Thoughts have frequencies. My theory of everything.

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. :)

yes, what is this "energy" made out of? atoms?

I mean I can seriously sympathize with you're situation, but I still think you are way off course.

I agree with most of what you are saying in the second half of you're writings though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

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.

---

no. You may in you're thoughts, and you're thoughts are real, but only defined by the limits of you're senses. When I'm awake my senses are much stronger, and so there for, so is the reality I am in.

If everyone were to fly, it would defy the nature of everything, including everything that has been known about how chemistry works (which is the basic fundamental key to life here).
The good thing about you're dreams, is that they don't have to obey the laws of our reality, but are certainly inspired by them.

I think you are trying to describe mind reading ability or somethin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dylanshmai

yes, what is this "energy" made out of? atoms?

I mean I can seriously sympathize with you're situation, but I still think you are way off course.

I agree with most of what you are saying in the second half of you're writings though.

---

Energy isn't made up of anything. Its a property of a system, just a way to measure things. That's like saying what is volts or inches made of.

You say that if everyone could fly, then it would defy nature. I'm saying we define our nature. Everything we know of is a possibility of thought.

Our minds don't operate on continuous things like frequency, they operate on discrete signals in our discrete neural networks. There is no collective conscious because our neural networks aren't causally linked to anybody else's neural networks.

Everything you said comes across to me as vague and meaningless...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

There is no collective conscious because our neural networks aren't causally linked to anybody else's neural networks.

---

Then how would you explain people that vibe with each other? Or people working on a project or something and come up with the same idea.

Consciousness allows us to think for ourselves. If we had no consciousness, sure we would still be here, but we'd have to live for some reason. Our creator would have given us a purpose to live.

Do you know your real purpose in life? Do you know for a fact why your even here?

A robot or A.I. would have a purpose in life. Such as to calculate such and such, or

We'd be like smart ass A.I. but we'd have to follow specific rules within our creator/programmer, etc.

Consciousness allows us to have free will and to think for our self.

Think of it this way. When you dream, you can't control what you do in your dream if your not lucid. Your just a being experiencing things. But when you become lucid/self-aware. You can think for yourself, do what you want. That's why you can't do anything logical why your in a dream state. Have you ever been in a non-lucid dream, and did some math, accurate math? See what i'm getting at?


That's why consciousness is so amazing. We have a GIFT. To be able to think for ourselves.

People that 'vibe' with each other have the same interests and outlooks... there is no 'frequency of thought'.

Free will is poorly defined, but most concepts of it do not really exist. Every choice that we make, we were always going to make; our brains are deterministic. Rewind time and we'd do the same thing. In that sense, there is no free will.

And supersmart AI is all we really are. If we made an artificial copy of a brain and uploaded it to a computer, that would effectively be the same mind. Our minds all follow specific rules, biologically ingrained. Basic ones are eating, sleeping, and finding a partner.

Yeah i had an idea that was like this as well lol itd be creepy if this were true, but amazing

HaRd_WiReD, I agree completely with your theory of everything. It has been shown that everything has a frequency based on it's mass. And basically everything that happens, has some sort of frequency to it. A horizontal line can be created by two periodic sine waves of the same frequency but with a 180 degree phase shift. Also, any signal can be broken down into a sum of sine waves, each of which oscillated at a certain frequency. Signals are sent in frequencies, which do change. Some signals are sent in impulses, which may at first seem to be lacking a frequency. However, when mathematically modeled, impulses can be dealt with by use of the heaviside function in combination with a fourrier series (an infinite sum of sine waves, which have frequencies).

It makes sense to me that our thoughts too would have some frequency to them. Our voices have a frequency of vibration to them, and if we want, we can create a voice in our head with our thoughts. Also, everything we see has a frequency to it, with different frequencies being responsible for different colors. Everything we hear is a result of vibrational frequencies in whatever medium we're immersed in. I don't know enough about biology to say much about the other 3 senses. Our thoughts are mainly duplications of some combination of our senses, only expressed internally, in our imaginations. As our senses have a frequency to them, I'd say our replications of these same senses in thought, also have a frequency. However, as all our senses originate from our sensory organs, sending electric signals to our brains. And electric signals have a frequency to them, I believe all thought has a frequency.

