The sun has stopped !

[Ahuaeynjxs]

LOL... no , but he's a good example of what I'm talking about by unflexible upper lip and thinned out hips, starved brain :lol:

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

I'm so happy my Christmas tree is still alive, despite the frost.

 

[MelloTrip]

Definitely more appealing than my mother's... :lol:

Nah I'm being mean, she made a great tree.

 

[druglessdouglas]

merry christmas everybody :heart:

 

[ophiuchus]

wow, i like this topic. great job!

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Merry second day of the holiday!!

^ About that Christmas tree, it's a male plant I didn't kill. Somehow it's still alive, and even spreading a strong, delicious aroma. Don't kill your male plants! Bring them to me!

 

[restin]

"If proof is what is valid, then non-proof is what is not valid. Which leads to the statement, that everything that is not invalid is proof."

Note that I said "validation" - the *act* of validating, but also I'm saying they are *identical* - exactly the same thing.

but what you've said is very interesting, so I'll look into it:
(P is Proof, V is Valid, ~ means "not" and = means "equal to")

What your saying seems to be:
P=V
~P=~V
~~V=P

What you did seems similar (the same as?) "Affirming the consequent" (an invalid argument type):

*if x then y,
y
then x

*[Edit]: changed confusing example Wink

Things become clear when you investigate what "not, not valid" means: which you can investigate using sets (represent groups using circles): you make it look like everything that is not, not valid is the same set as proof, but you haven't entertained the idea that there may be other sets that don't join with "proof" that are still not, not valid; and there are.**

**[Edit]: me not saying what I meant Smile whoops!

Its an easy mistake to make, or a very clever attempt at being sneaky. Wink

oh no, Pariah-man, you found restin-mans only weakness.....mathematics :lol:
Yes, but how do yo decide, which sets, that are outside proof are really invalid? You can say, it is a matter of logic, as if I say that there are pink elephants, you can say that this is nonsense, although you cannot prove me that. But by bringing logic into play, you automatically bring your own rules: You make the set smaller so your definition of proof is valid again. Ergo: if you say that my claim doesn't go with the rules of logic, you define the set as something that only fits to you. Logic is not ultimate.

~~V=P

Yes exactly, if something is not invalid, it doesn't mean that it is proven. That's the point, if something is invalid it doesn't mean that it must be proven to not be invalid. But as you cannot prove it, you still cannot say that it is invalid.

 

[Pariah]

Validity itself isn't so much to do with the placing of the circles *as such*...

I hope you don't mind, but I'm not going to go into it here - Keep a watch out on the philosophy board for a new topic - I plan on trying to put a concise whistle-stop tour through logic and reason. I understand you can't entirely rely on logic, but that isn't to say that you should "throw the baby out with the bathwater" ...so to speak...

There's been a lot of discussions lately where a consensus on logic would have streamlined discussion immensly - and although it may not look like it from some of my posts, I don't just want to argue for the sake of it - the process of heading in the general direction of truth requires consensus and clarity, and the best way of coming to consensus in my opinion is setting up a framework to work within, so that those that understand the framework will be clear about what is being said, preventing misunderstandings.

I want people to understand the real limits of logic (and you rightly said that there are limits), but I also want to communicate the possibilities.

So, feel free to question what I have to say after I have completed the post.

 

[restin]

OK, see you there. I agree that there need to be limits&definitions in discussions, nonetheless IMHO truth is limitless&without definition. That's the problem.

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

It's not a problem ! It's fun !

Pariah must look something like this :

Notice the very flexible upper lip, a good start !

Here's some more star flexibility :

 

[ophiuchus]

...Keep a watch out on the philosophy board for a new topic ...There's been a lot of discussions lately where a consensus on logic would have streamlined discussion immensly...the best way of coming to consensus in my opinion is setting up a framework to work within, so that those that understand the framework will be clear about what is being said, preventing misunderstandings.

ill be looking forward to this topic

 

[Pariah]

:shock:

I can't remember you taking that pic of me Ahuaeynjxs, amasing! :lol:
(there is actually a photo of me in one of the threads, you can decide for yourself).

Thats me finished the article... it took me all day to put together, but it should cover all of the important points - I'd appreciate people using the poll I posted there aswell (once you read the article). I also welcome comments.

http://www.psychonaut.com/post-32344.html

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

You do look like spock !

You also have holographic potentials ; wether you will keep them or throw them away thats another story, but yours to learn by yourself

Christmas is over ; so do you guys know what transpired in the last nights, or is the surprise has been well preserved ?

 

[????????]

Ahuaeynjxs: what is a holographic being?

