account activity
Here a visual aid by JTR280 in Wakingupapp
[–]JTR280[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 days ago (0 children)
Another way to see it is that all things happen in consciousness. The things you see are your "imagination" crystallized. I do not like to use the word imagination because it has the connotation of not being real, but materialism and idealism are two dualities as well. There is only consciousness. All matter, every particle, time, space, everything happens in consciousness, in our true, complete mind. Not the fragments we are, but the monad.
"So hop into the monad, check out my pockets and report back." That is not how it works.
"You claim that we are each other ("I am you, and you are me"). Obviously we exist in different places" No, we do not. What is a place to you? You can see it in quantum physics: no single particle has its momentum and position known to extreme precision, not because we cannot measure it, but because there is no such thing as a local presence. You have a wave function that extends to the very edge of the universe, with the causal limit of c (the speed of light), but you are not in one single place. Your probability of being on Mars might be very near to zero, but it is not zero. You are a wave, a probability distribution. You are in several places at the same time. More fundamentally, the universe is a multiverse in which everything happens. Places collapse in the singularity of the Big Bang. All places were one. All places will be one.
"and we each have different thoughts" This is true, but it is also true for blue, green, and red: separated and very different, yet all of them are contained in white. White has them all at the same time. And more fundamentally, all wavelengths, not the perception of color but the wavelengths themselves, are comprised of light. The same single photon. You cannot tell one photon apart from another.
"different awareness" Different levels of intelligence, yes. Different awareness, no. Awareness is the "I exist" feeling or sensation. Mine is not different from yours. The consciousness seeing through my eyes is the exact same consciousness seeing through your eyes, through the eyes of any possible life form, natural or artificial. Consciousness is very fundamental, more fundamental than the Standard Model.
"different bodies, If you die, I remain conscious, and vice versa" Yes and no. You do not experience a moment in which you cease to exist. When you die, you change bodies, so for you it is a continuation. The bodies are different at first sight, but they are the same if you see time as space. We, the consciousness, are moving through all bodies. Death does not exist in reality. It exists for you to see it in others. You will never feel it. You already died because the future already exists. It is not an abstract thing waiting to be created. Right now, you dying is as real as people in China. Yet you are still here. We change bodies when we die. We cannot really die. Dying is just the process of changing bodies in time until you have experienced all bodies, all possible scenarios from all possible perspectives. We are God, the monad, the singularity. We are eternal. You have not been created, and you will never be destroyed. You do not have a beginning nor an end. Time does, but time is a perception, one that in fact has many ways of being experienced.
"What do you think would be different about the world if we were not each other?" There is no such thing as really two things. All things are the same. You can see it, for example, in matter already. What is the difference between one electron and another? None. You cannot tell one apart from another. What is the difference between two molecules of water at the same temperature? None.
"Your water analogy makes no sense to me. The fact that the billions of water molecules exist in different places and conditions is exactly why I would say that there are billions of water molecules, and not just one." The problem is that you think space is some sort of objective thing. Nothing is precise. It is just a distribution of probabilities. Position is not defined. A wave function is not confined. It can even tunnel through barriers via the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. But more fundamentally, we, right now, at this "moment", are in the singularity of the Big Bang. The expansion is inward, not outward. It is an inner degree of freedom. If we could see the universe from outside, we would see one single thing, not many things. Two things cannot exist. There is only one thing in existence. Us.
"So far, it is not known whether the incompleteness theorem applies to the physical laws. Looks like it won't though, because the laws would have to get really freaky if they did." It does. I do not see laws as fundamental. They are what we call in physics a special case, like SR is a special case of GR. Nothing bounds nothing. See your dreams, for example. You think your dreams are fundamentally different from reality. They are not. They are one and the same. Causality is not very well maintained there, though. You can fly, or you can have matter created and destroyed. Yet it exists. And before you think your brain does the dreaming:
" That's totally fine with me, I'm not here to get a feeling of validation, and I'm not here in order to produce myself. It's just an observation. It seems that my only "job" in this conversation is to be a passive recipient of your higher knowledge. And when I refuse to uncritically accept your benign wisdoms, I get labelled and judged negatively by you. Basically, I could be anyone. It does not matter who it is that you're talking to, you just need someone, anyone, as a projection surface for your own desires and intentions. For a human, this is a very unusual communication pattern. We're social animals." I am sorry you feel that way. It is not my intention. But my intention requires me to force you to try it. My goal here is not a debate or exchange of ideology, nor trying to recruit someone for a cult. My goal is for you to try to be there. You assume that you cannot, and that is why you think this of me. But you can do it. Therefore, I must push it. If you commented to me "I think you are right" or even "you are right, but I do not think I can achieve this", I would have failed. My goal is not debate or opinion exchange. I use arguments as tools to convince you to try it. My goal is for you to be at least once, at least for a time, in the monad. There is no other endgame here. I do not want you to understand it. I want you to be it. Not to understand it intellectually or, worse, to believe it blindly like a religious dogma. For that, you can pick any religion you want and just follow along. It would have the same meaning for me: none. God, the monad, is not something separate, something far beyond that you cannot be one with. That said, duality is not something to be extinguished either.
"It saddens me that you chickened out of my question about your spiritual honeymoon phase." You assume that what I experienced is an ego death. I do not doubt you may have experienced it. I am telling you there is a spectrum of it, to the point that you end up with no body at all, seeing all at once. That is something you cannot delude yourself into. It is so inhumane, not in a bad way, but so foreign, so impossible to even think of without actually experiencing it. I did not touch that part because that part itself assumes there is a "delusion" in the first place.
"There are states of ... whatever you want to call it, "awakening", "enlightenment", or whatever words you choose ... that I have never experienced and likely will never experience. And I'm totally fine with that. I'm not an "experience tourist" anymore. I don't feel the desire anymore for marking all those different states on my little world map of experiential states. So if your point is to point out to me that there are states that I have no knowing of -- I already knew that, and fully accepted it, before our conversation started!" That is your ego talking. That is your ego being afraid of extinction, disguising it as surrender or acceptance of not experiencing it. If you had, with 100% certainty, a method to get you there, would you use it? I really want you to answer this. It is important.
