NavajoEverclear

Of coarse that life would be made of the particle. What would be the reason for the particle moving in such patterns to synthesize our universe-- would it be based on laws, or is the particle a mechanism controlled by someone for an unknown reason, or is the particle an living entity itself, or do all things exist in spirit, borrowing the particle to manifest physically? Obviously no way to proove any of these possiblities (but there is also no way to disproove them). Your right about the particle synthesizing its own effects--- Its just as likely as there being two particles. So really all thats left is WHY would it (or they) do this?

Oh so your idea is like mine, only more indepth. I think this idea is just as credible as the big bang. The universe suddenly expands into everything/ the particle suddenly begins to move thus simulating everything. Whats up with the big bang anyway, what triggered it? obviously this cant be answered, but then why do they claim that the big bang is the most reasonable idea? Its really not. Oh well i dont really care to be honost. Hey why don't you get the idea published? I wonder if it has already . . . . i'm going to go look.

Yes i think so---- thats basically my idea, if the particle moves fast enough, it being in one place is so inconcievable near simotaneous as it being in another, that it would be completely indectable to us at anything but an entire something, our awareness simply doesn't have the resolution to see between it. Of coarse within this posts idea, this particle (or if it requires two) is the ONLY thing, so even your conciousness is created by the two particles. With the right patterns and frequency of being in certain places it creates the image of everything detectable.

Good you aren't mad. So what does everyone think about universes being the base structure of particles? As i said, the reason i think it makes sense is because how, or why would there be a unique different type of particle to compose every other smaller particle, infinately? It would be simpler if the order repeats itself.

Yes i guess all experiences are real--- they are really things being percieved by your brain, however that comes about. But i think what Kedas is trying to point out is that what ever that reality is, you cannot assume certain laws apply to it: if this happens, this follows, by law of this reality. If you cannot know how this reality is generated, you cannot know that one day it will not begin to defy all its previous 'laws'.

sorry, anyway what about the two particles?

do you Britts have heavy paper or something? With my experience of being a scout camp pyro--- just about any paper rises. Paper plates just wither, i guess regular paper doesn't always achieve airborn, but toilet paper really flys---- so as you can see, i do not see what the big deal is

bumping this up

I'm having a hard time seeing the point to this thread (not in your responses, in my starting post), i feel rather stupid having started it. You do not love someone by force of will---- well i think thats the big debate--- do we make choices, or is everything destiny by the precise and incomprehensibly complex unfolding of the big bang? Are you saying you can proove which it is? Remember all your 'proofs' are fabrications of someones mind, not indestructible absolute fact. Blindly accepting something--- good point i guess, i don't want to be blind, at the same time there are things i feel that i cant deny, they are there for a reason. Perhaps i'll find a way to fit the two mentalities together--- it is very difficult to explain faith without sounding blind, perhaps impossible, but does that mean faith should be disregaurded? Perhaps it just needs to be thought about more somehow. Jeez i'm wasting my time being pointless again. I need to stop replying to these things, at least this thread. This thread is pointless, i ground myself from it. Keep talking without me if you want, BTW, wheres blike? Blike believes in God, but he's not a crackpot like me, he has credibility, i want to know blikes perspective on this.

Much more radical, just wondering. Not a very good book anyway, i dont reccomend it, and your idea makes more sense than the version in that book. What its idea was that there are higher dimensions in space--- 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, so on---- its a fairly accepted theory that time is the 4th dimension, this book refered to it as an extra spacial dimension. Which may be possible, but is completely incomprehensible, and had no scientific (not even in supporting theoretical concepts) basis. BTW, didn't mean to offend you or anything, like saying you couldn't think it up on your own, i was just wondering cuz i rememer reading it. I'm sure that every one of my ideas must have been thought of by someone else (multiple seperate people likely), who just didn't make the idea popular.

what i meant is its interesting how new members are joining who happen to share these experience--- this site isn't THAT huge, it seems too coincidental that you would come across it at the same time as such discussion is going on, and you happen to be one who has experienced the phenomenon, which i don't think it that common in the total population. I don't know who first officially came up with the term morphic resonance, its basically the theory that somehow members of a species communicate thoughts psychically, without limits of space. There isn't a testable proof of by what structures this is possible, so that is open to your own beliefs, cuz i don't know how you'd detect the truth anyway. But the evidences are things such as how pyramids where built by people on different contintents all at around the same time, even though physical communication could not have occured. Could also explain things such as people with similar mentalites 'cooincidentally' run into each other. Like here. Lots of phenomenon could have to do with whatever this is. A guy named Rupert Sheldrake wrote some books on it, you can check em out if you want, i never read them so i cant tell you.

