If You Were GOD? - Hands on or Hands off?

I would say you are as you are created and you create as you are. Your creations and your connection to creation can become obscure or hard to detect, but you cannot uncreate what is created although you can create something new thereby resolving the burden of past mistakes and the only mistake we ever made has been the nightmare dream of being separate from your god or from your loved ones or from your home. We are most at home when light in spirit.

 

you are created and you create as you are

You must mean pig headed because you again lay claim to my right mind. I pointed out yours was vain.

Awaiting achievement while you try.

 

So how is it you think we don't create ourselves? By being created? lol
Where did the process end for you outside your mind?

No, I meant wrong-headed. You alone can claim your right mind.

Are you yoda? If you do not attempt the ways themselves, you won't find yours. You say we always choose with a guide. I suppose you could get through your life not knowing it's yourself, but then you'd only have gotten through it.

No buts about everything being something.

You mean longer experience, and no, you only share in the good news I happen to be.

No it wasn't, your 'point' was the attempt to maintain that no information was to be had from my formula. Equality is your prejudice.

If you can't champion your own delight, I can hardly help you! True, superfluity demands nothing, so play us a tune then why don't you! :-D

 

Sorry Dejavu---I have been wanting to respond but I have been very busy.

You know---there was actually a momentary thought of, "What if he is quoting Thus Spoke Zarathustra?" But---no I've only read that once and darned if I could remember any such passage out of it. So I went with the god is dead thing...

That's a good one!

Well I certainly couldn't come up with the math for that, so I can't lay claim to it----Part of the math is Einstein's, but of course he was building upon others as well. But when he first came out with his theory of Relativity, one of the early scientists to grasp the theory was a Herman Minkowski, who realized that we could plot out velocity in the theory of relativity geometrically, and using Cartesian Chordinates if we use time as a dimension with space, and what is more, that there is an inverse relationship. This inversion makes sense---the faster you go the less time it will take you to move farther through space. It is actually fairly simplistic.

He used the Pythagorean theorem, and graphing right triangles which would allow calculating geodesics (determining the shortest distance through space), and so forth. The problem was that while space could be measured in physical numbers, time, representing what they saw as an imaginary dimension, would have to be expressed using imaginary numbers (i-numbers). This right triangle would have an x axes of time, and a y axes of space, but since we are using light, the distance in space is measured in light distance, for example, light-seconds, or light-years, rather than feet or miles. Time on the other hand is seconds, minutes, or hours. The actual movement then is measured as a line going from the time line to the space line, in other words, the hypotenuse of the right triangle.

If you are sitting still, you are moving up the x axes, meaning that you are only moving through time----at the speed of light, and not through space. If you were only on the y axes, you would be moving through space at zero time, which means that you are lost in time---the universe has literally moved in without you---into time, and you are trapped in space. The hypotenuse of course is calculated using the Pythagorean Theorem, a2 + b2 = c2 (sorry I do not know how to superscript the numbers to make them squared on this forum). Imaginary numbers are calculated using negative numbers because they do not represent physical measurments. And since we are using a non-physical dimension with imaginary numbers the actual calculation is: ia2 + b2 = c2.

Since we exist at sub-light speeds, the space-time triangle that we would measure our movement will always have a longer time leg, than the space leg. If our speed through space increases enough, the time leg will shorten meaning that time will shorten for the one who is moving faster. This has been proven to actually occur. This is what they are referring to when they say that the Theory of Relativity states that when you travel fast enough (for example, to a distant planet), that you will age less than your friends who are standing still (or moving around at normal speeds on earth). In fact, this math created all kinds of new insight---for example as a geodesic we can see the curvature of space-time and so forth. Tachyons, or theoretical particles that exist at higher than light speeds, would have a shorter time-leg than space leg. These particles, if they do exist, are completely inverse---for example, resistance would speed them up, not slow them down.

But here is the thing, once you reach the speed of light, the hypotenuse becomes zero: ia + b = 0, in other words –a + b = 0, when ia and b are equal.

