-
Pages
-
Categories
-
Posts by Month
-
Recent Comments
- vinaire on Kant’s Subjective Framework
- Anonymous on Kant’s Subjective Framework
- vinaire on Tertium Organum, Chapter 12 (Phenomena)
- vinaire on Tertium Organum, Chapter 13 (Life)
- Anonymous on Tertium Organum, Chapter 13 (Life)
- Anonymous on Tertium Organum, Chapter 12 (Phenomena)
- Anonymous on Tertium Organum, Chapter 13 (Life)
- vinaire on Objectivity and Subjectivity
- Anonymous on Objectivity and Subjectivity
- vinaire on Awareness, a New Dimension
- Follow Vinaire's Blog on WordPress.com
-
Top Posts & Pages
-
Administration
Comments
Mindfulness is required to apply the scientific method to the metaphysical universe. There are quite a lot of uses and interpretations of mindfulness on the ‘net. Mindfulness seems to be the practice of being mindful or attentive and alert to one’s environment and interaction with that environment. This can get pretty big.
KHTK seems to be mindfulness wed to the Scientific Method.
That is a cool flow chart. I may have that tattooed next to my Ů.
LOL!
Now people will wonder about what your Ů is.
You’re really trying to paint a picture there, aren’t you?
That just can’t be un-seen. 😉
LOL! The key to mind is visualization. If you can visualize it correctly, then you can understand it.
Why Practice Mindfulness?
Studies have shown that practicing mindfulness, even for just a few weeks, can bring a variety of physical, psychological, and social benefits. Here are some of these benefits, which extend across many different settings.
Mindfulness is good for our bodies: A seminal study found that, after just eight weeks of training, practicing mindfulness meditation boosts our immune system’s ability to fight off illness.
Mindfulness is good for our minds: Several studies have found that mindfulness increases positive emotions while reducing negative emotions and stress. Indeed, at least one study suggests it may be as good as antidepressants in fighting depression and preventing relapse.
Mindfulness changes our brains: Research has found that it increases density of gray matter in brain regions linked to learning, memory, emotion regulation, and empathy.
Mindfulness helps us focus: Studies suggest that mindfulness helps us tune out distractions and improves our memory and attention skills.
Mindfulness fosters compassion and altruism: Research suggests mindfulness training makes us more likely to help someone in need and increases activity in neural networks involved in understanding the suffering of others and regulating emotions. Evidence suggests it might boost self-compassion as well.
Mindfulness enhances relationships: Research suggests mindfulness training makes couples more satisfied with their relationship, makes each partner feel more optimistic and relaxed, and makes them feel more accepting of and closer to one another.
Mindfulness is good for parents and parents-to-be: Studies suggest it may reduce pregnancy-related anxiety, stress, and depression in expectant parents. Parents who practice mindfulness report being happier with their parenting skills and their relationship with their kids, and their kids were found to have better social skills.
Mindfulness helps schools: There’s scientific evidence that teaching mindfulness in the classroom reduces behavior problems and aggression among students, and improves their happiness levels and ability to pay attention. Teachers trained in mindfulness also show lower blood pressure, less negative emotion and symptoms of depression, and greater compassion and empathy.
Mindfulness helps health care professionals cope with stress, connect with their patients, and improve their general quality of life. It also helps mental health professionals by reducing negative emotions and anxiety, and increasing their positive emotions and feelings of self-compassion.
Mindfulness helps prisons: Evidence suggests mindfulness reduces anger, hostility, and mood disturbances among prisoners by increasing their awareness of their thoughts and emotions, helping with their rehabilitation and reintegration.
Mindfulness helps veterans: Studies suggest it can reduce the symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in the aftermath of war.
Mindfulness fights obesity: Practicing “mindful eating” encourages healthier eating habits, helps people lose weight, and helps them savor the food they do eat.
Ct:”Mindfulness changes our brains: Research has found that it increases density of gray matter in brain regions …”
And that was measured how? Reference?
I am slightly of the mind that you intentionally omitted:
“Mindfulness helps you leap over tall buildings in a single bound.”
