Who Are You In Truth?

[Holographic60]

There is the consensus in modern Physics that linear time is an illusion.

The greater reality is apart from this illusory situation.

Infinity, Eternity, the Hyperspacial...

I was just watching program about the survivors of the Indonesian Tsunami. Anyone else get to see it?

Two of the survivors spoke about how they had nightmares of a Tsunami beforehand. This type of situation might be considered examples of proving time is illusory. Whatever label you assign to it.

Prophecy, Precognition, Intuition, ESP...whatever.

We are to understand also that time is intimately related with space... and gravity.

"The mind is everything. What you think you become." ~ The Buddha ~

"As a man thinketh, so he is"- Proverbs (The Bible)

Not only is matter mostly empty space on the atomic level, but the atom itself is mostly empty space. What gives us the illusion of solidarity?

The miniscule sub atomic particles in respect to their spin, and vibration.

That these themselves are made up of vibrating "Strings", or, "Loops".

Frequency, Vibration, and Resonance. The underlying foundation of the material, "world".

a.k.a. - "Light".

Of course, Light is more than what we merely percieve with our eyes, or feel with our senses normally. There are the invisible spectrums thereof.

The Source and Foundation, Including of organic lifeform within, "The World"...

-------------------------------------------------------

I am that I am, I am who I think I am, but not who I think I am. I am not my name, I am not my body, I simple am. A spirit wrapped in flesh, maybe. A more sentient ape, possibly. What I have been is gone, who I will be has not happened. I am forever changing. My face. my thoughts, my feelings never the same. Always flowing on a finite stream of infinite possibilities.

"Spirit in the Material World? Wrapped in, and ensconced in what is evolved... in illusory space and time?

Edited March 16, 2015 by Holographic60

[Leonardo]

There is the consensus in modern Physics that linear time is an illusion.

Please stop misrepresenting science.

There is no such 'consensus'. The hypothesis you mention is one of many regarding the nature of time, but there is no overall consensus on which hypothesis reflects the true nature of time. If there could be said to be a 'majority consensus' it would be the orthodoxy of time being a linear phenomenon - exactly the opposite of what you claim.

[Holographic60]

Please stop misrepresenting science.

There is no such 'consensus'. The hypothesis you mention is one of many regarding the nature of time, but there is no overall consensus on which hypothesis reflects the true nature of time. If there could be said to be a 'majority consensus' it would be the orthodoxy of time being a linear phenomenon - exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Leonardo? So perhaps then let's talk about Einstein's "Spooky Action at a Distance", entanglement, and how it bypasses lightspeed, time, and space.

And, what Dr. Bohm had stated about it concerning a greater reality and dynamic it examples.

Why you disagree with him.

And then also maybe, what is your problem in a discussion forum, in particular.

Want to bring something to the table here..?

Or, just cough up jibes. Share.

---------------------

“Spooky action at a distance” is how Albert Einstein famously derided the concept of quantum entanglement—where objects can become linked and instantaneously influence one another regardless of distance. Now researchers suggest that this spooky action in a way might work even beyond the grave, with its effects felt after the link between objects is broken."

Reference -

http://www.scientifi...m-entanglement/

Edited March 16, 2015 by Holographic60

[Leonardo]

Leonardo? So perhaps then let's talk about Einstein's "Spooky Action at a Distance", entanglement, and how it bypasses lightspeed, time, and space.

And, what Dr. Bohm had stated about it concerning a greater reality and dynamic it examples.

Why you disagree with him.

And then also maybe, what is your problem in a discussion forum, in particular.

Want to bring something to the table here..?

Or, just cough up jibes. Share.

http://en.wikipedia....entanglement - Reference

Rather than say disagree, how about I offer a clarification?

The phenomenon of quantum entanglement transposes a property of one quantum particle upon another, effectively making it one property shared by two particles. In light of this, the manipulation of the entangled property of one particle and the simultaneous observation of the change induced by that manipulation of the same property on the other particle should be viewed as not "transcending time and space", but a natural consequence of the singular nature of the entangled property.

