|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:08 pm
It's probably hard not to think because by saying things like "don't think", you think because you thought of the subject of thinking.It's kind of like telling someone not to look,they always do. Your brain doesn't care if you do or do not want to think of something,if you say any sentence like,don't think of a blue ball,or I don't want to think,you will think of those things because those very objects were in the sentence.By putting the object in the sentence,you think about it.Instead of telling yourself what not to think about,only think about the things you want.(kind of confusing)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:54 am
Yeah, trying not to think is like trying not to blink when someone flashes something in your eye. It really is rather confusing. 3nodding sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:24 am
MollyFlogginz what if all the gods we believe in, YHWH and Allah and Zeus, what if they were all the same guy, the same god, he just introduced himself to us differently. For the Christians he said "I am God, this is my son Jesus." for the Muslims he said "I am Allah, this is my son Mohammed" and of course for the Greeks he said "I am Zeus, this is my son Hercules" "My son has come to save you." what if that's the case? then no body is screwed, there is no Hell, it's all just one guy telling us different stories so everyone gets what they want... That makes very good sense! Because, I mean, If I were god, that's what I'd do. I'd go to my people in the form that would best suit them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 11:43 pm
This was a post I wrote in another thread, but it seems to fit better here ---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if...
Everything was one, all matter & energy. Time was meaningless in this state. And out of a yearning, this One, this unmoved mover, *BURST*.
Every particle, every photon, shattered out from the explosion. No longer aware of their commonness, they began to collide and ricochet...
Forces of gravity, magnetism, and so on caused patterns to arise -- an impossibly large fractal with random variations.
Sentience arose from the ashes. The full spectrum of Life's rich experiences. Wonder existed, hope existed, and everything else one could describe.
And eventually the same strong and weak forces which formed Everything from the original Big Bang began to pull it all in on itself. Collapse, the ultimate resolution.
And He was one again. All aspects, every magnificent moment, experienced and indellibly integrated. The Power and The Glory, forever and ever.
Would once be enough?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 7:37 pm
One question: In an existence of no interaction (everything is one and there is no time) how is change possible? If everything is completely one and still there is no change and so no cause can ever come to ever leave that state of being. It is a question of cause and effect. You propose an effect with no cause. If you mean to say "the cause of the 'burst' was the afore mentioned 'yearning,'" (supposing we ignore several large other problems with that first, at least for now) I have to ask you "yes, but what is the cause of the "yearning?'"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:08 am
The "cause" in this What If would be a consciousness with a will. The unmoved mover, whose whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
OR it could simply be that this state of complete collapse results in the "critical mass" sufficient to explode everything. It all reaches that one point and *POOF* it pops.
Indeed, if all matter coalesced to one point, rendering time unimportant, from what perspective could one say that no time or a million years had past?
>>If everything is completely one and still there is no change...
Don't go puttin' words in my mouth. I said time was meaningless, not that it was passing and the universe-point was twiddling its thumbs. Time is relative, so if there is but one point, can it be demonstrated that time passes??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:29 pm
That first answer explains it not. Because you still have an effect with no cause. Aside from that I do not think consciousness in that state would be possible due to the singularity of it all, you have the problem that consciousness and decisions again need TIME and INTERACTIONS to make them want anything and decide anything upon that want. Without time there can be no change. There can't. Change includes time as a necessity in its very definition. Without time no change in thoughts could occur and there would be nothing else changing to provoke a change in thoughts and therefore desires either.
The second answer has to mean time can't go out the window either. If time did, it would not be able to leave that state ever again, so it would have to be an instantaneous almost skipping over of that oneness state, going from just bout as close as you can get to there, to in the same instant it gets there bursting back out of it. It also implies it can not be a very beginning either. There had to be stuff already that had been in a previous non-singular form before.