Ref: Superman, Action Comics #1, June 1938, J. Seigel
(One should always include citations when referring to scientific findings.) 😉
No wonder, 2x, now I understand why I was missing you! 🙂
.
Me too. Feeling like a goof this morning.
Good point! I’ve recklessly and unintentionally flooded my post with a bunch of assumptions. I don’t know the references, source data, and the like. I need to review the entire list. That was lazy of me to copy and paste that.
2x: And that was measured how? Reference?
ct: I’m feeling a little less of a jackass after chasing down this study
“The study, published last month in the journal Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, suggests that meditating for just 30 minutes a day for eight weeks can increase the density of gray matter in brain regions associated with memory, stress, and empathy. The researchers tracked 16 people who were participating in the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program, the training program developed more than 30 years ago by Jon Kabat-Zinn. Over eight weekly meetings, the program leads participants through meditation exercises meant to build the skills of mindfulness—a moment-by-moment awareness of one’s thoughts, feelings, bodily sensations, and surrounding environment. Participants are supposed to try these practices on their own between classes. . . . But in this study, the researchers weren’t just asking the participants how they felt. They were examining their brains, two weeks before and right after the eight-week program. Over the same period, they also scanned the brains of people who didn’t receive the MBSR training. The MBSR participants, none of whom were experienced meditators, reported spending just under half an hour per day on their meditation “homework.” Yet when their brains were scanned at the end of the program, their gray matter was significantly thicker in several regions than it was before.
Brain scans of the hippocampus, showing the regions the researchers determined were affected by meditation. Image adapted from B. Hölzel, et al., Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging Vol. 191 (1), January 30, 2011, pp. 36-43.
One of those regions was the hippocampus, which prior research has found to be involved in learning, memory, and the regulation of our emotions. The gray matter of the hippocampus is often reduced in people who suffer from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The researchers also found denser gray matter in the temporo-perietal junction and the posterior cingulated cortex of the meditators’ brains—regions involved in empathy and taking the perspective of someone else—and in the cerebellum, which has been linked to emotion regulation.
Good research!
Zee leetle gray cells, zee gray matteur, is zee seengking matteur. (try your best Belgian accent here. Zat was Poirot speaking.)
Gray matter = unmyelinated neurons. The old think was that we were born with a fixed amount (fixed number) of neurons and if these died or were destroyed, they were not replaced.
The cited study is interesting in that context. It implies either an increase in density by increased neuron count or by increased cross-linking and synaptic generation. The latter would be the easiest to explain as it also occurs as learning occurs, but that begs the question “What learning is occurring in MBSR?” Or is learning just one of the paradigms that can be established as a gray-matter enhancer, with stress being a counter factor to that enhancement. That would imply that the less stressed the university experience was, the greater the learning potential.
All kind of benefits could come from that correlation.
Mindfulness seems to enhance learning in terms of making it more consistent. Inconsistencies are resolved, assumptions are removed, and better linking is established.
Good stuff.
I’m kind still reeling from Vinay’s beautiful statement of applying the Scientific Method to the metaphysical universe. It is so obvious and profound. I mean we’ve been talking about this for while but when he stated it just that way it really affected me.
Mindful Subject Clearing seems to be a workable approach to ascertain consistency.
.
This is good progress.
Application of Mindful Subject Clearing (MSC) seems to provide the following sequence for the various concepts associated with SPIRIT.
.
> The English word spirit comes from Latin spiritus “breath”, “motile air”
… “Breath” represents the aliveness of the body, so spirit is the aliveness of the body.
> a non-corporeal substance contrasted with the material body
… Spirit is simply an abstract notion expressing the aliveness of the body
> incorporeal, without a physical body, presence or form
… The earliest ideas of incorporeal came from thin matter, such as air; and from energy, such as fire.
The only things, which are truly without a physical body, are patterns among physical bodies. These are abstractions that do not lie in the physical dimension.
.
Later concepts start to add assumptions to the above.
.
Geniuses seem to apply MSC (Mindful Subject Clearing) implicitly without knowing. They look for consistency, and thus discover missing concepts.
