Had Mutually Exclusive? A theory.
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"Usually.... but not always."
Yes, I do have a habit of speaking in extremes..
There are 'always' exceptions to 'any' rule. -
93
You all make some good points, and I'm pretty sure I'm not fully getting it all! But, also possibly your misunderstanding my original idea. Let me try to restate it a little more clearly, just in case. The reason im wandering is that I dont feel infinity has any bearing on what im saying. Each individual universe (seperate) is infinite in scope.
The idea is that each one of us is the sole Center of a complete and infinite universe. In other words we are the only TRUE conscious being (star) in our universe. Everyone else we encounter in our universe is not conscious in the same deep and spiritual manner we are, they are reflections of other "stars" somewhere else; in some other universe of their own. We (you) simply interact with but ONE of these other stars possibilities. "They" are automatons, mindless robots, perfect imitations of our consciouness, yet spiritually 'dead'. This could explain a lot of the apparent severity in Liber Al - i.e. "pity not the fallen.", "kill and torture" etc. These arent directives, its analogolous examples of our true situation. In other words, these people arent real, do not take them as things to sacrifice for or care about as living equals. It also explains how you can never harm a 'king', a king is YOU! Any other king is not anywhere near you to be harmed; hes a whole seperate universe away in fact!
It is explained, for example that in quantum mechanics everything is a probability wave. This wave is basically the same thing as your potential. Each of us have a whole range of possibilities of what we can become etc. So, the idea is in our little bubble where we are sole captains and Lords, "kings" or the symbolic sun, all the people that fill our universe are but the callapse of a probability wave (anagalous to your will). This realization of a particular possibility that is any other person in your life, is but one of some other centers many possible states.
For example, in MY system or universe I'm a medic. Yet, in YOUR own universe, to you, I may be a baker. This is "chosen" out of ALL my possibilities of my stars nature particularly for YOU. I will never know it however, as that's YOUR universe and it is YOUR will. Everything within that personal infinite bubble IS particular to YOUR will. So in other words each star has its own system, which includes a faint representative - a reflection of every other star. Hence star and star - system and system, each not knowing well the other! We couldn't know any other well, since we are not consciously there. We can never truly tell this secret, because those listening are shells simply controlled by our hidden Wills.
Hope this makes sense. I find it hard to accurately describe this concept, its very tricky. Yet, its based upon actual possible physics. Today there is discussion among the scientific community on the mysteries of consciousness and the collapse of probability waves. They are discovering this strangely points to the idea of the possibilty of there being only ONE consciousness.
93 93/93
-
I see what you're saying. I kinda believe that once someone in your universe is completely, utterly understood on all levels, your consciousness sort of swallows theirs. They become part of your dream, and they begin working your karma instead of their own, consciously or unconsciously. Now, only shallow beings are really capable of being understood in this manner, as 'kings' are far too complex in their individuality to be reduced to easily manipulated algorithms, unlike the many sheep at our disposal.
But it absolutely is all ONE consciousness, just aspects of the Void.
At least for us, all of ours is borrowed from the Sun.
We are all aspects of his ONE consciousness, though he's a good father and wants his kids to grow up and be like him.I only have one challenge; what of binary stars? What of True Love?
I wake up every day and go to bed every night lost in the mystery that such a thing exists. -
@Daegal said
"The idea is that each one of us is the sole Center of a complete and infinite universe. In other words we are the only TRUE conscious being (star) in our universe. Everyone else we encounter in our universe is not conscious in the same deep and spiritual manner we are, they are reflections of other "stars" somewhere else; in some other universe of their own."
You still persist in thinking that "each" of these universes is distict from the others, and that "everyone else we encounter" is somehow distinctive from who we are.
I understand that this is how the ego is habituated to seeing things and continues to want to see things.
I'm not suggesting that what you wrote is per se untrue. I'm saying that it paints an incomplete picture that misses roughly half of what's so.
Practice for, say, a week, seeing every single person you encounter as a star, infinite and amazing in the body of Nuit, and see if you still perceive them as "automatons, mindless robots, perfect imitations of our consciouness, yet spiritually 'dead'."
