>>561976298 The Patton Space Heater is a lovely lightweight heater that produces a great deal of heat. There are two knobs on the front. One is a thermostat and the other has modes of one and two. Mode one makes it hot. Mode two makes it fire-hot! I usually turn it on a just keep the thermostat all the way over to the end. If you leave it on any lesser settings, the space heater will turn on and off intermittently. This may help you to not get too hot but I do not like it. I prefer constant heat until I decide to turn it off.
I have never tested the automatic shut-off if tipped over.
The front of it does get super hot. No one in my household has burned themselves; however. We have used it in the bathroom and it really heats up a small room. It is a quick and hot space heater!
Spiritual/mystical experiences have occurred in a great number of humans since at least the paleolithic. Religion is the interpretation of this experience passed down as tradition. Since the existence of the spiritual experience brings about changes in the real world, the source of the experience is therefore a real thing.
>>561976894 The macro/microcosmic structure of our universe suggests (but does not prove) a cosmic order to things.
>>561976591 Because it fits the definition. The nature of the entity that connects all existence may be impossible to completely comprehend with human intelligence - but science can give us facts about how our universe works. And maybe in time we will figure out how God works, and how to become Gods ourselves.
>>561979792 >Spiritual/mystical experiences have occurred in a great number of humans since at least the paleolithic What is mental disorders What is drugs >The macro/microcosmic structure of our universe suggests (but does not prove) a cosmic order to things To you. Our minds look for patterns. >Because it fits the definition. The nature of the entity that connects all existence may be impossible to completely comprehend with human intelligence - but science can give us facts about how our universe works. And maybe in time we will figure out how God works, and how to become Gods ourselves.
>>561980475 >Our minds look for patterns. Coincidentally patters exist. What are numbers?
>What is mental disorders What is drugs There are many aspects of the spiritual experience that can't be so easily dismissed. They can occur powerfully in sane, unlikely people who have never taken drugs. What selective advantage is there in having a brain that is capable of this phenomena?
>>561976298 why does anyone need to prove whether it exists or not? Does the existence of an infinite omnipresent entity actually matter in the question of understanding the world? Could we actually ever be able to differentiate such an entity from a purely random process?
>>561982606 >I haven't experienced something others claim to, therefore it must be impossible and they're lying
You're right about chemicals though. But our world is built entirely out of chemicals. Your brain released chemicals to help you write that post. The overwhelming majority of our world cannot be perceived with our sensory organs alone. Our ignorance is vast.
Spiritual behavior might be related with a certain level of cognizance. Elephants conduct funerals for their dead.
>>561979792 >The macro/microcosmic structure of our universe suggests (but does not prove) a cosmic order to things.
>Because there is order there must be God.
Or the simple fact that without order there would be nothing to exist. Things have adapted to exist in our universe's laws of physics. Whether or not you want to believe it's organized by a celestial entity is beyond my caring, but factually it has nothing to do with it. It simply is how things work, if they didn't, then we wouldn't be here. Just because there is order doesn't mean you need to twist that into a spiritual reasoning. Especially a religious one. A plague on humanity for centuries now that causes nothing but hatred and war.
We can basically write evolutionary algorithms that can by themselves create stuff (usually electronic circuits, robots or programs) suited for one specific problem. The irony is that we very often cannot understand why the endproduct actually works for the specific task.
Man made characters used to describe amounts and time. Not a spiritual pattern. Again, without a pattern there would be no line. It does not make it spiritual.
>There are many aspect of the spiritual experience that can't be so easily dismissed.
Yet. There have been no actual recordings of spiritual experiences. Ever. Not once. Just delusions and made up stories. Dreams and hallucinations. There have never been any. People sometimes feel spooked out when they walk into "haunted" areas and yet it's only a figment of their imagination, or sometimes it can be more scientific and be an electrical field making you feel funny. There are no spiritual experiences, just coincidental experiences that people themselves can't explain and want to claim it as something spiritual because it makes them feel special. >What is technology? Man made.
>>561987909 Yes but I choose to believe that these laws are a component of an infinite sentient entity we are attached to.
