Phoenix

[Allisnum2er]

3 minutes ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Yann! How many page 126 are there?? LOL

 

 

See for yourself, and they might even be misnumbered from the first one

https://archive.org/details/corneliigiselber00plem/page/122/mode/2up?view=theater

 

LoL ! This is what I was looking for, noticing that it could be the number 126 ( WILL TUDOR simple cipher). 😄

[Light-of-Truth]

8 minutes ago, Allisnum2er said:

LoL ! This is what I was looking for, noticing that it could be the number 126 ( WILL TUDOR simple cipher). 😄

Sonnet 126 is the ONLY Sonnet with a Simple cipher 157 and Kaye cipher 287 (both Seal numbers). And it is the one with two missing lines:

OK, the Simple and Kaye ciphers are using the modern 26 letter codes which we established in the early days of this forum that 26 letters were used and in print in England by 1609.

https://www.light-of-truth.com/pyramid-GMT.php#cipherSonnet126

This is a Sonnet I believe to be written by John Dee to Bacon as a contribution.

O, D, WTI as my SHA

O is 14, D is 4, so OD is 144 or the Simple cipher of SIR FRANCIS BACON.

SIR FRANCIS BACON AS MY SHA (1881).

Bacon was Dee's Shakespeare, I swear it is in my face.

CJ, rip me apart, I deserve it and am asking for it. But I still see what I see and feel what I feel. LOL

Just for fun and your imagination, read this Sonnet as if it written by Dee to Bacon with his Mother in mind:

O Thou my louely Boy who in thy power,
Doest hould times fickle glasse,his fickle,hower:
Who hast by wayning growne,and therein shou'st,
Thy louers withering,as thy sweet selfe grow'st.
If Nature(soueraine misteres ouer wrack)
As thou goest onwards still will plucke thee backe,
She keepes thee to this purpose,that her skill.
May time disgrace,and wretched mynuit kill.
Yet feare her O thou minnion of her pleasure,
She may detaine,but not still keepe her tresure!
Her Audite (though delayd) answer'd must be,
And her Quietus is to render thee.
    {                                                                          }
    {                                                                          }

Are you kidding me?? "Her Audite (though delayd) answer'd must be, And her Quietus is to render thee." AGAIN Dee orchestrating Bacon's life, yet here kind of trying to justify and put it on Elizabeth. UGH!

A huge Treasure to discover are those two missing lines. We know they are somewhere.

[Light-of-Truth]

20 minutes ago, Light-of-Truth said:

O, D, WTI as my SHA

I should explain, those are the first letters of the 12 lines of Sonnet 126 (instead of 14 lines).

O D W T I A S M Y S H A

I demonstrated how I see O and D as 144 which is the Simple cipher of SIR FRANCIS BACON. In my first years I saw the O as 14 the Simple cipher of DEE, and then D was, well you know, D (DEE). And both still fit. 😉

W T I is of course William Tudor I. Dee's "louely boy" was William Tudor, or Bacon as we know him.

A S and M Y meaning "as my"...

SHA is Shakespeare, but maybe even more important is S=18, H=8, A=1 or 1881. Dee seems to put so much important on that as it relates to Eternity. SHAkespeare was Eternal inDeed, and both Bacon and Dee used and teaches us how to use the same numbers for the same goals.

Sir Francis Bacon, William Tudor I, as my Shakespeare.

Sealed with 157 and 287.

CJ, I'll beat you to the punch: I am crazy as a loon, but not as crazy as Looney. LOL

Oh my! Sonnet 127!! It begins with the story!!

Bacon, that poor Bastard (blacke) who was not counted faire and raised by Sir Nicholas and Lady Ann Bacon.

 

 

[Allisnum2er]

15 minutes ago, Light-of-Truth said:

I should explain, those are the first letters of the 12 lines of Sonnet 126 (instead of 14 lines).

O D W T I A S M Y S H A

I demonstrated how I see O and D as 144 which is the Simple cipher of SIR FRANCIS BACON. In my first years I saw the O as 14 the Simple cipher of DEE, and then D was, well you know, D (DEE). And both still fit. 😉

W T I is of course William Tudor I. Dee's "louely boy" was William Tudor, or Bacon as we know him.

