| ▲ | MrMcCall 4 days ago |
| I know it's going to sound like a bunch of hooey, but information really is the most intrinsic element of all aspects of this universe, especially when it comes to life. The life force is a thing that is interrelated with our physical bodies, but is not the physical body. It's just like the zen concept of "Not 2, not 1". Our minds have the same relationship with our brains. They're not separate, they're not the same; they're interrelated. That we can't "see" the other side of the connection with our science is due to our science being built with our physical world's constituents (matter & energy), thus those other dimensions are immeasurable with our science's tools. Rupert Sheldrake speaks of this when he says that the genetic code's protein construction genes do not and can not account for the resulting organism's shape. That coordinated construction requires a separate guiding force. That interrelationship is similar to the "memory" that creatures such as salmon have, which is intrinsic to their entire being, not just their physical body, which is only half of our being's totality. |
|
| ▲ | snowwrestler 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Whether or not this is “true,” it’s not explanatory. Someone asked how a thing works, and the answer above is essentially just restating that it does in fact work, for some ineffable, immeasurable reason. So while interesting to think about, it’s not a useful response to the question. |
| |
| ▲ | MrMcCall 4 days ago | parent [-] | | We understood that Mercury's orbit was wrong per Newton's laws long before Einstein came along to explain to us why. Whether or not something is true is always the beginning of a scientific exploration. | | |
| ▲ | snowwrestler 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Of course, but if we don’t know how something works, it’s ok to just say “we don’t know yet.” There may in fact be physical, measurable mechanisms that govern these types of animal behavior. Just like there was a physical, measurable explanation for Mercury’s orbit. | | |
| ▲ | MrMcCall 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, but it was Einstein's imagination that provided the theoretical framework that allowed the longstanding physical measurement to line up. If his imagination was limited by Newton's laws, he would have never come up with GR. If he had said that mass causes time to vary, he would have been laughed out of the room, with much ad hominem shouting. What I'm saying here is that we need to push beyond our current scientific paradigms to find out how these inexplicable corner cases actually work. As well, I do realize that the depth of exploration required will be further than most people are willing to plumb, which is demonstrated by the in-their-feelings reactions to my ideas. |
| |
| ▲ | cruffle_duffle 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | And now dark matter is throwing a wrench in Einstein’s stuff. Like Newton’s laws, Einstein’s stuff gets is mostly right (impressively so, even!) but breaks inside black holes and doesn’t seem to exactly line up with what we observe about what keeps galaxies in tact. And I’m sure whatever we discover that “solves” for dark matter will eventually start showing cracks as well, prompting another deep inquiry into the nature of our universe. Good times. | | |
| ▲ | MrMcCall 4 days ago | parent [-] | | 5/6ths of the universe's matter is missing, or thereabouts. That fact aligns with there being six vibrationally distinct dimensions in our 3-space (our physical dimension being just one of them, our soul inhabiting its counter-dimension, all things in our universe having been created in pairs). The matter/energy from each dimension are distinct, so we can't detect the others using instruments made with ours, yet -- somehow, I don't know how -- the mass combines to contribute to the gravitational inertia that keeps the galaxies from flying apart. That said, when we slam particles together at high enough energies, we do see crossover (briefly) in the form of anti-particles. I couldn't begin to explain the mechanisms behind this, but the structure can be known to seekers of compassionate existence. This is also a hint to the solution to the question of why, after the Big Bang, we don't have an anti-matter left; the answer is that it's where it is, but that we can't detect it with our current tech (or maybe any tech, for all I know). The universe was made to be known by we human beings, we being the information processors designed to work in harmony with this information-theoretic universe, which is fully queryable by a suitable trained mystic. A Sufi Murshid (teacher) lived his entire life in a single town that consisted of a single pair of roads that met in the center of town. Late in his life, he stated that, he "knew the stars of the Milky Way better than he knew his town". (A love-consumed mystic remains conscious as our souls leave our bodies when we sleep. What is called astral travel is not limited by our physical body's speed laws; it is bounded only by the "speed of thought".) Sufi stories are glimpses of corner cases meant to spur us to push past our "known" boundaries. We need to get this world at peace before we can explore our advanced abilities. As Louis Armstrong said, "If lots more of us loved each other, man, this world would be a gasser!" | | |
| ▲ | hiatus 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > A Sufi Murshid (teacher) lived his entire life in a single town that consisted of a single pair of roads that met in the center of town. Late in his life, he stated that, he "knew the stars of the Milky Way better than he knew his town". (A love-consumed mystic remains conscious as our souls leave our bodies when we sleep. What is called astral travel is not limited by our physical body's speed laws; it is bounded only by the "speed of thought".) Do you have any suggested material/resources where I can learn more? | | |
