KHTK Axiom #2 and Scientology

awareness-continuum

Here is another look at Scientology Factor #1.

SCIENTOLOGY FACTOR # 1: Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.

This Factor assumes that awareness is there before anything else. It is the essential characteristic or Cause that brings about effect, or motion.

This Factor takes awareness for granted as ‘potential’.

.

But we don’t find that to be the case in actual experience. Awareness is related to relative motion as noted in the Theory of Relativity and KHTK Axiom 2.

KHTK Axiom #2: Awareness arises with relative motion, and disappears when there is no relative motion.

Thus, awareness does not precede motion. It is incorrect to take awareness for granted as ‘potential’.

In fact, cause and effect are abstractions gleaned from associations observed among events. The ‘effect’ event is understood as a consequence of the ‘cause’ event.  More correctly, cause is the beginning, and effect is the end, of the same event.

Thus, awareness, and the power to create, is not a requisite for Cause because cause-effect is just an association. There is no such requirement that Cause must exist in isolation before the beginning.

Thus, the assertion that before the beginning was a Cause is questionable.

.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

Comments

  • vinaire  On November 12, 2013 at 7:33 PM

    From 2ndxmr in https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13704:

    “Probabilistic implies lack of dimension, therefore position cannot be ascertained or predicted either absolutely or relatively.”

    .

    Probabilistic implies lack of exact knowledge. We need a different way of looking at wave-particle duality. My conjecture is that a wave transitions to a particle in infinite gradients as resistance to motion increases.

    Degree of transition from wave to particle = f (resistance to motion)

    Generally, there is resistance experienced by EMR as permittivity and permeability.

    Permittivity of “space” is a constant that relates to the amount of resistance encountered when forming an electric field in a classical vacuum.

    Permeability of “space” is a constant that relates to the amount of resistance encountered when forming a magnetic field in a classical vacuum.

    The speed of light c is determined by permittivity and permeability. I would suspect that permittivity and permeability would slightly increase, and the speed of EMR shall slightly decrease, with increase in frequency of the EMR radiation. If my conjecture is true, the speed pf gamma rays would be slightly slower than the speed of microwaves in classical vacuum.

    The speed of electron shall definitely be slower that the speed of light. The speed of fundamental particles is expected to decrease with their mass if my conjecture is true.

    Has such experiments been carried out?

    .

  • vinaire  On November 12, 2013 at 8:04 PM

    From 2ndxmr in https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13705:

    “That is tautological and does not take into account inertia-less photons, for example…”

    .

    Photons have inertia and that is why c is not infinite. c is limited by permittivity and permeability.

    .

    • 2ndxmr  On November 12, 2013 at 11:23 PM

      V:”Photons have inertia and that is why c is not infinite. c depends on permittivity and permeability.”

      If they had inertia, would they not have to accelerate to light speed?

      • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 6:00 AM

        I don’t understand your question.

        • MarkNR  On November 13, 2013 at 9:01 AM

          And here we have what appears to be an outpoint in physical laws. If electrons have inertia, that implies mass. They are said to have a certain mass. Mass can never reach the speed of light, only approach it, from any stable point of reference. Yet electrons always travel at ‘c’ in space. In a conductive materiel, the speed is slightly slower due to not traveling in a straight line as it goes from atom to atom.
          Do electrons accelerate when they jump from atom to atom or are they already traveling at ‘c’ in their orbits around the nucleus, thereby no acceleration is necessary. Is there a moment when electrons change states from an object with mass to a particle/wave with no mass.
          There is a common phrase among people when talking about emotional issues that says “You can’t have it both ways”, but in QM there are several instances where you can “have it both ways”. It seems to me that many of the illogical laws, outpoints, and exceptions of physics were simply created in order to make things work out right. You make 10 rules. 2 of them conflict. So you say “Except when…….” in order to solve the problem.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 5:19 PM

          Good post MarkNR.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 4:45 PM

          2X: I don’t understand your question.

          CT: Does an emitted photon simply emit beginning at light speed like from “zero to c” instantaneously or does it have to accelerate from 0 to c over time?

        • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 8:33 PM

          When we think of speed we think of the rate of change of position. The implicit assumption is that of a partcle because particles have position.

          A wave does not have a position. So the idea of speed when applied to a wave has a totally different meaning. Speed of a wave and speed of a particle are two very different concepts… like apples and oranges.

          .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM

        V:”Photons have inertia and that is why c is not infinite. c depends on permittivity and permeability.

        2x:”If they had inertia, would they not have to accelerate to light speed?

        CT: I’m seeing it this way too. Acceleration implies higher quantum energy states, added by the Planck second (conjecture). Even if a photon accelerated to c, and even if we said there is plenty of unmeasurably short time available for this to occur, acceleration demands additional energy be added by the moment. Said another way, increasing relative motion requires the addition of energy. Regarding the photon, how would we account for this?