A S and M Y meaning "as my"...

SHA is Shakespeare, but maybe even more important is S=18, H=8, A=1 or 1881. Dee seems to put so much important on that as it relates to Eternity. SHAkespeare was Eternal inDeed, and both Bacon and Dee used and teaches us how to use the same numbers for the same goals.

Sir Francis Bacon, William Tudor I, as my Shakespeare.

Sealed with 157 and 287.

CJ, I'll beat you to the punch: I am crazy as a loon, but not as crazy as Looney. LOL

Oh my! Sonnet 127!! It begins with the story!!

Bacon, that poor Bastard (blacke) who was not counted faire and raised by Sir Nicholas and Lady Ann Bacon.

 

 

Rob, what do you think ?

Is it the anagram of F. BACON WIT or F BACON WTI ? 😊

[Light-of-Truth]

12 minutes ago, Allisnum2er said:

Rob, what do you think ?

Is it the anagram of F. BACON WIT or F BACON WTI ? 😊

I've done some cool letter counts too!

Seriously, it is not hard to hear Bacon's voice sharing his life in the Sonnets. Yet, true, it is all open to be challenged. Maybe that is Beauty of the way he speaks over centuries to only a few who hear. 😉

Willy the Avon guy, why was he so obsessed with succession and feeling like a bastard? LOL

[Light-of-Truth]

58 minutes ago, Allisnum2er said:

Rob, what do you think ?

Yann, the first 33 words of Sonnet 127 have one of those so obvious F BACON acrostics/anagrams missing the C.

Which one do we chose. LOL

Hmmm, "Fairing the foule with Arts faulse borrow'd face"?

What on Earth could that mean? "Arts false borrowed face"? I cannot imagine. 😉

 

 

[Light-of-Truth]

1 hour ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Hmmm, "Fairing the foule with Arts faulse borrow'd face"?

OK, let's play.

The past lines in the Sonnets are first about Bacon "louely boy" who was kept to his purpose, being detained, but her treasure would, even though be delayed, be rendered. The hint about numbers included. Then a reasonably obvious Elizabeth reference with "beauties name" and "beauties succession".

We know the story around here, even if some of us strive to squash it. Francis Bacon was born to Elizabeth, possibly as William Tudor, and when we read Shakespeare we are reading them both.

So to me, "Fairing the foule" is correcting the unfairness (all meanings of faire) with "Arts faulse borrow'd face" a clear reference to Bacon's Shakespeare mask.

Yet I should say Will Tudor's mask(s) - Bacon and Shakespeare.

Bacon (to keep it simple) is fairing the foul (Dee's? Elizabeth's? Or both?) by writing as Shakespeare, who was writing for Bacon, who was William Tudor, the rightful heir to the English Tudor crown.

Next lines to finish Sonnet 127 say the rest, especially directed to his "Faire" Mother:

Sweet beauty hath no name no holy boure,
But is prophan'd, if not liues in disgrace.
Therefore my Mistersse eyes are Rauen blacke,
Her eyes so suted,and they mourners seeme,
At such who not borne faire no beauty lack,
Slandring Creation with a false esteeme,
   Yet so they mourne becomming of their woe,
   That euery toung saies beauty should looke so.

 

Bold lines my emphasis to point out the Shakespeare reference again in the same Sonnet.

Poor Bacon, I get tears in my eyes.

[Allisnum2er]

The quick story of the day,

I am finishing a video, adding my take on page 100 of Comedies of Errors with the famous ATOM 33 in Acrostic, with ATOM which can be seen as a reference to CUPID.

( See The Wisdom of the Ancients  by Francis Bacon - Cupid, or an Atom )

Cupid was the Bastard son of Venus and Mars.

Don't ask me why but today I wondered if Shakespeare made a reference to the Bastard son of Venus.

The answer is YES in "As you like it" Act 4 scene 1.

And what a surprise on page 202 that is the 220th page of the First Folio ( Francis Bacon was born the 22nd Day of January) ...

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/SLNSW_F1/220/?zoom=850 

THE PHOENIX NEST ! 😊

And the "Fast Bacon" can be linked to the famous one on page 222 (with another big 22 🙂 ) of "The Taming ofthe Shrew".

