Nature of Reality
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"In all of these cases, phenomena are generated that make it easy to jump to the conclusion that the rules are changing. However, the rules aren't changing."
Also, nobody says that the laws of the universe have to be uniform on all levels at once. It could be that one set of laws applies on the level at which we interact with matter, and a different set of laws applies on the Quantum level. Or, to be more precise, the laws of the universe produce different behavior on different levels due to the relative size of the subjects under discussion.
-
@Zalthos said
"I find it remarkable that the simple act of observation changes the behavior of the world around us."
But again, this is because of the relative size of the stuff we're talking about: the observer and the thing observed are part of the same physical system, and observing is a physical act, so obviously observing is going to have physical effects.
It's just that on the level of everyday interactions, these effects are so minute that we can't detect them, but when we're dealing with quantum phenomena, they have a more profound effect.
To give you a simple example, at its most basic, we can't observe something without shining a light on it, and the photons of the light knock around the particles we're observing and change them. If we're observing something like a desk, we wouldn't notice, but if we're studying subatomic particles, you better believe that our observations will change the particles.
Nothing about the "observer effect" implies, at all, that "matter is consciousness" or "consciousness can cause changes in matter" or any of the many loopy conclusions that nutballs misapply QM in order to justify.
-
@Los said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"In all of these cases, phenomena are generated that make it easy to jump to the conclusion that the rules are changing. However, the rules aren't changing."Also, nobody says that the laws of the universe have to be uniform on all levels at once. It could be that one set of laws applies on the level at which we interact with matter, and a different set of laws applies on the Quantum level. Or, to be more precise, the laws of the universe produce different behavior on different levels due to the relative size of the subjects under discussion."
I think it likely that the laws are universal, though context affects their manifestation.
Emerging scientific thought (as we enter the half-century that probably will eventually be recorded as moving into a post-Einsteinian physics) is that space, time, and gravitation are not part of the base phenomena but are derivative - are consequences of something more fundamental - and that they probably don't apply in all conditions (though they apply under most conditions). This doesn't mean that a "law" is inconsistent, only that we have mislabeled it a "law."
Or such is my current thinking (or, what I think is the most useful definition set for the present discussion).
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"We might be separated by semantics. I would define "law" (on topics such as this) as an invariable. Laws of nature are not subject to legislation nor capable of being disobeyed. They aren't policy, they're observations."
Yes, mostly just a semantics thing. I completely agree with you say here:
@Jim Eshelman said
"Emerging scientific thought (as we enter the half-century that probably will eventually be recorded as moving into a post-Einsteinian physics) is that space, time, and gravitation are not part of the base phenomena but are derivative - are consequences of something more fundamental - and that they probably don't apply in all conditions (though they apply under most conditions). This doesn't mean that a "law" is inconsistent, only that we have mislabeled it a "law.""
We observe all this data and find the most plausible predictions based on evidence -- this is why I use "law" in quotes. "Laws" are generally the best and most probable idea(s) that we have to work with right now, but the predictions never really prove any sort of causality -- they can only help to determine a plausible course of events. The potential of new systems, that have yet to be discovered, can never be predicted -- it starts with theory and leads to your next point...
"On the other hand, I totally agree with what I think is your angle - basically an aspect of chaos theory - which I would state as there being truly innumerable variables. that give the impression that the whole thing is changing. I would question the functionality of saying anything is changing except the variables, however."
Spot on and I agree. And looking at your considerations, I find the points that you followed with strengthing the argument that there are patterns that we use to predict behavior based on aspects of chaos theory: strange attractors, dynamical systems, etc., ones that seemingly apply to other areas of scientific thought.
For instance, morphogenetic fields (from a biological perspective), neuroplasticity (such as long-term potentiation), and epigenetics (changes in the behavior of DNA). All which cause distinct change in matter based on responses to environment (we can call this response and "observation" and "action" and "cooperation" on a very minute level), and from here were research the science of "potential."
Soft-inheritance used to be scoffed at (now re-labeled epigenetics), but we are able to see the ideas of measurable physical change being strengthened by the latest research. Your point is that we are the variables...absolutely! We start changing our brain, we strengthen our observation in a certain direction -- we begin to will our own evolution. And observation starts with us. Like you said - change the observer, we change the observation.
