I love the way 3 dimensional computer graphics can give an astute modeling of the processes going on in our world. Going back, way back our model of the universe had Earth at the center, sitting fixed in space and upon the shoulders of Atlas, with the heavens turning about the Earth every day. A lot of arguing has occurred since that time and now we have quite a different way of seeing ourselves in relation to the rest of the Milky Way galaxy. The big yellow ball in the center is our mother Sun with Earth and the rest of our sibling planets revolving around their mother.
In dictionary.com, Intention is defined thus: “in·ten·tion [in-ten-shuhn] noun 1. an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result . . . ”
Philosophically, we are using intention to provide the physical interface betweennothing, and something. By this, I am writing that mentally there is nothing and then there arises something. This is my observation of the inception of manifestation.
There is an enormous assumption at the beginning of the definition of intention that the volition of this manifestation of something is caused by the individual.
I am now considering whether this is true, or rather how true this is. As I have routinely written, it is my conjecture that our language describing physical phenomena may not be laid out quite rightly.
Yesterday during a review of the definition of the word intention, I demonstrated my intention to myself by picking up my own hand. By raising it and lowering it using different scenarios, I demonstrated that either raised or lowered “if and only if” I used the interface of intention. What is this intention I wondered. We are conditioned to believe that it arises from our immortal spirit. Yet I am noticing that this “if and only if” function is quite common in logic and other machinery.
There exists the assumption that personal responsibility and will to be adamantly welded. I am considering “How true is this?”
I assume that if my opinions were important or if anyone cared what I think then I would receive a few flaming responses for this sacrilege. However, because I consider that no one cares what I think then this unholy comment may go unnoticed! I may be allowed to consider this issue of will in peace.
I see parallel functions between my PC and my mind. So what are we working with? What I’m seeing is the mind as a computational device. This is not a new idea but it is my idea arrived at from research and from my personal investigation of my own mind. The results of that research are arrived at on my own but they do not seem to be particularly original in the world as they have been arrived at in the past and seemingly will be arrived at continuously in the future. Each of us has a level of curiosity in this regard, some more than others.
For me, the physical world is the superset of all that is manifest and this superset is finite by the moment. It is the current result of the current computation. Our perception of the physical universe as smoothly fluid is apparency which can be said to be covered by the phi phenomenon and of beta motion.
If the superset is finite, then the infinite is a subset of the finite. The only infinite thing is the irrational computation. What is infinite about the “I” is its irrational limit resulting in perpetual computations. There are irrational considerations such as the 22/7ths of π, etc.,. What is infinite is the computation of irrational numbers. I see the infinite process of irrational computation and project this onto other considerations such as <em>soul, eternal life as the self, etc.,.</em>
I’m seeing reality compartment-alized by the moment and I’m seeing frames of reference which contain discreet reality unto themselves. Written another way, the Universe’s inception in simplicity has become inordinately complex because of its enormity.
This statement has been crowding my thoughts for a while now and I just wanted to write it down and get it out of my head to look at.
November 8, 2012 7:02 AM (updated with this *.gif April 2, 2017)
I like this graphic *.gif that demonstrates spacetime bending toward the massive object as it travels in spacetime.
Vinaire: Gravity is due to attraction between masses. Chris: This seems to be a conjecture only to me. I see how we get to that conjecture, the apple falls, but why? It must possess a characteristic which attracts it to the earth. Right?
And yet, is this the only possible solution? We have to do more on this and although I’ve written this post on gravity, I think it belongs under the heading of space and space-time. I am going to promote the idea that gravity may have more to do with space than it has to do with mass. Even mass may be a characteristic of space. We accurately measure the forces involved but are the forces the reason for gravity? I say no, and this is why I’ve posted up this topic for discussion. I am promoting the idea that SPACE IS A DYNAMIC SUBSTANCE WITH ELASTIC AND STICKY PROPERTIES.
Look at gravity as a property of space; as a river of space flowing toward accretion points forming vertices in that matrix of space. Picture the accretion points as “sticky bits of space” creating the vertices of space and you will see how I am trying to model this.
