I think it’s a weak cop out to just dismiss counter arguments as “naïve”, as if only I had as much wisdom as you then I’d agree with you.
I think calling somebody naïve for remembering how daily life was far LESS shaped by remote world events for all of human history pre-digital age & pre-TV is also stupid.
I think it’s a weak cop out to just dismiss counter arguments as “naïve”, as if only I had as much wisdom as you then I’d agree with you.
I think calling somebody naïve for remembering how daily life was far LESS shaped by remote world events for all of human history pre-digital age & pre-TV is also stupid.
I think calling people ignorant is a way to justify your own obsession and addiction to up-to-the-minute global news updates for things that don’t actually matter or affect you other than how you’re being told they should affect you. I recommend getting a real hobby like writing poetry or woodworking.
You make many good points with which I fully agree. What strikes me as *naive, is that, as much as we ALL might like to, there is NO going back to the way the world was *prior to "XYZ". The *world is *not going to reverse into a previous time to please the inhabitants of the planet. Just not the way things physically work.
The human is obliged either to adapt or die. Harsh, but Darwin was not attempting to coddle emotions, he was simply spelling out the "mechanisms" regarding the way a species either continues, or does not.
FYI, all of your protesting about being called "stupid" "ignorant" etc. is clearly a matter of your own projection. I *used the word "ignorance", but it was not directed at you. If you chose to read it that way, that is your own reading bias.
The use of the word "naive" (which, BTW, does *not mean "stupid") is one that I will stand by. Closing our eyes "real tight" never has been a way to change the world.
And thank you for your concern, I have been writing poetry for decades now. Hasn't changed the Laws of Physics one scintilla.
@Atma (btw, I think it is a good idea to put the @ so and so at the beginning of a comment - I think, in addition, it would be good to give each comment a # so that we could say @so and so #)
Anyway " ...there is NO going back to the way the world was *prior to "XYZ". The *world is *not going to reverse into a previous time to please the inhabitants of the planet. Just not the way things physically work. ..."
Not so sure that i agree - perhaps it's true in a point by point, second by second, sense, but, as they say, though history doesn't repeat itself, it rhymes, something i suspect a poet like yourself would appreciate :) As for "time" - considering that, like so many other things, it appears to be a "social construct", and that the past, present and future contain each other - that it is not "linear" (I think NA consider the circle, to be the appropriate metaphor, where the perimeter is everywhere and the center is nowhere - did i get that right?) but circular or cyclical - As to the way things "physically work" I think that quantum mechanics is throwing a monkey wrench into the current conception of how they do ...
I suspect that the world has gone back to the way it was a number of times, and will continue to do so - forever and ever, alleluiah, alleluiah, Amen! - until our sun goes all ka blooey in a few billion years - and even then there will be other worlds ....
I *totally agree with your illustration of the fact that "Time Is an Illusion". In the same way I agree with both the Ancient and Modern Mystics in their view that "All Is Illusion". But, as human beings, what we *also discover is that the "Illusion" is relative. All of the 3-D world is made up of atoms. Atoms are basically made up of energy, and empty space. Easy to comprehend, easy to offer proofs. However, just see how *relative that 'Illusion' will get when you find yourself trying to occupy the *same 3-D Space with an 18-Wheel *Kenworth bearing down on you @ 75 m.p.h. It, and your 3-D body are *still "illusions", but those illusions are *definitely relative.
Likewise, the illusory nature of Time. Not only the Ancient and Modern Mystics, but also Einstein, taught us that. Einstein even *proved that to the world in 1915 with his proof of General Relativity, and the proof of his E=mc2.
I am also comfortable that Souls come to the earth repeatedly (reincarnation) *for the purpose of gaining Soul Lessons. However, if large energy patterns such as the history that can be known in 3-D ever *does repeat itself, it will NOT be in the same cycle that is within living memory of the people imprinted with THIS 3-D energy cycle.
We have been Homo Sapiens for about 200,000 years.
In our *known history, the same day has never repeated twice. Many of them *seem boringly similar, but they are not the same. So, for all intents and purposes, for our fellow Souls inhabiting *these 3-D bodies, in *this Soul Cycle, it is much easier just to point out that they will not see the SAME combination of events that make up *these sets of lessons, Twice. Energy, yes. We actually experience the same *energy of any given day, for one day every 52 years. But not the same *events in the same lifetime, or within the same known histories. Not the way the "clock" works. ;-D
Don't think I said that time was an "illusion", but a "social construct" - an invention, if you will, not, per se, an inherent quality of the universe - or, if so, a maleable one .... and not an "arrow" -
As for the "same combination of events" I thought i made that clear that I wasn't suggesting that was possible - but why is it then true that those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them - what is it about "history" that repeats itself - that are, one might argue, "timeless" ....
