PDA

View Full Version : Athene's Theory of Everything



Andro
05-25-2012, 07:09 PM
Certainly not a 'Theory of Everything' IMO, but definitely giving a nice summary of many topics from a neuro-scientific perspective.

Well worth watching IMO, and only 50 minutes. Cool soundtrack as well, and many other links for those inclined to further study this material :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbh5l0b2-0o

Krisztian
05-26-2012, 12:18 AM
Yes, I agree it is not a complete theory of everything, but neuroscience does have much to offer. I'm waiting for the day, when 'science' will recognize what I call the triad. Not just the environment (viz., social) and genetics (our inherited biology) but also what our soul brings with itself to the incarnation, as the influencers of our lives.

Thanks for the posting, Androgynus.

Krisztian
05-26-2012, 12:41 AM
After saying how important 'our beliefs are' to the nature of reality, I'm still baffled by how consciousness being the benchmark of all experiences is discredited. I see 'consciousness' as the creating mechanics of everything, of life itself.

It'll be interesting to see what others will post.

solomon levi
05-26-2012, 01:55 AM
Well, it's brilliant.
I've commented elsewhere on a lot of the items looked at.
I'll have to watch it again and take notes and see if I feel like expounding upon anything.
Thanks for the link!

Krisztian
05-26-2012, 01:30 PM
I figured I post one of my experiences since it relates to the topic discussed in this YouTube under the subject of time.

6 months ago I received as a gift a pocket watch (if interested check out Ruhla Gardé, from Eisenach, Germany). Now, you must understand that I didn't expect such a strange phenomena with this timepiece. What I began to notice, quite innocently, that whenever I wore the pocket watch, in that 24 hour period, attached to my pants with leather band, time on the Gardé was 6 to 8 minutes slower than usual. If I leave the pocket watch on my desk, in a consistent fashion, seems to run faster than other clocks in my home. At least 5 minutes faster. So, what usually happens, in the morning when I wind up the pocket watch, that in a 24 hour period it runs faster when I'm not wearing it.

Isn't it strange?

Any comments?

Ghislain
05-26-2012, 01:46 PM
Heavy stuff.

As I am only a voyeur within the field of quantum science and the like, I have to take much of what is
said at face value. The narrator may have been speaking a lot of drivel created in an informed way
and as such I have been” taken in” so to speak.

If I have learnt anything from my time spent here in this forum is that one should always be open to
all possibilities. Knowledge is fractal; the more you learn the more you realise you don’t know.
I will say however that much of what was proposed in the video above seems to be viewing the
same reference frame as myself.

I could travel within this reference frame for the rest of my life and I am sure that along the way I may find
many answers and probably twice as many questions, but will they ever relate to anyone else if
those others have a different frame of reference?

Are we finding truths or just our own unique perceptions of truths?

To take one example from the video...

“If a physicist whose body was made of antimatter, would do experiments in a laboratory also made
of antimatter, using chemicals and substances made of antiparticle, he would find almost exactly the
same results as his matter counterpart.

But when they would merge immense energy would be released proportional to their
mass.”

Why?

If you take two sound waves of equal and opposite amplitude and same frequency and merge them
together they cancel each other out. You don’t get a big bang as this happens.

http://genius.toucansurf.com/sound.gif

Why then do you get an immense release of Energy when joining matter with antimatter?

Please correct me if my assumptions are incorrect but for something to have mass it must be formed
of matter, if this is correct then...

Where E=MC^2 then M (mass) must be formed of matter and hence the joining of matter and
antimatter results in matter. This doesn’t make sense.

Maybe it would make more sense if the substance was oscillating between matter and antimatter, they
exist in almost the same time and space as each other and hence the lack of antimatter in the universe.

I think science agrees that everything is just vibration therefore sometimes a particle is matter and
at others it is antimatter.

In another extract from the video it says...


“when we trap antiparticles through electromagnetic fields we can study their properties. The
quantum state of particles and antiparticles can be interchanged...by applying the charge
conjugation [C], Parity [P], and the time reversal [T] operators.”

