Beyond Light Speed: A Tenet Nosce suggestion

[Tenet Nosce]

Speculation and the intuition always leads the way to a new condition, new knowledge not only about the external world but the internal as well. And we continually, without fail, unconsciously project one on the other (because one is ultimately the other - i.e. time/space = space/time, or "as above, so below").

OK... so speculation is part of the process... in which case it is helpful to speculate with others as long as everybody knows that the discussion is speculation, and not exposition. Would you agree? It just seems to me like speculating to myself would lead to more false conclusions. This is why I am conversing with others in a forum.

What would be the point of a forum, if not for people to share ideas and speculations with one another? I don't see anybody attempting to teach/learn in this thread from some self-ascribed position of "authority" or "understanding" which others do not possess. With the possible exception of yourself.

Also... from another angle... I have long been following scientific developments with the hypothesis that breakthroughs in science and technology (space/time) are a reflection of happenings in time/space. In other words, leaps forward represent latent abilities that are still repressed/denied by humanity.

Telephone being sound at a distance (clairaudience). Television being sight at a distance (clairvoyance). The Internet being telepathy or group mind. However I am fairly clear that these are just a reflection of what is going on in time/space. So, yes, kind of like Plato's Cave. Was I giving the impression that I did not realize this... or?

We necessarily have a stake in an outcome when we connect it with a hope. Such is the nature of hope. Hope does just that, it creates a stake for some type of gain. I will say it again, we necessarily have a stake in an outcome when we have a hope for some outcome or event.

Right, OK. But what I am saying is that I don't have a "hope" whether or not this discovery is confirmed by other scientists. I will neither be "elated" if they confirm it, or "disappointed" if they don't. I wouldn't be surprised if it were confirmed, however.

I do "believe" in the doctrine of densities as promulgated by Ra and others, and fully expect this to be scientifically validated at some point. But it is not a "hope" that I am emotionally invested in one way or the other. So I guess this is where I got confused with your reply because it appeared to me that you were insinuating that I am emotionally invested in a particular outcome.

But you can not prove it is a projection of the mind. The mind is creating the theories. There would first have to be a practical theoretical base for how the mind works (the mind-body problem) in order to associate experience and mind. If we understood how the mind works, we would at the vary least understand how 2nd density works, since that is the first manifestation of the mind principle. Up to this point, most of the theories of the mind are soft-science related (psychology) or philosophical.

Who me? I won't be able to prove anything! But yes, as you say, the mind is creating the theories. The mind created the notions of "absolute speed of light" and "no absolute frame of reference" by which we are building up our physical theories about time.

If the postulates are not true, then the conclusions are not true. Specifically the conclusion that "time" is intrinsic to space itself, and unidirectional. I do see what you are saying above, but we already have the theoretical base of which you spoke. Projection, confirmation bias, and so on. The mind fabricates concepts (postulates) which have no basis in reality. Then the mind draws conclusions from those postulates and builds up an entire science based upon a faulty proposition- in this case the notion of physical time- and then doggedly defends its viewpoint when confronted with evidence to the contrary.

So in this sense, it seems to me that science would do well to be more informed by psychology and philosophy. Since science was born from these, and not the other way around. As you said:

Rejecting what brought us to that point of recognition is inharmonious and wrong - it also tends to be necessary.

I agree. Up until this point, science has taken the arrogant position of styling itself as separate and independent from psychology and philosophy. Even going so far as to attempt to reduce all psychological phenomenon to nothing more chemical processes in the brain. This is absurd, in my opinion. I accept it as all "part of the process" but the process involves eventually accepting that which was previously rejected. Science appears to be on the precipice of just such a maneuver.

According to my understanding, this maneuver is not a "hope" but an inevitability. Thusly, "time" will eventually bring us to the understanding that "time" is merely a fabrication of our own mind. This is the sense in which I made the statement. In other words, isn't it ironic/funny/curious that the purpose of "time" appears to be to bring us to an understanding of timelessness.

Many years ago I did write a final paper for a Philosophy of Space and Time class. The hypothesis was that the perception of time is a result of the mind interacting with the physical world, and not an intrinsic property of the physical world itself. Being an undergraduate, I had no means of really testing such a hypothesis. However, what I did was use examples from documented meditation experiences demonstrating a commonality whereby those meditating describe a feeling of "timelessness" once they are able to move beyond the realm of thought. Stop the thinking- stop the perception of time. Well, it was at least an idea!

A similar phenomenon appears to be happening in all sciences. For example, biology is built upon "cell theory" which in itself has never been proven. Yet the vast majority of biologists take it to be fact. To the point of flat out ignoring evidence to the contrary, i.e. if it disproves our theory, it must be false. I mean... really? These are scientists?

On a near daily basis, I read articles about scientific discoveries that "overturn previous theories" or "were not predicted by the prevailing theory" or "will rewrite the textbooks" and so on. Both the frequency and the significance of these findings continue to increase. This leads me to speculate that, in fact, we are approaching a "nexus point" which will be reflected in time/space by some sort of new fundamental understanding of the universe, which pretty much invalidates everything we previously thought was true.

Yep, and scientists know this. Yet it is difficult to remove complexity. Complexity is entertaining. Eventually the epicyclic system of theory we currently use (with some success, of course) will become too insufficient, possibly by a dogmatic scientist working in earnest.

It could happen that way. Or not. What is irksome to me is when scientists "cling" to Occam's Razor when it suits their purpose, i.e. supporting established dogma, but are quick to toss Occam aside when a more simple, elegant theory is proposed that causes their own beliefs to be challenged.

Let's bring this into the present discussion.

A discovery that either (a) particles can actually travel faster than the speed of light, or (b) the speed of light is not constant, would resolve all manner of longstanding confusion in physics. This along with letting go of the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference would allow for the emergence of a much more simplified theory that doesn't need to posit all manner of non-Euclidean geometries in order to explain.

Now, having pointed out this potential discovery, you come in and proclaim that this observation is:

Experimental error, most likely. For example, bad calculation of distance.

Well, OK. Maybe so. But then you invoke Occam's Razor saying that it would be the most likely explanation because it is the most simple.

Well, OK. Maybe so. But IF this discovery is true, THEN it would actually simplify our understanding of physics, and not make it more complex.

Therefore, in my mind, the most "likely" explanation is that the scientists actually observed something real. And yes, it does "seem fitting" because it would "make sense" that the theories of relativity and quantum physics be resolved at some point so that humanity may move forward in our thinking.

I really don't see that as being a heavily biased statement. All I was saying is that I wouldn't be surprised, and pointing to some quotes from various L/L channeled entities seem to support such a view.

There was/is no "hope" entering into my psychological equation here. So if "bias" is built upon "hope", then your seeing "bias/hope" where there actually was none must be your own projection. If you are "hoping" that "identifying bias, in various forms, is key to promoting balance and consciousness," then in doing so, you are actually adding more bias to the conversation.

Why not allow others to discover their biases on their own? If making mistakes, and deluding oneself is all a necessary part of the process, as you say, then why do you interfere with it by pointing out others' biases when you have not established a relationship whereby the other has given you permission to do so? Is it not infringement to offer psychoanalysis where none was requested?