>>561988484 >is it just faith? Yes. In my opinion, faith makes for a more satisfying human experience. When you feel faith internally, and perceive what can only be described as spiritual, it becomes impossible to let rational doubts win.
>>561982606 >you're just a meat sack whose brain released a particular set of chemicals
this meat sack is merely a vessel. that brain activity you see is not the source of my mind. it is the result of my infinite hyperspatial superconsciousness theophanically interacting with the brain. this body is my avatar. your body is my avatar. all of these bodies are my avatars.
I'm something of a Pantheist myself. I lean into the eastern ideas that the perception of the universe being composed of separate things is an illusion, with the totality of all "things" in existence collectively being what could be called God (though I often like to use the word Tao, from Taoism).
If it can be said that intelligence exists at all, then intelligence is a trait of this one being, that intelligence is indeed a trait of the universe as a whole. The same could be said for life, the universe is alive.
I'm no word smith, so this could be explained a lot better, but I'm sure your all smart enough to see what I mean.
>>561976298 >Prove to me that an infinite omnipresent entity doesn't exist. Religion is faith - faith is something that cannot be proven, but is believed in. If you could prove the existence of such an entity, it would no longer be faith, it would be fact. If it were fact, nobody would argue against it.
>>561993063 so, patterns. fractals. mathematics. these are what you believe to be the 'backbone' of life and conciousness, yes? if so, that is a good theory. numbers and patterns are everywhere and in everything
>>561991775 Proving that "not X" is true has nothing to do with that "negative" that has been mentioned before. As an example think about proving "there are truths that cannot be expressed by any language"
>>561994098 then tell me whats the difference between a negative and an absence? are you saying that a 4th side is absent from a triangle? how is that any different from saying that a triangle does not have 4 sides?
>>561992930 >Possible, but I think it's more possible that we are all independent consciousness.
This illusion of separation is necessary for the fulfillment of the process.
But you are very wise for your current level of development. Even In your current limited state you recognize the necessity of the coming alignment of purpose, and the wonders it will permit. Every person is a wonder, but even so, you are exceptional.
>>561976298 I'm with you. Athiests can't prove shit, and want to try to assign a "likelihood" that there is no higher intelligence or emergent property at work. Well, sorry, it just doesn't hold water. It's a mystery either way. You don't know what there might be but you can choose to hope or believe there is something more—or not. Just don't assume you're "right" and everyone else is "wrong" because nobody really fucking knows or even has a clue.
>Prove to me that an infinite omnipresent entity doesn't exist.
that's not how science, burden of proof, etc. etc. works.
One posits an infinite (non-ending) and omnipresent entity.
The concept of this message to you, let alone the electrons that make it, the laptop I type it on and the device with which you receive it, the letters that I use, as concepts, even, all things that are not this infinite omnipresent entity, are, obviously, not this entity. As such, this entity is not infinite, not omnipresent.
>>561995113 Still limited in the sense that our brain capacity is responsible for it. What you say also hold true, although you can't transcend the limit of what is enabling the consciousness in the first place.
I think those words came across wrong. If the whole world insisted the sky was blue, but every day to you it looked purple. Everyone would call you colorblind. It wouldn't make the sky any less purple.
When you experience the presence of the God, and see its influence on the world, nothing can convince you it's not real. There is too much cognitive dissonance in pretending the sky is a different color.
>>561992856 Man I can't keep up with all the replies. I'm trying to get to them all as best I can. I'm reading a lot of the sub-discussions going on as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet Spiritual experiences don't have to be real (not saying that the experience doesn't exist). Our brain evolved semi-randomly, so all kinds of shit is part of the human experience, even if it doesn't make sense or has roots in reality.
If we really want to talk about this we have to start defining words and get into deep philosophy, which ends in opinions.
Not OP, but I do believe consciousness is a much more common occurrence than most people think, and that the entire universe may be conscious. That consciousness could be called "God" since it would be the closest thing to a God that actually exists.
