Time Does Not Exist

[melanie]

Dreams are individual perceptions. ToE is a Universal perseption. Dreams are junk, ToE is not.

The t-o-e is one story arising now as(this conception)

told by a mystery unknown knowing story teller(the conception)

as and through this apparent --multitude of known story tellers
namely 'humans' via (imaginative theories)(ideas known in this conception)
which are expressed as secondary discoveries of that what always was / is already herenow(this conception)

no humans--no story(imagination)

no (imagination) no story--no t-o-e

no t-o-e

= ZERO

= DREAMSCAPE

= T-O-E


And that is 'my' apparent individualized 'made-up' version of a mathematical t-o-e

arising herenow as and through this evidently known character 'melanie' made-up of an unknown knowing source.

[SteveA]

Dreams are individual perceptions. ToE is a Universal perseption. Dreams are junk, ToE is not.

I get the impression you don't think a ToE should be able to explain things like dreams and individual perceptions etc.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all just put on our universal perception glasses and see things as they really are(?) instead of what reality depicts them as? (Maybe we could make up some virtual reality goggles that shows things as they truly are instead of how people experience them to be. Let me know if you have any suggestions on how that can be done)

Take a look at this optical illusion:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caf%C3%A9_wall.svg

Now do the horizontal lines appear to be parallel to each other or are they bent?

Which view would you consider to be the universally correct view?

(I'll assume that you see the lines as bent, but recognize that they're ideally parallel, but unless everyone happened to see the same thing, it really makes no difference what specific image someone sees as long as there exists a discrepancy between at least two people)

If you say that the objective view should be that the lines are straight and parallel then you're expecting (some) people to deny what their senses tell them in favor of a belief in something they don't see.

What else should we consider to be illusion? Gravity and dreams? How do we know that the universe isn't an illusion if we were expected to not believe what our senses tell us? Doesn't the process of science expect physical observations be made, in which case dreams, subjective perceptions, and bent lines etc. are objectively real concepts for most people because they experience these.

If you instead say that the objective view should be that the lines are bent, wouldn't this contradict your implicit statement that individual perceptions are junk?

I think the only "correct" view possible is however you happen to see it. If you see the lines bent, then the lines are bent (until the point they're seen as being straight, in which case the lines may as well have magically changed ... and if you wanted, we could do detailed analysis of the properties of various layers of optical processes in the eye and brain and come up with a 3rd (or more) perspective ... they're all "real" in every sense that they exist within and if you happen to dream tonight it's as real as it appears to be etc.). If you see the lines as straight, they are straight and if you see the lines as bent but expect some alternate subjective view could make them appear straight, then your expectation of the existence of an alternate perspective is real, etc.

[melanie]

Great post SteveA thanks

Love the optical illusion...(''Nothing is what it seems- nor is it otherwise'')

It's nice to see a bit of eloquence around here.
Intuitive open-minded mature gentlemen - are rather few and far between at this forum.

Cheers!

I will post as much as i can, but will be busy for the next few days.

Back Later. :P

[labelwench]

Dreams are individual perceptions. ToE is a Universal perseption. Dreams are junk, ToE is not.

Perhaps the only Universal perception whereby we may all share, is that we dream.

We dream of many different things, and for some, the dream is unpleasant, a "nightmare".

Often, our dreams are reflections of our lives; our aspirations; our fears; the unknown and the incomprehensible.

I would suggest that the Theory of Everything is an ideological dream.

Perhaps some of the distracting content of our dream is junk, but not the collective experience as a whole.

And given the design of nature, I'm fairly confident that even the trivial bits serve a purpose.

Your thoughts, Dipayankar, and of course, others?

Regards,

Labelwench

[Meem]

Stop trying to find the "toe of god", and maybe that's exactly when you will find it, in your "own toe?"

[SteveA]

Perhaps the only Universal perception whereby we may all share, is that we dream.

If we look at some of the different qualities between waking moments and dreams, there is a greater "vividness" and substantiality to waking moments (though I generally don't think about waking moments when I'm dreaming, so considering I'm making this statement from a perspective of hindsight to states that are only in memory, then dreams from a waking perspective could appear "unreal" from the property that they current exist as a memory - it may be that extremely "vivid and substantial" (for lack of better words) would be considered real, whether or not they were in some sense only a dream.

