Pokaż wiadomości

Ta sekcja pozwala Ci zobaczyć wszystkie wiadomości wysłane przez tego użytkownika. Zwróć uwagę, że możesz widzieć tylko wiadomości wysłane w działach do których masz aktualnie dostęp.


Wiadomości - cckeiser

Strony: 1 2 [3] 4 5
31
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Luty 22, 2005, 12:27:42 am »
http://www.mahavir.com/jainism&relativity.html

Subsequent Proof

In his book The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics, published in 1979, Gary Zukay said: "The wave-particle duality marked the end of the 'either-or' way of looking at the world. Physicists no longer could accept the preposition that light is either a particle or a wave because they had "proved" to themselves that it was both, depending on how they looked at it."

Syada-vada, and with it anekanta-vada, had held that there are several different ways of perceiving reality, each valid in its place, and none of them true absolutely. But how do we judge the validity of our perceptions, by what criteria, by what method? These are the main questions of epistemology. Since modern science has been a method of perceiving reality, even if only physical reality, it is epistemology with a certain method. Einstein had placed great emphasis upon that fact; and he was one scientist of modern times who had placed also the greatest
emphasis upon the question of method in theoretical physics. His writings in that regard are to be found in his Ideas and Opinions, published in 1954. He said: "Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is - insofar as it is thinkable at all - primitive and muddled."

Limits of Logic

Concerning the method, as physics advanced, it became clear that the theoretical element in scientific laws cannot be abstracted from empirical data, nor can it be of pure logical induction. There is no bridge between the two of a kind that one necessarily implied the other. According to Einstein, the "axiomatic basis of
theoretical physics cannot be abstracted from experience but must be freely invented"; "experience may suggest the appropriate mathematical concepts,but they most certainly cannot be deduced from it." Neither can pure logic give us knowledge of the physical world. On this point also, Einstein was unambiguous. "Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world", he says; "all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it.

Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." The passage from sense impressions to scientific theory, Einstein says, is through "intuition and sympathetic understanding."

In brief, the two revolutions of relativity theory and quantum mechanics and what followed, had rendered naive realism, pure empiricism, pure logical thinking, and materialism, when each claimed to be the only way to knowledge and its certainty,to be incompatible with scientific method. What had hitherto been assumed to be
the scientific method and, therefore, also the only true rationality, and was sought to be imposed upon the rest of the world was, in its absoluteness, discarded, And in all those movements of the New Physics, the Jaina syada-vada and anekanta-vada are clearly manifest.

32
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Luty 22, 2005, 12:26:21 am »
http://www.mahavir.com/jainism&relativity.html

ARTICLE : Jainism & relativity
Posted By Ashok V Chowgule (ashokvc@giasbm01.vsnl.net.in)
Sat, 24 May 97 16:39:57 EDT
The Jaina perspectives of syadavada hold that a proposition is true only conditionally and not absolutely. This is because it depends on the particular standpoint, naya, from which it is being made; that logically a thing can
be perceived from at least seven different standpoints, saptabhangi-naya; which lead us to the awareness of the many-sidedness of reality, or truth, anekanta-vada.

Realist Ethics

At no time were these limited to epistemological questions, of concern only to the philosophers. Since human relationships, personal or social, are determined by our perceptions of ourselves and of others, which we mostly assume also to be true absolutely, giving rise to conflicts and violence because the others believe the
same about their judgments, the very first step towards living creatively is to acknowledge the relativistic nature of our judgments, and hence their limits. While being a distinct contribution to the development of Indian logic, the Jaina syada-vada has been, most of all, a realist ethics of not-violence, ahimsa. The two are inter-related intimately.

An article, 'Syada-vada, Relativity and Complementarity' by Prof. Partha Ghose, a theoretical physicist says that P C Mahalanobis was the first to point out, in 1954, that "the Jaina Syada-vada provided the right logical framework for modern statistical theory in a qualitative form, a framework missing in classical western logic." J B S Haldane saw a wider relevance of syada-vada to modern science. And Prof. Ghose speaks of the "most striking" similarity of syada-vada to Niels Bohr's Principle of Complementarity, first noticed by D C Kothari. Furthermore,he says:
"The logic of Einstein's special theory of relativity is also very similar to syada-vada."

In Einstein's relativity theory, Prof. Ghose points out, "the conventional attributes of mass, length, energy and time lose their absolute significance"; whereas in Bohr's complementarity theory, "the conventional attributes of waves and particles lose their absolute significance." As in syadavada, what that means is that the physical value of the former is only relative to the theoretical framework in which they are being viewed, and to the position from which they are being viewed. None of them is a fixed, absolute truth about the physical universe, as was assumed in the Newtonian physics. It would soon be discovered, too, that they are relative also to the observer who observed them.