We might one day discover that “self” is one of the products of the properties of space. How could this be so? It would require space to be composed of a substance. Rather than being empty, space may be a matrix; a structure; a scaffolding which supports the accretion points. It may be a dynamic and flowing dimension which invisibly supports and makes possible the visible. Its observable effects, which are pervading every aspect of existence, may be pointing toward an as yet, undiscovered dimension.
Think of it this way: Mass might not have any intrinsic “gravity” at all and may simply be formed by and held in place by the elastic characteristics of space. This is crude, I know; however, it is a direction that is different than the extant view of physics. Is this idea a brilliant light to shine on the “dark matter” of extant physics; or is this idea as short-sighted as Aristotle’s <em>spontaneous generation theory</em>? Maybe.
And what of <strong>dark matter</strong>? Is dark matter the congealed but invisible portion of unconsolidated space? Or could dark matter be a type of well-spring from which dark matter emanates? And was dark matter always present, underpinning original space since the big bang? Or possibly has it made its appearance by first making the old universe milky with the initial evolutions of accretion? Did space congeal into mass? This seems to have happened but atomic particles and sub-atomic particles are generally regarded as separate and existing separately from space. But is this so or are there sub-sub-atomic particles which comprise space in a way we haven’t looked at? Regardless, space through the force of gravity, like the rest of the universe appears to be evolving. Gravity as a quality of space may be the force but not the only force at work.
Take a look at this wide-angle photo of The Universe and let your imagination unwind! These are not stars, neither are they galaxies nor even clusters of galaxies. The bright points are super-clusters of galaxies!
Friday night, Shelley and I went to the State Fair and watched a rock concert. There were several thousand people there and in the dark during the show I was looking around and wondering why I could not assume the viewpoints of the people that I saw. I was looking at them; I could see their bodies; I could see from their postures and faces how they were reacting to the music; but I could not see what they saw. I thought, “I’m gonna write a post on this and ask the question.”
I consider assuming the viewpoint of another to be a high ability and necessary for spiritual growth. What do you suppose is the reason we cannot see what others see? Or, Can you?
As a teenager thinking about the form and structure of what would comprise my forthcoming adulthood, I had a series of what I would call negative epiphanies, or sudden realizations that paradigms that I was being trained into and information which I was studying were dead-ends, otherwise known as bullshit. These negative epiphanies were useful for they left a void in my mind that wanted to be filled. These moments provided and continue to provide an opportunity to replace what I consider false information and concepts with knowledge that I consider more workable.
One of the first such positive epiphanies was a moment when about 18 years of age and becoming aware of my mortality and seeing the length of my life as a line of indeterminable length, I decided that though I might not determine the length of my life-line, I could possibly determine the width. Though I grew up as a true believer in self-determinism and freewill, I have since come to recant the importance of self-determinism and to question the availability of any freewill. That I have will is self-evident but that it is not free seems also self-evident as it is impinged upon by every corner of my existence.
Thanks to Maria who shared the following YouTube video by Courtney Brown, PhD, who explains his theory of how remote viewing can be understood against the background of quantum mechanics. His concept of the brain as a narrow-band-width hologram generator coincides with my own research into myself. This video is 21 minutes long and although the title contains remote viewing, Dr. Brown spends 20 minutes setting up his summation without mentioning remote viewing. Watch and you will see why.
I also find that the environment presents itself to me in a flat format or if not precisely flat, then as though against the inside surface of a sphere with my brain on the inside of that sphere. This is an analogy where the physical sensory receptors of my body are represented by that sphere. In fact, I see the interior of that sphere in terms of fractal plotting and possibly the complexly-folded brain is the interior of that sphere. Using fractal math plotted in the complex plane, it can be demonstrated that the illusion of both space-time and travel can be represented in a 2 dimensional format by simply panning and zooming in and out of this graphical representation. I have been called a flogger of fractals and that may be correct for I use them a lot and learn about every area of my life from the fractal constructs.