MADB

[_Imwashingmypirate]

There is nothing imaginable that does not exist.

We must be thinking of very different things when we say 'exist'.

ex·ist (g-zst)
intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists
1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: "Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category" Thomas G. Exter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean in being. Whether physical or non physical. The everything. In being.

Try this experiment, Try to imagine a creature no one has ever heard of and describe it on here. Then break it down. Where does it come from?

How about this...
I'm imagining a 'square circle' right now...


Really? What is a square circle?

Like this?

I think what you are imagining is a COMBINATION of two well known simple object. Thus when broken down, it does exist because you have derived it from something that does exist, therefore you have not imagined something new at all.
Also, how does one get factual proof of something incomprehendable.

I don't think anybody truly comprehends QM either. The famous line is:
"If you claim to understand QM, then you don't really understand QM"

[color=blue]Of course they don't. People cannot always understand 4th dimensional geometric structures. And these are relatively simple.
But we have 'factual proof' that it 'exists'. Scientific proof.[/color]

Do we? Do we have proof of the structure of electron orbitals, or are these just speculation and an attempt to visualise something that doesn't look like that at all? All there is is mathematical understanding, but even maths can be limited to a certain degree. There are things far beyond that. Where is the proof that we even exist at all?

By getting 'earthly' facts, one is completely destroying the whole aspect of it. There will never be factual proof until we are in that state of mind. When we leave the spatial dimensions and enter a higher more perfect dimension.

I know that you believe that. And that's fine with me...

It's not about belief, it's about trying to learn and advance.

And even then people will still ask for actual proof. Only when one is in complete form in the fullness of dimensions, will they see the wholeness and know for sure because they will have whole factual proof, they will be experiencing "The Everything" all at one.

This doesn't come across to me much differently than: "Until you get a spiritual witness of the LDS church, you can't 'really' comment on whether it is true or not".

I guess that is kinda like it. But not "spiritual witness" but rather actually being there.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

But there is more than QM, far more.

I haven't said their isn't Pirate :)

What I'm saying is, what I term as 'true' (in the 'real' world) is what has been scientifically proven to be true. That's my 'standard' of what is true or not.
...everything else is stuff that 'could be true', and we may even prove it one day...

I never one said what I am saying is "TRUE". I talk like it is true, but I never said, "This is Factual". It isn't in the real world as we know it. It is much more. We only see a little.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Well duh. that's the whole point.

"If you claim to understand QM, then you don't really understand QM"

Of course. The more one learns the less they know. I do not claim to understand it at all. But I merely feel it. In a different way I guess. Everything I discuss comes from my brain. Literally, then I go look for stuff to back myself up on the odd occasion. And it sucks because very often I find that someone else has already came up with the idea. To me when this happens, it is not a coincidence. It cannot possibly be. If it were then there would be something wrong with the coincidence distribution. When two or more people in the world come up with the same idea from their mind it is no longer coincidence but rather there is more to it. Much more.

[_Ren]

I never one said what I am saying is "TRUE". I talk like it is true, but I never said, "This is Factual". It isn't in the real world as we know it. It is much more. We only see a little.

Ahh ok - fair enough :)
I guess this comes back to our talk of 'super-natural'.

Do we have proof of the structure of electron orbitals, or are these just speculation and an attempt to visualise something that doesn't look like that at all?

We've proven such entities called 'electrons' exist, and we have been able to scientifically deduce many of their properties, and how they interact with other particles.

When I say 'prove', I don't mean we won't be corrected in our understanding later on. I'm saying that according to the measure of 'scientific' proof, we know they are 'real', and we know quite a bit about them.

But 'scientific' truth is not necessarily 'literal' truth. We know that isn't so, because sometimes science gets it clearly wrong.

And as far as 'visualising' them, I'm not convinced anybody can 'truly' visualise them as they really are. They are so far removed from our common perspeption, that 'visualising' becomes a bit of an elusive term.

Really? What is a square circle?

I thinking of a single shape (not an intermeshing of different shapes, but a single shape) that is both a square AND a circle at the same time.
I don't think any of the examples you posted match what I'm imagining.

It's not about belief, it's about trying to learn and advance.

You don't believe I'm trying to learn and advance?
Why Pirate!! :D

Just so it's clear - I'm joking :)

I guess that is kinda like it. But not "spiritual witness" but rather actually being there.

So is the distinction that the 'Witness of the spirit' comes to you...
...but with what you're talking about, you actually GO to the 'higher dimension'?

[_Imwashingmypirate]

[quote="RenegadeOfPhunk"][quote]
I never one said what I am saying is "TRUE". I talk like it is true, but I never said, "This is Factual". It isn't in the real world as we know it. It is much more. We only see a little.
[/quote]
Ahh ok - fair enough :)
I guess this comes back to our talk of 'super-natural'.

[quote="Pirate"]
Do we have proof of the structure of electron orbitals, or are these just speculation and an attempt to visualise something that doesn't look like that at all?
[/quote]
We've proven such entities called 'electrons' exist, and we have been able to scientifically deduce many of their properties, and how they interact with other particles.

[color=blue]First think I noticed. I was not refering "electrons" existing or their properties due to interactions. I am talking on a much deeper level here. I am talking about electrons as waves. Of course electrons exist, otherwise we wouldn't have any chemical reactions. I am talking about S, P,D and F sub levels. Look at aufbau's principle, It is only a principle, an idea. A good idea, but not easily proven. How can we prove and comprehend electron sub levels.[/color]

When I say 'prove', I don't mean we won't be corrected in our understanding later on. I'm saying that [I]according to the measure of 'scientific' proof[/I], we know they are 'real', and we know quite a bit about them.

