9
   

The philosophical basis of absolute physics

 
 
Arcades
 
Reply Fri 23 May, 2014 12:09 pm
The main premise of absolute physics is that materiality,though it is an undeniable effect,cannot be the base ponential of reality,given that we observe it ,and that it is of definition,meaning that there are differences in constituency,(objects and space,etc). If materiality is the base ponential then there is no physical context for its definition of states and operations except in contradiction of the material principle itself - causality,which is why. There cannot be cited a causal"commencement " to the universe that does not equate implausibility to some degree . What in materiality can show an objective presupposition of material state and function? What is the context for the visceralization of an active existence rather than an inactive existence , a perforce beingness rather than a perforce nonbeingness? What is the physical context for existence's intrinsic beingness factor? This intrinsicity is a singular definition in absolute physics ,that is supraliterated by a reality contextuality that is"more than material". Arcades Cinza
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 9 • Views: 4,879 • Replies: 76
No top replies

 
Arcades
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2014 07:36 pm
@Arcades,
The idea of infinity is a puzzling one . What exactly is the based on? Because I can't fit it logically, acceptably in a modern description of the universe. It is incongruous with what we term as potential I have found.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2014 07:42 pm
Have scientists been able to explain the Double Slit Experiment yet or are they still scratching their heads?
Arcades
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jun, 2014 08:55 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
There is much toi say about what that brilliant experiment shows
0 Replies
 
Arcades
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jun, 2014 08:55 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
There is much to say about what that brilliant experiment shows
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jun, 2014 09:10 am
Scientists are puzzled by the Double Slit Experiment because when the behaviour of the photons is being observed, the photons CHANGE their behaviour, as if they KNOW they're being observed, as if "reality" itself is being changed-

Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jun, 2014 05:08 pm
@Arcades,
So, what the hell are you talking about? What is absolute physics? Is it any different from physics?

0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jun, 2014 05:11 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Scientists are puzzled by the Double Slit Experiment because when the behaviour of the photons is being observed, the photons CHANGE their behaviour, as if they KNOW they're being observed, as if "reality" itself is being changed-

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ayvbKafw2g0[/youtube]


Depends on which interpretation you view the double slit experiment. Imo, it's a weird experiment, not a puzzling one once you understand the physics. It's also a damn fun experiment to perform in the lab. Very Happy
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jun, 2014 05:24 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Please explain the double slit thing for us..Smile
Arcades
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2014 06:18 am
@Arcades,
As someone who tries to think optimally i have to figure out what exactly i am doing when i am under the impression that i am thinking. It is the core of postulation , the projectural ( i use the word projectural instead of the word conjectural to aid in the understanding of what your thoughts really are within the dynamic of causality and how it fits within material evolution, rationally we cant claim our thoughts as if we own them. Every electromagnetic discourse of the earth, including the purest physicality of neurological processes, directly is a recalibrating effect of gravity as we continue to spin on axis and around the sun, and our traveling through the cosmos at 66,000 mph- this fact never changes . The complete exclusion of the metaphysical connotations in the defining of thought is foundational for absolute thinking.
We should always keep this basic description of the thought in mind. This will keep us on the right side of the tensal divide, meaning that if we observe ourselves expressing thought with pure intent we have distorted our inclusion in the flow of causal material progress--we must understand that we are causal, therefore no thought nor action has ever been out of place or wrong in terms of causal materialization sequency . There is no you nor I per se , no thought per se. We cant rationally claim construction of anything but the absolute totality of reality ,without committing to subjective technicality . we cant logically say that an object is, opposed to another object is what i am saying, for we cannot rationally reduce the reality totality) maintenance of the neurologic specificacy that guides the postulation through the extrapolation of the said occurring neurological specification.
With a layer of subjectivity added it would sound like this : the thought , the idea , that gives you the impression that there is a future accuracy in time, for we do not usually postulate perceived inaccuracy, accuracy that will ease the tension of material incongruity subconsciously perceived by organisms. It is not something that you can feel readily because of how elementary particles are set up scalarly in the atom - we have no conscious representation of how say higgs bosons affect the thought pattern exactly, but they invariably do for they are part of the atom.
To be in reality you have to be intra-relative, meaning that you are a part of the total substantive , therefore as you "experience"(there can be no rational context for experience excepting the actuality of an absolutive reality), reality is invariably experienced as if a lacking state, and will always be approached as if a lacking state. This is materially invariable, therefore you think, you perceive an existence invariably. intelligence is defined always within an acquisitive context for this fact, meaning that intelligence never dislocates what is already known or resulted from knowing because material evolution occurs in time, and from one state to the next can only be rationally defined as extrapolation. All experience is anti-totality, for the fact that a totality cannot have something for a relative, therefore if you are invariably experionical, you and everybody that experience are the only anti-ism there can be rationally, keeping in mind that this is only technical. and as thought itself is you have to see the universe as an incongruous feature of yourself, whether you are conscious of it or not , for the neuroscape is photonic and photonic -reflective ,meaning that our thought arises from photon to photon discourse and how the photon can possibly reflect its discourse with other particles that are not photons .
Knowledge should be defined not as active search equals retention, but as invariable inclusion , equals the maintenance of totality only, meaning that for the fact that you are here ,so-called you could only be rationally defined as a dependent feature therefore we appear to ourselves to be inescapably causal, therefore our perception offers us no actual independence nor independence for itself , but only a directive toward a perceived active synthesis between the universe and oneself, so what we think is the function of knowledge is materially the maintenance of the totality, that we cannot rationally subdivide at any time for any purpose whatsoever , therefore you can never think yourself into an irrational definition of self . As far as totality goes it does not matter what synopsis of reality you might hold as true, it must be a perceived totality, if you are theistic or atheistic you have to construe a totality- your god and the reality he or she created is the totality of what is, for you as a theist. What this means is that if you see yourself as a relative of other objects in reality, you have made yourself incongruous materially; because it is invariable , thought is incongruous. Also for the fact that it inherently conveys requirement-you cannot think without expressing an atomic requirement, or a socalled cognitive requirement
0 Replies
 
