Suicide

[IJesusChrist]

Greg,

You're posts of this topic - God in particular resonate well with me. I to believe we are all "one"... that we are simply the reflection & refraction of what god is, the omnipotent reality.

However, you lose me when you give human emotions and boredom attributed to god... In my personal view, which has no merit over yours of course, I would guess that an omnipotent being does not experience linear time, but rather sees beginning, middle, and end all simultaneously, as if constantly displayed slide show - frame by frame by infinitely complex frame.

To say that god even 'views' these frames puts me off - I like to attribute no human characteristic to god, as it makes it too simple. The "Gods" I meet in DMT world are simply explanations, versions of a higher order a few billion neurons can understand - however, reality's God is infinite in complexity, size, and age.

I can only describe my vision of "god" as all that is, and all that will be, a forever changing mass, we are but a derivative of the fractal universe which 'it' encompasses - an infinitely small portion of the vast open abyss...

Commiting to suicide is something beyond me, it's an unintelligence, a draining of consciousness. It is the attempt to defy God, to become empty forever. I once felt, with all my cognitive ability that suicide is those that want to be sad, depressed, and alone. The ultimate seperation from creation.

It is dark, I am drawn to it's power and it's meaning, but it is an inconceivable truth.

 

[GregKasarik]

IJC, I had to consider your words for a couple of days before replying. You invariably make me think.

In many ways, we have very similar conceptualisations of the Divine and even our different perspectives on how it relates to the time and the Infinite, might be more an illuson based on our inability to convey our experiences than any real difference of opinion. Which is hardly suprising, because the infinite isn't something that either of us are equipped by evolution to be able to handle that well!

From my perspective, just as distance can be considered, "change in space", so time can be considered "change in consciousness". Accordingly, I believe that any being that experiences time simultaneously, can't really be described as conscious in any meaningful sense. They can't be said to have any experience of what their mind encompasses, can't be said to have learnt anything, made a decision, or changed their mind, or even had a change of emotion. However, I certainly do understand the attraction to the idea that the Divine Mind has the power to do this in some sense, as this is almost required in order for him to be able to fully experience, integrate and understand the full story. Perhaps some combination of both elements must exist?

I also have another issue with the concept of God entailing everything as an instant unit and that relates to the fact that "everything" is in effect an infinite amount of information, and I don't believe that it is possible for any being to encompass an infinite amount of anything (With of course the exception of Chuck Norris, who has of course counted to Infinity. Twice...). This is because infinity can be considered to be n+1, where n is any number that you happen to choose. As such, as soon as we snapshot God and say he now has "infinte knowledge", we are forced to accept that there will always be a (+1) that can be tacked onto it.

Because of this, I believe that God is the end product of creation (which will never be fully realised), not the instigator as popular religions would like to have us think.

 

[BrainEater]

how to make a infinite being fit into a finite entitiy? well, consciousness makes it possible, does it?!

 

[IJesusChrist]

Greg, that was the most revealing post from you yet. The quote "time can be measured as a change in consciousness" hit me. That is interesting...

The concept of being able to experience a entire life, a time line, finite or infinite isn't possible for us to really comprehend, since we only comprehend linear time, much the same way imagining 4 dimensions is just silly.

I think we both are trying to explain the unexplainable in different ways, either may be valid, or both, or none... I'll have to get back to this one later as well...

@ Brain, I really... and I mean really, wonder how seperate consciousness can be from the physical world. IT seems limitless, right? Is it just an operator that acts upon our neurons? Essentially infinite in possibility, finite in on which to act?

 

[BrainEater]

not true... just different shades of grey...

 

[IJesusChrist]

I'm more for black and white, I don't know why... I think that's where my anxiety stems from in trips. "It's either one or the other."

 

[BrainEater]

i am impressed now. you figured it out. lol. nice one. :lol: :mrgreen:

 

[_Avatar_]

how to make a infinite being fit into a finite entitiy? well, consciousness makes it possible, does it?!

