What is "Reality"?

From Double-A, while ruminating upon the nature of reality during the
long lonely night:

Merely experiencing the apparent
perception of things does not in any way
prove that things being perceived have a
real existence outside of your own mind.

Consensus reality.

Remember the oft-repeated parable of the fish in the deep ocean; he sees
a gas bubble come out of solution and then dissolve back into the
'nothingness' from which it sprang. In his mind, the bubble was 'being'
(was real) then was 'not-being'. His consensus reality had no concept of
the ocean and its enormous hydrostatic pressure.

Similarly, OUR consensus reality perceives atomic structure and
thermodynamics as 'being' and Real, and space as 'nothingness' and
not-being. We have no concept of an atom as like a 'bubble' (or of
atomic structure as a complex of bubbles) embedded in the 'Ocean' of
space. Further, we have no concept of an atom as *process* IN and OF the
Ocean in which it is embedded. And our consensus reality has no concept
of the Ocean's enormous pressure. Or of its sub-Planck energy density
('Temperature'), or of how this fixes the propagation speed of light.
Thus we be utterly 'In de dark' about the true nature of Reality..
settling for a 2-dimensional shadow world, oblivious to That which casts
the shadows.

Yet should we assume that the
programmer of our reality, whether
human or alien or God, should have
programmed it to exactly reproduce a
world that once existed? If you were to
write such a program, would you be
content to simulate the world just the
way it is, or would you want to make
improvements? And could you screw up?

If there IS such a Programmer/ Architect/ Puppeteer behind our consensus
reality, he/she/it must have a hellava sense of humor to have written in
the script for the VSP (void-space paradijjm) as the ultimate
bamboozlement for our species. The challenge, of course, is to see thru
the ruse and come to KNOW, experientially (not just recite by rote), the
nature of the Ocean in which we live and move and have our being.

Sagan enjoyed remarking that we are "star stuff". Indeed, we are. And
further, we are "space stuff".
oc
P.S.
Jb's giant brain is going to jump on the fish parable
again, declaring that since Mr.Fish can "push off" against the water, he
is aware of the ocean. Hey Brainiac. It's an analogy, a parable about
_non-perception of hydrostatic pressure_ and interpreting it as a
"void".
Besides, we profoundly experience the resistance of
space every time we accelerate an object by "pushing it off", overcoming
inertia. Conversely, we experience resistance to the accelerating flow
of space, calling it 'weight'.

Bill Sheppard wrote:
From Double-A, while ruminating upon the nature of reality during the
long lonely night:

Merely experiencing the apparent
perception of things does not in any way
prove that things being perceived have a
real existence outside of your own mind.

Consensus reality.

Remember the oft-repeated parable of the fish in the deep ocean; he sees
a gas bubble come out of solution and then dissolve back into the
'nothingness' from which it sprang. In his mind, the bubble was 'being'
(was real) then was 'not-being'. His consensus reality had no concept of
the ocean and its enormous hydrostatic pressure.

Similarly, OUR consensus reality perceives atomic structure and
thermodynamics as 'being' and Real, and space as 'nothingness' and
not-being. We have no concept of an atom as like a 'bubble' (or of
atomic structure as a complex of bubbles) embedded in the 'Ocean' of
space. Further, we have no concept of an atom as *process* IN and OF the
Ocean in which it is embedded. And our consensus reality has no concept
of the Ocean's enormous pressure. Or of its sub-Planck energy density
('Temperature'), or of how this fixes the propagation speed of light.
Thus we be utterly 'In de dark' about the true nature of Reality..
settling for a 2-dimensional shadow world, oblivious to That which casts
the shadows.


So, consensus reality is unreliable.


Yet should we assume that the
programmer of our reality, whether
human or alien or God, should have
programmed it to exactly reproduce a
world that once existed? If you were to
write such a program, would you be
content to simulate the world just the
way it is, or would you want to make
improvements? And could you screw up?

If there IS such a Programmer/ Architect/ Puppeteer behind our consensus
reality, he/she/it must have a hellava sense of humor to have written in
the script for the VSP (void-space paradijjm) as the ultimate
bamboozlement for our species.


Or is it a bug, the program running amok?

Perhaps he programmed you to bring the truth back into the "world".


The challenge, of course, is to see thru
the ruse and come to KNOW, experientially (not just recite by rote), the
nature of the Ocean in which we live and move and have our being.

Sagan enjoyed remarking that we are "star stuff". Indeed, we are. And
further, we are "space stuff".
oc


Only if you believe the stars are "real".


P.S.
Jb's giant brain is going to jump on the fish parable
again, declaring that since Mr.Fish can "push off" against the water, he
is aware of the ocean. Hey Brainiac. It's an analogy, a parable about
_non-perception of hydrostatic pressure_ and interpreting it as a
"void".


Maybe we can "push off" against space. I seem to have read that there
are some moves that astronauts can make during a space walk that have
yet to be explained. But I have not been about to find any follow up
information on this.


Besides, we profoundly experience the resistance of
space every time we accelerate an object by "pushing it off", overcoming
inertia. Conversely, we experience resistance to the accelerating flow
of space, calling it 'weight'.


Double-A

From Double-A:

So, consensus reality is unreliable.

It's reliable to the same degree the flat earth paradigm is. That is,
it's valid in its local frame. But from a larger frame, the Earth's
curvature is observed.
Similarly, the void-space paradigm is reliable, and
space can be treated mathematically _as if_ it were a void 'locally',
that is, in the absence of any density gradient. But but at deep
cosmological distances, a density gradient enters the picture, and
consensus reality predicated on the VSP breaks down. This has profound
implications on deep-past redshift interpretation and whether the
cosmos' expansion is open-ended or closed.