Perhaps trapping a substance in a certain way within an electromagnetic field you change the frame of
reference and where our usual reference is on matter, within a particular electromagnetic field we only
see antimatter.

http://genius.toucansurf.com/Matter%20antimatter.jpg

Just a thought :)

Krisztian

Watches are known to be affected by a persons own electrical field. Some people can't wear a watch at all
as they dont give accurate time or even stop completely.

Ghislain

Ghislain
05-29-2012, 05:55 AM
Solar Cell Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Theory)


The solar cell works in three steps:

1.Photons in sunlight hit the solar panel and are absorbed by semiconducting materials, such as silicon.

2.Electrons (negatively charged) are knocked loose from their atoms, causing an electric potential difference.
Current starts flowing through the material to cancel the potential and this electricity is captured.
Due to the special composition of solar cells, the electrons are only allowed to move in a single direction.

3.An array of solar cells converts solar energy into a usable amount of direct current (DC) electricity.

Photon Physical properties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties)


The photon is massless

The Electron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron)


An electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton

If all of the statements above are true then how does a massless substance knock a mass from its atom?

Imagine trying to move a bowling ball by throwing a feather at it and then remember the feather has mass...

There seems to be so many contradictions when one enters the world of the micro...

Ghislain

vega33
05-29-2012, 08:00 AM
If all of the statements above are true then how does a massless substance knock a mass from its atom?

Imagine trying to move a bowling ball by throwing a feather at it and then remember the feather has mass...

There seems to be so many contradictions when one enters the world of the micro...

Ghislain

My sentiments exactly G, and thanks for posting, there are more contradictions that one can count.

Albert Pike echoed Walter Russell when he said that Equilibrium was a royal secret (in his discussion of the degree of the same name). The thing that I find hilarious about the solar cell example is that it shows just how much confusion there is around even getting a definition of mass, beyond what we can measure with our instruments. Why do superconductors lose some of their "mass" while in the superconductive state, and then regain it afterwards? Because mass as a tangible thing does not exist, it is a measurement subject to the relation of objects to one another. There are all sorts of attempts to calculate things like "the weight of the earth" or "the weight of the sun", but they just continue floating in their orbits in space. :)

I wish more people would think about such problems with a logical mind rather than accepting theories or predictive models as fact.

solomon levi
05-29-2012, 08:07 PM
Things can expand your mind without being true or accepting them as facts.
For example, when I was introduced to books that claim Jesus never existed physically,
I was freed from a lot of old beliefs and hope, and I don't know right now which is
true, nor does it matter to me one bit.
There are lots of paradoxes in quantum physics. Most of QP, if you are trying to understand
it through classical Newtonian physics, will appear false and contradictory. If E=mc2,
and a photon is massless it also has no energy. Do you really thnk a photon has no energy?
Where does the light come from?
The same article says:
"The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question."

In QP, everything is an experimental question - the experimenter affects what s/he observes; the
criteria by which you measure and construct an experiment intends the nature of the outcome.
Anyone who is observant can see this for themselves. It's about time science recognised it.

Anyway, I would recommend just listening to ideas, not believing or disbelieving, and see if
the ideas expand your mind, your view/picture of reality, or not. That's where my emphasis is
anyways. If we are only concerned with what is "true" we will end up with only a narrow band
of the possible spectrum. Philosophy is about wonder. Wonder = free mind IMO. This is why
I like to entertain any ideas that are outside the norm/lines/box.
Why not live in a world where all/both are possible? How much more will you see? How many
more neuro-nets will you activate? Do you want to use less than a tenth of your brain or more?
Contradictions, instead of suggesting one is true and the other false, may be suggesting that a
different cognitive system is required/possible, as Castaneda wrote about and I have proven for
myself. What will happen to this world if we can't handle contradictions? Destroy one half of it?

Ghislain
05-30-2012, 05:48 AM
Sol I think I understand where you are coming from. I have had some experiences that if aired
publicly would have me certified :).