When you're dreaming, you're the only one who has any beliefs / expectations as to what will happen in each situation, and as a result, you decide what will happen in your dreams. I don't know about anyone else, but for me, my dreams are just as vivid, if not more so than waking life (due to the brain creating the neural signals, instead of waiting to receive them, this cuts out any delay time, as well as any imperfections in our sensory organs that could distort how we perceive information.)

So, I would say the main difference between dreams and waking life is that in waking life, it is more than just you who are conscious and imposing beliefs on things.

As belief is the determining factor as to what happens in dreams, it's not too far of a stretch to say it has at least some impact in our waking lives. Belief in yourself will allow you to overcome many obstacles in our waking lives for instance. Also, aside from the randomness of dreams, (from you alone controlling them), dreams are nearly identical to reality.

If you were to consider the billions of people on this planet, each with their own beliefs as to how things will happen, clearly everyone's beliefs cannot be satisfied as there will be conflicting beliefs. This is most easily seen with all the different religions people believe in.

So if belief still controls everything, but everyone is believing different things, I think it would be what is most strongly believed that would come to be. Although there could be a wide variety of factors to consider, such as how different the belief is, how isolated the event to take place would be, how within a range of possibilities it is, and how much focus and legitimate belief without a doubt is behind what is to happen.

All the laws of reality we have, are just models of repeated events that have been observed. They do not govern what happens, they just attempt to explain a very small piece of what happens. In many cases, certain things happen that follow very predictable patterns, and the corresponding "laws" that govern them are very accurate. For other cases, there is a lot more "randomness" (a good word to use for, "we can't fit this into a mathematical model") involved, and the "laws" that govern those situations, are not as accurate at describing what happens, as there will be some events that do not follow these laws.

What I'm trying to say, is that the universe is way too complex to ever be completely described by any set of laws we could ever come up with. The best we can do is find trends in data, and relate these trends to a given set of variables through some mathematical function.

For instance, fluids flowing through pipes follow a very predictable flow pattern based on the fluid's density, viscosity, velocity, and pipe diameter. However, when any one of these variables becomes too large, the flow becomes turbulent, and as a result, the flow becomes unpredictable, and all the laws that applied previously, no longer apply at all. (Viscosity has the inverse effect, with the flow becoming turbulent at a very low viscosity) This does not invalidate the laws which apply before the variables are outside the range that causes turbulence, it just imposes limits on when these laws can be used.

Another example could be the stresses in a solid material. In a beam, the stress follows a linear relationship between the applied force, and the shape and size of the beam. But consider this same beam but near corners and supports, and these relationships that are very accurate away from such corners and supports, become unusable, and we have to resort to a numerical guess and check type of iteration to determine anything, the results of which do not follow a pattern we can model.

To avoid some likely confusion, my definition of a law is as follows:

The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law.

On a side note, we are taught in schools to believe many of these laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Everything you said comes across to me as vague and meaningless...

---

Pretty much sums up most stuff in this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Our minds don't operate on continuous things like frequency, they operate on discrete signals in our discrete neural networks. There is no collective conscious because our neural networks aren't causally linked to anybody else's neural networks.

Everything you said comes across to me as vague and meaningless...

---

Thats the difference between you and him. He understands the possibility that science may not have a complete understanding of our consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Thats the difference between you and him. He understands the possibility that science may not have a complete understanding of our consciousness.

---

You can't know something, without knowing it.

Making shit up to fill in the gaps is the worst way to "further our knowledge"-- See religion.

So what practical applications do you think this theory has?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

You can't know something, without knowing it.

Making shit up to fill in the gaps is the worst way to "further our knowledge"-- See religion.

