CHATPRIVACYDONATELOGINREGISTER
DMT-Nexus
FAQWIKIHEALTH & SAFETYARTATTITUDEACTIVE TOPICS
«PREV234
Reality Is A Scripted Computer Simulation For The Soul Options
 
xss27
#61 Posted : 2/9/2019 10:49:31 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 159
Joined: 07-Jul-2018
Last visit: 19-Apr-2019
Location: Londinium
PsyDuckmonkey wrote:
It is my opinion that these kinds of discussions would require all participants to understand the "formulas and numerical predictions" as you put it, to a tee. High physics and high mathematics are a discipline that cannot be losslessly transformed down to hunter-gatherer ape think. Those formulas you deride are physics. Talking about physics in hunter-gatherer terms (aka natural language) is like trying to explain what tripping is like to someone who never tripped.

...So don't discount the maths.


What I find amusing about this thread is how it has veered off into an intellectual-mathematical discussion, which whilst being very interesting and thought provoking isn't all that far from where we started with the OPs original proposition.. which has been critically derided.. and replaced with equally outlandish propositions in my opinion.

There is an over reliance on mathematics in our current scientific paradigm, most easily seen with our cosmological model, astrophysics, and with the theories already mentioned so far. It is a language and unfortunately as humans we seem predisposed to tell stories with it, to project all sorts of fantasies on to it and with it, instead of using it to actually explain what we see.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality" - Nikola Tesla

If we spent more time actually observing what is right in front of us and not getting lost in mathematical abstractions and jerking off to the 'superior' mathematical minds (Hawkings etc) I would posit we would advance much quicker as a society from the point where we are at currently. More over, if we actually bothered to question what is doing the seeing inside of ourselves instead of looking to the outside for answers we'd make the quantum leap we all deep down hope for.

Forget the maths and lets pay attention to ourselves and each other. /rant
 

Good quality Syrian rue (Peganum harmala) for an incredible price!
 
AcaciaConfusedYah
#62 Posted : 2/10/2019 12:20:28 AM

No one in particular

Chemical expertSenior Member

Posts: 1253
Joined: 22-Feb-2014
Last visit: 19-Apr-2019
The Traveler wrote:
AcaciaConfusedYah wrote:
The proposition: does the light used in the means of "observing" the photon interfere with the wave? We know about constructive and destructive interference... so. By using light to "observe," is it the light that interacts with itself that crashes the wave?

Here is an interesting thought experiment based on that principle: Wigner's friend

And some extra mind-pulling stuff: Quantum foam


Kind regards,

The Traveler


Thank you for the links Trav! I am taking a look at them now.

Love
ACY

Edit: Very insightful video and wiki link. I love learning about quantum mechanics. At the university it is presented in a very reduced version. We explored many of the equations that were discussed in Wigner's friend, however it was never discussed as "Wigner's friend," they simply just explained the different states, the equations, and which states apply to which specific setting, transition, etc etc.

I always like seeing the creative ways that folks use to relay ideas and concepts - such as the Quantum Foam. It places an imagery in one's mind that can be used to related the concept behind the theory.

During that video, it shows a magnified version of matter being created out of "nothing" and then being destroyed into "nothing." That is very interesting! I wonder if there is a way to probe even further and see what is occurring within the "moments" of existence before returning to nothing? Is there a limit at some point? Or is it going to be continuously repeating the same behavior "all the way down?" Is it limitless?
If you're on a fence, take a trip. If you're on a trip, don't take offense.

It's like building a mountain vs. digging a hole. To do one, you are also doing the other. At the end, where do you want to stand?

I'm going to add to the statement about a fence. "Sometimes standing on a fence means you are learning balance. If you lose balance, without picking a side- you might rack yourself in the balls. Sometimes it's best to just knock down a fence. Balance was never lost until there was a fence. No offense."
 
mjc490
#63 Posted : 2/10/2019 9:02:14 PM
DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 30
Joined: 28-Nov-2009
Last visit: 28-Mar-2019
Location: USA
Hello!