In the video I posted by Brian Cox on quantum theory he states that just by changing the energy of
one electron all electrons in the universe must reorganise themselves. How far out is that? But I
can go with it.

I guess this is the reason that everything is always in motion; constant reorganisation, equilibrium.

One of my tenets is to keep an open mind, but this does not mean unquestioning.

As vega33 has brought Albert Pike into the conversation I think one of his quotes is fitting here.


Doubt, the essential preliminary of all improvement and discovery, must accompany the stages of man's
onward progress. The faculty of doubting and questioning, without which those of comparison and
judgment would be useless, is itself a divine prerogative of the reason.

Another of my tenets is "go with the flow"; I'm just curious as to the direction and destination that flow is
taking me.

I may never know, but it is fun trying to discover. Wouldn't you agree?

Ghislain

vega33
05-30-2012, 07:03 AM
Things can expand your mind without being true or accepting them as facts.

Well, you can imagine all sorts of illogical things, but I think even in hypothesizing one has to stick to the observed facts. Real, honest to God facts. You cannot prove one way or another with historical evidence that Jesus existed or did not exist; what you can observe is that myths and legends have come down to us from ancient cultures that look extraordinarily like the Jesus story, including crucifixion, virgin birth, resurrection etc. You can also observe various historical artifacts and sites, books referencing said figure, read what he is supposed to have said, and come to your own conclusion.

Similarly, with quantum physics, if we stick to the observed facts, we see as you've stated:


There are lots of paradoxes in quantum physics. Most of QP, if you are trying to understand
it through classical Newtonian physics, will appear false and contradictory. If E=mc2,
and a photon is massless it also has no energy. Do you really thnk a photon has no energy?
Where does the light come from?
The same article says:
"The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question."

This observed fact: that humans believe in the existence of a theoretical particle with no mass which is both a wave and a particle at the same time, yet has a theoretical energy e=hv in direct contradiction to E=mc2 suggesting a massless particle would have no energy, leads one to deriding said humans. Or at the very least, admitting that the theoretical model that leads to such conclusions is seriously flawed, lacks connection with reality, and has holes big enough to drive a truck through.

Now, that doesn't mean that, accepting "contradiction", I'm going to "destroy" the physicists that came up with such monstrosities. The experiments performed and observational data are still in many cases valid, but the interpretation of that data does not take into account the fullness of what we have observed about the world around us. And thats the position that many outspoken people such as the Electric Universe folks, Petr Beckmann (author of Einstein Plus Two), and various other somewhat mainstream anti-relativity proponents have taken.

I don't deny that QP makes some attractive statements about our universe. But just because you slap a fancy name like quantum tunnelling or Bell-non-locality on something doesn't mean such effects cannot be explained by other means. Mathematical equations can have multiple interpretations when you try to apply them to physical reality.

ALC93
06-01-2012, 03:07 AM
Well, you can imagine all sorts of illogical things, but I think even in hypothesizing one has to stick to the observed facts. Real, honest to God facts. You cannot prove one way or another with historical evidence that Jesus existed or did not exist; what you can observe is that myths and legends have come down to us from ancient cultures that look extraordinarily like the Jesus story, including crucifixion, virgin birth, resurrection etc. You can also observe various historical artifacts and sites, books referencing said figure, read what he is supposed to have said, and come to your own conclusion.

If historical evidence can be viewed as either proving or disproving that (for lack of a better example) Jesus either existed or didn't exist, wouldn't it seem that the facts are fundamentally in dispute? Similarly, the facts that you are pointing to here as indisputable (i.e. the continuity of myths and legends from the past) may also be disputed. Personally, I agree with your view that many myths and stories from past cultures are virtually the same myth. But if we were to ask some of my Catholic friends, boy, would they have a bone to pick with us! Their interpretation of the "facts" are that they do not look, or feel like, the "Jesus myth" in the slightest!