| ▲ | MrMcCall 4 days ago | parent [-] | | This appears to only be in German: https://zwwa.de/ But this site has a few different languages, selectable in the upper-right corner of the page: https://mihr.com/ Note that the bulk of the teachings are about self-evolution via transmuting our vices into their corresponding virtues. It is that transformation that unlocks our ability to consciously travel during sleep. The key to all such teachings is that becoming consumed by compassion is the real goal; all else is just added benefit. As Steel Pulse put it so eloquently so long ago, "Love is the golden chord that binds all commandments." It is also the scaffolding that boosts our abilities to their greatest height; but, in reality, the spiritual path is really about stripping away our selfish ego-nature that impedes our realizing our full potential. Peace be with you. |
| |
| ▲ | lupusreal 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > our soul Is there any empirical test for such things? | | |
| ▲ | idunnoman1222 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | And they’re never will be
> without faith, God is nothing
> If there was proof in God, you would have to worship him. That’s not the world we live in. | | |
| ▲ | MrMcCall 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Loving God is not for God's benefit, for It can gain nothing from us. Loving It reflects back into our consciousness, thereby helping us become love-oriented. Our free will is so sacrosanct that we are free to deny that we even have it, and free to be self-defeating fools living in the misery of our selfishness. There is a better way, though. The choice is yours, my friend. | | |
| ▲ | Tijdreiziger 4 days ago | parent [-] | | You hypothesize that a god/creator exists, yet you do not show any convincing argument that this is the case. If you want to make the argument that a god/creator does in fact exist, it’s up to you to show why. |
|
| |
| ▲ | cruffle_duffle 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There may well never be. Not everything about our existence is knowable. An uncomfortable fact, indeed. | | |
| ▲ | MrMcCall 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It is not uncomfortable once we realizing that we are but a mote, a talented mote in charge of the Earth, but a mote nonetheless. Once reaching humility, we are then free to bask in the glory of being a human being with the power to choose selfless love or selfish foolery, the power to learn and explore this magnificent universe full of wonder. Reaching out to become love, we find peace in service, joy in our every interaction. And, yes, via Castaneda's Don Juan, there is the known, the unknown, and the unknowable. The Creator of all that will ever exist is Unfathomable, Timeless, the Ultimate Loner, but we are capable of communing in some small extent with It, learning a tiny sliver of Its Nature. |
| |
| ▲ | MrMcCall 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The test is to connect with our Creator and ask for the proof you seek. It is why we are here, but we are free to choose to ignore our potential, because our free will is so freely given that we are free to choose ignorance over fulfilling humanity's highest purpose. In the clarity of communing with love, our subjective reality is harmonized with the truth of existence, thus our knowing transcends thinking. It is our highest purpose, but like all great loves, it is freely given with no obligation, only responsibility for our choices and their effects upon others. As Rumi said, "The Way goes in." I have described this process more fully in other comments. Peace be with you. | | |
| ▲ | lupusreal 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Okay sure, faith is fine and I don't oppose people being religious, but it seems very strange to slot this stuff into a discussion about physics if it's not empirical. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | EasyMark 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| what you're saying is basically untestable and that's why most scientific minded people only talk about such things over beers or dismiss it entirely. It's not unlike religion or crystals. I mean we can't necessarily disprove them as they are based mostly on faith in an untestable conclusion. |
| |
| ▲ | MrMcCall 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I suggest that our universal resistence to such ideas is the result of a concerted effort upon our minds and hearts to convince us to embrace selfishly ignorant foolishness rather than selflessly wise service. There is talk here on HN about mathematical reasoning but no one talks about how our systems would affect the Earth differently if we used compassion as our modus operandi instead of for-profit plundering of the Earth for selfish profit. That is because selfishness is our default state -- an animalistic state -- and we must choose to transcend it by self-evolving ourselves beyond our selfishness, and into humanitarian systems that cooperate instead of compete. If you wish to find out how to know the truth in your own subjectively objective reality, browse my other comments. You have your own internal connection that allows the unlocking of your full human potential. Becoming consumed with compassion is a necessary part of that transformation, but we are each free to choose selfishness, and, indeed, most have and are choosing the selfish path. That selfishness is behind every single atrocity ever perpetrated, as well as the spoiling of the Earth for our future generations. For people that choose to become better, the changes come slowly and with drawbacks, but with all art, perseverance and steady effort to improve is the key to success. We each have the power to rise above that animal selfishness and instead choose to design societies of compassionate service to one and all. That path of love is our only hopeful path forward. | | |
| ▲ | Tijdreiziger 4 days ago | parent [-] | | If selfishness were our default state (as you state) no baby would ever be nursed. No wounded person would be treated. No missing person would be searched for. | | |
