is reality as we know it, really a dream?

Let me add to the confusion by adding in some more quantum mechanics--scientists call the quantum wave a wave because that is the best way to describe how we understand it, but they then say it really isn't a wave, but a field. Then they add, well, its not really a field. To which they will then say, well, its a wave-like field. Or a field-like wave...

So to describe it with our Newtonian understanding as a wave doesn't really work. But in our bigger-than-quantum sized world, we can calculate the wave in this manner and it makes sense. Radio waves have amplitude and frequency--and in fact, there is a video of a person shorting out a broadcast antenna to an AM station and the large spark creates a plasma which vibrates the air allowing you to hear the broadcast.

But you have to remember that this wave form, being energy, moves at the speed of light, while we experience it below the speed of light. Even before Quantum Mechanics Einstein described the wave as we cannot experience it (Though Einstein was writing as quantum mechanics was emerging as well, so there is not a whole lot of gap). At the speed of light---the wave is simultaneously everywhere. If we look at a galaxy 400 Million light years away---we understand that it took the light 400 Million years to get here. We perceive a movement and a trajectory. Einstein said, the light, in its reality, has no movement. It is here on earth, it is at that galaxy, it is everywhere in between, all simultaneously. Quantum Mechanics said, not only that, but it is superpositioned---it is everywhere at the same time. It is only movement from our sublight-speed physical perspective.

A wave as we understand it has a trajectory but a field does not. What creates the appearance of a trajectory and a movement is time. Since all of this happens at the speed of time, it is our experience of time that creates the phenomena of movement. So it is our experience of time that has the light travelling 400 Million light years to earth in my distant galaxy example. To the wave, it is simultaneously at earth, the galaxy, everywhere in between, and everywhere else too. I didn't make this stuff up, that is how it is.

I'll let you wrap your head around that before continuing. So again, it is a wave that is like a field, and a field thatis like a wave, and we experience it as movement with direction, but it is not really moving, and it is everywhere at the same time.

Well I will add this-----the reason we experience it in this way, is because when it collapses into a particle it has only one position--the particle has one position. The wave is still everywhere, but we don't experience the wave, we only experience the phenomena of individual particles----therefore a radio antenna picks up individual photons which generate electrons which brings the sound to the speakers. Over time the photons that it picks up are different parts of the wave allowing us to hear the broadcast in time, rather than everything all at once which would just be static and noise.

 

Thx, & my goodness. Why do humans have to make things so complicated myself included. Things get much simpler when ya simply include psychic influences. & from what i hear these can be amplified. How do yall think all these concepts got into our heads? These arent original for modern times.

 

I was going to get into this aspect next. The question here is really, how deep is the illusion? Because if the wave is superpositioned and is very nonphysical, and is not separate from the particle, then how physical can it be considering that a physical thing has a single space-time position? The wave and the particle are generally considered one and the same thing but clearly they are just as different as energy and mass, which is exactly what the case is. What is confusing is that we know that the wave is there even as the particle is, though the particle is not necessarily there where the wave is. For example, light travelling (in our perspective, not that of light) through empty space is a wave, and therefore it does not consist of a particle, unless there is a speck of dust that it happens to touch, at which time it has a position and it collapses into a photon. This is the whole problem with Schrodinger's cat, and Heisenberg's indeterminancy principle, that we cannot know both momentum and position at the same time. Either a quantum wave has momentum (which again is from our perspective) and it is a wave, or it has position and it has collapsed into a position as a particle. So there is clearly a duality here, unless the waves do not actually collapse into particles, but instead just undergo a decoherence where they come close enough to a particle to seem like a particle.

If it does actually collapse into a particle, than we can compare the wave to energy and mass as a duality (which actually is not a comparison but the reality). We have a law of thermodynamics that states that we can neither create nor destroy mass, there is also a law that says we can never create nor destroy energy. The thing is one can convert into the other. If a house burns down, for example, some of the mass remains as cinders, and burned out rubble. Some of the mass has escaped into the atmosphere as ash and smoke, but some of the mass was lost--converted to energy in the form of heat and light. Clearly we do not treat or experience or deal with the energy in the same way we do the mass. Clearly there is a duality here. So clearly the wave particle duality actually represents a duality if there is a collapse into a particle.

If there is no collapse, then the duality is more illusion than reality, because the particle never truly exists.

Either way, it is not the actual particle we experience as reality, but the phenomena of that particle.

The idea that the wave must propagate in something has been dismissed once we did away with the idea of the ether. This again was pretty much Einstein again. So the something that it propagated in was the space-time continuum. But again, the implications was that energy (basically the electromagnetic wave which is what they worked with), as a wave, moved at the speed of light, and therefore wasn't actually moving except from our context at sublight speeds, and even then, as it moved from our context, it still had no relative speed---you could approach it or move away from it and the its speed relative to us was always the same. This is again because it was literally the speed of time.

