scienceandnonduality
The aim of this presentation is to derive the fundamental principles of special relativity and quantum mechanics from postulates that assume the existence of consciousness. This derivation is based on the fundamental existence of a uni ed reality. In this uni ed reality, the entanglement of systems in the physical world is a very natural and ubiquitous consequence.
We begin with the following postulate: there is one unifed entity in existence (Self), which perceives the world (itSelf) through localized perspectives, individually, one at a time. After restating that postulate in more physical terms, we arrive at both of the initial
postulates for special relativity (relativity of physical law, constancy of the speed of light), as well as a fundamental property of quantum mechanics known as the single-framework rule. From this model, we discover that light exists in a timeless and spaceless state. This result fits very nicely with the phenomenon of entanglement. Far more than an abstract concept applied only to experiments in a physicist’s lab, entanglement is a property of the
universe providing connection across time and space that may have implications for everyday life. One such suggested implication is the phenomenon of synchronicity.
Source
Love the mental gymnastics! I'm still flipping and swinging. Well done!
Making it simple. There is consciousness (C), which has all the properties of "Information" and very likely other properties. To transform/extract C to form the physical world, a process (P) is needed. There may be many Ps. But we know at least one, the one P through our brain but details are still being investigated. P is definitely not simply a fourier series.
Does anyone here know of any sources of information that would help me understand the information being displayed here on this channel? I feel like some of the things they mention in these videos fly right over my head and need to read up on some things a little more before returniung, and any suggestions anyone has would be very helpful.
I tried to make it all the way through this in case there was anything that wasn't complete nonsense… but at 30 minutes I'm throwing in the towel. Not only can you not derive special relativity from your postulates, but they can actually be used to disprove it, which is clearly a contradiction.
There are so many things incorrect with this talk. You seem to have a low level understanding of these mathematical concepts which you then use to try to convince people of something which the mathematics doesn't really represent. First of all, the fourier transform is still space dependent since the units of the Fourier coefficients are space/frequency so that when you integrate over all frequencies you return to the same spacial representation. Just because you can plot it on the graph with frequency on the axis doesn't mean you've converted the information from space to a new "information realm", whatever that nonsense really means.
Also your statement about light be omnipotent seems to be equally nonsense. Just because you "attempted to rigorously show it" does not mean it is true, and does not mean that your statement has useful meaning. Do you mean that it follows a null geodesic? If so, that doesn't mean that light is timeless and spaceless, but just that the space-time line element has zero length due to the nature of the Minkowski metric. This clearly doesn't mean that light doesn't move through time or space though. Maybe I'm misinterpretting what you mean, but you can hardly blame me given that you gave basically no justification for your claims and instead jumped to talking about there being an "omnipresent property".
It's easy to convince a lay person by throwing meaningless jargon at them but if you want to be taken seriously you'll have to provide a meaningful argument or redefine your definition of rigor…..
This is correct. I also expressed similar things in a video called reality's rules after enlightenment.
If the two same objects next to each other is shown as different frequency, what would the two objects in the same space be like as frequency? Kind of like superposition.
https://www.scribd.com/TheRealVerbz
Very important books… to understand…
You don't believe "anything is possible" because you set that limit on yourself. You've built a ceiling over your head and convinced yourself that there is no sky. You've built it out of the shortcomings of others. This is one of the beauties of our existence. It's all very convincing if we want it to be.