Size

[Jack Flak]

Whatchutalkinabout?

I don't recall saying that.

You didn't, that was the jist I extracted, and apparently Nocapszy did the same.

 

[Anja]

That's a pity. . .

 

[Jack Flak]

The material from which my inference was drawn:

As I read the OP I thought about the "original," nature -oriented state of man and also that in many ways science has alienated us from that...

I've frequently read that as scientists get closer to understanding the mechanics of the Universe many of them are clarifying a undeveloped sense of spirituality.

Perhaps you could clarify?

 

[Nocapszy]

Alienation from nature?

Like I said, alienation isn't always incorrect.
I didn't say it always is either, did I?

For each to discover and define.

I pose again the same question:

How wonderful. What's stuff is the spirit made of?
We're talking about stuff here. Not imaginary wishywashy Feeler bullshit.
Does it exist? I'm asking you; do you genuinely believe that the spirit is something? Or do you merely encourage these spiritual things out of a moral, be it, or be it not arbitrarily derived.

I myself have never witness the stuff of the spirit. I can't account for its existence. I can only wish that it exists, but I've never found it.

 

[Nocapszy]

You didn't, that was the jist I extracted, and apparently Nocapszy did the same.

Remarkable -- I can recall being literally physically shocked; to where I was rendered incapacitated once I became cognizant of this -- how scarcely a person is aware of their own sentiment.

I wouldn't say it saddens me, except when I attempt to understand things, and they are not accurately diagrammed.

I am forced to misperceive, which was, as you may recall, my OG (that's original grievance) in this thread.

 

[Anja]

Such stuff and nonsense, "forcing people to misperceive?"

Apparently you are at my mercy. Heh.

When Jack appealed to a higher authority I knew I was in trouble. . .

 

[Nocapszy]

When Jack appealed to a higher authority I knew I was in trouble. . .

No more F please.

This is a debate, not an ambush. We don't attack your character.
I don't even know your character. I do know what you say however, and it sounds fishy to me.

 

[Anja]

I imagine it does.

I'll move so you can get on with your debate.

 

[Nocapszy]

And you have my reciprocal permission, Cat, to continue chasing those fish.

 

[Anja]

Like I said, alienation isn't always incorrect.
I didn't say it always is either, did I?

I pose again the same question:

How wonderful. What's stuff is the spirit made of?
We're talking about stuff here. Not imaginary wishywashy Feeler bullshit.
Does it exist? I'm asking you; do you genuinely believe that the spirit is something? Or do you merely encourage these spiritual things out of a moral, be it, or be it not arbitrarily derived.

I myself have never witness the stuff of the spirit. I can't account for its existence. I can only wish that it exists, but I've never found it.

Okay. I've continued to think of the conversation here and I was sorry that I couldn't give you a more direct reference to some of the things I've been reading about the connection between spirit and matter.

Quite by coincidence last night "Coast 2 Coast" had guest Leo Kim on last night and he was verbalizing some of the things I've been reading.

Since I'm rarely able to have a useful conversation with Tees unless there is mutual willingness to remain open-minded, I'll just offer one thing he said for your thought.

And if you are genuninely interested Nocapszy, and not just arguing because your Tee needs some exercise, here is one response to your question from a scientific point of view:

Scientists know that ninety-some percent of the universe is "out there" but they can't identify or quantify it. Where is it? What is it? It's there. . .

Offered for your thought.

Spend time explaining it away or give it some consideration. Your choice.

 

[Anja]

I'll give a little push here-

Could it be by the stubborn denial to believe of it's existence, the scientifially bent mind, hampers itself from finding it?

Pay attention, please. I am not saying they are diametrically opposed. Rather that they are of a whole.

I suspect Ens are at an advantage here because Scientists have mapped that existence of matter for us and we already perceive spirit. Half the picture is not enough.

There always seems to be balance in the chaotic extremities which meet at the far ends, sorta like one concept of the universe.

What was the enormous power that created the big bang in the theoretical void? Askng that question leads many scientists into the spiritual area.

 

[Anja]

I forgot to say "Meow!"

Seems you guys don't debate well without an En to give you some fodder for thought!

 

[Virtual ghost]

Since it looks to me that are on the offensive here I will defend my position.

The dominant things you have mentioned are 2 things - dark energy and dark matter.They are dark because we can't detect them directly.