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

It is a human who can manifest as pure photons inside a holographic environement ; like in the highly energetic center of the galaxy, or great central sun as some like to call it.

Of course this isn't hard science because the mechanics of quantum theory still need to be enunciated using pure scientifically sound language. However the basics are there enough to understand how it affects our lives !

To put it into context :

"Bell's theorem proves that any model of reality, whether ordinary or contextual, must be connected by influences which do not respect the optical speed limit. If Bell's theorem is valid, we live in a superluminal reality. Bell's discovery of the necessary non-locality of deep reality is the most important achievement in reality research since the invention of quantum theory."

Nick Herbert in Quantum Reality

As we shall see, these ideas are very consistent with concepts which describe the universe in terms of holographic principles. Before we proceed further into our exploration of unity, it is necessary to understand some of the basic ideas of holograms. A hologram is produced when a single laser beam is split into two separate beams. The first beam is bounced off the object whose image is to be recorded. The second beam is reflected off a mirror and allowed to collide with the reflected light of the first. When this happens, the two parts of the beam create an interference pattern that is recorded on a piece of film called a holographic plate.

The earth is a gigantic 5-dimentional holographic plate, the sun is a titanesque lazer generator, so is the amalgamation of so many suns in the center of the galaxy.

It is this phenomena of interference which makes holography possible. Interference is simply a pattern that is created when waves move through each other. Consider what happens when if you drop two pebbles in a pond. Each pebble will produce a set of waves that form concentric circles which radiate outward from the point of impact. As the waves from each pebble expand, they will at some point collide, and the pattern that results is known as the interference pattern.

The pattern that is recorded on the holographic plate looks absolutely nothing like the object which was used to make the recording. Basically, it looks like a bunch of chaotic swirl’s and concentric rings. However, once another laser beam is used to illuminate the film, a three-dimensional image of the original object reappears. You can walk around the image and view it from different angles, but if you attempt to grab it, you’ll find that there is really nothing there.

So in essence an holographic being is a human who's consciousness can expand to encompass the whole galaxy as a holographic film which is activated by the quantum nonlocalised laser that is hyperluminal.

The most striking property of holograms is that the whole image is contained in each part of the film. If you take the original film, on which the interference pattern is recorded, and cut it in half, you will find that the entire image can be projected by illuminating only half of the whole. In fact, you can cut the holographic plate into as many pieces as you want and you’ll find that each piece, when illuminated, produces smaller versions of the whole image.

This is the same thing as saying that the information is distributed non-locally. We have also found that, at the quantum level, all particles are also waves. Thus, all of physical reality is essentially nothing but interference patterns.

What is different is that supraluminal light supercedes our DNA, thus is is inherently convinced that what we perceive is solid, we create that reality too. This is the anti-thesis of alienation, this is trancendance as we know what it means but it is no power to be applied upon anyone else, every hologram is equal in the holographic tradition.

It might be a good idea for us to contemplate the meaning of this last statement for a moment. Imagine an endless web of energy patterns. Science has discovered that, at the quantum level, these waves of energy are connected non-locally. This means that every portion of the pattern is infinitely interconnected with every other portion. It is essential to remember that we are not objective observers to this field of crisscrossing frequency patterns. We are it.

David Bohm suggests the possibility that this underlying unity of existence produces the physical world in the same way as a holographic plate produces a hologram. Could it be that our experiential perception of separateness is nothing more than a holographic illusion? Bohm describes the deeper level of reality as the “implicate

 

[GOD]

That was total crap .

"I'm sure willing to go deeper"

Deeper into mental confusion ? Please dont take us any deeper . PLEASE .

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

Sadly you cannot assume you speak for the whole. You're just afraid because you realise we're all GOD and you just lost your "presscciuss".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaRrDYsh ... re=related

hahahah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2EMXle8 ... re=related

so much fun to be made

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUy8lELW ... re=related

How do you use YOUR focus GOD ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1c9wtp8 ... re=related

:lol:

It's kinda tricky, because if beleifs are really dead truths, then you could manifest a lie as a positive reality.

Thats where I *chime* in

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

You gotta love youtube, if a picture is worth a thousand words, how much is a 10 minute video worth ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMgyFJpB ... re=related

:finga: Take this GOD, satanize me if thou will, it shall be the whole of your law ! :snakeman:

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

Wow thats a good thread, I'm intuitively falling on actually very brillant youtube humor !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pniMSCP ... annel_page

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

Are you going to let me post all these brillant videos, or did I just overwhelm you ?

Is it coincidence that I posted a video with a spoon and a fork that seems to bend the principles of physics, forkbender ?

Are you humanoid or reptoid ? Is the war over, did it occur in our dreams ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDQdjEnG ... re=channel