But 'scientific' truth is not necessarily 'literal' truth. We know that isn't so, because sometimes science gets it clearly wrong.

And as far as 'visualising' them, I'm not convinced anybody can 'truly' visualise them as they [u]really[/u] are. They are so far removed from our common perspeption, that 'visualising' becomes a bit of an elusive term.

[quote]
Really? What is a square circle?
[/quote]
I thinking of a single shape (not an intermeshing of different shapes, but a [u]single[/u] shape) that is both a square AND a circle [u]at the same time[/u].
I don't think any of the examples you posted match what I'm imagining.

[color=blue]But it is derived from shapes. Then post what you are imagining. Has someone else ever thought of this circle square thing? Chances are it DOES really exist if you can visualise it.[/color]
[quote]
It's not about belief, it's about trying to learn and advance.
[/quote]
You don't believe I'm trying to learn and advance?
Why Pirate!! :D [color=blue]:P[/color]

[I]Just so it's clear - I'm joking :)[/I]

[quote]
I guess that is kinda like it. But not "spiritual witness" but rather actually being there.
[/quote]
So is the distinction that the 'Witness of the spirit' comes to you...
...but with what you're talking about, you actually GO to the 'higher dimension'?[/quote]

In a way I guess you could say that.

[_Ren]

First think I noticed. I was not refering "electrons" existing or their properties due to interactions. I am talking on a much deeper level here. I am talking about electrons as waves. Of course electrons exist, otherwise we wouldn't have any chemical reactions. I am talking about S, P,D and F sub levels. Look at aufbau's principle, It is only a principle, an idea. A good idea, but not easily proven. How can we prove and comprehend electron sub levels.

I get what you mean.
But we don't push understanding forward by saying 'Well, this idea makes sense, so we'll go with that...'

An idea doesn't become a 'scientific idea' when it 'makes enough sense'.
An idea becomes a scientific idea when some clever spark comes along and says: "Oh - you know that idea? I can prove whether it's true or not. We'd need to do X experiment. If the result is A, that backs the idea up. If the result is B, then we'd have to reconsider..."

To come up with a scientific proof, you need to find some way to tie your idea to experiment. If you can't do that, then it doesn't matter how good your idea is, how much sense it makes or how much it explains. It literally doesn't matter in a scientific sense...

BUT - if you truly believe in the idea, then you'll keep working at it until you find a way to do so. That's sometimes hard, and it takes time. But that's what science demands...


This is pretty much where String Theory is right now. It's a promising theory, that could potentially take our scientific understanding to a whole new level. But they'd have to work out a way to tie the idea to solid experiment first. Until that happens, String Theory is NOT a scientific theory.

Abiogenesis is the same.

How can we prove and comprehend electron sub levels.

The same way we've cracked all kinds of other difficult problems in science...

...it's a bit harder than saying "You've just gotta use your intuition and get your mind into the right 'place'" - granted. But science is progressing along happily enough without doing that...

Has someone else ever thought of this circle square thing? Chances are it DOES really exist if you can visualise it.

I have no idea if anybody else has imagined it.

...hang on - let's try another tack. Look at this image:



I propose that this image is allowing me to imagine a 'scene' that not only does not exist, but CANNOT exist.
...would you agree?

[Guest]

Here's another example of what I'm trying to say:

Einstien proposed that time is relative. That time can flow in different ways in different circumstances.

Some people thought that was nuts.

What was Einstien's reponse? It wasn't "Oh - just 'open your minds'".
No. Instead, he said: 'Here's the experiments you can do. You can find out for yourself...

We've now taken very accurate atomic clocks into orbit - and we've proved it. Time runs slightly slower in orbit!.
The person using that atomic clock didn't need to 'open their minds' to the idea. All they had to do was follow the experiment. A pretty real world, 'mundane' experiment. But a 'real world', 'mundane' experiments that have the POWER to point to a whole new realm of understanding...

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I am going to get something to eat. When I come back I will give you the awnser the the last post and the start of my proof.

[_Ren]

I am going to get something to eat. When I come back I will give you the awnser the the last post and the start of my proof.

Wehey - cool :)

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Hey I'm back. Ok, I will begin by saying, I lack the ability to spur up equations. So there will be none of that.

To awnser your question,

I propose that this image is allowing me to imagine a 'scene' that not only does not exist, but CANNOT exist.
...would you agree?

It cannot exist in a literal spatial sense, but the idea behind it does exist in mathematics. This however is not something newly created. It has always existed. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore as thought it'self is energy, this energy abides by the laws of the spatial dimensions generally as it needs in some ways the spatial dimensions to reside within. And as everything in the spatial dimensions abide by conservation laws so must those things that reside within the spatial dimensions. When looking at Klien Bottle for the first time, My thoughts were, It's just a bottle, until I looked closer. This is a 3-5th dimensional structure, it is hard to comprehend. But is does exist in third dimensions. So here we are introducing fractional dimensions (NOT Fractal), that is dimesions that are in a sense links between dimensions, in that they posses the charactoristics of two or more dimensions. But of course there is no such thing as a fraction (The meaning of a fraction) as a fraction is a whole entity in itself, but that's another story. The proof is amazing, but the words, hard to find.