But anyone can now apply MSC in its explicit form as expressed in KHTK to make discoveries for oneself.
.
I was just looking at the graph for “f(x) = sin 1/x”. The frequency of this curve increases as x approaches 0 from either direction.
It seems that a three-dimensional version of this function would define a particle perfectly .
.
V:”It seems that a three-dimensional version of this function would define a particle perfectly .”
I think you might be happier with f(x)=(sin x)/x as a starting point. That creates a nice envelope.
Yes. I was thinking of something more like f(x) = (1/x)(sin 1/x) on the same lines. It simultaneously reduces the amplitude and increases the frequency as one approaches the “center of the particle”.
.
The real problem of sin(1/x) is that the period of the wave (wavelength) goes to zero at x=0. That would mean the energy of every particle would be equal and infinite.
Also, one has to consider what x=0 implies. It is very straightforward when one considers a cyclic action but less so if one tries to consider it as the center of a particle.
Electrons show quantum differences in energy levels as they orbit an atom. They would not do that with a sin(1/x) component but they would with a (sin x)/x as model as that defines a constant period (constant wavelength / constant energy).
2X: The real problem of sin(1/x) is that the period of the wave (wavelength) goes to zero at x=0. That would mean the energy of every particle would be equal and infinite.
CT: Does this zero have to be a problem if there we consider a consecutive process of iterations occurring say, every Planck second?
CT: “Does this zero have to be a problem if there we consider a consecutive process of iterations occurring say, every Planck second?”
Yes. Whether you define x by spatial length or by time unit the same problem occurs.
Is it reasonable to ask whether a null is useful to form discreteness.
CT:”Is it reasonable to ask whether a null is useful to form discreteness.”
There are a lot of ways one can look at that: are all nulls equal?; when is a null not a null?; is there ever really a null?; how null is a null?; how should a null be defined?; can a null have quality without quantity?; how can a question about nulls beget so many questions?
Of all those questions, if one can answer yes to whether a null can have quality without quantity, then the answer to your question is probably “yes”.
Those are good questions. For instance, a null can be the “reference zero” say of the reference grounding to give binary systems something to consistently call zero. Yes, I get that.
2X: There are a lot of ways one can look at that:
CT: So the null I was particularly wondering about would be if we could see and measure small enough, what would we see occur when an electron “moves” from one nuclear shell energy state to another? Does it travel? and what does travel mean in that context? and/or Is there a null between shell states? Does it exist continually but disappear as a result of sinusoidal revolution away from sight and detection, Or does it have an empty null state where it does not in fact exist (I doubt this)? Or does it seamlessly disappear from one shell state and simultaneously reappear in the next shell state?
CT:” Or does it seamlessly disappear from one shell state and simultaneously reappear in the next shell state?”
First consider the means by which an electron jumps from one level to another, or falls from on e level to a lower level. The falling action (from a higher level to a lower one) is used in lasers. What occurs when the electron falls is that a photon of a specific wavelength (energy) is released.
We had previously talked about the volume of an orbital based on the orbital shape and “level” and how that related to the wavelength of a photon that could occupy the orbital. Since wavelength decreases as energy increases, but we observe that the volume of an orbital increases as energy level increases, then the obvious conclusion is that there are multiple periods of one wavelength to an electron in a higher orbital. This reasoning is supported by the fact that an electron has a base energy, the s1 level. The notion of this level is that it is spherical. The way I look at it is that it consists of one wavelength of the longest wavelength that an electron can have (its base energy level). It may be that this wave wraps around on itself so that the “head” connects to the “tail”.
I believe this model of “head” connecting to “tail” can even represent the shapes of higher orbitals. The higher orbital shapes can be more like a figure-8 (p sub orbital) or lobe (d sub orbital). My speculation is that the multiple-period-wavelength-chains that would occupy the higher sub orbitals will actually fold over on themselves the way a twisted-up rope will. These various foldings are stable in their basic shape, giving a suborbital its volume contour as the folded shape revolves along the axis of the fold. That is to say, a shape of an 8, if spun, will produce a contour that looks like a dumbbell.
