Fixed the internet, called it my Home.

[JDHollisterTitor]

Hoo, boy, where to start.

equilibrium: a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.
You are looking at the "balance" wrong.
Dualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In which context are you trying to use Dualism? Because there's more than one.

How can you do that if no one is around?

A dictaphone would do if you wanted to record the sound of it falling, but the more data the better.

You seem to be falling into the fundamental human trap of rejecting blatant patterns just because you don't want to recognize them.

speed of light in mph - Google Search
Sure looks like it is! do you know what "Never" means? It really isn't a subjective word, you know.

Congratulations, you learned to use Google's conversion function.

Now, if I have to spell it out for you, I'm saying scientists, as an international entity, use SI units, because it makes a lot of things easier and more accurate. (Like avoiding that nasty incident with the Mars Climate Orbiter when someone forgot to send the memo to the Americans)

Most US scientists have adopted SI units, but some stubborn people refuse to keep up with the times.

Mars Climate Orbiter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe you should look more into it. Turtle island, dude.

See my earlier comment of "Turtles all the way down!"

"And now you're just becoming incoherent again. "
Nope, plenty coherent, you can not measure incoherence just by your inability to comprehend the meaning of something.

Incoherent:

1. (of spoken or written language) expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear. <---- This one
   
2. (of waves) having no definite or stable phase relationship.

"Also, Gauge theory deals with fields, which has nothing to do with whether or not parallel lines meet, converge or diverge."
Noether's theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Noether's (first) theorem states that any differentiablesymmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law.

"Zeno's Paradoxes were solved with the advent of modern calculus, so they no longer really apply outside of Philosophy. It's also worth noting that the universe is not in equilibrium"
Conservation law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fermat's principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Unless you somehow created an interdimensional portal to a universe with non-euclidean geometry, "
Kerr metric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hyperbolic Geometry - EscherMath
Klein quartic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can link all the random articles you like, it's not going to make you seem any more intelligent. (See my post about technobabble)

Ctrl+F "interbeing"

Ctrl+F "an answer" <NOT FOUND>

EinsteinGravity.com

"Forget about theory."
"Focus on the Mathematics !"

Well, that just about sums up that site, doesn't it? (Hint, what do you think we use to build theories? Wishes and duct tape are not the answer. Also, your mass of the Earth is wrong by a large margin, so I didn't even bother to check the rest of the values)




Seriously, all I want is to have an intelligent, coherent discussion with you, but you're making it very difficult by acting this way. Debunking people who are hilariously wrong is fun, but it's more fun to learn from each other and have a constructive discussion. Can't we just do that? Let's start over and talk about theories of how you could time travel instead. You can even go first! Just don't post any trippy photos or huge blocks of numbers without at least a paragraph of explanation about what they're supposed to mean.

"A dictaphone would do if you wanted to record the sound of it falling, but the more data the better."
A dictaphone would be something. Can't have something if there's no one. Can't have someone place and operate or read a dictophone if there's no one around.


"In which context are you trying to use Dualism? Because there's more than one."
Obviously the one most relevant to "balance"

"Now, if I have to spell it out for you,"
Nope, you don't, so stop being so condescending. You were blatantly ignoring something just because you didn't want to acknowledge it. Units are units are units. Measurements are relative.


"Incoherent:

1. (of spoken or written language) expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear. "

"Nope, plenty coherent, you can not measure incoherence just by your inability to comprehend the meaning of something."


"You can link all the random articles you like"
Except it isn't random, you are just choosing to ignore the relevance.


"Well, that just about sums up that site, doesn't it?"
Nope, this sentence and your dismissive behaviour completely sums up your callow attitude and approach to a situation and discussion. I will have no further conversation with someone with selective reading who dismisses whatsoever they wish solely because they refuse to see the relevance.




"Ctrl+F "interbeing""
"Ctrl+F "an answer""
"When we look deeply into a flower, we see the elements that have come together to allow it to manifest. We can see clouds manifesting as rain. Without the rain, nothing can grow. When I touch the flower, I’m touching the cloud and touching the rain. This is not just poetry, it’s reality. If we take the clouds and the rain out of the flower, the flower will not be there. With the eye of the Buddha, we are able to see the clouds and the rain in the flower. We can touch the sun without burning our fingers. Without the sun nothing can grow, so it’s not possible to take the sun out of the flower. The flower cannot be as a separate entity; it has to inter-be with the light, with the clouds, with the rain. The word “interbeing” is closer to reality that the word “being.” Being really means interbeing.