-
Practice for, say, a week, seeing every single person you encounter as a star, infinite and amazing in the body of Nuit, and see if you still perceive them as "automatons, mindless robots, perfect imitations of our consciouness, yet spiritually 'dead'."
That specific excersize is one of the most important excersizes I have ever come across.
When I personally did this, I was the head clerk at the circulation desk of the Rundel Library, and had to have face to face interactions with hundreds, if not thousands of people a week. It was one of the most challenging excersizes I had ever done at the time, but one that helped me move past my negative reactionary behaviors and thoughts, and into a positive loving acceptance and understanding.
As for Binary stars, just yesterday I read some very cool data from a Russian named Kozyrev, I won't spoil your own seeking, but in 1966 he proposed that the binary stars were energetically harmonizing with each other through the flow of time...at speeds faster than light....
-
@Veronica said
"
As for Binary stars, just yesterday I read some very cool data from a Russian named Kozyrev, I won't spoil your own seeking, but in 1966 he proposed that the binary stars were energetically harmonizing with each other through the flow of time...at speeds faster than light...."
Oh, I don't doubt it in the slightest.
NOT. AT. ALL.
Every morning, and every night, I have my proof
@Veronica said
"
When I personally did this, I was the head clerk at the circulation desk of the Rundel Library, and had to have face to face interactions with hundreds, if not thousands of people a week. It was one of the most challenging excersizes I had ever done at the time, but one that helped me move past my negative reactionary behaviors and thoughts, and into a positive loving acceptance and understanding."I'm doing this with my family. It's getting to the point where I'll be moving out soon, but there are(were) still so many subliminal frustrations present in the house from me feeling unsatisfied by my parents, what they did with their lives, and how they raised(or, frankly, didn't raise) me, plus their frustration because I completely de-identified from them and the culture we live in. At the house, all I'd ever do is read books they didn't understand, listen to music they didn't understand, and stare out the window. It hurt me to see my mom as an alcoholic and my dad with anger issues, because I knew it stemmed from them not knowing what to do with their own children. It took a lot of strength and learning for me to see them as their own stars, as I knew their simple egos front-to-back and was well used to just manipulating and hiding from them. All I had to do, which seemed so difficult throughout my childhood, was talk to them. As peers, not people who owed me something for having disappointed me in some way. In one week, this place is unrecognizable in improvement. I learned that they experienced the Earth with just as much depth as I did, in their Hearts, even if their Heads hadn't caught up yet. I'll be turning 18 in July, and for the first time, I feel like I have a foundation in my parents.
I can attest to that exercise. -
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Daegal said
"The idea is that each one of us is the sole Center of a complete and infinite universe. In other words we are the only TRUE conscious being (star) in our universe. Everyone else we encounter in our universe is not conscious in the same deep and spiritual manner we are, they are reflections of other "stars" somewhere else; in some other universe of their own."You still persist in thinking that "each" of these universes is distict from the others, and that "everyone else we encounter" is somehow distinctive from who we are.
I understand that this is how the ego is habituated to seeing things and continues to want to see things.
I'm not suggesting that what you wrote is per se untrue. I'm saying that it paints an incomplete picture that misses roughly half of what's so.
Practice for, say, a week, seeing every single person you encounter as a star, infinite and amazing in the body of Nuit, and see if you still perceive them as "automatons, mindless robots, perfect imitations of our consciouness, yet spiritually 'dead'.""
I think your still misunderstanding me, or confusing my attempt at explaining the mechanics of my concept for the overall picture. I most certainly DO see every individual as a infinite star, alive and supreme! But within there OWN Center.
