Yes I was speaking in very broad universal terms. Not even in the mental or emotional realms. Its a very detached assessment of what is.

Abracadabra's reply:

I beg your pardon, Abra, but I think you've been out of the circulation (i.e. loop) for far too long!!! (by your own admition!)

As you can see from many posts, most of people disgree with you about the application of the Einstein's famous formula!!!
(**** besides, most of the Professional Physicists reject your ideas altogether!!! ****)

-----> However, that shouldn't distract Jeanie from developing her philosophical idea even further -- since the exact corespondence to the "pure" science isn't really necessary for that!

(personally, I really appreciated the originality of her thought!)

Well last I heard the symbol "=" (equals) means "equals."
And that energy can be converted to mass and visa versa.

Is this incorrect?

The formula does not say that mass "contains" so much energy, (as a cup contains so much water. The cup does not equal the water; water cannot be transformed into a cup.)

Mass is not just a container that contains energy. Mass is a form of energy and energy can be transformed into mass. Mass is made of energy.

A cup is not made of water.

It says that Energy equals Mass times the speed of light squared.

I'm not aware of any profession physicists who think that E=mc² is a limited equation that only applies to some matter.

However, that doesn't mean that you can make a bomb out of "enriched wood". (whatever "enriched wood" would might mean)

Just because the equation holds for all matter doesn't mean that it's easy to convert matter into energy. It's not easy. And we can be thankful for that!

That is what this whole thread is about. The definition of truth.

Truth is simply information.

Unless of course you have an opinion.

The idea that a thing is true or false is an opinion, or a point of view. My definition of truth is from a completely hypothetical detached point of view.

Exactly. We are not meant to be able to "unlock" the information. If we could, we would have certainly destroyed ourselves a long time ago just by thinking about it.

I continue to maintain the fact Einstein had a very specific substance in mind described by his formula!!!

.The formula describes the amount of energy released when the Eriched Uranium reaches the CRITICAL MASS***** One of the properties of that substance is IT EXPLODES THE MOMENT IT'S MASS REACHES THE CRITICAL POINT!!!

How many things in the universe possess the CRITICAL POINT of mass? ? ?

***************

And that "mysterious" level is called SUBCONSCIOUSNESS!!!

Despite of all the progress the Humanity's achieved, that area of the human psyche still remains the enigma...

* * * Perhaps, Jeannie, you could research and develop your idea even further, taking into account this hint...

It doesn't really matter if Einstein had a specific substance in mind or not. The formula was not about that substance. (If it was it would have been part of the formula, and it wasn't.)

It was a formula that concerns mass and energy and the speed of light. It says nothing at all about Uranium.

What hint? Subconsciousness? That perhaps the subconscious is the storage place for all (truth) and information?

The "subconciousness" ~(if that is a real word)~ would mean an awareness that we, for some reason, are not always completely (consciously) aware of, but that we could access it if we gave it some attention. (Perhaps through hypnotism, meditation or other means.)

The "information" that we may not be able to "unlock" at this point, is the information that is stored in matter, the material that actually forms our world. That would be.. Mass and matter and forms that we call "objects." (our bodies, trees, rocks, water, etc.)

For example:

Consider for a moment that this universe is a matrix that operates similar to a holodeck program like the one you saw on Star Trec.

The characters inside of the program that are not real people are just part of the program. Therefore each character and every object inside of the holodeck program are all programs containing a vast amount of information which is used to operate that program. They appear to be real objects but they are just programs. End the program and the objects disappear and you are left standing inside of an empty room.




Now if our universe is of a similar construct, then each object you see contains massive amounts of information in order for it to exist.

Consider the movie "Matrix" where the people and objects in that reality were said to all be "programs." The bodies inhabited by the conscious beings were also part of the program.

That is how I think this reality is constructed. Each object you see that you believe to be "real" exists because it contains massive amounts of information in order for it to exist. It is a program created by the universal mind.

If a person (or individual) could unlock the information in an object, they could create and destroy the object at will.

Like in the movie Matrix where the children were learning to bend spoons with their minds. The secret is that "THERE IS NO SPOON."

Its just a program.

Well, to say "THERE IS NO SPOON" would be a bit misleading, even in your scenario. Because you then say, "It's just a program".

Well if the spoon is a program then "THERE IS A PROGRAM".

So to 'bend' a spoon with your mind would be equivalent to modifying the "SPOON'S PROGRAM" using only your mind.