For that entangled property, it is if there is no 'space' between the two particles sharing it - indeed, there cannot be because it is one, singular property. So, nothing "moves faster than the speed of light" because nothing is transferred. This could be taken as evidence for the extra "curled up dimensionality" of space as mooted by various incarnations of string theory. These extra-dimensions could be the "greater reality" to which Bohm was referring in his speculation but, regardless, the phenomenon of quantum entanglement does not support the hypothesis that "reality is an illusion".

Edited March 16, 2015 by Leonardo

[Holographic60]

"This could be taken as evidence for the extra "curled up dimensionality" of space as mooted by various incarnations of string theory. These extra-dimensions could be the "greater reality" to which Bohm was referring in his speculation but, regardless, the phenomenon of quantum entanglement does not support the hypothesis that "reality is an illusion"."

I see. So you're not disqualifying Bohm's estimation then, but rather, Einstein's.

Who stated, "Time and Space are modes in which we think, and not conditions in which we live."

And also, "Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistant one."

Edited March 18, 2015 by Holographic60

[Leonardo]

"This could be taken as evidence for the extra "curled up dimensionality" of space as mooted by various incarnations of string theory. These extra-dimensions could be the "greater reality" to which Bohm was referring in his speculation but, regardless, the phenomenon of quantum entanglement does not support the hypothesis that "reality is an illusion"."

I see. So you're not disqualifying Bohm's estimation then, but rather, Einstein's.

Where did you get that from?

Who stated, "Time and Space are modes in which we think, and not conditions in which we live."

And also, "Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistant one."

Einstein was a great scientist, but a not-so-great philosopher. You do appreciate the difference, don't you?

[Holographic60]

Where did you get that from?

Einstein was a great scientist, but a not-so-great philosopher. You do appreciate the difference, don't you?

However, since his work, the above cited quotes are borne out in the revelations of modern theoretical Physics.

Deny it as you may.

The Holographic Universe, Greene,

The Mathematical Universe, Tegmark,

The End of Time, Barbour... just to name a few.

"Then again if the holographic theory of the universe turns out to be true, our 11 dimensional cosmos may be merely an ephemeral projection from a two dimensional surface beyond all space, time, and strings." - Physicist Brian Greene

"So we fix our eyes not on what is seen but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." II Corinthians 4:18

An account from oberf.org...

"NELE S.A.'s Experience 11/16/04 My wife, aged eighty-two, two days before she died, visited me at my breakfast table, entering at the closed door and stopped at my side. She was absolutely beautiful and looked age thirty, not eighty two. Looking at me, and pointing hard at her chest, she said very plainly, "This is the real me, the other, (meaning her own body at the nursing home, sixteen miles away) is but a carcass." She then walked from my side to the front of me, bent down and kissed me on the lips, which I felt. She then vanished. Although her body and brain had deteriorated to child proportion, her mind was absolutely intact. She wished to see me and her mind controlled all her subsequent actions. It took away all fears of her passing to the beyond and it was a joy to see her."

Regarding this, "Material World"...

Edited March 19, 2015 by Holographic60

[Grandpa Greenman]

Then again if the holographic theory of the universe turns out to be true,

I think the key word here is 'if.'

[simplybill]

Very interesting discussion, and an opportunity to share one of my favorite quotations:

From Gerald Schroeder in "The Science of God":

"The startling, totally counterintuitive, yet scientifically proven discoveries of physics reveal that our world, at it's deepest level, is not built of tangible discrete objects. Rather, when we look closely, we find that reality is as gossamer as a thought, that existence is closer to being an association of ideas than a conglomeration of atoms. The dogmatic myth of materialism has been proven to be wanting, more fantasy than fact...Again, in the words of Nobel laureate and biologist George Wald, 'The stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe.' "

[Leonardo]

However, since his work, the above cited quotes are borne out in the revelations of modern theoretical Physics.