 

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/SLNSW_F1/240/?zoom=850

[RoyalCraftiness]

19 hours ago, Allisnum2er said:

  

Objection, your Honor ! 😄

Am I of the impression historians are all in error ?

Not at all.

I simply trust Historians of the considered period.😊

JOHN STOW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stow

https://www.google.fr/books/edition/Annales_or_a_general_Chronicle_of_Englan/PSxDAAAAcAAJ?hl=fr&gbpv=1&dq=annales+or+general+chronicle+of+england&printsec=frontcover

Take a look at pages 1025 to 1029.

John Stow tells us that :

"The 9 of June 1616 Sir Frauncis Bacon knight, was sworne a privie Counseller".

Then,

"The fourth of March, this year 1616, the Queene feasted the King at her Pallace in the Strand ..."

"The 7 of March, the Great Seale of England was delivered to Sir Francis Bacon Knight, the Kings Atturney, and was then made Lord keeper, and within few days
after, dyed the Lord Elismer, Lord Chancellor, and the fourth of January following, Sir Francis Bacon Lord Keeper, was made Lord Chancellor."

"The Twentieth of March 1616 at Burley on the hill, in Rutland shire, Sir Edward Noell knight and Baronet, was created Lord Noell of Rydlington."

"At this time neere Wapping, in the parish of White chappell,was new builded a very faire large Chappell, and a Churchyard to it,which were consecrated the seventh of July 1617 by the Lord Bishop of London."

How is it possible ?

The answer : the Julian Calendar and the Lady Day.

The 24th of March 1616 was followed by the 25th of March 1617.

I see what you are trying to point to after verifying something in more detail when the time allowed for it. You're not expressing your argument as clearly as you could have. Let me try to make it clear for all readers. Publication dates of British works prior to 1617 are given in OS. They are not revised dates, and they still often get treated as NS dates when cited when they are not. It is for us to know this. In the case where one is trying to define a period of time between a date of birth and a date of publication prior to 1617 both dates must be given in the same system. It means the period in question between the birth and the publication either has a year removed from the birth (NS) or year added to the publication date for the book (OS). This yields the 33 you speak of. Ok, I agree. The point I make of of stating that Jan. 22, 1560 OS and Jan 22, 1561 are the same day in Universal time is moot when we are speaking of periods going to a date given in OS. You are correct, but it seems you are not completely aware of why you are correct.  24 March, 1616 (OS) is 24 March, 1617 (NS). As expected the next day is 25th March, 1617 (NS). When apples are compared to apples all is well. The Julian vs Gregorian calendar has nothing to do with this. Why do you put emphasis on that 10 day difference? At a certain specific date the calendar simply switched over to NS. There were two changes done much later. One involved the Lady day switch and one the Julian-Gregorian switch. In the case of publication of British works that change was significantly earlier, in 1617. This is the fly in the ointment.

Very well role playing defendant, we should assume Bacon was at or near his 33rd year of birth at the published date. I apologize for the confusion. Now, what do we do with that? Do we lump in Gematria to imply Bacon wrote it? That is what we cannot do. What we can do is observe the correspondence. Seeking meaning in correspondences is fraught with peril.

I try to show how we can go in many directions with this in almost all cases where we see any number. Involving number is by definition asking for the patters in numbering to appear for us to involve them with other things. These will give an impression of intent or design. We don't even know Bacon is involved with the work. The exercise is clearly not to sneak him in any way we can. Doing that might allow you to involve 33 everywhere you see the number 33 appear. What sort of restraint would you put on yourself for not doing that? Is there a 33 in Freemasonry because of Bacon? No, we can reject that immediately. On some level there is just a coincidence that must have been been greatly tickling to him. Was it a contrived coincidence by those who chose his name? That's going back prior to Francis.

33, as far as I imagine it is a visual cue to 1/3 and to all other mathematics of the powers of 3. This is clearly associated to the Phoenix and the Sun, so we can account for it without Bacon. The fact that Francis Bacon's name can be made to yield 2/3 + 1/3 = 100/100 is exactly as clever as to point out he wonderful correspondence between letter and number in the Tetractys. These things were not even designed. They exist and are highlighted, and they can be observed/discovered by observant individuals.

