11 logical dimensions that seem to make sense.... well maybe

[Grat3fulh3ad]

thats not what eye mean' its just a figure of speech'
a way of thinking' eye enter different parts of my mind all tha time
didnt mean to confuze you

dimensions are all part of tha mind imo

then we are talking two different things altogether.
I am speaking of dimensions in the sense that they are defined by physics.

You are redefining dimension.
Or maybe coining the phrase "dimension of logic"


sorry I misunderstood, I'll back out of your thread.

 

[ThirdEyeVision]

Garret Lisi's Model of the Universe, been fascinated with it
of late, although don't have the advanced algebraic geometry
to really dig into it...

 

[BrainSellz]

then we are talking two different things altogether.
I am speaking of dimensions in the sense that they are defined by physics.

I believe you are correct
I cant make any such sense what so ever of tha physics aspect of it' its jibberish to me so I guess I am making sense of it this way'

 

[sac beh]

1st dimension Space
2nd dimension Time
3rd dimension Alive
4th dimension REASON (there isnt much reasoning out here theze dayz so it would make sense that people were struggling with tha 4th dimension)
5th dimension Understanding
6th dimension Sense
7th dimension Equality
8th dimension Eternity
9th dimension One
10th dimension Now

I guess I'd be curious where you got these from. They sound interesting, and they appear to me to all be true aspects of existence, psychological or other. But why these? I tend to question something that doesn't have a clear reason behind it. Also, do you consider these "dimensions" as existential states (e.g., occurring at any given time in any combination based on mental states) or as temporal states of perception/knowledge through which the human mind (or body?) passes progressively?

What I like about the dimensions H3ad has laid out is that it all sounds reasonable to me. And even with the little I know about theoretical physics, the 10 dimensional model seems possible to me. The first 4 are logical, they are obvious aspects/measurable characteristics of reality. The next 6 I understand to be proposed dimensions of reality that prove necessary if we are to deal correctly with the behavior of the fundamental stuff in quantum mechanics, based on the formulas developed to account for classic physics models and quantum ones.

 

[Mr. Alkaline]

I hid my thread. From the general population in a subforum.

Maybe 25 percent of earth is open to this subject realm/paradigm!?!

Best of luck to ya friend....u seem to be looking around with your intuition.

Gee I wonder where to find dimensional bridges

 

[bentom187]

the garret lisi's model looks completley balanced remind me of the taoist theory of yin and yang

 

[sac beh]

I hid my thread. From the general population in a subforum.

Maybe 25 percent of earth is open to this subject realm/paradigm!?!

Best of luck to ya friend....u seem to be looking around with your intuition.

Gee I wonder where to find dimensional bridges

I read through your thread a few days ago, it seems to have a lot in common with Sirgrassalot's thread a while back about Isis, though I think that thread is gone now. I have a hard time following, truthfully..

 

[BrainSellz]

I guess I'd be curious where you got these from. They sound interesting, and they appear to me to all be true aspects of existence, psychological or other. But why these? I tend to question something that doesn't have a clear reason behind it. Also, do you consider these "dimensions" as existential states (e.g., occurring at any given time in any combination based on mental states) or as temporal states of perception/knowledge through which the human mind (or body?) passes progressively?

What I like about the dimensions H3ad has laid out is that it all sounds reasonable to me. And even with the little I know about theoretical physics, the 10 dimensional model seems possible to me. The first 4 are logical, they are obvious aspects/measurable characteristics of reality. The next 6 I understand to be proposed dimensions of reality that prove necessary if we are to deal correctly with the behavior of the fundamental stuff in quantum mechanics, based on the formulas developed to account for classic physics models and quantum ones.

Sac beh these are just thoughts I put together from my mind' this was inspired from the "does time exist" thread
you ask why these' well they make tha most sense to me and I like to put logic in all equations

Also, do you consider these "dimensions" as existential states (e.g., occurring at any given time in any combination based on mental states) or as temporal states of perception/knowledge through which the human mind (or body?) passes progressively?

