Yeah, retro-causation you mean? yeah...

Jeremy AKA "Donny Darko"

Sky that's only because you are terrified of the prospect of the Borg and the Universal mind or of being one with the universe or god.

You want to be an individual not part of the whole. You fear loosing your individuality.

I have worked all that out. I will not loose my individuality and yet I understand the connection to the whole and the universal mind concept.

JB

I am curious. If you don't believe in "prime cause" or "god" what is your universal view and how do you explain our existence?

JB

JBs holographic reality---Subjective reality.

JBs Higher density levels-----Objective reality.


Plato believed in the holographic reality,he called it "The Cave".

"What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine---Nietzsche

I think some are just lazy and dont relish the prospect of getting up again and starting over. Especially as babies. Its sheer laziness but I guess in heaven there is ESPN and snacks so who can blame them?

Actually Mirror, I would have stated it just the opposite.

Holographic reality: Objective --> I think this fact will one day be discovered by our scientists.

Higher density levels: Subjective ---> I don't think our science will ever get a handle on that idea.

Same thing
http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/causation-backwards/

I first heard is called Backward vs retro and remember it that way.

LOL I do not pretend to be able to. Its silly to pretend you have these answers.

My universal view is that people get data and interpret it without really doing rigorous research.

JB at least you seem to have the will for research if not the tools to properly falsify your data.

That can not be said of many

Well,I would hasten to point out that Nietzsche is referring to the concept of "Eternal Return" rather than the concept of reincarnation.Theres a difference.

Well I to would be a proponent of the concept of eternal return simply as I see no reason for it to occur once. I was merely pointing out the differences and apparent apprehension that one theology might have for another. None of that "coming back crap" etc etc...

Well, subjective reality refers to what we perceive to be true(The shadows in the Cave) and objective reality refers to what is actually true(the light outside the cave).Objective reality is the world of ideas and pure mathematics.By their very definitions,how is it possible for us to be perceiving objective reality and not subjective reality?Perhaps you have the definitions of the words "subjective" and "objective"switched around JB.

I wasnt saying you were wrong Krimsa, I was just clarifying a point.Eternal Return is:"All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again".Circular time.A biblical way of saying it would be thus:

Ecclesiastes 1:9: That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.

Problem with an Agreement-created Reality is quite obvious...

Humans can't agree on even a basic level.

If you get more than one human in a room a disagreement will insue within a very short segment of time.

Caveman reality... If my club is bigger than yours my reality rules.

Hunter/Gather reality... I have more food than you... If you wish to eat my reality is greater...

Modern reality... My nuKe is bigger than yours... My reality rules.

Future reality... My club is bigger than yours...

Mirror Mirror,


Ah gotcha.

It would appear to be one possible theory, not unlike any other theory including the concept of "heaven". Remember there is more than one heaven, many cultures and religions have their own interpretation, so who's to know? You could end up in Valhalla if you dont have your baggage claim ticket and there you might need a crossbow or a broadsword unless you are simply to be classified as a "girly man".

It may seem silly to 'pretend' you have these answers, but how can it be a waste of time to explore all possibilities?

I don't seem to be 'smart enough' to understand all the data that I go over in my research, especially when it involves mathematics and advanced technology, but I find myself reading it anyway.

In the back of my mind I can feel if the information is important or not, (even if I don't have a clue what I am reading.) I think that maybe there is some part of me somewhere in my subconscious that can understand it.

But being an artist, I rely heavily on intuition and feeling and imagination in the piecing together of my picture of reality. I think I get guidance from my subconscious connection.

Other than that, I know I am very unscientific and uneducated in those things. So all I can do is speculate and imagine.

JB

That is why this world is so diverse and so full of war.

That is why in one part of the world technology rules and in another part of the world you can sell your wife for three cows and a goat and go naked all day long.

Many realities exist inside of this one.

JB

Well, I can agree with the fact that I read a lot of stuff that is also beyond my tool set to accurately analyze I don't feel it is a complete waste of time.

But would it be more beneficial to instead spend that time gather new tools, or sharpening old one? Maybe so.

I should probably refine my earlier statement and say that I think it is a waste of time to come to a conclusion when you do not have the tools to analyze all the data.

Hypothesis comes before conclusion, I think it is very good to have strong feelings about a hypothesis. To sell it as a conclusion is not doing it justice.

-Jeremy

All my "conclusions" are temporary, so I can't say the are final conclusions but I don't know what else to call them.

For the benefit of others, I can call them "speculation."

I can't possibly ever come to an indisputable conclusion. I don't have the means to prove or understand most of the stuff I research.

So for my own benefit, I loosely call them "conclusions" but I am never married to any of them.

How sure am I? That would be relative. I have many times discovered I was 100% wrong after I thought I was 100% right, so I am not sure of anything. I am happy with my temporary conclusions.

I think that our reality is holographic in nature because it consists of light and sound and vibration along with other specific energy. I think it is created by observers within the universal mind and projected as a three dimensional spacetime reality.

I think science will discover the nature of reality and I'm not so sure the haven't already. They may just be keeping it from us because its just too weird.

JB

Science is not regulated by any central agency, regardless of weirdness, it would come out.

JB I agree, that is why I am pursuing science, to validate that which is complex.

I see many modern philosophers and I cant help but think they are out of there league, they need to go back and learn all the math, and do all the labs to catch up.

Theoretical physics is where its at. (PS I don't think I am smart enough either, I will probably end up in Nano, or medical imaging tech not Theoretical Physics)