I would suggest that "the same combination of events" does repeat - but the names, dates, and locales are changed to, as they say, protect the innocent, or perhaps the guilty .... Have you never repeated an act - "repeat" meaning you have done it before?
I think the "clock" may be a good analogy :) it is circular and the "hands" travel round and round ....
As for 2 physical objects occupying the same place at the same time - insofar as each has mass - I suppose that may be impossible - but let me ask you, as a devotee of ancient and modern mystics - do you think that shamans' claims of being able to be in 2 places at the same time is credible in light of what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance"?
In the world of solid physics, an illusion, and a social construct, are often considered to be the same.
And, I agree that, "those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it", but also with the qualifiers that you mention above. Different people, (perhaps), and different time, place etc. Yes.
As for two physical objects occupying the same place, there are examples in solid and quantum physics of this happening. More often in quantum physics than "solid" physics, but, technically speaking, X-rays, radio waves, etc. can be said to exist in the same space with the human body as they are passing thru.
And, yes, Einstein's comment re: "spooky action at a distance" resulted from discussions with his friend, Niels Bohr, the Father of Quantum Physics, over early experiments with Quanta, especially quantum "entanglement" which was the matter of being in two places at the same time. We are now using the concept of quantum entanglement as the basis of our attempts to develop quantum computers.
And, yes, I do agree with the ancient shamans, but that would be a matter for a longer discussion.
Perhaps the world of solid physics IS the ultimate illusion :D but it does have some practical implications (truck v person :))
As for what "passes through the human body" is there anything, besides perhaps "neutrinos", that "pass through" without interacting in some manner with that body
Quantum computers - hmm, considering that we really have no idea how the brain works - is it possible that the brain is, after a fashion, a "quantum computer" par excellence, though housed in a carbon based life form (which i am partial to) rather than a silicon one - granted that the silicon ones may be able to "compute" ever so much faster - but, like size, speed isn't everything :D
I happen to "believe" that all things are connected - Also think that with "quantum entanglement" in mind - the search for a Holy Grail of a GUT by modern science seems to be the insistence on trying to put into mathematical formula or "theory" what those ancient mystics and shamans have know for ages - "The Wisdom of the Elders" - and what we call "The Enlightenment" was a bit of a misnomer :)
Everything old is new again, or, as Elliot said, "We shall not cease from exploration. And the end of all our exploring. Will be to arrive where we started. And know the place for the first time.". ―
That is precisely what silicon computers are. FAST. As to what they "know", however, right now they are no "smarter" than a light switch at their "gut" level. ;-D "On" or "Off". Ones or zeros. It is just that they calculate those ones and zeros so *fast that even standard computers can create the illusion that they "know" something when clearly they do not.
Artificial Intelligence is chiefly computers responding to one, or many, algorithms.
But the algorithms are also subject to the code writer's "code": 'garbage in, garbage out.' That is why Elon Musk's Autonomic Driving Systems right now seem to be "programmed" to collide with *any solid surface they see. Elon just recently "fired" his present autonomic driving system. We will have to see what he develops next. I think the entire idea of autonomic driving systems *suck right now, anyway. They are going to be *way too easy to "confuse" for a long time to come.
Quantum computers, if we can get them to work, will totally eliminate hacking. It will make it impossible. Quantum law says that, if two quantum energies are "entangled", distance makes no difference in both energy elements instantly "knowing" the state of its "entangled" mate.
Literally one side of the entanglement could be on the *moon, and the other in San Diego, and if anyone were to "agitate" the element in San Diego, the element on the Moon would *instantly know, and could be programmed to report the "invasion" back in San Diego, and to lock that "twin" element down. "Spooky action at a distance", indeed ! ;-D Quantum computers are still in the *way early developmental stage.
As to the neutrino question, I would take the stance that, at least energetically, it *does "register" with the body, on what could be called a "Quantum DNA" level, but, of course, the body has been used to that since our time in utero, so it clearly does not register at a "conscious" level. It would not need to. There is nothing there that the conscious mind needs to attend to, anyway. I mean, our conscious mind does not even inform us of many early onsets of cancer. It is not *as amazing as it may become in the future.
To your point about "old" being "new", never more appropriate than now. Science, especially Quantum Physics, is now "Dovetailing" with what the Mystics have been telling us for at least three thousand years. Yes. Now we will be allowed to prove as much of that as we can "cram" into our rather limited 3-D Brains, and gain our own "proof". The ultimate "proof" of any Mystical Experience, of course, is just *having a few of them.