What is time---it is a 4th dimensional thing, and the only part of time that exists within our physicality is the infinitesimal point of Now. The 4th dimension is a higher dimension than the ones we experience--the three physical dimensions. Imagine someone living in 2 dimensions---so in their world they have an up-down and a front-back dimensions. we could move all around their world completely undetected because we have the infinite directions of a higher dimension---in the case the side-side dimension. We could even walk through or stick our finger through their dimension. They would never see us as we exist, but they would see an infinitesimal slice of us---their infinitesimal peek into our 3rd dimension---that slice runs through their whole dimension, and anything in our world that passes through theirs would appear, not as it is, but rather an infinitesimally thin slice of that object or being. This is our peak into the 4th dimension---the point of Now. And energy appears as that infinitesimal slice running clear through our 3 dimensions. But we will always only see a slice of that.

Therefore tomorrow and yesterday do not exist in any physical sense. Likewise the wave does not exist in a physical sense---only that infinitesimal slice that appears in the infinitesimal Quantum Now---which is actually the only point of physicality. Where does the wave propagate? In the No-thing.

Yes, the wave, energy, is not a physical thing, only the particle is physical-----which collapses into the point of Now-----or it doesn't collapse but only appears to. Either way, we only experience phenomena, not the actual physical things we think we do. As Edmund Burke said so long ago----esse est percipi----Existence is perception.

So, I argue that Arche, or the First Cause, is Mind. I do not identify what is meant by Mind specifically because it can have different meanings to different people. It could be God, it could be human mind, it could be simply the universe or Aristotle's Universal Mind. As I previously said, in the early 1800's, to Schopenhauer it would be Will, but not a conscious Will because he was an atheist, and he recognized that if it was a conscious Will than it implied God (this was well before quantum mechanics BTW).

Brentano said that thoughts are always of a thing. We cannot think of a no-thing. So he said that all thoughts have an intentional object. He was, of course, talking about human thought, but I argue that quantum information is another form of Mind. Maybe it is the same kind of mind as the human mind, maybe it isn't. Maybe it is a mindless Will as shopenhauer argued. But Quantum Information determines when, how, and where a particle will collapse, so it to must have an intentional object, which is this particle. The question is, does the human mind cause this particle. I think it would be wrong to think of it this way. The better question is, is the mind of quantum information the same as the mind we refer to as the human mind, or is it at least close enough that the human mind can influence and impact the existence of matter? The reason the latter question is better is that, obviously things exist where no humans can be---such as on the moon, or in the sun, or on a distant start or a dead planet. Quantum information creates mass from quantum waves whether humans, or any life for that matter, exist nearby or even at all. So humans are not necessary to creating mass.

But in my opinion the answer to the better question----can the human mind communicate with, or impact and alter quantum information that causes mass? Yes. I say this with certainty because of the experiments at MIT that demonstrate pretty clearly that human intention can change nonlocal reality. I have shared details of this before and most recently in the Armageddon thread.

Since I have shown that the human is no longer critical to the quantum information---lets take a look at this. The question is valid in that Quantum Information still represents a form of mind, and if it does have an intentional object, then there is some form of Will or thought----literally, intention.

When humans are not yet created, or have all died off, or even if they are there and don't really have much to do with the creation of the natural world, how does this work? I call it the phenomenal sequence. When a wave collapses into a particle, or even just comes close to being a particle. Phenomena is generated. Now because the quantum information is superpositioned, the information of that phenomena is every where and every time. The information was there long before the object was. and will continue long after the object is gone---this is the implication of superpositioned information. The problem is as long as the information is from the future, it is only potential information, and it is mixed in with all the other potential information of that object. A chair could be a nice chair, a broken chair, half of a chair, a burned up chair, a chair with initials carved in it, etc----anything could happen to that chair and so there is information superpositioned of all the possibilities. The future is absolute potential. But all of that collapses into one singularity---one actuality. That is the present moment. From that moment phenomena of that particle, and at a larger level, of that object is generated----new quantum information, light, etc. everything that denotes the existence of that object. The phenomena is nonphysical until it needs to be physical---for example, light from that object is nonphysical until it strikes an atom in an observer's eye or on a mirror. The phenomena of the the particles in the table, goes into the quantum information to form the next particle in the next moment of Now.

As for the particle that collapsed and generated the phenomena we are discussing, it is now an actuality. So the past now has superpositioned information of a past actuality. The future that was absolute potentiality is still spuerpositioned, and that information is still in infinite positions across space-time, but there is also a superpositioned information that this was the actuality--the object existed as such.