The same is true for me, for you, and for the Buddha. The Buddha has to inter-be with everything. Interbeing and nonself are the objects of our contemplation. We have to train ourselves so that in our daily lives we can touch the truth of interbeing and nonself in every moment. You are in touch with the clouds, with the rain, with the children, with the trees, with the rivers, with your planet, and that contact reveals the true nature of reality, the nature of impermanence, nonself, interdependence, and interbeing."

 

[Ayasano]

I offered you an olive branch and you ignored it, so I'm just going to answer this one easy question and then I think I'm done for the night.

A dictaphone would be something. Can't have something if there's no one. Can't have someone place and operate or read a dictophone if there's no one around.

Are you familiar with wax recordings? It's like a vinyl record in reverse, with the audio recorded onto the wax by the needle. The incoming sound waves move the needle, scratching into the wax. When you run the needle back across those scratches, you get audio. (An episode of CSI did something similar with a clay pot on a potter's wheel, with very distorted audio)

Now imagine this. When the tree falls, it stirs up dust particles. Those dust particles, shaken by the sound wave of the tree falling, scratch very, very gently against another tree nearby, leaving their tiny markings on it. It's possible to imagine us being able to play this audio back, just like the wax, if we had the right tools. That's a record left by no human. It just exists on its own.

Does that answer your question?

 

[JDHollisterTitor]

I offered you an olive branch and you ignored
it, so I'm just going to answer this one easy question and then I think I'm done for the night.

A dictaphone would be something. Can't have something if there's no one. Can't have someone place and operate or read a dictophone if there's no one around.

Are you familiar with wax recordings? It's like a vinyl record in reverse, with the audio recorded onto the wax by the needle. The incoming sound waves move the needle, scratching into the wax. When you run the needle back across those scratches, you get audio. (An episode of CSI did something similar with a clay pot on a potter's wheel, with very distorted audio)

Now imagine this. When the tree falls, it stirs up dust particles. Those dust particles, shaken by the sound wave of the tree falling, scratch very, very gently against another tree nearby, leaving their tiny markings on it. It's possible to imagine us being able to play this audio back, just like the wax, if we had the right tools. That's a record left by no human. It just exists on its own.

Does that answer your question?

"How are you going to do such a thing? Do you have a frequency modulator and monitor to detect the vibratory equilibrium of carbonic acid in the atmosphere? If so, how is it going to detect a tree that falls when no one is around when all things are one?"
Yet again, how are you going to examine the record when no one is around to examine it?
You have ignored plenty of my writings, PLENTY, just to call them random, when they are COMPLETELY relevant. You are also completely missing the point I've tried to get across several times, which is, "if there is no one to observe, then naught can be observed".
Forests are labyrinths. Nature doesn't exist except as a means of description of the infinite beauties of universal, continuous consciousness.
Akashic records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JDHollisterTitor]

What density are you in? Which star system do you identify with?

I've seen 144 in various ways, every day for over a year. That's what drew me to this post.

I identify with Alcyone, and SN1987A.
Revelations 14 Then I looked, and there was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion! And with him were one hundred forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.

I must also note that I identify with Luna/Moon, Mercury, Sol, and Aldebaran.
(mass of mercury * mass of earth)^(1/2) = 1.40408113 × 1024 kilograms

 

[Ayasano]

Nothing else feels like it matters right now so I may as well dive back into this.

"How are you going to do such a thing? Do you have a frequency modulator and monitor to detect the vibratory equilibrium of carbonic acid in the atmosphere? If so, how is it going to detect a tree that falls when no one is around when all things are one?"
Yet again, how are you going to examine the record when no one is around to examine it?

You have ignored plenty of my writings, PLENTY, just to call them random, when they are COMPLETELY relevant. You are also completely missing the point I've tried to get across several times, which is, "if there is no one to observe, then naught can be observed".
Forests are labyrinths. Nature doesn't exist except as a means of description of the infinite beauties of universal, continuous consciousness.
Akashic records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You could attach a cable and monitor it remotely, but that's not what you mean.

It's funny that you should bring up the yin/yang thing. We see the world in fundamentally different ways. You seem to see the world as something that can only exist when consciousness is around to see it, but I ask: What is consciousness? You see a separation between mind and body, but I see a biological machine running software. Extremely complex software, yes, but software nonetheless.

So to me, the tree is just another biological machine with a different type of software, and the ground it sits in is made of the same stuff, but with no software. It's all just stuff. Beautiful stuff, yes, but it's still just stuff. If I take a rock and rearrange the subatomic particles in just the right way, I get a tree. If I rearrange that tree in just the right way, I get you. So what are you? Just stuff. What am I? Just stuff.