        • MarkNR  On November 13, 2013 at 12:59 PM

          C.T.:
          Perhaps the particle which becomes a photon when released was already moving, or was in a state of apparent or potential motion, at ‘c’ before it was released from it’s object of origin. The energy required to project light may be simply used to 1. convert the particle to a photon and 2. separate it from its parent particle. It’s apparent ‘velocity’ may have already been ‘c’ in a state of vibration or rotation. Therefore no acceleration is necessary.
          Thoughts?
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 7:11 PM

          MarkNR: Thoughts?

          Chris: Because there are paradoxes involved, and because I don’t believe in paradox, my thinking is that down the road, when these mysteries are illuminated, we will see that we hadn’t laid these problems our correctly and thusly were off base by quite a bit. That generation may have a good laugh at our expense the way we snicker at the old ‘uns before us.

          That was my escapist thought. My real conjecture about your question is that the universe may have a digital basis and there may not be any motion at all, only quantum jumps per second. When the quantum jump occurs every Planck second, that may correspond with the speed of light. Therefore according to my hypothesis, there would be no acceleration of a photon, only a wave packet appearing each and every Planck second. The rest of us would therefore appear less often since we are more massive and move more slowly. I once did a calculation to compare this to say a jet airplane travelling at 1000 kM/hr and found that it moved very seldom, hanging mostly still in mid-air and moving only 1/4 mm every so often. Compared to Planck time, it was moving so slowly that it hardly moved at all. Anyways, in my model, there is no motion, only quantum leaping with gaps of disappearance in between while potential energy built up until there was enough energy for next quantum leap could occur. There are many unexplained holes in this idea though it is a bit fresh when compared to extant ideas about movement. However, to me it is consistent with and explains why the speed of light would measure the same for all frames of reference, it is because the light “beam” is not actually in motion.

        • MarkNR  On November 14, 2013 at 1:52 AM

          C.T.:
          Fascinating concept. Motion is digital rather than analog. A successive series of quantum jumps, according to a continuous intention. It would be interesting how apparent spin and angular momentum would play into that.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:29 AM

          As I say, a lot of holes in that idea but a few consistencies as well. Did I ever tell you how I brilliantly came up with the theory of spontaneous generation in a past life? It all came about when I observed mice spontaneously generating from grain which had been stored in a dark corner! haha

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:34 AM

          MarkNR: “according to a continuous intention.”

          CT: I’m not sure I used the word intention. I feel that I do not know the underpinning of original space-time, that may take a bit longer to work out. haha

          Currently, I have degraded thetans from creators of the universe to integral part of the universe, at least until I figure out this last bit.

        • MarkNR  On November 14, 2013 at 11:16 AM

          C.T.
          Sorry, ‘intention’ was my injection, and I failed to point that out.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 12:25 PM

          No worries!

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 8:42 AM

          The assumption seems to be that “motion occurs in space”.

          This violates KHTK Axiom #3.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 10:08 AM

          The “motion occurs in space” assumption is fallacious as motion cannot be separated from space-time. In my model, and for this discussion, motion and space-time are synonymous.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 5:56 PM

          In my model, the universe is a huge motion, and that is expressed as space and time. There occurs a gradual solidification of motion into energy and matter.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 6:11 PM

          I don’t quite understand what you mean by solidification of motion into matter.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:21 PM

          Solidification = increasing inertia = increasing fixation.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 6:14 PM

          Vin: In my model, the universe is a huge motion

          Ct: All things being relative, the universe in your model can be a huge solid as well, for no solid is truly solid, is it?

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:22 PM

          What does solid mean to you?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 6:45 PM

          Same thing that it means to you.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 7:13 PM

          What does it mean to me? Does Katageek Q&A?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 8:01 PM

          It is a joke. Katageek writes with what I consider extreme nonconformity which I consider useful for breaking the back of the status quo of extant science and philosophy. When we feel stuck with an idea that is going nowhere then the counterintuitive approach is useful to me.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 8:16 PM

          How did that approach work this time?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 6:26 AM

          Pretty good.

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2013 at 6:28 AM

          Can you document that approach as an exercise?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 6:47 AM

          Come again?

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 6:54 AM

          Oh wait, I get you. Yes, good idea but I have to think about it to break down what I do. Briefly and off the cuff, when I feel stuck I try to take a reverse vector or possibly 90 degrees. It is an offshoot, a leftover from my youth when working with horses. They are big, and a person relies on their cooperation to move them around. Sometimes, when puling on their lead rope, they resist. To “unstick” them, I might pull on the rope 90 degrees pulling their head to the left or to the right to make them shuffle their front feet to keep their balance. This results in getting them to “take a step” then by continuing to pull on the rope, inertia takes over and then begin walking in the direction I wanted in the first place.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 6:58 AM

          So it boils down to selecting a different vector of force than the vector that is meeting too much resistance and feeling too much inertia. But what to do to exercise this? Probably many people do this when problem solving, I doubt the idea has any type of originality. “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again on another vector.”

