Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Application of Set Theory in OBE and Parallel Realities...

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by CEP2plet
    It's not just my assumption. It is just an assumption for now in this particular model. But, in any way you look at it, the astral world exists, in some form or another. Eventually, you and I are going to assume something. We are going to think about the astral world in a particular way. So, with such little information to go by, why make hasty assumptions that are too specific for their own good? Why not play it safe and be as general as possible, for now. That way, whatever the astral world could possibly be, we'll be ready with open minds to learn, and a general approach, at first, seems limiting, but is one that allows for the expansion of possibilities, not the limitation.
    But assuming they are dependent immediately removes the possibility that they aren’t dependent in any way. For instance it is possible they are totally independent realities but that Consciousness is able to pass between them.
    Quote Originally Posted by CEP2plet
    Quote:
    C doesn't have to be a virtual world in our minds for it to be a subset of A


    True. Then, that would mean C is a virtual world of a virtual world? What do you think?
    I think it’s entirely possible that B, A & C are ALL virtual worlds within Virtual worlds. I think it is possible there is a hierarchy of world or Cosmoi (as I like to call them) all the way up to the ALL or the Source. I can even think of a mechanism that would separate them – dimensions. The math says the dimensions are there.
    If the physicists are right with their concepts of a Holographic Universe, there is one aspect they have forgotten – a holo is a representation of a real thing – it is a bit difficult to describe one that isn’t. So if our Universe is a hologram, of what is it a holo?
    Quote Originally Posted by CEP2plet
    Quote:
    Also, even given what you propose, it's B --> A OR A --> C, not both.


    Oh, right, about that. B -> A -> C is a model to account for both possibilities; either B or C. So, for example, if the astral world is a world that includes A, then the astral world is B. If the astral world is a subset of A, then the astral world is C. So, either/or, it doesn't matter. You can write it as B -> A or A -> C.

    The reason I write it as B -> A -> C is because, that way, I sort of have the beginning of a model of sets of worlds. In the limited scope of deciding whether the astral world includes, or is included in, A is all this model shows. That's all, really.
    I was making the point that the way you write it is actually confusing. You’re implying Astral World --> Real World --> Astral World.
    Quote Originally Posted by CEP2plet
    Quote:
    Actually it does change it - choose one & you lose the other.


    No, it doesn't change it. It just means the astral world isn't B, but B will still be there.
    Why would B still be there? If you choose the model A C, where is the place for B?
    Quote Originally Posted by CEP2plet
    Quote:
    I'm not sure why you've added this stuff in. It doesn't seem to have much to do with what you're suggesting & certainly if Astral worlds are a creation of human minds it seems a step away from all this stuff, not similar to it all.


    Well, it actually is similar to all those other things I listed. The Internet will be known in the history books of tomorrow as the predecessor to whatever virtual reality we create in the future (if we get that far before destroying one another). The Internet, as it is right now, is incomprehensively huge. It would be the life-long task of someone with photographic memory to keep track of everything that has been, is now, and will be on the Internet. Sure, it's mainly a text-based environment right now, but if you think about it being synthesized with the MMORPG 3-D environments, then you're talking about approaching a virtual world imminently. Plus, for any media conglomerate that is reading this right now, it would be a massive investment to first invent the interface/format to link MMOs and browsing the Internet together, and second to get deals made with companies that own mainframes and large server networks, and those who own and run the MMOs. But the profits would be dependent on how well it's all designed and implemented. If all goes smoothly, profits will be like nothing this world has ever seen.

    Oh, and about the large governmental bureaucracies. Yeah, there's so much that goes on in our governments that not even the people that supposedly get elected even know everything about it. It's sort of like the legal system's "Internet". You see, I don't think the astral world is a virtual world to this one. It doesn't resemble an incomprehensively large government, computer network, or anything like that. It's something else completely.
    I agree with most of this but it still seems out of place in your original post.
    Quote Originally Posted by CEP2plet
    Quote:
    If the worlds simply run on different time slices they can easily all be on the same system, running in parallel, unconnected but available if only you change the 'tick' you're running on.