But the fact that we can't detect them directly does not mean much as an argument.
That is because we don't have technology that can detect it. For example 200 years ago no one knew about nucleons , electrons , anti matter , quarks , relativity or x-rays.
But today we know many things about this things.


So as the knowledge/technology expands we will be more and more aware of our environment.


But what does not make much sense in your argument is that you presume that things you believe are out there because there is plenty of things that are unexplained or unknown. While you don't inderstand that not only that you miss some pieces of the puzzle but you actually miss everything
(game rules included) but few pieces.

What this actaully means?
t means that science has advanced so much that entire philosophy/picture of this reality had changed so much that it no longer has anything with something we know as everyday life.
The things like time,space,matter,sin,love(emotion),nation as we know them do not exist from scientific point of view. All of them are taken into a pieces that are being analysed or knowledge has changed them behind level of recognition.

Here is one practical example.

The entire spirituality and religion are for garbage when you insert determinism into the picture.
If you don't know much about this I can explain.


As for your question about the begining of the universe.

The entire thing works from mathematical point of view if energy of this reality is 0.(universe or multiverse)

infinity - infinity = 0
- infinity + infinity = 0

What means

0 = infinity - infinity
0 = -infinity + infinity

Also there is no reason that infinity can't be seperated for - infinity.
What would be creation of our universe.
If this does not make any sense I can explain this to greater detail.

The fact that you are warning us that there is something out there does not mean much to us because we are the ones who said to you that there is something weird out there.
In the case you have mentioned it still isn't sure that there is something there or our understanding of gravity is incomplete.
(Our knowledge on gravity is still pretty limited.)


If your argument is "that we are ignoring things, which is because there is so much out there" you have actually destroyed your own position because that means that the probability of existance of things in which you believe or care for is droping with amount of things that are out there.


So in the end I will say that spiritual people have lost the battle with reality the only question that stays is - Will the same thing happen to science?

 

[Anja]

Since it looks to me that are on the offensive here I will defend my position.


But the fact that we can't detect them directly does not mean much as an argument.
That is because we don't have technology that can detect it.



***************************************************


So in the end I will say that spiritual people have lost the battle with reality the only question that stays is - Will the same thing happen to science?

I am left thinking that some Tees - not all - lack the "technology" to detect "it." The stuck part is the closed mind and the need to prevail.

I hope this kickstarts the debate that fizzled out.

All your facts and figures count for little in discussing spirituality and actually detract from my focus.

I'll continue to read here but I am unable to debate the denial of spirituality. Heck, I'm unable to debate at all! I've been requested to keep the Eff out of it!

 

[Nocapszy]

And if you are genuninely interested Nocapszy

Trust me: If I was really curious, I'd read a book. Not post on a forum.

and not just arguing because your Tee needs some exercise

I'm not sure that's exactly it either.

here is one response to your question from a scientific point of view:

Scientists know that ninety-some percent of the universe is "out there" but they can't identify or quantify it. Where is it? What is it? It's there. . .

So then your use of this is to imply that you believe that the 90% of that stuff is spiritual matter?

Or perhaps you meant that we don't know what everything is. Well as snugly as your metaphor appears to fit, there are a number of flaws.
In the first place, we're not even certain that such matter exists. Hence the property it has of being unknown. Its 'existence' could in fact be an illusion put on by highly complex gravitational patterns/misunderstanding of the nature of gravity.

So by metaphor, the stuff the spirit is made of, may in fact be the result of something we don't fully understand.

Here's an offering for your thought: Brain is a highly complex device. It handles not only cognition, but a myriad of other tasks, for example, heart beat, sensory monitoring, sensory interpretation and demodulation, etc.

Among those things might be incorporated the ingrained desire for there to be a reason to continue doing the things we choose to do, living being the most obvious. Spirituality lends itself very well to reason for living. Hence the repeated faith in such things.

In terms of probability, imagined meaning is more likely than actual meaning.
Both are plausible.

Spend time explaining it away or give it some consideration. Your choice.

You speak of the two as if they are polar opposites.
You ignore that the only way to explain something away be irrespective of falsehood is to understand not only the allure, but the material itself.

That is to say, Cat, that I'd have to give it some consideration to be able to explain it away. At least to do so effectively, which I have.

 

[Nocapszy]

There always seems to be balance in the chaotic extremities which meet at the far ends, sorta like one concept of the universe.

And just as consistently, there is a reason that excludes Heaven, Hell, and Spirituality from the cause.

What was the enormous power that created the big bang in the theoretical void?

