Thread: Thoughts have frequencies. My theory of everything.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

It all starts to make more sense now.

Everything in this existence has a frequency, or a vibration. When you think about it this is our universe and we define it as we go.

If EVERYTHING in this existence has a frequency, if solid objects are made up of frequencies, and vibrating energy, AND our thoughts give off frequencies, those thought frequencies can manifest into anything.

We are all one big collective consciousness. All of us everything in this life, we all come from one single particle, the singularity. So it would make sense we are all interconnected. Didn't science prove two particles can actually "KNOW" what the other is doing even if they are miles away?

This life is like someone gave us a consciousness and an empty space to create our own reality. To basically do what we want, as a "collective consciousness". But we took this gift..w.e took this gift called "a consciousness" and turned it into shit. People killing each other, lying to each other, cheating, stealing. Its complete chaos.


Like in lucid dreams, you are aware of your own subconscious. You can do whatever you want, anything is possible because its "YOUR" mind. Reason being is because your the only self aware person in a dream. YOUR god.

Think of it like this. Lets say you are in a dream, but your aware, you have a consciousness. Then lets say someone else comes into this dream, and they are consciousness, or aware. At this point its no longer a dream, it then appears as reality, because you start losing control, because your thoughts are not the same as every one elses.

Your in a lucid dream, and you believe you can fly, so you can. So your flying. Now lets say this other person with a conscious comes in, but they "DON"T" believe flying is possible. Or lets say 1,000 more people come in with a conscious and believe flying is not possible. See what I'm getting at.?

Its like in our mind, our dreams is an "ENTIRE" universe. Full of possibilities.

And in this reality we live in now, If everyone on this planet believed that you could fly, it would be possible. I know that sounds far-fetched but just think about it for a minute.

I don't know, its so hard for me to type it out, its like it makes a lot of sense in my head lol.

Comments, input, thoughts?


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

Oh, and this is the philosophical sub forum so please don't come with that close minded crap. if you can't open your mind and try to look at things from a different view, please stay the hell out of this thread.

i think this is an amazing theory, and i believe this could be true, and i hope it is. this would also explain a lot of gaps in science, who needs quantum theory when youve got this.

Just because empiricism is a type of philosophy doesn't mean everyone is a follower. Nor does every philosophy related subject need to come back to empiricism.

BTW it's Empiricism, not Empricism. Unless that's a new philosophy I haven't heard of.

So I'm only allowed to use the philosophies that the OP follows?

And thanks for the patronising comment, it's what we call a 'typo'.

Originally Posted by Xei

So I'm only allowed to use the philosophies that the OP follows?

And thanks for the patronising comment, it's what we call a 'typo'.

No but to assume the OP follows that philosophy.

I know it was a typo, I was simply making a jest. Demonstrating we all make mistakes

I'm on exactly the same page as the OP. Nice topic, nothing to add. It's the exact same theory described in the kybalion... it's around 3000 years old or something.

I don't know yet if it goes as far as this guy claims, that the real world is similar to dreams, but I think it's possible and I'd love to find out...

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

I'm on exactly the same page as the OP. Nice topic, nothing to add. It's the exact same theory described in the kybalion... it's around 3000 years old or something.

I don't know yet if it goes as far as this guy claims, that the real world is similar to dreams, but I think it's possible and I'd love to find out...

well this could actually just be a dream, how do you know (and dont say do an RC). ever watched the matrix? perfect exmple of how this could be a dream.

I'm on exactly the same page as the OP. Nice topic, nothing to add. It's the exact same theory described in the kybalion... it's around 3000 years old or something.

Indeed, every batshit insane theory from 3000 years ago is indeed actually correct and science is indeed actually a lie.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

It all starts to make more sense now.

Everything in this existence has a frequency, or a vibration. When you think about it this is our universe and we define it as we go.

If EVERYTHING in this existence has a frequency, if solid objects are made up of frequencies, and vibrating energy, AND our thoughts give off frequencies, those thought frequencies can manifest into anything.

We are all one big collective consciousness. All of us everything in this life, we all come from one single particle, the singularity. So it would make sense we are all interconnected. Didn't science prove two particles can actually "KNOW" what the other is doing even if they are miles away?

This life is like someone gave us a consciousness and an empty space to create our own reality. To basically do what we want, as a "collective consciousness". But we took this gift..w.e took this gift called "a consciousness" and turned it into shit. People killing each other, lying to each other, cheating, stealing. Its complete chaos.


Like in lucid dreams, you are aware of your own subconscious. You can do whatever you want, anything is possible because its "YOUR" mind. Reason being is because your the only self aware person in a dream. YOUR god.

Think of it like this. Lets say you are in a dream, but your aware, you have a consciousness. Then lets say someone else comes into this dream, and they are consciousness, or aware. At this point its no longer a dream, it then appears as reality, because you start losing control, because your thoughts are not the same as every one elses.

Your in a lucid dream, and you believe you can fly, so you can. So your flying. Now lets say this other person with a conscious comes in, but they "DON"T" believe flying is possible. Or lets say 1,000 more people come in with a conscious and believe flying is not possible. See what I'm getting at.?