So it would appear that what determines whether or not something is perceived as a dream are due to qualities surrounding it and not specifically whether you're consider to be asleep from some external viewpoint.

If we extrapolate upon this too some "higher layer" of wakefulness (there may be no end to such a progression as it appears to arise from an addition of subjective qualities to an experience), we could ask the question of what additional "vivid and substantial" qualities could be added to experience (I can see some correlations here with the possible required growth of conscious perceptions if time is something that can't be constrained to being finite - additional abilities need to be added in order to make distinctions between a larger quantity of events - if something only had a single binary state of perception as to where/what/when/how etc. is existed then it couldn't experience anything more than 2 moments - if we added another binary state to this, it can now differentiate between 2*2=4 possible states (00,01,10,11) and every additional independent state generates a multiplicative or exponential growth - though there are some interesting catches that appear to make the details of such a progression more complex and intricate, but that's a larger subject).

But anyway, if we were to consider what the addition of a new conscious perception could appear as (though it actually could be simply a greater recognition and ability to distinguish what already existed), it wouldn't initially be associated with specific previously known things/things/objects/spaces/concepts etc. as it would not yet be comprehended - and so it could not be something localized in space but could possess properties that made it appear pervasive/subtle/creative/unknown etc.

After some experiences of such an addition to perceptual content, you could create relationships with previous experiences and begin to build a knowledge or structure of its properties and influences with other things, but initially it would be inexplicable and not specifically described in spacial terms (so you could consider either internal or external or both, similar to the Big Bang appearing as possessing properties of both a spacial singularity as well as infinitely expansive and encompassing, neither are necessarily "correct", though they can be considered to be true - expect that we may ultimately invalidate such a theory if we end up travelling far into space and find that the illusion follows and is determined by the manner of observation and is not an externally imposed property).

Often, our dreams are reflections of our lives; our aspirations; our fears; the unknown and the incomprehensible.

Yes, the specifics of dreams are not objectively real, so in that sense a single dream is not something that everyone witnesses (at least not in a physically direct manner) and it's subjective and not externally tangible, but dreaming itself is something that can be objectively experienced by many and the existance of dreams is real. There's little separating illusion from reality except cultural definitions.

I would suggest that the Theory of Everything is an ideological dream.

Here's something to consider also, let's assume for a second that there's a valid Theory of Everything right now and anyone can check it out with a click of the mouse a little reading.

The problem immediately becomes one of determine which one of them is correct. There are many such claims.

Notice that it requires you to be able to distinguish between them and you have to have an internal compass that doesn't simply point in the direction someone says it should as it would be a figurative juxtaposition of millions of possible "directions".

Of course one manner to make a theory very convincing is to do a little "magic" with it (or at least claim that the result was due to a knowledge of it), like built a "wormhole generator" and be able to teleport between galaxies using it, but ultimately even this isn't enough for someone to know if such a theory is actually true as the wormhole generator could operate by mechanisms that were not part of the espoused theory.

It appears that the only way to know (and utilize) it for yourself is to do the work from the ground up from things that are most solid and significant in yourself, your life and knowledge etc. No quantity of teaching can prove anything for certain nor can it guarantee any specific results, except if you have the foundation laid for yourself and can simply select what is true for you and find a way to fit the rest of it in (you even need to be able to fit things that are misrepresenting into it because your exposure to those misrepresentations still exists as part of your experiences and so even lies contain a truth in them - there's a truth in everything, it's just difficult fitting everything together to make it, and in order to not be a hypocritic, I can't claim my statements are specifically valid relative to your experiences/knowledge, but I would not be a hypocrit in this respect if I said there's still a truth you can find in them).

Perhaps some of the distracting content of our dream is junk, but not the collective experience as a whole.