Real difficulties will emerge when people maintain that the similarities can only be explained with a God concept based in a trinity. The less harmful suggestion is to deduce that there is something about reality that is very much favoring relationships in 3. This has found expression in other observations like that of the speed of light, which is 2.99792 x10^8 m/s. This has led some to suggest that the meter (unit of distance) we fell upon is very much something that is real in the Universal sense. Did we select the meter or was it "sent" to us via the Holy Spirit, lol? Some people with a religious bias actually wonder about this. On so many levels we can observe many Natural relations of 3:1, 2:1 and 3:2 in nature This is why there is this trinity of ratios in the Holy Royal Arch. It is the basis for all of geometry and harmony that comes out of our interaction with the first numbers. 1+2+3=1x2x3=6 which is the monad number responsible for the 60 degree visual (6 x 60 degrees goes around  point if you are tiling).

[Light-of-Truth]

4 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

Real difficulties will emerge when people maintain that the similarities can only be explained with a God concept based in a trinity. The less harmful suggestion is to deduce that there is something about reality that is very much favoring relationships in 3.

God to me is a fairy tale type of symbolic myth, yet myself I definitely feel I am an active and participating part of a living Universal mind that transcends Time and Space, as are all of us. Whatever I am part of is not an angry "jealous" or "vengeful" grouchy old white man on a throne sending everyone to Hell to burn and writhe in agony for Eternity if you don't do this or that that he likes. In fact, that concept makes me laugh! LOL

My elderly Mom and Dad are way too afraid to think otherwise because Hell sounds like a horrible place and Heaven sounds really cool with solid Gold streets and pretty Virgins dancing around all over the place in nightgowns. And they are both generic suburban Methodists who are really relaxed about rules. But all churches pass around the money plate, right?

Dee described mathematics as a third part of something between and part of a physical and spiritual reality. I'd suggest math, and geometry, would be the same on any planet in any star system in any galaxy. In fact, in all that Space and across all Time past and future math is the same. Numbers are Key, the Key. I believe Dee was onto something that nobody has yet to reach his Knowledge since.

Just my thoughts. No offense to anybody who has religion or is religious.

33 is a "Third" (actually 33.33333333...), part of any Trinity of whatever, and 33 is the Simple cipher of BACON. FRANCIS is 67, and maybe that is why Dee suggested to Elizabeth that her son William's name until he became Prince would add up to 100.

Just my thoughts again...

😉

 

[Light-of-Truth]

7 hours ago, Allisnum2er said:

THE PHOENIX NEST ! 😊

Let's read in a way that I like to do sometimes; across the columns:

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/doc/AYL_F1/page/18/index.html

I am taking a couple minor liberties below, but see if you can hear Bacon's voice from 400 years ago:

202: We must haue your doublet and hose pluckt ouer your head, and shew the world what the bird hath done to her owne neast. And play the swaggerer, beare this, beare all: Shee saies I am not faire, that I lacke manners, She calls me proud, and that she could not loue me

And he says about his cold Mother:

Were man as rare as Phenix: 'od's my will, Her loue is not the Hare that I doe hunt,

We hear these lines as we know the tale, right? Bacon knew she kicked him to the curb. Did she ever love him? Maybe, in her way. Did she ever love? We know she was horny.

Do I see Dee on this page??

EDIT:

Bottom left of the previous page, 201:

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/Bran_F1/219/index.html%3Fzoom=1200.html

TWO HUNDRED ONE and WILLIAM TUDOR I have the same basic four ciphers:

157 Simple, 168 Reverse, 58 Short, and 287 Kaye ciphers.

https://www.light-of-truth.com/ciphers.html

ORL is 33 Reverse cipher. LOL

ORL I WILL is 103 Simple cipher, the same as SHAKESPEARE.

 

[RoyalCraftiness]

20 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

God to me is a fairy tale type of symbolic myth, yet myself I definitely feel I am an active and participating part of a living Universal mind that transcends Time and Space, as are all of us. Whatever I am part of is not an angry "jealous" or "vengeful" grouchy old white man on a throne sending everyone to Hell to burn and writhe in agony for Eternity if you don't do this or that that he likes. In fact, that concept makes me laugh! LOL

My elderly Mom and Dad are way too afraid to think otherwise because Hell sounds like a horrible place and Heaven sounds really cool with solid Gold streets and pretty Virgins dancing around all over the place in nightgowns. And they are both generic suburban Methodists who are really relaxed about rules. But all churches pass around the money plate, right?