    Acutally, no. This is an entirely different topic altogether (infinitesimally small spacetime sequences). Not just different "time slices", but also different locations in space as well. You can't talk about time without mentioning space. Time travel, like space travel, has its limits. For instance, if you want to manipulate time, or some time in history from our reference point in time, the present, then it will be a monumental task because the farther back in time you go, the harder it will be to actually arrive at the time in our history that you want to be at. Why? Because of the reality of multiple histories as well as multiple futures. And the further "forwards" or "backwards" you go, the harder it is in telling where exactly it is you are going! It's a mind-flip, I know, but think about it. The only place to manipulate time with a good possibility in getting where and when you want to be is in short distances and very short time sections. Sort of like a simultaneous split in direction of going forward in time for a minute before merging those timelines back together again. Time is about as complicated as imagining mapping out every choice you make and drawing out a Sierpinski gasket for each moment in time, both forwards and backwards, and then stringing them together in such a way as to be able to create a two-dimensional MIDI sequencer connecting together each and every point in such a way as to allow for the navigation in time travel. Ridiculous for thinking about at this moment because of the incomprehensibility of the phenomena. That's why it's harder to tell where/when you're going the longer you time travel. You can't "time travel" without "space travel", by the way.
    You speak as though the definition of Time is set in stone. IF Einstein is right, then Time & Space are linked, but Einstein’s theories have holes in them large enough to drive a Qunatuim Pickup through. Not only do Quantum & relativity theories not mesh on gravity, it turns out evidence suggesting Relativity might be wrong was suppressed almost from the start – the Michelson-Morley experiments actually DID show the existence of an ether but were loudly proclaimed to have failed. If there is an Ether, Relativity is wrong, or at best, limited even more than classic Newtonian ideas.
    Add to this the fact that the math of Relativity has, from day one, had failure points built into it. People think that at the speed of light, weird things happen but actually the only thing we know is that, at the speed of light, the math breaks down! It is obvious there must be a better explanation – Light travels at the speed of light without any of the weird stuff happening to it.
    In Quantum theories, Time & Space are not linked as they are in Relativity.
    The question of manipulating Time is a furphy & has nothing to say on this subject. First you have to define what Time is before you can start using the paradoxes or possibilities to accept or deny other theories. Who knows if there would be multiple histories? Only the guy who KNOWS what Time is.
    And actually, at the moment, the only place to manipulate Time that would make sense in any of the theories, is from outside it. Until we find out just what Time is, it doesn’t make sense to decide other things based on what you think might or might not be feasible under this or that theories. the definition may simply collapse all your possibilities into a nice neat package that lets Time Travel be a possibility.
    Quote Originally Posted by CEP2plet
    Quote:
    Also, if the Astral world is neither B nor C, but is AA, there is no need at all for B so it can be discarded entirely.


    That would be unwise, because AA and A would merely be two worlds included in another world. Kind of like this world, A. Right now, at this very moment, there could be another intelligent lifeform in A that has already constructed and has been running a virtual world, CC, for millennia, and we have yet to know about it. Well, in that case, that would make two, parallel virtual worlds that would exist as subsets to A (assuming we got that far to make our virtual world happen). So, again, no, the framework doesn't change.
    I think maybe you’re substituting your Venn diagrams for reality here. You’re saying No to something, based on suppostions in an idea about things. Using a ‘might be’ to decide something as a fact isn’t wise – such things tend to turn & bite you later.
    Quote Originally Posted by CEP2plet
    Quote:
    I don't quite see why there would be format or compatibility problems.


    If two worlds intersected, then there would be a problem if you wanted go from the world you're in, to the world that intersects your world. You would be limited to the sections of the world that intersected. The other parts of the world that don't intersect, you would only be able to experience one side or the other. A set is defined by the elements that make up a set, so that means that a world being a set of "axioms" that generate altogether the phenomena that plays out in that world, we would be restricted only to the places that intersect. I'm not talking about worlds as spatial or geometrical, or even temporally here. This approach is wholly counter-intuitive; it's hard to imagine. It's incredibly complicated. But B would still be there, for "format compatibility" so your "A-interfaces" can effectively transport from one to another. It's kind of like browsing the Internet and being stuck with a browser that can't read HTML, or doesn't use the hyper-text transfer protocol. Good luck with that.
    Why would there be a problem? There might be, but you’re saying it as a fact & the way you say it removes the other possibilities. It is a possibility only that there may be hinderances that might make moving from one to the other difficult, but your hypothesized incompatibility is just that, an Hypothesis. Why would there be a problem? There easily might be one but you’re stating it like it is a given.