When an electron releases energy in the form of a photon, the head-to-tail loop length is now shorter and a new wavelength will also exist. This is not stable in the same path-configuration (shape) it had before releasing the photon, so it re-folds to a shorter loop with a different shape. This action would account for the quantumization of energy levels.
As to your question about how long that takes, my guess would be that it occurs in a Planck “cycle” which may equate to the Planck second.
Thank you. That is a good answer. So if I made the analogy of an orbital shape and size being a “shell” or “skin” or “envelope” and I added or subtracted a photon, and the shell either expanded to a higher shell energy state or diminished to a lower shell energy state, would you say that the electron “package” moves from precisely quantized energy state-to-state or does it jump without gradual motion, disappearing from one shell and appearing in the next?
I tried imagining this as a toy balloon with air. As we let the air out, the balloon shrinks and vice versa. This is an analog, very smooth transition, it is hard to imagine what process is occurring at the quantum level, however I am pretty sure that an elementary question that I could imagine like this is and has been well worked out for some time. The photoelectric effect seems to require a photon of a certain quantized wavelength to cause the electron to shift between shells. There seems to be no in-between or gradual shift in position for the electron.
CT:”The photoelectric effect seems to require a photon of a certain quantized wavelength to cause the electron to shift between shells. There seems to be no in-between or gradual shift in position for the electron.”
The next thing you need to get an understanding of is that energy at the electron level is equated to the angular momentum of the particle.
If you tie a weight to a rope and swing it around a circular path the angular momentum is the momentum defined by the mass of the weight times the velocity the weight would have if you released it (the tangential or angular velocity).
Angular momentum is proportionate to angular velocity and it must be understood that this is not the same as propagation velocity. Propagation velocity will be c for the wave but the angular momentum will relate to wavelength, a shorter wavelength having greater angular momentum.
The effect of this angular momentum can be seen in bowling where the pro bowler puts a good spin on the ball – which is different from its rolling speed down the lane – and when the ball hits the pins it imparts this angular momentum to them making them fly with more force than a straight rolling ball could deliver.
Same with a photon. A photon will carry angular momentum and if it strikes an electron orbiting an atom, it may impart some or all of that momentum to the electron. The key word is “may”. To cause the struck electron to change quantum levels, the photon must have an adequate amount of energy to spin the electron up to a high enough energy level that it can make the jump. If the striking photon is very energetic, it may spin-up the electron so much that the electron has enough energy to escape the atom’s grasp.
All this follows the rules of quantization. You can’t approximate the idea with the balloon and gradual air release. The quantization comes down to the idea of integer numbers of wavelengths. That is to say, you can’t have 3-1/2 wavelengths in an orbital. It will be 3 or it will be 4, or some other integer number.
2X: That is to say, you can’t have 3-1/2 wavelengths in an orbital. It will be 3 or it will be 4, or some other integer number.
Chris: Thank you for your very thorough replies. I am learning. What I am looking at, if I can form the question, is if the most basic units of energy are discrete packages (are they?) then is the most basic unit of spacetime a discrete package? (is it?) And if it is, then is the smallest movement a discrete and measurable distance?
Actually, f(x) = x sin 1/x produces the curve I had in mind.
.
The function sin (1/x) does not converge to any limit at 0. Therefore, we cannot say that its wavelength goes to 0 at x=0. But the function x sin 1/x does go to the limit of 0. But then its amplitude also goes to 0. So, there would be a finite limit to a particle’s energy, that would have a 3D function analogous to x sin 1/x. In that case, the origin (x=y=z=0) shall be at the center of the particle.
(sin x)/x is a ratio. I roughly drew the curve and does not seem to look like a wave function. I do not have a graphic calculator.
.
An linearly increasing amplitude as distance increases from the center of your particle? Or are you ultimately aiming for a spherical volume going to infinity (once you bring in the other axes)?