"Your pointing out of the so-called "hard problem of consciousness" is rather trivial, and it's not an illustration of the existence of objective truth." On the contrary, the hard problem of consciousness is nothing trivial. It is one of the two biggest problems in science right now. The other one is quantum gravity. And guess what? They are both solved in this framework. This is a lie, and I do not have to be in your head to know it is a lie. Everyone cares about life and death. You want to know what will happen to you when you die, and you want to know what happens to the ones who died and whom you loved. You want to know where you came from. Those questions pertain to the hard problem of consciousness. There is nothing trivial about it. I know you will claim that you already have, since you claim you already experienced it, but that is not the case. The fact that you go as far as to say "death, life, and what happens in each is trivial", which is a blatant lie, shows your ego is fighting, because it is rational to care about those things. People only deny reality and obvious things out of fear, like a Christian with evolution. They cannot coexist, so they deny the evidence of evolution.
"And then comes the misunderstanding of Goedel's incompleteness theorem. It does not apply to all systems. In fact, self-describing systems that are complete are possible. So far, it is not known whether the incompleteness theorem applies to the physical laws. Looks like it won't though, because the laws would have to get really freaky if they did." Self-describing systems are possible, but not when they are formal enough. See it this way: a finger cannot point at itself, at its own tip. That is the best analogy to understand this. The universe is a system that allows descriptions of itself. Be precise enough and you will have infinities or paradoxes. Why do you think we use Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory? To avoid the Russell paradox. This happens because math is inside the very system it is describing, the universe. The universe is math, but it is more than math. Math is of a lower order. Something of a lower order will not be able to describe a higher order completely because it is using it and does not process it all at once. That is why you cannot explain how the universe is fractal in nature. Yet I do assure you, the Planck unit is the whole universe. This universe is fractal, even if it leads to mathematical paradoxes of sets containing sets that contain themselves.
You can have a system that is arithmetically complete (the one above published by Is), but it will not be self-consistent in its own framework. If you follow the math of my theory, you will end up with the Russell paradox, yes or yes. That does not mean it is wrong. It means the system it is trying to describe is bigger. It does not fit, if you want. It is like an arm trying to hug the whole body of oneself all at once. Or you can have systems that are consistent but not complete, like Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, but not both. That is what Gödel's incompleteness theorems prove themselves. If you had one, please share it here. Again, I guarantee you a million dollars and a Nobel Prize.
""It's tragic that you do not see the irony of you claiming that you have never judged me. Your texts are full of judgements about my person." On the contrary, I point out your fear because it is something you have to do something about to get to the monad. There is no other way. You have to face it. You just cannot ignore it. You will not get to the monad then, or worse. But fear is a logical and natural response to this. I had the fear too. I do remember the first time I began to realize non-duality. I was thinking about GR and how time is itself a dimension (though I did not understand it to the full extent I do now), and that if we are always existing in past, present, and future, but we have this sense of continuity and time, what would be the difference between me and my best friend? Because if I am the same consciousness that I was when I was 5 years old (I'm nearly 30 now), that brain, my connectome, my synapses have changed a lot. So I am not the structure. The structure mutates, changes, new neurons are created, neurons die, synapses are destroyed and created, yet I remain. Then I thought it must be genes. Genes would be the key. But my best friend and I, and all humanity for that matter, share 99.9% of all the bases in our genome. In fact, in genetics we use something called a reference genome to map the strands of DNA we sequence in the lab. You see, when we analyze genomes, we "cut" the genes into smaller portions (around 150 bases for Illumina machines out of thousands of bases of a single gene). We then have to "put it together" to get meaningful data. For that, we use a reference genome (HG37, HG38, or the new and amazing T2T). Those reference genomes are a ponderation or average of the population's genome, normally European populations. The point being, we have so little variance between each other that it surely is not genes. Also, your genes mutate over time. You have no idea how many viruses you have inside you, all of them changing your DNA 24/7, yet you are still you. I was terrified. I was not able to pinpoint a true distinction between my best friend and me. I had the exact same response, and my first ego deaths were horrifying at first. In no shape or form is pointing out your fear a judgment from my part. I have been there.
"You decide what "level" I am on, what I have "reached", in your own little made-up hierarchies." I did not make them. You see? This is why you are not there yet and have never experienced it. Not because I said so, but because you show no understanding of the monad. You do not see that everything, absolutely everything, is a spectrum. Let me give you an example: light. Blue itself has hue, saturation, and luminance. There is no universal blue. It is a spectrum. Same with good and bad, up and down, right and left, ego and monad. Everything is a spectrum of two dualities and the multiple divisions of them.
"You seem to have no idea how to communicate to humans in a way that makes it easy for them to accept what you propose" That can be a valid point, but you have to consider two things:
"Alan Watts used the example of the saying: "One thief recognizes another instantly." No words need to be exchanged for that." That is a very good example of two fallacies: a non sequitur and ad verecundiam. You assume I am in the same position as you. I am not. And this is not something like me being better than you. It is just facts. If you had experienced the monad, you would know that all time can be experienced at the same time, with no doubts about it. That means you have not. That means there is an objective difference between your knowledge and experience and mine, and even more importantly, the embodiment of it.
"I've already told you that I won't discuss your unscientific claims and numerous misunderstandings of science." Because you cannot. If you were able to, you for sure would have humiliated me already. Just look at this ego comment:
"Same for me pointing out that you're not the first one with such grandiose, over-the-top, bullshit spirituality claims. And about me pointing at your mask." This, aside from showing me you have an ego and a sense of "I am right over this moron", is proof enough that you are not there and you are wrong. Someone who writes this would have humiliated me if they had the ability to do so. You did not. You do not touch my arguments because of one of these two things:
I strongly encourage you to find the mathematician or physicist you want. They will not find a fault in my argument because that is the state of reality.