Because I believe reality is computer generated, this means that the laws of our "universe", such as all physics, are completely created by God, and may change at any time. science is also a creation of God, and its laws can change at any time.

a simple example of this would be the acceleration of gravity. when we measure the acceleration of gravity on earth, it is 9.8 m/s^2. but there is no reason that it has to remain 9.8 m/s^2. it could change at any time, like changing a computer file on a computer.

i also believe things such as DMT and quantum physics, are creations of god as well. they are creations made by god for us to experience. they are NOT made to be fully understood. they are there to amaze us and make us wonder. and they are open to interpretation.

and again, reality is an image(eyesight) + signals(feelings) + information(thoughts).
so any evidence one may find about our reality, could be simulated results, or just a change in the image(eyesight) + signals(feelings) + information(thoughts). so anything and everything is possible!

but again, i also believe reality is a scripted computer simulation for the soul, so everything i wrote here was pre-determined.

thanks for reading. any and all input is appreciated! Smile
 
laughingcat
#64 Posted : 2/11/2019 2:12:39 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 162
Joined: 13-Jul-2011
Last visit: 18-Apr-2019
Location: UK
I find it intriguing that so many people begin to think this way after becoming involved with DMT. I published an article on this very subject a couple of years ago:

http://www.buildingalien...e_simulated_universe.pdf
 
Loveall
#65 Posted : 3/23/2019 5:19:21 AM

πŸ’–

Chemical expertSenior Member

Posts: 1274
Joined: 11-Mar-2017
Last visit: 19-Apr-2019
Location: 🌎
The Traveler wrote:
AcaciaConfusedYah wrote:
The proposition: does the light used in the means of "observing" the photon interfere with the wave? We know about constructive and destructive interference... so. By using light to "observe," is it the light that interacts with itself that crashes the wave?

Here is an interesting thought experiment based on that principle: Wigner's friend

And some extra mind-pulling stuff: Quantum foam


Kind regards,

The Traveler


A few days after the post above, a preprint of a Wigner's friend experiment using entangled photons was submitted to arXiv (attached).

Title is "Experimental rejection of observer-independence in the quantum world"

We'll see if the paper is accepted and published after peer review. Here is a snippet from the conclusions:

Massimiliano Proietti, Alexander Pickston, Francesco Graffitti, Peter Barrow, Dmytro Kundys, Cyril Branciard, Martin Ringbauer, Alessandro Fedrizzi wrote:
... at least one of the three assumptions of free choice, locality, and observer-independent facts must fail.


Looks like we live in an interesting universe.
β€œ... (a) psychedelic substance occasionally causes psychotic behaviour in people who have not taken it.”
Excerpt from a McKenna talk transcript / audio.
 
AcaciaConfusedYah
#66 Posted : 3/23/2019 3:34:27 PM

No one in particular

Chemical expertSenior Member

Posts: 1253
Joined: 22-Feb-2014
Last visit: 19-Apr-2019
42

4 people or 2 people? Or 42 people? Oh, maybe fourty-six and 2.... just ahead of me. I've been pickin' my scabs again!

Quote:
Looks like we live in an interesting universe.


Yes! One of the more interesting places to be, IMO. Imagine if a universe didn't have these mysteries. That would be incredibly boring, IMO. Why would we even need "time" if there was only sameness? The uncertainty and ability to instantaneously change without direct expectation makes linearity interesting. I think this model - "the mysterious universe" - is one worth existing (if we even exist... at all) in and enjoying the contrast of progression vs. regression.

One step in the "wrong" direction might be the "right" step.

So, observer-independent: yeah, I still have too many questions. Observation is weird. The direct influence of an individual can be observed as "odd."

Short story time: In 2013, I spent a large portion of the summer mushroom hunting for wild edibles. I had heard of lactarius indigo before, yet never found them prior to that summer. Lactarius indigo has a beautiful blue mushroom body, and some people consider them desired as edible.

One day, I came across my first patch. Per typical, after picking a mushroom, I would smell the mushroom to see what smell is associated. This mushroom smelled like lemons and blueberries! It was very unique smelling. I collected a few and brought them home to my wife. I said, "Smell these! They smell like blueberries and lemons!" She smelled them and said, "wow! Those really do smell like blueberries and lemons!"

A week later, my friend Skids (nickname given to him in 10th grade - he ate pavement on a skateboard and had "skid marks" all over his face and body) and I were on a mushroom hunt. I found some lactarius indigo, and yelled for Skids to come check them out. I'd already picked one, smelling it, and said, "the mushrooms smell crazy! They smell like blueberries and lemons." He gave the mushroom a sniff, "Whoa! They do! That's wild!"

2 weeks later, I am on a mushroom hunt with my friend Seth (no nickname, just Seth); and guess what I found! Yeah, lactarius indigo. "These smell like blueberries and lemons." "Dang, they really do!"

A week later, mushroom hunt with Josh. Josh hunted mushrooms before I had started, and he'd told me about the color of lactarius indigo, but never mentioned any smell. Well, I found some more lactarius indigo, and did the usual. "These smell like blueberries and lemons!"...... (Josh takes a sniff) "No they don't. They smell like a mushroom." I was confused! "Are you sure, man? Every other person i've shown them to agrees with the smell." He replied, "well, I found them a few years back, and they've always just smelled like another mushroom." I raised the mushroom to my nose, no... definitely blueberries and lemons.

