Thread: Consensus Reality

Originally Posted by really

Whatever happens, it occurs now. When you refer something that "happened" even that occurs in the only reference point: now. Even now is a reference point, so really there is only timelessness. The past, present and future are projections of perception.

Time exists while it has pragmatic use but it is ultimately an arbitrary description of events.

Then why did you say I hadn't answered your question even though it's right here? Yes, I understand what you mean, but I don't think the issue your raise is valid. There's my answer to your question, but you said I hadn't answered it. Why did you say that?

Originally Posted by really

Don't be redundant. Relative to your interpretation.

Redundant? What does it mean for me to know what you mean relative to my interpretation? What is that? Is it possible for me to know that my interpretation that I still have is wrong and that some other interpretation is correct although I hold on to the other interpretation? If I did that, how exactly would the idea I know is wrong still be my interpretation? Once I know an interpretation is wrong, it is no longer my interpretation. Right?

Originally Posted by really

Particles?

The pieces that exploded outward in the big bang. Quark-gluons and other elementary particles.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then why did you say I hadn't answered your question even though it's right here? Yes, I understand what you mean, but I don't think the issue your raise is valid. There's my answer to your question, but you said I hadn't answered it. Why did you say that?

You haven't actually answered the question. Also I don't know why you disagree (that's not much of an answer).

Redundant? What does it mean for me to know what you mean relative to my interpretation? What is that? Is it possible for me to know that my interpretation that I still have is wrong and that some other interpretation is correct although I hold on to the other interpretation? If I did that, how exactly would the idea I know is wrong still be my interpretation? Once I know an interpretation is wrong, it is no longer my interpretation. Right?

To be more clear on what you're saying you should actually elaborate in more detail on what your interpretation actually is. Besides that, it appears you're missing the point and playing semantics games again.

The pieces that exploded outward in the big bang. Quark-gluons and other elementary particles.

What are you talking about now? The chemistry/physics of the big-bang? That's not what I was referring to. I was talking about the view of time and space according to an observer.

Originally Posted by really

You haven't actually answered the question. Also I don't know why you disagree (that's not much of an answer).

The question is nonsensical, as I have illustrated. I haven't answered it relative to what?

Originally Posted by really

To be more clear on what you're saying you should actually elaborate in more detail on what your interpretation actually is. Besides that, it appears you're missing the point and playing semantics games again.

My interpretation? You asked a question that doesn't make sense. Then you asked if I know what you mean, and I illustrated the nonsensical nature of your question by asking if I know what you mean relative to what. You said my interpretation, and I illustrated the absurdity of that concept. Then you copped out by saying I am playing semantic games instead of countering my point. That is where we are now.

Originally Posted by really

What are you talking about now? The chemistry/physics of the big-bang? That's not what I was referring to. I was talking about the view of time and space according to an observer.

And I am saying that there wasn't and didn't have to be an observer. I am also saying the big bang didn't have to happen relative to anything else. The particles involved in it acted relative to each other.

Are we going to need to do another recap?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cusp
There is no such thing as absolute truth.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Is that absolutely true?

Isn't that a clever play on words. But the archetypal waveforms I was referring to can not be completely defined. Trying to debate the matter is arguing in circles, and that's not something I wish to participate in.

There is no such thing as consensus reality.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are we going to need to do another recap?

To make sense of it, yes. You have yet to actually explain why you disagree and make a readable post, like the rest of us. Otherwise you just ask a pile of seemingly rhetorical questions where I can't even tell if you are being sarcastic or not. Also let's try not to go back to one-liner explanations either, shall we? Let's go back to #94

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Isn't that a clever play on words. But the archetypal waveforms I was referring to can not be completely defined. Trying to debate the matter is arguing in circles, and that's not something I wish to participate in.

So why bring it up? An Absolute must exist before there can be any relative differentiation. All that is being described or argued about exists within an objective paradigm where there is limited concepts and ideas that separate this from that. An Absolute would unify and contextualize this.

Originally Posted by really

To make sense of it, yes. You have yet to actually explain why you disagree and make a readable post, like the rest of us. Otherwise you just ask a pile of seemingly rhetorical questions where I can't even tell if you are being sarcastic or not. Also let's try not to go back to one-liner explanations either, shall we? Let's go back to #94

They are called stump questions and stump arguments, and you keep dodging them... because you are stumped.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They are called stump questions and stump arguments, and you keep dodging them... because you are stumped.