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 7:12 AM

          Vin: Can you document that approach as an exercise?

          Chris: It would be good for this question if Katageek would chime in on this to see how he arrives at his counterintuitive ideas about enlightenment, meditation, etc.,.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 7:14 AM

          Vin: Can you document that approach as an exercise?

          Chris: It’s like if I was looking at a tree and thinking about leaves and kind of getting nowhere then I might for a while instead of look at the space between the leaves and noticing the shape of that space, etc.,. That’s what I mean by different vector as well.

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2013 at 7:01 AM

          From the angle of mindfulness, it would simply be meditating over the concept without resisting it, to see what pops up.

          .

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2013 at 7:03 AM

          The “manipulation” part would be looking at that concept from all angles.

          .

  • vinaire  On November 12, 2013 at 9:12 PM

    From https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13706

    V:”(2) Awareness is inextricably linked with motion. Therefore, any theory about motion is also a theory about awareness.”

    That is an assertion that can be contradicted easily.

    It is quite conceivable that a person could sustain complete loss of sensory input from combined nerve and spinal damage, yet remain aware.

    Awareness is a quality that can exist without motion or perceived dimension.

    .

    Whenever there is awareness there is also relative motion. If there is absence of moving physical objects then there are always mental objects that are in relative motion. Mental objects are those perceived by the mind, such as, thoughts, emotions, impulses, etc.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 12, 2013 at 9:27 PM

    From https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13713

    “2ndxmr: Per the classic double slit interpretation, in the distance between the emitter and the detector the electron exists only as a probability.”

    .

    I question that interpretation.

    It seems to me that, in the distance between the emitter and the detector the electron exists at a certain state of wave transitioning to particle because of inherent resistance due to permittivity and permeability.

    Experimental setup to observe electron as a particle provides enough additional resistance to the system to collapse electron as a particle.

    .

    • 2ndxmr  On November 12, 2013 at 11:40 PM

      V:” …detector the electron exists at a certain state of wave transitioning to particle…”

      I think the electron is more binary than that i.e. it presents as either fully wave or fully particle.

      If it were able to transition on an infinite gradient there would be an infinite number of detectable states of the electron. This would violate some basic rules of QM. It would also mean that the electron could be found in an infinite number of energy levels as it orbits a nucleus. Doesn’t happen.

      • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 6:23 AM

        There are infinite states of MOTION. Electron is one of those states.

        Not all those infinite states may be stable, but some may be like nodes of a standing wave.

        .

        • 2ndxmr  On November 13, 2013 at 2:10 PM

          I use my Rubic’s cube model to consider stability, too.

          Consider the different colors of the cube having different weights (masses). There will be stable orientations of the cube (like when it is resting on a flat face) and temporarily stable orientations (like standing the cube on a edge. If the masses are in a proper distribution the cube might just balance on an edge for a while, but will be unstable, easily falling onto one of its stable faces.)

          The cube could be oriented onto a corner, and, again, there may be a distribution of mass that will allow it to remain that way, for a while, before it collapses to a stable flat side.

          Take a reasonably stable on-corner orientation and spin it and now the cube may be more or less stable that the un-spun on-corner orientation.

          These models demonstrate why some elementary particles are stable and some are short-lived before they collapse into other particles or energy levels.

          No particle has an infinite number of orientations that it can be stable in, or will ever be seen in, so I consider it unlikely that the particle would gradiently change between orientations.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 5:05 PM

          Vin: There are infinite states of MOTION

          Chris: I am not going to yield to this just yet. Granted, the smallest meaningful movements are very very small, however, I believe they occur by quantum jump and they are not infinitely small. Almost! But not quite. The way we would show this is to get down and measure the smallest meaningful dimensions, movements, and see if they were truly continuous or whether they had digital gaps between.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:34 AM

          What is there in the gap?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:41 AM

          Vin: what is in the gap?

          Ct: The unseen half of the sine wave? The moment of appearance in the parallel universe? Anti-matter? Correct me if I’m wrong! hahaha

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:03 PM

          You are on a roll!

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 6:31 PM

          Vin: You are on a roll!

          Ct: To resist me is futile! I cannot be undone, I have been reading too much Katageek, I am Phil!

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:34 PM

          Resistance only generates inertia.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 7:41 AM

          Planck length is based on the premise that there is a smallest meaningful measurement… Much smaller than we can measure, it is nevertheless not infinitely small.