The upanishad-s and the Jaina syada-vada had argued that reality carries within itself also opposites as its inherent attributes; and, therefore, no absolute statements can be made about it. But no sooner was this said than it was shown itself to be subject to the same limitation.

In the wake of the relativity theory, which had already shattered the classical notions of physical order, de Broglie, a French prince, demonstrated, in 1924, that an electron is both a particle and a wave, whereas quantum mechanics had held the particle-wave duality. This discovery was even more upsetting, but experimentally proved.

The most upsetting was the subsequent proof, provided by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, that no events, not even atomic events, can be described with any certainty; whereas the natural sciences were rooted until then, and are so even now,in the mistaken notion that scientific rationality and its method gave us exact and
certain knowledge of the universe. Heisenberg called it the 'Principle of Uncertainty'. Its substance was not only that human knowledge is limited but also that it is uncertain. That is to say, there are aspects of reality about which nothing definite can be said - the avyaktam, or the 'indeterminate', of the Jaina syada-vada.



33
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Luty 19, 2005, 07:06:32 am »
Cytuj
Hi cckeiser, :)
I got a question, aimed at Poly-Solipsism.
Is the grade of the scale of Intellect (My Theory is: Intellect is Experiences + Knowledge  or: The Mass of Information and the Skill to use it) depending in your theory?

I mean, perhaps there is a Golem IV or so in future.
Would he have a higher range in Poly-Solipsism?

And if we say, a stone has more than nothing intellect, can he create some reality, too?
Like Golem IV perhaps can do?

I mean; If two intellects create Reality which conquers the other one, who wins?
The one with the higher Intellect?

Hope you can help me, because the message: The Reality depends from our Intellect, has throwen out many questions and it would be nice from you to take the time and clear them.

Thanks for your time. :)


Cytuj
I got a question, aimed at Poly-Solipsism.
Is the grade of the scale of Intellect (My Theory is: Intellect is Experiences + Knowledge or: The Mass of Information and the Skill to use it) depending in your theory?

I mean, perhaps there is a Golem IV or so in future.
Would he have a higher range in Poly-Solipsism?


I'm sorry SoGo, but I do not understand you question here? Can you ask it in another way?

Cytuj
And if we say, a stone has more than nothing intellect, can he create some reality, too?
Like Golem IV perhaps can do?


Does a stone have "intellect"? A stone is the product of Consciousness, so it has consciousness at its essence, but we are now talking within the illusion, and Poly-Solipsism cannot tell us what the illusion is. Poly-Solipsism only tells us How the illusion is, it cannot tells us What form the illusion will take. That depends of the choices of the entangled minds, and that changes constantly.
"There are no answers. There are only Choices."

Cytuj
I mean; If two intellects create Reality which conquers the other one, who wins?
The one with the higher Intellect?


How does it work now in everyday "reality"? The one who knows how to use the system to manipulate the minds of others. It takes more than one mind to create a shared reality, but it only takes one mind to change that reality. We do that all the time with our Theories. The more minds that accept a theory, the more "true" it will become. Then when we go looking for "proof" we find what we went looking for.

Cytuj
Hope you can help me, because the message: The Reality depends from our Intellect, has thrown out many questions and it would be nice from you to take the time and clear them.


I hope my reply as helped, but for more in-depth answers please read The Play. I am also adding a FAQ page to my web site. I have a few dozen questions and answers I am currently going through and  translating into html to put on line.
But remember I cannot answer your questions about what form our illusion will take. That is the choice you have to make, and any answer I give you about what form our illusion of reality will take, is only what I see within my own mind.
Every philosophy ever written is only a description of what that philosopher sees through the lens of their own making. They are describing their own illusion, and inviting others to join them in that illusion.

34
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Luty 19, 2005, 06:05:28 am »
Cytuj
Oh, you have touched me with the word PARANORMAL.
I use ,usually, the term  UNEXPLAINED. Talking about people I`d like to admit all we have such abilities we don`t even  suspect. They are not paranormal, they are natural.


There is no-thing supernatural or paranormal. It is all just metaphysical in search of an explanation.

35
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Luty 19, 2005, 05:59:49 am »
Cytuj

The Mind should be the Creator of Reality?
But he is the product of the Evolution which was before.
Was there no Reality before Apes become Intelligent?
Is the Evolution an Illusion without Reality?


There was Mind before there was Universe.
Consciousness is the essence of The Singularity.
There is no Reality. Reality is an Illusion. There is only Mind.