What should we take from this?

Stuff is awesome.

 

[JDHollisterTitor]

Nothing else feels like it matters right now so I may as well dive back into this.

"How are you going to do such a thing? Do you have a frequency modulator and monitor to detect the vibratory equilibrium of carbonic acid in the atmosphere? If so, how is it going to detect a tree that falls when no one is around when all things are one?"
Yet again, how are you going to examine the record when no one is around to examine it?

You have ignored plenty of my writings, PLENTY, just to call them random, when they are COMPLETELY relevant. You are also completely missing the point I've tried to get across several times, which is, "if there is no one to observe, then naught can be observed".
Forests are labyrinths. Nature doesn't exist except as a means of description of the infinite beauties of universal, continuous consciousness.
Akashic records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You could attach a cable and monitor it remotely, but that's not what you mean.

It's funny that you should bring up the yin/yang thing. We see the world in fundamentally different ways. You seem to see the world as something that can only exist when consciousness is around to see it, but I ask: What is consciousness? You see a separation between mind and body, but I see a biological machine running software. Extremely complex software, yes, but software nonetheless.

So to me, the tree is just another biological machine with a different type of software, and the ground it sits in is made of the same stuff, but with no software. It's all just stuff. Beautiful stuff, yes, but it's still just stuff. If I take a rock and rearrange the subatomic particles in just the right way, I get a tree. If I rearrange that tree in just the right way, I get you. So what are you? Just stuff. What am I? Just stuff.

What should we take from this?

Stuff is awesome.

"You seem to see the world as something that can only exist when consciousness is around to see it"
Wrong, I see the world only as observable because of the nature of consciousness

"What is consciousness? You see a separation between mind and body"
No, I have stated all things are continuous. As everything is conscious.

 

[Ayasano]

"You seem to see the world as something that can only exist when consciousness is around to see it"
Wrong, I see the world only as observable because of the nature of consciousness

Are you referring to the subjective nature of quora here?

"What is consciousness? You see a separation between mind and body"
No, I have stated all things are continuous. As everything is conscious.

What would you say gives rise to this consciousness? In my case, it's the software running on the brain, so it's something demonstratable. (For instance, the mirror test used in psychology, that also works in apes, demonstrates one aspect of consciousness)

Mirror test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JDHollisterTitor]

"You seem to see the world as something that can only exist when consciousness is around to see it"
Wrong, I see the world only as observable because of the nature of consciousness

Are you referring to the subjective nature of quora here?

"What is consciousness? You see a separation between mind and body"
No, I have stated all things are continuous. As everything is conscious.

What would you say gives rise to this consciousness? In my case, it's the software running on the brain, so it's something demonstratable. (For instance, the mirror test used in psychology, that also works in apes, demonstrates one aspect of consciousness)

Mirror test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All things are infinite reiterations of all things. Nature and the cosmos exists in a state of duality. Consciousness exists in a state of nonduality -- it is a way for the cosmos to know, and experience, itself. The infinite gives rise to the singular, as the infinite is continuous with all.

Love gives rise to consciousness.

 

[Ayasano]

All things are infinite reiterations of all things. Nature and the cosmos exists in a state of duality. Consciousness exists in a state of nonduality -- it is a way for the cosmos to know, and experience, itself. The infinite gives rise to the singular, as the infinite is continuous with all.

Love gives rise to consciousness.

Ah, but I would argue nature is the cosmos. Nature is anything that wasn't man-made, ie. it formed naturally. (Which, of course, doesn't always mean natural = good, like some people believe. Snake venom is natural, for instance. Doesn't mean drinking it is healthy)

 

[JDHollisterTitor]

All things are infinite reiterations of all things. Nature and the cosmos exists in a state of duality. Consciousness exists in a state of nonduality -- it is a way for the cosmos to know, and experience, itself. The infinite gives rise to the singular, as the infinite is continuous with all.

Love gives rise to consciousness.

Ah, but I would argue nature is the cosmos. Nature is anything that wasn't man-made, ie. it formed naturally. (Which, of course, doesn't always mean natural = good, like some people believe. Snake venom is natural, for instance. Doesn't mean drinking it is healthy)

Yeah, and the same recursive patterns in nature describe the flow of the cosmos, consciousness, natural structures, and the physical body.
Nature is of the cosmos, nature is discrete, but all things are continuous; just as a grain of sand reflects the light of a trillion stars, and a molecule of water is continuous with the waves of the ocean and the breath of your body.
Hopi Prophecies - Prophecy Rock - Crystalinks