The insight gained here is that light particles/waves are zero-time, zero-space. From our perspective as we move about in space at speeds of practically zero---even for the fastest jets and rockets today---we see light as moving through space, for example, such as the light that took 200 million years to reach us from a star 200 million light years away. But light qua light, or light as it moves at the speed of light, in fact has zero presence in space, and zero presence in time. There are other ways to approach this too. For example, if you are moving at exactly the same speed as another object, your relative speed to that object is zero---if two cars are moving at exactly 50mph, and we were able to blot all the rest of the world around them, it would be as if they were standing still. However in the case of light everything is different as it is the one universal constant, and no matter how fast you move light will always approach you at the same speed---whether you stand still, go 50mph, or go 10,000mph----light will still reach you at the same speed---the speed of light. Einstein even said that if light is moving along at the speed of light, and looked sideways into a mirror, it would still see itself---i.e. the light from the mirror would still reach the light particle at the speed of light, and it would still see itself.

But if time moves at the speed of light, this is the one and only case where the relative speed would be zero. Light to time is zero, but we now know that time and space are inseparable. One is the other. So if time is zero in this case, then space is also zero. Light is, in our reality, an impenetrable barrier, time, is also such an impenetrable barrier, and therefore space is also impenetrable in this sense----physically, we can never get out of space and time. By moving about at zero in space (i.e. sitting still), our motion is actually zero only in a relative sense---because we are always in motion, but in this relative sense we can say that we are standing still and simply moving up the x-axes. On the other hand, sitting at zero time---and only moving across the y-axes, means we straight cease to exist. Physical reality is always present in the Now, but in such a case, there is no more Now, because time is zero---perhaps this is the one true nothingness from a physical sense, but there is no hypotenuse in the latter case, where in the former case (sitting still) it is just extremely steep.

 

It began before the breath entered the body and therefor before the communication of of breath and body began, mind. My process does not begin nor end with the body nor with the communication between body and breath. Spirit has other forms of expression, appearing as pressure or evaporation or condensation or simply intensity. I do not lay claim to the body I in-habit it. Your conviction that you are a body is awareness of the soul which is the sense of spirit in the body. When your body dies that sense of spiritual attachment goes with it, the soul itself dies but the breath goes through the body and on. Breath is the rhythmic motion of creation and spirit is the commonality of all living things, not matter. A jelly fish does not consist of the the same material as turtle but life is still in common.

I have a human head so you must mean pig headed.

My son calls me johndhi but I am not superman. A thought shared is a thought increased exponentially. Together we create a larger oscillation than separately. As far as choosing with a guide you are incorrect about your choice. You look for evidence of life. You are not the guide but you side with it. Everything exists in relation as they say no man an island.

And no buts about something not necessarily being everything. You want to cut my expressions short in a reductionist way and it doesn't tell the whole story. It is a good tack for disruption but not for understanding.

Okay no future and longer is not greater than shorter. Seems rather a compartmentalized view of a shattered mind not an open one. I will be sure and consider your position when it comes to crossing the street and it should occur to me to ask an eighteen month old to lead the way.

Yes, tis twas twat. What is not, is not. What is not equal is the same but different. What difference? It is also not the same.

The I am I call myself and the I am you call yourself are the same. As you do to me you also do to yourself. Superfluidity is a state of matter in which the matter behaves like a fluid with zero viscosity; where it appears to exhibit the ability to self-propel and travel in a way that defies the forces of gravity and surface tension. You are a neophyte and you are not familiar with the fact that the magnanimous intent comes first. You frolic on the surface because you have a strong backbone that posses it's own wisdom all fine and dandy but you must learn to suspend the breath in order to dive deep.

 

Together
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTCNwgzM2rQ"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTCNwgzM2rQ

 

wolf, I was almost hoping to be blinded by science, but light is nevertheless wherever it happens to be, by any calculation. Thanks for your time though, which I know never to be naught. :-D



thedope:

You answered none of my questions. Everything consists of the material it is, everything is its appearance. Breath is in motion, certainly, but where is it without respiration? You claim your body unwittingly then if you say you don't.