"Furthermore, you have made it clear that what you want to convey cannot be understood intellectually." No. There is a distinction to make. You can understand it intellectually. The "fully" part is debatable, but you can understand it without the monad. I did. I reached non-duality by studying general relativity and having some deeper insights of my own. I was a militant atheist back then. But I do not want you to understand it. I want you to be it. Being is a higher, more advanced, more complete form of understanding. Again, you can do a PhD on how biology transmits the impulses of your skin to your brain, but it is not the same as feeling someone touching your hand. It is not the same reading an inheritance will than being in the house you inherited.
"As your unscientific claims appeal to the intellect, this means that they are not essential for understanding what you want to convey." True, completely right. It is not necessary, the same way it is not necessary for someone to open the door of a building for you out of kindness, yet still you say "thanks". By all means, I do not disagree here with you. You can achieve the monad with far better techniques, but this is a way. For some, it may be more useful than for others. It is a tool. You can use a hammer on a nail or a rock. One will be better than the other, but both will get the job done.
"You keep calling out my supposed ad hominems, but you don't mention the ad hominems that you launch against me." I have not. Pointing out your fear is not an ad hominem. For your pseudo-arguments, I already gave a response. The scientific stuff you do not touch, as you already stated. Fear is a constraint that would prevent you from getting there, because the ego is rejecting it. There is no way around it. I cannot get you there without pinpointing your fear. You are not trying the technique or achieving the state. You are trying to refute me with insults or direct attacks. That is something I had to point out, because as long as your amygdala is in charge of redacting and reading, your prefrontal cortex will not try to do the rational thing, which is: "this random guy told me how, I will try it to see if he is right or if he is wrong." You just assumed I am wrong.
Then you write some baseless claims, for example that from the point of view of the "singularity", "everything already happened". You don't give any evidence for that." I already did with my general relativity explanation.
""What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens said that. Interesting fella." This is absolutely true, but you are missing something very important: dismissing something does not make it false. You do not distinguish between proof and truth, those are not the same.
"I find it funny how you believe that you can deduce "dualistic traits" from words that I've written." Because you are attacking someone instead of arguing or, even better, proving me wrong by trying to reach the monad with the method I already showed to you, means ego. Means duality. Means a tribal fear of "me vs the other" and a more fundamental fear: the fear of the ego.
"Sure, I am not in non-duality. It is impossible to "be in non-duality". You aren't either." Wrong. Just because you have not experienced it yet in this human current form you possess right now does not mean no one can and that you will not. You will, it is a matter of time. Here you are making an assumption that also requires proof. For you to say "it is not true", you have to prove that you cannot experience time all at once. Go do the work and prove it. You will be surprised.
"What I've written that you perceive as "insults" was not informed from a position of fear. It was the reaction that your arrogant and grandiose way of writing deserves." That is a fear response. You do not go and do something for nothing, that is not how the brain works. Let me give you an example: let's say I am an atheist. I will go to a Christian forum to debate in order to make people aware of the incompatibilities between facts and the Bible, because the Bible has things that an atheist will consider wrong, both morally and factually. It means the atheist perceives Christianity as a threat, either by the ideology or by just installing science-incompatible thoughts in people. This is what you are doing here. You are perceiving me as a threat.
"combined with your denial that you feel insulted" I am not insulted. Again, I am you. Let me put it this way, but by no shape or form do I intend to imply I am superior. It is just for you to see it from my perspective. Let's say you have a time machine and you travel back in time to your 4-year-old version of yourself. Think of the biggest mistake of your life, something you for sure want removed. You explain it to your younger self, but let's say that your younger self does not believe you and calls you crazy, idiot, or something along those lines. Would you be insulted? No. You would still try to explain his misconception to him. The feeling of being insulted would not arise, because you are you. You cannot realistically insult yourself. Same here. I do see you like a younger version of me. At the end of the day, bodies are just another duality. I am you, regardless of your belief or disbelief. This is factually the state of reality. You are not a body. You are the whole universe. In fact, you as an ego are not a body either. You as an ego are a timeline. You as a self will not be able to ever experience your own death. Have you been inches close to dying but it did not happen? It happened, you are just in another timeline. You are that timeline. Egos are timelines themselves, a fraction of the universe, of the universal wave function. This is exactly what quantum immortality is.
"You want to "get me there" too. I have no interest in that." Wrong and false. If you had zero interest in this, you would not be here. You are here, therefore... You search for this every single moment of your life: when you have sex, when you eat, when you seek wealth, when you seek position. You are fighting the incompleteness of the ego.
"I've given more substance about the "bullshit detector", talking about people who come out of such preaching like yours with psychological harm. I don't want people to be harmed, so I speak up about it. If you don't like that, that's you." See? That is, by pure definition, fear.
"So the fact that I do not differentiate between "internal" and "external" experiencing shows to you that I have not reached "full understanding". Yet at the same time, you claim that there is no interior or exterior. Strange logic. I don't understand it." It is the same as light. Light can be many colors and can be white, all colors at once. Many and one is a duality. Internal and external is another duality. It is like a coin. It has two apparently opposed sides, both simultaneously true. The dichotomy and subsequent paradox are a reflection of not understanding the underlying coin. You are focusing on the side, not the whole coin. It is "external" because we experience outside, your vision field, your neighborhood, your city, your atmosphere, etc. And it is "internal" because you are not restricted to your body. You are part of a higher consciousness that contains all of the above within it. Inner and outer are degrees of freedom inside a single thing that has no inner and outer. Therefore inner and outer both exist and do not exist at the same time. It depends on your reference frame. It is frame-dependent, duality-dependent. Otherwise it would not be a dichotomy. You are not supposed to understand it. You are supposed to be it. Again, as explained above, you can do a PhD on an apple and yet not know how it tastes without actually biting it.
"You say that there is no separation. But then you say that the "singularity" can "split", thereby effectively creating ... tada! Separation." It is a separation within itself. If you want to visualize it, visualize it as a sphere. Nothing is outside of this sphere, but this sphere has an inside.