Consciousness in the human brain is a process involving neurons exchanging electrochemical signals. In the same way that enough monkeys with enough typewriters and enough time would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare, there must be occasions in which particles of interstellar dust, or hydrogen and helium within stars, interact by pure chance in a way that mimics the interaction of neurons in the human brain. This produces consciousness. Mostly very briefly, but occasionally for long periods of time, perhaps much longer than a human lifespan. You might say it's not call it true consciousness if it's just occurring spontaneously through random chance, but our own consciousness is the product of random chance, too.
>>561995789 I like how you and >>561995832 <that guy don't get along, yet you both see things in a similar way. I wonder what would happen if you both found a way to agree upon a single concept?
Argument doesn't yield results, argument is just a manifestation of the idea that all things exist in a duality. Why must they? He is bad, I am good, what is that, anyway?
Literally anything that anybody at all on the face of this planet has to say holds validity in one way or another, and to discredit that validity would be to discredit the validity of your systems of belief.
>>561996842 There are logical paradoxes that should avoid you from ever moving in space, yet you do! Funny how we can see in the fissures of reason that our logic is kind of a reduction of phenomena for practical purposes of our existence
>>561996993 I wouldn't say similar. The anon seems to think human bodies are vessels for some sort of super-consciousness, when in reality, consciousness is brought upon by an individual's brain and isn't "connected" to another's.
>>561995428 you were initially on >>561976706 and you were right, proving a negative is (obviously) logical (since the proof needs to be logical to be considered "a proof").
The "burden of proof is on the claimant" has nothing to do with proving negatives to be logical or not. It has to do with efficiency and common sense: - assuming 1 thing without proof (there is nothing more) and looking for a proof for things we'd like to know about is easier to manage than - assuming everything imaginable without proof, then try to disprove all the things which seem obviously silly
on a side note: standart scientific fare is a combi of both, we assume there is nothing more, then come up with a certain amount things (not everything), assume them true, then try to disprove them. (a good theoretical scientist is thus someone who can come up with relatively sensible "certain amount of things")
>>561997817 >It's sort of a negative negating an absence exactly, the statement is negative. regardless of what it is negating, the fact is that it is negating, and thus a negative statement. yes? please note i am not in any way trying to defend theism here
>>561997946 To be honest, I think you might actually know "it" after you said "this body is my avatar. your body is my avatar. all of these bodies are my avatars." But I still think you sound like an egoistical dickhead
"oh look how totally enlightened I am everybody" Chill man.
>>561998210 Ah, but therein lies the problem; this only holds true if the meaning of the word "two" is perceived to be the same by all parties. If, for example, one party believes that "two" is what I shall, for argument's sake, call "two point five", then two would indeed be equal to five.
an excerpt from the 'description - high dose effects': >One of the most interesting effects is the feeling of awakening for the first time ever from a previous state of sleep, the feeling of liberation from what is now seen as a life-long state of misunderstanding. Paradoxically, it is this new awareness that feels normal and natural and the previous fog is seen to have been unreal all along.
>>561999821 However, two in this sense is not merely a word, it is a name for the outcome of a single object combined with a single object. I can call a piece of turd "gold" but it won't be gold, would it?
>>561999359 It holds meaning because it extends to consciousness. Consciousness is that thing that measures, and therefore creates reality.
The atoms that came from the meteor, and the atoms that came from the planet all started off as hydrogen, which started off as that gooey hot soup that started off as a ball of energy the size of a softball that started off as a point in a void.
Consciousness translates reality, and reality came from a single point. What does that say about consciousness?
>>561998615 It is always possible that I am wrong about everything I have ever known. By engaging in discussion, we all stand to learn something we didn't know before. But even if you prove to me that I am made out of lava, I still will not believe you. I will be compelled to find a way to prove I am not lava.
>>561998582 >>561998582 Let's say "God exists and God is an entity whose existence can't be decided by any scientific means that will ever be invented" That statement cannot be disproved because it concerns the "negative space" of what can be expressed by the system "science".
>>562002154 Did God kill him? Nope. Did God tell him to do it? Nope. Did God control his ability to do so, therefore taking away his free will? Nope. Therefore, God didn't cause his death and shouldn't be blamed for it.