How witless of you, you talking head, claiming your bits and pieces in the midst of what might have been a more spirited conversation. lol

You are not a self-denier at heart, no matter your inability to speak clearly. Everyone is an island unto themselves. Which isn't to say we don't have the sea in common.

LOL! Do you feel disrupted? Have I ruffled your bit of fluff you think holds true? I'll show you, as I always do whether you see or not, how to be straightforward in speech ( words more specifically, where they serve our purpose. ) Everything is something, not nothing in particular. Got it yet? Or do you need to feel a little more that I'm denying you your expression? lol

I will never prevent you making a case for greatness.

Stop whirling a moment, and consider: - infinity is not singularly what it is, it's infinitely so.

Is there something in my depths requiring my retrieval? My heights can claim it for me. The self I call myself is not yours despite our having self in common. There are degrees of possession. States of consciousness. I am my body, you are yours, and the redundancy you ascribe to such a having is wholly dependent on whether or not we want to be.

 

So no matter the evidence. Can't dispute your own word forsho.

One word. Camouflage. That belief, that everything is it's appearance, is bound to get you in trouble as well as limit opportunity. Your questions about life or of me come from errant beliefs. For one that you are all measure of plain speaking.

The body without respiration is without breath. A body can be ventilated mechanically and it's independent tissues can be kept going independent of the breath.

You mean what could have been hadn't you stuck your foot in your mouth while trying to kick my head out of bounds.

Everyone can claim a particular perspective.

I'm starting to feel as thought that is your purpose far from being straight as you claim. Asmodean referred to it and you just blew him off.

Everything is something but cannot be appreciated looking at just one thing unless that thing happens to be you.

No you can remain shallow if you wish.

 

Oh, man----you want me to go through all that stuff I did a year or two ago? That took forever... Gosh! (We had a 3-year old here yesterday, and whenever we asked him to do something he didn't want to do he would answer with a big emphatic "Gosh!"

Anyway, don't be fooled by the seemingly simplistic or abstract nature of Minkowski's math. His idea of time as an additional dimension, started out, as I understand, as just a mathematical convenience to understand the theory. And I think that many thought that the idea that time would slow the faster one’s speed increases, was also thought to be perhaps abstract math versus reality, yet it too has turned out to be true. When Einstein’s theory predicted black holes, even Einstein did not believe such things were possible.

Photons have zero mass, they are both wave and particle (or as some quantum physicists say, ‘neither wave nor particle, yet both.’). They cannot be both at the same time, and only exist as a particle when their position is measured (i.e. they are observed as such). This is all brought out by the double slit experiment which is a terrible thorn in the side of the objectivistic nature of science. It is in part because of the implications of the double slit experiment that the multiple universe theory came to be (that and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal), but the crazy thing of that is that the multiple universe scenario, in an attempt to rid the universe of an observer becomes almost more unbelievable than a universe with an observer(s).

Variations of the double slit experiment have demonstrated that light even ‘knows’ whether to be a particle or a wave before it is observed, which from our perspective doesn’t make sense, but if we consider that light is outside of time as we experience it, and that it is all instantaneous, then for that moment it is a particle before it is observed because all the moments we understand as before, during, and after the observation/measurement, occurs at the same time---there is no sequence of events, only one moment.

Zero-mass, zero-time, zero-space is another way of saying that light does not take up any space, time, or presence within the physical universe. Physically it does not exist. As a wave—we could say that each light particle exists as a single wave that stretches all through time and space without beginning or end (at least within our universe, or between the ends of our universe). Within that single wave it may be absorbed into atoms, and later released, it may become a particle and then back into a wave---but it is all one thing that happens in a single instant.

Conceptually we may think that we created light when we turned on a light, and that this light only existed from the moment it left the bulb until it hit our eye. But that is not true, those same particles/waves of light existed from the beginning of time---it is just that it was emitted from atoms that held it when it left the light bulb, and then reabsorbed into different atoms when it hit our eyes. But that same light was there, yet never there in a physical sense.

