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

Anaximenes:

What, swallowing time whole?! No need to slit your wrists, it's as hands on as you can manage. Fear the reaper, not indigestion! lol

 

Robert Forester and Samuel Jackson, eh? But really Jackie Brown looked the best doing what she didn't like to do.

 

Denial of what winky do.

My power of distinction and the appearance of something else are not the same.

Not if you are a glass.

death is not the end of anyone
If we are not born we do not die. If I never had a body I wouldn't have missed a thing.

Eating the living isn't very complementary.

 

That is very funny

 

But do Gods exist? I'll have to wait till tomorrow for Mountainvalleywolf. Maybe the Taliban have Gods.:smilielol5:

 

Not as important as how they look in their Kalashnikov's

 

Hands on, absolutely.
A loving goddess who lives among her people and brings peace to all.
I would adjust laws and rules to let people live freely but punish those who missuse their freedom.

 

But they did blow up the statue of Buddha, and their formal religious sectual name is the Mohanajine. I can't understand the gullible reason they have for ignoring the paganism of their western ideas, but the view of God being absolute for Them should be fine but certainly not communist for ideological trust.

 

we have legos

 

I'd probably be hands on at the beginning, to establish a religious hierarchy then stay off, and come back just to confuse everyone.
After centuries of disbelief, My Godly presence would come out of nowhere to not be seen for another thousand years. And so the pattern continues

 

thedope:

Everything. Your saying everything's something means it's something in particular, not nothing.

lol So what does your power of distinction appear to be then? :-D

Had this one already with you. The maintenance of your lie that form isn't content is a mystery to me. Are you content?
:-D

Stupidest thing I've read all day. And most days too that I read it from you. lol

Not what we're talking about. Where's life's compliment in death thedope?

 

Anaximenes:

I saw that one, can't remember it.

I give away the secret to life over death for free. :-D

 

Not particularly note worthy.

distinctive

Yep

dinner

 

Don't matter.

lol Distinctively something other than what it is? :-D

That bad huh? Form's content regardless, no matter how you hide. Merry crypsis!

Best tell me how, having had your meal debunked already.

 

That last post of mine was pretty crappy---maybe I better try to edit it. I had non-stop interruptions, and then I rushed to post it without reading it first, oh well... For some reason, my wife seems to think that she takes precedence over everything else that I do.

People on this forum like to respond like that---as if they think that we are referring to a photon 'at rest.' Synonyms for rest mass are invariant mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass, and simply, mass (as long as, in the case of ‘mass,’ we are talking about particles that are unaffected by outside changes to momentum, energy, etc.). Rest mass is mass that includes all of the particle's own kinetic and potential energy within a specific frame of reference. According to the General Theory of Relativity, this rest mass will be the same in all frames of reference. There are several ways of calculating rest mass---one of which relates back to Einstein's E=mc2, but the other way relates back to Minkowski's math using Euclidean Geometry and the Pythagorean Theorem.

Mass is more than just weight, it is also volume of time/space that is occupied. A photon/wave traveling at the speed of light has no mass whatsoever. To say that it simply is not measurable mass and to therefore imply that it does have mass, is to deny the theory of relativity.

Paradoxically, zero mass does equate to no physical presence in space/time.

However, if the theory I talked about later, in regards to reworking Newton's theory of motion, is true, then yes, light, when trapped by the inertia created by the zero-point energy field, does create mass----again, paradoxically, the photons themselves do not have mass, for they are still moving at light speed, they are just jiggling back and forth in place at light speed.

But in science-----zero does equal zero. You can argue that, but unless you have a theory that can prove otherwise, that is nothing more than a scientifically-unfounded opinion. If you do have a theory I would love to hear it, because I am including this stuff in a book and am trying to learn all I can about it before I finish it. Anything that I can be corrected on, I appreciate. But I am sure you can understand that someone's opinion, because it doesn't sound right, is not going to change the science.