I think that part of the point that Solomon was trying to make, if I may be so bold as to give my own interpretation, was that what "facts" we admit as most important changes both the picture we have of the universe and (consequently) what we may do with that picture. In fact, non-facts, which are inherently outside the boundaries of what is known, may be more useful than what is known for the very reason that they expand our own notion of what may actually be "fact."

If there was something "unknown" without that we did not have within ourselves, how would we make contact with it other than by proposing that the basic architecture of our inner reality is a lie, and thereby telling some small known lie (a story, some unbelievable fact) to counter it. Assume some small equation represents the universe, and formulate the universe thereby. And this is how I see scientific formulas working. Generally, people turn to physics and hard science as a manner of making a statement about the definite, known nature of reality; but these ideas and formulas, as you point out, have more holes than swiss cheese. They don't always work, since the universe is usually a lot bigger than any one conception of it. But once this is known, they are no longer applied in the scenarios where they don't work, after a matter of utility. In the case of ideas like we are talking about here, it seems that the purpose of the result isn't to define reality by a set of facts, but to undo a conception of reality. [And, perhaps, this is why it doesn't matter whether the ideas are "more true" than reality to begin with. If an untruth became reality, then reality wouldn't be undone.]

Going back to the "Jesus myth" idea, I have also enjoyed reading about alternative bloodline and (conspiracy) ideas about Christianity. At some level, it is difficult to ascertain what is actually factual about much of history. The official explanation may not be the real explanation; for instance, Japan still denies its WW2 atrocities. On the other hand, the point isn't to arrive at "fact" but to arrive at some liberation from the facts. After all, the "fact" that our facts don't explain everything is a problem with the facts, not with the non-facts, if you catch my drift. ;-)

solomon levi
06-01-2012, 07:37 PM
That is a fairly accurate presentation of my point 93. :)
Here is another version from Castaneda:
"A warrior always tries to affect the force of doing by changing it into not-doing . Doing would be to leave the pebble lying around because it is merely a small rock. Not-doing would be to proceed with that pebble as if it were something far beyond a mere rock.
Is all this true? To say yes or no to that question is doing. But since you are learning not-doing I have to tell you that it really doesn't matter whether or not all this is true. It is here that a warrior has a point of advantage over the average man.
An average man cares that things are either true or false, but a warrior doesn't. An average man proceeds in a specific way with things that he knows are true, and in a different way with things that he knows are not true. If things are said to be true, he acts and believes in what he does. But if things are said to be untrue, he doesn't care to act, or he doesn't believe in what he does. A warrior, on the other hand, acts in both instances. If things are said to be true, he would act in order to do doing . If things are said to be untrue, he still would act in order to do not-doing . Not-doing is only for very strong warriors."

In Journey to Ixtlan, don Juan says, "I am not concerned with lies or truth. Lies are lies only if you have personal history."

In other words, by believing in truth and lies, you determine yourself - you are existing relative to your knowledge/past;
you are making a measurement in infinity. This measurement allows some emanations and ignores others. You lose your
totality for the sake of being right/true. Not worth it IMO.

Krisztian
06-01-2012, 08:47 PM
You lose your totality for the sake of being right/true. Not worth it IMO.

Well, that might be the best approach to clearing your path, and being closer to your soul, so to speak.

As a psychologist, I have come to see that every person's point of view is true (and have some validity) from one angle at least, so getting too entangled in daily relational tango is not necessary.

solomon levi
06-01-2012, 11:25 PM
Well, that might be the best approach to clearing your path, and being closer to your soul, so to speak.

As a psychologist, I have come to see that every person's point of view is true (and have some validity) from one angle at least, so getting too entangled in daily relational tango is not necessary.

Well, true still doesn't mean anything to me.
You said it yourself - since everyone is true, there's no relative (false) to compare/define it by.
The totality has nothing to do with my soul.
Well, I mean my soul is one small fraction of all souls which are one fraction of totality,
so I'm not interested in soul work but transcending soul. Soul has memory, individuality.
I understand this interests some, but not me.