    It seems to me that for us to be having the difficulty we are with Consciousness, that maybe it isn’t a part of this Universe – so it may not be a part of any specific universe & so may not have any compatibility problems at all..
    Quote Originally Posted by CEP2plet
    And, no, consciousness is distinctly different from the A-interfaces that they are using. It's a question of how are you going to get to AA with an A-interface? You need to translate your A-interface into an AA-interface. If you don't, you can't connect, or you'll only be able to experience the fragments of that world that are compatible with the A-interface. That's where B comes in. So, again, the framework doesn't change; we just added more to it.
    Unless, as above, Consciousness isn’t subject at all to the rules you are proposing.

    What if Consiousness actually creates all the Cosmoi? What if all these worlds/universes are simply figments of Consciousness at different levels – all the rules, all the limits, the interfaces etc become meaningless. Your diagrams still work except the outer ring, the one containing all the others, will have the label Consciousness.
    Never doubt there is Truth, just doubt that you have it!

  2. #12
    CEP2plet Guest
    But assuming they are dependent immediately removes the possibility that they aren’t dependent in any way. For instance it is possible they are totally independent realities but that Consciousness is able to pass between them.
    Not really. All I did was draw up a diagram where I made C a subset of A a subset of B. OK, so, all that means is that if the astral world isn't C, then it's B, but C will still be there as something other than the astral world. See? If we found out that it's C, and we discard B, then when we find some other world that includes A, we'll just bring back B. But if we kept it there, we wouldn't have to bring it back; it would still be there. Sure, we can leave it out, as it's not going anywhere, for now as we're talking about the astral world being one or the other, but it'll be back when we need it, so I'll leave it there; you can discard if you want.

    It is possible they are all totally independent. If they are all totally independent of each other, then that means they're parallel to each other. OK, there's a reason why I made the diagrams look the way they look. I mean, we can make all kinds of diagrams of all kinds of set relations. Great. But I have a feeling none of them will be good enough for you, as they would all be limited to some extent (hey, it's math and science, what do you expect?). I'd rather assume something in a mathematical way, so I can make quick changes if any new ideas come up. There's no emotional attachment to diagrams or models.

    I think it’s entirely possible that B, A & C are ALL virtual worlds within Virtual worlds.
    Well, we can at least agree on that (ha ha).

    I think it is possible there is a hierarchy of world or Cosmoi (as I like to call them) all the way up to the ALL or the Source. I can even think of a mechanism that would separate them – dimensions. The math says the dimensions are there.
    Hmmm... "The math" says that, eh? Then I wonder what I was talking about... Gee...

    If the physicists are right with their concepts of a Holographic Universe, there is one aspect they have forgotten – a holo is a representation of a real thing – it is a bit difficult to describe one that isn’t. So if our Universe is a hologram, of what is it a holo?
    Or maybe physicists didn't mention that bit about it being a hologram of a real thing because... that would be redundant. Maybe they're giving their fellow readers the benefit of the doubt of being versed enough in the English language to know what "hologram" means. Of course, when they say "holographic universe", it's implied that it is a representation of a real thing. Nice try.

    I was making the point that the way you write it is actually confusing. You’re implying Astral World --> Real World --> Astral World.
    Really... I'm not confused. It's 3 letters. Hey, just write it out whichever way you want. Think for yourself.

    I agree with most of this but it still seems out of place in your original post.
    Um, that's nice, you could have mentioned that earlier (maybe if you stopped objecting to everything I type for a second, and starting thinking, maybe I'm not so objectionable after all). It's not out of place. It's related.

    You speak as though the definition of Time is set in stone.
    Journeyman161, the definition of time is not set in stone. In fact, it is not in any stone at all. It appears to be everywhere around us, in us, and we seem to read it like a laser reads a CD-ROM disk. So, everything I am typing now, I have already typed, and everything you are reading in this topic, you have already read. We are merely conscious of one of the possible timelines that exist for us in a "one at a time" fashion. Oh yes. Time is quite static like space. I could care less about relativity more than I care about quantum mechanics, because if you don't already know (which you will in time, ha ha), set theory is crucial to quantum mechanics. Without it, there would have been no quantum theory. Set theory is one of the most complex and crucial of modern mathematical innovations. That's also one of the reasons I chose to understand worlds as sets; it seems to work consistently (consistently enough, that is, for now), if you have the patience to learn the essence of what science and math are. But, by now, after all your objections and arguments, you seem to be trying to "look clever". You don't seem to be saying much of any abstract meaning.

    I mean, sure, quantum theory was never compatible with relativity, and, yes, ether physics should have a more serious place in the world of science as it is a welcoming gust of innovative and original thought in science, which should not be allowed to become stale and conventional in its methods, but you don't seem interested in any of that. It looks as though you're trying to counter-posit everything I type. If you had any interest at all in math or science, you would have found this stuff about set theory being applied to understand the astral, virtual, and physical worlds as fascinating to think about. Fun, mental puzzles to explore!

    You can argue anything, but if you argue too long, your arguing turns into you arguing against yourself arguing. In other words... guilt and/or regret, familiar 4-D phenomenon, but bitter ones at that. I hope this is food for thought. This is my last post of this kind. Use it wisely.

  3. #13
    Wow, that's twice in one day people with whom I thought I was having a reasonable discussion have turned insulting. When I have a theory or a way of looking at something I happily accept what others say about it & use them to test how good my thoughts are. In science, it's called peer review & anything that doesn't go through the process isn't regarded as knowledge.

    Physicists & scientists in general are required to mention all their postulates - to fail to do so makes what they do into not-science. So if a physicist doesn't mention that a holographic universe must be a representation of a 'real' universe he either hasn't thought of it or he isn't doing real science.

    Thinking for myself is what I have been doing when I point out the basic flaws in your concepts. What you're apparently trying to say is I should just accept your errors. That's faith & faith is something I learned not to indulge in a long time ago.

    And again you seem to 'know' all about time - you keep making statements as if they are facts
    Quote Originally Posted by cep
    So, everything I am typing now, I have already typed, and everything you are reading in this topic, you have already read. We are merely conscious of one of the possible timelines that exist for us in a "one at a time" fashion. Oh yes. Time is quite static like space.
    None of this it truth, it is just ideas & if you're going to pretend at science you should make your statements reflect that.

    As for 'trying to look clever,' that's just cheap insult & insults generally come from those who have run out of argument in a debate. It's a way to distract from the fact they have no more to say.

    Maybe if you'd bothered to tighten up your original ramble there wouldn't have been so many holes for me to poke at. Set theory is only useful in as much as it reflects either reality or the theory you're trying to present. Deliberately presenting models that you know to be inaccurate, and worse, stubbornly defending their inaccuracy is not science, it's religion.

    While you seem content to have inaccurate models of nested worlds just in case one of them may be needed later, I had thought you'd appreciate some critique to help you firm up your concepts.

    Apparently I was in error. So you just carry on with your self-conversation secure in the knowledge that, for you at least, it is all you need.
    Never doubt there is Truth, just doubt that you have it!

  4. #14
    kiwibonga Guest
    I also think set theory is a good way to look at things:

    http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welco ... #msg212172

  5. #15
    Set theory is certainly a good informational tool - just not when you deliberately introduce inaccuracies & then defend them with, to paraphrase...'well, I might need them later'
    Quote Originally Posted by cep
    Not really. All I did was draw up a diagram where I made C a subset of A a subset of B. OK, so, all that means is that if the astral world isn't C, then it's B, but C will still be there as something other than the astral world. See? If we found out that it's C, and we discard B, then when we find some other world that includes A, we'll just bring back B. But if we kept it there, we wouldn't have to bring it back; it would still be there.
    This doesn't use set theory as it is meant to be used - it's fiction. A kind of 'well I'll put it there just in case but if it isn't what I say it is then it will be something else so I'll need it anyway.'
    *shrugs*

    At first blush, your sets for the non-physical universe reflect what you're saying & begin with a disclaimer.

    So in your sets, when we try to gain conscious projection we are attempting to merge the waking consciousness with an astral plane that might either be one of our own creation or of someone else's?

    Would OoBE simply be projection into the Creators Astral Realm?

    I'm also a little puzzled as to why the Creator's atoms would be heart-shaped?
    Never doubt there is Truth, just doubt that you have it!

  6. #16
    kiwibonga Guest
    So in your sets, when we try to gain conscious projection we are attempting to merge the waking consciousness with an astral plane that might either be one of our own creation or of someone else's?
    Well, perhaps not our waking consciousness... Rather, a non-physical, non-local consciousness. Where we end up is always a subjective "plane" ; the thing is, depending on what we let intersect, we may or may not experience outside things.

    RTZ projection is quite different, since it is a two step process.

    Would OoBE simply be projection into the Creators Astral Realm?
    It would be first a withdrawal from the physical to switch focus into the etheric, the "second body," which acts as an intersection point between the physical consciousness (the processes of the brain) and the non-physical one, and then a second projection occurs where energy is extended out of the physical and into, yes, the creator's astral realm. But the person is still in a subjective "bubble," so to speak. You bring your set into another set, and you still retain creative powers within your set.

    I'm also a little puzzled as to why the Creator's atoms would be heart-shaped?
    It's just a reference to Leadbeater's Occult Chemistry ; the "ultimate unit of matter" he clairvoyantly witnessed was a heart-shaped spiral of interwoven energy that he named the "anu".

  7. #17
    CEP2plet Guest
    Nice, kiwibonga. Thanks for the link! That makes two of us. I'll let you know what I come up with.

    ...

    When I have a theory or a way of looking at something...
    What? What was that again? A theory! You have a theory? Really?! Then, by all means, journeyman161, feel free to communicate it to us!

    Of all your "critiques", you have yet to let us know your ideas (if you have any). The ball is in your court...

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwibonga
    It's just a reference to Leadbeater's Occult Chemistry ; the "ultimate unit of matter" he clairvoyantly witnessed was a heart-shaped spiral of interwoven energy that he named the "anu".
    Ah, thanks. It puzzled me.

    A guy by the name of Ed Leedskalnin left very little written evidence of his thoughts (but lots of 'concrete' evidence :grin but what there was included a drawing of energy paths of positive & negative magnetic poles that looks very much like a heart when shown together.

    Quote Originally Posted by CEP2plet
    What? What was that again? A theory! You have a theory? Really?! Then, by all means, journeyman161, feel free to communicate it to us!

    Of all your "critiques", you have yet to let us know your ideas (if you have any). The ball is in your court...
    First, I have been posting in other people's threads so it would be a little rude to start spouting my own theories or ideas when I'm meant to be discussing theirs.

    Second, if you read what I say without bringing your attitude to class, you would see some of my ideas appearing in both the comments I make & the questions I ask.

    And lay off the sarcasm - it ill becomes you & makes you look petty.
    Never doubt there is Truth, just doubt that you have it!

  9. #19
    CEP2plet Guest
    You can argue anything, but if you argue too long, your arguing turns into you arguing against yourself arguing. In other words... guilt and/or regret, familiar 4-D phenomenon, but bitter ones at that.
    It's so true.

  10. #20
    CEP2plet Guest
    journeyman161, why do you see this as a debate? I don't, and kiwibonga doesn't either. It's a discussion and/or sharing of ideas. But even if this was a debate, you would be losing, and I would be winning, because of the fact I have stated my argument in detail, in my Posts 1, 2, and 4 in this topic, and you have not. You even admitted it yourself...

    ...to start spouting my own theories or ideas...
    As if what? As if they didn't mean anything in a debate?

    ...who have run out of argument in a debate.
    Um, I have been stating things and answering your questions the best I can to the best of my knowledge, and yet you don't think it's worth your time to share a few of your ideas/theories? Who are you, journyman161, to be so self-righteous to think that we all on this forum should accept your word that "you know things, but you don't want to share them" argument (that's an insult on all of our intelligence)? Why should I believe you? What, because you're a moderator? That has nothing to do with the (could-have-been) discussion on this topic. I'm the type of person who demands proof of "knowledge". I demonstrate what I know to the best of my ability, and, so far, I have done just that, except on time. On the subject of time, I have put together an intuitive understanding of time, as I'm working to expand on the experience and present understanding of time (for whatever that will be worth).

    But even then, if this was all a debate to you, you would have taken the time to demonstrate your "knowledge" about time or whatever else in a way that you would be the winner and I would be in defeat. In debate, there are winners and losers. That's why I don't see this as a debate. It wouldn't be fair for everyone to be draconian on an obviously intuitive subject as applying sets to worlds. It would be inappropriate to approach it as such... for now. As it develops, we may be able to see whether it can live up to its promise.

    ...

    journyman161, I can tell you don't like me. Hopefully, we can leave it at that. I'm going to continue on with this set theory application idea.

    ...

    Heh heh, if the astral world is B, C will still be there...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. VR Application for OBE
    By sanatogen in forum OBE Research and Discussions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 7th January 2016, 11:27 PM
  2. RTZ practical application?
    By mtsingson in forum Ask Robert Bruce
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 29th October 2010, 05:41 AM
  3. ¿How many realities?
    By asalantu in forum Ask Robert Bruce
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 23rd March 2010, 03:40 PM
  4. M Theory and Parallel Universes
    By artdragondream in forum Science and Spirit
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11th November 2007, 12:07 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
01 TITLE
01 block content This site is under development!
02 Links block
02 block content

ad_bluebearhealing_astraldynamics 

ad_neuralambience_astraldynamics