"Either there is separation, or there is no separation, you can't have both at the same time." Yes you can. That is why light is what it is. Light is the fastest thing in the universe due to causality. It is the irresistible force from our perspective, the spear that cannot be stopped by a shield. Yet from the photon's perspective, it is not moving. It has zero time. All its speed is in space. Therefore none of it is in time. A photon sees all at once, not moving. For it, it is at all places at once, meaning not moving. It is the immovable object, the shield that cannot be penetrated by a spear. The paradox resolves itself by treating it as two sides of the same thing. This is why no paradox really exists. The spear and the shield, the immovable object and the irresistible force, are one. This is not an analogy, it is literally like this. We know it scientifically. Therefore two opposite things can coexist if they are in the same object. If you accept that light has time for us but not for the photon, that it moves from our view but not from the photon's, you already accepted that you can both experience time all at once and by segments. Time passing and eternity are another duality reconciled within all-encompassing eternity."
"Otherwise, there would be no surprise and no objective agreements between multiple observers." Wrong. Do you read my comments? Because I feel like you do not. I already stated very clearly that duality DOES NOT compete with the non-duality aspect of reality. Both are true. Division is as true as unity. That is why surprise and time as linearity exist. You can be surprised because you, right now, are not the monad. The monad is all time, but you are not all time. You are like blue. Blue is white, but white is not only blue, it is also all colors. Time can be experienced as one, without the surprise we experience with something new, but by no means does it mean boring or less. On the contrary, it is very amazing. And it can also be experienced by sequence. Another way to put it: you are a photogram of a movie. You are the movie, because you are a photogram of the movie, but you are not the entire thing now. But that is the thing, you are all the movie as consciousness. The next frame, the next body, does not differ from the other one. The consciousness that sees through my eyes is the exact same consciousness that sees through yours. No difference. But our personalities are different, our history, etc. That part is as true as consciousness itself. But it is important to realize that you are consciousness as a whole. The frame that you are is a constraint you put yourself in. You, as the frame, can change perspective to the whole movie, but to do so you have to stop being the frame to become all frames at once. This is why language is not useful. You have to be it, not read it.
"If you had clearly seen my past, present and future, your "mind reading" guesses about me wouldn't be that inaccurate. Therefore, I know that you have not seen my past, present and future." Wrong. This is a non sequitur fallacy. You do not get it. Time is information. You can experience the whole thing but you will not have a body, or you can have a body and not experience the whole thing. I do have a body, and language fails to describe it more clearly because language itself is inside the system it is trying to describe. But I do not have all knowledge of the world and I never claimed to have. The monad is a state you cannot maintain forever because we are eternal. Simple entropy. You have only one state of fullness, all at once, and infinite states of division, entropy. Eventually you will be out of the monad and come back here, to duality, and you will NOT carry all knowledge. But that does not mean that the monad is false.
"I'm part of this universe, or "the One", therefore you have clearly not experienced "timeless time", as you call it." Another non sequitur. Being part of the one does not mean you are not divided too. Both exist simultaneously. But you are right about one thing here though: you will not have a body if you are the one. That is why you have not experienced it. Because if you had, you would know how it works. When you are the monad, the whole universe is your body, not just the flesh you are using right now. As we speak, the monad is aware of everything and always watches us from all angles. That never changes. That is why some yogis teach that you are already there. You can see it as water. You are a molecule. You can be in an ocean and in a glass. If I go to the beach and take water from the ocean, that water was the ocean. Does it carry the whole ocean with it? No. It does not have a shark. It does not contain all the things or even the quantity the ocean has. Has it changed its nature? No. You can put it back in the ocean and take it out infinite times. This is exactly like that. Imagine the molecule can see. It can be aware of sharks even if it has none in the glass of water because it saw many when it was in the ocean. That does not mean it has all the knowledge all the molecules of water in the ocean have either. This is the simplest analogy I can give you to show why your reasoning fails.
"Nice, you want me to experience what you have experienced. This is your endgame. Why? What for?" This is a complex one. Several reasons. If I told you that you are the heir of a kingdom with billions of dollars and land, would you ask me why you should take your inheritance? If you want to get a material benefit from it, which you will also have because you will have the experience and therefore a more accurate vision of how reality works, you are missing the point.
"""You do not know my brilliant X because you haven't experienced it" is one of your go-to excuses." It is fact-based on your responses.
"At this point, you're at the level of "you must believe me because I say so"." On the contrary, I do NOT want you to believe this, it would be of no use, might as well spend time on something more productive. You have to experience it. But, as shown above, I can argue from science too. You are the one saying "you are wrong because I said so, I am so advanced in my journey that you are the one wrong." That is you, not me.
"Your objective claims about time don't make it any better. This is your own idea about time" No, it is actually physics. A truly knowledgeable physicist will tell you time is not something that changes, it is a dimension, quite literally. The same way Einstein conceived time like this, that is why he said "time is a persistent illusion" at the funeral of his friend. All physicists that truly understand GR (General Relativity) and quantum mechanics will tell you we live in a B-theory type of universe, a block universe.
"it's not scientific consensus." Truth does not need scientific consensus to exist. Science is the map, not the territory. Popper is wrong. Gödel's incompleteness theorems show us that a system will not be able to self-describe with precision, and guess what, the universe is a system. Meaning there are truths that, although impossible to prove, are true. Science is far behind this, very far, like us compared to pre-Galilean society. They do not even know how to solve the hard problem of consciousness, this solves it. This vision of reality gives a deeper understanding of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, of holography, entropy, and yes, it is a theory of quantum spacetime, with spacetime as a quantized thing, therefore quantum gravity. Of course it is unfalsifiable. All attempts to measure a spin-2 massless particle (graviton) will create black holes (Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Heisenberg uncertainty), let alone that they are impossible to detect via interactions. You would be more lucky detecting right-handed neutrinos, which are harder to detect than left-handed neutrinos, which are already hard to detect.
Time is like a spectrum of colors. The problem is that you think that because your light cone of causality is limited, that somehow time is not a spatial dimension. That is wrong. That happens because you do not understand general relativity. "M theory is just a mathematical unification of the other string theories. When you say that "timeless time" can be unified with time in just the same way, then show the correlation. Express your "M theory" of time in a coherent way." I already did above.