This raises some interesting questions about the flow of time and whether we can change the past or not. And whether time flows in only one direction. Quantum physicists speculate on this and there are various beliefs. There is the Wheeler delayed double slit experiment that demonstrates how difficult this problem actually is. I personally suspect that time flows only in one direction, the direction of entropy. And that the past cannot be changed. But this is a question we have trouble answering today.

So the information came from the object before the present. So let's say a chair is shaped from wood, there is the information as it was manufactured into a finished product. Now there is information of a finished product in a showroom. Then it is in your dining room. all that information goes towards keeping it consistent. You accidentally scratch the wood. Now the information of that scratch plays out in every subsequent moment and so on.

So information comes from previous moments. But eventually, as we go back, we come to the Big Bang. Where did the information before that come from? Its like asking what existed before the Big Bang.

Yes, and mind, or consciousness, is by definition, nonphysical.

 

According to Kant, such things as space and time are a priori meaning that it is something we know without having to be taught it. At 2:00 pm, there was a book on the dining room table. We understand position in terms of where and when, and this is instinctual. What you say is correct, that everything is in motion, so an actual space-time position is continuously changing. Existentially I agree with you. And this is why I said that in a given quantum now, an object may only be partially there. But we do not experience that. Our experience is that a table is complete because we experience the table over a tremendous amount of quantum nows. The diameter of a proton is 1 x 10^20 Planck Lengths, (and I speak of the quantum now in terms of Planck Length by Planck Time, 1 Planck Time representing the time it takes light to travel 1 Planck Length) so if we were to ever actually photograph a proton, the image would represent the phenomena of a huge number of quantum nows. A huge amount of times for the subatomic particles that make up that proton to collapse in and out of existence. That single point of now is truly infinitesimal. Our human experience of Now is a collection of a countless number of quantum nows.

This is what Husserl referred to as retention. For example, when you observe a very beautiful mountain scene, you will look at different details in the mountains, and your focus will change, but you still have this overriding concept of the mountains as a whole, even where your mind is not focused. Listening to music is a better example, where you do not lose the concept of the song with each new note---otherwise it would be meaningless notes. You retain a concept of the whole song as it has played up to each new note, and may even anticipate the next notes, which is what makes the song good or bad for you.

At this level of experience we experience the phenomena of the table, or the song or the mountains. It could all be illusion and not even be there so we cannot pin down a space-time position anyway. Existentially we are perceiving the phenomena over time and relying on Husserlian retention to conclude that the table is there, but we experienced it over many space-time positions. If we truly want to locate position and time of that position we have to look at the particles or subatomic particles, and I argue that they only exist in the Quantum Now, and that regardless of all movement, it is only within this infinitesimal point of reality, immensely smaller than the size of a photon, that there truly is a single space-time position. Anything above that and we are dealing with phenomena, and not the thing-in-itself. So once again I argue that time has no physical existence except in the the present moment.

What we describe as a physical thing though, nonetheless requires that it is a thing with some level of a perceived space-time location. This is our a priori understanding that it is there, wherever and whenever that there is. Kant would say that whenever we speak of the existence of a thing, that, even if not stated, there is an implied position in space and time.

Also my argument in essentialism did away with Platonic Form, so i agree with you about the concept of the table, I argue that essence is the quantum information of each indiividual object or thing, which keeps that thing consistent from one moment to the next even as it decays and turns to sawdust.

This contradicts your position that there is no single position because the purpose of the measurement is to pin down a space-time position. Though to measure movement over a set period of space-time we need a set period of individual space-time positions. That is a good science stack article but it does not deny the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, because momentum is a set of more than one positions over a period of time, where as position is a single position at one point of time. This article speaks in terms of practicality for experiments rather than the validity of Heisenberg uncertainty.

Archephenomenalism raises the degree of uncertainty by saying that the wave is nonphysical. The article on Science Stack likewise does not deny my argument because we never actually measure the wave as the thing-in-itself. All measurements are dependent on quantum collapses because all measurements are physical---it is done through, and measured by physical things---particles. Because of this, every measurement, whether for position or momentum is a measurment of the physically generated phenomena, and is therefore not actually the nonphysical wave itself. And this is why the wave appears to move to us in our world of sublight speeds.

So you are arguing that energy and mass are the same. On the one hand, science agrees with you, and so do I. But categorically, science treats them as distinct. There are two laws of conservation, one for energy and one for mass. In my case, I argue that one is physical and the other is nonphysical. It is all phenomena so we could say that all of it is mind---a nonphysical reality. As Tishomingo remembered from a debate we had a number of years ago---that the physical universe is all illusion. I have no problem with that. The problem beyond that though is that such is not the reality we live and operate within. As you said, illusion has consequences.