Yes, you are right, they are not synonymous---because we live in the physical universe where physical mass is manifested and time is experienced. On the other hand, all that is real is a series of extremely minute instants, which we singly, or collectively as we can perceive them, refer to as Now. We cannot physically exist in the past or the future, we can only physically exist in the Now (and let's not start that ridiculous argument about yes we can---because that argument was about a mental state not physical existence, and the mind already transcends time in the sense that it transcends the Now, and allows for an understanding of sequentiality, and an understanding of past, present, and future).

How fast does the wave/particle collapse happen? I don't know---but even if it were measurable, or even measured, it does not matter because this measurement is based on our perspective and we experience life at a sub-light speed pace.

But it is retroactive. In experiments where the position of the photons is measured after it passes through the double slits the measurement still creates the double slit pattern and not the wave pattern, which clearly suggests that the photons have already passed through the double slits as photons, and not a wave. Last time we argued this someone tried to send me an article that they claimed refuted this. It was science that I was already familiar with, and in no way refuted the results of this experiment (science so far has just skirted this issue because no one can explain it). Until we can come up with an explanation, the results are that the measurement changed the past.

So, what you are saying is that the Theory of Relativity is wrong, wrong, and wrong? Could you explain to me the phenomena of light in a different manner, including light qua light traveling at the speed of light that would be a yes, yes, and yes.

Well---the potential was there, but what I meant is that the light was not created by the light, nor did it die or disappear when it reached its mark. The photons existed even before they were released and after they were absorbed, but the photons did not exist in the physical sense as mass does.

But speaking of potentiality------philosophers have yet to come to terms with Einstein’s theory of Relativity, not to mention the other theory I spoke of which is popularly referred to as the God Theory.

I have suggested, based on this, that physicality has two states: Now, and Potentiality. The Now exists only as that moment of Now when all potentiality, all energy, comes together to manifest as physical concrete existence and being. It exists only in the now. Other than that, in the past and the future, all that exists is potentiality---pure energy.

Through out the universe there is a matrix of photons representing the Now, any photons that are behind this matrix represents the past, any ahead of it, represents the future, neither the past nor the future exist in our physical universe, though they will exist in a single point of Now, or already existed in a previous single point of Now. Anyway, I’m heading into a tangent---it’s all in my book…

How will the physicalists do this? There is so much of the universe, and life, that they have yet to come to terms with. They haven’t even come close… They were far closer to that (or thought they were) in the 19th Century than now. But then they started uncovering some of the deeper mysteries---such as the double slit experiment…

But if everything happens at the same time, then instantaneity is synonymous with light speed, and all time is in fact zero. Likewise the particle/wave collapse happens instantly. I thought however you disagreed with all of this.

Don’t you see that you are now agreeing with me? We experience the world at sub-light speeds, so our mind creates a physical world of sequential time. But based on these 2 theories---everything is composed of energy traveling at the speed of light, so everything happens in one infinitely small instant---it is our minds that make sense out of all of this from a perspective that turns an infinitely small instant into the life of a universe. The third case is really a lot like the first case that I gave.

Essence as form is nonphysical. If you argue that essence is existence, then form becomes nothing more than an abstract concept of defining characteristics. There is no true form of tableness (to use a Platonic example). But we do have an abstract understanding of what a table is, so we can understand the form that makes a 3-legged table, a long table, a card table, and a round table, all fitting the definition of a table. Numbers are another example. We can say that there is 1 apple, or 2 lemons, 3 mangoes, 10 dollars, but there is no physical form that is 1, 2, 3, or 10. Numerical form, or form as a number, is simply a conceptual thing, an abstract understanding. So----form as essence has always been understood as a non-physical, and it always will be.

Hmmmm… Could you describe to me the physics behind an alternative where particles of light actually do have mass?

Here is one problem----as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases, which is to say that the forces of inertia around it become greater requiring even more energy to increase in further velocity. As far as we know today, reaching the speed of light, is about as impossible as physically moving back to a previous moment of time.

 

Wolf:

How, when the theory of relativity is based on mass energy equivalence? I'm talking relativistic mass.

I'm not arguing that zero doesn't equal zero. You seem to be suggesting everything does though! :-D

No, it just changed the 'now' as you call it. How can you say it's retroactive when you say the rate of collapse is immeasurable? As light is faster than the measurement, the transmitted beam is affected, not retrocausally, but the instant it is measured. The beam is physically continuous.