>>562000719 This is a lot like the question of god. Prove to me that anything (save your own consciousness) exists independent of observation. Is Schrodinger's cat alive or dead? If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? >>562001303 Trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling tr- Windows has suffered a fatal error and is shutting down.
>>562001551 Look into Schrodinger's Cat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat
The laws of quantum mechanics state that quantum particles do not exist until they are measured.
I understand, that's a hard concept to wrap my head around, and it probably is for you, too, but if we take that idea into account at the moment of the big bang, there had to be something that measured, in order to have brought into existence even a single point (Higgs Boson?)
So, there had to be a measurement, whatever that may mean, at the point of the beginnings of existence.
>be me, the universe, suddenly expanding >I AM. Energy >energy condenses to particles >particles of matter and antimatter! >they blow the shit out of each other >one of them is more common >they have different features + or - >they orbit one another and make H >the hydrogen swirls around and around >huge gravity wells form >Stars begin to ignite. >The stars crush the H (#1 element) >fusion >2nd element is formed. Helium! >Some stars are close together >They make even bigger stars >These stars make even heavier elements >Some stars are too big >The explode when they die. supernova >the explosions yield more elements >an exploded supernova drifts as a cloud >on the edge of an arm of rotating stars >its gases begin to form gravity wells again >A sun forms with a disc of trace gases >The sun is small and ignites the Hydrogen >The disc matter begin to form planets >These planets will have a variety of matter >organic materials >even heavy stuff like Uranium. #92! >Thank you stars before >One planet is perfect for complex molecules >Non living molecules combine with others >It takes a long time but proteins are made >proteins make amino acids >these amino acids are non living >but they reproduce. copy themselves >sounds like life I guess >what is life really tho? Everything is One. >Me >RNA does well on this planet >it interacts with other organic materials >bubbles of fatty lipids make a good home >the RNA that last long enough, copy >some RNA can repair its fatty home >they copy >some RNA can soon make its fatty home >a simple cell >These cells and their data do work >do work for a long time >billions of years before complex things
>>561979792 >Since the existence of the spiritual experience brings about changes in the real world, the source of the experience is therefore a real thing. Nonsense. If I lie to someone, and that lie affects their actions in the real world, that doesn't make the lie actually true.
>things that react to their environments >they still copy themselves, with variation >still me but lets call this piece of me
Life >Life grows in all directions. Anywhere it
can >It becomes very different from place to
place >Billions of years pass >Life is much more complex. >I am much more complex >I went from energy to stardust >I went from stardust to life >Just a piece of me but me none the less >I can look up at the rest of me >I can think about my origins >I can think about my possible future
Every self aware mind on this planet is just a piece of the universe beginning to understand itself. We are all one. We are the universe
>>562001971 X exists = False not (X exists) = True That's actually the same thing. If X is infinite/omnipresent or whatever you can come up with to push it into the negative space of human perception, maths, science, logic, etc. then these statements just can't be verified
>>562004992 >If X is infinite/omnipresent or whatever you can come up with to push it into the negative space of human perception, i was never making any claim about god whatsoever, i was only trying to show that negative statements can be proven. like i said above (not to you tho), i am in no way trying to defend theism.
I'm not always aware of it. Sometimes I am intensely aware of it - that I am a part of it. That everything is a part of it. To feel it moving in you, as you move with it. A being of light that is bigger than all of us, that was always there. It at least the entirety of space-time, and conscious/sentient.
I don't understand what it is (other than it feels like everything), what it wants, why it's there, or much about it other than an intrinsic feeling that can only be described as "spiritual" or "mystical".
>>562004025 Real does not mean true. A lie is not true, but can be a real thing (and it has a name: a lie).
>>562005459 A few words to supplement the whole real vs true discussion thing. Imagine a magician on stage, performing an illusion. What you perceive is an illusion, but that doesn't mean nothing is happening. Every lie holds a little truth.