Thanks for clearing that up faf, sorry. In that case i would agree with you, we have artificially evolved dogs and such, and there are other evidences of adaptation within the human timeline. However i simply dont understand how bacteria evolved from chemical reactions (however fine it is), and me evolving from bacteria. Also i believe in God because i want to and it makes me feel like i have purpose and all that, and if God is human, surely he wouldn't have waited through a tedios evolution process to create his children.

another one--- where are you all coming from? amazing story stratick

I want to see what you think about reckoning the reason why people 'illogically' oppose modern scientific advancement (besides tradition and what their parents brought them up to believe). So lets ignore for here the matter of ignorance, because there are many non-ignorant people who support creationism. (though those who do so out of ignorace, admitedly outnumber them) Here is the popular view: The big bang came, the universe worked itself out and on some planets extremely complex fine chemical reactions creat life and evolution. Why people do not want to believe this: first, it appears to mean there is no God involved in our creation, there is no after life (well not one thats been established yet, and most scientists would say no, because why would there be one if everything is just a big chemical reaction?). Second it means there isn't really any such thing as free will. Everything that happens is cause and effect of refined chemical reactions. This also means theres really no such thing as life---- life is just a word for complex chemical reactions. My reason for writing this and you reading this, and everything else that ever occured is just a movement of atoms that will eventually end when the universe either dissapates, or collapse again. Either way we are nothing special and when the universe is destroyed records of our existence will be destroyed---- if you think about it, its as well as we never existed. I do have an argument for those would despair at the 'fact' that free will is an illusion. They probably despair because they are doomed to their destiny, but there is nothing to be afraid of. While it is not you that makes your decisions, you cannot tell the future, perhaps your chemical reactions will end your life in a happy state (though happiness really has no value), so be positive and have faith (though really its not you thats making the decision, its just a change in you brain chemistry that is an illusion of 'freedom'. What makes this hard to talk about is that in a universe where we are just chemical reactions, freedom means nothing, and illusion means nothing. Those assume that we have an identity, when infact we are just a bunch of atoms. And finally the major reason intelligent people choose creationism. Love and hope. Creation by God gives hope for the future, Love is the value that makes the future worth something. How do athiest feel about love? Love for you wife, love for you children? Do they say it doesn't matter that they haven't achieved mastery of this, its just a chemical reaction? I say love is the only thing that matters. Every thing beside love, is just part of a fine structure to support love. Of coarse theres no way to argue this against someone set in believing we are just a chemical reaction. On the subject of modern scientific 'advance' i resent fafalones comment i recently read somewhere, that he doesn't understand how anyone still believes in creationism. That is the foundation for oppression, in the opposite direction that religious zealots once rejected athiesm and similar rebellion. Anyway it is not a supporter of freedom. Kind of like the way that it is justified now for many black people to hate white people because we previously repressed (and currently continue to in mostly less obvious ways). Its not right, it does not aid progression for either party.

Did you get that idea from the book 'the boy who reversed himself'? Actually it has a different concept (which i don't think would really work physically(well, maybe)), just wondering.

How is that all these believers are attracted to this thread? They're NEW. Is it morphic resonance? But i also like to look at the otherside--- perhaps there are many new members a day, the majority of them searching for science-FICTION, most days when its not so imaginitive, they leave and find something to suit them better. However on the occasions there is something to attract them, they stay. Morphic Resonance is more exciting idea though.