Its like in our mind, our dreams is an "ENTIRE" universe. Full of possibilities.

And in this reality we live in now, If everyone on this planet believed that you could fly, it would be possible. I know that sounds far-fetched but just think about it for a minute.

I don't know, its so hard for me to type it out, its like it makes a lot of sense in my head lol.

Comments, input, thoughts?


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

Oh, and this is the philosophical sub forum so please don't come with that close minded crap. if you can't open your mind and try to look at things from a different view, please stay the hell out of this thread.

Now comes that hard part;

What reasons have we to even consider any of this to be true?

Originally Posted by slash112

well this could actually just be a dream, how do you know (and dont say do an RC). ever watched the matrix? perfect exmple of how this could be a dream.

Well done masturbating over what "could" be.

I also could be a millionaire who suddenly forgot my money.

The problem is with all these pseudophilosophical ideas is that its based on what could be true, and those possibilities are endless, its meaningless to just run in circles imagining new and ever more unlikely ideas which could be true and sound good.

Sadly everything said is nearly certainly not true.


Philosophy is actually more pedantic and cold than science. Science makes assumptions, philosophy (tries) not to.


edit; in before "what is true tho lol, am buda"

Originally Posted by Xei

Indeed, every batshit insane theory from 3000 years ago is indeed actually correct and science is indeed actually a lie.

When it comes down to it, it's whatever makes more sense to individuals. And this theory doesn't make any attempts to disprove science. Science merely attempts to explain what we perceive subjectively in an objective manner. Which to me at first, seemed kind of backwards, I thought, "how can you explain something purely subjective, as experience, in an objective way?" But it's more about explaining things in the most neutral, un-bias way possible, so that whoever else wants to know about something, can easily grasp the idea, without having to filter out too much subjectivity.

I read through the Kybalion at one time, and it's not as batshit insane a theory as one might assume judging by the name alone. It has many good points that can be applied to life for a better quality of life (at least in my opinion). Similarly, some religions that I find to have some "batshit insane" theories also make some valid points about how we should live our lives.

I've found it best to take away whatever I can learn from everything, without lumping everything into a single group and then opposing it all because I disagree with a part of it. But I won't stop you if that's what you want to do.

The choice for what we as individuals do with the information available to us, is entirely up to each of us. I however am in favor of improving myself in as many aspects as I can, and because of this, I am always open to new ideas. If you're not open to a new idea, you'll never hear any validity in it's argument, and all ideas now accepted once started as new ideas. I only believe what I agree with, if I run across an idea that I disagree with, I don't believe it. However, there may still be a few nuggets of good information somewhere within that idea that would apply to other things, and it's those pieces of information that are worth the effort of reading a new idea with my mind open to the possibility that it holds some truth.

When it comes down to it, it's whatever makes more sense to individuals. And this theory doesn't make any attempts to disprove science. Science merely attempts to explain what we perceive subjectively in an objective manner. Which to me at first, seemed kind of backwards, I thought, "how can you explain something purely subjective, as experience, in an objective way?" But it's more about explaining things in the most neutral, un-bias way possible, so that whoever else wants to know about something, can easily grasp the idea, without having to filter out too much subjectivity.

Well, I was really talking about the objective truth here, which I hope we can agree is independent of individuals, or indeed frequently what seems to make sense.

There's reason to believe the OP. Even if it was a possibility, why should I consider this possibility over all of the other mutually exclusive possibilities?

This is why we have science.

Originally Posted by slash112

well this could actually just be a dream, how do you know (and dont say do an RC). ever watched the matrix? perfect exmple of how this could be a dream.

Yeah indeed good point, we can't possibly know really, just assume...

Originally Posted by Schmaven

When it comes down to it, it's whatever makes more sense to individuals. And this theory doesn't make any attempts to disprove science. Science merely attempts to explain what we perceive subjectively in an objective manner. Which to me at first, seemed kind of backwards, I thought, "how can you explain something purely subjective, as experience, in an objective way?" But it's more about explaining things in the most neutral, un-bias way possible, so that whoever else wants to know about something, can easily grasp the idea, without having to filter out too much subjectivity.

I read through the Kybalion at one time, and it's not as batshit insane a theory as one might assume judging by the name alone. It has many good points that can be applied to life for a better quality of life (at least in my opinion). Similarly, some religions that I find to have some "batshit insane" theories also make some valid points about how we should live our lives.

I've found it best to take away whatever I can learn from everything, without lumping everything into a single group and then opposing it all because I disagree with a part of it. But I won't stop you if that's what you want to do.

The choice for what we as individuals do with the information available to us, is entirely up to each of us. I however am in favor of improving myself in as many aspects as I can, and because of this, I am always open to new ideas. If you're not open to a new idea, you'll never hear any validity in it's argument, and all ideas now accepted once started as new ideas. I only believe what I agree with, if I run across an idea that I disagree with, I don't believe it. However, there may still be a few nuggets of good information somewhere within that idea that would apply to other things, and it's those pieces of information that are worth the effort of reading a new idea with my mind open to the possibility that it holds some truth.

yes....now THATS open-minded.