From a philosophical standpoint the implications make one compelled to wonder about fate. Even the double slit experiment implies that either our own observations of the universe are outside of time, and we therefore impact how light appears to us before we measure it, or that it was predetermined that we were going to measure it, or a third possibility is that everything—absolutely everything—does happen all at once, and it is our minds that turns reality into a sequential series of events we know as time.

But light also brings into play another philosophical question---essence. Even before Plato there has long been a concept of form—the essence that underlies all of reality. Yet it has always been understood as a non-physical.

Over the past decade or so, two scientists reworked Newton’s law of motion—which is something that should not be able to be reworked. The law concerns inertia, which is a surprisingly profound concept that creates mass. A physical object has existence because it has inertia within space-time. To borrow terms from metaphysics, it is inertia which allows mass to stand out from the ground of the space/time continuum as an existent. By reworking this formula they have come upon the very interesting possibility that inertia is created by the latent light energy of the universe (the zero-point field that exists through out all of the universe). And that all that exists is simply light energy trapped in place by this inertia-----in other words science is returning to a Platonic-like understanding of the universe----or probably better, an understanding along the lines of Aristotle’s metaphysics.

This is only the start of the implications and questions raised here…

 

thedope:

lol You found evidence for naught?

No, the knowledge that everything is its appearance leaves one open to ones interests. Errant by choice alone. A question then! Five words. Camouflage is not its appearance? lol

Not what I asked. I asked where breath is without respiration. You don't have to try to answer my questions if you can't.

No, I hand your head to you as though you were running about without it. You're your body. No-one's forcing you to be.

Not everyone will necessarily believe us. :-D

So you do?! Then make your peace. Asmodean thought I should lay off questioning you about your lie that we die because we're born. He couldn't provide any truth to support your lie either, but he did want to support it, so he crumpled to say he suspected I simply wanted an argument. And the breeze, it blew. lol

lol No, I doubt I'll remain a looker forever. I'm ageing at the usual rate, not having one of those fancy congenital growth hormone conditions that seem to keep one in their prime. :-D Why the "but" still? Can't everything be something without your say so?

Thanks shorty! And don't worry, if you ever grow deeper than me, I'll know!


Wolf:

No! Don't worry! We can dig that thread up later if you... if you... Oh Gosh!

If I ever reach light speed I'll let you know what a drag it is, deal? :-D

Zero measurable rest mass, yes. No surprise to me that consciousness functions at quantum level.

Instantaneity and lightspeed are not synonymous. The instant is everywhere. I conceptualize it as motion itself. Particle wave duality can't collapse instantly, but it does so beyond our measure. There is no retroaction.

Not this again! lol No, No and No! :-D

What you mean to say is its potential was there, there being nothing apart of the universe. Potential is always physical. You'll soon see, the physicalists will blow the dust of dualism from science, and all observers will be welcome! :-D

You got it the third time. :-D

Always? Not anymore. Essence is existence. As physical as ever.

Absolute zero remains theoretical, motion prevails. Nothing's trapped unless we want it to be. lol

 

No, you deny evidence.

It terms of the way things appear or visual appearance no. The appearance of visible objects is determined by the way it reflects light.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Appearance-T.png/400px-Appearance-T.png
Crypsis is the ability of an organism to avoid observation or detection by other organisms. Mimicry is the similarity of one species to another which protects one or both. This similarity can be in appearance, behavior, sound, scent and location.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxTE3B52RN0&feature=kp"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxTE3B52RN0&feature=kp

Yet suicide is possible. Is this, the body's choice?

We got that covered in the other thread. My peace is that when presented with evidence such as dictionary definition you keep right on calling things lies and now include making ridiculous fun of the dictionary, so what is the point of responding sometimes comes to my mind.

It is whether I say so or not.

Regardless, A record cold temperature of 450 ±80 pK in a Bose–Einstein condensate of sodium atoms was achieved in 2003 by researchers at MIT. The associated black-body (peak emittance) wavelength of 6,400 kilometers is roughly the radius of Earth.
Shall we discuss more superfluidity.

 

What evidence? For lights being everywhere and nowhere? Lap it up all you like, if you can find it.

So you're confining the full meaning of appearance. Your camofluage is redundant.