| ▲ | MrMcCall 4 days ago | parent [-] | | There are degrees; complete sociopathy is unlikely because it defeats self-preservation. Most people are mostly selfish towards out-groups. But, yeah, some mothers are really selfish. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | roughly 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Rupert Sheldrake speaks of this when he says that the genetic code's protein construction genes do not and can not account for the resulting organism's shape. That coordinated construction requires a separate guiding force. Of course there's a separate guiding force. It's the biochemical environment around the cell. Cells operate on chemical signals they receive from their environment and generate the same; these cause cells to differentiate themselves based on their genetic code, which where the resulting organism's shape comes from. This isn't some kind of mystery, we know how this works, and matter & energy are indeed sufficient to explain it. |
|
| ▲ | Aurornis 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Rupert Sheldrake speaks of this when he says that the genetic code's protein construction genes do not and can not account for the resulting organism's shape. > That interrelationship is similar to the "memory" that creatures such as salmon have, which is intrinsic to their entire being, not just their physical body, which is only half of our being's totality. This is all pseudoscience and borderline religious thinking. Rupert Sheldrake and others pushing this line of thinking are not grounded in reality or science. I’m surprised this is the most upvoted sub comment at the time I’m responding. Is pseudoscience like this really becoming so pervasive that comments like this pass as good information? |
| |
| ▲ | MrMcCall 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, when your science explains where the 5/6ths of the missing matter in the universe is, or where the "dark energy" is, I'm all ears. Also, you can try to explain how individual proteins arrange themselves into bilaterally symmetrical, organ-infused organisms of astounding complexity, using only protein recipes. I know you can't explain it, but that doesn't mean you won't try. There is the known, the unknown, and the unknowable. For many, entire branches of the unknown are unknowable because they refuse to expand their criteria for how they evaluate the facts. Sherlock Holmes' father had a quote to the effect about once you have eliminated the possible, all that's left is the impossible (bad paraphrase, I know). | | |
| ▲ | Aloisius 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s beyond bad paraphrasing - that's the polar opposite of the original. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. | | |
| ▲ | MrMcCall 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for that. I stand corrected. But my comment was geared towards those who believe that what I am suggesting is impossible, so to them, the only possibilities left are what they consider impossible. My favorite quote from Holmes is the slightly modified one in Jeremy Brett's version of "The Naval Treaty": "What a lovely thing a rose is. There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion. It can be buit up as an exact science by the reason. The highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. It is only goodness which gives excellence, and so I say again, we have much to hope from the flowers." [The entire high-def Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes tv show series can be found on YouTube.] |
| |
| ▲ | Aurornis 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Also, you can try to explain how individual proteins arrange themselves into bilaterally symmetrical, organ-infused organisms of astounding complexity, using only protein recipes. The problem is that you’re conflating “I don’t understand it” with “it must be magic” A hallmark of charlatans and pseudoscience pushers has been to find something they can claim is the boundary of scientific knowledge (often incorrectly) and then assert that everything past that line therefore is magic. It’s a tale as old as time. Yet every time we make new discoveries they just move the line a little further and claim the magic must be over there now. Another classic move is to make extraordinary assertions (magical hidden forces) but then when anyone objects they try to push the burden of proving the opposite on to the other person. That’s something you’re doing throughout this thread perhaps with realizing how irrational it all is. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | abid786 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This is a bunch of pseudoscience that isn't proven by anything at all and isn't peer reviewed either |
| |
| ▲ | MrMcCall 4 days ago | parent [-] | | And your proof that it's wrong is ... ? That would make your counterargument a pseudo-counterargument, no? It's just reaching into one's feelings/nether-regions and blabbering out some words. You don't even have a sensible counter-theory, right? | | |
| ▲ | calfuris 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The vast majority of possible explanations for anything are wrong, so "correct unless disproven" is not a sensible default. Your evidence that it's right is ... ? | | |
| ▲ | MrMcCall 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I can't provide what is, by definition, subjective proof. You must seek and find it yourself, in accordance with our shared universe, which has the same interface with you as it does with me. You could not look at me and comprehend the truth of what my life's choices have wrought upon my being, the happiness my family experiences, even within our poverty. No, you surely can easily deny that as well, and it is your free will's ability to do just that. But it is also within your potential to treat me better than Eugene Parker's or Boltzman's contemporaries treated them, and instead keep an open mind and open heart and follow the path laid in front of us all that allows us to cure ourselves of our destructive selfishness and begin a new path forward. If you look through my other comments you can find a more detailed description of the key that unlocks the necessary doors, and with them our latent abilities, which include knowing instead of just thinking. |
|
|
|