The question then becomes, "Where is the program stored"

Well, you've just suggested that the "program" or "infromation" is actually being stored in the object itself:



If that's the case, then how could you change that program using only your thoughts?

You'd need to have a link between your thoughts and the "program" that is the "spoon".

I have actually discovered such a plausible link between our thoughts and the physical manifestion of everything in the universe, including macro manifestations. However, it currenly doesn't have anymore credibility than String Theory.

It's just a theory at this point.

Just the same, it's quite exciting and promising.

I'm not quite sure that is where the program would be, but there would have to be a connection from the spoon to its program. The program itself might be "somewhere else" or it might be arising from within the spoon. The spoon is projected from that program, perhaps from within the spoon. But like a computer, it cannot run without its "operating program" and that operating program has to have a vehicle and power to run that vehicle has to have energy.

If the energy is shut off, the computer would crash. If all things arise from the quantum field and the quantum field is shut down, everything might just disappear.

Everything is information if we are living within a holographic reality simulation generated by a Matrioshka Brain built by some Type IV civilization on the Kardashev scale

It seeems to me that the only place a program can be stored is "within the mind" so to speak.

I mean, we have always (well, for the past half-century or so since the advent of modern computers) analogized "mind" as a kind of "computer".

The main point of contention seems to be based on the idea that there must be some “overmind” that contains the one-and-only computer/program that outputs all “objective” information.

But I don’t see that as being necessary. All that is really necessary is for there to be agreement, between separate minds/computers, as to the output of the program.

Once that agreement is achieved, then we simply have two (or multiple) separate minds which are effectively running the same program and thus have identical outputs. And since the program’s “output” is what we label “the objective”, we then have what we call the “common reality”.

In other words, as far as “objective” is concerned, two computers running identical programs and outputting the exact same “objective” information, would be indistinguishable from a single computer running a single program and outputting the exact same “objective” information. (Hence my analogy of a game being played online by multiple players.)

But of course, that indistinguishability between a single program and multiple identical programs would only apply while the source/cause/nature of the program and it’s output was unknown.

Yes the program is 'within the mind.'

In the case of the spoon, (which is not thought of as having a "mind") where the program is stored has to be connected to that which projects it.

The agreement exists in that all participants in the game have agreed to enter and play by the rules. They would have to have a lot of power to be able to break the rules or ignore the spoon to the point that it could no longer exist. The integrity of the spoon does not depend on a "unanimous" agreement, or anyone who decided they did not agree might cause the spoon to disappear. Of course if you have enough power you can cause yourself not to see the spoon, and with a little more power, you could cause others to not see the spoon (as a hypnotist can do). But in general, the spoon maintains its integrity within the program.

JB, The equal sign is indicating that two quantities are equal in value. Two quantities. This equation is not a declaration that energy and mass are equal or equatable - only that one can be converted to the other according to this limiting conservation law. This equation is not asserting that energy itself is equal to mass, itself. If you convert a specified amount of mass to energy, you can expect a calculable (per this equation) amount of energy to be so obtained.

Now, one can go further - either in speculation or bringing other facts to the table - in exploring the relationship between matter and energy. But this equation by itself says nothing of equivalence of mass and energy - only of total values when conversion is done.

The fact that energy and matter can be so converted is amazing to me! This tears down barriers that we previous believe existed. But it doesn't, by itself, mean that energy and mass are 'the same thing'.

TB, I appreciate your playful approach, and I hope you'll forgive me for spring boarding off of a serious interpretation of your words... I disagree with the bolded portion... both statements are helpful to us in understanding light - but neither of the statements is really true. Light is light. Light behaves like a particle (sometimes), and light behaves like a wave (sometimes), but cannot truly be said to be either.

Of course they aren't the same thing "until" they are converted. But what stands between them? Only time and space.
And space and time do not exist.

Australian money is not United States money until it is converted, but they are still both money. Ice is not water, but melt it and then it is water. They are both H20.

Two apples don't equal two oranges because you cannot convert an apple to an orange.

If you can convert energy to matter and matter to energy then they are, save for the conversion process, the same thing.

Yet I cannot buy tofu at the store here with australian money, and I can't but a cube of liquid water in a towel to bring down someone's fever. Are they the same thing ?

Does it help us to think more clearly, or invite confusion, to declare things the same simply because they can be converted?