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2013 at 8:16 AM

          To have a meaningful measurement there must be states or point having a difference between them to be measured. What happens when those states or points themselves are fuzzy?

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 4:33 PM

          Maybe give an example.

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2013 at 4:54 PM

          Locations get more precisely defined as transition occurs from wave characteristics to particle characteristics. Thus, locations are better defined for particles. A length is a measure of distance between two locations. If the locations are fuzzy, the length is going to be fuzzier still.

          We assume locations in space to be precise because of Euclidean geometry. I don’t think that works at atomic scales.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 5:08 PM

          This is a good example of how Heisenberg sees velocity v. location – fuzzy. The more closely one pins down one, the fuzzier becomes the other. Or does this correspond with your understanding? If so, how can that be? Why would it be difficult to accurately determine both the velocity and location of an object in space-time?

      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 4:38 PM

        2X: I think the electron is more binary than that i.e. it presents as either fully wave or fully particle.

        Chris: And alternately fully present or fully absent by moment by moment? Remember we have a tremendously large ‘slush fund’ of time to play with.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:40 AM

          What keeps it as an electron?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM

          Good question. However, not a deal breaker as we are already discussing how an electron doesn’t know what it wants to be when it grows up, until acted upon in some way. Currently, we are using the model of “observation”as the mechanism which collapses the wave function. However, this is a rudimentary, even if brilliant, but rudimentary observation. We’ve a long way to go.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 10:24 AM

          As I read my comment “However, not a deal breaker as we are already discussing how an electron doesn’t know what it wants to be when it grows up, until acted upon in some way.” It read like the definition or part of the definition for inertia.

          Is inertia tied to the wave function in some way? Vin says that observation provides resistance. Is this true and thus “acting upon” the wave function collapsing it? Is this related to inertia?

      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 4:43 PM

        2X: It would also mean that the electron could be found in an infinite number of energy levels as it orbits a nucleus. Doesn’t happen.

        CT: Yes, it doesn’t happen. I am curious of the ordering of magnitude of one shell state to the next. This seems like an answer which may be commonly known among chemists or physicists. And if I understand correctly, the energy state does not move from one state to another, but appears at one and then disappears from at that one only to appear at the next. And I am curious about the length of any time lag transitioning between energy states. Is there any?

        • 2ndxmr  On November 13, 2013 at 11:35 PM

          CT: Yes, it doesn’t happen. ”

          You’ll have to expand on what you’re thinking there as you would not find one educated physicist who would say that the electron could occupy an infinite number of energy levels around an atom.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 12:27 AM

          You’ve misunderstood my point… The fact that electrons occupy discrete energy shells about a nucleus, as you said, makes my point. I don’t think there are smooth analog type transitions of energy state – anywhere – as I believe all energy states stair-step with the riser in the stair metaphorically representing the quantum leap. i.e., not infinite energy states. Really small increments, yes. Infinite, definitely no. This is empirical evidence of something, if not this point, what?

        • 2ndxmr  On November 14, 2013 at 12:11 AM

          CT: Yes, it doesn’t happen.”

          I made a syntactical error there with this sentence. Read it as “Yes, it does happen”

          So, yes, “no, it doesn’t happen” 😉

          CT:” I am curious of the ordering of magnitude of one shell state to the next. ”

          Think of the orbital as a volume of space. Also think of it as an energy level.

          Energy is directly proportional to wavelength and length is a dimension in the equation for volume.

          So the wavelength that the electron would manifest if freed from any particular orbital is going to have a determining effect on the volume of that orbital.

          The electron is a composition of waves in different dimensions: such and such many cycles in the “x- axis”; so-and-so many in the “y-axis”, etc.

          Certain wave combinations will be stable, most others won’t, so that limits the number of presentations the electron will make, and, therefore the number of possible orbital shapes (volumes) that would appear around the nucleus.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 12:34 AM

          Yes, I think that is my understanding as well. More specifically, I’m wondering if the orbital shell volume is uniformly proportional for example, 1,2,4 8, or any other geometric or arithmetic progression such as 1,2,3,4 and I’m referring to the energy level of the consecutive shell and I’m wondering what differences in radioactivity that makes.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 14, 2013 at 12:57 AM

          CT:”…I’m wondering if the orbital shell volume is uniformly proportional for example, 1,2,4 8, or …”

          That’s a good question. It would be easy enough to get an answer since the energies of the levels are known.

          Another interesting factor is that orbital shapes (sphere, dumbbell, club) reappear at the different energy levels. This may relate to the fundamental space geometries of the universe that I have previously speculated on. Another fractal.

          It would be very cool if the image of the universe was written on the skin of an atom.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:18 AM

          2X: It would be very cool if the image of the universe was written on the skin of an atom.