An example would be the electron cloud, which before a physicist makes any attempt at measuring speed or position is a fuzzy sphere surrounding the atom. The belief is currently that this "cloud" is the orbiting electron(s) in every possible position. When observed however, this cloud ceases to exist and collapses into a single electron. In other words the observer determines the electrons position out from the cloud of possibility. Here is a quote discussing the electron cloud function:
"One of the theories addressing the peculiarities of the sub atomic world is the Parallel Worlds Theory. Originally introduced by Hugh Everett III in 1957, this mode of thinking states that the electron exists at every possible point around the nucleus at the same time. Each possible point exists in a separate universe and the sum total of all the possible points, or universes, results in the electron cloud. The electron cloud is an energy state. Therefore, the quantum jumps are not really jumps through space, but the effect of the observer seeing the electron in different universes. So the electron isn’t really jumping around at all. The observer is just seeing the electron in a different, parallel world."
Each 'position' then is thought to exist within a particular parallel universe, with EACH electrons possible position ALONE occupying its OWN universe. This idea of individual seperate parallel universes has been a favorite answer to the odd behavior of light, which behaves like a wave and a particle. The wave is the result of collapsing of probability. So even though EACH person you encounter, is a star, and supreme - the paradox is that no one particular star is known to another fully; just one probability inherent of them. This does not change the fact therefore of your relation to them within your own universe; there you alone are the "star".
This beautiful system then allows each of us to recognize and respect each individual as a star, YET at the same realize themselves as supreme within their own right (Will). This is akin to a king acknowledging the equality of another Ruler of another kingdom, yet both are supreme Monarchs of their own seperate estates. Each King, even though respecting the title of the other, also respects the mutual supremecy of the other within their respective lands. A king within the wrong kingdom is thus still at the mercy of the king who rules it.
This also then has as a by product the ability to see them as a reflection of ourselves! Ultimately we are all ONE anyway, and so this particular possibility of another star is chosen to reflect an aspect of our star as well. So, I do not see others as alien or somehow detached but on the contrary, I see everyone as well as every thing, as a direct aspect of myself. The language of them being "automatons", and "dead" simply was trying to illustrate the incomplete aspects of these shadows; being that these 'people' are not centers within MY system. I'm here then defining a star as a true Center and focal point of the universe; but this does not deter me from realizing others as stars. I simply understand the images I percieve are but a spark of their hidden splender. This is literally true anyway, as we can never fully realize ALL the potential of any person, as they are constantly choosing their motion and leaving others hidden, for example we can know "Jim" as a "Lawyer", but we never can never realize "Jim the accountant".
I hope this explains it better. As I said its simple, yet hard to plainly explain it.
93
-
@Diluvium said
"I see what you're saying. I kinda believe that once someone in your universe is completely, utterly understood on all levels, your consciousness sort of swallows theirs. They become part of your dream, and they begin working your karma instead of their own, consciously or unconsciously. Now, only shallow beings are really capable of being understood in this manner, as 'kings' are far too complex in their individuality to be reduced to easily manipulated algorithms, unlike the many sheep at our disposal.
But it absolutely is all ONE consciousness, just aspects of the Void.
At least for us, all of ours is borrowed from the Sun.
We are all aspects of his ONE consciousness, though he's a good father and wants his kids to grow up and be like him.I only have one challenge; what of binary stars? What of True Love?
I wake up every day and go to bed every night lost in the mystery that such a thing exists."93!
Well my arguement in relation to the idea of knowing another fully enough to unite with them, I think is impossible. The reason is that everyone is a whole infinity (every number is infinite), a infinite range of possibilities which they are. In other words we can only know a certain amount we are given access to of another. I think these others, even the those who we encounter "true love" with are beyond us in a sense. We may resonate and know them to a greater degree and allow them to play more of a vital role in our lives, yet this type of love is limited. The "other" love (there is love and love") is true union with the universe, of which is connected to that All. Incedentally this All or (mulitiverse?) is in direct contact with any other star; including the other in your more limited type of love. The way then to encounter true love (with another star) would be by way of the Serpent.
-
I got what you were saying. But, "Do what though wilt... Over there in your OWN universe" amounts to divorcing yourself from "them." That's where you are missing a big part of the picture. It's also a place where you are making your own universe look far smaller than it actually is.
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"There are a few different theories in quantum physics to do with multiple universes.
