Ark - where are you headed?

[Search]

How do you try and entice the curiosity, or open the mind, of someone who doesn't believe or accept anything that is not 'proven' by scientific peer review?
Someone who doesn't believe there was ever a global flood - because there is no 'hard proof'?
Someone who believes flouride is good for your teeth, that wars are beneficial because they 'create jobs' and an environment where scientific discoveries progress in leaps and bounds....

It breaks my heart that I can't pull the blinkers away for one second.

Hi Soluna,

You don't try to entice the curiosity or open the mind of someone who doesn't want to. Period. This is the one mistake that most of us made when we first discovered Laura's work and this forum. Everything just makes so much sense to us and we want so much to impart this to others, especially those close to us. In the end, it just doesn't work. It will even alienate and push them away from what you want to draw them to. Remember that the first and foremost right of any being is free will and that includes the right to remain in ignorance.

It just that, what I’ve been doing a lot of times. I also think about that they have Free Will not to know the truth, or as you said to live in ignorance, but as I understand I never go a little deeper into this ‘subject’.
But if you want to share with others, the people that are close to you, what you read or what you recently got aware about(or ’ what are you live by’), and they don’t want to listen you? They listen you, from time to time, only because you asked them to listen you, or because they want to show some respect to you and they don’t see it important n this world. They do not see in what you are interested or they see that interested you is ‘wrong’, because it not helps to survive in this world ‘physically’ (I’m not interested in making a lot of money and never was; in founding a ‘good’ job; my interested are based on something that you couldn’t ‘see’, ‘touch’ or explain to them, but it didn’t mean that it isn’t exist). If you understand that the soul is ‘important’, even if you can’t ‘show’ it or touch’ it.
And you almost at all are not interested in what they are.
What I’m trying to say is that, you and they are living in totally different ‘worlds’, but you have close relationships with them. And if you want to change the way you are living now (or ‘lifestyle’), including your diet, smoking, EE, etc, what should you do? : try to explain them why you are doing so, although they almost don’t understand you and think that it some sort of ‘ridiculous’; or you just need to say leave me alone and let me live my life, it is my choice?
And what to do, if your and their ‘worlds’ are so different?
Maybe I wrote it too critically .It is hard for me to explain what I think, but I tried. You can ask me, if you don’t understand what I’m trying to say.
Maybe I again of topic here, so sorry for that and please say what are you think about it.

 

[SoCurious]

Hi Serg :)

If you think "is this STO?" when you make your decisions, I'm pretty sure that eventually the people closest to you will notice and want to know why you just did what you did because you'll be making decisions differently to them. They'll ask you then and will be very interested to hear what you have to say.

 

[Search]

Hi Serg :)

If you think "is this STO?" when you make your decisions, I'm pretty sure that eventually the people closest to you will notice and want to know why you just did what you did because you'll be making decisions differently to them. They'll ask you then and will be very interested to hear what you have to say.

Hi Richard (this smile doesn't mean 'cool' for me it means just 'smoking')
Thanks for your reply.
The one of the things that I want to understand is how to make my dicissions, I spoke about, according to my free will, without causing 'harm' to free will of others. Because, as I said we live in, and see, different 'worlds'.

 

[SolarMother]

Yup, a blog that explains Theoretical physics without the use of mathematics would be very interesting indeed. :D

I second that.

 

[SoCurious]

Serg,

The one of the things that I want to understand is how to make my dicissions, I spoke about, according to my free will, without causing 'harm' to free will of others. Because, as I said we live in, and see, different 'worlds'.

The C's give help on this, perhaps you haven't yet come to those parts? STO decision making is incredibly difficult as you need to work hard to overcome a lifetime of learned behaviours. It requires a constant awareness and there are forces at work trying to stop you from being aware all the time. There is so much to learn and Laura and the team have put together a wealth of material you can study that would help. With the study is the need to work hard on yourself. As you read and learn and work you'll find the answers coming to you. I'm not qualified to explain it in detail as I have way too much to learn and do myself.