          CT: Very cool and poetic.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 12:36 AM

          2X: I made a syntactical error there with this sentence. Read it as “Yes, it does happen”

          Chris: Lost me. Now you agree with Vin’s infinite gradation of energy states or you think the quantum energy states of the orbital shells jump (what they taught me 40 years ago in high school.)???

        • 2ndxmr  On November 14, 2013 at 1:08 AM

          2X: I made a syntactical error there with this sentence. Read it as “Yes, it does happen”

          Chris: Lost me. Now you agree with Vin’s infinite gradation of energy states or you think the quantum energy states of the orbital shells jump (what they taught me 40 years ago in high school.)???

          I think we’ve sorted it out above. To reiterate:

          No, I don’t agree with Vinnie (ever, ever, ever!!!) 😉

          At least I don’t agree on the point of infinite energy levels of an electron.

          I expect all energy levels that can be occupied will be defined by an integer number of full wavelengths, and those wavelengths are ultimately tied to the cycle that defines a Planck second.

          I speculate that cycle is defined by an expansion and contraction of space.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:24 AM

          2X: and those wavelengths are ultimately tied to the cycle that defines a Planck second.

          CT: The one we are guessing at or are you referring to a known process?

        • 2ndxmr  On November 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM

          CT: The one we are guessing at or are you referring to a known process?”

          Planck’s constant is already in the equations of physics, so, yes, it’s an acknowledged process though arguably not fully known.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 10:18 AM

          I mean “the cycle that defines a Planck second” . . . are we talking about the underpinning process, I’m probably reading too much into this as usual.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:26 AM

          2X: I speculate that cycle is defined by an expansion and contraction of space.

          CT: Nice teaser… You should expand this as it sounds intriguing.

  • 2ndxmr  On November 12, 2013 at 11:29 PM

    V:”It seems to me that, in the distance between the emitter and the detector the electron exists at a certain state of wave transitioning to particle because of inherent resistance due to permittivity and permeability.

    Experimental setup to observe electron as a particle provides enough additional resistance to the system to collapse electron as a particle.”

    That would mean that as the electron travels it will be accelerating from particle speed to light speed.

    • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 6:06 AM

      Or some speed in between depending on inertia. That is my conjecture.

  • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 7:11 AM

    Here is my understanding from what I have read about double-slit experiment.

    (1) There are infinite gradients of motion depending on the resistance or inertia associated with each gradient.

    (2) Some of those states are stable like the nodes of a standing wave. A photon is one of those states, An electron is another.

    (3) A particular state of motion may generate different light patterns depending on how it is being “observed”. It is the light pattern that is recorded.

    (4) A light pattern may correspond to that commonly associated with a wave. Another light pattern may correspond to that commonly associated with a particle.

    (5) There may be other light patterns.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 5:10 PM

      There is a very good argument at the bottom of these questions and conjectures. Will it be won by discovering the digital or analog Nature of the universe, or will we discover that these two concepts do not sufficiently cover it ?

  • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 8:33 AM

    From https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13774

    V:”How does one recognize a between life phenomenon? What makes it different from imagination?”

    2nd: When you apply mindfulness do you imagine or just take what is there?

    .

    What is there about between life phenomenon, or about exteriorization, that is different from imagination?

    .

    • MarkNR  On November 13, 2013 at 9:25 AM

      Here we have a question about the fundamental definition of reality. What is the difference in memory and imagination.
      According to Scn. principals, at it’s most basic level, all reality is imagination that has gone on so long and is agreed upon by so many that it has become reality. When you recall something that “actually happened”, is that just re-imagining it in present time? If so, then why is it that recalling a stressful incident that “actually occurred” produce relief that isn’t produced when one recalls an incident that didn’t “actually occur”?
      Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.
      Mark

      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 5:20 PM

        Good points.

      • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 8:18 PM

        (1) In my model, the reality start as speculation about the unknowable.

        (2) This is like the most basic wave motion that has no fixed location.

        (3) But as wave motion gains inertia, it first start to gain properties of a particle, and then becomes a particle that has motion.

        (4) Similarly, as the speculated realty gains inertia, and starts to become more fixed, it turns into beliefs that have life of their own.

        (5) Particles group with other partcles to generate increasingly complex forms of matter.

        (6) And beliefs group with other beliefs to generate increasing complex forms of awareness.

        (7) In my model (see KHTK Axiom #2), motion and awareness seems to go hand in hand. Maybe the two different types of progressions described above are one and the same.

        (8) Here is some good fodder to chew upon.

        .

