What is a true statement?

Ain't never getting out of this world alive.

 

There are many truths about human behaviour. For instance, anger is a symptom of fear.

 

Disagree.

I get angry when I get a bag of lolly snakes and there's too many yellow ones. I don't fear the yellow ones, I just prefer the other flavours.

 

Most fears are subtle. Anger usually points to the fear of not coping well with having to deal with change, such as having to deal with too many yellow ones.

 

Well, I don't like change so youre probably on to something. I'm a.. If it ain't broke don't fix it type of person, and well, the lolly industry is broke and needs fixing.

 

For the record I don't mind pineapple, but most companies insist on using lemon flavours for their yellow lollies and who the bloody hell eats a lemon on its own? It just doesn't make sense to me. Any other flavour is a flavour of a fruit people readily eat. What am I gonna do? Sprinkle yellow lollies on my fish? And then melt them in the microwave for lemon flavour? and I refuse to believe that different flavours cost different amounts to manufacture, so why can't they just have good flavours everybody enjoys? And if not, why can't they be evened out in an appropriate proportion?

You're right about something angry = fear, but it'll be those CEO at the lolly factories that are in fear.. Of my anger.

 

I like lemon flavored lollies, and dislike pineapple lollies.

If I got angry with the pineapple ones it is because I won't eat them and fear that I made a bad choice of purchase. Fear that I may have wasted my money, and wasted food. fear if others knew my truth, I may be judge me unfavorably. Then I fear having to cope with a lowered self-esteem (ego). Naturally, all this can be so subtle, but true. All because everybody has an ego.

 

What next, no pineapple on pizza? Ohh we are going to butt heads mister.

 

Ha ha ha, No wonder I am a-stray.

 

You say tomatoe I say tomatoe. ...no, wait a minute, you say tomatoe I say tomatoe. ...hold it, which tomatoe do I say again?

On experiencing phenomena vs materiality, consider your experience of touch. Do you experience it at your fingers or do you experience it within your mind? If your hands are cold from being outdoors in the winter, and you stick your hands under cold water the water feels hot, while to someone who was in the house the whole time will experience the water as cold. Is this based on the material reality of energy (heat) transfer between your hands and the water, or is it how you experience it within your mind, or is it a combination of both? When you look at an optical illusion, do you percieve it in your eyes, or is it in your mind-----that one is of course, easy, because it is your brain that is creating the illusion. But in your brain, you are no longer percieving the light that has emanated from the object, you are seeing the electrons that have run up the nerves from your eyes.

Then there is the issue of time---when you look to the sky and see a star that is hundreds of light years away, you are not seeing that star as it appears in the present, rather you see the star as it appeared hundreds of years ago. The same is true if you are looking at your computer screen---only the time is a very small fraction of a second as opposed to 100's of years. Regardless, you are still seeing your computer as it was a small moment ago, rather than as it is in the exact same present. Therefore I argue that you are experiencing only the phenomena of your computer screen.

And as you say---traveling through space at the velocity we do does warp space----it warps space-time, so our reality is experienced entirely subjectively in terms of relativistic mass and relativistic time. The tricky thing is that we don't experience it---it is experienced by someone viewing us from the perspective of a different velocity. From the ultimate perspective---the speed of light---space and time are reduced to zero, and therfore light does not even exist within our physicality except as a space-time ghost. To light the whole universe is moving in every direction at light speed, but to us, light is moving from every direction at light speed. But in truth, it is not even there, even though we experience the phenomena of it. To light, there is no time or space. To us, light defines time, and therefore defines space (not subjective time that makes an hour long wait in line go forever, while a 2 hour long good movie can seem too short---I am talking physical time across the universe). From our physical perspective it travels the space of 1 light unit of distance in the same time that it travels 1 light unit of time. Therefore 1 light second, or 1 light year, represents both time and distance.

But then as you say, material reality is very fleeting. I agree. In fact I have become convinced, as I have worked on my philosophy, that we live in some kind of a holgraphic reality. The implication is that we take part in creating our physicality, along with everyone else, and the laws of nature----a primary one being the speed of light. I therefore see phyicality as a brief instant of Now in a massive sea of nonphysicality. In this way time has no physical existence other than now---the present, while nonphysicality---which in terms of material reality, represents the quantum wave-field. If only the present exists, then the only physical existence of that star, hundreds of light years away, is its present existence, which is most likely not even in the exact position I am looking at. But I don't experience that star in its present----I only experience the phenomena of that star's past---my present is how the star was hundreds of years ago.

But here is the crazy thing. According to quantum mechanics, the phenomena of that star, as it is in the present, is already here in my present. While I am experiencing the star based on the speed of light---a physical law---if only I could perceive a nonphysical reality outside of what is collapsing into the physicality I experience---I could perceive that star as it is in the present. But the only example that clues us in on the nonphysical reality of the universe (outside of the math of quantum mechanics) is the case of entangled particles. Otherwise, my experience of the world is defined in a way that makes sense---that gives depth and 3 dimensionality to the universe---the speed of light.