Existentially the material world is very real to us. So while we argue on the one hand that it is all illusion, on the other hand we have to have some way at some level of categorically working with a world that seems very real. A way of explaining why illusion has consequences. I think it would be misleading to say that it is all material. That the superpositioned reality of the quantum wave is the same reality as objects that seem concrete and are physically there in material form. My argument for why this is misleading is in my recent responses with Tishomingo, for example the inability to explain why linked particles communicate instantaneously breaking the speed of light. Or how the mechanical nature of the material world cannot explain how mind can impact nonlocal objects in the MIT experiments. Or that we may be approaching an impasse in the advancement of technology, just as we were in the last fin-de-siecle as Nihilism began gripping the European continent.

So at this level I would argue that at the very least a duality is necessary, if not a multiplicity--as I will explain later.

On the hand where we can say that energy and mass are the same we can say yes it does exist as the wave and the particle are inseparable, or, it doesn't really matter because, we experience the phenomena of it. But on the other hand, where we categorically need to separate the physical and nonphysical, the answer is plain and clear---no collapse, no physical particle.

Not to be redundant but, scientists, as you point out, like to claim that we shouldn't separate the particle from the wave. that they are one and the same, which is true (on the one hand) but leads to problems on the other hand. Why do they do this? Because they dogmatically insist that everything is material---i.e. physical. If we separate the quantum wave and the particle, which makes the most sense from the macro world where Einstein's laws apply rather than quantum mechanics, then scientists are faced with the problem, what is the wave? This would bring them to an existential crisis in that all signs point to the wave as something that is nonphysical. Which, to use Laughlin's word, is "taboo." They fail to recognize that it is simply a matter of dimensions. This is why Quantum physicists prefer to stick to the math of their science, and not speculate as to the real world implications.

What Laughlin describes is what I argue is a nonphysical reality that surrounds us. Yes you strike it hard enough with a particle from an accelerator and you are likely to collapse a wave. As I said, I believe the wave is nonphysical, and it propagates through the nonphysical 4th dimension. This would be exactly as he describes.

That's the book with the person living in 2 dimensions? I haven't read it, but I have read about it.

However your description of why seems to depend on a Newtonian concept of Now where it is the same now everywhere in the universe. Einstein demonstrated that the now is relative to where everyone is located. I reduced the Now down to the size of a single quantum collapse, and defined it as the point of all simultaneous collapses across the universe, and that this is all there is, and yet the perception of it is relative to each observer's position in space-time. Therefore it is the same now clear across the universe but the phenomena of that now is experienced relative to the observer's position in the universe.

If there is no Now, how would there be an intersection between the three physical dimensions and the dimension of time which is so necessary to Einstein's theories? Are you saying that Einstein was wrong?

Yes, there must be some kind of observer---some form of mind.

Very interesting. It is kind of like Tishomingo who, if I understand him correctly, is Christian yet does not believe in life after death, and argues that the human mind arises from the physical brain.

So do you believe that the universe is a material one that is still illusionary? Or that it is consciousness but somehow unintentioned?

Yes, Quantum Mechanics is surprisingly essentialist---i.e. presents reality as having essence. With or without my Intentional Object. But let me remind you as I said above, I argue for an essentialism that is different from the traditional Platonic form. I argue that each thing has its own unique essence (i.e. its quantum information).

I argue that they are both mind. I do not have any knowledge of whether the human mind and quantum information are the same kind of mind, or different. So I cannot say whether they are the same or not.

If we look at it as simply physical and nonphysical then it is a duality----but not a duality if we look at it as mass, energy, and mind. And even then it could be mass, energy, mind and information. Mind may divide into multiple things we do not yet know of. You said it earlier, there needs to be an observer. If the universe is radically subjective, then there could be an infinite number of observers---there is in fact, an infinite number of points of quantum information, that is altered by the phenomena generated from every collapse.

No you didn't but again it is the literal definition if you look up the words physical and mind.

 

You understand me correctly. I'm a Christian in the sense of accepting the teachings and example of Jesus, as reported in the Gospels, as the basis of my faith. But I don't believe in an afterlife, a virgin birth and literal resurrection, miracles, etc. That doesn't mean that those things aren't true, only that I don't believe them and live my life accordingly.