        • MarkNR  On November 14, 2013 at 12:43 AM

          Vin:
          I can agree that it is possible that this is one of the rules of this particular universe that we have learned to operate with. But I can’t agree that it HAS TO BE THAT WAY. But I will agree that we need to accurately understand all these rules in order to work effectively with them. That motion seems to be necessary for reality is a plausible idea. This would explain the experiment that showed that hydrogen when cooled to a few billionths of a degree above 0-Kelvin, began to lose cohesion as matter. It seemed to disperse as matter but did not convert to energy. This experiment was conducted at one of the ivy league schools in the US, I’ll try to find some info on it.
          Mark

        • MarkNR  On November 14, 2013 at 12:53 AM

          And perhaps the laws of matter and energy and the rules of reality and awareness are analogous and metaphorical, but not solidly linked.
          Ponderous.
          Mark

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 5:34 PM

          I am only interested in this universe for now as it is plenty to keep me occupied. 🙂

          .

    • 2ndxmr  On November 13, 2013 at 1:33 PM

      V:”What is there about between life phenomenon, or about exteriorization that is different from imagination?”

      We’ll have to have a discussion about the mechanism of memory, because that’s what you’re getting into. That will be a long one. For now, try this:
      – mock up the picture of an apple.
      – Now change it’s color.
      – Now make it rainbow colored.
      – Add a worm coming out of it.
      – Have the worm carrying a sign saying “Bite me.”
      – Keep that picture there, focus on that.
      – discontinue mocking it up

      Now, recall an apple.

      Is there a difference?

      In accessing memories, creative mockups of some sort may help in accessing the memory: if you wanted to recall a particular apple you might start by thinking of a generic apple, mocking it up red, then green until you remember it was a yellow apple. It’s much like trying to find the right adjective to modify a noun:
      – is my hair mousey? or dirty? or bed-headed?

      Once you find the right adjective you are satisfied. Similarly with memory: it develops and that can take some inspection. But in the end you know whether you’ve got the recall right or if it’s still off, or if it’s completely off. That is, if you’re honest with yourself. If you can’t be honest with yourself then that’s a problem you have to fix, first.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 7:13 PM

        2X: If you can’t be honest with yourself then that’s a problem you have to fix, first.

        CT: You were going great until this very last subjective bit.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 13, 2013 at 11:48 PM

          2X: If you can’t be honest with yourself then that’s a problem you have to fix, first.

          CT: You were going great until this very last subjective bit.

          Really? You’ll have to tell me the benefit of knowingly lying to yourself, since that would seem to be the implication here. Whether it’s Vinnie’s mindfulness or Hubbard’s auditing process, the goal is the same – to find the actuality (another word for the hot-word “truth”) of the thing that’s causing an undesirable affect. It can be difficult enough sorting out the mental residues when one honestly TRIES to do it. Hoping to sort it out if one won’t make an effort to honestly look at it is a hope beyond hope.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 12:28 AM

          No disrespect for the truth, just trying to be mindful of the mindfuck possibilities as well.

      • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 7:56 PM

        I believe that forcing a recall goes against mindfulness. A recall will trigger automatically at the right question and the mind will unstack. Creative mockups might help, just as auditing questions might help, but the recall must emerge by itself. When the question being asked in auditing is wrong, the recall ends up being forced. There will always be problems when recall is forced resulting in speculating on the part of the preclear.

        Bringing in the question of honesty is playing into the hands of Scientology’s punishment system. It is blaming the pc for not being able to recall when the question being asked is the wrong question in the first place. So rather than bringing up the question of honesty, one should bring up the difficulty in the unstacking of the mind.

        The model of the mind in Scientology is very simplistic. There is no basic-basic engram as Hubbard assumes. There are many different levels at which data get stored in the mind. Data must be sorted out at each of these levels to help the person make progress. These levels may be categorized as follows:

        1. Engram (Inconsistency in Perception)
        2. Unwanted feeling or emotion (Inconsistency in Experience)
        3. Indoctrination (Inconsistency in Information)
        4. Belief (Inconsistency in Hypothesis)
        5. Doctrine (Inconsistency in Theory)
        6. Fixed ideas (Inconsistency in Principles)
        7. Fixed viewpoints (Inconsistency in Axioms)
        8. Fixed identity (Inconsistency in Self)

        For additional details, please see https://vinaire.me/2013/02/02/knowledge-inconsistency/.

        .

        • MarkNR  On November 14, 2013 at 1:28 AM

          Vinaire:
          Brilliant post.
          Recognizing inconsistencies is an entire area of case and related to all areas of case.
          Also forcing recalls. This explains the different TRs required on the L rundowns. When an individual has confusions and inconsistencies and recognizes them, it clearly shows up on a meter. But when one has a very basic consideration and has little confusion on it, it doesn’t react physically. Hence, the forceful and accusative manner in delivering questions and commands in parts of the Ls. When one has an erroneous consideration that the PC does not realize is a problem, a confusion must be produced in order to recognize the error. This can be a dangerous path to travel and one must have full confidence in those that are assisting him. Hence, the closely guarded and intense training of Cl-12s. It also explains the exodus of those auditors in recent years. Perhaps trust was lost.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:27 AM

          Interesting observations.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 5:50 PM

          Mark, What I have learned from tutoring math is that one should address the area where the student has his attention on, Start removing his inconsistencies (confusions) one by one. This is like unstacking the mind of all confusions on the subject of Math.

