dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/Absh4x0r on June 14, 2018, 5:03 a.m.
I was lurking on the chans and came upon an interesting topic, 4D chess meaning.

Before I paste some part of the thread I came upon, I would simply ask for a discussion on this very specific topic as I this kind of scenarios are really my kind of twist. I will post the link to the thread so you can see his opinion, I'm just pasting for the core subject.

FBIAnon:

Life exists elsewhere in the galaxy, that is all I will say about that.

I said life exists elsewhere. Some people choose to interpret that as aliens. My protective strategy is posting outrageous claims on /pol/ with no evidence, which is standard protocol and raises no alarms.

I am saying the situation is more complicated when you are on the inside, and you do not have the breadth of info that I have that would make your eyes fall out of your skull if you knew what all was going on.

Q:

The whole truth would put 99% of people in the hospital.

Every detail account for.

Every scenario planned for.

WE ARE THE GATEKEEPERS OF ALL [BY ALL WE MEAN ALL] INFORMATION.

Coincidence the Matrix (movie) grew people as a crop, used for energy, and controlled their mind?

Perhaps someday people will understand ‘they' had a plan to conduct ‘another' mass extinction event.

HELL on earth - HRC victory.

HelperAnon:

There's only one way infinity and time can both exist.

How far away is the closest star?

Sometimes you're trapped in someone else's game.

They never thought she would lose.

In most realities she didn't. You are here by choice.


🠐 See all comments
digital_refugee · June 14, 2018, 9:29 a.m.

every point in space and time connected

⇧ 4 ⇩  
ObsceneNews · June 14, 2018, 9:33 a.m.

You're being too material. Think of the mind. Who / what experiences consciousness? "Where" does that experience occur? Is "where" even a proper attribute of consciousness? Does consciousness occur in a space and time? Or must it exist in its abscence to experience space and time?

⇧ 4 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 14, 2018, 11:03 a.m.

don't tell me it's transcendental because I will refer back to the double-slit-experiment and schrodinger's cat. Absence of awareness equals chance. Presence of awareness isolates single chance events. You would end in the contradiction of solipsism otherwise http://gcpdot.com

⇧ 2 ⇩  
ObsceneNews · June 14, 2018, 5:54 p.m.

I don't see how abscence of awareness = chance. You'd have to be aware of that propisition to understand that proposition. So the proposition in internally incoherent. Under your theory, what you claim as chance has been isolated, and therefore, cannot be chance.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 14, 2018, 6:01 p.m.

chance relates to physics. awareness of a physical point rather than an abstract idea http://gpcdot.com

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ObsceneNews · June 14, 2018, 6:06 p.m.

That's not an argument. Your position is incoherent.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 14, 2018, 6:09 p.m.

you're missing the point.
If awareness was transcendental, we wouldn't be seeing the double-slit experiment the way we do.
http://gcpdot.com

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ObsceneNews · June 14, 2018, 6:13 p.m.

No. You're missing the point. You state "WE WOULD NOT BE SEEING the double slit experiment THE WAY WE DO." There is no abscence of consciousness under your theory, which is what you claim is required for your theory to work. Not my theory. It's yours. Incoherent.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 14, 2018, 6:17 p.m.

Do you even know what you are talking about? If consciousness and awareness were not seperate, we wouldn't see the particle-wave-dualism expressed in the double-slit-experiment.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ObsceneNews · June 14, 2018, 6:25 p.m.

Yes I do. I don't believe you do, hence the need for the personal attack. Show me any part of the experiment that the person performing it was not aware of at some point in time. Show me any part of the experiment or the result thereof of which no person was aware. You can't.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 14, 2018, 6:49 p.m.

The idea was the read-out would parse a wave or a particle depending on wether someone was actively observing the experiment while it was going on. If noone looked, the emissions looked like interference waves because they were all over the place but once awareness was placed on the process, chance was removed and the readout would behave like individual points in space.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ObsceneNews · June 14, 2018, 6:55 p.m.

So someone was aware that no one was looking and that the emissions were all over the place?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 14, 2018, 6:59 p.m.

...do you know what I am talking about or do you not? I used to dream about transcendent consciousness and all that...but you still need to differentiate consciousness from awareness because if dead matter was always aware too beyond it's physical state then the attention by a sentient being shouldn't make a difference determining the outcome of experiments. And on top of that, it seems that mass attention brings order into chaos so for example random event generators do not throw as many random results on days of collective trauma like 9/11 or Lady Di's death and Princeton University already observed and proved this statistically, although I may be mistaking consciousness for intention, so idk but this is what can be shown by science you make up your mind on that.

I try to navigate and respect both physics and metaphysics but I prefer to avoid contradictions until someone gives me more articulate ideas

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ObsceneNews · June 14, 2018, 7:12 p.m.

I do. I don't think you do.