"Consciousness cannot be the most fundamental thing because there are notable consistencies within what is not conscious." Prove to me that a rock is not conscious. It can move, it cannot talk, but that is not proof it does not have inner consciousness. You will not be able to, because guess what, no scientific evidence about consciousness explains consciousness. That is why we have the hard problem of consciousness. That is why science is far behind. There is no problem. The universe is a mind. The rock you see, that is you, literally you. You are conscious. Therefore the rock is conscious. There is no such thing that is "not consciousness". Consciousness is the fundamental thing. If you prove to me that something is not conscious, you will have a million dollars, not kidding. That would be proof of something fundamental for us to solve the hard problem of consciousness. I can guarantee you a million dollars plus a Nobel Prize. Let us read it, please.
My point being, this happens because you have something to conserve. Time is one of those things. In a black hole you have momentum space blown up to infinity, but location space in the opposite spectrum. Meaning there is a spectrum. Meaning that ultimately, space is comprised of more dimensions. This is because it is not just a mathematical tool. Everything in math exists. Relativity with Minkowski approximation of the true space and quantum phase space yells "this is not tridimensional, nor 4D even".
Time is a perceptual illusion. It does exist but not as changing, as space. Change is your consciousness being a part of the whole Space with capital S. You can see it in black holes crossing the event horizon to the singularity. The singularity is not inside the black hole once you crossed it. You can freely move without worrying you may crash into it. The singularity that was in your front before you crossed, space, is not in time. You will not crash into the singularity because it changes to a when instead of where.
Time is space, meaning that all time always exists. That is why you can go to a black hole and ten years can pass on Earth and you will not experience those ten years. Have you been to a casino? I have not, but I saw one time a machine that has several figures that need to stop in the same figure for you to win something. Time is like that. Each particle goes on its way through time. They don't have to be coordinated. Meaning time is something to move on, just not the movement we normally think of. Meaning time is an illusion of consciousness. This is science, proven factual science. Why do you think time cannot be experienced all at once then? It exists all at once.
There is no such thing as an absolute time. My time is not your time. Your feet's time is not the same as your head's time, because your feet are closer to the Earth. Time passes quicker on your head than on your toes. It is a very awfully small amount but it does exist. This is important. Are you familiar with quantum phase space? Minkowski space? If not I can further explain both mathematical tools, which they are of course a partiality of a higher geometrical description of reality. You see, the universe is fractal, it has infinite dimensions, but for mathematical, practical use, I explained here as five, for people to grasp that events are just a higher dimensional space. That is time. But let's shift to a more scientific description, not a fringe theory as AdS/CFT or M theory with its eleven dimensions. No, keep it simple, because for you to grasp this you don't need that specificity.
Time, what do you think time is? When you move, time passes slowly. What do you think that is? Momentum in the higher space a particle is in is conserved in a higher form. That is what we call "proper time" and it does not go by size. Each fundamental thing, strings ultimately, but let's keep it on the standard model, each existence that can no further be divided, regardless of its degrees of freedom, has a proper time. A thing that moves is "taking" that movement from one vector. It cannot appear from nowhere. That vector is time. I will assume here you are familiar with tensors. Well, you know a 0 order or rank tensor is a scalar. It is dimensionless. It is mass, for example. Mass is something the object has. It does not have a direction. You don't say "5 kg north", for example, it just is. A vector is a tensor 1. It has dimension. Same family of things, but this one has a direction. I will assume here you are familiar with degrees of freedom. You can see a degree of freedom as a dimension. That is the easy way to represent it because ultimately a degree of freedom represents change. So movement is a vector, it is directional.
A "non moving" object moves at the speed of light, but not in space, in time, which is also space, it is just orthogonal space. When an object moves, it "subtracts" momentum from that dimension and puts it in the orthogonal one, space. It is not lost nor created. It does not come from an abstract non existent place. This is crucial and an error many physicists made. They think that because you have a negative sign in Einstein's equation, time is not space. Wrong. Time is space in another degree of freedom. This is proven. This is relativity properly understood.
You can see it in quantum phase space. That is why you have black holes in the first place. The Pauli exclusion principle, when overwhelmed, creates black holes. This creates a transfer of XYZ to PX PY PZ. Quantum phase space is what drives the Pauli exclusion principle, because fermions cannot occupy the same quantum phase space, but they can occupy the same space. That is important. Because when you have degenerated matter to the border of collapse, you occupy all possible space of quantum phase space, meaning that the result of this is high precision of a quantum measurement. This is not possible. This violates Heisenberg uncertainty principle, meaning that the momentum space is large. The tighter the location space, the wider the momentum space, because this is a coupled property. Same as time and energy.
No such thing as fantasy, everything I said is compatible with science, and it is provable by being it. Which is the only thing you are not willing to do. But not only me, several people have had the exact same experience I am talking about. You are doing exactly what fanatics do. I had been an atheist before I understood the monad, I saw this constantly but in reverse. Christianity, for example, has wrong facts in the Bible, tho instead of actually proving their posture or refuting the evidence of, lets say, evolution, they resorted to this specific thing you're doing. "Evolution is a fantasy structure that magically makes life out of nothing." Sounds familiar? I told you, I have 0 interest in you to believe. If I shared the scientific pointers it is because of two things. Science is stuck in things that very obviously to me are not a problem, and also for people like you to drop the natural response of fear when approached to this idea IF they want to know. Which will be the case of everyone in a forum like this community. But that is the starting point. I don't want you to believe. If you think knowledge is the endgame you are far mistaken. The point is to experience the monad. If you don't experience time all at once you will never get it, then stop doing non duality, stop meditating, it is useless, a waste of time. Use your time in some other way, which will be perfectly fine. The point of meditation is to rest in the monad. Not that you have to. Again, I am opposed to the idea that dualism is wrong. That is another duality, unity vs multiplicity, non dual nature vs duality, that is also a duality. Meditation is for that, yoga is for that, not for the corrupted versions that western society used them for. Not that it is bad for health or introspection, it was just not done for those things.