          When the student is not sure what the confusion is, then I quiz him in that area to uncover confusions. I never assume what the students confusion is.

          I do not like the idea of using a forceful and accusative manner in delivering questions and commands in parts of the Ls. I would rather quiz the person in that area of life to see if any inconsistencies show up. Mind you, I am not talking about true or false data because I don’t want to judge a person’s case data. I am talking about inconsistencies like contradictions where one doesn’t know which data is true or false. But one knows both data cannot be true.

          I plan to look at L’s to see if I can create some KHTK Mindfulness exercises out of them.

          .

        • MarkNR  On November 14, 2013 at 6:31 PM

          Vin:
          A close examination of Ls techniques and subject matter could be a very worthwhile endeavor. I’m sure there are some who are unhappy with their L experience, but all that I have spoken to were very glad to have done them. But I maintain that it is critical that they be done honestly and skillfully.
          Mark

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:34 PM

          Mark. Have you done the L’s?

          .

        • MarkNR  On November 14, 2013 at 7:07 PM

          No, I didn’t do any Ls. I became disenchanted before I got there. I am going to do them in the Ind. field. I am of the strong opinion that examining ones past fully is an absolute necessity to spiritual enlightenment. It is important to realize that one is mocking up his bank, but it is necessary to view when one actually decided to. Scn. tech, done skillfully and honestly is currently the most effective way to GET YOU STARTED. Then one must grab oneself by the b***s and do it himself, using all knowledge available and taking it from there.
          Mark

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:38 PM

          I have been discussing False Data Stripping with Chris at the following link. I shall start looking at L’s there. Which L RD shall I start with?

          https://vinaire.me/2012/10/05/a-look-at-scientology-auditing/

          .

        • MarkNR  On November 14, 2013 at 6:54 PM

          Vin:
          Try L-11. A different approach to whole track O/Ws. It is said “They really scrub you clean.
          Mark

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 7:15 PM

          OK. I shall start with L-11.

          Stay tuned. Hahaha.

  • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 8:47 AM

    From https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13779

    CT: So interesting! I have to keep reminding myself that at that size, there is plenty of space time by many orders of magnitude for anything to be happening. Imagine what it could possibly take, what would have to be built to observe that phenomena.

    .

    Speculation and imagination is limitless. Maybe there are gradients of it.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 5:18 PM

      Vin: Speculation and imagination is limitless. Maybe there are gradients of it.

      CT: That will depend on how we bring together our understanding of speculation and of imagination. We can certainly assume that imagination is limitless, however, would that really be true? Observing a lot of sand on Earth, we might say that the grains of sand are limitless, but our intuition tells us that the grains of sand have a number — a big one! — But nevertheless a number. Personal computers which can process large numbers of bits of data — huge! — nevertheless are limited. Even the backdrop of everything that is may not be limitless for we haven’t seen everything that is.

      • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 8:36 AM

        All reality seems to start with speculation and imagination which then gets a structure and permanency.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 10:03 AM

          Vin: All reality seems to start with speculation and imagination which then gets a structure and permanency.

          CT: This is consistent with me building my garage, but how far out do you want to push this envelope? Say how you are using “reality” and “all.”

      • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 8:37 AM

        The present effort seems to be to “unstack” the reality.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 10:04 AM

          Yes, the mental reality. Without the human mind, then are we saying there is no more reality? Or what? (Tree/Forest/Sound)

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:13 PM

          The ultimate reality is unknowable from current vantage point.

          ..

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 6:42 PM

          Vin: The ultimate reality is unknowable from current vantage point.

          Ct: These mental vantage points are always picked from models. So no problem, let’s design new models until the pieces fit. Many people know, understand, and practice deeper more consistent realities than I do and more will follow who will go deeper still. There is nothing wrong with your unknowable when used incisively and sparingly. It is a thought stopper but I have come to understand or believe that sometimes a thought stopper is needed just as brakes are sometimes needed. But they are only one useful tool to use in the process.

  • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:38 AM

    It seems that as motion gains energy it acts more like a particle. As motion sheds energy it acts more like a wave.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:43 AM

      Vin: It seems that as motion gains energy it acts more like a particle. As motion sheds energy it acts more like a wave.

      Ct: Is this consistent with light?

  • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 7:04 AM

    From https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13860

    2x: Energy is directly proportional to wavelength and length is a dimension in the equation for volume.

    .