Dee described mathematics as a third part of something between and part of a physical and spiritual reality. I'd suggest math, and geometry, would be the same on any planet in any star system in any galaxy. In fact, in all that Space and across all Time past and future math is the same. Numbers are Key, the Key. I believe Dee was onto something that nobody has yet to reach his Knowledge since.

Just my thoughts. No offense to anybody who has religion or is religious.

33 is a "Third" (actually 33.33333333...), part of any Trinity of whatever, and 33 is the Simple cipher of BACON. FRANCIS is 67, and maybe that is why Dee suggested to Elizabeth that her son William's name until he became Prince would add up to 100.

Just my thoughts again...

😉

 

I would say the pinpointing is an attempt to find meaning in things using what we have as conceptualizations, be they primitive or not. Absent of anything else, there are similarities and observable patterns in things. That alone can suggest intent to someone. How can there be patterns if they were not intended? Well, we know from number alone that there are patterns that emerge from every set of rules. Reality has to have rules. The past, present and future cannot exist all at once. That would be the definition of nothing, because starts and ends would overlap. That suggests a ruler maker in charge of time  (the separation of nothing into something of a duration) for some people. 

What you say about Dee may suggest to someone that there are different rules for some since it is alleged that some have found a way around the rules that apply to everyone else.  This might cause someone to speak of someone having  a "gift", but who is giving out the gifts? Is it an example of emerging capability of the mind to be able to travel in time? How does one account for it? First step is to be skeptical. Second step is to verify. That not terribly wasy to do with dead people.

What we are in the possession of is a mystery, and I am of the opinion that the mystery is very much like the mystery that was described as being locked up in Enoch's vault. I would even go as far to suggest that it resides in the mind of Enoch (his vault is his skull which tends to be shown a lot as a symbol in the esoteric). We lack the ability to understand our own minds, and our own futures. That is mainly because we lack a theory of matter. What we know very well is how to describe our experience of consciousness. What we cannot do at all is tell anyone what reality is made up of and what the properties of it are. This is counterintuitive to most people. Many presuppose Science has its finger firmly on matter and that consciousness is a mystery to us. We know consciousness very well. Our abilities to do, or not to be able to do,  certain things tell us what the limits are. 

The thing about any prediction is that it can be a self fulfilling prophecy.  The other difficulty is that history is often written by untrustworthy sources. There is a strong bias for writers to want to have us accept narratives they are peddling. Those who write in a narrative style are often more successful, because humans are attracted to that.  I suggest that you write by exploiting "threes" if you do write. We like that.

If knowing was easy we would know more than we do. It's not helped by protecting the freedom to deceive and to lie. We have favored "Caveat Emptor" in order that some might win at games of faction building. The great difficulty of our time is that we are growing less able to create commonly accept narratives.  Without myths we would require truths, and that is what we struggle with when distrust is high because of the proliferation of bullshit.

[Light-of-Truth]

6 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

The past, present and future cannot exist all at once. That would be the definition of nothing, because starts and ends would overlap.

You are not up on some theories I have read. Remember how limited we are in what we can conceive within our language based thoughts. I'll argue that past, present, and future may absolutely exists at once but we as humans don't know how to think about that.

6 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

We know consciousness very well.

I don't think we do at all. In fact, we can barely describe what it is, much less how it works.

Maybe Eternity is an Instant, and Infinity is a Point. And everything in the Universe is connected as One in that indescribable place.

<-- 1881 -->

Isn't that was Dee and Bacon are trying to teach us. 😉

 

 

[Light-of-Truth]

7 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

The past, present and future cannot exist all at once.

ChatGPT offers a few thoughts...

The idea that the past, present, and future might exist simultaneously is a fascinating concept that has been explored in various scientific and philosophical theories. While these theories are not universally accepted within the scientific community, they offer interesting perspectives on the nature of time and the universe. Here are a few modern theories and ideas related to this concept:

1. Block Universe Theory: The block universe theory, also known as the "block time" or "four-dimensionalism," suggests that time is like a static, four-dimensional block where all events—past, present, and future—exist simultaneously. This theory is often associated with the theory of special relativity proposed by Albert Einstein, in which the distinction between past, present, and future is relative and dependent on an observer's perspective.

2. Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of Quantum Mechanics: MWI is a quantum mechanical interpretation that posits the existence of multiple parallel universes branching off from each quantum event. In this view, all possible outcomes of quantum events exist simultaneously in separate branches of reality. While this theory doesn't directly address the existence of past, present, and future simultaneously, it challenges our conventional notions of causality and suggests that all possible outcomes exist in some sense.

3. Eternalism: Eternalism is a philosophical view that aligns with the block universe theory. It asserts that time is akin to a spatial dimension and that all events in time are equally real and existent. Past, present, and future events are all parts of this timeless four-dimensional reality.

4. Wheeler-DeWitt Equation: In the field of theoretical physics, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is an attempt to formulate a quantum theory of gravity. It has been suggested that this equation implies that the universe may not have a preferred "now" or a unique flow of time, suggesting that the past, present, and future could exist simultaneously in some quantum description of the universe.

5. String Theory and M-Theory: Some versions of string theory and its extension, M-theory, propose that there may be multiple dimensions beyond the familiar three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. In these theories, it's possible that different aspects of reality, including the past, present, and future, could be interconnected through higher-dimensional space-time.

It's important to note that these theories are highly speculative and often the subject of ongoing debate among scientists and philosophers. They challenge our intuitive understanding of time and the universe, and there is no definitive experimental evidence to support the idea that the past, present, and future exist simultaneously. As such, they remain intriguing but speculative concepts in the realm of theoretical physics and philosophy.

[RoyalCraftiness]

12 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

ChatGPT offers a few thoughts...

The idea that the past, present, and future might exist simultaneously is a fascinating concept that has been explored in various scientific and philosophical theories. While these theories are not universally accepted within the scientific community, they offer interesting perspectives on the nature of time and the universe. Here are a few modern theories and ideas related to this concept:

1. Block Universe Theory: The block universe theory, also known as the "block time" or "four-dimensionalism," suggests that time is like a static, four-dimensional block where all events—past, present, and future—exist simultaneously. This theory is often associated with the theory of special relativity proposed by Albert Einstein, in which the distinction between past, present, and future is relative and dependent on an observer's perspective.

2. Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of Quantum Mechanics: MWI is a quantum mechanical interpretation that posits the existence of multiple parallel universes branching off from each quantum event. In this view, all possible outcomes of quantum events exist simultaneously in separate branches of reality. While this theory doesn't directly address the existence of past, present, and future simultaneously, it challenges our conventional notions of causality and suggests that all possible outcomes exist in some sense.

3. Eternalism: Eternalism is a philosophical view that aligns with the block universe theory. It asserts that time is akin to a spatial dimension and that all events in time are equally real and existent. Past, present, and future events are all parts of this timeless four-dimensional reality.

4. Wheeler-DeWitt Equation: In the field of theoretical physics, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is an attempt to formulate a quantum theory of gravity. It has been suggested that this equation implies that the universe may not have a preferred "now" or a unique flow of time, suggesting that the past, present, and future could exist simultaneously in some quantum description of the universe.

5. String Theory and M-Theory: Some versions of string theory and its extension, M-theory, propose that there may be multiple dimensions beyond the familiar three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. In these theories, it's possible that different aspects of reality, including the past, present, and future, could be interconnected through higher-dimensional space-time.

It's important to note that these theories are highly speculative and often the subject of ongoing debate among scientists and philosophers. They challenge our intuitive understanding of time and the universe, and there is no definitive experimental evidence to support the idea that the past, present, and future exist simultaneously. As such, they remain intriguing but speculative concepts in the realm of theoretical physics and philosophy.

They do not exist simultaneously at the same place. Put it that way. If everything was happening all at once where you were you'd be born and dead at the same time. In all of these cases there's a way to separate events into their own little niches. Relativity presupposes a time separation, but allows the perception of events to shift. The event is just an event somewhere. Those who see it might see it coming before or after some other. It still does have its place in its own local space. To say that there is a future already out there and that we are just travelling to it is a sort of determinism that no one subscribes to. There is a known degree of freedom to our systems. There are no universal limits on all the variables in our reality. The wind can blow this or that way. There are large multi variable systems where the variables feed back into each other. This leads to unfathomable complexity which we perceive as regular higher level patterns or else we we see nothing but noise.

