I’m getting DOULBE U-s today

lol wat

so with so many truther's (27) on at the moment; i kinda wanna ask. What is your definition of the "highest" meaningful truths you've obtained and know to be obtainable?

i define reality as the set of all your experiences and thaughts
A theory is the current best known idea/model that best correlates with reality and with less importance is minimally complex.
fact is equal to the current theory.
Truth is equal to the theory that isn't nessarily minimally complex and that correlates with reality perfectly.

@Σ5 so the nature of a "projected/holographic" universe is a topic you've dug into? since its the pinical of scientific thoery; and explains most of spirituality; not to mention the "weirdness" aclaimed through the occult; but ties it all together within the root of experiences themselves (including dreams)

No

well consider scientificly all "matter" of the known universe is in essence light/energy held/bound by an unknown force within a freqency that causes it to bind/reacte on scales that produce phisics/matter etc we are in essence just an expression of a wave of energy experincing a fragmented stream through a lense of senses/biology etc; so really a lot of occult views of spiruality in essence reflect many views that describe the same system but the sources being rather more divine than just "there" because they are

No

....these no's are great and all but some hobo who found jesus would say the same thing; hell half the people who look into things from one side say nearly the same thing; so what views/understandings compleatly define this as a no. because while I'm not talking in absoulutes these terms often have many depths i could get into....

Ok

@Σ5 you trolling? or are 2 letters all you can build upon here? i'm fishing for lengthy posts; set me straight lol i'm dying to hear other views/explinations post a few walls for me please lol

no

You need to start on single subjects

"projected/holographic" universe

I don't believe it

so can you build upon that; because the 99.99999999% of people that don't understand why its a 99.99999999% chance it is the reality often do so because they don't understand "it".... can you provide the cornerstone beliefes that make this so?

00.00000001% of the world population isnt even 1 person

so no one knows the truth

:3

thanks captain cereal pants **points to the door**

*looks at the door* nice door

lol of course your one of those people that have no understanding of unspoken meanings... its no wonder your non-seeking

*looks as the jokes sails over J's head and into the corner of left field*

haha but the irony of the double joke of being an asshole made you provide the obviouse joke of double checkers vs the chest masta

the point was you are on this server yet fail to seek most of what is found.... like as in anything beyond the mainstream

neat

I don't believe it because I never been exposed to sufficient reason to believe so

burdon of proof is on you

what about the bourbon proof?

@Σ5 i kinda just gave the broad points that are fundemental parts of science and essoteric/occult knowledge.... these are really general terms you could google, hell even the double slit experiment points this out. (being that even light is both a partical and a wave at once; but under observation colapses into just a partical rather than a wave expression) honestly you have these absolute NO's that are only a product of ignorance; take these seeds and seek fourth. when and if you do i'll be here for questions, and to set you upon other roads... perhaps

not really what it says but, what ever

@DrPeper honestly if a old guy with more degree's than a cod plays trick shots says that and more I'm more willing to bet his take on it is right compaired to the guy who plays fortnight and only provides his edgy 16 year old views of what he's learned in highschool....

i will say, you arent totally wrong, but you arent completely right. Light travels in a wave of probability, that their is only a certain probably that light is at a point in space. However when you observe it, you forced to be in one spot

....ya thats kinda what i said but the way your saying it isn't right you make it sound like the theory when light itself is already just a stream of particals; the point was "they" produce a wave spread pattern as if bouncing off each other when launched one by one; but under a sensory between the openings of each slit they no longer produce the wave spread even tho the same input is being turned on..... this is what i mean by most people don't grasp it

same input; single light particals being launched
but when the slits are being observed it produces a different imprint upon the back sensor.... reality litteraly acts differently under observation... as if a computer uses wave form probability because its far easier then rendering every partical of light

its topics like this that are just the start of what i was hoping people on these kinda servers where ready to talk about.... not having to mention it as if its new

There is a statistically identical quantum mechanics model called De Broglie–Bohm theory

It's deterministic

and a particle is never a wave

It's always a particle

But it's guided by a wavefunction