    From the relationship, E = h (nu), energy is directly proportional to frquency, and inversely proportional to wavelength. Look at the EM spectrum.

    Is there space beyond motion? In my view, space and time are aspects of motion. If there is no motion, there is no space and time either.

    https://vinaire.me/2013/10/05/khtk-axiom-3-awareness/

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:58 AM

      Vin: without motion no space or time.

      Chris: True, but this is a “chicken or egg?” question. Did the universe explode by quantum jumps? Or how?

      Our world appears very analog, everything smoothly and gradually changing. But is it truly? Or is this as it seems to be? Fractal iterations can give the apparency of analog but are not. Biology reproduces and grows precisely in fractal increments. So which came first, the analog or the fractal? OR am I not laying this out correctly?

      • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:10 PM

        Laying what? 😉

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 6:36 PM

          Eggs? No laying out the two ideas side by side whether existence is built up digitally, analog-ally, both, neither.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:40 PM

          That is a futile question. I have no expectations. The answer will come when it is ready.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 7:57 PM

          I don’t follow. We have lots of information to sift through.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

          Sift the information without expecting it to be digital or analog. Let the truth reveal itself.

          .

  • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 8:26 AM

    Frm https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13805

    V: ”Photons have inertia and that is why c is not infinite. c depends on permittivity and permeability.”

    2x: If they had inertia, would they not have to accelerate to light speed?

    .
    It seems that photon is a transformation from EMR with inherent velocity of c. So this transformation shall start from the velocity c and may only slow down a little as the inertia forms a photon from EMR.

    Please note that the inherent velocity of c of EMR is nothing like a particle traveling through space. The “velocity” concepts for EMR and for a particle are as different as apples and oranges.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 10:00 AM

      Vin: The “velocity” concepts for EMR and for a particle are as different as apples and oranges.

      CT: Maybe this needs its own thread?

  • 2ndxmr  On November 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM

    V:” The assumption seems to be that “motion occurs in space”. This violates KHTK Axiom #3.”

    The only way axiom #3 would be correct is if this “motion” is a something capable of creating space. Otherwise this “motion” would be a motion in the void, which would violate the definition of void.

    • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:05 PM

      There is no void. There is only unknowable.

      .

  • vinaire  On November 15, 2013 at 5:56 PM

    The following is in response to Chris (https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13987)

    .

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenburg_principle

    In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously. For instance, the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa…

    The original heuristic argument that such a limit should exist was given by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, after whom it is sometimes named the Heisenberg principle. This ascribes the uncertainty in the measurable quantities to the jolt-like disturbance triggered by the act of observation. Though widely repeated in textbooks, this physical argument is now known to be fundamentally misleading. While the act of measurement does lead to uncertainty, the loss of precision is less than that predicted by Heisenberg’s argument…

    Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical “explanation” of quantum uncertainty. It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology. It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer…

    .

    The above is very interesting. The Heisenberg’s observer is taken out of the equation, but the awareness of the phenomenon must remain. That is the natural awareness due to the characteristic of overall motion.

    It seems that a wave is simply a fuzzier particle; and a particle is a just condensed wave wrapped around itself.

    Our space is defined in terms of particles. When we observe waves on the surface of a pond, there are partcles. It is the pattern of the movement of those partcles, which appears as that wave. So we assume that there are precise locations associated with each part of a wave. We start to visualize waves mathematically as a sinusoidal curve.

    But this is not the reality at quantum level. The whole idea of space becomes fuzzier because there are no particles underlying the wave motion. The wave is no longer a pattern underlying particles. It is what becomes a particle when it acquires inertia.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 8:26 PM

      Vin: The wave is no longer a pattern underlying particles.

      Chris: Isn’t it? Or is it? This is what I mean when I say our models aren’t laid out quite right. Metaphorically, I can talk about electricity as though it is water through a garden hose, and at some levels I can make useful and cogent points and even teach practical electricity after a manner but not if we begin to look more closely.,

      In my digital model of space-time and motion of particles and keeping Heisenberg in mind, one explanation and a consistent one (at the water through a garden hose level of model?) that if one were to locate the exact location of a particle its velocity would be either zero or possibly even non-existent. But it’s a model of the universe and not the universe. This is why today I’ve been promoting Katageek’s counterintuitive approach as he makes models, sometimes ghastly models, sometimes warm and fuzzy models because he can and he is not too fixated on the correctness of his model. In scientific discovery, we imagine a model and then test it. But if we are too solid or too sure of extant science then our minds cannot imagine and we cannot overcome let alone see the inconsistencies of our less workable models.

      • vinaire  On November 15, 2013 at 8:58 PM

        The electromagnetic magnetic wave is not made up of a pattern among particles like a wave on the surface of water is.

        .

%d bloggers like this: