All that science knows about Reality and how it knows this

[Ben Dhyan]

Um....nope. Provide the math and you will see the flaw.

Um....nope. Provide the math and you will see the flaw.

At every point in space, there is a distance of the Hubble Radius from the point of observation into space. There is no interaction between space observations from Earth and space beyond the Hubble Radius, a sphere with Earth as the reference center. The Hubble Radius/Distance is about 13 billion light years.

 

[Polymath257]

At every point in space, there is a distance of the Hubble Radius from the point of observation into space. There is no interaction between space observations from Earth and space beyond the Hubble Radius, a sphere with Earth as the reference center. The Hubble Radius/Distance is about 13 billion light years.

Yes, so? It still doesn't alter the conclusion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, so? It still doesn't alter the conclusion.

But it means the zpe spherical standing waves are formed in a zpe spherical ocean.

 

[Polymath257]

But it means the zpe spherical standing waves are formed in a zpe spherical ocean.

Um, no. There is no time to form a standing wave because the wave would have to 'reflect off' the Hubble radius. Since there isn't a boundary there, that simply doesn't happen.

Give it up. This idea goes exactly nowhere.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Um, no. There is no time to form a standing wave because the wave would have to 'reflect off' the Hubble radius. Since there isn't a boundary there, that simply doesn't happen.

Give it up. This idea goes exactly nowhere.

There is no "reflecting off" the Hubble radius, every point in the universe is a center of their own Hubble radius, zpe can only interact with radiant energy within that sphere. A point 1 light year distant from here would have their Hubble radius sphere offset I light year from us.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no "reflecting off" the Hubble radius, every point in the universe is a center of their own Hubble radius, zpe can only interact with radiant energy within that sphere. A point 1 light year distant from here would have their Hubble radius sphere offset I light year from us.

Exactly why there cannot be a standing wave.

Do you know how standing waves form?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, do you?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, do you?

Yes, they form by reflecting off boundaries. With no boundaries, there are no standing waves.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, they form by reflecting off boundaries. With no boundaries, there are no standing waves.

Not necessarily so, any nonlinearirty in the tranmission medium is a form of impedance mismatch resulting in standing waves. The space within the volume of a Hubble radius sphere is literally full of stuff.

 

[Polymath257]

Not necessarily so, any nonlinearirty in the tranmission medium is a form of impedance mismatch resulting in standing waves.

Only if the nonlinearity encloses the region for the standing wave.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Only if the nonlinearity encloses the region for the standing wave.

The distribution of matter and energy within the zpe 'ocean' sphere is nonlinear, differing phase shift of all zpe em energy frequencies due to doppler shift, differences in zpe energy density distribution, etc., etc., can all affect the linearity of the transmission medium...

 

[Polymath257]

The distribution of matter and energy within the zpe 'ocean' sphere is nonlinear, differing phase shift of all zpe em energy frequencies due to doppler shift, differences in zpe energy density distribution, etc., etc., can all affect the linearity of the transmission medium...

And this is supposed to explain what an electron is? Really?

If you want to waste your time pursuing this idea, go ahead. Good luck.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And this is supposed to explain what an electron is? Really?

If you want to waste your time pursuing this idea, go ahead. Good luck.

As I explained up thread, pursuing knowledge about the real is not the same thing as realizing it, not that conceptual knowledge is unimportant, but it should only serve as a prerequisite to transcending the dualistic belief and realize the underlying non-duality. The contemporary orthodox scientific scene on astronomy and cosmology pushed by academia is certainly not the last word on it, and it has a lot of 'inertia' for natural reasons, but the nearer one's mind gets to the transcendent state however, the more the unveiling of the mysteries of the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

As I explained up thread, pursuing knowledge about the real is not the same thing as realizing it, not that conceptual knowledge is unimportant, but it should only serve as a prerequisite to transcending the dualistic belief and realize the underlying non-duality. The contemporary orthodox scientific scene on astronomy and cosmology pushed by academia is certainly not the last word on it, and it has a lot of 'inertia' for natural reasons, but the nearer one's mind gets to the transcendent state however, the more the unveiling of the mysteries of the universe.

Nobody claimed the current views are the 'last word', even in academia. But they are much closer than anything else we have come across.

As to the 'transcendental state', it sounds like you've been doing way too many psychedelics. Come back to reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nobody claimed the current views are the 'last word', even in academia. But they are much closer than anything else we have come across.