I would have to say yes to tha first one existential state because at any given space in time that your alive things are constantly happening that need reason and understanding and without using logic or tha dimensions of logic accordingly you might make tha wrong choices which would be caused by your mental state at that very time' if that makes sense

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

the garret lisi's model looks completley balanced remind me of the taoist theory of yin and yang

The m-theory thought that everything that exist is made up of different harmonic vibrations of the same basic thing seems to fit in well with the principles of living in harmony with one's surroundings, since we and our surroundings are just different manifestations of the same fabric.

Additionally, relating the quantum to the mind...
The easiest way to visualize how the mind works has always been to compare neurons to bytes of information stored in the neural pathways... But we are only just now beginning to discover that rather than each neuron being one analog byte, each neuron is actually an processor/memory unit, with processes occurring on the nano level inside of tiny microtubules which process and store data by influencing the spin of individual electrons... When each neuron is considered as an individual computer that is part of the network that is your brain, the mind as a function of brain structure seems much more plausible.




mind |mīnd|
noun
1 the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought


brain |brān|
noun
1 an organ of soft nervous tissue contained in the skull of vertebrates, functioning as the coordinating center of sensation and intellectual and nervous activity.

 

[guest456mpy]

A good book that is the introduction to this and other studies would be:

"The Tarot A - Key to the Wisdom of the Ages" By Paul Foster Case Copyright 1947
ISBN number 0-938002-08-2

 

[sac beh]

Speaking of good introductory books, this just came across my news reader, relevant to what H3ad is talking about:

http://www.physorg.com/news203961728.html

String Theory For Dummies

 

[bentom187]

PLS just buy a copy of the bardo thodol, you'll see your far from the first person to think of this.
Or at least just glance over it.
the Yin and Yang are equal and opposites, just look at the shapes and colors you'll see.

 

[bentom187]

also string theory just means random vibrations,and membrain theory means thats we are like sheets in the wind, if were on the same line we'll make contact and those contact points are were we live.
i dont beleive ive summed everything up but itrs atleast a start.

 

[guest456mpy]

Yes, bentom187
Physics and metaphysics are opposite sides of the same coin, just like yin and yang. One compliments the other, not negate it.

 

[sac beh]

Physics and metaphysics are opposite sides of the same coin, just like yin and yang. One compliments the other, not negate it.

Oh, is that what he was trying to say?

Well the difference is that physics gathers knowledge of phenomena through empirical observation and reason, while metaphysics speculates about the nature of noumena (the thing in it self, the Being of beings)..

Often times it happens that science will discover something to be in fact similar to how a certain metaphysical theory imagined it, but there are thousands of other metaphysical beliefs that never pan out. So its a matter of the fastest way from A to B being a straight line, really. But yes I'd agree that metaphysical speculation and physical observation do feed each other, even in the mind of the scientist who must speculate ahead of the physical in order to arrive at new discoveries. This is reason's play at work.

 

[guest456mpy]

sac beh,
Many of the early scientists of the Enlightenment Period were also from the Rosicrucian order.
The cathedrals in Europe were built by the Freemasons.
I belong to both organizations and am an engineer, and have been practicing Buddhism for nearly half a century. The concepts are quite congruous I assure you.

But you have the absolute right to believe anything you wish, and I totally support you in it.

 

[bentom187]

the free masons here,and i know this cause i looked it up beleive in ONE GOD,im not sure how you feel about it, but its what i read and i just dont subscribe to that idea.
what the monks beleive is based in reality, if you find a apple and its got a whole in it,you can conclude a worm made its way through,from what you know about apples and worms."the universe in a single atom" by dalai lama.

 

[guest456mpy]

Buddha was not a god, he was a man who reached enlightenment.
One can practice Buddhism and still believe in the Judeo/Christian God.
Reach further for the truth my brother!

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Careful, religious talk is taboo, according to TOU

 

[bentom187]

i know that,lol.
hes a teacher like everyone else,its the fanatics who blur the lines