As for the illusory nature of tables, I'm sitting at one now, typing away, and it seems to be serving its purpose in supporting my computer. To me, that's the important thing. What's happening at the sub-atomic level is not something I worry about. Wasn't it theoretical physicist Richard Feynman who said: "nobody understands quantum physics"? Yet here we are, going on as though we do. There are at least a dozen interpretations of quantum phenomana, including Bohr's still leading Copenhagen interpretation, Bohmian mechanics, the quantum Bayesian interpretation, multiple universes, Zurek's Quantum Darwinism, etc. https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/toms-top-10-interpretations-quantum-mechanics As the late Victor Stenger put it in his essay "Quantum Quackery",interpretations of quantum effects need not so uproot classical physics, or common sense, as to render them inoperable on all scales—especially the macroscopic scale on which humans function. Newtonian physics, which successfully describes virtually all macroscopic phenomena, follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics. And common sense continues to apply on the human scale https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1997/01/22165024/p37.pdf. See also, Stenger, The Unconscious Quantum; Quantum Gods. I tend to favor Einstein in his debate with Bohr over whether or not the moon goes away when no one is watching. But what do I know? Speculative metaphysics can be fun on a dull afternoon, but in terms of adding to our understanding of reality, I can think of better things to do. My sock drawer is calling.

 

At first I thought this very interesting. But I realized that this is an example of what I was writing about in my book with the working title. The Survival of Christianity in a Post-Modern World, in which I argue that Christians would still have a reason to believe even if the tenets that are very important to maintaining their beliefs such as original sin or that Jesus is the only way to heaven, were destroyed. I talk about how sincere a belief in Jesus, or what he stands for, must be if you maintain that belief without the fear or other factors that keep people in line. You could say that the book is an exploration of the reasons I am not a Christian, starting with the concept of unconditional love versus a god who is vengeful, jealous, and will damn you for all eternity. But the book goes on to discuss how Christianity could survive such a deconstruction.

I actually hadn't considered the argument for a materialist Christian. But I suppose it would be a similar kind of belief.

The fact that I am not a Christian, makes my book a hard sell. It would be a better book for you to write for example.

One of the key points that the whole book hinges upon is that Christianity is a religion whereas the traditional ways of many peoples is a spirituality. (.......I'M JOKING!!)

What is one of the biggest roadblocks in understanding Quantum Physics? The fact that science dogmatically adheres to materialism. It's pretty simple.

I already mentioned that I am very careful about Quantum Quackery. I also do not believe that the moon goes away when no one is watching. We are talking about reality as an illusion, and yes, as I said, on the one hand my philosophy argues such. But there is the other hand that argues that the physical world is to us, the most real concrete thing there is. My philosophy is useless and meaningless without taking it as a whole. I am sitting at my dining room table, eating some of the borshch I cooked lastnight, and this is all very real to me.

The thing is, if you took the time to understand what my argument is, you would find that it actually is an argument that explains both the quantum world and the macro-world, and how they work together and coexist. In fact, I've already demonstrated this----I have shown how my Quantum Now brings the traditional Newtonian concept of Now into the relativistic concept of Now that Einstein created. I have talked about how I have brought existentialism and essentialism together. I have also brought together continental and anglo-american philosophy, i.e. Empiricism and Rationalism. I didn't set out to do that, when I started I had no idea where I would end up.

Perhaps you are so quick to deny it because I argue for the nonphysical. As my quantum physicist friend says, 'the label is important because it changes the context of the understanding, but in the end it is just a question of dimensions.' And as long as he continues to respond favorably like that his wife and children will be safe. Once I am done and published, I will release them and he can have his family again. (Ok----I don't have his family locked up---that part is a joke!)

And as far as the different interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, I have yet to find a school or theory of quantum mechanics that is incompatible with Archephenomenalism.

Finally, as far as the illusion of your table you were working at. It seems very concrete to you I'm sure. You can push on it, and it pushes back, or offers resistance, it supports your hand and computer. You can slam your fist down on it, and it is there, solid as can be. But what does classical science tell us about it. Every atom in that table is made up of roughly 99.999999999999% empty space. The actual mass of each atom occupies only, .000000000000001%, of the space where each atom is supposed to sit according to traditional physics. It is the same with the atoms in your hand and in your computer. Almost all of the characteristics you understand as the make up of your table, whether it is wood, or glass or plastic, or whatever, is created by the electrons that surround the atoms, which classical science once thought circled the nucleus like planets around a sun, as well as the electrons in your hand and your computer, etc. Otherwise it is all empty space--nothingness. Scientifically, your whole experience of your table is phenomena. Not to mention that you perceive it entirely through the nerves in your hands and fingers, and your eyes, and so forth. Existence is perception.

 

Exactly. Now that I agree with. In fact, I took Husserl's retention, and coined the term Material Retention which I labelled as illusionary and is exactly as you explained here---the idea that material reality continues from one moment to the next. That is part of why my second principle is that the totality of all physicality exists for that moment (i.e. Quantum Now) exists within and only within that moment.

I don't have a problem with that. I am a phenomenalist, and the Philosophy of phenomenalism, which began with Burke and his statement that existence is perception, starts with the possibility that, the material world is real, but what we experience is phenomena of that world rather than the world itself, and goes all the way to, the material world does not even exist, it is only the phenomena which we experience through consciousness.

