The Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything

E.T. stealth goes far beyond anything we have.

But it's not like they need it.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

Well...Quantum Evolution is the mechanism.

We know this at the very lest.

AboveAlpha

 

Interesting!!! It seems to me that alien abductions may be taking place in the fifth and possibly sixth dimension of space - time where electromagnetism would be a component of gravity. (At least that is how they worded this back in the 90's)!

"Well...Quantum Evolution is the mechanism."(AA)

Dr. Chaim Henry Tejman certainly seems to be in agreement with this statement.


http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/Book4/Html/Tejmanphysics2.htm

 

Here are a few more statements from an encyclopaedia that make me wonder if alien abduction type trances are happening in fifth and possibly sixth dimensional space - time. (Pardon my incorrect wording)?!

www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

One possible reason for a surge in IQ occurring during an out of the body experience or near death experience........ is that our brains have been given a surge of energy that is more fundamental........ at higher energy levels...… than we are used to receiving.

 

That is a bizarre definition of 'logic'.
..at least with empiricism. Sure, if you make ASSUMPTIONS, you can make logical deductions based on those, but the subsequent conclusions is not empirical because it is based on an assumption.
This is a logical exercise, with no agenda.. at least for me.
My focus is on Empirical Truth, which provides a basis for logical deductions that are rooted in reality, rather than imagination.

You merely REASSERT your assumptions. There is no empirical reality to base your reasonings on. 'Jumps in progressive evolution' is a belief. Any subsequent deductions you make on that are speculative, & are not based on Empirical Reality.
This thread is exploding with wild theories about alternate dimensions, aliens, gods, & other speculations about a possible reality. Those all fit into the category of 'supernatural explanations'. Many of these 'theories' are framed in scientific terms, with the illusion of 'scientific' credibility. But science is not terminology. It is a process of discovery based on EMPIRICAL reality.
I am not bashing anyone's beliefs.. I am analyzing the BASIS for the beliefs, to see if there is anything based on Empirical Truth, or if all is just speculation, based on assumed belief.

 

Only those that think they have the magic formula for all humans are the crazy or plain stupid.

 

IMO, it is much more widespread.
Einstein's comment on the universe and human stupidity comes to mind..

 

Does time, space and matter exist without conscious thought to perceive it? No. Hence, that is the point.

"Once you realize that everything that exists, comes from nothing that is something, then it's easy to wear stripes with plaid."-Einstein

 

Well, objectively, matter & the universe could easily exist without anyone knowing it. So the existence of intelligence or supernatural beings does not SEEM to correlate. ..not by any empirical or objective reality.

Of course, that does not answer the WHY or HOW of the mysterious existence of matter and the universe.
Your argument is the same as the old 'if a tree falls in the forest and now is around, does it make a sound?'
Great quote, BTW.

 

Mostly likely we will never have these answers since we are limited to our senses which operates to receive the only reality to human perception.

 

What do you get from Empirical Truth firmly established by verification and proof? This approach trims away all of what you label as hypothetical or assumption-based, and you are including findings from observational methods where doubt doesn't seem warranted. What are you supposed to be achieving with what's left? You are left with run-of the-mill common knowledge. Focus on common knowledge produces refinement of details and more efficient methodologies, but hardly any new discoveries. Pursuit of mysteries is done at the cutting edge. Most breakthroughs come from probing the fringes. You are boxing yourself in.

It's not a belief. The fossil record is not all smooth sailing with long periods of gradual transition.

 

What you get with 'empirical truth' as a basis for our conclusions is the Scientific Method. You have theory based on facts, not speculation. You have 'common knowledge' explained. You have the Age of Reason, rather than superstition & mandated facts.