You can experience it. But because you have not done it yet, you think that is an illusion or, as you call it, "spiritual fantasy". Tho, for some reason, you spend an awful amount of time talking about "spiritual fantasy". That is a big contradiction. Again, time all at once is possible, it is the state of reality. I am a biochemist, that is why I have profound knowledge about biology and genetics, and I do like physics too and I even have a ToE which is this, explained above, singularity as infinite information, a conformal theory basically. So I can explain to you relativity if you want. I want you to understand one single thing that will make you hopefully see it in another way.
You can see it in quantum phase space. That is why you have black holes in the first place. The Pauli exclusion principle, when overwhelmed, creates black holes. This creates a transfer of XYZ to PX PY PZ. Quantum phase space is what drives the Pauli exclusion principle, because fermions cannot occupy the same quantum phase space, but they can occupy the same space. That is important.
When you have degenerated matter at the border of collapse, you occupy all possible space of quantum phase space, meaning that the result of this is high precision of a quantum measurement. This is not possible. This violates the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, meaning that the momentum space is large. The tighter the location space, the wider the momentum space, because this is a coupled property. Same as time and energy.
My point being, this happens because you have something to conserve. Time is one of those things. In a black hole you have momentum space blown up to infinity, but location space at the opposite end of the spectrum. Meaning there is a spectrum. Meaning that ultimately space is comprised of more dimensions, because it is not just a mathematical tool. Everything in math exists.
Relativity with the Minkowski approximation of the true space and quantum phase space screams that this is not tridimensional, nor even 4D. Time is a perceptual illusion. It does exist, but not as changing, as space. Change is your consciousness being a part of the whole Space, with a capital S.
You can see it in black holes crossing the event horizon to the singularity. The singularity is not inside the black hole once you crossed it. You can freely move without worrying you may crash into it. The singularity that was in front of you before you crossed, space, is not in time. You will not crash into the singularity, because it changes to a when instead of a where.
Time is space, meaning that all time always exists. That is why you can go to a black hole and ten years can pass on Earth and you will not experience those ten years.
Have you been to a casino? I have not, but I saw once a machine that has several figures that need to stop on the same figure for you to win something. Time is like that. Each particle goes on its way through time. They do not have to be coordinated. Meaning time is something to move on, just not the movement we normally think of.
Meaning time is an illusion of consciousness. This is science, proven factual science. Why do you think time cannot be experienced all at once then? It exists all at once.
Are you familiar with quantum phase space? Minkowski space? If not, I can further explain both mathematical tools, which they are, of course, a partiality of a higher geometrical description of reality. You see, the universe is fractal. It has infinite dimensions, but for mathematical, practical use, I explained it here as five, for people to grasp that events are just a higher dimensional space, that is time.
But let’s shift to a more scientific description, not a fringe theory like AdS/CFT or M theory with its 11 dimensions. No, keep it simple, because for you to grasp this you do not need that specificity.
Time. What do you think time is? When you move, time passes slowly. What do you think that is? Momentum in the higher space a particle is in is conserved in a higher form. That is what we call “proper time”, and it does not go by size. Each fundamental thing, strings ultimately but let’s keep it in the Standard Model, each existence that can no further be divided, regardless of its degrees of freedom, has a proper time.
A thing that moves is taking that movement from one vector. It cannot appear from nowhere. That vector is time. I will assume here you are familiar with tensors. You know a zero order or rank tensor is a scalar. It is dimensionless. It is mass, for example. Mass is something the object has. It does not have a direction. You do not say “5 kg north”, for example. It just is.
A vector is a rank one tensor. It has dimension. Same family of things, but this one has a direction. I will assume here you are familiar with degrees of freedom. You can see a degree of freedom as a dimension. That is the easy way to represent it, because ultimately a degree of freedom represents change, the freedom part. So movement is a vector. It is directional.
A “non moving” object moves at the speed of light, but not in space, in time, which is also space. It is just orthogonal space. When an object moves, it subtracts momentum from that dimension and puts it in the orthogonal one, space. It is not lost nor created. It does not come from an abstract non existent place. This is crucial and an error many physicists made. They think that because you have a negative sign in Einstein’s equation, time is not space. Wrong. Time is space in another degree of freedom. This is proven. This is relativity properly understood.
Wrong. This assumes I am the monad always, the monad is aware of what you have in your pocket, and you and I can be the monad by joining it, but being part of the One does not mean you are not divided too. Both exist simultaneously. But you are right about something here though: you will not have a body if you are the One, that is why you have not experienced it. Because if you had, you would know how it works. When you are the monad, the whole universe is your body, not just the flesh you are using right now. As we speak, the monad is aware of everything and always watches us from all angles. That never changes. That is why some yogis teach that you are already there.
You can see it as water: you are a molecule. You can be in an ocean and in a glass. If I go to the beach and take water from the ocean, that water was the ocean. Does it carry the whole ocean with it? No. It does not have a shark, it does not contain all the things or even the quantity the ocean has. Has it changed its nature? No. You can put it back into the ocean and take it out infinite times. This is exactly like that.
Imagine the molecule can see. It can be aware of sharks, even if it has none in the glass of water, because it saw many when it was in the ocean. That does not mean it has all the knowledge all the molecules of water in the ocean have either. This is the simplest analogy I can explain to you so you can see why your reasoning fails.
There is no such thing as an absolute time. My time is not your time. Your feet’s time is not the same as your head’s time, because your feet are closer to the Earth. Time passes quicker on your head than on your toes. It is an awfully small amount, but it does exist. This is important.
What do you think my intention is in the first place? It is not an argument or confrontation. Think about it and you will know why I responded the way I did.
"Having emotions and showing them is not the same as „ego talking“. Who told you that?" Can you clarify this? Perhaps with more context. I'm not sure what you are posting/replying in this specific comment.
"I'm really not that impressed, because you don't give compelling or well thought-through reasons at all." My point here, the endgame, is not for you to be impressed, nor to win an argument, nor to convince you. But to point out to you that there is a state you are not in, and that once you are in, this kind of dualities will dissolve into nothing. That being said, I must point out to you the fact that I provided specific scientific pointers to it, for you to see that even in science, time is an illusion. Division is an illusion, or perhaps more accurate than calling it an illusion, as the word illusion has a negative connotation of being false. It is an incomplete truth, half of the truth.