On a grander scale, we can see these changes with memes, cultural attitudes, and even eugenics (whether the eugenics are "engineered" consciously or not). This points in a direction of cooperation and collective strength; that is, if one can use perspectives (or the "strange attractor") diligently -- first in the self, and then onto a more collective scale, then there are some far-reaching implications that could be very beneficial. That, or we can go back to the Dark Ages if these perspectives are controlled...
Thanks for your responses, Jim.
-
@Angel of Death said
"The amount of self esteem an individual has at any given moment (it fluctuates) determines at that moment that individuals nature of reality. This is why I believe we are encouraged to explore our desires, to explore our capacities, to record our observations and tendencies and to live each moment fully present and as actualized as possible; so that we can be at the top of our games as much as possible and not swept away by a reality that we created, but were not in resonance with the Law."
This idea completely resonates with me. Your whole post was great -- the practical aspects as to how we perceive are the most important ones -- and you touched on some very insightful points IMHO.
-
@Frater 639 said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Emerging scientific thought (as we enter the half-century that probably will eventually be recorded as moving into a post-Einsteinian physics) is that space, time, and gravitation are not part of the base phenomena but are derivative - are consequences of something more fundamental - and that they probably don't apply in all conditions (though they apply under most conditions). This doesn't mean that a "law" is inconsistent, only that we have mislabeled it a "law.""We observe all this data and find the most plausible predictions based on evidence -- this is why I use "law" in quotes. "Laws" are generally the best and most probable idea(s) that we have to work with right now, but the predictions never really prove any sort of causality -- they can only help to determine a plausible course of events. The potential of new systems, that have yet to be discovered, can never be predicted -- it starts with theory and leads to your next point..."
I agree with all of this. It's method. - For my original point, though, I don't need to know what the laws are, or pretend that they're immediately accessible or determinable. I just need to know that they exist. In fact, their inaccessibility and indeterminability enhances my original point: WE are the primary variable we can control in the equation.
"For instance, morphogenetic fields (from a biological perspective), neuroplasticity (such as long-term potentiation), and epigenetics (changes in the behavior of DNA). All which cause distinct change in matter based on responses to environment (we can call this response and "observation" and "action" and "cooperation" on a very minute level), and from here were research the science of "potential." "
Exactly. This is all some of the coolest and most important stuff on the table at the moment. (Etc. with many of your other points.)
"Like you said - change the observer, we change the observation."
Which (understanding "observation" widely and fully) means altering reality - in the only sense that reality matters in the passage of life, viz., personal experience. And, with what continues to emerge from the bleeding edge of quantum mechanics, it most likely means a great deal more.
-
"The equations expressing the nature of reality are strict, uncompromising, and deterministic. Ah, but these equations need variables - and we're the variables! Change the value (yourself!) and you change the outcome.....
Notice when "outside" and "inside" are equalled out, and magnitude is no longer providing emphasis of either, we come to zero. And duration would become infinite. Truth in Silence...Wow...so intimate. um...powerful words.
Nothing is true.
Nothing is absolute.
If it were it wouldnt be able to change. but isnt the second pasted statment an example of energy building or geniously scientificallystrict finding away through the strict and uncompromising reality, by finding the fair and balanced will within our selves to change the outcome?
Amazing thread i will come back to this...wow!93
-
I liked that quote in the OP a lot myself, but I think Jim posted a companion piece which was equally fascinating and went like this:
"Therefore, Magick is the practice of selecting the value of oneself, as a variable in an invariable equation (or relationship), to determine consequences. The imaginary boundary between absolute determinism and infinite possibilities evaporates when you know how to run the equation."
The two thoughts certainly got me thinking and made me jut down a few notes for future consideration. I'm expanding a little on my notes below.
There's basically two modes of applying that change to ourselves: 1) we can control where our attention goes to and 2) we can "toggle" our level of engagement with the things we're witnessing.
