The New Physics

[Gem]

As it becomes more acceptable to consider the observer intergrated with the observed the mechanics of the universe are interwined with the function of the mind.

To accept the whole universe is a thought might be difficult, but it is simpler to consider space as the arena in which thought is cognized than to consider 'real things' and thoughts as different things.

It can't be said that different observers see the same things, but we experience the universe in a unified way while making vastly different perceptions because the mechanics of mind function is uniform.

I consider the blind people of this world have not experienced the moon, so each one has an imaginary textural conception, but within the framework of their sightless cognition it fits perfectly into their relative universes.

The mechanics of their minds are the same sighted people, so they make sense of the moon just as we do, and though theirs moons imaginary, ours are perceived differently, so how real can anyone's moon perception be?

We don't need to see the things in the same way, actually we don't, but that is not to say there are no universal truths. Even though the moon isn't uniformly experienced, there is no doubting the moon is there... you can check if you feel unsure.

The buddhist calls it dhamma (universally true). This has two parts. Each particular experience as it happens in each moment is one part and the uniform function of mind is the other.

This does not include a 'real' universe at all, it only considers the divergence momentary experience and uniformity of mind.

Since universal truth can only apply to mind's qualities and properties, and we can consider the observer intergral with the observed, is it fair enough to say the universe is a thought?

Originally Posted by Gem

As it becomes more acceptable to consider the observer intergrated with the observed the mechanics of the universe are interwined with the function of the mind.

To accept the whole universe is a thought might be difficult, but it is simpler to consider space as the arena in which thought is cognized than to consider 'real things' and thoughts as different things.

It can't be said that different observers see the same things, but we experience the universe in a unified way while making vastly different perceptions because the mechanics of mind function is uniform.

I consider the blind people of this world have not experienced the moon, so each one has an imaginary textural conception, but within the framework of their sightless cognition it fits perfectly into their relative universes.

The mechanics of their minds are the same sighted people, so they make sense of the moon just as we do, and though theirs moons imaginary, ours are perceived differently, so how real can anyone's moon perception be?

We don't need to see the things in the same way, actually we don't, but that is not to say there are no universal truths. Even though the moon isn't uniformly experienced, there is no doubting the moon is there... you can check if you feel unsure.

The buddhist calls it dhamma (universally true). This has two parts. Each particular experience as it happens in each moment is one part and the uniform function of mind is the other.

This does not include a 'real' universe at all, it only considers the divergence momentary experience and uniformity of mind.

Since universal truth can only apply to mind's qualities and properties, and we can consider the observer intergral with the observed, is it fair enough to say the universe is a thought?

Well, the thing is, we arent the only things observing. Everything is obseriving in the way it knows how to.

True, the only way a blind person can "see" the moon is by being told hat it looks like and visualize it. The only thing with that, is that the vast majority of us, and life above ground can see. We know its there due to our vision, which allows us to see the moon. Sure, we may not see it the same as a cow, or what not. Or even see it the same as eachother in some way, but we are still seeing the same thing.


Its the classic " e cant see it, therefore its not real" argument. As long as we can feel the effects, and know they are there (gravity for example), its real.

For instance, just because a deaf person cannot hear, does not mean there is no sound. You can feel and measure the effects of soundwaves.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Time

Well, the thing is, we arent the only things observing. Everything is obseriving in the way it knows how to.

True, the only way a blind person can "see" the moon is by being told hat it looks like and visualize it. The only thing with that, is that the vast majority of us, and life above ground can see. We know its there due to our vision, which allows us to see the moon. Sure, we may not see it the same as a cow, or what not. Or even see it the same as eachother in some way, but we are still seeing the same thing.


Its the classic " e cant see it, therefore its not real" argument. As long as we can feel the effects, and know they are there (gravity for example), its real.

For instance, just because a deaf person cannot hear, does not mean there is no sound. You can feel and measure the effects of soundwaves.

No doubt there is the moon, but no two individuals see the same thing, and each individual sees a different thing in each moment, yet all see a changing thing. All though in that the moon is surely known to be, which impression and which moment defines the real moon.

The realest moon is the moon experienced as it is now, however that is not a particular thing. It's both a momentarily and individually subjective.

We can collect facts and know it is actually different to our perception, ie it has certain properties and our experience is an optical illusion, however, that illusion is the reality as it is expreinced at this moment and our beliefs about the moon are akin to those of the blind person... a collage of imagery and impressions, each being seen as a momentary experience at some time or other.

How much of our moon was actually experienced by us? How different is the moon experienced by Niel Armstrong? ... and is it any less different to the imaginary moon a blind person never experienced at all?

We all experience it as a thought in one way or another, so which moon is real? is the list of facts and measurements about it realer than the momentary sensory perception?

It isn't to say it's a different moon to each one and a blind person doesn't have a moon at all, it is to say all minds have the same function, so this is the same universe, and everyone has the same moon.

Even mainstream science is now seeing that there is much less of a difference between ‘real things’ & thoughts. Huge advances are being made about this w/ quantum physics.

http://library.thinkquest.org/3487/qp.html

[Sammy]

Simply put, space applies perception/reality. We can see its real because of our senses that create the thought of something, with something else inbetween it and us.

In line with the moon association, if you measured the moon and then removed the space between each molecule of mass, you would have totaly different measurements. Our spacial element is to spread apart, but our mass has the element of pushing together. This alighment created space within mass, allowing one to interact with the other without dire consequence "being blown apart on both sides". Also even allowing one to combine with the other, to create something new "people, thoughts, creativity, etc...".

In reality were nothing, as a thought were everything, and inbetween we accidentily define ourself.

[Gem]

I believe that physics needs a new revolution.

A whole new paradigm which goes beyond all understanding to the direct experience of quantum phenomena, not for the purpose of applied technology, but for the enhancement of human happiness.

Being based on the paradigm, 'the senses are the world' the central aim of education would be enhancement of the senses, to the ends of human happiness.

If children were educated from the youngest age to develope keeness of his senses, and at school for 6 hours practiced exersizes which made him healthier and more perceptive, he would notice much in the physical world, and develope deep understanding of the physical universe through direct experience.

Having deeper and direct insight into the nature of things must be superior to that learned by rite and rigour, and surely would be much effective in enhancing happiness.

Ultimately this would result in the student's discovery of where mind becomes matter and matter becomes the mind, which would close the measurement gap by making seamless the observer and the observed.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Sammy

In reality we're nothing, as a thought were everything, and in between we accidentily define ourself.

Nice ring to that.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by Gem

As it becomes more acceptable to consider the observer intergrated with the observed the mechanics of the universe are interwined with the function of the mind.

can you explain this claim?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by hybrid

can you explain this claim?

more like speculate on it, but the universe is space where things are, and interactive with the mind as intention could move your attention on to anything that is there.

the ones that say it is an illiusion must mean it occurs as a thought, as what is an illusion but an apparition of mind.

the ones who manifest, the co-creators, make according to intention, so it bends the substance of mind to anything they want.

and where exactly is the gap between the mind and body, the body being manifest in the unverse too

finally, change your thoughts and change the world.

Originally Posted by Gem

I believe that physics needs a new revolution.

Abso-freaking-lutely. Consider the rainbow. What we call a rainbow is the convergence of peculiarly scattered light as focused in the retina - in other words, it literally does not exist without an observer.

Experience is but a moment in time. Time is but the comparison of one moment to the next. It literally does not exist without an observer.

The human experience begs the question of the reality of experience, period. Yes, it has continuity - but that's not the answer, that is the mystery.

Physics needs to admit what the mystics have said since the beginning.