You really only speak for yourself here.

Are we trying to come to a consensus on the nature of reality? Are we trying to create a consensus reality? Give it up. Because, this:

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

There is no such thing as consensus reality.

Originally Posted by really

You really only speak for yourself here.

You two are speaking different languages here. That is why each of you is projecting on to the other. You two don't understand each other. You need to understand each other before you either agree or disagree.

If I may try to paraphrase each other's position in a way that can help understanding, I would say that REALLY is saying that all things begin and end in eternity and eternity is only now, not in the past or future. This is a mystical viewpoint where one's relationship to time is a vertical one where time is horizontal. It could be thought of as time is the rim of a wheel, not linear. The eternity is not on the rim, however, but in the hub. From the hub, there are spokes going to all points on the rim. So each present moment in time we are on the point where a spoke (eternity) meets the rim. This is the wheel of time.

UM is thinking of time as linear, and that the present moment is between the past and the future, and that time flows from future to the past and the present moment keeps moving into the future turning it into the past. And eternity is infinite past and future.

Is this true? Am I understanding your viewpoints?

I studies a little of hypnotherapy and neurolinguistic programming. It should come as no surprise that there are different ways people look at time. Some people visualize time as a line going from left to right in front of them at about belly button level. Others visualize time as as line from behind them stretching out in front of them. These are just a few ways of looking at time, but they affect how one perceives the world and how effective or happy one is in relationship to time. People who view time going from left to right in front of them are very good at planning, as they can see the past, present, and future right in front of them. They are usually very successful at their jobs. But they are always scheduling and planning and worrying about the future. They are never in the moment. They are never here/now.

People who see time as stretching out in front of them and the past behind them, are usually very carefree and happy people, but can't quite plan things that well. They are very here and now. They are very spontaneous. But they usually are not as effective in society. So being flexible in how one sees things conceptually one can be the most effective and happy. And we can understand each other by being a little flexible and seeing that the way we choose to see reality is through a conceptual filter that isn't the absolute truth.

Through NLP and/or meditation we can change how we conceptualize reality in order to be more successful, happy, and wise. Which ways do you view time? How do you symbolize time to yourself? How do you conceptualize time?

Keep in mind that Reality is not a concept.

That is part of our disagreement, but other matters are involved. Even if it can be successfully argued that the entire scheme of time is one coherent whole existing in eternity and not linear, there is the issue of who observed the big bang, the formation of Earth, and the earliest stages of evolution. No matter how time can be classified, those events did not have observers. Also, Really started asking about how things happen relative to other things, which I still don't see the sense in. He asked what the big bang happened relative to. I have been illustrating the nonsensical nature of that issue.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is part of our disagreement, but other matters are involved. Even if it can be successfully argued that the entire scheme of time is one coherent whole existing in eternity and not linear, there is the issue of who observed the big bang, the formation of Earth, and the earliest stages of evolution. No matter how time can be classified, those events did not have observers. Also, Really started asking about how things happen relative to other things, which I still don't see the sense in. He asked what the big bang happened relative to. I have been illustrating the nonsensical nature of that issue.

You are observing those events now, which is the only time they or anything can be observed.

On a slight tangent, I was just rereading this old thread, http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=53459 where you kind of sort of agreed with me, UM, on essentially the same matter we're discussing now (though with less talk of temporality).

Originally Posted by Taosaur

You are observing those events now, which is the only time they or anything can be observed.

No, I am analyzing those events now. Knowledge and understanding are not the same as observation. Also, humanity collectively doesn't know the full details of what happened in those events, not even a trillionth of a percentage of the full details, yet the events led/lead to where we are now. Did the events we don't specifically know about happen?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

On a slight tangent, I was just rereading this old thread, http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=53459 where you kind of sort of agreed with me, UM, on essentially the same matter we're discussing now (though with less talk of temporality).

I said I used to believe it. I don't now and didn't two years ago. I also said your idea is interesting, which it is. What I was expressing was an understanding of where you were coming from and a reason for not telling you about it at first, but I was not expressing actual agreement.