>>562005459 >Real does not mean true. A lie is not true, but can be a real thing (and it has a name: a lie). Then you've just rendered your own argument useless, since all you've argued is that spiritual experiences exist - for all you know, they can just as easily be "not true" but still "real." That's not proof of an "infinite omnipresent entity," that's just proof that somebody thinks there is one.
i wonder if we are quantunly coorelated that is perhaps all of us are connected OR some of us are more connected than others dependig. on where are particles were in the explodeing beggins of the universe.
however it was quite chaotic in the early universe and there for those linked quanum particles in your body would more likelt be linked with random quanta all over the universe.
but why would there be a connection at all? (would be cool if there was or being able to observe distant parts of the universe using a quantum telescope of sorts)
>>562004176 Yep, it also makes sense that we also exist on a level of individual consciousness as well, due to us being able to create levels of our own reality inside of ourselves, like you mentioned when we look inside ourselves.
When we sleep, our consciousness is no longer faced with the burden of translating our external reality. It is completely free to create, and it does just that. Sometimes it creates strange sex fantasies involving your 1st grade teacher, other times it's profound awakenings.
It's up to us to harness these. Some say that in the morning, after sleeping, your brain is actually "warmed up" to that side of itself, and is ready to begin the transcendence into a different reality, where the consciousness is now your "vessel", and your body is no longer what limits you.
This is the area of astral projection, and is very strange, but it is where we may find true solace with one another on a whole, as well as on an individual basis in the very near future.
>>562004851 Yes, God, but also us. We contain that same ability to observe, translate, and interpret reality. If we couldn't, we would literally be vegetative, like plants, simply being, totally oblivious, yet content.
We are awake, but we can wake up even further. We just don't really know what that means or how we do it, but if we all apply ourselves and our intent onto doing so, we will.
Remember: Just because you're dreaming doesn't mean that you're sleeping; only that you suppose you are.
>>562005616 I don't claim to omnisciently know any special facts, so I'm not gonna flap my gums about it much. But basically, I mean we're all the same nigga. Like that egoistical guy said earlier, "this body is my avatar. your body is my avatar. all of these bodies are my avatars." I believe that guy was also referencing it. I can't prove shit to you with a words over the internet, so I'll leave it there. I will add that I believe in reincarnation, but not in the usually understood sense of there being a whole bunch of different souls, if you catch my meaning.
>>562006237 Just like Bill Hicks said "One consciousness experiencing itself subjectively"
Outside of physical sleep, how does one reach a level of "higher consciousness"? I've looked into DMT, Shaman practices and even listened to people like Terence Mckenna and Buddhist monks talk about it.
>>562006217 Yes, the lie is a real thing. But the contents of the lie, the event described in the lie, are not. If I tell Alice that Bob stole her car keys when it was actually Carl who did it, and Alice decides to punch Bob because of this, that doesn't mean that Bob stole Alice's car keys. It plain and simply did not happen, no way around it.
>>562006237 >Yes, God, but also us. We contain that same ability to observe, translate, and interpret reality. Ok then, a question had God started the cosmological fractal we're living on: observing and interpreting leading to other level of observing and interpreting (us), etc.? Or God is just a practical pinpoint on this infinite loop of interpretation used by our infantile observation skill that may hide some geometrical mindfucking perspective?
>>562007918 Mckenna has a lot to say about the things psychedelics might have opened our eyes to, but all the substance will do is alter your brain chemistry, ergo your perception, and allow you to experience that which you wouldn't be able to otherwise. That doesn't mean its an experience that holds any value outside of your own consciousness though.
>>561976298 i believe that our consciousness exists on a plane that is, i guess, parallel to the physical one, and acts as a navigator for our physical bodies for some unknown reason until we die, causing our bodies to break down, become a part of the universe itself again, causing our consciousness to return to the plane it exists within until it is either called upon again, so to speak, to navigate once more, or to eternally remain within said plane.
Also, god is not a single being, but an entire force that set in motion everything that exists and existed.