One theory says that there is another universe for each potential probability.
Another theory says: perhaps that's true, but they collapse pretty quickly and do not 'reach threshold'.
Anything you think about the matter has already 'reached threshold' in your consciousness.
But no-one has any sort of stomping ground or reserved territory assigned for them and them alone, when it comes to the quantum spacetime of their consciousness. There is no place you can wander and say 'this bit 'here' of quantum spacetime is mine! Not even if you stopped the motion of your thoughts completely. The motion of the whole of consciousness would continue regardless of this.You live. You die. And death not ends it."
There has been the question of how then does a wave function (probability wave) collapse if observed if there are more than one observer? The whole range of scientific study in the quatum world depends upon the observed collapsing out of this sea of fuzzy probability into reality when measured. The problem is the chain of observation. For example if one scientist observes the result of a super position result yet has not yet told anyone the result remains in the fuzzy state of neither here nor there. He then tells another, lets say, and that scientist then hold the key and infinitum. This is a crude attempt to describe the actual scientific paradox of collapsing waves that DETERMINE our physical reality. One of the proposed theories is that there is truly only ONE observer, one consciousness that collapses the wave. However, since this obviously flies in the face of 'reason's it is not believed. This is why I propose the idea that in each of the possible universal States we each pervieve it alone the Center, an actual reference frame - a window.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I got what you were saying. But, "Do what though wilt... Over there in your OWN universe" amounts to divorcing yourself from "them." That's where you are missing a big part of the picture. It's also a place where you are making your own universe look far smaller than it actually is."
No. We are doing what THOU wilt. How can we divorce ourselves from others if we alone are the bearer of our wills anyway? They play a role in it, as a shadow of our Center "will" plays a part in theirs, each will then sharing with the other. Its not unlike a series of interlocking gears, the Center cog being our will, working in TANDEM with all others. That's not a divorce, that's team work.
-
I agree. But what you rail against is the consequence of what you are describing. I'm just not clear why you're working so hard to portray a polyverse instead of a universe. The most tempting guesses are the usual motives of the Ruach: (1) intellectual satisfaction or (2) ego satisfaction.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I agree. But what you rail against is the consequence of what you are describing. I'm just not clear why you're working so hard to portray a polyverse instead of a universe. The most tempting guesses are the usual motives of the Ruach: (1) intellectual satisfaction or (2) ego satisfaction."
Huh? I don't want a polyverse. In fact its the vast scientific community that now supports a multiverse, and I agree! Which is much LARGER than a universe! In fact, if this be correct, the idea expands the universe instead of limiting it, as it gives root to an interconnection of a staggering superior infinity! Universes connected to universes of infinite range! All churning together, sharing there centers light with the other, truly a fitting picture for Crowleys vision of the Star sponge.
I'm not working hard at anything but to explain the concept properly, as I think its being misunderstood is all. I assure you typing in an obscure forum under a basically anonymous name doesn't do my ego much, but every individual gets intellectual satisfaction if he is right. Unless your a Magus?
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"
@Daegal said
"
@Dar es Alrah said
"There are a few different theories in quantum physics to do with multiple universes.One theory says that there is another universe for each potential probability.
Another theory says: perhaps that's true, but they collapse pretty quickly and do not 'reach threshold'.
Anything you think about the matter has already 'reached threshold' in your consciousness.
But no-one has any sort of stomping ground or reserved territory assigned for them and them alone, when it comes to the quantum spacetime of their consciousness. There is no place you can wander and say 'this bit 'here' of quantum spacetime is mine! Not even if you stopped the motion of your thoughts completely. The motion of the whole of consciousness would continue regardless of this.You live. You die. And death not ends it."
There has been the question of how then does a wave function (probability wave) collapse if observed if there are more than one observer?