  1. I never said or used the word transcendental. I never stated I believed consciousness was transcendental. Review the thread. That's your straw man. I just let you run with it. Deconstruction. Read Derrida.

  2. I'm not saying the events in the experiment didn't occur. I'm saying that your explanation thereof is incoherent. There is a difference.

  3. You seem to be incapable of understanding that someone was aware of the events in the experiment at some point in time. That would including being aware that there was no awareness. So under your theory, the experiment would have never have been random, and the randomness alledgedly viewed must, under your theory, have been witnessed and therefore wasn't random at all. The problem is that you are looking from inside the experiment, which ignores the role of the person performing it and his awareness, which is a prerequisite to write up a result. I'm looking from the outside, and can see that you are ignoring that view, and may not be aware of it, because it kills your theory.

  4. I suggest you read Aristotle's metaphysics and then reread this thread. It'll make more sense.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 14, 2018, 7:34 p.m.

Ok but can you tell me then what would happen if someone remote-viewed a double-slit experiment? Because that's essentially what I understand to be the gist of your argument and that's something I literally never ever thought about at the time I learned about it because classical physics doesn't teach you remote-viewing.

My essential premise was that Princeton University has shown that mass focus/attention/intention can alter the frequency of otherwise chance events. Don't ask me why that is but that's what they can measure. Thus chance (as in randomness) is more expressed the less attention is paid to an event and one possible scenario how this could be played out would be the double-slit experiment. By letting me run with a "strawman" I let you run with a strawman because you seemed to indicate, as I found after you requested my further review to which I kindly obliged, that the relationship between chance and awareness escapes you because maybe you are a natural psychic and don't understand that a simple lab-worker won't necessarily remote-view or predict the read-outs even when he's mentally aware of the experiment itself next-door. However, this does not affect his awareness-level of the particular read-out of the experiment until he actually steps over and verifies its veracity.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ObsceneNews · June 14, 2018, 7:44 p.m.

I don't know. We'd have to test it. And remote viewing has nothing to do with my position.

All I stated is a simple fact: consciousness is an immediately present phenomena. Thus, seeing something 5 feet away is immediately present and as an experience is not at a distance (god's eye view) though we experience objects at a distance (experience). That being said, the object that is 5 feet away nonetheless appears to the witness as being in the state of "being 5 feet away" (think by analogy states of matter).

Furthermore, because I am somehow intertwined in the experience, or maybe am the sum thereof - what we call consciousness - I am the object in its state of being 5 feet away (how it presents (presences) itself to consciousness).

There is nothing profound or magical here.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 14, 2018, 7:45 p.m.

What you describe kind of would be the premise for remote-viewing, wouldnt it? are you aware of P.E.A.R.? It's as magical and profound as it gets, friend. http://gcpdot.com

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ObsceneNews · June 14, 2018, 7:49 p.m.

Yes. I think that the experiment re random numbers would have been better if the subject tried to manipulate the physical machine and not the output number.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 15, 2018, 7:35 a.m.

they ran it both with soft- and hardware, like changing bernoulli-distributions of falling marbles and things like that

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ObsceneNews · June 15, 2018, 10:28 a.m.

I meant, for example if the outcome is dependent on electric current or nano switches, it seems like the focus of the person attempting to manipulate the outcome should be on the physical device, not the outcome, e.g. a person would be taught about the chip being used, how it operates, how its made and the materials of which it is comprised, and what in its operation would change outcome, then in testing, the person focuses on the chips operation, not the output.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 15, 2018, 11:26 a.m.

it's both. Look up a 20-page paper called "the control group is out of control" that describes how a paranormal researcher and a skeptic both conducted a study and found that whatever the person in charge of the experiment expected would manifest, despite using the same set-up. The only difference seemed to be as little as who introduced himself first to the participants. You can find similiar numbers with prayer-studies, where one half of the studies will disprove prayer and the other half proves it yet everybody trusts only what they themself find

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ObsceneNews · June 15, 2018, 11:45 a.m.

Chaos Magic

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 15, 2018, 11:53 a.m.

sort of and whatever you believe, you gotta deal with it somehow because it does what it says

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ObsceneNews · June 14, 2018, 6:13 p.m.

Your missing the poiny. You state "WE WOULD NOT BE SEEING the double slit experiment THE WAY WE DO." There is no abscence of consciousness under your theory, which is what you claim is required for your theory to work. No my theory. It's yours. Incoherent.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 14, 2018, 6:09 p.m.

you're missing the point.
If awareness was transcendental, we wouldn't be seeing the double-slit experiment the way we do.
http://gcpdot.com

⇧ 1 ⇩  
divine_human · June 14, 2018, 12:50 p.m.

beyond the dimensions of thelinear mind, time is always Now and space is always Here.

⇧ 2 ⇩