And yes, it does make sense that if material reality does not exist, i.e. that particles don't even collapse into physicality, that the concept of Now is simply a point of reference and all that truly exists is a present moment of consciousness.

As you said, it requires an observer. I agree. Though I would add the caveat that, if there is a collapse of the wave into a physical particle, then there is a point of manifestation of the thing, even if it is infinitesimal. This point is the consequence of phenomena (i.e. it is the intentional object of the wave) and it generates phenomena (i.e. an intentional object for the next collapse of the wave). In terms of my phenomenal sequence, you could say that it is the manifestation of the perception by the quantum information of the wave, and generates a new phenonema which will be perceived by quantum information, and possible by a conscious being, if this phenomena also includes light, sound or is otherwise perceived by a living being. If there is no actual collapse then I agree with you on this.

That makes sense. There are cases where position is measured, and cases where momentum is measured, but they cannot be simultaneously measured. A simple example would be that a photograph reflects position---the position of photons would change the molecules of the film to create the image. A light meter, on the other hand, that measures light strength measures momentum. A wave meter that measures frequency measures momentum as well. A radio indirectly measures position, even though it does so over time---the position of photons on the antenna which generates the electrons we listen to. By tuning it, we filter out all the other photons generated by the radio waves of other frequencies except the ones we want (A photon is the particle of electromagnetic waves, so it is not just light, but other waves as well on the electromagnetic spectrum). My argument is that we never actually measure the wave, as it is always dependent on a physical particle. So the radio is also measuring momentum, but that is because it is positions over time. But time is always a feature in measuring momentum. An ancient Greek philosopher, who I forget off hand, said that there is no movement because a flying arrow always has a position. Quantum physics actually recognizes this and refers to the paradox it creates by the philosopher's name----I will have to think of it. It has been demonstrated in a laboratory and confirms what I say on this.

Yes. Our body is subject to the same rules---assuming that there is a collapse of particles, our bodies exist at infinitesimal moments at a time, or if there is no collapse, do not exist at all, either way, it is all phenomena. Only consciousness is truly there.

Yes---this is the other hand. This is why, even if it is all illusion, and there is not even any collapse into physicality, we need some way of working with the world as we perceive it, so that we can have nice things, and develop technologies, and save each other with medicines and kill each other with guns and all that other stuff that we do.

But, the more we develop, the closer we may need to come to realizing the illusions and the limitations of physicality so that we can one day travel the galaxy, and say, "Beam me aboard, Scotty," after having sex with scantily clad alien women. I argue that my archephenomenalism is a step in this direction. And for this at our current level of development, we need a reference point in terms of space and time, but one that acknowledges the nonphysical.

In a recent piece I did, I talked about the mythical Eve as a Promethean hero. By eating of the Tree of Knowledge she opened the path for us to one day become Gods in our own right. Today we can kill large numbers of living things instaneously and make our world uninhabitable. We can save lives and even grow babies in a test tube. But we are only teenage Gods. We have not achieved our full God-like abilities yet. That will happen after we develop technology that will not only access, but even master the nonphysical just as we now do with the physical.

Thank you! I look forward to reading that!

I can see that.

Without intention, wouldn't it be meaningless?[/QUOTE]

 

Forget it. They're all illusions--figments of your imagination--mere collections of sub-atomic particles that you can safely ignore. There is no real snow, there are no real granddaughters, there is no real sled to ride, there was no real White Christmas. As the song says, it's a dream. Might as well stay in your imaginary home, typing imaginary posts on your imaginary computer so that imaginary readers like me can type our imaginary replies back to you--for all the good it does!

 

Burke? Do you mean Edmund Burke, the Anglo-Irish statesman, philosopher, and conservative icon who defended the American Revolution and opposed the French Revolution because the former upheld traditional rights and the latter opposed them? I didn't think he got into epistemology and metaphysics--unlike the earlier Bishop Berkeley, another Anglo-Irish philosopher and well-known phenomenalist. (Well-known enough to have a university in California named after him!) There may be another Burke I don't know about, and we've all engaged in slips of the tongue. But if you've confused the well known statesman with the well-known bishop, you need to correct it fast or no one will take you seriously.

 

[/QUOTE]I'm not really a "materialist", in the sense of someone who thinks nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. Davies and Griffen's The Matter Myth convinced me years ago that that's a questionable position. I have no doubt that although the table seems solid enough to my perceptions, at the microscopic level it's literally seething with a shadowy conjuntion of waves and particles governed by the laws of chance. I realize that at any second there's a finite probability that the thing might dissolve, or even worse, that the molecules of air I'm breathing might suddenly collect at the far side of the room, leaving me breathless and dead.