As to the 'transcendental state', it sounds like you've been doing way too many psychedelics. Come back to reality.

Listen o yourself..."current views"...."much closer"...."we have come across"..do not you see that this implies pure duality, you are dealing with an interpretation of reality, a conceptual model of reality.

Now as I have said before, I am not knocking science for doing the job it is meant to do, but please do accept for the reason given that science has this limitation, you can never actually apprehend the real, because science only deals in mental constructs representing the real.

What I am pointing out is that there is more to it than that, there is a state of mind whereby the mind is still and free from thought, and in this non-dualistic state, apprehension of the real occurs non-conceptually. There can be no description of the real because there was no thought at the time to conceptualize and thus memorize, This is the true goal of religious practice.

 

[Polymath257]

Listen o yourself..."current views"...."much closer"...."we have come across"..do not you see that this implies pure duality, you are dealing with an interpretation of reality, a conceptual model of reality.

Yes, of course. That is all we have. We do not have direct access to 'reality'. We have our senses and we use them to make models.

Now as I have said before, I am not knocking science for doing the job it is meant to do, but please do accept for the reason given that science has this limitation, you can never actually apprehend the real, because science only deals in mental constructs representing the real.

Well, part of the definition of 'the real' is whatever produces the observations we make.

What I am pointing out is that there is more to it than that, there is a state of mind whereby the mind is still and free from thought, and in this non-dualistic state, apprehension of the real occurs non-conceptually. There can be no description of the real because there was no thought at the time to conceptualize and thus memorize, This is the true goal of religious practice.

BS. All we have is our senses. So we make models to explain what we experience. Even this 'religious' experience is something processed by thebrain which may or may not be 'real'. That you experiences a 'singularity' of sorts doesn't mean your experience reflects reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, of course. That is all we have. We do not have direct access to 'reality'. We have our senses and we use them to make models.

Well, part of the definition of 'the real' is whatever produces the observations we make.

BS. All we have is our senses. So we make models to explain what we experience. Even this 'religious' experience is something processed by thebrain which may or may not be 'real'. That you experiences a 'singularity' of sorts doesn't mean your experience reflects reality.

Ok, so because you think of yourself wholly as a physical body, you are not able to realize what you really are.....no problem.

The religious goal is not about any experience, but naturally if you are an agnostic/atheist, how would you possibly know better?

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, so because you think of yourself wholly as a physical body, you are not able to realize what you really are.....no problem.

The religious goal is not about any experience, but naturally if you are an agnostic/atheist, how would you possibly know better?

And how can *you* know any better? We only know through our senses, although you seem to think otherwise. I suggest that you are deluding yourself.

I realize what I am. Do you realize what you are? That your thoughts, your fears, your hopes, etc are ALL aspects of the functioning of your brain?

So, yes, we are ALL physical. But naturally, if you are a theist, how could you know?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And how can *you* know any better? We only know through our senses, although you seem to think otherwise. I suggest that you are deluding yourself.

I realize what I am. Do you realize what you are? That your thoughts, your fears, your hopes, etc are ALL aspects of the functioning of your brain?

So, yes, we are ALL physical. But naturally, if you are a theist, how could you know?

I am aware of all the things you are, but you do not understand the reality on the other side of the senses is not separate from reality within oneself, it is one. One can not convey this realty to you because your mind has only the expectation to learn by using your bodies senses, and reality is on the other side, so the best I can do is use these words to explain that the reality beyond words, is non-conceptual.

The only way it can be realized is to still your mind, and when that happens, the conceptualizing 'I' does not arise to obscure the real. There can be no explaining of what is on the other side of the senses, because the senses can not ever in all eternity apprehend it and thus can never experience it.

 

[Polymath257]

I am aware of all the things you are, but you do not understand the reality on the other side of the senses is not separate from reality within oneself, it is one. One can not convey this realty to you because your mind has only the expectation to learn by using your bodies senses, and reality is on the other side, so the best I can do is use these words to explain that the reality beyond words, is non-conceptual.

The only way it can be realized is to still your mind, and when that happens, the conceptualizing 'I' does not arise to obscure the real. There can be no explaining of what is on the other side of the senses, because the senses can not ever in all eternity apprehend it and thus can never experience it.

Like I said, you should lay off the psychedelics.