I know you dislike quantum mechanic, UM, but there is a famous thought experiment that was later verified that proves the point here.

It is called "Wheeler's delayed choice experiment".

In the double slit procedure, one can set up a monitoring device at the slits that 'sees' which slit the particle goes through. Making this observation collapses the waveform and no wave pattern is created on the back wall. If the device in on but isn't recording anything which makes observation impossible, a wavepattern is created again. This shows that it is not the device effecting the outcome but the observation. Wheeler postulated that if one could set up a situation in which it is possible to delay the moment of observation, as in choose to either read the data recorded by the measuring device or not and just look at the plate at some later time, the outcome remains undecided until that moment of observation.

He even went as far to say that if one were to use the light coming from a distant star that past close enough to another star that it was bent around it (like this), one could "choose" to look millions of years after the light actually past the star and yet their observation would still affect whether the light was observed to pass on one or the other side of the star.

You should look it up, and like I said; this phenomenon was verified experimentally. What it means is that even though our view of time leads us to believe that the light past on one or the other side millions of years ago, it is really the observation in the present that decides the outcome of the experiment. Even though it appears as though the event happened in the past, things only really 'happen' in the present moment.

So there is a way to observe a star to make it where it went one way around a star as opposed the other way? Can I go outside right now and observe it in such a way that it went around the other side? How did Wheeler prove that the observation determines what happened millions of years ago? I want to look up his full explanation some time. Can I do something like that to the Sun and make where humans never existed? Or is it just the first observation that counts while the rest don't?

I want to get my hands on the drugs that guy was doing.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So there is a way to observe a star to make it where it went one way around a star as opposed the other way? Can I go outside right now and observe it in such a way that it went around the other side? How did Wheeler prove that the observation determines what happened millions of years ago? I want to look up his full explanation some time. Can I do something like that to the Sun and make where humans never existed? Or is it just the first observation that counts while the rest don't?

I want to get my hands on the drugs that guy was doing.

Yeah, my explanation assumes that you will do some further reading; its clear from your interpretation that my explanation alone is not adequate in order to understand the concept. It would probably help if you saw a diagram of the apparatus that is suggested in order to test the proposition.

Here is the Wiki on the delayed choice experiment

Here is a page that explains the situation with a distant star pretty well

Here is the abstract for an article about the experimental verification of the phenomenon

Didn't you say that the observation determined how things happened millions of years earlier?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Didn't you say that the observation determined how things happened millions of years earlier?

Ahh, this is the real foundation of the disagreement I believe. The observation determines what happens. It only appears as though it happened millions of years earlier, when in reality something only happens in the present moment; at the time of observation. What it proves is that you can't even talk about what happened 'in the past' scientifically, since the actual happening only exists at the moment of observation which can only exist in the present.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Ahh, this is the real foundation of the disagreement I believe. The observation determines what happens. It only appears as though it happened millions of years earlier, when in reality something only happens in the present moment; at the time of observation. What it proves is that you can't even talk about what happened 'in the past' scientifically, since the actual happening only exists at the moment of observation which can only exist in the present.

Scientists agree that the star just passed the other one? They say that even though you are seeing the light of it from millions of light years away? If you asked a room full of prominent astronomers when a star that Bob discovered passed another one, they would say, "When Bob discovered the star."? What would they say about the fact that Bob saw the light of something millions of light years away?

The star just passed the who? The star isn't passing anything. The light from the star is being bent by a gravity well (a galaxy or black hole, or a very close star like the sun) so that photons coming from that star can either pass around the left or the right and still be observed at the earth. You can't observe the star as it was in the past, you can only observe photons from the star as they reach you in the present. How you choose to observe those photons is what dictates whether they came around one side of the gravity well or the other, or if they came around both sides. This is true even when looking at a single photon at a time.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

He even went as far to say that if one were to use the light coming from a distant star that past close enough to another star

Modifier ambiguity.

As for Wheeler's claim...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Modifier ambiguity.

As for Wheeler's claim...

hard to keep it all straight when we're talking about something that supposedly passed in the past.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

hard to keep it all straight when we're talking about something that supposedly passed in the past.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYpp...eature=related