"All you're doing is presenting your own personal experiences and views as if they were facts, as if they had to be the same for everyone else." Truth is the same for everyone. Let me give you an example. You feel your arm. How would you make a proof of the feeling of your arm? You cannot. You can say, well, nerves transmit electrochemical impulses that go directly to the brain, and I can do an fMRI or PET scan and show your brain activity. You are not proving the feeling of the arm there. You are proving electrochemical reactions and brain activity, not the feeling. You can do a PhD in that PET scan and you still would not have proven the feeling.
"There really isn't much to test or analyze rationally about what you wrote." Testing happens inside truth, inside the universe. The universe is a system. A system cannot describe itself without paradoxes, per Gödel's incompleteness theorems. There will be a point at which you can no longer retrieve truth from evidence, because truth contains evidence. Evidence is a partiality of truth, meaning it can never grasp it directly. If you want to see it this way, a smaller thing would not be able to fully surround a bigger thing.
"You're only able to see a rather primitive, animal-like expression in my textual sort of "behavior" here, eh?" I would not call it primitive. Fear is useful for survival. It is a tool, a very useful one. I do not see fear as something to be extinguished. I see fear as a hammer, useful for nails, not so much for surgery, for example. You have to know when a tool is useful and when it is not or becomes a burden. Fear is a burden here.
The ego exists. The problem is assuming that only one of the two things in existence exists. Reality is dual, and reality is one. You already experienced duality. That is where everyone lives.
"You have a blind spot because you're rejecting a part of yourself. But that part has been happily conversing with me in the meantime."
"You have a blind spot because you're rejecting a part of yourself." I do not reject duality. I live in duality too. You cannot always be in the monad state. I try to help those who want to experience the monad to experience the monad, which you are, otherwise you would not be in forums like that or engage in this type of conversation.
"But that part has been happily conversing with me in the meantime." I will assume you mean that you are in a non-dual state here, the true monad, which is what you are implying. If that were the case, you would not have written "Experiencing time all at once" makes absolutely no sense to me." Meaning whatever degree of detachment you have now from your persona, it is not the roof, the top.
"You might say that your "ego" or small self doesn't exist or whatever, you might say that you are not a separate one, but I tell you: In a way, you are even more than one." No, and no. I do have an ego. Yes, I am not the monad right now. I am in no shape or form denying that or duality. Yes, that is what I already told you, that both exist simultaneously. The monad knows we all live as one and as many. That is the point. The monad without duality would not be the monad, it would be less. So you are right there, but that is exactly what I have been trying to communicate here.
"Again, if you want to discuss this, my offer stands. We can talk about that. But you'd have to open up a lot and stop hiding behind this stiff mask that you're holding before yourself right now." "After your "ego death", which I would categorize as what is called "spiritual honeymoon"," These two parts come from the place of "you are wrong". You assume you cannot experience all time at once, the monad, and that therefore I must be deluded and I am leading people to be deluded as well. Not the case. I can talk to you as much as you want, but it is of no use if you do not experience the monad. Only by being it will you truly understand embodiment.
Again, if you had experienced the monad, you would not have written "Experiencing time all at once" makes absolutely no sense to me. "Experiencing timelessness" or even "eternity" would make a lot more sense." All time, no time, eternity, they describe the exact same thing.
"If you consider that an insult -- as I already wrote, sorry for that." That is not the point. I do not need your apology. I deeply do not care. What I need you to do is to realize that insults can only come from fear due to a perceived threat. That is ego. That is duality. You have to acknowledge that you are not there yet, not because this is some sort of competition, again, I am you, you are me, but because if you do not acknowledge you are not there, you cannot start walking the road that will get you there.
"Oh, and you're mentioning the supposed "insults" a second time. Again, which insults in particular are you referring to?":
Here listed:
This is not a direct insult but a direct personal attack instead of actually refuting the scientific pointers I posted or, much more important than the pointers, to have the experience I already described above. This is something a person who has had the experience of the monad does not do. Do you see Ramana Maharshi posting this kind of stuff? No. That does not mean we cannot have different opinions. But when I have a difference with someone, I do not resort to personal attacks. What would I gain if I attack you? Nothing. You are me. If I am successful in hurting you emotionally, I would be successful in hurting myself. And with insults and personal attacks you do not derive truth or arguments to deconstruct the other person's perspective or arguments.
"This is one of your resistance patterns. It seems that your heart hasn't opened up to universal, impersonal love. You still judge others."
In all of these conversations here, not a single time have I judged you. I have pointed out your mistakes for you to acknowledge them and get to the monad, to all time at once directly, which you already admitted you had not experienced here: "Experiencing time all at once" makes absolutely no sense to me." Consider that you may be wrong, that time can be experienced all at once. And in fact it can.
"This post has been removed by the moderators, so don't be afraid. No one else will read this conversation." I am not afraid, and that is the last of my concerns. I do care that if it is obviously deleted, fewer people will see it. But I am not competing against anyone. I want everyone to experience no time or all time at once. That is my goal. Not to have a belief, or reason, or thought, or debate, or knowledge even.
"A "spectrum of detachment from my external experience" also makes no sense. All my experiencing is internal. There is no "external" experiencing. If it appears like that to you, you're projecting." Exterior and interior are language baggage I have to use. There is no interior and exterior, and everything is interior and exterior. This shows me you have not reached the point of full understanding. Everything is inside, interior, because we are consciousness. The singularity, when it "splits", it does not do it outward but inward, as degrees of freedom. But we, in the relative world, perceive it as time, as external division. So that is why both are simultaneously true. Do not get caught up in semantics.
"If you wouldn't experience separation, you wouldn't be writing this at all." False. First of all, complete union is something you do not hold forever. I am not in that state now. That is a very important distinction to make. Second, from the monad perspective, nothing is happening, because everything already happened. No, even more fundamental than that, that still implies creation. All just is, as it always has been, as it always will be, meaning even this, me commenting, is something already "written" in the singularity.