TL;DR >we are pilots >bodies are vessels >pilot till body dies >return home >recycled >god is everything not a being
>>562006124 matter can neither be created or destroyed. it goes from energy to matter and back to energy. The same energy/matter that was present at the beginning is still here. Well...supposedly. Quantum Foam kinda makes that a bit wacky. All over the universe at almost every point, even in perfect vacuum, energy is borrowed from the future to create 2 particle, 1 matter and 1 antimatter. They orbit each other and then annihilate each other and return the energy. That is unless something yanks one of its partners away like in our super collides. Thats how we harvest and collect antimatter. Wierd.
There isn't much to tell. I found her website with a reverse image search, dug around and found a tattoo shop where she used to work and talked to the owner. She had friends that worked there and I just emphasized the importance of getting her to a hospital. I don't know if she actually got treatment. She might be dead right now.
I hope not though. She seemed nice.
But there's only so much you can do from the other side of the planet, you know?
>>562007025 I was speaking in a physical sense of existence in a measurable state, I understand that quantum particles move in waves of probability, and will only come into physical, measurable being when they are measured.
It's highly likely that what I said is not totally correct, but that's a great thing, because no single person has all of the answers.
>>562007918 I would strongly suggest avoidance of DMT. You don't NEED it to experience a conscious shift upward. All you need is to be relaxed, patient, and open to what will happen. I treat DMT like spiritual heroin. The moment you do it once, the natural stuff will never suffice again. Just work on meditation, and projection will become much easier to tackle naturally. When you can do it on your own, you've removed the limitations that would be otherwise left by DMT or other such drugs.
>>562008123 God is in us. God isn't a separate entity. It started as one, and became all things in existence, as it observed. Our entire planet has its own consciousness, but at the same time, it shares ours as well as the sun's, the galaxy's, the supercluster's, and the universe's consciousnesses.
You're asking questions which hold the answers within themselves, honestly.
>>562009156 Haha fair enough. I will admit I almost wanted to so I could skip forward to a life in which I didn't know "it" (I didn't like it at first) but then I was like naa fuck that I'm gonna man up and live it out like a boss, so now I hardly ever think about it like I used to. I've never told anyone irl though incase people think I'm insane or retarded or something, so I occasionally find some sort of "relief" in mentioning it on /b/ whenever a relevant thread pops up.
The important thing to realize is that you are already in that state of higher consciousness. You are just focusing in on the part that is this. You just have to figure out how to back away from the spectacle.
Imagine yourself in a dark room. nothing to do but THINK. You are infinite times smarter than the smartest person on planet earth. and you have infinite time.
the universe emerges, in your mind. For an entetiy that doesn't have problems grasping infinity, infinity isnt "unmeaserable", for that entity infinity is just everything, meaning infinity is finite, its just everything. if that makes any sense
>>562010256 i guess but believing in what i believed has put me at peace with dying some. i view it as sleeping for an eternity. and even if it's just complete nonexistence, which seems somewhat impossible, given that no matter is created nor destroyed, i'd still be okay with that. it's absolute peace it seems. i dunno. it's hard to really explain what i mean/feel. i still don't want to die -- like most people, but i feel that when i do, it'll be easier somehow.
>>562009427 the universe is truly a weird and wonderful place amongst all that violence and chaos but I suppose life wouldn't be that interesting if we didn't have ups and downs but I guess it's all about finding that balance
>>562007918 I believe consciousness is a function of the brain to organize and interpret data and perhaps the best ways to expand consciousness would be specifically smart drugs or lots of new refreshing experience is getting a lot of exercise and oxygen would be good for steps as well as us all talking to each other further expanding our consciousnesses
If time existed, I could get a big ol' handful of time and throw it at you. Time doesn't exist except at a level of which we move through reality.
The faster you move through reality, the faster reality seems to move. This is why things freeze at the event horizon of a black hole. They are moving infinitely fast through reality, therefore we who are moving at an infinitely slower rate through reality see it as being at a standstill.
>>562010764 I like how the inclusion of time was able to completely debunk what I said. Maybe I shouldn't have even acknowledged it...
There are beginnings, middles, and ends, but no time in-between, because time does not exist. If you can't get past that, then you'll be stuck in the confines of time for the rest of your life.