---I took "meaningless" to mean as if it was sort of "outside" of the operation of time, like there's no more time at work (depending on what you DO mean, perhaps this could effect what I have typed in my post thus far.) And do please explain what you mean by time being relative. I do believe that clocks should fairly answer that that is not the case, but perhaps you are talking about something...else? But anyway, perhaps a better question still would be what you mean by "all is one" then if you think it would be possible for any kind of change or interaction to happen in that state. I figure when you say "all is one" like it means everything is all mushed into one single point of one single consistency, like (sily as it may sound to say this in this context I think it fits) a melting pot style of "one" as opposed to a "salad" style of calling it one thing. (because if separations/distinctions of any kind can be made, is it really a single point and if it doesn't need to be a single point then how is it any different from the universe as it stands now? O_o; )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:55 am
>> please explain what you mean by time being relative. I do believe that clocks should fairly answer that that is not the case, but perhaps you are talking about something...else?
To quote from Wikipedia (a convenient, easy-to-verify reference)...
In general relativity (and, in fact, in any theory in which the equivalence principle holds), gravity has an immediate influence on the passage of time. Imagine two observers Alice and Bob, both of which are at rest in a stationary gravitational field, with Alice closer to the source of gravity ("deeper in the gravity well") and Bob at a greater distance. Then for light sent from Alice to Bob or vice versa, Bob will measure a lower frequency than Alice: light sent down into a gravity well is blue-shifted, light climbing out of a gravity well is redshifted. Also, Alice's clocks tick more slowly than Bob's: whenever the two are compared (either by sending light signals back and forth, or by slowly transporting clocks from one location to the other), the result will be that Bob's clocks are running faster. This effect is not restricted to clocks, but applies to all processes (the rate at which Alice and Bob age, cook five-minute eggs, or play Chopin's Minute Waltz); it is known as gravitational time dilation.
-------------
The above quote was snipped from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Gravitational_time_dilation_and_frequency_shift
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:41 am
That isn't a change in passage of time, but in speed that light is traveling though. confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:22 am
Sounds like you lost interest after red shifted and blue shifted light. Read further...
The classic example has twins born in the future. One gets in a rocket and travels at nearly the speed of light, and eventually returns home to find that he is now much younger than his twin brother, who remained on Earth and grew old. This is called the Twin Paradox, associated with Einstein's theory of relativity, and is an example of time being relative. Give it a Google. smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:07 am
I've heard of the Twin Paradox, but has any test ever been done for something like this seriously? I ask because while that Twin Paradox demonstrates the idea well of what they think it does in effect, just hearing it told, unless there is something beyond the effect gravity has on light, does not prove anything. It says what SHOULD happen, but not necessarily that it DOES happen. Hmm...perhaps I'll have to add reading that link in your post before to my ever growing list of things to do in the very near future. ( The list is getting long as it is. gonk )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:47 am
BC -- "I've heard of the Twin Paradox, but has any test ever been done for something like this seriously? "
Yes, actually... exclaim
"There are numerous direct measurements of gravitational time dilation using atomic clocks"
...quoted from the same article I linked to. Perhaps you *should* add it to your reading list after all... smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:56 am
What if we were all taken back in time to the middle 1700's?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:38 am
I wouldn't be able to charge my iPod... gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:03 am
MollyFlogginz what if, since supposedly every time you make a decision an alternate universe is formed, what if when you die your soul simply moves on to the next universe you created? -shrugs- sounds like fun to me and what if we actually figure out what the hell is going on? what if people like Bridey Murphy actually find out what happens once we die? and then tells the world, who then changes everything about themselves because now we know just what is waiting for us? would the world fall into chaos because the balance between knowning and not knowing has tipped? would the gods of the universe throw us into oblivion to start all over again? what if all the gods we believe in, YHWH and Allah and Zeus, what if they were all the same guy, the same god, he just introduced himself to us differently. For the Christians he said "I am God, this is my son Jesus." for the Muslims he said "I am Allah, this is my son Mohammed" and of course for the Greeks he said "I am Zeus, this is my son Hercules" "My son has come to save you." what if that's the case? then no body is screwed, there is no Hell, it's all just one guy telling us different stories so everyone gets what they want... That would be pretty f***ing awsome. But Muhamed wasnt the son of god he was the prophet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