So, I asked him: "when you found them, were you alone or were you with anyone." "Alone, why?" "I'm just trying to figure this out, everyone else agrees that the smell is like blueberries and lemons..." but then, it occured to me....

In the event of wife, Skids, and Seth - I was the initial observer. I told them how it should smell. I didn't ask. Their expectations were not set until I set them. But, Josh... he was his own observer. He made his own conclusions, and neither of us would agree with the other - because, we observed a different phenomena from the same "observation."

Others just blindly trusted me. For them, lactarius indigo will always smell of blueberries and lemons (just as it does, for me). For Josh, he'll always smell, "just a mushroom." After all, Josh and I are two very similar people. I think that's why we got along so well. Maybe this is the VERY event that spawned my curiosity within suggestions and expectations. I began to wonder if "suggestions and expectations" had a larger role than the human mind. I began testing subtle experiments. Over time they grew into even weirder experiments.

So, looping back to these scientific experiments... if we're told something - do we expect it? Does our expectation exist due to carefully placed suggestions? If so - do some people gather expectation from observation or suggestion? If our expectation is based on suggestions - then yes, we're forfeiting the choice to choose. If expectations are based on observation, then that's between ourselves and everything we've ever experienced.

I am assuming that the lactarius indigo smells like blueberries and lemons, because when I first found it, I observed the color and compared it to the color of blueberries. For a brief moment, before smelling it, the thought of blueberries made me think of the blueberry lemon scones that my wife used to make... when I took that first smell... it locked that notion into place. They will always smell like blueberries and lemons... unless you're Josh - Then it's "just a mushroom." IMO, the "just a mushroom" approach seems much less exciting.

So. Two observations. Two different perspectives. When strong suggestions are made, by one we trust, expectations begin to shift towards that direction. If ideals are already "set," then it's all a matter of subjective opinion.

Take Care!
ACY
If you're on a fence, take a trip. If you're on a trip, don't take offense.

It's like building a mountain vs. digging a hole. To do one, you are also doing the other. At the end, where do you want to stand?

I'm going to add to the statement about a fence. "Sometimes standing on a fence means you are learning balance. If you lose balance, without picking a side- you might rack yourself in the balls. Sometimes it's best to just knock down a fence. Balance was never lost until there was a fence. No offense."
 
Loveall
#67 Posted : 3/24/2019 11:58:43 PM

πŸ’–

Chemical expertSenior Member

Posts: 1274
Joined: 11-Mar-2017
Last visit: 19-Apr-2019
Location: 🌎
Loveall wrote:
The Traveler wrote:
AcaciaConfusedYah wrote:
The proposition: does the light used in the means of "observing" the photon interfere with the wave? We know about constructive and destructive interference... so. By using light to "observe," is it the light that interacts with itself that crashes the wave?

Here is an interesting thought experiment based on that principle: Wigner's friend

And some extra mind-pulling stuff: Quantum foam


Kind regards,

The Traveler


A few days after the post above, a preprint of a Wigner's friend experiment using entangled photons was submitted to arXiv (attached).

Title is "Experimental rejection of observer-independence in the quantum world"

We'll see if the paper is accepted and published after peer review. Here is a snippet from the conclusions:

Massimiliano Proietti, Alexander Pickston, Francesco Graffitti, Peter Barrow, Dmytro Kundys, Cyril Branciard, Martin Ringbauer, Alessandro Fedrizzi wrote:
... at least one of the three assumptions of free choice, locality, and observer-independent facts must fail.


Looks like we live in an interesting universe.


FYI, the article on the experimental test of Wigner's friend is being picked up by some news sources. Here is an example,

https://www.technologyre...g-as-objective-reality/


β€œ... (a) psychedelic substance occasionally causes psychotic behaviour in people who have not taken it.”
Excerpt from a McKenna talk transcript / audio.
 
Loveall
#68 Posted : 3/25/2019 2:36:17 AM

πŸ’–

Chemical expertSenior Member

Posts: 1274
Joined: 11-Mar-2017
Last visit: 19-Apr-2019
Location: 🌎
From the news article above:

Quote:
β€œThe scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them,” say Proietti and co. And yet in the same paper, they undermine this idea, perhaps fatally.

Surprised

I foresee a lot of Esalen institute talks on this. I call the hot tub! Laughing Thumbs up
β€œ... (a) psychedelic substance occasionally causes psychotic behaviour in people who have not taken it.”
Excerpt from a McKenna talk transcript / audio.
 
«PREV234
 
Users browsing this forum
Guest

DMT-Nexus theme created by The Traveler
This page was generated in 0.060 seconds.