Or is it (the VSP) a bug, the program
running amok?

Perhaps he programmed you to bring the truth

It sure as heck ain't me. I'm merely relaying Mr.Wolter's model as best
i undersrand it. Others, including Lindner, Shifman, Warren, Paxton et
al have independantly deduced the same flowing-space mechanism of
gravity. But AFAIK, Wolter is the only person who understood with
crystal clarity the hyperpressized SCO as the master key to all that we
perceive as the fundamental forces, and which fixes the *local* speed of
light. oc

From Double-A.:

Maybe we can "push off" against space. I seem to have read that there
are some
moves that astronauts can make during
a space walk that have yet to be
explained. But I have not been about to
find any follow up information on this.

Yeah, that's along the lines of 'throw-weight' propulsion or inertial
propulsion. Various schemes have been kicked around for decades by
backyard inventors, such as this one- www.kodasplace.com/more/anti.html
But so far none have shown conclusive evidence of being able to
cheat Newton's third law.

_______

Only if you believe the stars are "real".

Well, the stars are certainly real. But what is the consensus
interpretation of what they "are"? When you look at the starry sky. what
are your 'really' seeing? Do you see legions of thermonuclear engines,
disparate, massive suns, floating in the void?
Or, do you see myriads of incandescing vent-points
of the hyperpressurized spatial medium venting back to its
lowest-pressure, nonlocal 'ground state' (or as Nightbat would say,
"seeking equilibrium / renormalization in its base field")? Do you see
this 'venting' as _literally_ the inverse of the BigBang process? That's
what i see in the starry sky, and experience it as.

And what's the consensus opinion of what powers the sun? Nuclear fusion,
right? And what drives the fusion? Gravity. What powers gravity?
Equations, metrics, and 'curvature'? Or the hyperpressurized medium
venting into the core of every atomic nucleus, in the unification of
gravity and the strong nuclear force?

oc

Bill Sheppard wrote:
From Double-A.:

Maybe we can "push off" against space. I seem to have read that there
are some
moves that astronauts can make during
a space walk that have yet to be
explained. But I have not been about to
find any follow up information on this.

Yeah, that's along the lines of 'throw-weight' propulsion or inertial
propulsion. Various schemes have been kicked around for decades by
backyard inventors, such as this one- www.kodasplace.com/more/anti.html
But so far none have shown conclusive evidence of being able to
cheat Newton's third law.



Yeah, something like that. It's tough to test such devices in your
back yard. Only in space could you test these principles for sure.
But his was kind of a stab in the dark. I had heard something about
unexplained motions of astronauts, but I can't find anything on it now.

_______

Only if you believe the stars are "real".

Well, the stars are certainly real. But what is the consensus
interpretation of what they "are"? When you look at the starry sky. what
are your 'really' seeing? Do you see legions of thermonuclear engines,
disparate, massive suns, floating in the void?
Or, do you see myriads of incandescing vent-points
of the hyperpressurized spatial medium venting back to its
lowest-pressure, nonlocal 'ground state' (or as Nightbat would say,
"seeking equilibrium / renormalization in its base field")?


Well, the stars look like points of light with certain spectral
characteristics. If you take the big simulation viewpoint, then maybe
that is all they are. It would be a lot easier programming to simulate
little points of light than to simulate all the processes of a gigantic
star! Even the additional things we're beginning to see now could be
simple simulations. That's what I meant by if the stars are real.


Do you see
this 'venting' as _literally_ the inverse of the BigBang process? That's
what i see in the starry sky, and experience it as.

And what's the consensus opinion of what powers the sun? Nuclear fusion,
right? And what drives the fusion? Gravity. What powers gravity?
Equations, metrics, and 'curvature'? Or the hyperpressurized medium
venting into the core of every atomic nucleus, in the unification of
gravity and the strong nuclear force?

oc


Double-A

Hi oc & Double-A Reading stuff you guys wrote like pushing in the
opposite direction to overcome gravity brings this question to mind.
Lets say I can jump straight up 4 feet here on Earth. Does that mean I
can jump up 24 feet on the Moon? I don't think so. Bert

From Bert:

I can jump straight up 4 feet here on
Earth. Does that mean I can jump up 24
feet on the Moon?

Heck yeah, Bert. Since lunar gravity is just a smijjin under 1/6 of
Earth's. Of course that's disregarding the weight and encumberance of
your space suit etc. And if you can broad jump (no, not jump broads) 8
feet, you could broad jump 47 feet on the moon. oc

"Double-A" ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.com...

Well, the stars look like points of light with certain spectral
characteristics. If you take the big simulation viewpoint, then maybe
that is all they are. It would be a lot easier programming to simulate
little points of light than to simulate all the processes of a gigantic
star! Even the additional things we're beginning to see now could be
simple simulations. That's what I meant by if the stars are real.

Interesting, and maybe they're so far away comparing to light speed that
we'll never reach them.
So the programmers don't have to complicate the simulation... and stars
we'll be always little points of light.
Instead taxes that i paid this morning are so real...

Luigi Caselli

Hi oc I said jump straight up,and not broad jump. I know a space suit
would be very cumbersome,but to me it would be quite a sight to see me
rise 24 feet with just the push of my ;legs. I don't think it will
happen, (Yet?) Bert

I know I use "reality" a lot in my posts. I use it to bring clarity to
natures mysteries.Try to make stuff familiar. Look for sameness. Trying
to twist or reduce the world to my humankind thoughts,and making if fit
the way I see it in my present spacetime. Lots of tricky stuff like even
distance can distort the way we comprehend reality. Bert