In the meantime, it might help to just remember you shouldn't force anyone to do anything. If you're living your life in service to others as much as you can you might be lucky enough that those you most care about will come to you of their own free will.

While there is much to do I would suggest you already have a head start as by being here you are already most likely aware of the rightness of STO. Keep going.

 

[JGeropoulas]

I've always thought of Theoretical Physics as a religion for really smart people. ;)

I had a similar reaction when reading a collection of "inspiring" "spiritual" quotes that turned out to be all comments made by physicists.

 

[ark]

So, why not start from the middle. Here it goes:

Discrete and continuous. Zeno paradoxes.

There is space and there is time. Both are basic categories of our perception. Both occupied the minds of philosophers since long. The most famous one is probably Zeno, who, according to not exactly reliable sources, lived in an ancient Greek town of Elea some 2500 years ago. Zeno of Elea is famous for using the method of reduction ad absurdum in order to prove that the very concept of motion – a continuous in time change of position in space - is an absurd. For instance, we are told that according to Zeno, the arrow cannot fly, because it cannot change its position in space during each indivisible instant of time, and time consists of such indivisible instants. Zeno’s arrow paradox is the third one narrated by Aristotle in his treatise Physics:

The third is … that the flying arrow is at rest, which result follows from the assumption that time is composed of moments …. he says that if everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always in a now, the flying arrow is therefore motionless. [Cf. Stanford Encyclopedia of Physics, Zeno’s paradoxes, online version]

Zeno’s paradoxes occupied the minds of philosophers for a while, were, to some extent, dismissed by Aristotle, then they were dealt with by a few of representatives of the Neoplatonic school (most eminently by Damascius), then, for a long time they were essentially were forgotten, and then, again, formally dismissed by the calculus of infinitesimals developed by Leibniz, Newton, Cauchy and other mathematicians. But the fact that today’s mathematics can deal efficiently with formal description of continuous motions does not mean that that the very essence of Zeno’s paradoxes has been addressed in a way that satisfies us completely. Is space, at its very fundamental level, discrete or continuous?

 

[shijing]

...according to Zeno, the arrow cannot fly, because it cannot change its position in space during each indivisible instant of time, and time consists of such indivisible instants.

Should we take this as a given? If so, time would be discrete and not continuous, right?

Is space, at its very fundamental level, discrete or continuous?

If the answer to the above is "yes", and if space and time are assumed to have an identity (both being dimensional), then discreteness in one might imply discreteness in the other (likewise for non-discreteness). Can that assumption be made?

Another question is whether the arrow leaving the bow is the same arrow as the one hitting the target. Are they the same arrow, or are they actually different arrows (because each belongs to a different indivisible instant) that we only perceive as being the same?

 

[Soluna]

Thank you for the comments in response to my post - they definitely helped me see things from another perspective. I do battle with myself - the desire to 'help' others, if only by kindling their curiosity to 'help' themselves... is that me being selfish because I love them and want them to gain in knowledge of the things that will come to pass?

I think living by example is possibly a better way to go about things, if they 'ask', they will definitely be more receptive to learning.


I have been thinking about 'time' a lot too.

I have thought, a definition of time as I understand it - is a 'measurement' of the interval between moments? A value we have assigned the progression of moments - we split the progression of years into months, and days, and hours, and minutes... and we used our perception of the physically measurable to assign value to it?

We also use the word 'dimension' to describe measurements - the 'dimensions' of a square are it's measured size.
But the numbers we have assigned the portions - are imagined. We have metric and imperial measurement systems.

So does that mean, the 'speed of light' (speed being the measurement of 'distance' and 'time') is totally imaginary too?

I am pretty sure it was on this forum I was reading about a german(?) experiment regarding light travelling 'instantly' between prisms. There seem to be a lot of references regarding prisms and crystals and their properties - something to do with their structure perhaps.