The whole range of scientific study in the quatum world depends upon the observed collapsing out of this sea of fuzzy probability into reality when measured. The problem is the chain of observation. For example if one scientist observes the result of a super position result yet has not yet told anyone the result remains in the fuzzy state of neither here nor there. He then tells another, lets say, and that scientist then hold the key and infinitum. This is a crude attempt to describe the actual scientific paradox of collapsing waves that DETERMINE our physical reality. One of the proposed theories is that there is truly only ONE observer, one consciousness that collapses the wave. However, since this obviously flies in the face of 'reason's it is not believed. This is why I propose the idea that in each of the possible universal States we each pervieve it alone the Center, an actual reference frame - a window."The wave function is impossible to predict. The most we can say is that it's going to go somewhere somewhen, or has been somewhere and somewhere, and then concede (given that there is no such thing as 'time' to an electron), that the wave function of consciousness pretty much goes everywhere/when, but peaks to make a resonance pattern in response to material qualia embedded in spacetime. You can see this sort of thing happening in the process of plant photosyntheses in the response of the waveform to photons hitting a leaf. It is impossible for the waveform of the leaf to predict where/when any individual photon will arrive to intersect with the surface of the leaf, but as it is everywhere/ when then the pattern of the wave at any moment reflects the actual energy resonance of any and all given moments. This is the 'observer effect' if you like, but no actual 'observer' is necessary. It only requires that energy continues to respond to gravity.
Consciousness, within the domain of the play of Had (energy) and Nu (gravity), is to all practical purposes, indistinguishable. Waveform pattern tend to spiral towards an equilibrium of form, determined by the process of energy conservation. This process of equilibrium makes recognisable forms - and it makes them 'meaningful' to consciousness by their fundamental similarities of structure. Thus when I say "the Sun is Spherical' - no-one in the room looks shocked by the suggestion.
I think to address your hypothesis we have to ask 'what is the observer?'"
While the actual position of say a photon at a specific target cannot be perfectly predicted, it CAN be predicted within a certain range of probability; hence the term "probability wave". This fact is actually how your television works at home. The fact of the matter is much of our everyday electronics works based upon this law of probability and allowing for a certain range or field of any collapse. While it may not take a direct observation for a wave to collapse; this is in fact a by product of a chain reaction of other observed waves. The question is more subtle than the subjects your talking about, what I'm talking about if sort of like the first mover question. All waves functions collapse (even if unobeserved) as a result of a 'first observer'.
I highly recommend reading for example "The Tao of Physics" or "The Dancing Wi Li Masters" for a more authoritative and comprehensive explanation. Of course the area is complicated and technical and difficult to put in focus on here with limited space. I would highly advise even a cursery search on the Internet for related articles touching upon "parallel universes" and "probability wave functions" or "the observer paradox" to get a fuller picture. I'm sure after just a little research in these areas you'll understand more clearly the basis if my argument.
Needless to say, the consciousness that is the observer of course is Hadit, the mystery science today cannot comprehend. There is a whole series of modern scientific models that TRY to explain consciousness, yet all admit its mystery; and some theoretical physicists insist that consciousness seems to be something totally outside of the physical brain. Duh! (Right?)
Also, to touch upon the point before you made about claiming any theoretical "space" as our own; Id ask why not? It is already a pretty much accepted fact these various particles are! It is even proposed gravity is weak from the very fact it is spread out among all these hidden universes! So then, is it so hard to believe we could occupy a little bit if our own real-estate in these universes along with the various other forces? If an electron can be a field showing it is holding particular positions within various 'realities' why cant we?
The reason for my desire to get this accross is that IF this is understood, and IF it is correct, then it opens a door to a staggering amount of new possibilities and answers to hard questions! The simple idea of one being truly the CENTRAL focal point of an entire infinite universe, with all its hidden mechanics (even on higher planes) should hint at what I mean! Think about it, this truly suits the ancient ideas and symbols of magic. We then would honestly be HAD at the Center, the 'secret center' of Nuit! Likewise all of our other unseen potential is reflected outward into other stars environments, becoming aspects of Nuit!
-
"The work of the Italia physicist - Paola Zizzi - posits a 'first observer' in her 'Big Wow theory'. I like the theory. It basically says that shortly after the big bang the universe reached a level of complexity that caused it to become conscious. "
Fascinating, I've never hear of the Big Wow....have to read up on it.