36
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Luty 16, 2005, 06:05:09 am »
Why Terminus! You are becoming quite the Philosopher! ;)

Cytuj
I'm not a fan o poly-solipsism, as I mentioned a few times before, and I am just about to have enough of it.
As far as I know you poly-solipsist claim that there is no independent reality. But how therefore can You claim that "time will run it's course [...]" ? What is time (if one agrees that it exists) if not an element, a feature of objective reality?


What is "objective reality"? We went through this a few pages back. If Reality is only what we perceive it to be, then all reality is subjective.
You didn't read The Play did you? The answers are in there.


Cytuj
I think....

I am so happy to see it! ;)

Cytuj
... that poly-solipsism is as radical as it is arrogant. It's nothing more than a subtle form of extreme anthropocentrism.


No it's not! There is nothing "subtle" about it. It is blatantly anthropocentric, except it does not state it is "Humans" but the Mind that is the creator of Reality. Homo sapiens are part of the illusion.

Cytuj
How can one claim that reality is only a construct of his/hers imagination?


I don't. It is a construct of "entangled" minds. That is the difference between Solipsism and Poly-Solipsism.
Read The Play!!

Cytuj
It is simply based on a fact that the only way humans can observe reality is through their human eyes.

That is not quite true, we observe reality through our "senses." But what are our senses, and how do they work? A few of the links I left on the previous page go into this subject in some detail. We are finding some really "spooky" things about our senses.
Check out Hypnosis to find a few other "spooky" findings about our senses.

Cytuj
It's not any more revealing that to claim that the stars are just holes in a black veil surrounding the sky - just because no one can check it out.


Quantum Physics is "checking it out"! So are the Para-psychologist who study ESP and other things we have long considered "paranormal."
I have a few links to some of them on my web site.

By the way, how's the skiing? I think I read you finally got some snow!



37
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Luty 15, 2005, 05:19:52 am »
Cytuj
No panic, we won`t discuss this point for eternity.


Yes we will! :)

We have turned Rene Descartes's simple statement "I think; therefore I am." into a 400 year discussion on just what "I am" really means, and it doesn't look like anyone will agree with anyone else anytime soon.

If the purpose of life is to create, what do you say to all those who do not create anything?
Poly-Solipsism tells us there is no single one purpose that fits everyone; we each choose our own purpose. You are given a life to live. What you do with that life is up to you. No one has the right to dictate to someone else what they must do with their life. It is your life! You choose your own purpose! It's my life, and I will choose my own purpose!

We cannot "waste" time. We can only "use" the time we have. Time will run its course no matter what use we make of ours.

38
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Luty 12, 2005, 06:46:23 am »
Cytuj
Die Zeit.
I spoke about time. I spoke about lack of it . Human`s life is too short,but even if we had an eternity we would not have used it in the proper way.


The purpose of Life is to Live it.

39
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Luty 10, 2005, 05:41:42 am »
Poly-Solipsism: The Play
is now on line.

http://userweb.nni.com/keiser/ThePlay.html

Thank you Terminus, you are validating the concept of Poly-Solipsism.
"We each believe the truth we perceive, but we only perceive the truth we believe."

May you always exist in the best of all universes.

Chuck

40
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Styczeń 13, 2005, 05:00:03 am »
A few more links to help you on your way! 'O)

The Self-Aware Universe
http://twm.co.nz/goswam1.htm#discoveries

Quantum Theory and Consciousness
http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/

Science, Matter, and Consciousness
http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/Scisprt.html

The Global Consciousness Project
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Quantum Reality
http://userweb.nni.com/keiser/QR.html

Some Personal Thoughts on Meaning, Truth and Perfection by Dr.Tim Duerden
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~duerden/meaning.htm

Here is the link to the Discovery Index of past articles.
You will have to search for Vol. 23 No. 6 (June 2002) to read "http://www.discover.com
John Wheeler's "Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking?

I AM NOT Alone!

Captain Quantum! a.k.a. Dr. Fred Alan Wolf
http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.htm

Reality, Belief and The Mind by Gene Zimmer
http://www.sntp.net/essay1_3.htm

41
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Styczeń 13, 2005, 04:31:00 am »
"Of philosophy I will say nothing, except that when I saw that it had been cultivated for many ages by the most distinguished men, and that yet there is not a single matter within its sphere which is not still in dispute, and nothing, therefore, which is above doubt, I did not presume to anticipate that my success would be greater in it than that of others; and further, when I considered the number of conflicting opinions touching a single matter that may be upheld by learned men, while there can be but one true, I reckoned as well-nigh false all that was only probable."
Rene Descartes ( Discourse on Method :1637)

The failure of Rene Descartes is in believing "...there can be but one true..."
Poly-Solipsism tells us they are all true. They are each true to the mind and universe of those who perceive and believe they are true.
Once we attempt to go beyond the Consciousness of The Singularity, everything becomes a matter of personal belief, personal perceptions; personal philosophy.
We are infinite and unbound Consciousness. After that, all else is Philosophy.