Science theorizes without having a theory of matter. When there are unknowns just about anything can be trotted out which accounts for one feature or another that we see. It's part of the hopelessness of science which demands observation and confirmation. We're feeling our way in a dark cave. I don't think it is possible to get to a verifiable theory of matter. All we can do is deal with our conscious experiences that are very iffy to begin with. The theories we end up getting aren't even based in a scientific method. In fact, I was watching a very good podcast yesterday where the esteemed guest proposed that there is not even a scientific method at play, because none exists. After listening to his point I would tend to agree with it. All a scientific method encompasses is using one's reason. Plato was doing that when he suggested that ideas could be equated to triangles on some level (as forms) in reality. How we reason is really what distinguishes us from others. There's no doubt that there are people in this world who reason differently. That is to say they are willing to consider absolutely anything that might explain the features they think are in this reality. For some there is magic, and that magic gets given an explanation in something as wishy washy as the theories you list. Without a theory of matter one can even suggest that there is a consciousness to everything we can imagine. How would one prove that to be true or untrue? Those who like that have a degree of freedom to see it that way. That in itself is evidence that we do not have determinism. 

The AI cannot know. It is acing like a an assistant and trying to act upon a command in way that is pleasing to you. Are humans the same? Are we just very good at finding and listing the existing ideas written about? In a very large number of cases I have noticed that it throws out that "these are not accepted views". Well, what are? 

[RoyalCraftiness]

13 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

You are not up on some theories I have read. Remember how limited we are in what we can conceive within our language based thoughts. I'll argue that past, present, and future may absolutely exists at once but we as humans don't know how to think about that.

I don't think we do at all. In fact, we can barely describe what it is, much less how it works.

Maybe Eternity is an Instant, and Infinity is a Point. And everything in the Universe is connected as One in that indescribable place.

<-- 1881 -->

Isn't that was Dee and Bacon are trying to teach us. 😉

 

 

You, or I, have zero idea of a theory of matter. You, and I, are intimately experienced with our consciousnesses. Why would you want to try and convince yourself that you do not know what it is like to be conscious? The experience is what it is. There is no other explanation. It's not more real at the mechanistic level.  Matter, on the other hand, is fundamentally unknown. We can't experience what it is like to be a light beam. We do not know any of the fundamental properties of anything we consider. What we do is to try and align our theories with our experiences. We are biasing for our consciousness when it comes to matter.

For the record, I'm aware of all the theories you probably think I am not aware of. Ask yourself where they come from . They come from a place where we are looking for explanation that are consistent with features of reality. There is no other basis for them. They don't exist because we have evidence for them or because we have tested for them and been encouraged. None are distinguishable from the idea we are just living in a mathematical simulation where the computations are happening from the smallest levels up to the largest.

[Light-of-Truth]

5 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

You, or I, have zero idea of a theory of matter. You, and I, are intimately experienced with our consciousnesses. Why would you want to try and convince yourself that you do not know what it is like to be conscious? The experience is what it is. There is no other explanation. It's not more real at the mechanistic level.  Matter, on the other hand, is fundamentally unknown. We can't experience what it is like to be a light beam. We do not know any of the fundamental properties of anything we consider. What we do is to try and align our theories with our experiences. We are biasing for our consciousness when it comes to matter.

For the record, I'm aware of all the theories you probably think I am not aware of. Ask yourself where they come from . They come from a place where we are looking for explanation that are consistent with features of reality. There is no other basis for them. They don't exist because we have evidence for them or because we have tested for them and been encouraged. None are distinguishable from the idea we are just living in a mathematical simulation where the computations are happening from the smallest levels up to the largest.

Oh CJ, you speak with such conviction from inside the Bubble. 😉

 

[RoyalCraftiness]

2 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Oh CJ, you speak with such conviction from inside the Bubble. 😉

 

You mean from inside the monad, right? I never thought of the monad as a bubble...Riemannian geometry is not much fun.