The problem is still in the wavelength going to zero at x=0, not to mention that now the limit of x sin(1/x) will go to zero at x=0. And sin(1/x) will go to zero (static) as x goes to infinity. So basically the model becomes a particle that is all wave with zero amplitude at its center and an infinitely increasing static “charge” as it expands. I can’t think of a particle manifestation that would imply this where x represents a distance from the center of the particle.
The domain and range of the function can both go to + and – infinity. That is simply not consistent with the observations of field strengths of particles.
2x:”That is simply not consistent with the observations of field strengths of particles.”
But it might be closer to the model for dark energy, which seems to have the very effect of increasing with distance. However, it doesn’t address the problem of wavelength: if dark energy followed this function it would become visible as distance increased. Since the original wavelength could not have been less than a Planck length at “bang”, and if wavelength had been expanding by sin (1/x), then at some point in time there should have been a “visible” period of the energy and there should be some cosmic echo of that.
Here is the graph for x sin 1/x:
vin: Actually, f(x) = x sin 1/x produces the curve I had in mind.
ct: Please explain the metaphor of this graph.
Here is the graph for sin (x) / x:
Solidity seems to come with higher frequency.
.
vin: Solidity seems to come with higher frequency.
ct: I see higher amplitude, same frequency.
V:”(sin x)/x is a ratio. I roughly drew the curve and does not seem to look like a wave function. I do not have a graphic calculator.”
Go to:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/
and type in the command “graph (sin x)/x” without the quotation marks.
V:”The function sin (1/x) does not converge to any limit at 0. Therefore, we cannot say that its wavelength goes to 0 at x=0.”
The graph you posted at
shows the effect of decreasing wavelength as x goes to zero. It may not evaluate right at x=0 and that is why we talk in limits, of course. But x can be made much smaller than 10^-35, the Planck length and sin(1/x) will still evaluate. Therefore you have to begin by defining the minimum size of your particle.
2x:”Dark energy… …then at some point in time there should have been a “visible” period of the energy and there should be some cosmic echo of that.”
Since we can begin to “see” (measure with instrumentation) beginning at 10^-18 meters, and since dark energy should not be propagating faster than speed “c”, then we should be able to find the dark energy echo beginning at a distance (time) defined by sin(1/x) evaluating to 10^-18 meters.
In my MSC of Calculus, my list so far is:
Change
Calculus
Limit
Continuity
.
Of course, one needs to understand graphs and functions before starting on calculus.
I am indeed having fun with calculus because I am smoothing out all my previous understanding. I cleared up how I can rearrange triple integrals. Here are some great videos.
.
2x… “An linearly increasing amplitude as distance increases from the center of your particle? Or are you ultimately aiming for a spherical volume going to infinity (once you bring in the other axes)? …”
.
My view of a wave particle is very high frequency in the center, which is then decreasing as one moves away from the center. In my view, density of a wave particle is proprtional to its frequency. This is just a conjecture. I have not worked it out.
.
I think we are cross posting here. My favorite graph for a particle is this one.
Here, as one approaches the center, the frequency ( and hence solidity) increases to infinity, while amplitude decreases to zero. This helps converge the function to the limit of zero (infinite frequency with zero amplitude). This seems to me a good model for a wave particle.
.
V:”My favorite graph for a particle is this one.”
But what observation is it consistent with?
Consistent observations:
– any singular photon has a singular wavelength
– orbiting electrons have a consistent energy level per type of orbital. This can be converted to a singular wavelength per orbital type
– field strength follows the inverse-square law; field strength decreases with distance from the source.
While I’ve noted what appear to be inconsistencies with the accepted makeup of particles using the function (sin(1/x))/x compared to (sin x)/x there nevertheless exists a rather fascinating correspondence between (sin(1/x))/x and the interpreted mechanism of dark energy.
A sort of analogue of the apparent effect of dark energy is the feedback phenomenon that can occur between a microphone and a loudspeaker. I say “sort of” because there is an understood energy source to maintain and increase the oscillation in the microphone-amplifier-loudspeaker-feedback loop. Such may or may not apply to dark energy.