When you place a icosahedron within a circle, and divide each section of the icosahedron into another icosahedron, you can keep dividing it ad infinitum.

Or do the same thing with a dodecahedron. Infinity within a finite space (the sphere).

There may be a connection between consciousness and these peculiar shapes.

 

[IJesusChrist]

well, eventually you end up at the elementary particles - or what we presume to be elementary - and can't continue the division anymore. Only in pure mathematics, not in the physical world.

 

[_Avatar_]

They only seem to be particles.

From David Wilcock's Sacred Geometry in the Quantum Realm:

Our next question concerns the “electron clouds” that have been seen in the atom. Both Rod Johnson and Dan Winter have noted that the teardrop-shaped “electron clouds” in the atom will all fit perfectly together with the faces of the Platonic Solids.

Winter refers to the electron clouds as “vortex cones,” and Figure 3.6 is an unfortunately illegible copy of the Periodic Table of the Elements as originally devised by Sir William Crookes, a well-known and highly respected scientist from the early 20th century who later became an investigator into the field of parapsychology. At the bottom of the image, we see an illustration of how the “vortex cones” fit on each face of the Platonic Solids.

If we think back to what Dr. Aspden wrote about Platonic Solids in the aether, he stated that they act as “fluid crystals,” meaning that they can behave as a solid and as a liquid at the same time. Thus, once we understand that electron clouds are all being positioned by invisible Platonic Solids, it becomes much easier to see how crystals are being formed and even how quasi-crystals could be made.

There are “nests” of Platonic Solids in the atom, one solid for each major sphere in the “nest”, just as there are “nests” of electron clouds at different levels of valence that all co-exist. The Platonic Solids form an energetic structure and framework that the aetheric energy must flow through as it rushes towards the low-pressure positive center of the atom.

Thus, we see each face of the Solids acting as a funnel that the flowing energy must pass through, creating what Winter called “vortex cones.”

 

[IJesusChrist]

I don't understand the relevance of that to my post...?

The electron "clouds" actually have no shape, they have bounds. The shapes your author claims as teardrop figures are actually an approximation of where the electron is with a probability of >90% of finding it. If you change your probability to a lower percentage you see these shapes begin to collapse...

The structures are governed by the repulsion and attraction of electron-electron, and proton-electron arrangements respectively.

Their structure as such, doesn't give them infinite surface area... although we really don't know if protons/electrons really have a radius.

 

[BrainEater]

well it's interesting to study brain-science. firstly because you have 12 nice colors to mix which is quite amazing, considering TV only has 3. so our brains are 4 times better than TV. hehehe :mrgreen: and considering infinity, i suppose if you create a universe with a space-time-continuum, you could make it infinite, if you chose it to be so, and had enough power to do so.

 

[_Avatar_]

I don't understand the relevance of that to my post...?

That there are no particles, only energy flowing through a geometric matrix.

The structures are governed by the repulsion and attraction of electron-electron, and proton-electron arrangements respectively.

So what's causing this repulsion and attraction?

Their structure as such, doesn't give them infinite surface area...

Not infinite surface area. Infinite compression, infinite embedding.

 

[IJesusChrist]

Eh you're losing me avatar,

The four forces govern all attraction and repulsion, the electronegative, the strong, the weak and gravity (the discovery of the 5th force will be seen in a couple dozen years). Quantum phsycists believe the forces are governed by the exchange of particles.

The example is imagine yourself on a cart with fairly oiled up wheels. You throw a ball to your buddy who is also on a oiled up cart. By throwing the ball yourself will move in the opposite direction of the ball, pushing you away from the person you are throwing towards. The person catching the ball will also move away from you when the ball is caught, gaining the momentum of the ball. In the world of the quantum, the exchange happens quite oppositely - as you throw the ball to your friend, you gain a negative momentum and are pulled towards your friend, and your friend, upon catching the ball, is pulled towards you! This is what keeps nuclei together (supposedly).