Arcades
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2014 06:18 am
@Arcades,
As someone who tries to think optimally i have to figure out what exactly i am doing when i am under the impression that i am thinking. It is the core of postulation , the projectural ( i use the word projectural instead of the word conjectural to aid in the understanding of what your thoughts really are within the dynamic of causality and how it fits within material evolution, rationally we cant claim our thoughts as if we own them. Every electromagnetic discourse of the earth, including the purest physicality of neurological processes, directly is a recalibrating effect of gravity as we continue to spin on axis and around the sun, and our traveling through the cosmos at 66,000 mph- this fact never changes . The complete exclusion of the metaphysical connotations in the defining of thought is foundational for absolute thinking.
We should always keep this basic description of the thought in mind. This will keep us on the right side of the tensal divide, meaning that if we observe ourselves expressing thought with pure intent we have distorted our inclusion in the flow of causal material progress--we must understand that we are causal, therefore no thought nor action has ever been out of place or wrong in terms of causal materialization sequency . There is no you nor I per se , no thought per se. We cant rationally claim construction of anything but the absolute totality of reality ,without committing to subjective technicality . we cant logically say that an object is, opposed to another object is what i am saying, for we cannot rationally reduce the reality totality) maintenance of the neurologic specificacy that guides the postulation through the extrapolation of the said occurring neurological specification.
With a layer of subjectivity added it would sound like this : the thought , the idea , that gives you the impression that there is a future accuracy in time, for we do not usually postulate perceived inaccuracy, accuracy that will ease the tension of material incongruity subconsciously perceived by organisms. It is not something that you can feel readily because of how elementary particles are set up scalarly in the atom - we have no conscious representation of how say higgs bosons affect the thought pattern exactly, but they invariably do for they are part of the atom.
To be in reality you have to be intra-relative, meaning that you are a part of the total substantive , therefore as you "experience"(there can be no rational context for experience excepting the actuality of an absolutive reality), reality is invariably experienced as if a lacking state, and will always be approached as if a lacking state. This is materially invariable, therefore you think, you perceive an existence invariably. intelligence is defined always within an acquisitive context for this fact, meaning that intelligence never dislocates what is already known or resulted from knowing because material evolution occurs in time, and from one state to the next can only be rationally defined as extrapolation. All experience is anti-totality, for the fact that a totality cannot have something for a relative, therefore if you are invariably experionical, you and everybody that experience are the only anti-ism there can be rationally, keeping in mind that this is only technical. and as thought itself is you have to see the universe as an incongruous feature of yourself, whether you are conscious of it or not , for the neuroscape is photonic and photonic -reflective ,meaning that our thought arises from photon to photon discourse and how the photon can possibly reflect its discourse with other particles that are not photons .
Knowledge should be defined not as active search equals retention, but as invariable inclusion , equals the maintenance of totality only, meaning that for the fact that you are here ,so-called you could only be rationally defined as a dependent feature therefore we appear to ourselves to be inescapably causal, therefore our perception offers us no actual independence nor independence for itself , but only a directive toward a perceived active synthesis between the universe and oneself, so what we think is the function of knowledge is materially the maintenance of the totality, that we cannot rationally subdivide at any time for any purpose whatsoever , therefore you can never think yourself into an irrational definition of self . As far as totality goes it does not matter what synopsis of reality you might hold as true, it must be a perceived totality, if you are theistic or atheistic you have to construe a totality- your god and the reality he or she created is the totality of what is, for you as a theist. What this means is that if you see yourself as a relative of other objects in reality, you have made yourself incongruous materially; because it is invariable , thought is incongruous. Also for the fact that it inherently conveys requirement-you cannot think without expressing an atomic requirement, or a socalled cognitive requirement
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2014 06:34 am
Is there an echo in this thread?
Arcades
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2014 11:04 am
@Frank Apisa,
No.