Every mind searches for its own Truth.
Once we attempt to define or describe anything beyond The Singularity, we do so through the lens of our own personal universe. We can only describe the truth that exists in our personal universe. We cannot describe the truth that may exist in any other universe.
Every Philosophy is just one persons description of their own personal universe. They are describing what they see through the hazy lens of their own creation.
We use our storehouse of accumulated knowledge to fashion the lens we are now looking through. What we see as true is only what we have created from that information.
And once our lens is fashioned, we all believe the truth we perceive, but we only perceive the truth we believe.
The lens we create filters out any truth that does not reinforce its own truth. We become blind to any truth that does not fit through our own lens.
For more information on how minds entangle to create our shared Reality Please see:
"Reality the Last Frontier."
www.newfrontier.com/asheville/reality.htm

TWM CONSCIOUSNESS AND QUANTUM REALITY  
http://twm.co.nz/herbert.htm

and also:
http://www.science-spirit.org/articles/articledetail.cfm?article_id=283

From Science to God
The EDGE Interview with Peter Russell
www.edgenews.com/issues/2002/02/russell.html


42
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Styczeń 13, 2005, 04:28:12 am »
Cytuj
Hyper:
For example, your 2nd premise "2: Every mind strives to create its own perfect universe" conflicts with "5:"Reality" is generated from the combined perceptions of all entangled minds."
You are saying, as far as the premises go, that reality cannot emerge unless we have entangled minds. That is invalid.


cck:
You are taking them out of context to find fault. Since all 5 tenets are related, to understand any one you must consider them in relation to each other.

Poly-Solipsism

1: Every mind is a universe unto itself.
2: Every mind strives to create its own perfect universe.
3: The laws of that universe are solely governed by the perception of the mind.
4:These laws can be altered if the perception is altered.
5:"Reality" is generated from the combined perceptions of all entangled minds.

Therefore when you say "... your 2nd premise "2: Every mind strives to create its own perfect universe" conflicts with "5:"Reality" is generated from the combined perceptions of all entangled minds."
You are confusing what is perceived in one person's personal universe with what we all perceive in our shared Reality.
At first glance "What is Reality" looks pretty simple. Reality is what is "Real," but philosophers always seem to have a way of turning ‘simple' into the complex, so now we must ask what is "Real?"
If we look up "Real" in the dictionary we get a string of is's that boil down to: "Real" is what we perceive to be real. So for something to be "Real," it must be perceived.
Ok, that still seems simple enough, but now we must define "Perceive"!
It is when we try to define "Perception" that things start getting complex.
Perception: Consciousness, Awareness, Insight, Intuition.
We can find definitions for these and say we know what these are, but we do not know how they work, how we got them, or where they come from.
Without knowing the answers to these questions, we cannot know what is Real, and without knowing what is Real we cannot know what "Reality" is.

Poly-Solipsism is more than "many entities of knowing."  It is more than the statement "We Exist" as a Multiplicity. It is in understanding ‘what we are' that leads to the answers to who, when, where, why and how we are Within its embrace lay the rational for our different perceptions of Realty.
It is in the realization that we are the essence of The Singularity, and that essence is pure, infinite and unbound consciousness, that we find the answer to "What is Reality."

All roads lead to The Singularity. The Singularity is the source of everything, and the source of all Truth. The Singularity is literally and figuratively  "All There Is." The Singularity is Infinite and Unbound Consciousness.
It is in comprehending this one Truth: All is Consciousness, that tells us we, and all we perceive, and all of Reality, is a manifestation of consciousness and cannot be separated from the Consciousness of The Singularity.
Once we grasp the significance that there is only The Singularity, and all else is ‘woven' from its essence, and that every "I" in the "We" of Multiplicity is the essence and consciousness of The Singularity, we can understand what "Reality" really is.
There is only The Singularity. After that, there are only Choices in perceptions. After that, Reality is what you choose to Believe it is.

Reality is not what you consciously wish to believe. Reality is what you subconsciously really believe. To change Reality, we must change what we subconsciously really believe.

Poly-Solipsism tells us all truth is "personal perceptions," and all truth is only our own personal perceptions of truth seen from our own universe.
We exist as pure infinite and unbound consciousness, after that, all else is personal perceptions and personal beliefs.