Nobody understand what causes fields, such as gravity and electromagnetic, and you may be right - something to do with infinite embedding, densities or something of the like.

It may be that 'matter' is points in space/time where some type of field approaches infinite density, or space/time creates a asymptote... It's all up for grabs really, and I don't know if we will ever know.

 

[_Avatar_]

The four forces govern all attraction and repulsion, the electronegative, the strong, the weak and gravity

Throw out the strong and weak forces! They are the result of a miscalculation related to Einstein field theory. I know you've seen the Nassim Haramein's Unified Field Theory topic, but I'm afraid you didn't study the first couple of posts in that thread. It's mainly a collection of videos, but there's also a document that's written for a more learned audience:

The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein's Field Equations and Grand Unification Theory (PDF)

This paper constitutes a foundational description of the source of angular momentum/spin at all scales (from macro systems to micro subatomic particle structures) rendering a unified view of gravitation to the other forces such as electromagnetism, strong and weak force.

It does so by using the dual torus U4 bubble spacetime manifold resulting from the inclusion of torque and Coriolis forces in Einstein’s gravitational equations.

The theory then relates the dual torus spacetime manifold to the subatomic group theoretical geometry of the cubeoctahedron (i.e. vector equilibrium), completing the picture at the quantum level.

Both of these geometric structures and concepts are long-standing and fundamental components of Haramein’s research.

Most of the information in that paper is beyond my grasp (it's only in the videos that Haramein presents this info for a lay audience). If you have the time and interest to study the document, I'd love to hear your comments, preferably in that other thread.

 

[IJesusChrist]

ugh avatar, how can you believe any of this if you don't know what they are saying.

The very first equation they have on the paper, describing torque isn't even an equation, they take the derivative of a constant and set it equal to a scalar value, which makes absolutely no mathematical sense. THAT'S THE VERY FIRST EQUATION.

not to mention that momentum in quantum dynamics does not equal h-bar... it equals -ih-bar, and is not a scalar, it is an operator...

 

[_Avatar_]

ugh avatar, how can you believe any of this if you don't know what they are saying.

I already said that: the videos can be understood by lay people. And I've read a lot of texts that I could follow, and they expressed similar views.

If someone can really debunk these concepts, I will adjust my thinking. But so far I haven't read anything (either on this forum or elsewhere on the internet) that seriously challenged these ideas. I'm waiting for a detailed analysis.

 

[ophiuchus]

well, eventually you end up at the elementary particles - or what we presume to be elementary - and can't continue the division anymore. Only in pure mathematics, not in the physical world.

not in the physical world yet.

we cant continue our division because of our tools, not because there's nothing there. really? i thought we already talked about that...
therefore, it's currently what (we presume them to be). it's what you end up at right now, not the limit of where one can go. technology always gets better and better

not to mention atoms are simply a title for objects within a certain magnification range...

i stand on avatars side in this line of thinking, although i can't agree with the rest of the following posts because i havent had time to watch the videos attached yet

 

[IJesusChrist]

avatar; if you take a intro college course on particle physics (difficult to do without a professor) you could debunk this yourself... You can debunk it with what has been Tested. Hey, I've been thinking alot about physics lately - you should continue to read what you're reading - I've come across a very popular book "The Trouble With Physics" and is quite delightful in that regard.

I don't think you can split elementary particles adrian, unless they are composed of some sort of density, in which case, you could. The energy is partitioned in to quantized bits... meaning it fits neatly into certain areas, we don't see constant spectrum in many areas of particle physics pertaining to energy levels...

Whatever though, it may come crashing down.

 

[NeilPatrickHarris]

avatar; if you take a intro college course on particle physics (difficult to do without a professor) you could debunk this yourself...

how do you have the balls to try to debunk THE SACRED G?!?! it is the source of all SK8 skillz