---

LOL at See Religion I completely agree.

and as for your theory of everything, it is pretty vague and not nearly detailed enough to hold up, but it is interesting nonetheless and borders with a lot of the same ideas that are in String Theory which I suggest you explore because I know you'd find that interesting. Yes they have proven that particles can know where another particle is I'm pretty sure. I think this has something to do with superposition, correct me if i'm wrong :P

Part of what seperates us from Strong Artificial Intelligence, aside from the theories brought forth by Igor Aleksander, is that machines operate to perform tasks which are manipulated through algorythms that are programmed into it. Consciousness should be seen as something that works off of non-algorythmic functions.

Quote:

---

Didn't science prove two particles can actually "KNOW" what the other is doing even if they are miles away?

---

No. Do you actually know anything about Quantum Mechanics? For example, can you write down Dirac's wave equations?

Also, this is not a theory, it has no practical applications, it makes no predictions, and it is not falsifiable.

String Theory –Vibrating strands?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

You can't know something, without knowing it.

Making shit up to fill in the gaps is the worst way to "further our knowledge"-- See religion.

---

Making shit up is also known as Theorizing.

Quantum mechanics as far as I'm aware did have something about two particles being affected miles and miles apart. What affected one affected the other, something like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Making shit up is also known as Theorizing.

Quantum mechanics as far as I'm aware did have something about two particles being affected miles and miles apart. What affected one affected the other, something like that.

---

No, theorizing =/= what I'm tlaking about.

Writing an unfalsifiable statement to explain something away without having to prove it is not the same as forming an idea to answer a question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

No, theorizing =/= what I'm tlaking about.

Writing an unfalsifiable statement to explain something away without having to prove it is not the same as forming an idea to answer a question.

---

The first step to finding an answer is brainstorming. I highly doubt the first statement is always correct. Statements are only unfalsifiable to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathCell

The first step to finding an answer is brainstorming. I highly doubt the first statement is always correct. Statements are only unfalsifiable to you.

---

If you understand this, I'll give you a cookie:

Quote:

---

Given: X is X, but also Z.

Statement: Z is not X, and X is not X.

Problem: Given and Statement are contradictory.

Solution: Statement is false.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

If you understand this, I'll give you a cookie:

---

I love how you post a simple problem that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You don't get a cookie, so I can't sugar-coat the answer to your problem for you.

This is your entire opening post in the form of a picture:

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/3818/lawjikzf0.jpg

Maybe you should've made this thread in the Beyond Dreaming forum. It's more fitting there. :3

When philosophizing (which may or may not be a word), it's not necessary to run experiments. From what I understood (and correct me if I'm wrong), but in the philosophy forum, ideas about things can be tossed around.

When dealing with beliefs, there usually isn't any way to disprove them, or test for their validity. For my beliefs, I always have my eyes open for different ways of seeing things, or for beliefs that seem more likely than my current ones to combine into my belief system, or to replace beliefs that no longer seem to fit.

You don't have to believe in everything, but you can believe in anything. Personally, I find beliefs to be helpful in many aspects of life. However, some are obviously just speculative or theoretical, as we will never know how the universe began, what happens after we die, or everything there is to know about consciousness, and can only say what we believe about them. Not being a robot, I enjoy the luxury of speculation and the freedom to believe what I choose (note: beliefs are not set in stone, think Santa Claus or the tooth fairy).

Quote:

---

Thats the difference between you and him. He understands the possibility that science may not have a complete understanding of our consciousness.

---

Actually my (correct) understanding is that science has yet to even define consciousness, let alone understand it. Please explain how you made the above (untrue) conclusion.

No, the difference between me and him is that I understand that it may be possible to scientifically comprehend some or all aspects of the mind, as science has been extremely successful in understanding the whole of the universe pretty well; he however makes up meaningless and hence untestable theories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

You don't get a cookie, so I can't sugar-coat the answer to your problem for you.

This is your entire opening post in the form of a picture:

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/3818/lawjikzf0.jpg

Maybe you should've made this thread in the Beyond Dreaming forum. It's more fitting there. :3

---

Like I said, pointless post.

