Thread: Thoughts have frequencies. My theory of everything.

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 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 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 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 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...