Deny it as you may.

The Holographic Universe, Greene,

The Mathematical Universe, Tegmark,

The End of Time, Barbour... just to name a few.

Where exactly are those untested hypotheses "revelations"?

Just because someone posits something doesn't make it true, and if it is not true - or not known to be true - then it isn't a 'revelation'. It might be interesting, and I don't deny many of the speculated hypotheses as to the actual nature of reality are very interesting, but again, that doesn't make it "science".

Hypotheses such as Holographic Universe, Electric Universe, etc are not science. Perhaps they might evolve to become science if evidence supporting the speculations and assumptions involved in the hypotheses can be discovered, but until then they are more philosophical treatises along the lines of Plato's "Theory of Forms".

[Rlyeh]

If the holographic universe turns out to be true then "space and time are interpretations of our organic aspect, and brain." is wrong.

[Occult1]

Hypotheses such as Holographic Universe, Electric Universe, etc are not science. Perhaps they might evolve to become science if evidence supporting the speculations and assumptions involved in the hypotheses can be discovered, but until then they are more philosophical treatises along the lines of Plato's "Theory of Forms".

Most theoritical physicists (including Leonard Susskind) would disagree with you that the Holographic Principle is not science. It has a solid basis drawn from what we know of gravity, black holes, quantum mechanics and the M-Theory and there is even some experimental propositions to test the hypothesis.

''A unique experiment at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory has started collecting data that will answer some mind-bending questions about our universe—including whether we live in a hologram.

Much like characters on a television show would not know that their seemingly 3-D world exists only on a 2-D screen, we could be clueless that our 3-D space is just an illusion. The information about everything in our universe could actually be encoded in tiny packets in two dimensions.''

Link: http://www.symmetrym...periment-begins

Edited March 19, 2015 by samus

[Leonardo]

Most theoritical physicists (including Leonard Susskind) would disagree with you that the Holographic Principle is not science. It has a solid basis drawn from what we know of gravity, black holes, quantum mechanics and the M-Theory...

And with all due respect to those scientists, so what?

I could propose a hypothesis which has a "solid basis" as well, but it is not science until it is tested and evidence collected to support the hypothesis. Science is what we have discovered as well as the method of discovery - it is not the speculation that precedes that.

...and there is even some experimental propositions to test the hypothesis.

''A unique experiment at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory has started collecting data that will answer some mind-bending questions about our universe—including whether we live in a hologram.

Much like characters on a television show would not know that their seemingly 3-D world exists only on a 2-D screen, we could be clueless that our 3-D space is just an illusion. The information about everything in our universe could actually be encoded in tiny packets in two dimensions.''

Link: http://www.symmetrym...periment-begins

"Collecting data" isn't yet at the stage of 'providing evidence'. Yes, the scientists are conducting science, because they are using the scientific method to explore a proposition - but that proposition is not yet science until it becomes knowledge.

[White Crane Feather]

Please stop misrepresenting science.

There is no such 'consensus'. The hypothesis you mention is one of many regarding the nature of time, but there is no overall consensus on which hypothesis reflects the true nature of time. If there could be said to be a 'majority consensus' it would be the orthodoxy of time being a linear phenomenon - exactly the opposite of what you claim.

But there is LEO. We know exactly what time is. It's simply change. The nature of time is simply physics. Already known physics potentiate our recognition of time. In essence its only a label we place upon change. I have never understood why people find it so hard to understand.

String theory fails. Scientists are very good at creating models that explain nature very well becuse they tweek the model to make it fit and if it's in line with the mathmatics of the universe it might be able to predict, but the reality of which is far from the abstract image we try to fit into our brains. Simple inconsistencies can reveal the untruth of the abstract image and labels we create.

For example. String theory is imagined to be vibrating strings, energy is supposed to be carried by force particles. Well ....the smallest thing in existence can't actually have smaller things potentiating and powering it's vibration now can it? The label of vibrating and the image we have of it is simply wrong. It's not a string and it's not vibrating. String theory also requires the addition of new spacial dimentions simply to make it work. Make no mistake these were not discoverd phenominon, they are simply inventions to make the equations work right.