For matter to be three dimensional, would not every particle of it also be three dimensional? So wouldn't there ALWAYS be something smaller? If it is three dimensional, it has a depth in all directions, so it can be broken into smaller pieces (which can be broken intosmaller pieces, and its peices peieces and all following that order, must be made of something smaller (if it is 3 dimensional)). So what if there is a particle (its precises function of frequency or occurance per atom is irrelevant, as it cant be found anyway)----- it explodes from an infintismally (infintisimally dense with infinite smaller particles) small point, then collapses back to that point, and repeats. How about we call this particle A UNIVERSE. We are in one among infinite other, and there are infinite universes within us. I also think this makes sense because how can there be a different type of structure for every particle smaller than the order above it, down through infinity? It would make things much simpler if at a point the structure repeats itself.

.

What if our entire universe is made of one particle : moving so quickly that nothing is quick enough to detect when the particle is not there (because it hits that place so frequently there is no time to miss it)------ wait i guess that wouldn't work, because everything being made of the particle (in different positions) is made of that particle, and i dont think there is any way for it to collide with itself if it is the only thing in existence----- so say there are TWO particles.

You also couldn't prove the probability of it (whether being a dream or not). And yet some people say God is improbable----- they may have reasons behind saying so, but there is no scientific basis to proove the probability.

i admitted it could be an eloborate illusion, my point is: it is very differen't from deja vu in that it is an actual memory (as it cannot be discerned from my other real memories). My point wasn't that i was certain it was really a memory, it was that it SEEMS like a real memory. My point is it's more than deja vu, its like hyper deja vu. did that sound defensive? I don't mean it that way sorry, you gave a good point that i shouldn't remain in bliss of ignorance just to keep the magic, that I aught to record things to get proof--- thing is i don't know if it will ever happen again if i did that. Maybe i should try it, i don't really care that much anyway. But my response is what it is is because i wasn't exactly trying to proove i had prophecy but that it may have been a convincing illusion of it ( how the brain could rewrite memories in an instant, how and why, could be nearly as interesting anyway)

Yes that is stupid, but the grading system in itself is stupid. Some people say we must grade to assess abilites, i don't know what to say i guess there should be some way to do this, but the grading system and other systems of 'education' are severly restrictive upholding enviroments optimum for true learning. Read books on it (i've read one, but i'm not an authority on it to say i can 'proove' this, but just think about it). Grades are just a dumb obligation, not designed to give any aid to progression.

Dude yeah about people not understanding problems in translation is kind of dumb (not their fault really though, that they never thought of it that way, i mean i don't want to be rude to them), maybe dumb for me to say why, but i will. People who do not understand the difficulties of translation are not considering the origins of language. Language is not an inherent thing imbedded in ones mind, it must start from some foundation, different cultures will build it different ways, and especially varied in the more refined aspects of it (being abstract). So really language is a way of thinking, think of the abstract concepts we have words for---- then consider how many abstract concepts we have no words for. Unless you've done such free thinking before you wouldn't know what that means. I've often thought that language in ways restricts our freedom because it is ignorant of so many functions of the mind that are not understood because they cannot be translated into words we have. Even some of the most basic words (one day i was thinking of examples, i cant remember them now) assume certain rules about existence(or whatever its really hard to explain), so our focus is taken to those regions that we have names for concepts, and so many others are neglected and its worse than deeming those forgotten concepts not relevant----- it takes away the prompting to even think to question it! That likely was very difficult to understand--- further proof how inefficient language is.

Thanks lots that clears everything up, i thought carbon dating was done by measuring how far broken down the nucleus of carbon was (being unstable with all the extra nuetrons), actually thats what my biology teacher told me. So what your saying is its not that, its the ratio of carbon in your body, not the state of each atom of it? That i understand.

What about experiencing precise momments of dialouge? Thats what i mean by saying its very different from deja vu, it is an actual exact memory as far as i can discern. I dont think the lottery number predicting would work, because i don't think about the dreams at all between the time they occur and when they play out in reality(well i guess if someone did get a lotto # they'd pay attention to it, but in general i am not informed that the dream is a prophecy(if they're real at all), i have lots of other insignificant dreams that don't come true)------- which is why i think it is possible that the memories are for some reason fabricated at that very instant and the illusion of remembering. So you can see it is different than deja vu, which is generally in a degree vague, ---- here it is a real specific memory (or a completely convincing illusion of it).