Maybe the op wasn't trying to run an experiment? Maybe he was just spitting thoughts, ideas, and concepts.

This is the Philosophy forum, not the Scientific Experiment forum.

Empricism isn't philosophy?

Yeah nice one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Empricism isn't philosophy?

Yeah nice one.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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'.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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"

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

It all starts to make more sense now.

---

I just wanted to say that I agree with your post. And while there are a lot of people who would disagree with you, I would say, be patient

if you really believe that this is the truth, then science will eventually prove it

until then! take advantage of this knowledge! :D

Yes, but what you must understand is that the whole point of that analogy is that it represents a famous interpretation of quantum mechanics, which involves inherently random events (no imperfections or such).

It's a bit of a minority view though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

It's a bit of a minority view though.

---

How many people agree with something has no relevance to its truth. Consider the intelligence of the majority of people, and how easy it is to get people to believe just about anything. People don't like change, and I would assume many are happier to cling to old inaccurate beliefs, than to adopt new ones. If the majority of people viewed the earth to be flat, and the minority viewed it to be round, which group would you be more inclined to agree with?

Some poll questions to consider:

How many people don't believe in lucid dreams?
How many different religions have more than a 10 million believers?
How many people don't believe in evolution?
How many people have at one point been duped into believing in Santa Clause?
How many people voted for George Bush Jr. the second time?
How many people think just because something is FDA approved, that it is both safe and effective?

I could think of more, but I think you get the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmaven

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.

---

Doesn't this go against the law of conservation of energy? I've heard of that theory too, but I really fail to understand how such a thing could be physically possible? Sure, it would be cool... but seriously, doesn't this theory go against all laws of current science?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Doesn't this go against the law of conservation of energy? I've heard of that theory too, but I really fail to understand how such a thing could be physically possible? Sure, it would be cool... but seriously, doesn't this theory go against all laws of current science?

---

It does if you consider it on any reasonable size scale. But when looking at the nano-scale of things, there is a lot more randomness to events. It's that very small scale randomness that I think this theory is attempting to explain.

Quote:

---

How many people agree with something has no relevance to its truth. Consider the intelligence of the majority of people, and how easy it is to get people to believe just about anything. People don't like change, and I would assume many are happier to cling to old inaccurate beliefs, than to adopt new ones. If the majority of people viewed the earth to be flat, and the minority viewed it to be round, which group would you be more inclined to agree with?

---

We're talking about the number of experts in quantum mechanics who hold an opinion about their field.

What 'most people' think has nothing to do with it, most people don't know anything about quantum mechanics, although they may think otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

We're talking about the number of experts in quantum mechanics who hold an opinion about their field.

What 'most people' think has nothing to do with it, most people don't know anything about quantum mechanics, although they may think otherwise.

---

Even among the experts, there can be disagreements. While it is a smart idea to trust those with credentials, it is also good to consider new theories. Different theories can describe different things, quantum mechanics deals with things happening on the very very, (maybe a few more very's) small scale. However, there are other fields where quantum mechanics is largely irrelevant, such as fluid mechanics, which has its own set of experts, each with their own opinions about how their field relates to everything else. The two coexist simultaneously, despite poor correlations between them. Quantum mechanics doesn't describe everything, if it did, we wouldn't need other theories and other fields of interest.

Although, when dealing with quantum events, I would place my chips in the quantum mechanics experts' corner. However, when considering new, unproven theories about things as broad as the universe, I wouldn't restrict myself that much.

your T.O.E. is just another concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

What 'most people' think has nothing to do with it, most people don't know anything about quantum mechanics, although they may think otherwise.

---

Quantum mechanics operates unlike any other form of science, it is quite interesting and though many may not have a true grasp of how it works.. even those studying it..

It gives hope for more crazy theories, because in itself it operates quite strangely.

Strangeness is quite relative though, really.

In hindsight it seems quite naive to expect even our most fundamental ideas about reality (determinism, absolute space and time, etcetera) to apply to scales of magnitude completely outside of human experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Strangeness is quite relative though, really.