Yet? Of course it's possible. Whose body?

No, your'e the one who makes fun of that most serious affair we know to be the dictionary. :-D Bring it out as you do! Bring it out for appearances sake why don't you!

True. So have you finished saying it's nothing in particular now?

Why not, will you use it to make a case for zero? You won't be able to contain it. lol

 

Everywhere at once is no where in particular because it can't be apprehended by virtue of particle alone. Wave becomes particle in a particular sense.

I do not judge by appearances.
I am distinguishing what is the same and what is different and my responses are remedial. Crypsis is avoiding detection, not trying to appear as it is.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQrlnjMHs35yPNUWwa9owUn4AZHx3qkVaHAPQIj-2X6i7imm6s5Xg
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRF647Zap5BeXO8lNuVJUNUlKhMqnrc5YTxyNhld4eF0YUUNYb_aA
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQuHHOioifbmDgxY294S5rloqvutgLd1taUgiOHb2mA-pD46OxeQ
You could say it is a disappearing act.

Not particularly.

No, for making the case that the death of the body has no power over life.

 

Its apprehension is beside the point, no matter how it affects it. No, everywhere at once is just that. Infinity. Everything at one, not being one. Your nowhere in particular is the failure of all metaphysics.

Yes you do, you have nothing else to go by.

Yet it appears as it does. Your comaflague is not resplendent.

Be it on your own head. Or off as the case may be. lol

No need to make the case. Death has no power over life. Which is why it's a 'mystery' that you try to tell us death is from birth. lol Even if you mirror your story you'll be in error. :-D Life only yields to more. Or, in your own words, creation is without opposite.

 

It is every bit the point in terms of understanding what I said. It is not a metaphysical map at all. It is simply a way of saying something that has it's legitimate use. I have given definitive examples in the case of the words particular and succinct.

I have my power of distinction.

Your argument is dull. You should throw in some personal anecdote to illuminate how you are always taken for what you are.

.
Really, show of hands how many think that people no longer have life when their body is dead?

Ergo death is not opposite life but complimentary to it.

 

thedope:

The understanding to be had of what you said is that it represents an error of understanding. You say light is "nowhere in particular" because it has no rest mass you can discern? It seems I can't enlighten you.

How does it appear to you if not as what it is?

My point is not that everything is taken for its appearance, but that everything is its appearance, dullard.

That's not power of death over life, but lifes end in the individual. It is for this reason you probably consider the individual redundant. A devaluation of the individual based on your not grasping that life wants to result in it, that exultation finds its expression there?

Not opposed to it, but where is lifes compliment in death?! You want to 'incorporate' death into the life cycle, have it a part of life, complete, add the final touch to your vision as it were, only because you don't know it. You want to have death make sense! lol It's human, it's forgivable! But those of us who aren't seeking forgiveness, we don't pretend to know how to die.

 

I don't know what you care to understand. An individual item, as contrasted with a universal quality. Everything is a universal quality not an individual item
Just as infinity is indefinite however we can demonstrate the error of your math in this way. Infinity plus one does not change the value of infinity so infinity is equal to infinity plus one. Now subtract infinity from the balanced equation and you are left with one, then the equation looks like zero equals one which it obviously doesn't.

As something else.

I understand what you are saying. It is not helpful or very enlightening. You are using words that have different tenses as though their tenses were the same. There is the appearance of something from outside, refection, and then is there is the act of performing or mass absorption.

The death of no one has ended the individual.

dinner

 

There you go again. 'Everything a quality not an item. No. Your 'balancing', your 'ruling', is nothing but an attempted levelling, and a denial. It doesn't matter what you think the equation looks like, but what it is. You go wrong with your spin at the subtraction.

So not your power of distinction?

Form is content. I can't help you think it isn't, or your thinking knowledge not its perception.

True. So why champion the death of everyone by pretending we die from birth?

lol No, Dinner is not had in death!

The secret to lifes power over death: not to swallow it whole, but time!

 

Can I have my shaver blade from the shelf? Please. Or is it must I look like the excused master for your decision to sell me the absolutely, wrong thing.