I join you in the perception that everything is connected, and the Elliot quote is delightful ! Thanks !
I think it’s a weak cop out to just dismiss counter arguments as “naïve”, as if only I had as much wisdom as you then I’d agree with you.
I think calling somebody naïve for remembering how daily life was far LESS shaped by remote world events for all of human history pre-digital age & pre-TV is also stupid.
I think calling people ignorant is a way to justify your own obsession and addiction to up-to-the-minute global news updates for things that don’t actually matter or affect you other than how you’re being told they should affect you. I recommend getting a real hobby like writing poetry or woodworking.
@Matthew
You make many good points with which I fully agree. What strikes me as *naive, is that, as much as we ALL might like to, there is NO going back to the way the world was *prior to "XYZ". The *world is *not going to reverse into a previous time to please the inhabitants of the planet. Just not the way things physically work.
The human is obliged either to adapt or die. Harsh, but Darwin was not attempting to coddle emotions, he was simply spelling out the "mechanisms" regarding the way a species either continues, or does not.
FYI, all of your protesting about being called "stupid" "ignorant" etc. is clearly a matter of your own projection. I *used the word "ignorance", but it was not directed at you. If you chose to read it that way, that is your own reading bias.
The use of the word "naive" (which, BTW, does *not mean "stupid") is one that I will stand by. Closing our eyes "real tight" never has been a way to change the world.
And thank you for your concern, I have been writing poetry for decades now. Hasn't changed the Laws of Physics one scintilla.
@Atma (btw, I think it is a good idea to put the @ so and so at the beginning of a comment - I think, in addition, it would be good to give each comment a # so that we could say @so and so #)
Anyway " ...there is NO going back to the way the world was *prior to "XYZ". The *world is *not going to reverse into a previous time to please the inhabitants of the planet. Just not the way things physically work. ..."
Not so sure that i agree - perhaps it's true in a point by point, second by second, sense, but, as they say, though history doesn't repeat itself, it rhymes, something i suspect a poet like yourself would appreciate :) As for "time" - considering that, like so many other things, it appears to be a "social construct", and that the past, present and future contain each other - that it is not "linear" (I think NA consider the circle, to be the appropriate metaphor, where the perimeter is everywhere and the center is nowhere - did i get that right?) but circular or cyclical - As to the way things "physically work" I think that quantum mechanics is throwing a monkey wrench into the current conception of how they do ...
I suspect that the world has gone back to the way it was a number of times, and will continue to do so - forever and ever, alleluiah, alleluiah, Amen! - until our sun goes all ka blooey in a few billion years - and even then there will be other worlds ....
@SH
I *totally agree with your illustration of the fact that "Time Is an Illusion". In the same way I agree with both the Ancient and Modern Mystics in their view that "All Is Illusion". But, as human beings, what we *also discover is that the "Illusion" is relative. All of the 3-D world is made up of atoms. Atoms are basically made up of energy, and empty space. Easy to comprehend, easy to offer proofs. However, just see how *relative that 'Illusion' will get when you find yourself trying to occupy the *same 3-D Space with an 18-Wheel *Kenworth bearing down on you @ 75 m.p.h. It, and your 3-D body are *still "illusions", but those illusions are *definitely relative.
Likewise, the illusory nature of Time. Not only the Ancient and Modern Mystics, but also Einstein, taught us that. Einstein even *proved that to the world in 1915 with his proof of General Relativity, and the proof of his E=mc2.
I am also comfortable that Souls come to the earth repeatedly (reincarnation) *for the purpose of gaining Soul Lessons. However, if large energy patterns such as the history that can be known in 3-D ever *does repeat itself, it will NOT be in the same cycle that is within living memory of the people imprinted with THIS 3-D energy cycle.
We have been Homo Sapiens for about 200,000 years.
In our *known history, the same day has never repeated twice. Many of them *seem boringly similar, but they are not the same. So, for all intents and purposes, for our fellow Souls inhabiting *these 3-D bodies, in *this Soul Cycle, it is much easier just to point out that they will not see the SAME combination of events that make up *these sets of lessons, Twice. Energy, yes. We actually experience the same *energy of any given day, for one day every 52 years. But not the same *events in the same lifetime, or within the same known histories. Not the way the "clock" works. ;-D
Don't think I said that time was an "illusion", but a "social construct" - an invention, if you will, not, per se, an inherent quality of the universe - or, if so, a maleable one .... and not an "arrow" -
As for the "same combination of events" I thought i made that clear that I wasn't suggesting that was possible - but why is it then true that those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them - what is it about "history" that repeats itself - that are, one might argue, "timeless" ....