There is no limit put on discovery by distinguishing between empirical facts & hypothesizing. The problem comes when you blend the 2, & pretend they are the same. That is the basis for much of the flawed reasoning in much of what is called 'science' today, such as global warming, & even evolution. These 'mysteries' as you call them, are declared as fact, when there is NO empirical evidence to support such a claim. Even your claim about the fossil record is a clear belief. You have NO empirical evidence to show that your theory is the absolute truth about what happened. There are many other alternate possibilities that you reject, which have equal validity, scientifically. THAT is just one example of 'science' misused. Subjective opinion is declared as scientific fact, when there is NO empirical facts to support the conclusion. it is SAD.. 'science as dogma', & does violence to both reason & the scientific method.

 

Anyone looking for 'absolute truth', will be disappointed. There is no such thing.

 

Absolutely

 

word..



I trust you saw the context in which i used that phrase.. My discussion about truth here, is about empirical truth.. that which can be 'proved' by empiricism & the scientific method. But the claim of 'absolute truth' is often made by those who declare science, dogmatically, like some of the examples i listed.

 

Yes, I did. Anyone claiming absolute truth in regards to life and the universe is fooling themselves. There can be very good reasons and some well known truths, but for anyone to think they know absolutely is, fooling oneself.
You seem to have the understanding that at this time, there is nothing absolute in regards to the OP.

 

I'm beginning to winder if your statement amounts to the claim that we can't get anything useful out of the fossil record. Since I'm not in a position to devote time for a full study the subject in an attempt to assess the validity of the different claims that have been made regarding interpretation of all the data, I can't debate it further.

Empirical evidence and the scientific method have limitations. They are reliable and accurate only for ordinary physical reality. The rules change when going from the molecular and atomic level to the subatomic because measurements cannot be taken without altering the behavior of what's being measured. The rules also change when considering the very large scale, where Einstein's relativity must be utilized. Direct evidence is limited to objective reality, whereas the rest penetrates beyond objective reality. Science has methods of investigating the less tangible subjects, but it is not clear where you draw the line.

I think it was Bohm who stated that the basis of our real world is the unreal.

 

This isn't really a discussion about evolution or the fossil record, though i get it how evolution is the basis for a lot of worldviews, especially those that are based on naturalism. This is more of a philosophical inquiry.. a look into the deeper crevices of humans, their motivations, their thinking processes, & their bizarre conclusions of their lives.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. There are two ways of looking at the world, through naturalism/materialism or the spiritual/metaphysical. For those who prefer naturalism/materialism we have science while those that prefer the spiritual/metaphysical have religion which is why I believe that science and religion will never be reconciled. Each one can only answer the questions in their sphere of knowledge.

 

I think it is a little deeper than that. I see BOTH empiricism & faith working together, in just about everyone. Nobody can completely remove the rational, nor can they remove the trust part. Who can personally verify every single fact they believe? No one. Much of what we learn comes down to who we trust, our upbringing, the type of education (indoctrination or critical thinking emphasis), & time. People that don't have much time to waste on high minded philosophical nonsense aren't too concerned with this stuff. Others are content letting 'really smart people' decide the important core issues of their world view. And many people are merely indoctrinated.. told what to believe & threatened with some kind of negative peer pressure if they go off the ideological reservation.

I do not see very many people with the ability to differentiate between what they truly 'know' as empirical fact, & those things they think are facts, but are merely beliefs. The ironic thing is that if i give some examples, an impassioned outcry would label me a 'heretic!' or 'blasphemer!' for daring to question the sacred beliefs of the status quo. Pop religions are the worst.. they depend on movies, pop songs, constant indoctrination from public institutions, & plain old peer pressure. ..and of course, the issue that you illustrated.. that of groupthink. Our 'group' is wise & balanced & knowledgeable, & yours is stupid & biased & superstitious. All you need to do to be part of the 'cool kids' is to align yourself with the group. Then you can attack the enemy with gusto, & feel smug about how smart & scientific & rational you are, when it is mostly a peer driven group dynamic that has brought you to this conclusion.