Yes, I agree (something I've personally found occurs very often in dreams is that they generally contain elements of significant things to you - I guess in some ways that would appear almost obvious, but oftentimes you can find things that are significant to you that you previously didn't place much attention on, or something you tried to ignore at the time, but it stuck in the back of your mind etc. For me, I can usually find elements of recent events or things that had stuck in my mind and they end up being mixed together in some unusual manner in a dream, but when you consider how you felt about various properties of the dream, it can be easier to untie the relationships that it's built from and find things in real life that you'd experienced or were concerned about etc. that came together to build it)

And given the design of nature, I'm fairly confident that even the trivial bits serve a purpose.

Quite likely, even if it's simply for entertainment

Your thoughts, Dipayankar, and of course, others?

Regards,

Labelwench

Thank you for your comments

[SteveA]

Great post SteveA thanks

Love the optical illusion...(''Nothing is what it seems- nor is it otherwise'')

I'm happy you "got it" (and I wouldn't have doubted that you would ).

The interesting thing is that I've probably said things similar to the initial "junk" reference in the past also (though in different words).

I ended up realizing that I was just copying things that others had told me, but when I decided to really dig in it turned out that much of alternate views people had said held definite possibilities (I don't think special crystals are likely to heal anyone and I don't think repeating various mantras are going to save the world etc., but one the other hand, there appears to definitely be something immensely influencial and capable of almost anything that pervades experience - the Sun can appear green if someone wears green glasses - is that magic? It depends, but there's something more to this and it's potentially immense and there doesn't appear to be any way to remove it, nor should we necessarily desire to reflexively toss the unknowns out of consideration, if even if it was possible)

It's nice to see a bit of eloquence around here.
Intuitive open-minded mature gentlemen - are rather few and far between at this forum.

Cheers!

Well I appreciate that you enjoy my efforts. It can be similarly difficult to find people who're receptive to "new" (at least for me) ideas and not afraid to explore beyond the box.

I will post as much as i can, but will be busy for the next few days.

Back Later. :P

No rush. Have fun. We've got all the time in the world.

Cya

[austintorn@aol.com]

As a lucid night dreamer, I can vouch for their vividness. They only get hazy upon the fading recall.

I inspected all kinds of surfaces, houses, people, etc., and they were all of the same perfection of waking reality, which makes sense since the same exact simulation model is employed in both.

Of course, now and then in night dreams there are some obvious flaws, at which I have to smile, such as a flat triangle with legs trying to be a bug, plus machines and gravity and car brakes not working.

[SteveA]

As a lucid night dreamer, I can vouch for their vividness. They only get hazy upon the fading recall.

I inspected all kinds of surfaces, houses, people, etc., and they were all of the same perfection of waking reality, which makes sense since the same exact simulation model is employed in both.

Of course, now and then in night dreams there are some obvious flaws, at which I have to smile, such as a flat triangle with legs trying to be a bug, plus machines and gravity and car brakes not working.

Yes, a lot of the "haziness" to dreams could be due to the fact that in waking moments they're only recalled via. memory.

I do remember a rather vivid dream in which I was watching an orchestra playing and hearing the music. I liked the music but recognized it was something I didn't remember hearing before.

Somehow I recognized it was a dream and I was amazed that this music was just sitting in my head waiting in the background to be played and it was very vivid, with an entire orchestra.

I realized I should be able to change the song and add features to it, so started adding little crescendos and solo parts, and it was very fun but ... it began to slip away and I could tell I was waking up.

I've had a few times also where it seemed like I'd untangled some complex idea and I'd wake with general concepts regarding it or some images but rarely could I keep the entire concept and it would fall apart into various pieces when I woke up (I don't mean literally, but simply that I'd connect some ideas together and understand the relationships between them, but not long after waking up I couldn't hold the "whole thing" as a thought at once and only disconnected pieces of the concepts would remain to sift through and try to reconnect).

Another time, when I was doing a lot of exploring with fractal images, I think the subconscious learned the general properties and one time when I closed my eyes to go to sleep I instantly saw some vivid but rather alien objects/landscapes (a coppery rain on a stucco wall - yellow and blue spikey balls - and later a few green and orange plants blowing in the wind in a field). The neat part was that I could recognize a lot of the general characteristics of the "seed" mathematical forms for them - that's not particularly unusual, many things can be seen as fractals, but it was different recognizing that these images, generated with almost lifelike clarity were internally generated fractal structures beginning with simple seed concepts/structures. Don't misunderstand - I couldn't give you precise algorithms to generate those specifically, but given a bit of experimentation and trial and error it wouldn't be too difficult to generate software emulating similar structures (of course this is done all the time nowdays in Hollywood and it gets tough to tell what's computer animation).