0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2014 11:31 am
We mentioned earlier how photons change their behaviour in the Double Slit experiment when they're being looked at.
Interestingly, a couple of UFO sightings from Russia report something along those lines, namely that when somebody saw a horizontal "light beam" in a forest at night, it swivelled towards him like a searchlight, but when he looked away or ducked down out of sight, it swivelled back to its original direction.
He peeped at it again, and again it swivelled to point at him as if it knew it was being watched.
Another guy in a separate incident reported exactly the same type of encounter.
0 Replies
 
Arcades
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2014 09:21 am
@Arcades,
The truth is that the big bang is fact. The problem with the theory is the unfactual claim of being the "start" of the so-called universe . My question is what exactly is the premise for a "started" universe opposed to an inherent insubstantiation effect - meaning reality over no coherent magnitudinality?
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2014 10:11 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Quote:
Scientists are puzzled by the Double Slit Experiment because when the behaviour of the photons is being observed, the photons CHANGE their behaviour, as if they KNOW they're being observed, as if "reality" itself is being changed-


This indicates that observation is not a passive event, as previously assumed. Observation actively influences reality.

Compare it to a blind man studying a stream of water. The only way he can "see" it is to dip his fingers into it, and that will of course change the flow.
There is no need for the water to "know that it is being observed" for this to make sense.
As for the photons, perhaps they react to our photon detectors (eyes) in the same way the water reacts to the blind man's water detector (fingers).
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2014 10:16 am
@Arcades,
Quote:
The truth is that the big bang is fact.


Not really. It is a theory supported by a wide range of facts. It is a story. From a perspective other than the one shared by all humans it might be meaningless.
Why do you suppose there are so many similarities between big bang theory and the biblical genesis, and for that matter any other religious tale about the origins of the world?
It is because they are all made by humans, and it is always humans that decide what is important to add and which questions need to be answered.
Whether it is science or religion, philosophy or whatever else, there will be similarities simply because all humans have the same perspective.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2014 10:36 am
The universe is expanding like the shrapnel from an explosion.
If a Big Bang didn't make it start expanding, what did?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2014 10:38 am
@Cyracuz,
Well stated; all those theories kicking around hasn't been proven, but are assumed from the wide range of facts that 'seems' to support it.
Even the 'god particle' is 99.9999% sure.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2014 11:40 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Quote:
The universe is expanding like the shrapnel from an explosion.
If a Big Bang didn't make it start expanding, what did?


See here... You are comparing it to something known to humans. "Expanding like shrapnel....."
Do you see what is happening?
You are assuming that just because it looks similar to something known, what caused it must also be similar to what causes the known thing. That is a false assumption.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The philosophical basis of absolute physics
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/18/2019 at 03:11:28