I think of myself as an existentialist, and empiricist and a pragmatist. As an existentialist, I've chosen to bet on the information of my senses, with full realization of how fallible those are, as an alternative to betting against them, which intuitively strikes me as a prescription for disaster. Things may be chaotic at the subatomic level, but up here at my level they seem to be relatively stable and predictable statistically--thanks be to God and probability theory! And I'm a pragmatist in the sense that I keep on betting on them, cuz it seems to work for me. If my table and computer suddenly disintegrated, I'd have to revise my assumptions and bet on a different horse, but so far I'm satisfied with the results.

You claim to have jumped off the top of the Empire State Building with impunity. I suggest you might try it again--or if you can't get to New York, any tall building will do--and report back. Meagain might also give it a try, and you can compare notes. If I don't here from either of you, I'll assume you thought better of it and decided a trip to Tahiti would be more fun. As we gamblers like to say, put up or shut up!

 

No man, it was Tom Burke, he had a crash pad in Haight Ashbury and would hand out acid for free, man! Good Owsley stuff too man. You'd see God on that stuff, man. He was a real trip, and said one day, existence is perception, like, you all dig? And we were like, Wow! He said, I'm going to call it, existence-ism... no wait... Be-ism...
And then I got this cool idea out of the blue and said Phenomenalism! Man, he said no, it sounded too square. But then later he asked me, what was that word you thought of again? And then he liked it, man.


(LMAO)


George Berkeley, the Bishop-----I can't believe I mentioned Burke. That's what I get for writing posts late at night when I'm falling asleep. I was writing about Burke recently, I forget what it was about.

 

What an intriguing challenge. Me writing a book on The Survival Of Christianity in a Post-Modern World. nhance our potentialities. Who will get the royalties?

I'd first need to find out what a Post-Modern world is. To my way of thinking, Post-modernism is no longer in favor in Academia, even in English departments, although the wounds left by it are still healing. I could write about the survival of Christianity in th modern word, although I think Bishop Spong may have beaten us to it.

• 2002 – A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith Is Dying and How a New Faith Is Being Born
• 2005 – The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love
• 2007 – Jesus for the Non-Religious
• 2009 – Eternal Life: A New Vision: Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell
• 2011 – Re-claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World

 

I'm not really a "materialist", in the sense of someone who thinks nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. Davies and Griffen's The Matter Myth convinced me years ago that that's a questionable position. I have no doubt that although the table seems solid enough to my perceptions, at the microscopic level it's literally seething with a shadowy conjuntion of waves and particles governed by the laws of chance. I realize that at any second there's a finite probability that the thing might dissolve, or even worse, that the molecules of air I'm breathing might suddenly collect at the far side of the room, leaving me breathless and dead.[/QUOTE]

While anything is possible (the future is absolute potentiality according to my philosophy), such a situation is very unlikely---I mean, yes, a finite probability, but practically zero. Quantum Information will maintain the reality we know in the face of quantum randomness. What I refer to as the phenomenal sequence means that, because the air was there, and your computer and desk in the last moments that just past it will be there in the next and succeeding moments, until there is a change of the macro environment that affects the existence of these things.



I think of myself as an existentialist, and empiricist and a pragmatist. As an existentialist, I've chosen to bet on the information of my senses, with full realization of how fallible those are, as an alternative to betting against them, which intuitively strikes me as a prescription for disaster. Things may be chaotic at the subatomic level, but up here at my level they seem to be relatively stable and predictable statistically--thanks be to God and probability theory! And I'm a pragmatist in the sense that I keep on betting on them, cuz it seems to work for me. If my table and computer suddenly disintegrated, I'd have to revise my assumptions and bet on a different horse, but so far I'm satisfied with the results.

You claim to have jumped off the top of the Empire State Building with impunity. I suggest you might try it again--or if you can't get to New York, any tall building will do--and report back. Meagain might also give it a try, and you can compare notes. If I don't here from either of you, I'll assume you thought better of it and decided a trip to Tahiti would be more fun. As we gamblers like to say, put up or shut up![/QUOTE]


Archephenomenalism breaks down reality into different categories----there is Noumenal Reality, which is the reality of the thing-in-itself as Kant would say. It is the reality we cannot perceive. It is broken down further into Noumenal Physicality (----physical reality as it exists in the infinitesimal points of time. It is actual physicality if quantum waves actually do collapse into particles), and a Superpositioned Reality (the reality of the quantum wave, or energy, which is a nonphysical reality). Then there is Eidotic Reality which is the reality of mind and information. Finally there is Existential Reality, which is the reality we experience. While one reality may be an illusion to another or may be impossible to perceive from the context of lower dimensional categories to higher dimensional ones, they are all very real from the vantage within that reality category.