But still, even if every general form in the universe could be described via. mathematics and remain internally consistant, it doesn't explain growth or anything beyond it, nor does it explain how a perception of will can exist nor a self, those all arise from an interaction and growth and flow of information that appears to be required to be infinite and there's no physical explaination for the qualities of conscious perceptions - they simply exist as they (currently) are - green looks green and it doesn't change (then again, there's really no reason it needs to change - why change a perfectly good color? But still there's no why, but there could be some natural ways in which perceptions are grouped by various properties and quantities at least for them to perceive objectively real object - as an example, consider if there were two classes of some object, A and B and each was perceived to possess some different perceptual quality, such as one was green and one was red. If you tried to communicate about one of these to someone else, I don't think it may actually be possible of the quantities of each of these classes was uniformly distributed. It's a bit difficult to describe the details but basically if there existed equal quantities of two things that both existed in a common space between two observers, you could not indicate which class you wanted to communicate about by selecting the greater or less quantity because they would exist equally and because we can't directly show what conscious qualities we perceive, we instead have to establish objects in an objective/shared space that are perceived to possess those traits and then associate them into relationships with other objects, which I believe ultimately are described in terms of quantities only - for example, if I saw a rock I could point to it and say the word "rock" and repeat this a few time and hope someone else would pick up on the association and similarly be able to point to the same rock and repeat the matching sound "rock", but if we look at what internal perceptions each may have of these objects and sounds they need not be identical and likely are not identical. Instead the correlation arises from various physical quantities involved (*drum roll - cue right* ... enter mathematics ) the quantities of these are shared in common and likely there is an initial property shared by every physical thing in the universe that's effectively the origin of a common number line for physical communication. When a rock is recognized, it's due to the various textures and contrasts of its image which arise from quantities of photons in various ratios to create colors and with specific properties over the 2-D visual field that have various features we could describe in mathematical terms, at least statistically. The same is true for the pointed finger in that various angles are measured and compared against ones own orientation and extrapolated upon until the object being pointed to is encountered and the word "rock" is composed of various frequencies of sound filtered into an envelope that can once again be described very well mathematically.

So two people need not actually perceive the universe in the same way but instead simply need to be able to communicate information to construct associations between quantities of objects - as another example, two people could "point" to objects in a room by simply saying a string of numbers which indicate the pathway of vision you're observing - if I said a string of numbers, 2, 3, 3, 9, 1, 4, this could be interpreted as me sweeping past observations of 2 similar objects, then seeing 3 of something next to that and 3 of something else and then 9 of some other object then a single unit object and then 4 of something after that. Someone else could then determine "where I'm at" by searching their immediate environment and following the trail, even if the objects were inside out, upside down and rotated etc. the pathway through space for these transformation remains continuous.

Anyway, I think the reason why mathematics has been seen as unreasonably capable of describing physical laws is that ultimately the subjective intangible conscious qualities by which we have physical experiences operate by counting, but the process of counting is not itself a number (and this ties in quite nicely with a whole bunch of other ideas and is even commonly misunderstood in areas of mathematics considered to be rigorously proven and accurate).

(Yes, my posts are way too long and wordy ... the problem is that simply saying something is true and having someone believe it just because the claim is made doesn't do any service to anyone and it's probably a source of most social problems. There's nothing better than learning it for yourself and knowing how it fits into everything else and seeing the possibilities beyond - that's what let's you grow, not being planted in a pot. Even if the potted soil is currently good, it's limiting and requires a caretaker stick around)

[austintorn@aol.com]

I know that 'concept' feeling. I found the TOE in my dreams and then forgot it!

One time, I kept some dream music playing for 10-15 seconds after I woke up, by not moving.

So, who or what composes the original dream music and dream movies?