In electronics the rule is “keep out of the third quadrant” if you don’t want a positive-feedback oscillation to start up. (The third quadrant being the are of -x and -y on the simple x,y graph). The reasoning behind that gets mathematically complex but the simple way of looking at it is that the 3rd quadrant is the perfect mirror of the 1st quadrant (+x and +y) and a perfect spring effect can be set up between the two. The oscillation that can be set up in a spring is fairly easy to understand.
I think if I were trying to build a universe, I might just add in something like this to make the universe expand infinitely as opposed to a universe that would expand for a while and then collapse on itself.
I shall not be getting into too much math here unless it has to do with clearing up concepts in Calculus. Otherwise, I shall simply be dealing with general ideas, conjectures and thought experiments.
Right now I am MSCing myself on CALCULUS and SPIRIT.
.
In my MSC (Mindful Subject Clearing) list for Hubbard’s Mission, I have the following:
Dianetics
…..Auditing
Unwanted condition
…..Charge
…..Restimulation
Inconsistency
…..Engram
…..Bank
…..Unconsciousness
Preclear
…..Case
…..Aberration
Clear
…..No case
…..No potential for a case
Mission: Clearing the planet
Means: Church of Scientology
Barriers: reactive mind (clandestine suppressive powers)
.
It appears that to Hubbard, the reactive mind came to be the “clandestine suppressive powers” of this universe.
But these “suppressive powers” is not so much present in the physical universe as they are present in the metaphysical universe.
The metaphysical universe is made up of abstractions, speculations and assumptions. All inconsistencies lie in the assumptions strewn all over the metaphysical universe.
So, to associate these “suppressive powers” to people in this physical universe is wrong target. This is what Hubbard did, and look where he ended up!
The correct target are the inconsistencies and the underlying assumptions. The general solution for this problem is MSC = Mindful Subject Clearing.
.
This is a big improvement.
To understand your model, I ask if you speculate that the initial condensate of manifestation of existence occurs in the metaphysical? And is this a similar manifestation to what appears as mental? Not because of mental but consisting of the same or similar physics as mental?
In my view, the initial condensate of manfestation of existence contains the whole dimension of abstraction, even on a small scale. Please see
KHTK Model of The Universe
.
RIGHTS OF A THETAN.
1) RIGHT TO YOUR HEALTH ‘MENTAL.
2) RIGHT TO HAVE A GAME.
3) RIGHT TO CHANGE A GAME.
Nic ARC infinity
What is a thetan?
What are you really?
Are you a sum total of ideas, postulates and desires?
.
Or, are you (thetan) something mysterious?
Thetan is postulates. Postulates limit the thetan.
Thetan may have “right” to his mental health, but he is limited by his postulates regarding mental health.
Thetan may have “right” to have a game but he is limited by his postulates regarding games.
Thetan may have “right” to change a game but he is limited by his postulates to do with “changing the game”
These postulates make the thetan what he is.
.
It seems that deep understanding of mathematics amounts to systematic thinking, and it is a high level endeavor.
It seems impossible to have deep understanding of mathematics without mindfulness.
Over 99% of people seem to have only an “accounting type” understanding of mathematics.
Yes, the way a computer does. My math teachers in the past were proficient in this way, thus I thought there was no way to learn what I wanted to learn and no way to understand how these maths could be applied.
I am now adding key materials on TRIGONOMETRY and CALCULUS as I go through my current study.
I am making rapid progress MSCing the subject of Calculus. My understanding of calculus so far has been data in this subject strewn all over the place in my understanding. Now it is all coming together in a consistent manner that is much simplified.
.
Excellent!
TRIGONOMETRY = three + angles + measurement of.
When you magnify or shrink a triangle, the measurement of sides is affected, but NOT the measurement of the angles.
Angles are determined by relativity among directions.
So the magnification and shrinking affects the distances but not the directions. If you can understand this datum, you’ll have no problem understanding TRIGONOMETRY.
.
The other datum to understand in Trigonometry is RATIOS.
As you magnify or shrink a triangle, the ratios of the measurement of the sides are also not affected.
