paradigm shift for emptiness

[SteveA]

How do you connect all these views together? People have tried the dualistic (or yes, we could break it into 3 if you want) version for millions of man-years at least and it fails.

What's the "unified field" that exists that most everyone can verify for themself unites everything? It's very simple and obvious once recognized and doesn't need any particle accelerators or complex mathematics etc. Those are all derivatives of this unified "field".

What is this unified field typically called?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

How do you connect all these views together?

Choice of 'Actionable Intelligence'(control of self-control...)

People have tried the dualistic (or yes, we could break it into 3 if you want) version for millions of man-years at least and it fails.

You lie again__Mine works fine... Many other objectivists' systems of thinking work fine also, as I've well experienced all my life__as I avoid subjectivists, in real life__like the plague... Unless of course they're female, then they've still gotta' have a wee bio o' objective logic...

What's the "unified field" that exists that most everyone can verify for themself unites everything?

The objective unified field unites all subjective, objective and actionable fields__Notice, that's fields within fields__not one single field, just as all magnets have their fields, in the other local and universal fields_moons, planets, stars, galaxies, etc...

It's very simple and obvious once recognized and doesn't need any particle accelerators or complex mathematics etc. Those are all derivatives of this unified "field".

Your point...???

What is this unified field typically called?

And What's all the distinct fields, within the unified field typically called...???

[SteveA]

The objective unified field unites all subjective, objective and actionable fields__Notice, that's fields within fields__not one single field, just as all magnets have their fields, in the other local and universal fields_moons, planets, stars, galaxies, etc..

Ok, how do you know such an "objective unified field" exists? How does your knowledge contain evidence of it and how do you know there is nowhere it does not exist?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Ok, how do you know such an "objective unified field" exists?

Magnets work everywhere__even in space... Gravity works everywhere... Mass works everywhere... Light works everywhere... The laws of physics work everywhere...

How does your knowledge contain evidence of it and how do you know there is nowhere it does not exist?

Light is obvious, coming from everywhere in the em-field Universe... Galaxies exist as far as the Hubble tele can see/view... Ain't no drastic difference anywhere__thus it exists everywhere, we thus far know...

The light and em-waves shine/pass into my perception, feelings, intellect and memory__thus creating my knowledge, as they carry the data through and into me... I simply process it...

A simple camera quantifies and verifies this information...

[SteveA]

Magnets work everywhere__even in space... Gravity works everywhere... Mass works everywhere... Light works everywhere... The laws of physics work everywhere...

Light is obvious, coming from everywhere in the em-field Universe... Galaxies exist as far as the Hubble tele can see/view... Ain't no drastic difference anywhere__thus it exists everywhere, we thus far know...

Ok so, let me understand this correctly ... the unified field is lights, magnets, space, gravity, mass, laws of physics, galaxies and the em-field ... did you forget anything like candy bars and breakfast cereal?

I noticed you happened to specifically leave out things like thoughts, learning and mental construction of physical theories etc. How does something like the existence of a construction of a physical theory fit into the EM field?

Also, how can people verify that the em field exists? Also, does the em field contain the Higgs field?

I'm trying to see if you can actually contain all these diverse phenomenon. Don't get me wrong, there are many areas we could list. We could probably go through a dictionary and find 100 emotions as well but that wouldn't describe everything either.

Is there a single fact required in order for the rest of all these realms to exist? (Try to use a bit less smoke and mirrors also, if possible - yes, I recognize that this single thing is reflected in myriad ways so there's no need to try to list them all)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Ok so, let me understand this correctly ... the unified field is lights, magnets, space, gravity, mass, laws of physics, galaxies and the em-field ... did you forget anything like candy bars and breakfast cereal?

I noticed you happened to specifically leave out things like thoughts, learning and mental construction of physical theories etc.

What else are thoughts but em-waves...? Learning is simply seeing... Mental construction of mental theories of physical objects and systems is simply the actionable intelligence's control of its own self-control of will, when all views are taken into consideration...

How does something like the existence of a construction of a physical theory fit into the EM field?

It is a field within the em-field... The em-visions in our many working memory spaces, are viewed by our self-controlled will, and inferred/transferred into percepts and concepts within perception, where we cognitively see how to construct new visions of physical reality. The subjectivist will do this process within percepts, yet cheating by also using logical concepts. The objectivist admits to using both percepts and concepts to create new visions/theories, with his self-controlled actionable intelligence, over both his experiencial intelligence and his operational intelligence of the real objective world, as the objectivist also sees most of his innate essence agents acting through his conceptual logic circuits, as well as his lesser capacity psychological percept circuits...

Also, how can people verify that the em field exists? Also, does the em field contain the Higgs field?

Magnets Steve, simple magnets__especially giant horse-shoe magnets' opposing fields__try to push such 50 lb. magnets together, yet watch a mosquito fly directly between the empty space, without being harmed__that's magnetic feld in conjunction with a micro-Universal field of the mosquito... Or simply run you finger through... Otherwise use em-sensors anyplace you choose to place them__here on Earth, or anywhere in Space__EM-field is everywhere... If light is there__Field is there... Do you know of any general place in the entire Universe, light don't shine...??? It's pretty obvious...

Higgs...??? I don't think it's required, but if found, it's description will be unintelligible from what photonic/bosonic field__is which__unless we develop sensors to measure that deeply into the hyper-fine structures... I think CERN is hoping sensor science develops at the same pace of their new discoveries... Only time will tell... Of course the deeper they probe, the more sensitive a sensor, the scientists will be able to build, just like the recent development of the 4D electron microscope... It's showing some pretty amazing pictures deep within atomic structures, even state changes of ice, to water to steam...