43
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Styczeń 12, 2005, 04:30:47 am »
Cytuj
Hi cckeiser!

There is just one Point, which Polysolipsism must see:
If consciousness, than every form of it.
Robots as same as humans, as same as plants.
And stones have a consciousness, too.
But that didn't mean a stone has the same intelligence
than a human. :)
It's graded on a scale.



Consciousness

Given the essence of The Singularity is Consciousness, then fundamental Consciousness is not ‘the act of thinking,' which we usually confuse with the term Consciousness, it is not Awareness itself, but the metaphysical domain supporting Awareness and transferring Thought.

Thought is not the activity or process of Thinking, but a consequence of Thinking. A Thought is a metaphysical energy wave that carries Information. Consciousness then is the metaphysical medium that contains Thought Waves, and through which the Information passes. As such Consciousness is not an active agent itself, but is the agency composed of active agents. Our Minds, as the degrees of freedom of Consciousness, would then be the active agents that generate the Thought waves through the Consciousness of The Singularity.
Without Consciousness there is no Singularity, and without our minds as the degrees of freedom of Consciousness there is no Consciousness.
But "Degrees of Freedom" imply varying degrees, or degrees of differences. In other words, each degree of freedom bestows different freedoms.
Within the degrees of freedom would then lie different levels of Consciousness.
Knowing is the ability to store thought waves in memory.
Thinking is the ability of Knowing to connect thought waves together, with the ability to generate a thought wave,.
Awareness combines Knowing and Thinking with the ability to distinguish Self.
Intelligence combines Knowing, Thinking and  Awareness and recognize its own process of Knowing and Thinking.
Comprehension is the next level of Intelligence with the ability to process Information and recognize associations and the significance of those associations.
Creativity is the ability to manipulate Comprehension to produce new Information and create new associations.
As the Consciousness of The Singularity continues to evolve we combine the previous levels of Consciousness to acquire the next.
Which would then mean a continual evolution of Consciousness beyond Creativity. But of course, since we have not evolved to that state yet, we cannot know what that next level is.
What could we add to the Creative mind to evolve it to the next level of Consciousness?
Perhaps it is Conscience? We can add a caring soul to the Creative Mind!


Within Universe then, since Fundamental Consciousness is at the heart of all things, all things are Fundamentally Conscious, and therefore all things can carry a thought wave.
Just as a copper wire can carry a current without generating the current itself, all ‘things'; inanimate Stuff, can carry a thought wave without generating the thought wave or ‘knowing' were the wave came from. Thought waves simply pass through them. They absorb and emit photons which carry the information of Thought waves.

C.C.Keiser
12/23/04

44
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Styczeń 10, 2005, 03:28:51 am »
Cytuj

To cckeiser, in Relation to the singularity.
If there is something more than nothing, it's Karma for
my Person.
Or Singularity, if you name it so


Hi SoGo!  :)

A reply a few days ago from another discussion board on the same subject!

...In order for there to be a true Nothingness there can be no Thought, or Consciousness to carry that thought, and if there is no Consciousness, there is no Singularity.


"That's just the thing, there was nothing until it recognized itself and grew defining itself"

I liked that!  :)

45
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Styczeń 10, 2005, 03:15:44 am »
Cytuj
hi CC, i followed the article's link that you posted. I did not find the word "solipsistic" or "solipsism" even once in the whole article.

Now I'm sure there are correlations between the article you posted and the answers you think might help me, but finding those correlations on my own is not an efficient way for me to spend my time.

And I'd love to participate in whatever experiment you have going on    :)


No, they do not call it solipsism, but the rationale for both are the same. I just take it to the next level.

I just got in from work. I had to work this weekend AGAIN, so had little time for the Internet once again. And I still need to copy-edit Chapter 4! My coauthor is patiently waiting my first edits, so I will need to be brief right now.

Here is the experiment I would like you and Terminus; and anyone else who would like to join in, to give a try.

I would like you to read both Poly-Solipsism and The Singularity, 6 times over the next 7 days, but not more than twice on any single day.
www.poly-solipsism.com

I know they are just a bit wordy, but it should not take that much time for each read. You do not need to go to my web site if you do not wish to; just copy and paste the text into a file and save it if you wish.
Of course, as you can guess, I cannot tell you why until you are all finished with the experiment.

In the mean time I will try and catch up on my promises to both you and my coauthor.

By the way, I just received an e-mail from another author who loves my Poly-Solipsism!
A quote from his e-mail!
"I'm reading carefully your texts and up to now I didn't find anything to disagree with you. "

There's much more, but I think that will do for now!

Strony: 1 2 [3] 4 5