In hindsight it seems quite naive to expect even our most fundamental ideas about reality (determinism, absolute space and time, etcetera) to apply to scales of magnitude completely outside of human experience.

---

Absolutely it would almost make our little human minds explode in a sense..

I was using strange in the sense of unlike most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

People that 'vibe' with each other have the same interests and outlooks... there is no 'frequency of thought'.

Free will is poorly defined, but most concepts of it do not really exist. Every choice that we make, we were always going to make; our brains are deterministic. Rewind time and we'd do the same thing. In that sense, there is no free will.

And supersmart AI is all we really are. If we made an artificial copy of a brain and uploaded it to a computer, that would effectively be the same mind. Our minds all follow specific rules, biologically ingrained. Basic ones are eating, sleeping, and finding a partner.

---

LOL that can only come from "another brick in the wall" and a product of the ignorant square thought process. I bet you didn't even research for yourself the logic of frequencies... They don't teach you this in school because if would require some thinking outside the box, but the frequencies generated by your heart can alter a persons brain waves 12 ft away. Listening to a specific frequency for a period of time can alter your brain waves. All this has actually been recorded and graphed out. www.heartmath.org check out the research tab. I'd encourage you to open your mind to some independent learning before you become another byproduct.

Can you please give me some evidence?

It's not much to ask for. I just want to know what the experimental methods were, etcetera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Can you please give me some evidence?

It's not much to ask for. I just want to know what the experimental methods were, etcetera.

---

Yea man no prob. Check this site out. It covers a variety of results that have been gathered from universities across the country.
http://www.heartmath.org/research/sc...eractions.html

Collective Consciousness.

I have a few stories I would like to share...they are subjective so take them as you will.

1.About the beginning of my freshman year in high school (October 2006) I was driving up to a condo my parents own in Vermont for a family vacation. I used to having racing thoughts all the time and would develop new ideas all the time. I hardly ever went through with my ideas but the sole fact that I had thought of them gave me pride. So I though of a show idea about a man with split personalities. By day he was thoughtful polite father and family man and by night he was an alter ego criminal archetype. To my surprise a show came out two years later on October 13 2008 called My Own Worst Enemy. Granted the plot lines are different but they still hold similarities.

Yes I know anyone could have thought of this, I'm sure some did, and I'm sure some didn't, but I want to bring up how odd it is that two entirely different humans with two entirely different environments and upbringings can develop highly similar ideas, what triggered it? Hell if I know but I'd love to find out. They were not exact, but still similar enough for me at least. Though my story does represent two people in similar cultures, it most certainly has happened cross culturally.

2. Harmonic...how often do you use this word? Chances are it isn't a word you use daily but possibly sparingly. Well the other day in study I was talking with a friend and my girlfriend. Me and my other friend both said a word at the same time. But considering it was on a similar topic it wasn't to out of the ordinary. What happened next though was, jokingly I said wow that was so..."harmonic" at exactly the same time as my girlfriend.

Both of these stories can be misconstrued as coincidence, but is coincidence really an exact science in itself? Can you really expect a theory as variable as coincidence to be a valid answer? Maybe the real coincidence was tapping into the collective consciousness at the same time as another around me.

Think about it.

There are things called thought-forms. I've heard that when people think about something or pray, they release these into the astral realms and they have an effect of our physical world. It's some interesting stuff. (If it is believable)

Yes thoughts have some type of frequency. And I will now explain how we are all connected to each other.

Sit back and be amazed.

You have a thought and to connect to someone else, you open your mouth and speak.

Thats right folks, for the thought frequencies in your head to be transmitted to someone else you have speak to them verbally.

If it wasn't this way, we would have evolved a different way.

Humans are not telepathic

WHO SAID THAT??!?!

I think it is already proven that everything has a frequency. The interesting thing about this is imagine changing a material from one thing to another just by changing its frequency, it has great potential.

Another thing, I dont believe that everyone on the planet has to believe one thing for it to be possible, it only takes one individual, there are many cases that proves this such as levitating yogis.