If I understand correctly though, the BBT is in which all atoms then keep on running for infinity-with no new energy input.
If there is a unified field, which most physicists think there must be, by design it would be the source of all matter. A unified filed would by design be actively responsible for keeping matter going, moment by moment...bang by bang...
So without that said, I would wonder about this " reaching a level of complexity". As it would seem to be completely irrelevant to the idea of consciousness.
Thanks for sharing that theory, if for nothing else it convinces me more against BBT and more unified field.
-
Dar es Alrah,
93
I understand what your saying, but of course we don't literally 'own' this 'space-time'. Its a figurative idea describing our particular point of view, and of course what I see as the sole consciousness of a particular universe.
The question is really basic and simple. The theory of parallel universes is not new, and the support and evidence for a mulitverse is only growing. Its almost safe to say its accepted as a assumed fact. So if this is the case these parallel universes ARE the "real-estate" we figuratively own. So its a mute point to argue about that. Nor do I want to fill up the thread with a technical debate with subtle mechanics of physics. There's plenty of books that go over the basic facts for anyone interested in sorting it out for themselves.
The REAL question at the heart of the matter is whether there are "one" or "many" consciousnesses within these various parallel universes. I propose, for various reasons, each individual universe has ONE sole consciousness; not unlike how each cell has one nucleous; or how each atom has orbiting electron(s) etc. To me, this is more suitable than a universe with multiple "centers" banging about, interferring with one another, OR at the very least occupying the same bubble, if you will.
While one may mistakenly see this as an isolation of these centers, its not true. They each interlock with the other, not unlike a set of interfacing gears. Imagine a sphere whose surface was covered with interlocking gears. Each gear is one universe. The CENTER of each gear is a particular consciousness, the teeth of each gear represents that stars sum total of possibilities. So as the gears turn, these possibilities reach outward to effect the others in a great mulit-universal dance. Altogether, these seperate gears are ONE, Nuit, of which her body is composed of Stars (gears).
I'm sorry, I am not able to adequately explain, I feel, what my vision is. I'm finding it hard to articulate without becoming lost in technical aspects, what it is I'm trying to say I guess.
P.S. I'm not sure what you mean about 'consciousness using probability to make future events happen as alchemical tool' etc. I'm certain your totally misunderstanding everything I'm saying, that's not even in the ball park of what I mean. Also the Big Bang has nothing to do with it.
93 93/93
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I agree. But what you rail against is the consequence of what you are describing. I'm just not clear why you're working so hard to portray a polyverse instead of a universe. The most tempting guesses are the usual motives of the Ruach: (1) intellectual satisfaction or (2) ego satisfaction."
After a long session of meditation Jim I want to clarify my answer to your question, I'm not sure I got what you were asking.
I see this vision as something vitaly important to get across. It isn't something related to my satisfaction, this I know for certain; but its a strong inner conviction that its right. I believe within it is a view point everyone completely needs - dare I say REQUIRES!
So, why do I reject a universe? Uni = "one" and as it is said "My prophet is a fool with his one, one, one! Are not they the ox and none by the Book?" Our trap of understanding ONE is a curse, with it comes conflict, where in reality there are none. If we accept the idea of a multiverse, and the notion we EACH own our own universe, then is there true freedom found.
How? When we realize that this personal universe is tailerd specifically for us (you) out of the fabric of the possibilities of Nuit, then there can ONLY be success. Gone then instantly in a puff of smoke are regrets, and death, and dying, they are the illusions of the passing of shadows. This is so, since EVERYTHING that occurs is justified and required according to our Will, and we must take up responsibility for these "ordeals" our own "curses" that ARE within the universe that we dot as the center.
Until we lose the viewpoint of a Man upon the Earth, the Sun is moving, we can only still it by becoming it, assuming our rightful place that is as a Star! Alone supreme, no possible clashing, no errers, there is no restriction, no sin, that is an illusion of Men not Stars.
93