You live and function within your existential reality as do all of us within our own existential realities, This reality is very real to us, it is our physical body that keeps us within this reality. The body keeps us at, what I call, our own subjective center. In the math of Quantum Mechanics, the subjective center equates to the center of momentum for our Being, and the individual center of momentum for every particle that represents our body, and every other object in a given moment.. If physical reality is real, i.e. that there are collapses into actual particles, then this means that for an infinitesimal moment of time, the center of momentum, for every particle in the world around us represents, in Quantum Mechanics, 100% position 0% momentum, or a 100% positioned Eigenstate, For each Quantum Now, this is the only point of actual physical existence. In which case the illusion is that physicality passes from one moment to the next, or is continuous. The illusion is not that the physical does not exist, but rather that is continues to exist from moment to moment in this eigenstate. In other words, that there is, Material Retention, which I think I explained, borrowing from Husserl's concept of retention. Quantum Mechanics cannot tell us if an actual collapse occurs so if there is no collapse then physicality is illusion and what we experience as Material Retention is actually a Retention of Material Illusion. Either way, it doesn't matter because our Existential Reality is what is the most real to us in this life. Our presence in this world is dependent upon the continuation of our Existential Reality. Again, Berkeley said, Existence is Perception, if we can no longer physically perceive the phenomena of this world, then we cannot exist here in physical form. It would be silly to therefore jump off any tall building because my body would cease to provide the means of physically perceiving in this world. It would cease to operate in one Quantum Now after another. Technically my mind could stay in that dead broken body, but what good would that do? So that cannot be an option where one puts up or shuts up.

The human body, your table, your computer, and every other physical thing is trapped in this reality. One implication of this, for example, is AI will never achieve true sentience. Sentience would require mind, which transcends the physical reality---it is continuous and is not trapped to individual moments. AI is a physical thing and will always be trapped into single moments. So is our body which is why, despite being transcendent mentally, we still need to follow the laws of physicality.


If there are past lives, and I think Dr. Stanislav Grof in his immense research has done a good job of demonstrating that that is very likely, I was probably a philosopher in a previous life, because I have always thought like a philosopher from the time I was very young. That is why I could not accept blind faith, and that the questions of What is Love in the context of unconditional love would not allow me to buy into the Christian narrative from the time I was 8 years old. Truth, meaning and authenticity have always been very important to me. I have always seen the implications of narratives and take them to their logical end-conclusions. That is why it is completely mind blowing to me that MAGA Republicans make up roughly a third of our population, believing in a patriotism and freedom that is completely incompatible with what these things mean.

Therefore inconsistencies and contradictions are a red flag for me. To me, either the universe is idealist or it is materialist. The idea of an eternal God or a universal mind or an Absolute reality to the universe existing alongside humans who do not live beyond death is an inconsistency that I could not accept. Either we live in an essentialist world of Idealism, and man is more than just his physical existence, or there is no god and death is final. I don't agree with Hegel, but I understand that it was the only way he could resolve this same dilemna. In his idea of the world, there is only physical and God simply becomes the collective intention of mankind.

 

Ah, you're simply saying that our senses are fallible and can deceive us. The sky and the bluebird of happiness may not be actually or intrinsically blue, since color is in the eye and brain of the beholder.Color is in the eye, and brain, of the beholder Who could argue with that? Unless your emphasis is on the fallibility to the point that we generally don't trust our senses. That may be good for late night bull sessions and internet chat sites, but not something I'd want to bet my life on. The sky and the bluebird may be blue only in our heads, but if we are perceiving a sky and a bird that aren't actually there, we have a problem. I tend to trust not only my own senses but those of others, as well--reliable witnesses, scholars, scientists, news reporters, etc., although I follow Reagan's advice--trust but verify.

When it comes to flying rattles--an extraordinary event, in my experience--I'd ask for further evidence. Did anyone else see this and report it? Was he exposed to conditions which are known to alter perceptions: hallucinogens, rhythmic drumming and chanting, excessive heat or cold, hypnotic suggestion, etc.? It seems he was at least exposed to intense heat and ritual activity, plus an expectation that something "spiritual" would happen (self-suggestion). It may be that the rattles actually did fly, but I wouldn't believe it without further evidence. When you say of the participants "that was their group reality", that sounds too postmodern to me. I'd say: that was their group hallucination.
The Skeptic's Dictionary
/collective.html#:~:text=A%20collective%20hallucination%20is%20a%20sensory%20hallucination%20induced,heightened%20emotional%20situations%2C%20especially%20among%20the%20religiously%20devoted.
Our Lady of Medjugorje has made numerous appearances in Croatia, witnessed by hundreds, and they even saw the sun dip (or was that at Fatima? These things are hard to keep straight). The Pope, the local bishops and I remain skeptical.