I'm trying to see if you can actually contain all these diverse phenomenon. Don't get me wrong, there are many areas we could list. We could probably go through a dictionary and find 100 emotions as well but that wouldn't describe everything either.

Is there a single fact required in order for the rest of all these realms to exist?

All realms are required for the existing many realms to exist... Take away any one, and the world views change, or do not exist at all...

(Try to use a bit less smoke and mirrors also, if possible - yes, I recognize that this single thing is reflected in myriad ways so there's no need to try to list them all)

What's the matter, simplicity too complex for ya...???

The mistake you make is thinking its a single thing__It's many fields within the greater existing field__yet, it's isomorphic...

[SteveA]

(I was typing this up as an addition while you were apparently replying. So this isn't a reply to your comment. We crossed each other on posts)

Look at any set of physical laws we can list, Lloyd. None of them describe the property of experienced moments in time.

For example, you mentioned laws of physics, gravity and planets. Well mathematical descriptions of planetary motion describe orbitals and not planets. When we look at a planet it's at a specific position in the sky and doesn't exist as an ellipse or circle. It also exists as a contrast of visual colors or textures or I guess we could even map planetary positions to sounds, tastes, smells or imagination if we were really desperate, but you can't map the position of a planet to something for which there exists no awareness of.

It's ones own existence that makes for the rest. Simple and obvious stuff actually. Though I'd like to say I'm surprised how difficult this can be to comprehend, but I do understand somewhat because I was in your shoes for a long time as well and can relate, but for me the big issue was time. There was no manner to describe logically how time can exist, yet there it is, front and center with all the rest of experience and it was undeniable. Though I have enough respect for logic to apply it to the things for which it can be applied and enough respect for reality to recognize that not everything can fit into a box - I believe the past and future do exist, yet they can't be physically shown either, along with other things in awareness.

In order to really have a foundation that's connected and related, you have to put everything you can into it and see how they're all connected. "Objective reality" in the sense you're referring to is just a subset of experiences. It doesn't exist beyond knowledge - I've never seen something I'd consider to be a ghost and though I believe others believe they have seen ghosts, ghosts to me exist only as possibilities and not as any experienced reality. You apply the same "subjective" view to your thoughts and consider your own beliefs to be "real", as you should. In this manner you demonstrate to others that "subjective reality", in the typical sense is true and that's why I believe your comments help emphasize my points as well. We're really saying the same thing - ones beliefs are the same as reality and there is no difference. It's just that you call some of those beliefs "objective reality" though I see them as subjective and visa versa.

Can you explain how your observations get around Godel's Incompleteness theorem or do you not believe it applies?

There are just a ton of things I believe you haven't yet realized you're missing, but maybe someday ...

[austintorn@aol.com]

What is the definition of the all pervading "consciousness" that is floating around?

Does it come from a brain, a projector, a simulator, a God?

Is it material?

What decides what it does?

Is there a purpose by those wishing all to be "consciousness".

Is the brain real?

Does it do anything?

Is what underlies the pervasive consciousness real, such as a dreamer Brahman, or the projector?

Does it operate by letting everything function exactly as if all were completely real?

Where are the events and experiences that this "consciousness" observes/witnesses?

[SteveA]

Also, Lloyd, if EM waves are responsible for everything then it's just the same thing with a different name. So sure, we can say EM waves determine everything but if you're referring to these as being only things defined in a textbook, then no, they really don't determine everything.

We also have problems if we try to constrain EM waves to being the cause of everything because they have a finite velocity and can't connect objects in time across space. They also can't explain things like how we can see darkness where no electromagnetic energy is detected, but if you guys still want to call it the EM field, then fine, the EM field is everything and works in mysterious ways etc., just like many describes over thousands of years of this EM field.

What is the definition of the all pervading "consciousness" that is floating around?

Notice that no definition someone else could give could describe it entirely. Someone else could only present a component of this.

Does it come from a brain, a projector, a simulator, a God?

Once again, any specific descriptions fail to encapsulate it all, as would be true for a unified field that encompassed everything.

If we were to say it was just the brain, then this could not be it. If it was solely a projector, simulator or a God within some specific context of being a thing contained within the entirety, then this would similarly not represent it.

This is why this field can't be described in a textbook because oneself is part of it. By treating thoughts as arising from something that is only a component of experience (such as a MRI scan or knowledge of a specific subset of physical particles etc.) then this doesn't encapsulate all of it. To see the maximal influences of the unified field, it has to contain everything and cannot be pointed to as a specific object in vision or subset of thoughts related to a specific subject etc.)

So we can try to make references to all the components but it's also nothing more than everything in the present moment as I'm certain you're both already more than familiar with.

There's no need for me to reiterate all of this. I'm simply trying to show Lloyd that taking too limited a view leaves out a lot and we should try to encapsulate as much as possible. I've been showing some areas where we see obvious conscious influences that can't be physically measured, yet these are large components of experience. In this case, someone could have a physical theory that describes some components of experience but fails to explain more. If we want to be able to connect more, then we must recognize the existence of more of it. If we just tried to make a physical theory describe apples and showed no connection to trees or the Sun and rain etc., then it's a very isolated theory and only assists in understanding apples.

I've been posting some related ideas connecting conscious perceptions with information theory on a different thread as well, though I admit it gets a bit technical and isn't a simple read.

[labelwench]

as I avoid subjectivists, in real life__like the plague... Unless of course they're female, then they've still gotta' have a wee bio o' objective logic...

Originally posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Biology.

Observable.

Predictable.

Got to love it, lol......

The Psychology of Biology......now there's a convoluted subject.

Later Lads........Have fun. I've been up for twenty hours and plan to call it a day.......