PS
Isn't this pretty similar to Einstein's utterance "time is what clocks show"?
Yes, division between time and clocks creates misunderstanding that time is beyond clocks run. "Clocks show other systems motion, behaviour". If Einsten would clearly declaire that time/clocks run is a reference system only, a lot of throuble would be saved.
Why I say "immence
Why I say "Consequences are immence".
I spend two yers in Asia talking with different "enlightened" people. All report that time is an illusion, that they live in eternal now and here. Are this people mad or there is some "scientific value" in their experience. I discover it is. These people step out of "inner neuronal time" with "awakening of the observer". Buddhist teaching is based on "conscious observer".
Sure "inner time" is formed on the day/night, on earth rotation.
Steping out of iner time is an immence experience. Physics has potential to integrate this experience. Physics is the same all over the world. "Conscious observer" is the scientific basis for planetary civilization. Conscious observer is behind any religion belief, national or ratial indentification.
"Conscious Observer" is the best physics can give to the world to raise peace and harmony on the planet.
yours amrit
Eckard:
"Spirituality is the search for the experience of this reality. Hence my statement "gulf between science and spirituality is dimishing". This gulf is only in our perception."
-- Really?
yes really! Experience means whole thing. Not just reasoning, thinking, analysing, rationalising... but also feeling, perceiving directly, being conscious and AWARE of. Mind can only take us so far, because it is very limited indeed. To experience this reality we must transcend mind. And I think you said in a previous post that consciousness is mind and thoughts - note that it is not. Consciousness is far far greater than mind.
For me the day is coming when all Scientists are spiritual and all spirituality embraces science.
But if you don't agree I am interested to hear what Spirituality is in your opinion?
Dear Amrit,
You wrote:
Consciousness is a basics frequency (this is only a thesis based on Penrose research) of quanta of space QS. QS change electrical potential from positive to negative in a Planck time. QS are noncreated units of energy. Their basic frequency is consciousness itself.
Penrose reminds me a bit of Lighthill. Both British mathematicians are/were perhaps excellent in mathematics rather than physiology. I did not read "The Emperors New Mind". However, Lighthill was definitely wrong with his energy transfer from base to apex of cochlea.
Would your musing be still valuable if it did not at all relate to brains of animals?
Incidentally, you certainly meant bird when you wrote birth.
It would facilitate everybody's understanding if you did reveal what QS stands for.
Did you achieve anything in excess of Penrose's ideas?
Uncle Al persistently demands to perform a comparatively simple experiment.
What experiment would you like to be performed in order to confirm your ideas?
I doubt that speculative physics can immediately raise peace and harmony.
Someone said the world would be better without a Teller Ede. Edward Teller was indeed difficult when his daughter asked him: "If you are hating all people this includes you too?" and he replied: "Yes I hate myself too".
I was among those who might have survived because WW2 was over in Europa before the first bombs were built.
Peace is not available without serious effort.
Regards,
Eckard
Dear Eckart
peace = sonsciousness
yours amrit
conscious observer = consciousness
Through every scientist eye is observing the same consciousness. Mind is between paerception and experience as a kind of filter. Conscious observer is fully aware of that. Conscious observer experiences universe as it is: "Ding an sich", would say Kant.
yours amrit
Hi Amrit. Do you not agree with the following? How do your see your essay as being consistent or inconsistent with the following please?
Since dreams make thought more like sensory experience (including gravity and electromagnetism/light) in general, the idea of "how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy" is not only demonstrated in dreams (as I have shown), but this idea is then ALSO understood to be NECESSARILY central to an improved understanding of physics/experience in general.
According to Jonathan Dickau, my idea of "how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy" is "right on" as a central and valuable idea/concept in physics.
Also, how do you account for the following:
Do you understand the GIGANTIC significance of the following three statements taken together?:
1) The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.
2) Dreams involve a fundamental integration AND spreading of being, experience, and thought at the [gravitational and electromagnetic] MID-RANGE of feeling BETWEEN thought AND sense.
3) Dreams make thought more like sensory experience IN GENERAL (including gravity and electromagnetism).
Now, also consider the following:
These are the essential parameters/requirements regarding the demonstration/proof of what is ultimately possible in physics.
1) Making thought more like sensory experience in general.
2) Space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy.
3) Balancing/uniting scale.
4) Exhibiting/demonstrating particle/wave.
5) Repulsive/attractive.
What is ultimately possible in physics cannot (and should not) be properly/fully understood apart from this great truth:
The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.
Dear Franck, you say: Since dreams make thought more like sensory experience........I do not get that realy. Could you explain.
yours amrit
Time is a Measuring System Based on Light SpeedAttachment #1: Time_is_a_Measuring_System.pdf
TIMELESS UNIVERSE
here is my research proposal
yours amrit
http://www.linkedin.com/newsArticle?viewDiscussion=&articleID=99889563&gid=2615569&trk=EML_anet_nws_c_ttle-cDhOon0JumNFomgJt7dBpSBA
Dear Amrit,
We use the Earth`s duration of rotation, as the primary measurement baseline in establishing our units of duration, such as hours and weeks.
In my post on September 10th, I said, "Events do have duration. We have duration and motion in our timeless universe. In our conscious experience of duration, we assume time is passing."
While our planet rotates in timeless space, it`s rotational motion has ceaseless affect on our environment! The motion is real, it`s effects are all encompassing. We use this same motion, as the measurement baseline for our time keeping. Given the constant overwhelming affect of rotation on our planet, it`s understandable that conscious inhabitants would elect to assume time is passing, rather than duration is elapsing.
We are permanently in the present. Everything that has ever happened, happened in the present. Remnants of all those happenings are still here with us, in the present. While it seems difficult to disprove time exists, it is possible to prove it`s unnecessary, and not foundational.
It`s possible to explain the nature of time in terms of rotation, duration, and consciousness.
In my post on the thread of my essay, in the nature of time essay contest, I said, "A kind of proof is available in the fact that we are engaged in an essay contest about the nature of time, in two thousand and nine. This strongly suggests that no one has ever found a shred of evidence that time exists."
Yours,
Jim