Common sense has known our environment influences us greatly (making all parents everywhere concerned about the people their kids hang out with) and science is developing more elaborate theories on it today. Yet, we know we are not simply our environment, nor are we even the content stored in our brains, but we are the mind that looks down upon these.
The second mode works between the poles of non-excitement and energetic enthusiasm. We can apply the second mode to not become attached, moved or changed by what we observe. Alternatively, we can rev up our excitement and engagement with the world. It's probably not a digital yes/no switch, but an analog scale.
The person with no discipline has his or her mental attention flit from one thing to another, emotionally engaging with the events of the world with little rhyme or reason, but it is also possible for us to remain calm in a chaotic, changing world until we find the right environment/circumstances and only then allow it to effect us with all of its intensity, drawing us in and changing us.
-
@Deus Ex Machina said
"
There's basically two modes of applying that change to ourselves: 1) we can control where our attention goes to and 2) we can "toggle" our level of engagement with the things we're witnessing."This is a great point. Love (2) under will (1).
We can back this up through chakra models. Also scientifically, it is proven that when the adrenal products are introduced when certain synapses fire, memories, symbols, and other functions of the brain are strengthened -and these can be beneficial or not...
In any event, these functions are part and parcel to neuroplasticity, magick, and willed brain-change if we can control the axis that you describe above.
First, we learn to monitor thoughts with forms of Dharana and other concentration exercises.
"The second mode works between the poles of non-excitement and energetic enthusiasm. We can apply the second mode to not become attached, moved or changed by what we observe. Alternatively, we can rev up our excitement and engagement with the world. It's probably not a digital yes/no switch, but an analog scale."
Then, we learn increase and decrease of the magnitude of the emotions through energized enthusiasm and quietude. Or, the active and passive modes of being. Then we are free to attach "fuel" (love) to the symbols we choose (will).
Great metaphor with the analog and digital signals. First, being able to categorize what we should turn on and off (form) and then applying the appropriate magnitude of attention (force). Both sides of the TOL.
"
The person with no discipline has his or her mental attention flit from one thing to another, emotionally engaging with the events of the world with little rhyme or reason, but it is also possible for us to remain calm in a chaotic, changing world until we find the right environment/circumstances and only then allow it to effect us with all of its intensity, drawing us in and changing us."Agreed. And it is a two-way street because we also affect it. Great post, Deus Ex Machina.
-
The nature of reality is will. The very essence of creation is an act of will and each and every convultion of emanation is also a subsequent expression of that will. This supercedes any physics. the k&c of hga is the step one takes to realize contact with the will of the universe which is what all is. once one is in touch, as it were, with this great expansive will one sees what one must do(ones true will) this is done forth with as a person thus seeing their true will is at this point of the mind to achieve it. This dynamic is the nature of the universe. the nature of reality. In other words the scientist who does not work with the concept of supernal will (that which causeth kether to concentrate) is working with lower seferah ie lower yetzeratic and Assiac. And though the discoveries of Einstien etal. seam sublime they are not as true as the statement that 'will is the nature of the universe'. Also the discovery of that will and the method to do this constitute the most important activity and the most stupendous goal. The Theories of science in the vien of logical positivism and empirisism are doomed to be but the constructors of crude assiac tools and manipulations which pale in comparison to the subtle spiritual devices and understandings of the higher aspects of the tree which are handed down and also discovered through the methods of adepts.
When it was asked what is the nature of the universe i wonder if it was meant 'from a perspective of modern scientific thought' or wasit meant the 'perspective of scientific illuminism'. the latter has a valuable answer but the former is limited in scope and grasp. empirical science has its place but until it changes its tune that place is in hod and yesod mostly in the assiac and lower yetzeratic.some would say love is the nature of the universe and at least there they are in the right ballpark. However quarks, muons, gluons, hadrons, string theory... are all side notes to be left behind as one ascends the tree.
that is not to say you can't use the discoveries, ideas and language of the empirical sciences to springboard ideas and abate the doubtful nature of the mind (thru using the scientific description of odd occult ideas) as it passes the lower grades. eventually the study of what stuff is is subsumed into more sublte realization and such things are no longer of value.
93/93