As a matter of fact, the big bang is a falsity. It was a big bounce. Not literally -- I'll explain. Physicists are now working on cracking the mathematical code for the following underlying principle. The universe has 'pixels' so to speak. They're not really pixels at all, but they do share a key element.

No two members can occupy these indivisible spaces, be they lights, or sub-atomic particles respectively.

That is to say, once two objects attempt to be contained by the same cosmic pixel, their gravity actually reverses, and instead pushes the objects apart from one another.
As the particles of the universe, in its previous incarnation was drawn into one another by each other's gravity, the condensation triggered the reversal of the force, and the 'bounce' effect.

These physical constituents of the universe have always existed, and have always bounced inward and outward.

See Scientific American's article on the big bounce

 

[Night]

No two members can occupy these indivisible spaces, be they lights, or sub-atomic particles respectively.

That is to say, once two objects attempt to be contained by the same cosmic pixel, their gravity actually reverses, and instead pushes the objects apart from one another.
As the particles of the universe, in its previous incarnation was drawn into one another by each other's gravity, the condensation triggered the reversal of the force, and the 'bounce' effect.

These physical constituents of the universe have always existed, and have always bounced inward and outward.

See Scientific American's article on the big bounce

Ah. Gravitometrics, eh?

5th dimensional bodies. Nocapszy, you cad. I didn't know you enjoyed such pointlessness!

Gravity is a composite unit. A puzzle piece that fits (crudely at this point in our comprehension of it) into the tapestry of our multi-dimensionality.

CERN is looking to control these quirky little devils - gravitons - as a byproduct of their Hadron piece.

Within the context of cosmology, gravity is king. A bully even. Think of the energy potential if we were able to manipulate the fundamental particles that gave rise to gravity. Even (space)time is trumped.

A singularity, if you catch my drift. What say you, Kurzweil?

 

[Nocapszy]

Ah. Gravitometrics, eh?

5th dimensional bodies. Nocapszy, you cad. I didn't know you enjoyed such pointlessness!

My greatest triumph and failure is the inability to prioritize beyond my own interests. Everything is pointless unless it's got my attention, in which case is is MVP.

Gravity is a composite unit. A puzzle piece that fits (crudely at this point in our comprehension of it) into the tapestry of our multi-dimensionality.

If only we could watch the little shits. But they are cloaked.

I wonder if they are really in another dimension, or just so unimaginably small and slippery that no photon could ever bounce off and jump into a man's eye.

Darkmatter, of which the Cat speaks, very likely has this quality. Which is why I insist that what tests they are running are futile at best. The only way to catch them it to watch the objects they move.

It's forensics really.

CERN is looking to control these quirky little devils - gravitons - as a byproduct of their Hadron piece.

Within the context of cosmology, gravity is king. A bully even.

A vain one, too.

Think of the energy potential if we were able to manipulate the fundamental particles that gave rise to gravity. Even (space)time is trumped.

Maybe.

A singularity, if you catch my drift. What say you, Kurzweil?

I'm not certain I do, Super Mario.

 

[Night]

Ray Kurzweil's AI Singularity Theorem - I was tying it into the gravitometric expression of a singularity. A poor attempt, it seems.

With that thought in mind, let's scratch a bit further on the topic of our singularity. A singularity is a point of infinite paradox - both in physical structure and theoretical purpose. It doesn't participate in the scientific framework we've so far constructed for ourselves. Compression of dimensionality into such an infinitely-small space as to disallow for any molecular activity - a true vacuum. But one that flagrantly isn't a vacuum at all, as there can physically be nothing that would have the energy capacity to sustain it, much less give it its character, within the conformities of our conventional scientific understanding.

Spacetime as a pathway. A tangible object, available for manipulation -- with the correct instruments. Spacetime is a description of locality along a dimensional thread. Multi-dimensionality is probably a misnomer - our reality is simply composed with far more sophistication than we are able to imagine/measure. There are no alternate dimensions - just undiscovered territory within the confines of an infinitely complex (and flexible!!) series of rules that we know almost nothing about...

Our contemporary passing of time is variable examples of energy fixed on auto-pilot. Time is just a speed limit. Gravity (via gravitons) allows us to change our speed on the spacetime superhighway. Gravity is our way out of conventional spacetime.


We have a long way to go.

 

[Maverick]

For 200,000 years our horizon was limited by our size.

It's not the size that counts, it's what you do with it