It seems every time someone makes a post about some philosophical idea that they have, someone always tries to discredit them. And some people in here want proof...well philosophy isn't about proof, its about ideas.

No, philosophy is about logic arguments in order to establish truths. We can't just accept something because somebody says it is so, that is madness.

What you fail to realise is that science is actually a form of philosophy, and in fact the most incredibly successful philosophy we've ever had. Science has explained life, found that time had a beginning, and shown that determinism is incorrect.

If you think that these things aren't of huge philosophical consequence then you are quite simply wrong.

You also fail to realise that science is the epitome of open mindedness. Science accepts that every hypothesis you make could well be true, including the OP's about waves. However what science also demands is that you can show evidence.

This is all that science is, and honestly you'd have to be completely barmy to argue with it.

edit;lawl

Personally I disagree with inductive reasoning. Philosophy and mathematics leads to a strong argument for multiple universes, wheras this is inherently contradictory to induction.

Look at that, now people start making up their own definitions of philosophy. Wiki is free guys, don't be afraid to use it.

Philosophy is the study of general problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, justice, validity, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.[3] The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of wisdom."[4][5][6]

Philosophy is not about proof. It's about reasoning. First you think, first you reason, afterwards you experiment and test out your reasoning to generate evidence. Scientists don't go experiment randomly.

Some people seem to believe however, you first need evidence before you can start to reason. But the sole purpose of the reasoning is to generate new evidence. If the evidence was already there, there would be no point in reasoning.

At one point when philosophers started to reason and science started to develop, there was no evidence at all, and the philosophers had to start from scratch. Good thing Xei and Omicron weren't around at that time, or science would have never advanced at all. They would keep shouting "Omg you got no proof! Stop reasoning right now!" LOL

Originally Posted by Xei

Personally I disagree with inductive reasoning. Philosophy and mathematics leads to a strong argument for multiple universes, wheras this is inherently contradictory to induction.

Multiple universes? How would that work?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Look at that, now people start making up their own definitions of philosophy. Wiki is free guys, don't be afraid to use it.

Philosophy is not about proof. It's about reasoning. First you think, first you reason, afterwards you experiment and test out your reasoning to generate evidence. Scientists don't go experiment randomly.

Some people seem to believe however, you first need evidence before you can start to reason. But the sole purpose of the reasoning is to generate new evidence. If the evidence was already there, there would be no point in reasoning.

At one point when philosophers started to reason and science started to develop, there was no evidence at all, and the philosophers had to start from scratch. Good thing Xei and Omicron weren't around at that time, or science would have never advanced at all. They would keep shouting "Omg you got no proof! Stop reasoning right now!" LOL

I'm fine with theorising actually; alot of epistemological ideas are like this, with an impossibility of evidence.

But when there is seemingly absolutely no reason to believe it; we can keep it in the back of our minds; but not take it seriously until someone comes along with evidence or a justification.

I think The main issue Xei and I had was with the way the idea was presented as being true.


The OP makes constant assertion about his ideas; he doesn't just "put them out there" as a possibility to gather evidence.

He positively says that he believes them and it makes perfect sense. Questioning that shouldn't be in any way frowned upon, should it?

Philosophy is not about proof. It's about reasoning. First you think, first you reason, afterwards you experiment and test out your reasoning to generate evidence. Scientists don't go experiment randomly.

That is not philosophy at all. If anything it's a very specific branch of it; empiricism/science.

Most philosophy you don't go out looking for evidence at all, you just use logical arguments.

Some people seem to believe however, you first need evidence before you can start to reason. But the sole purpose of the reasoning is to generate new evidence. If the evidence was already there, there would be no point in reasoning.

At one point when philosophers started to reason and science started to develop, there was no evidence at all, and the philosophers had to start from scratch. Good thing Xei and Omicron weren't around at that time, or science would have never advanced at all. They would keep shouting "Omg you got no proof! Stop reasoning right now!" LOL

What are you talking about? They would have had ideas. They would have experimented. And then they would have had proof. This is how science happened.

Multiple universes? How would that work?

Uh well, imagine our universe, and then imagine lots of them.

What problem does this multiple universe theory solve? What phenomena does it explain?

The fine tuning of the universe.

So how do these multiple universes interact with eachother? Or is there no interaction at all?

I'd imagine they're separate, but I do remember reading an article in I think the Scientific American where they've found a giant hole in the universe, indicative of another universe coinciding with ours.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

So how do these multiple universes interact with eachother? Or is there no interaction at all?

I heard a theory one time that there is a universe for every possible outcome of every situation. It was explained using a pool table to make it kind of simpler.

Let's say you're shoot the cue ball at the 7 ball, and along its way, it wobbles ever so slightly, and not due to any imperfections in the table. This multiverse theory claims that the wobbling is because in other parallel universes, the pool balls have a different order on the table, and in one of them, there is a ball right where the cue ball was where it wobbled. The impact of the cue ball in on this interference ball in the parallel universe, caused it to wobble, ever so slightly in our universe, (I'd assume on the very small scale).

Although it makes more sense to me that there are just nano-scale imperfections in the table and the ball, or slight changes in air current or pressure, that are to blame for any wobbling.