So, the subject of Trigonometry relates ANGLES to the RATIOS of the spatial dimensions of a figure.
Triangle as a figure is selected because that is an enclosed figure with the smallest number of sides.
.
The ratios of spatial dimensions are somehow related to relative directions in space.
.
There are six different ways that you can determine the ratios of three sides of a right angle triangle. These ratios are called: SINE, COSINE, TANGENT, SECANT, COSECANT, and COTANGENT.
These six ratios may be related to angles.
.
Yes and from the sixth grade, Mr. Shipp drew a circle, then proceeded to disect and talk about the circle first with center point, a diameter, a radius, and then with triangles showing chord (inside the circle), tangent (touching outside the circle), then I got lost and forgot the rest. Clearing up these terms might bring a great focus back to me. I still remember how to derive Pi from extrapolating between two polynomials, one inside and one outside the circle. This “trig” like plane geometry makes a lot of sense to me. I am weak on the language through decades of disuse but a brush up should bring it back nicely. After this, doing algegra, working with binomials lost me as I didn’t see the purpose. However, now that I have an interest in the results of plotting in the complex plane I think I can learn to work with this. Plus I am feeling a pressure from my 78 year old sister who is studying for her GED. I am afraid to let her pass me up!
An inconsistency is an inconsistency, no matter what subject that inconsistency lies in and it needs to be sorted out in order to clear aberration.
I am glad that you want to clear up the inconsistencies that are impinging on you in the subjects of Geometry and Trigonometry.
Get busy with an Excel worksheet. I shall send you the one I have put together, which is just at the beginning stages, and simply contains the words that I am inetersted in.
You need to build up your own.
.
Trigonometry is basically the ‘algebra’ of space. It lays out the relationships among the elements of the static structure of space.
.
Hello Vin, my post was a suggestion, or a good
idea of CBR. A thetan is a postulate? It seems to me
an inconsistency. It ‘s like saying: And’ the postulate that
postulates? Self-sufficient? It would be a new discovery!
It would also be demonstrated.
Nic ARC infinity
Nic,
When I look mindfully, I simply see aliveness in the body, which vanishes at death. This was the original definition of spirit.
Added to this simple observation are a whole lot of speculations that introduce the ideas, such as soul and thetan.
I am looking at this subject of spirit, soul, thetan, etc., using MSC (Mindful Subject Clearing) – a KHTK approach.
I plan to separate what is there from what is being assumed. All these assumptions may be classed as “postulates”.
I shall publish my finding when it is complete.
.
Nic: It would also be demonstrated.
Chris: I know that it is counter-intuitive to go against our conditioning. It is awkward like trying to write left-handed when one is right-handed. But reducing assumptions might mean that it is the thetan which must be demonstrated. Would you be prepared for that?
CT:” But reducing assumptions might mean that it is the thetan which must be demonstrated. Would you be prepared for that?”
Just bear in mind as you wield your razor of Occam that what you can’t demonstrate today does not imply that you won’t be able to demonstrate it tomorrow.
The Copenhagen interpretation came out when? At some fuzzy point in the 1920s. How appropriate that there should be some uncertainty to such a specifically understood (or misunderstood) principle. Yet here we are 80 years later with scarcely a dent made in demonstration of proof of quantum phenomena yet incredible strides in applying the principles. And just a few of those principles would be the principles of semiconductor operation that gave you this gift of pixelated communication.
The Copenhagen interpretation conveyed the message that: “It holds that quantum mechanics does not yield a description of an objective reality but deals only with probabilities of observing, or measuring, various aspects of energy quanta, entities that fit neither the classical idea of particles nor the classical idea of waves.(wiki)”
Note the emphasis on “…a description of objective reality.” Objective reality applies to the 3-dimensional space we tend to think of as reality. The Copenhagen interpretation says that real effects can come from beyond what we can define as reality.