However, it seems logical to me that there can only be one objective reality, even if we don't know it, or are wrong in our perceptions:

1. There is NO supernatural cause or force in the universe, but ONLY natural processes.
2. There IS a supernatural, metaphysical cause in the universe.

Only one of these can be true. They are mutually exclusive. And with origins, since we cannot empirically prove either, the basis for the rest of our worldview is rooted in BELIEF in either one or the other. To me, this is the foundation upon which all of our subsequent beliefs, conclusions, & speculations are based upon.

 

Philosophy huh?

Here is a Philosophical View and FACT for you.

Everything living becomes FOOD for something else!!

I find great solace in knowing this to be a fact.

Considering what I am and what I have done.....I have a very unique perspective on Human Beings and Human actions and reactions.

Those of us that do what I do have only found solace in understanding...."WE ARE ALREADY DEAD."

There is this Buddhist Monk...and this was in a movie that came out a while back so YES I am aware of it....but the story is worthwhile....this Buddhist Monk who has traveled to an ancient Temple to meditate and there he encounters a massive Bengal Tiger.

The Monk is chased by the Tiger to a 50 foot cliff and the Monk to avoid being eaten by the Tiger jumps and catches a tree branch that is sticking out of the side of the cliff by both of his legs so he is hanging upside down.

The Tiger that chased him growls but does not attempt to go after the Monk as the Tiger knows it might fall 50 feet onto the rocks at the bottom of the cliff.

Just then another large growl is heard and the Monk looks down and so does the Tiger at the top of the cliff and the Monk and Tiger see another large and HUNGRY TIGER directly underneath the Monk standing on a rock about 42 feet below the Buddhist Monk.

Both Tigers then let out a loud bellowed growl as both Tiger's at that point KNOW that the Monk cannot hang upside down forever and at least ONE of the Hungry Tigers will be enjoying Buddhist Monk for Breakfast or Lunch or for how ever long the Monk can hold on.

All of a sudden a HUGE SMILE come's across the Buddhist Monk's face as he looks hanging upside down where from the cliff face a PERFECT STRAWBERRY has grown....is perfectly ripe and the Monk picks the Strawberry and delights in it;s most wonderful flavor as it was the best Strawberry the Monk had ever tasted.

And even after the taste was long gone from the Monks mouth....he continued to smile as he looked around at the beauty and flowers growing from the liff and even after looking at the beauty of the Tigers.

Now...WHY?

The Monk was just hours or perhaps moments from dying a horrible death...so why was the Buddhist Monk smiling???

The Monk was smiling because he had almost forgotten that LIFE IS MEANT TO BE LIVED!!!

And even in that few seconds of the Monk finding the Perfect Strawberry and eating it...he had LIVED A LIFETIME!

And the Monk was GRATEFUL for his life and ever moment of it.

Because LIFE is meant to be lived in the MOMENT.

If there is one thing Quantum Mechanics has taught us is that there is not beginning.....and no end.....JUST THE HERE AND NOW!!! Because TIME runs CONCURRENT...no past, no future...no present....just BEING.

AboveAlpha

 

The unification of science and religion appears to be under way. Quantum mechanics shows that the objective emerges from the subjective. The natural emerges from the supernatural/metaphysical, actually the surreal world of waveform energy and subatomic particles.

Hence they are not mutually exclusive except in the minds of those who don't have the rundown on how these are reconciled, or those who can't get past the assumption that everything understandable must be expressed in terms of objective physicality.

We are the players, the individual units of consciousness that have awareness and the free will to make choices. Matter and bioforms are governed by rules and constraints in the program. A higher consciousness is the programmer. It's really that simple.

 

A Higher Consciousness is not necessary for Wave Form collapse.

AboveAlpha

 

True, but we are still left with the question of who is making the rules. That seems to be the implied question in Howard Bloom's roughly 700-page book, the God Problem, in which he scientifically examines all the potentially arbitrary turning points at every stage of process from the start of the big bang to the present state.

 

And probably really wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do rules need to be made by a 'who'?