Quantum fields and consciousness (split from Nothing and The Creation)

[Gees]

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

As you've completely missed my point, yet again, let me spell it out in crayons, I'm trying to teach you the value of humility in the process of understanding; there's a difference between a great rider and a lucky one... 😉

Are you sure you are not projecting? What was it that was so horrible that you needed to learn humility? I only ask because you have mentioned it twice now, and it appears you want to discuss it.

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

When you demonstrate your ignorance in replying to this, I'll be a sad teacher... 😪

I apologize as I did not mean harm; although, I don't see why you should be devalued because of my actions/thoughts.

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And Zeno used math to prove we can't move... 

I looked up Zeno. He was a smart guy, but was overly fond of paradoxes and thought experiments. I like thought experiments, but when they lead to paradoxes, I doubt them. I don't like paradoxes as they seem to be an indication of something missing or misunderstood in the thought experiment. I found the following explanation in Google:

Quote

Zeno constructed them to answer those who thought that Parmenides's idea that "all is one and unchanging" was absurd. Three of Zeno's paradoxes are the most famous: two are presented below. They all deal with problems of the apparently continuous nature of space and time.

So these guys were arguing about the foundations of reality. Is it all one thing? Does it change? Is it continuous? What about space and time? Lots of questions and many of them contradicting others. I have thought of these concepts just as many others have.

My thoughts are simple. Balance is evident in each and every aspect of reality from our bodies, to ecosystems, and from atoms to solar systems. Balance is real, so what does balance require? Well it requires more than one thing in order to have something to balance with and it requires a wholeness that the balance takes place within. Like a child's teeter totter, it needs two ends that move up and down, but also a connection that it balances from.

What can explain all of these concepts? Water. Earlier I stated that I saw motion as the foundation of reality, but what I was talking about was the motion that is obvious in the properties of water. Think of an ocean. It is one thing, but is also constantly in motion and constantly changing. Waves keep it in motion, and the water evaporates, becomes clouds and rain, falls back to earth maybe freezes into snow and ice, maybe sits in place for decades, then melts and returns to the ocean. Water is constant motion within a wholeness and emotion shares those properties. So when I saw Federico's video, and he stated that consciousness (emotion) is outside of us and outside of time, it interested me.

So it looks to  me as if Zeno and Parmenides were both correct. But I am really tired now and am falling asleep on my desk. Happy St. Patty's day.

Gee

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Gees said:

My thoughts are simple. Balance is evident in each and every aspect of reality from our bodies, to ecosystems, and from atoms to solar systems. Balance is real, so what does balance require? Well it requires more than one thing in order to have something to balance with and it requires a wholeness that the balance takes place within. Like a child's teeter totter, it needs two ends that move up and down, but also a connection that it balances from.

Balance is a myth, it's just a matter of time... 😉

I'm not trying to insult you, but "sad, teacher is"... 🙄

How far of topic do you intend swerve in order to maintain your ego???

4 hours ago, Gees said:

So it looks to  me as if Zeno and Parmenides were both correct. But I am really tired now and am falling asleep on my desk. Happy St. Patty's day.

I didn't think you liked a paradox... (teacher sad) 😪

[MJ kihara]

On 3/12/2025 at 4:38 AM, joigus said:

I'm not going down any philosophical rabbit hole. I'd be happy with something like "the ability to recognise oneself as an individual, separate from the rest of the universe".

'...seperate from the rest of the universe.'..???? What do you mean by that?  It seems you are suggesting the universe is just a  mental projection of some kind.

[joigus]

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

'...seperate from the rest of the universe.'..???? What do you mean by that?  It seems you are suggesting the universe is just a  mental projection of some kind.

Not exactly. I should have said "perceive" instead of "recognise" to make it clearer. I don't think we are separate from the rest of the universe. I do believe the physical laws can produce the illusion of being a separate thing from the rest of the universe. I also said 'I would be happy with...' This implies that I was drawing a working definition for the purposes of discussion, while a more robust definition might (and perhaps should) be possible.