Edited March 19, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[Leonardo]

But there is LEO. We know exactly what time is. It's simply change. The nature of time is simply physics. Already known physics potentiate our recognition of time. In essence its only a label we place upon change. I have never understood why people find it so hard to understand.

What you are speaking of is only how we perceive change to happen. Time (in the context being discussed) is not 'change', it is the medium within which change occurs. As I said, there are several hypotheses regarding the nature of time, but there is no 'consensus', although the majority view is probably that time is linear.

String theory fails.

There is no single "string theory", but several different models hypothesising slightly different variations. None of them 'fail', if they had they would be discarded. However, they remain to be tested so none of them are currently 'science', but are areas of ongoing scientific investigation.

[Occult1]

And with all due respect to those scientists, so what?

I could propose a hypothesis which has a "solid basis" as well, but it is not science until it is tested and evidence collected to support the hypothesis. Science is what we have discovered as well as the method of discovery - it is not the speculation that precedes that.

"Collecting data" isn't yet at the stage of 'providing evidence'. Yes, the scientists are conducting science, because they are using the scientific method to explore a proposition - but that proposition is not yet science until it becomes knowledge.

I get your point and I think we can agree. Our divergeance only seems to stem from the use of the word 'science'. The definition of modern science as I was taught is a process to understand how the natural world works. Scientific knowledge is the result of the succesful application of this method.

Therefore it is my view that the theoritical physicists working on the Holographic Principle are doing science. But as you rightly pointed out, it is not yet, and might never reach the stage of scientific knowledge, as it remains to be proven by experimentation.

Edited March 19, 2015 by samus

[Leonardo]

Our disagreement seems to stem from the use of the word 'science'. The definition of modern science as I was taught is a process to understand how the natural world works. Scientific knowledge is the result of the succesful application of this method.

Therefore it my view that the theoritical physicists working on the Holographic Principle are doing science. But as you rightly pointed out, it is not, and might never reach the stage of scientific knowledge, as it remains to be proven by experimentation.

I don't think we disagree on the word 'science'. As you point out, those scientists inquiring into the Holographic Universe Hypothesis are indeed "doing science". My point is that the hypothesis itself does not constitute "science" and nor if it "scientific" if it isn't supported by any observation or evidence, and currently it has not been.

"Science" can mean either/both the process of investigation or/and the body of knowledge that process discovers.

This is the point-of-argument I made with Holographic60 when he/she touted that hypothesis as "science".

Edited March 19, 2015 by Leonardo

[White Crane Feather]

What you are speaking of is only how we perceive change to happen. Time (in the context being discussed) is not 'change', it is the medium within which change occurs. As I said, there are several hypotheses regarding the nature of time, but there is no 'consensus', although the majority view is probably that time is linear.

There is no single "string theory", but several different models hypothesising slightly different variations. None of them 'fail', if they had they would be discarded. However, they remain to be tested so none of them are currently 'science', but are areas of ongoing scientific investigation.

The medium of which change occures in is space. That's why we call it space-time but really the time part is unnecessary. It's just there as you say to label what we exsperience. The only reason we can experience the passage of "time" is because we have memory which is really just a record of a previous state of the universe. Time is label that's all. Physics and space potentiate change. Then we call it time, but really it's just a psycological need. It's certainly a helpful word to discuss sequence, but no one should confuse it for an actual thing.

[Leonardo]

The medium of which change occures in is space.

What is 'space', WCF?

How can you define it without implicitly defining time? Both are how we define a 'distance'. Both are a medium, the same medium, within which things happen.

[White Crane Feather]

What is 'space', WCF?

How can you define it without implicitly defining time? Both are how we define a 'distance'. Both are a medium, the same medium, within which things happen.