And yet, we are hurtling through the universe at great speeds---there is the speed of the earth, the speed of the sun as it carries its satellites around the Milky Way, which, if I remember, correctly is even greater than the 67,000 miles per hour, then there is the movement of the Milky Way galaxy. And yet, if only the present moment has physical existence, then within that present moment, everything currently manifesting has only a single position in space-time----in my understanding----just long enough to produce the phenomena that gives presence to future moments. And outside of that infinitely small moment, is the nonphysical wave-field where everything is superpositioned---everything is everywhere, or as we see it, simultaneously through all of space and all of time. Therefore there is no momevemt, because there is no place to move to, no time to move in to, everything is already there and everywhere. (Or as they say in Quantum Physics, there is no vector). Vector, velocity, movement, whatever you want to call it is introduced through phenomena as it requires time----but if all that exists only does so in the present, then time is only in your mind, and the quantum information that determines when, what, and where, will become physical.

 

All our perceptions are in the past. Even a poke in the eye, or a sound wave entering the ear, takes time to register. We cannot experience the present through human sensors.

 

I'm Right Behind Ya On This One Irm......



Cheers Glen.

 

What next, now we have an angry cohort.
Feeling less fearful in numbers now......

 

That is right---it is the past for all objective reality, but it is your present. Everything in the universe experiences the past of everything else, but it happens in the subjective present. Material reality may largely, or even entirely manifest out of the phenomena of the past---Quantum decoherence---the wave-field of one subatomic particle interacting with that of another brought together by quantum information, resulting in the collapse of both wave-fields into physical subatomic particles with a momentary position in space-time: for example, an electron of one atom interacting with the electron of another atom forming two electrons of part of a molecule. A photon interacting with a proton to start the process of the absorption of the photon by the atom---we don't even need the whole proton as it is only enough to create the phenomena of the proton and the photon---the photon may interact with the atom's nucleus in a similar matter many times as it is fully absorbed---we are talking about a position---or a moment---in space-time that is so infinitely small, a whole atom or even just a whole proton would not even fit into it. A gluon interacting with a quark to form a small piece of a particle in the nucleus of an atom is another example.

But clear across the universe, all the countless decoherent events within that same moment of now, and any other collapse of particles, represents all that exists in the material world in the present moment---nothing wholly there in each moment, but enough to create the phenomena of the next or other future moments of Now. We are speaking in terms of single moments of Planck Time (time) at single positions of Planck Distance (space), which is so small that you could say our universe only exists at a single string at a time----a radically fleeting moment of physicality. In fact it is so radically fleeting that even mass itself is purely phenomena as each portion of any physical particle exists for an equal period of time within an equal period of space---an existence in our physical universe equating to a photon which is always representing an equal distance and time of space-time. This would imply that even physical particles are, within their own reality, as much of a space-time ghost as photons are---which is not that odd if you consider that at the beginning of the Big Bang everything was nothing more than light. Light and mass did not differentiate until after the Big Bang had begun. This fits in with a theory that happens to be very predictive (meaning that it closely correlates to reality suggesting its validity) that treats inertia (mass) as light trapped in place jittering back and forth at the speed of light rather than moving across the universe at the speed of light.

But if this is the case, we have reached the radical phenomenalist view of Berkeley, the founder of phenomenalism, that "Esse est percipi" (existence is perception); and the noumenal reality of Kant.

 

The very moment in the late 1800's that an enterprising pizzeria chef in Chicago, inspired by the abomination of greed, placed the very first slice of pineapple on a piece of pizza, Nietzsche tucked away in a moutainous corner of Germany was writing down the words, "God is dead," forever changing the course of history----dooming it to decay into the morass of Nihilism where truth, value, meaning, and authenticity, would be lost.

This little known piece of history that I just made up is the very reason we are now discussing the loss of the very last piece of concrete reality that gives any sense of truth to our lives---material physicality-----just saying.

 

God is uncreated light. The very truth of everything created.

We humans forget that, and instead get all caught up in stories about truth. Stories are fabrications (deceptions) and have nothing to do with the truth.
If a rock is the truth, what humans do is alter the rock to become a brick. We end up only seeing a brick and no longer a rock. Both altered rock and brick have become a story about something else than the truth. No wonder we struggle with 'what is true'.

Knowledge is the greatest story maker. It is made up of all sorts of bricks. Knowing without bricks contains no story, and it becomes doubtless, unchanging, fearless and liberating (much like unconditional love). Knowing the truth without reason or understanding brings a person closer to the truth than anything else. The person who experiences knowing can never be persuaded to renounce it, or explain what it is by language, including maths. Any attempt to do so, including this story, is just a story. Though stories cover the truth, some are very thin veils indeed.

 

And how do you know this?

 

My answer may not mean anything if all your 'knowing' is based on reason.
My answer is based on heart-felt revelations that awakens everything that is true in me (conviction).

 

Thanks for sharing your heartfelt convictions. They're veridical for you, but possibly not for others. I have those myself, but also think that reason is a remarkable faculty that should be employed in critically evaluating claims to truth. It's all too human to think we're specially favored with insight into the divine.

 

Socrates believed in the memory of God, whom none may look upon and remember in all his glory. If that is merely him believing he has some sort of special insight into the divine, then you'll have to define the word for me.