Bring4th

I've not watched this yet, but my Yoga teacher recomended it saying it's very good. Thought I'd share

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mgxf

It sounds really interesting, but it's not available in my area Maybe you could upload it to google video?

Shame is dosn't show. I've watched it and it's good

If you google 'horizon what is reality' there's a few places you can get it, piratebay for one.

Here is a clip from youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTF-hHGbQ6s --- That bit reminds me of me demanding my maths teacher tell me 'why' maths worked when I was 14

Oh wow, someone uploaded a torrent the day the program was aired, or the day after, pretty cool. I mean I know that happens for popular shows like the simpsons but I wasn't expecting that for a documentary series I learn something new all the time. Thanks.

The clip was very interesting, but his statement "space time is inside reality" seemed really obvious to me, but he was saying that would change our perspective of everything.

Haha, yeah I also used to wonder why/how math works in elementary school, I don't remember if I ever asked a teacher to prove that math works but I'm pretty sure the thought crossed my mind. Math is pretty cool, but its limits are the quantifiable, and I think there's more beauty to find in the unquantifiable like emotion and intuition. But of course passionate physicists like the guy in the video and Einstein found beauty in math, I suppose innovaters on the edge of math are alot more like philosophers or mystics than our high school math teachers.

Each density has a space/time, so reality is "layered" or embedded - not really "contained", per se since there is no "inside" (or outside). As our consciousness expands, and we become unsatisfied with a reality, we transcend a prior "reality" and welcome the new, higher one. This process of evolution occurs within a density (as subdensity "graduation") and across densities.

your approach to density mechanics still havent helped explanation of differences in regard to physicality in between densities zenmaster. it would be good if you had pushed into it a bit more.

(01-22-2011, 11:18 AM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]your approach to density mechanics still havent helped explanation of differences in regard to physicality in between densities zenmaster. it would be good if you had pushed into it a bit more.

It's a lot of work, because no one has done it yet. Eventually, and inevitably, the characteristics and dynamics will be obvious to everyone in some form. Right now, no one understands the basic properties of 1st density in scientific terms. Bruce Peret and Prof Nehru's work with 'RS2' theory are the closest so far.

What is the difference in 'physicality' between a 1D set of molecules and a 2D amoeba? In QM terms, each density introduces more 'hidden variables'.

First density provides the most directly observable density behavior. But half of the dynamics we observe (with out space/time optic nerves) depend on the hidden time/space component. This is why 'dark energy' and CMB are still mysterious. Consensus cosmology has CMB being an artifact of the 'big bang'. Larson has it being due to 'over unity' (> c) 'cosmic sector' stellar explosions.

To me, second density is the introduction of 'mind' - which, generically is an organizing and maintenance principle applied to 'bodies' (where 1st density 'body' is matter). As Samuel Alexander suggested, first density, on its own, has a 'mind' in the form of 'time'. But it is in a rather limited form of expression - the yin principle - or that which is circular.

Third density introduces another set of 'degrees of freedom' with 'ethics' where we are allowed to contradict or override survival concerns. I also question the (over-used) term 'addiction' and wonder if a more appropriate term would be 'habituation'. With third density, our conscious choices - the use of will - really don't allow us to be 'compelled' to a predetermined behavior as with 1st and (most of) 2nd densities.

---

@ @ndy - I did watch the program - but it was mostly the same old stuff you see on 'Nova'. Information being stored in the event horizon - yeah, right. Even with quantum theory, state vectors, Hilbert space, we really still 'think' of reality in purely materialistic or Newtonian terms. This approach effectively relegates quantum mechanics to the realm of 'magic' and as the program says, renders it incomprehensive and not understandable.

The math works, but the philosophical foundations are sorely lacking - everything is an ugly and ad hoc compilation. A lot of superfluous cleverness. With the specific, rather than holistic or integral, approach, we indeed continue to learn more and more about less and less. That is until, finally, we will know everything about nothing.

[quote]
What is the difference in 'physicality' between a 1D set of molecules and a 2D amoeba? In QM terms, each density introduces more 'hidden variables'. [quote]

As I understand it, the basic unit or photon vibrates/moves in a different ray providing the basis for a molecular structure based on the color vibration of the photon depending on the density. However, in 4th density negative there is no green ray so I m not sure how this is accomplished in this particular density.

(01-22-2011, 12:46 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]What is the difference in 'physicality' between a 1D set of molecules and a 2D amoeba? In QM terms, each density introduces more 'hidden variables'.

the physicality of a 1d set of molecules, and 2d amoeba, are the same in regard to physical material. they are made of the same vibration particles.

however, there is a difference in fluidity (the 2d amoeba is more prone to change than the physical material) and control, as you have expressed before. (the 2d amoeba is apt to changing the structure of its physicality in a conscious fashion.)

Quote:To me, second density is the introduction of 'mind' - which, generically is an organizing and maintenance principle applied to 'bodies' (where 1st density 'body' is matter). As Samuel Alexander suggested, first density, on its own, has a 'mind' in the form of 'time'. But it is in a rather limited form of expression - the yin principle - or that which is circular.

ra says spirit is always present there, and talks about the mind/body of rock beingness. this means, mind/body/spirit is always there from 1 to 8.

combine this with the fact that we know places can become 3d entities with enough investment (technically totally lacking anything that can be said a body, therefore any physical mind component), we can easily say that mind+body are things that can be present in any state, any form, even if you are a place.

(01-23-2011, 04:50 PM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-22-2011, 12:46 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]What is the difference in 'physicality' between a 1D set of molecules and a 2D amoeba? In QM terms, each density introduces more 'hidden variables'.

the physicality of a 1d set of molecules, and 2d amoeba, are the same in regard to physical material. they are made of the same vibration particles.

however, there is a difference in fluidity (the 2d amoeba is more prone to change than the physical material) and control, as you have expressed before. (the 2d amoeba is apt to changing the structure of its physicality in a conscious fashion.)

The definition of 'physical'
is not limited to visual - it's what motion occurs in space/time in a discrete dimension or across dimensions.

(01-23-2011, 04:50 PM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:To me, second density is the introduction of 'mind' - which, generically is an organizing and maintenance principle applied to 'bodies' (where 1st density 'body' is matter). As Samuel Alexander suggested, first density, on its own, has a 'mind' in the form of 'time'. But it is in a rather limited form of expression - the yin principle - or that which is circular.

ra says spirit is always present there, and talks about the mind/body of rock beingness. this means, mind/body/spirit is always there from 1 to 8.

Some form of the archetypal principle exists at each density, yes.

(01-23-2011, 04:50 PM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]combine this with the fact that we know places can become 3d entities with enough investment (technically totally lacking anything that can be said a body, therefore any physical mind component), we can easily say that mind+body are things that can be present in any state, any form, even if you are a place.

According to Ra, the 'location/place' is already somehow already 2d entity, which is the point where we get the more familiar concept of mind and quite remarkable in itself. The place's 'body', must support a connection to its time/space mind in order for experiences to form. This must involve a great deal of unified 3D inspirational thought and possibly that higher-vibrational indigo-ray action.

(01-22-2011, 12:46 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]The math works, but the philosophical foundations are sorely lacking - everything is an ugly and ad hoc compilation. A lot of superfluous cleverness. With the specific, rather than holistic or integral, approach, we indeed continue to learn more and more about less and less. That is until, finally, we will know everything about nothing.

How nicely put