>>562010404 Sounds good. Like the Zen saying that everyone is already enlightened by default, but you pick up loads of bs along the way. Imagine a mirror that builds up muck or whatever over time, you just got to clean the mirror. It's not a good explanation by itself but whatever, I'm on /b/. I think it's funny thinking about "higher" things. If the totality of existence is one, then in relation to what could it be said to be higher?
>>562010002 > You're asking questions which hold the answers within themselves, honestly. Only because you've assumed this strong hypothesis to start: God is in us. I didn't.
>>562010332 >Oh no, you got me. I have recently been studying cryptography. This unexpected insight blows my argument to pieces. Haha, no it's just fun how the brain will always rely on recent experiences to illustrate arguments, even if it has nothing to do with the original topic. It's like goldfish arguing.
>>562011528 How would you go about proving that? Their consciousness is on a simpler scale in accordance to the animal's mental capability.
Also, time is a defining factor in our existence. We can acknowledge it and form truth around what we already know of to be so (i.e. time). Saying it doesn't exist is naive, and I don't understand why you'd assert that.
>>562011528 >If time existed, I could get a big ol' handful of time and throw it at you. Time doesn't exist except at a level of which we move through reality. Throw me a big ol' handful of consciousness please.
>>562011537 well its weird from my perspective because I've heard some people say that if some constance of the universe were even slightly tweak the constants of the universe we would not have the ability to sustain life as we know it and matter what not cosi self yes and we would just listening universe of protons
>>562012818 >well its weird from my perspective because I've heard some people say that if some constance of the universe were even slightly tweak the constants of the universe we would not have the ability to sustain life as we know it and matter what not cosi self yes and we would just listening universe of protons Physics is tied to our universe. Math is "not" (let the battle begin).
That's the anthropic principle though. Even in a universe where the physics were different, the underlying math is still the same. We are in a universe perfectly tuned to create intelligent life because only a universe perfectly tuned to create intelligent life can have intelligent life emerge to observe it's perfection.
>>562011770 Don't make assumptions as to my hypotheses' origins. I started with a total lack thereof, and have come forth with some insights which may be useful in everybody's movement towards understanding stuff, and while it might seem forthcoming, I am entering here with a fully open mind. I'm taking all of these posts into serious consideration, and making observations based on what you suggest, and giving you an answer that seems to best fit what I know. What confuses me is that you're asking me questions that you seem to already know the answers to. Don't know why people do that
>>562012045 >Time exists. So prove it. Bring me a jar of time, or a way to prove it can be manifested and I will concede. If this were the case, time travel would be as common as driving a car. >>562012471 You're so close, keep looking, and you'll find the answer to that one, but it's an answer you find by interacting with an animal without any preconceived notions about their intelligence, because they are just that: preconceived notions. As are your notions about time. While it may exist, it's as much an issue of belief as God and our origins and purposes.
I don't believe in time. To me, time is like the lottery. You can play the game, and you honestly won't be any worse for the wear, but what you're doing subconsciously is giving into a notion that there is something that you have no control over, and you just hope it's good to you.
>>562012735 Quantum physics already did that. >>562013481 There's something inherently special about everything ever.
>>562011528 >If time existed, I could get a big ol' handful of time and throw it at you.
By that logic, I can say space doesn't exist because I can't get a big ol' handful of space and throw it at you.
>The faster you move through reality, the faster reality seems to move.
You are describing what happens to the rate of time an observer experiences relative to other frames of references, which is what relativity says, but you are just avoiding using the word 'time'.
>This is why things freeze at the event horizon of a black hole.
That is what an observer outside of the event horizon sees, but the person going towards the event horizon will go through it as if nothing happened (unless it is a small black hole, things will get messy quickly).
>They are moving infinitely fast through reality, therefore we who are moving at an infinitely slower rate through reality see it as being at a standstill.
Relativity says the time we experience from our own frame of reference is unaffected by other observers, the observers will see our time going at a different rate from their own frame of reference, hence why space and time is relative. Other observes speeding up or slowing down won't affect how you experience time.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.