Sure. But don't you think space is enough? Of course we need to reference "time" to convey the idea of a coordinate that references different configurations of the universe. But why should we give it more credit than its due. It leads to so much unnecessary confusion especially where relativity is concerned. Even ever increasing entropy often referred to as the arrow of time is simply energy rolling down the hill. No need for all the confusion. Time does not exist. Only the laws of physics in which our experience of a part of it we label "time".

I don't know what space is. Potential perhaps. But if the new Inferometer finds that it's pixilated, my money is on virtual particles transferring information. In which we will discover that space dosn't exist either. Only tightly packed virtual particles.

[Leonardo]

Sure. But don't you think space is enough? Of course we need to reference "time" to convey the idea of a coordinate that references different configurations of the universe. But why should we give it more credit than its due. It leads to so much unnecessary confusion especially where relativity is concerned. Even ever increasing entropy often referred to as the arrow of time is simply energy rolling down the hill. No need for all the confusion. Time does not exist. Only the laws of physics in which our experience of a part of it we label "time".

I don't know what space is. Potential perhaps. But if the new Inferometer finds that it's pixilated, my money is on virtual particles transferring information. In which we will discover that space dosn't exist either. Only tightly packed virtual particles.

I love irony, WCF.

[Holographic60]

]

I have to agree with WCF, which again leaves us with the topic question.

Isn't everything relative?

In the greater situation of things, of what value are the concepts of, size, distance, location, weight..

Time/Space?

What is this greater reality in which these concepts are merely relative, and then,

Who are we, really, in it?

Certainly not the evolved animal, evolved through illusory time.

From the IONS archives... involving a greater reality, and the nature of "Consciousness"...

"The faculty of consciousness is one thing we all share, but what goes on in our consciousness, the content of our consciousness, varies widely. This is our personal reality, the reality we each know and experience.

Most of the time, however, we forget that this is just our personal reality and think we are experiencing physical reality directly.

We see the ground beneath our feet; we can pick up a rock, and throw it through the air; we feel the heat from a fire, and smell its burning wood. It feels as if we are in direct contact with the world "out there."

But this is not so.

The colors, textures, smells, and sounds we experience are not really "out there";

they are all images of reality constructed in the mind. "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nderf.org...E's NDE.htm

"Time itself suddenly became infinite and irrelevant. In "earth time" only about ten seconds had gone by until my heart re-started beating, but "I" was also in "zero time" (for lack of a better word), or, actually outside of time."

Edited March 21, 2015 by Holographic60

[Leonardo]

I have to agree with WCF...

About what?

which again leaves us with the topic question.

What WCF and I were debating had little to nothing to do with your OP question.

Isn't everything relative?

In the perceptual sense, yes. But perception is subjective while reality is objective. Reality is not 'relative', only our perception of it.

[Border Collie]

I can accept that the real world is illusiory. That would fit in with much that I believe or suspect. Saying that God, if he exists, is truth is something of a conversation-killer. Because it implies that all truth is in God and everything which is not in God is not truth. A disturbing opinion!

I think it would have been a more honest question to have asked, with the comments about the real world but without the opinion that God is truth, what or who people therefore considered that they were.

I am an entity, an individual, currently incarnated. Everything else is subject to review. I refuse to go as far as I did in my youth and doubt my own existence and resort to Cartesian logic.

I do not see what relevance "truth" has. I am looking outside into my garden at a splendid silver birch in the corner. Truth is not a factor in its existence. It is a human invention.

[Leonardo]

I am an entity, an individual, currently incarnated. Everything else is subject to review.

Having accepted this self-evident fact, then you should also accept there is something within which you exist. This is the universe and whatever it is, the fact that you/I exist is evidence, if not proof, it also exists.

And this is what I have been arguing - there is an objective reality that is patently not 'illusion'. We claim to know something of what this reality is through our collective agreement via scientific investigation, but none can say we are 100% certain what the most fundamental nature of reality is - except that it is 'real'.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Leonardo