Even taking what I said without the previous caveats, I don't see how it would be taken to imply that the universe is a mental projection. It would go more in the direction of the self as being a projection of some kind.

[MJ kihara]

5 hours ago, joigus said:

It would go more in the direction of the self as being a projection of some kind.

This sounds interesting 🤔.

[joigus]

7 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

This sounds interesting 🤔.

Well, I'm sure it's not a new idea...

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Well, I'm sure it's not a new idea...

Probably not...

[joigus]

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Probably not...

It's all a big grinding machine. A metabolic system of ideas. The system will regurgitate it again when it's necessary.

I'm getting off-topic, and dangerously philosophical again...

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, joigus said:

It's all a big grinding machine. A metabolic system of ideas. The system will regurgitate it again when it's necessary.

I'm getting off-topic, and dangerously philosophical again...

Probably... 🤣

[MJ kihara]

On 3/20/2025 at 2:28 PM, joigus said:

Well, I'm sure it's not a new idea...

Reinventing the wheel...it might be the same wheel but a more efficient one... probably not...

On 3/20/2025 at 5:19 PM, joigus said:

It's all a big grinding machine. A metabolic system of ideas. The system will regurgitate it again when it's necessary.

I'm getting off-topic, and dangerously philosophical again...

 

On 3/20/2025 at 5:21 PM, dimreepr said:

Probably... 🤣

Maybe a different perspective...to be superficial.....self.... Cambridge dictionary -the set of someone's characteristics, such as personality and ability, that are not physical and make that person different from other people.

It seems to me(self) to be someone's summary... 'written' by yourself or by others...we get summaries after processing a lot of/ or less of information.

This summary(self) I regard it as the projection of one's information by yourself or by others basing on the information they have about you.

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Reinventing the wheel...it might be the same wheel but a more efficient one... probably not...

 

Maybe a different perspective...to be superficial.....self.... Cambridge dictionary -the set of someone's characteristics, such as personality and ability, that are not physical and make that person different from other people.

It seems to me(self) to be someone's summary... 'written' by yourself or by others...we get summaries after processing a lot of/ or less of information.

This summary(self) I regard it as the projection of one's information by yourself or by others basing on the information they have about you.

WTF are you talking about?

If I had every byte of information about you, I'd still only comprehend what it's like to be me... 😉

[MJ kihara]

12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

WTF are you talking about?

If I had every byte of information about you, I'd still only comprehend what it's like to be me... 😉

It depends with how you comprehend the information....to what extent do you think you know about yourself?.....you can read a 'whole book' only to make a wrong summary about it.

Back to yourself;

On 3/13/2025 at 3:30 PM, dimreepr said:

Your still not getting it, a fragment of a sentence that seems to agree with your guess, is a spurious understanding.

 

 

It's akin to pretending you understand your dogs needs, bc you gave it a bowl of water when it was panting and wagging it's tail. 

 

In a hot car that it was hoping to get out of... 😉

 

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

It depends with how you comprehend the information....to what extent do you think you know about yourself?.....you can read a 'whole book' only to make a wrong summary about it.

Back to yourself;

 

This is philosophy 101, Cogito ergo sum "I think therefore I am" which is also flawed; IOW it doesn't depend on anything other than faith.

[MJ kihara]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 IOW it doesn't depend on anything other than faith.

How? 'Faith' am not getting it..hhh..whose faith? Does it keep changing?

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

How? 'Faith' am not getting it..hhh..whose faith? Does it keep changing?

You figure it out...

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

How? 'Faith' am not getting it..hhh..whose faith? Does it keep changing?

I see my joke has missed the mark, it's never as funny when it has to be explained.

As I've previously explained, there is no direct sense of reality, that we can use to understand our place in the world; I think therefore I am, is an assumption, a faith that one has a place in our collective community. 

Faith has a bad press, bc we're taught that a fact doesn't require faith, which is true on the face of it; but you can't be sure that your not dreaming this.

"Does it keep changing?"

Yes and no, which circles back to the joke and the point of philosophical thinking...