How does one PROVE that SELF is an illusion?

I agree that most modern day science IS the “eccentric” and is totally UNAWARE of this.

Piggy is talking about how to view Einstein’s SR in a “deeper level” (or say from a “higher perspective”) in the philosophy thread. It seems remain “intact”. Just a bit more complete / perfect /explicit.

There is an old Chinese saying “欲穷千里目，更上一层楼”. Direct translation: If you want to peer further, please climb up one more storey (level).

Liqiang Chen
June 7, 2021
给他江门地方黑恶势力钟永康集团及新会一中九一四班谁谁一个超文革赛阎王光荣称号快快全世界全宇宙打靶啦。当今时代，全世界没有什么人能够值得如此殊荣。呵呵

The more complex the knot you've tied becomes, the more the illusion persists. To untie it, relax. The more you try to relax, the more difficult it becomes. Eventually, you stop asking questions without answers.

There is also such an old Chinese saying: 牛皮灯笼，点极不明。Piggy really doesn’t know how to translate it into English.
Piggy expects that some guys will never be able to climb up to the level of FULRUM due to lack of AWARENESS. They will never find a way to UNTIE the knots created in the “consciousness” level. They will make more and more “knots”.

“I agree that most modern day science IS the “eccentric” and is totally UNAWARE of this.”
Very fun a comment, especially the rear section of “…is totally UNAWARE of this.”

Piggy expects that some guys even never can be AWARE of those “knots”. The more “authentic” they have been, the more difficult they can be AWARE. (Heavy accumulated and hard to go back. 积重难返)：
1. The so- called energy – momentum equation;
2. Massless particle;
3. Contraction of space only in the direction of movement;
4. –t;
5. One rabbit in two holes;
, Etc…
They just accept them as “answers”.

What? ....just like they ASSUME good is bad and bad is good? ....why can’t they ASSUME good is good and bad is bad as other logic output possibilities as well?

A PERFECTLY reasonable assessment in philosophy and science.....well AUTHENTIC philosophy and science that is.......

One rabbit in two holes? ....holes that are either SEPARATED or UNITED....

“Authentic”, touchy and feely:

It’s not about “reasonable assessment in philosophy and science” at all. They have dubbed their science as the “standard model”. So, they are certainly the “authentic”, while such guys as you and piggy who talk about the PESENCE and SELF automatically have to fall into the category of “eccentric”. Those guys are very smart. They have occupied favorable position first. We fellow guys in university 20 plus years ago laughed at such smart behavior the “gangster’s philosophy”.

Smart behavior or Foolish behavior?

A bit of philosophical fun....

These 2 off rabbit holes you mention.....which one is the 0 and which one is the 1 OR can't they make their mind up?

If they are both the same are they both 0's or are they both 1's?

The above is machine like reasoning....no life in it at all....PRESENCE and SELF change all that.

Of course those two holes are SEPARATED.
“One rabbit in two holes” is a vivid analogy about the double slits experiment of electron in QM.
The “mainstream” always considers ONE electron passes through TWO slits.
Piggy employed such a vivid analogy to remind those guys in PHF to think in “deeper level” if they feel “how lame it all sounds”.

What can passes through TWO slits? Electric field can do it. Wave can do it. Math can do it too.
A guy who knows about the PRESENCE would not consider an electron can do it.

To explain the interference pattern, people can’t exclude the possibility of wave characteristic of electric interaction. People should not consider such an idea as “eccentric”. In fact, it should be “authentic”, because actually the electron is moving in electric field in the apparatus.

The double slits experiment of electron is a specific issue of physics.
If we must try to bungee bungee a bit in philosophy, that’s: slit “0” is slit “0”, slit “1” is slit “1”.
They both explicitly PRESENCE on the panel of the apparatus.

Well we need to bring philosophy into it as well...so I would say that LIGHT translates to AWARENESS in the new era of PRESENCE and SELF.....SELF has two choices therefore regarding which slit to pass through.

“…LIGHT translates to AWARENESS”?
Piggy would say that it’s just the beginning of the endless argument and chaos in modern physics.

“…AWARENESS in the new era of PRESENCE and SELF…”
Yes.

With regard to your statement...

…..If we must try to bungee bungee a bit in philosophy, that’s: slit “0” is slit “0”, slit “1” is slit “1”......

But equally.... slit “0” isn't slit “1” and slit “1” isn't slit “0” ...they are separate.

SELF can only pass through one of the "slits"

PRESENCE is everywhere.

Piggy feels regretable that you seems got confused.
PRESENCE is here is here, there is there.
CONSCIOUSNESS can be everywhere.
It is thePRESENCE pass through, not SELF.

haha...our first point of real debate ...love it!!

Real Science!!!

Let me come back to you on that one>>

My view at a philosophical level is as below.....taking into account all that we have discussed in previous posts:

1.PRESENCE is STILL and is everywhere and is unaffected by CONSCIOUSNESS types. PRESENCE if you like has complete AWARENESS and therefore has no need to pass through the 2 off slits whether there is a light source there or not.....THE FULCRUM.

2.SELF is either AWARE or UNAWARE....or partially AWARE. If sufficiently AWARE, SELF can react and CONTROL/CHOOSE which CONSCIOUSNESS type it experiences....which results in the "bungee bungee" (toggling) effect....until that is SELF is able to climb up the pendulum to PRESENCE....and experience a more STILL state.It is my view therefore that it is SELF that passes backwards and forwards through the slits and experiences a type of united/split consciousness (in synch/out of synch) as result....a "prisoner of consciousness"... this is happening all the time if one is totally UNAWARE of the concepts of PRESENCE and SELF.

At a philosophical level again....Why is the light source on just one side of the screen (with the 2 off slits)????...in reality the light source is on both sides....why?....because PRESENCE is everywhere.

At the beginning you pull science from illusive back to substantial;
At the end you pull science from substantial back to illusive.