Dust off the dualism? By coming to terms with life. What in the theory of relativity have you, as a philosopher, not come to terms with? :-D

No to the notion of zero spacetime and that of light not being physical when it has a physical constant. No to the so-called 'single' instant that doesn't recognize instantaneity is infinite. When does your book come out?

But different enough to make a difference. lol That everything happens at once doesn't mean time is naught, but infinite. About agreeing with you, I see no reason why we can't all get along. Let the excuses come thick and fast! ;-D

Always will be by who? Not me! Essence as form is nothing but physical. What you're not allowing for here, but implying despite that, is that form is endless. That physicality is infinite. Have you exhausted the conceptual abstraction you call tableness that you can say, clearly, that it has no 'true' form? How do the goddists keep on godding?! lol

Of course I can't! Massless particles always have relativistic mass, expressed as relativistic energy. In photons e= hf ( plancks constant x photon frequency ) I'm not convinced that the problem of not being able to reach lightspeed really is one! lol

 

And it transcends space and instant in the use of symbols and is why we can communicate across time and distance. I am reminded of the dance of bees.
But alas it is beyond our paleface to comprehend that words on a page are not the physicality of mind but allude to it's physical operation.

This seems to fall on tin ears and Dejavu refuses to acknowledge that appearances can be deceiving or that form and content might be different variables. A look at the statement, falls on tin ears illustrates the point.
Obviously Dejavu's ears are not made of tin. The phrase means that the words don't resonate with him. You cannot glean this meaning from form alone. Perhaps he confuses subjectivity with duplicity. I refer to a magnanimous intent. He thinks he is on to something new having admired his reflection. This makes this track of discussion simply a wheel in cog that keeps generating the same reticence. Walls himself off as a light in the middle of dim wits thinking us moths falling to his flame. If only he understood that it is the light in the mind that calls upon the light in another not whether one is perfumed sweetly. And so while championing love he offers desire and I find I just don't have a taste for it. My love awaits only invitation.

To be measured at the synapse.

Well we see only the past but having and being are instantaneous.

Matter has three properties, absorption, refection, and polarity.

Series of freeze frames strung together to make what appears to be a feature length film. Animation. In terms of photon, light winks on and off each instant a new photon or entirely new element of the wave particle stream. What we see is the negative image afterglow of an intense flash. Look briefly into the sun and take away the image when you turn your head away. Take a breath, observe the sensation the follows, reverberation
Our moment of opportunity comes during the high and low slack when we make up our mind.

 

Everything not matter?

It is power.

How is being content bad?

No it wasn't debunked, how is death complimentary to life, answer as chicken fricassee.

 

Death has no power over life means death has no power at all. Remember that. Life doesn't defeat death as death has no power over life. Yours amounts to a war on creation and the creator warrior.

 

Not true liar, but I see more closely than you how our allusions lie! These words are extensions of our thinking, and that I am more thorough with them as such makes you... jealous?! :-D

Your lies are no more fair when they are unwitting, but the ugliness of your knowing ones practically leap out at one! lol Where do I fail to acknowledge that appearances can be deceiving? True, I don't admit form and content to have differing variables, so present them to me thedope that I may see for myself! Distill the essence of existence that I may see clearly what makes you conceive of a fundamental separation! :-D I can't help if I'm not to your taste, a light among lights. Spit me out all you like, but if you try to swallow me whole, you'll find my flame brighter.

I'll let wolf try and resonate with the rest of your reverberations there in post 117 :-D

Do you need me to track our dialogue for you like in post 111? Your idea it's not noteworthy doesn't matter.

lol But not your power of distinction that you say it appears as something else?

You really do need me to track our dialogue! lol Bad that you're content with having how you think form isn't content remain a mystery to me. Is it that embarrassing? :-D

The chicken fricassee isn't death, unless you did something to it! lol Who are you trying to reverberate up, or out, with this dish? :-D

My life a war on creation? Try and enforce that lie and I'll knock your block off, worrier.
True, there is no lasting struggle against death, but then what do we possess of it beyond its conception? I don't need to remember that death has no power. The power of forgetfulness is really only memory loss! lol