assertion, since now you NEED matter for space to exist (notice how tangled up you are making yourself).

I say, ignore the registering. It's secondary. Can you not imagine empty space without matter?

Without matter, you wouldn't be able to conceive of what empty space is. This does not fly in the face of my consciousness is a field assertion, as Consciousness would be the exact same. If it was the only thing that existed, you wouldn't be able to process it. Yet the field can still be there while matter is there, and the matter would literally allow you to perceive something such as Consciousness. It goes perfectly with my argument, not flying in the face of it.

Posting a worthless link for me is pointless. Posting a proper source is the foundation of all discussion, a fact you have still not learned, a fact which sits at the bed of all inquiry, which you do not practice, and yet try and engage in theoretical astrophysics with a high school education.

Well everything that i have posted you have dubbed worthless, so that's why i'm not continuing with that. And regarding education, you are a clear result of what can happen when you have so much education that you have a tight wad up your ass. My lack of school education and pursuit of my own personal education has allowed me to be more reliant upon my intuitive faculties.

I've never said that consciousness dies. Quote me and I will admit I did. Show me the money chinacat.

I've said that awareness ends; that's different. That's SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS. I don't believe that you continue to be aware in the same mode that you are aware while alive, once you die. But I'm also open to evidence to the contrary, because this is not a dogmatic position for me.

excuse me for confusing Consciousness ending and Consciousness dying to be different things. Of course self-consciousness is what dies when you die. That's not what's being discussed, what's being discussed is what happens next. You said specifically that you can't remember anything from before you were born, so it might be like that after you die.


Where we disagree is that something like Astrology is a spiritual endeavor. Astrology is a dogma. True spirituality comes from the contemplative traditions, and science IS linking up wonderfully with these today. There is tremendous enthusiasm about this in the scientific world. There is not tremendous enthusiasm about Magick and Astrology, because those two are shams and have been proven bunk.

A dogma because an important part of both Magick and Astrology is to be reliant upon your own Subjective experience?


You are invoking a third participant in the relationship; the existence of humans. You said there is a relationship between DNA and consciousness, but when asked to explain, you say "well both are needed to make humans"; that's great, I don't care what's needed to make humans. What's the connection between DNA and consciousness outside of the fact that they are both on a bewildering list of things needed to make a person?


You said there was no evidence for the connection between DNA and consciousness, and now that i showed a basic relationship, you are twisting your words as if "well yeah, of course there's a connection, but.."

All I said on the other hand is that if there's a potential for DNA to be permeating the Universe, then maybe it's equally as likely that it's the same with Consciousness, that it is nonlocal. This once again is only supportive of the argument for Magick.



Because if you twirl a medallion and chant "make me money", you're not going to get money. Plants react to human intentions because they are conscious living beings. Wood gets chopped when you chop it because you exert a physical force, not psychic. Don't conflate pouring a glass of water with "Magick"; they are not the same thing and you know it. You're being so slippery that you don't even have a place to stand anymore . . . if you define Magick so broadly that it includes literally every single possible activity a human being can do, then you've defined it away.

We already established that your basis for doing my astrological reading is flawed, so until you can come up with a proper foundation for investigating astrology that is not "provide a single reading to a single person and if they agree with it, astrology is real, and if they don't, then they are wrong and dogmatic", I'm not going to waste the time of this forum. I've had my reading done before in several different ways, and so have thousands of scientists, in controlled experiments, and astrology fails every single test we throw at it.

So thought has no power over your internal state? Your internal state has no effect on your external circumstances? I ask this because you are so convinced that there is no such thing as anything Psychic to have any power to it.

A talisman is a part of nature just as everything man-made is ultimately stemmed from Nature. And if the Universe is actually permeating with Consciousness, and is intelligent and aware, and is contained of the same essence as my own personal consciousness, then why would there not be correspondence between the two?

Your life obviously seriously lacks any hint of Synchronicity, and it's because you don't believe it to be possible or a part of reality, even though it's something that Einstein himself was very interested in.

 

And there's nothing slippery about my defintion of Magick. You just weren't understanding my analogy and the way i was using it.


My core definition of Magick is this:

That Consciousness has an untapped potential of a role in creating our outer circumstances and manifestations. This can happen on an unconscious level or a conscious level. On an unconscious level, you are shaping reality via your beliefs. On a conscious level, you have willingly broken down your conditioning and beliefs about what the world is and you are shaping your reality via your Imaginative Will. Imaginative Will means simply that: Your Imagination mixed with your internal Will.

A variety of tools can be used for your use of Magick. Their function is to create either a symbol or object that you can use as a means of projecting and focusing your Imaginative Will. These can be talismans, sigils, and many others.

I have definitely stated all of this before, but since Writer says otherwise, I posted it again.