So I say that unless you are prepared to say that quantum mechanics is bunk because it cannot be directly demonstrated, you have to be very careful about demanding that a thetan must be demonstrated. To do otherwise smacks of a very inconsistent level of evaluation. One normally associated with grouchy old men with very fixed ideas. 😉
I have posted why I think the thetan could be every bit equal (actually more than equal) to the quantum mechanical model of probability (probability: a dimensionless quantity) and have yet to see an inconsistency in the model that further inspection does not resolve consistently in alignment with the findings of quantum mechanical research.
There is much more research to do, of course – we are just at the equivalent of the early 1900s thought experiments, so much, much work lies ahead in figuring out how to make indirect measurements, let alone direct measurements. Or, let alone, to think that by reducing assumptions you can come to some definitive conclusion about something so difficult to define.
2x: “Just bear in mind as you wield your razor of Occam that what you can’t demonstrate today does not imply that you won’t be able to demonstrate it tomorrow.”
Is that an axiom or just a postulate of yours?
.
Do you think, 2x, that thetan is a quantum mechanical phenomenon?
Sometimes there is a fine line between speculation and what is actually there.
What is a thetan anyway? Is it a postulate? If not why not?
What do you actually see?
It is good to question ideas rather than take them for granted, whether one is young or old, grouchy or not.
V:” Is that an axiom or just a postulate of yours?”
It’s an observation. It’s been made by many before us.
V:”Do you think, 2x, that thetan is a quantum mechanical phenomenon?”
I think the quantum phenomenon has an enormous similarity to theta. The key similarity being the quality of probability without dimension or substance.
V:”What is a thetan anyway? Is it a postulate? If not why not? What do you actually see?”
I could go on for hours, perhaps, on what a thetan is. I do believe that to duplicate my concept of a thetan you must be able to duplicate the concept of quantum mechanical probability. QM probability is a non-physical, dimensionless value with an uncertainty factor.
In our universe I believe this has been made a meta-state or second state of the basic cycle of action of the elementary particles as they oscillate between real and pure probability.
V:”Is it (thetan) a postulate?” A thetan could make a copy of itself. That is like a postulate but different from the action of a postulate. A thetan could also postulate another thetan but that does not equate to the thetan being a postulate.
V:”What do you actually see?”
You’ll have to expand or clarify that question. I’m not getting what you actually want to know.
Quantum mechanics is simply an incomplete subject with complicated explanations for observed phenomenon.
We need simpler explanations.
V:”Quantum mechanics is simply an incomplete subject with complicated explanations for observed phenomenon.”
I think this is a bit of a diss, along the lines of the diss’ing that the idea of the Higgs boson had just a few years ago. We are not dealing with a subject for which we can expect instant clarification or gratification. Very, very bright minds have formulated the concepts of QM from observations interpreted by the mathematics applied by physics.
Thought experiments that have subsequently been proven – such as Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment – can really leave one with the sense that the universe is rule-based, designed, and not the product of a purely random fluctuation. QM may not be a complete subject but I would not discard it lightly just because of incompleteness.
It is a diss, but not to the actual subject of Quantum Mechanics.
Just like String Theory, there is very little observation but a tremendous amount of speculation in describing Quantum Mechanics.
As soon as I get some time, I plan to separate actual observations in Quantum Mechanics from all the speculations that have been added to it.
.
V:”As soon as I get some time, I plan to separate actual observations in Quantum Mechanics from all the speculations that have been added to it.”
I think a very good place to start that would be with the Wheeler experiment.
This began as a thought experiment circa 1978 but it took about 20 more years to make equipment fine enough to demonstrate the principle.
This experiment provides the observations you are seeking to separate from speculations.
It is not easy data to assimilate as it flies so contrarily in the face of simple reason. Yet, from my read, the incontrovertible data from this experiment confirms the QM theory of the effects – at the quantum level – of interacting with particles at the physical level.
This experiment will challenge your concepts of physical reality and time. It is difficult, but not impossible to understand if you take some time with it. MSC will be very valuable here.
The real beauty of it is that it demonstrates a principle that the application of logic, even mindfulness, on its own, would result in an opposite conclusion.
Thank you. I have made a note of it.
It would be interesting to see how MSC would work in this case.