I was reading about the latest 'invisibility' technology. (hope the _ fixes the link)
_http://news.yahoo.com/now-see-now-dont-time-cloak-created-184955175.html

I find it hard to get my head around! The 'example' of the use of this technology - being an art heist - really disappointed me though. So many 'wondrous' inventions, and the best example they could come up with to 'promote' it, is theft.

 

[SoCurious]

How about this?

If we were to describe the arrow in flight at each Now moment in terms of its all its properties such as including its vector properties we'd describing a different arrow every time. At rest it would have a vector of zero and its vector states would be different in every Now so in this respect it would always be a different arrow.

The third is … that the flying arrow is at rest, which result follows from the assumption that time is composed of moments …. he says that if everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always in a now, the flying arrow is therefore motionless. [Cf. Stanford Encyclopedia of Physics, Zeno’s paradoxes, online version]

So even if the arrow is motionless it is always a different arrow. However because we are including measurements of movement as a descriptor of its state, that state is describing an arrow in motion even if it appears to be motionless.

 

[ana]

It seems reasonable that a flying arrow is at rest, only a minimum level of self-awareness would give it the ability to direct and experience its movement in space uniting indivisible instants, in this instance the space is discrete and very limited.

On the other hand an external consciousness/observer can relate to the object and observe the movement under the premises of its own logic in which case space becomes continuous, even if it is still limited to the scope of the consciousness logic.

Then maybe a consciousness less limited may be able to experience space as indeterminate, here the possibilities for experiencing space expand although they may no be essentially related to the experiencing of distances in a "sheet".

Is it possible then, that at its very fundamental level space is indeterminate?

 

[Search]

Serg,

The one of the things that I want to understand is how to make my dicissions, I spoke about, according to my free will, without causing 'harm' to free will of others. Because, as I said we live in, and see, different 'worlds'.

The C's give help on this, perhaps you haven't yet come to those parts? STO decision making is incredibly difficult as you need to work hard to overcome a lifetime of learned behaviours. It requires a constant awareness and there are forces at work trying to stop you from being aware all the time. There is so much to learn and Laura and the team have put together a wealth of material you can study that would help. With the study is the need to work hard on yourself. As you read and learn and work you'll find the answers coming to you. I'm not qualified to explain it in detail as I have way too much to learn and do myself.

In the meantime, it might help to just remember you shouldn't force anyone to do anything. If you're living your life in service to others as much as you can you might be lucky enough that those you most care about will come to you of their own free will.

While there is much to do I would suggest you already have a head start as by being here you are already most likely aware of the rightness of STO. Keep going.

Hi Richard. Yes I have a huge amount what to read. Thanks for your reply and advices :)

 

[Mountain Crown]

[quote author=ark] Is space, at its very fundamental level, discrete or continuous?[/quote]

I’m no mathematician, but here are some thoughts:

Discrete and continuous are terms describing structures – does space have structure?

Could it be that at its most fundamental level, space can be described as discrete or continuous, like light as wave or particle? It seems then the paradox would be resolved.


Edited for spelling

 

[ark]

What about time? It seems that assuming continuity is very efficient, but Nature, when analyzed at the microscopic level, is discrete. One of the most famous and distinguished physicists of the XX-th century, Albert Einstein, who was developing the continuous description all his life, towards the end of his life wrote in desperation this sentence (Einstein, 1955):

From the quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory, and must lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic theory for the description of reality. But nobody knows how to obtain the basis of such a theory.

 

[SoCurious]

Many years ago I read that a couple of Russian scientists had developed an experiment wherein they were able to show time as a force. If they're right then time exists in 3D and we must remember this. The C's have also said Time exists for us.

In other dimensions or densities the C's and others have said that time does not exist.

It seems to me we have to choose what to describe, the Universe With Time or the Universe Without Time. I doubt that any description could encompass both states.

I'm sorry Einstein despaired but I imagine it was because he was able to catch tantalizing glimpses behind the 4D veil. Had he ever been able to move the veil aside he would probably have disappeared into 4D. "Ha, ha, ha, I told you zo Niels"