I would suggest that "the same combination of events" does repeat - but the names, dates, and locales are changed to, as they say, protect the innocent, or perhaps the guilty .... Have you never repeated an act - "repeat" meaning you have done it before?
I think the "clock" may be a good analogy :) it is circular and the "hands" travel round and round ....
As for 2 physical objects occupying the same place at the same time - insofar as each has mass - I suppose that may be impossible - but let me ask you, as a devotee of ancient and modern mystics - do you think that shamans' claims of being able to be in 2 places at the same time is credible in light of what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance"?
@SH
In the world of solid physics, an illusion, and a social construct, are often considered to be the same.
And, I agree that, "those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it", but also with the qualifiers that you mention above. Different people, (perhaps), and different time, place etc. Yes.
As for two physical objects occupying the same place, there are examples in solid and quantum physics of this happening. More often in quantum physics than "solid" physics, but, technically speaking, X-rays, radio waves, etc. can be said to exist in the same space with the human body as they are passing thru.
And, yes, Einstein's comment re: "spooky action at a distance" resulted from discussions with his friend, Niels Bohr, the Father of Quantum Physics, over early experiments with Quanta, especially quantum "entanglement" which was the matter of being in two places at the same time. We are now using the concept of quantum entanglement as the basis of our attempts to develop quantum computers.
And, yes, I do agree with the ancient shamans, but that would be a matter for a longer discussion.
Perhaps the world of solid physics IS the ultimate illusion :D but it does have some practical implications (truck v person :))
As for what "passes through the human body" is there anything, besides perhaps "neutrinos", that "pass through" without interacting in some manner with that body
Quantum computers - hmm, considering that we really have no idea how the brain works - is it possible that the brain is, after a fashion, a "quantum computer" par excellence, though housed in a carbon based life form (which i am partial to) rather than a silicon one - granted that the silicon ones may be able to "compute" ever so much faster - but, like size, speed isn't everything :D
I happen to "believe" that all things are connected - Also think that with "quantum entanglement" in mind - the search for a Holy Grail of a GUT by modern science seems to be the insistence on trying to put into mathematical formula or "theory" what those ancient mystics and shamans have know for ages - "The Wisdom of the Elders" - and what we call "The Enlightenment" was a bit of a misnomer :)
Everything old is new again, or, as Elliot said, "We shall not cease from exploration. And the end of all our exploring. Will be to arrive where we started. And know the place for the first time.". ―
@SH
That is precisely what silicon computers are. FAST. As to what they "know", however, right now they are no "smarter" than a light switch at their "gut" level. ;-D "On" or "Off". Ones or zeros. It is just that they calculate those ones and zeros so *fast that even standard computers can create the illusion that they "know" something when clearly they do not.
Artificial Intelligence is chiefly computers responding to one, or many, algorithms.
But the algorithms are also subject to the code writer's "code": 'garbage in, garbage out.' That is why Elon Musk's Autonomic Driving Systems right now seem to be "programmed" to collide with *any solid surface they see. Elon just recently "fired" his present autonomic driving system. We will have to see what he develops next. I think the entire idea of autonomic driving systems *suck right now, anyway. They are going to be *way too easy to "confuse" for a long time to come.
Quantum computers, if we can get them to work, will totally eliminate hacking. It will make it impossible. Quantum law says that, if two quantum energies are "entangled", distance makes no difference in both energy elements instantly "knowing" the state of its "entangled" mate.
Literally one side of the entanglement could be on the *moon, and the other in San Diego, and if anyone were to "agitate" the element in San Diego, the element on the Moon would *instantly know, and could be programmed to report the "invasion" back in San Diego, and to lock that "twin" element down. "Spooky action at a distance", indeed ! ;-D Quantum computers are still in the *way early developmental stage.
As to the neutrino question, I would take the stance that, at least energetically, it *does "register" with the body, on what could be called a "Quantum DNA" level, but, of course, the body has been used to that since our time in utero, so it clearly does not register at a "conscious" level. It would not need to. There is nothing there that the conscious mind needs to attend to, anyway. I mean, our conscious mind does not even inform us of many early onsets of cancer. It is not *as amazing as it may become in the future.
To your point about "old" being "new", never more appropriate than now. Science, especially Quantum Physics, is now "Dovetailing" with what the Mystics have been telling us for at least three thousand years. Yes. Now we will be allowed to prove as much of that as we can "cram" into our rather limited 3-D Brains, and gain our own "proof". The ultimate "proof" of any Mystical Experience, of course, is just *having a few of them.
I join you in the perception that everything is connected, and the Elliot quote is delightful ! Thanks !