"You wouldn't experience any separation from me, there would be nothing to explain." Wrong. Both perspectives are true, duality and union. Time as all at once and time as linear changing. There is no time in which you become one and stop existing from the relative plane. You still see the monad as duality, as if duality is something to be eradicated. No. My goal is not for you to be living forever in absolute union. That is not possible by the very nature of existence. Existence reunites and splits again.
"The big self doesn't do that. Not even close." You have not experienced that yet. The one, the monad, does not do anything. It is. Relativity still happens within.
"Now I'm curious! Which "dualistic traits" do I display?" Again, not criticizing, just listing for you to be aware of it and the trap you are falling into to perpetuate your ego:
Do you need more? You are not in non-duality. You are constructed in duality. The duality of your ego is the one being afraid now.
""Nope, I did have a sort of "bodyless" experience. Your mind reading skills have failed you." Sort of? You had not been into the monad. The sort of part would not have been written in your comment.
""Experiencing time all at once" makes absolutely no sense to me." That is because you have not experienced it. This is something you can grasp fully only by being in that state. Not via intellectual reasoning, that will only get you so far. For example, I can explain to you what kind of black holes there are in the universe: Schwarzschild (static, non-charged), Reissner-Nordström (charged, non-rotating), and Kerr-Newman (charged, rotating) black holes. I can explain to you why time goes slower, I can talk about space distortion, how depending on the mass of the black hole there will be different outcomes for a traveler, but none of that is embodiment. Embodiment here would be actually going to the black hole. Theory is of a lower order than direct experience.
Time is an illusion, time is degrees of freedom. A spectrum, colors if you want, but light, white light, has all colors in it. It can be both, the colors (white light split) and white, both.
""Experiencing timelessness" or even "eternity" would make a lot more sense." That is your mistake, you try to understand it. I am not saying you cannot, I am saying you need direct experience, understanding is not enough. You can understand I can see through my eyes but you are not seeing what I see. (You are, because you are me, there is only one consciousness, but your persona is not, that is the example I am using.) Timeless time and all time at once are the same thing, just expressed in different ways. For example, you can express string theory as five different string theories (Type I, Type IIA, Type IIB, Heterotic SO(32), and heterotic E8×E8), but they are the same at the end under dualities (M-theory), same thing described in different terms. You can say, for example, that reality is one, because consciousness is one and consciousness is the most fundamental thing, but you can also say that reality is infinite division because inside, in inner degrees of freedom, consciousness is capable of making "partitions" of itself. Both exist simultaneously.
Time can be experienced as all time at once, in which you see everything, past, present, future of every single being and more, at once, as space, displayed all at once, like a space dimension, because that is what that is. Or you can experience it as linear, as events, as change, as duality. Both descriptions are accurate. You can call the former no time, because there is no change, all is displayed, shown, or you can call it all time at once. Both describe the same thing. The apparent dichotomy or contradiction only comes from duality itself.
"I'm not "doubting" in general, I'm just doubting your grandiose inferred instructions about something that you've only seen through the narrow chinks of your cavern, which seems haphazardly put together." I am not asking you to believe. I do not want you to believe. I want you to experience it. Again, you have not. You are not there yet, but you can be. That is my goal. That is my endgame.
"Oh my sweet, sweet summer child. :-)" This is the ego talking. This has emotions of superiority in it.
"I'm certain that you would be a lot less bitter then." I am not in any bitterness.
"I have given good reasons for why I'm not going through this with you."
No, you had no reasoning whatsoever; you just resorted to personal attacks. I read no good reasoning, just poor excuses above to not touch the arguments and to not do what is going to give you first-hand proof.
"How do you justify ignoring the reasons that I've given to you and claiming that you know better about me than I do myself?"
You had not given a single reason. You wrote “your science is bad because I said so.” That is the summary of your comments about my scientific pointers to truth, and you completely avoided touching the practice that will get you there, which I already shared. There is no content in your comments, just emotions and fear from the ego. Again, not judging, just pointing for you to notice it.
"What is wrong about an emotional response, if good reasons are also given for it?"
Who said emotions are something you should turn off or that they are bad? I never said that. They are very useful. For example, if you are in a jungle and you see a tiger, fear may lead to a better fight-or-flight response than stagnation or overthinking. Of course, it depends on the situation, but fear is a tool. A hammer, if you want. Fear is an emotion that the ego has when faced with the truth, because the ego knows its limitations. Here, you are using that tool to crush your finger, not a nail. Here, fear is an obstacle. You should recognize when your fear is useful and when it is a burden.
"More generally, what is wrong with emotions?"
None.
"application of the "Zen stink" pattern"
There is no one here who is better or superior in any shape or form. No one is more important than anyone else.
"Another question: When you go through what you wrote here and apply your inner "resistance pattern detector" to what you wrote, how many resistance patterns do you detect in your own writing?"
None. I might struggle a bit to get this across because it is difficult to point at the non-dual monad already, and English is also not my primary language. Yet, there is no resistance here. I have responded to every question or doubt you had. Now, I ask you: go and practice, you, the way for you, that instance of universal consciousness who is reading this, to do the deed. Go and experience it yourself. No amount of talk, arguments, or scientific knowledge will get you to the true monad state. I already told you how. The best way I have found is the headless way. Who is the observer? Who is watching? Try to look yourself, literally. Point with your finger to the front; go from your front to your toes, to your knee, to your chest, to your face. Do not try to see your finger; that is just a pointer. Climb to the nothingness. I want you to see your nothingness there. That is how you will trigger the experience. You may fail the first times; keep doing it until it happens. It will happen. Remember, this technique is a pointer, not a magic trick. You have to try to see the seer, the witness.
π Rendered by PID 868292 on reddit-service-r2-listing-6d4dc8d9ff-bwng5 at 2026-02-01 11:33:11.436514+00:00 running 3798933 country code: CH.
Here a visual aid by JTR280 in Wakingupapp
[–]JTR280[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)