1. Afterlife Forums is an online, interactive community designed to give seekers direct access to prominent researchers, to afterlife literature, and to one another in order to foster both spiritual growth and public interest in life after death.
    Dismiss Notice

Ndes involving Satan

Discussion in 'Afterlife Evidence' started by Ask21771, May 5, 2017.

  1. kim marine

    kim marine Active Member

    "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."- MaxPlanck
     
  2. bluebird

    bluebird Well-Known Member

    I agree with your viewpoint on this subject.
     
    Ed A. likes this.
  3. Ed A.

    Ed A. Member

    I agree with him. Matter is contingent on something else (he says an intelligence). Everything we experience in this world is contingent. That was one way Aquinas argued for the existence of God, btw -- everything in our world is contingent; therefore there must be something else behind it all which is not contingent.

    But notice -- just because something is contingent does not make it unreal; it does not mean that it does not exist. In fact, it implies that it is real and does exist. In fact, Planck says this himself in the quote: "All matter originates and exists... [then goes on to describe the contingency]."

    If something exists, it is real. It is not illusory or unreal. Just because it's dependent on something else doesn't make it unreal.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2017
  4. kim marine

    kim marine Active Member

    This is just something to think about: Since any other level is not apparent to us do you think ours is apparent to those on the other level? Don't you think it is only logical that all levels stem from the same source, whatever that may be?
     
  5. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    You got it.
     
  6. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    I wonder how much of it he got wrong.....
     
  7. bluebird

    bluebird Well-Known Member

    No, not necessarily. I don't believe there is a "god" or "source" from which everything comes. I could be wrong, of course, but I likely won't know the truth of it either way until I die, if then.
     
  8. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    "If something exists, it is real." What does this mean? Is a very vivid dream real??
     
  9. bluebird

    bluebird Well-Known Member

    Yes, in it's own way, and in the effect it might have on the dreamer.
     
  10. Ed A.

    Ed A. Member

    It may help to back up a step. The context of the conversation I was having with kim and others was the idea that the material world is "illusory" or "unreal." You commented on something I was saying in the midst of that conversation, and we've gone off on a bit of a tangent about energy and matter. But the original conversation was about whether the world we experience is "illusory" or "unreal." It's not language that works for me, and I was explaining why. That's why I highlighted Planck's mention that matter exists.

    "If something exists, it is real." By that I mean, "reality" refers to what exists. If something doesn't exist in any way, shape or form, you can't call it real. Well, you can, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

    Ok, back to the question about dreams. Good question, because it makes clear that there are two different ways to talk about things being real. Dreams are real in one sense, but not in another. They're real in the sense that they correspond to actual events in the brain, and the actual physiological, mental, emotional experience of the person while in that state. But they are not real in the sense that they do not correspond to anything actually happening in objective reality; it's all in the imagination. You wake up, and you go, "Oh, it was all a dream."

    It's similar to a hallucination. Hallucinations are real in the sense that the person is really having that mental experience; there are real neuropsychological events, physiological, mental, emotional reactions, etc. But it's not real in the sense that it does not correspond to objective reality. The FBI really isn't wire tapping the person. It's just in their imagination.

    The latter is how I hear it, when people say the world is illusory or unreal. It's like they're telling me it's a dream or hallucination, and when we "wake up" (transition), we'll see it was all just a dream, a figment of our imagination.

    It reminds me of TV shows that wrap up a story by saying "it was all a dream." I never watched Dallas, but I remember all the fallout when they did that. I think the last season of Rosanne did that, too. "It was all a dream." The audience hated that, because it's a cop out.

    I'm being a little silly, but that's how talking about life as illusory/unreal sounds to me. It's like our life is a bad TV show, and it'll wrap up with, "It was all a dream!" Boooo.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2017
    mac likes this.
  11. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    I think that talking about "real" or "unreal" and deciding that this material world is one or the other misses the point. In fact, MUCH about this material world is not remotely as we perceive it! For example: there is no solid matter, but everything is energy (according to both Einstein & Planck); we are told that less than half of what we think we see actually comes through our eyes (e.g. images are upside-down on our retinas so our minds have to right them, and our minds also fill in images apparently without our knowing it); and so on. There is more and more evidence that our minds can affect matter much more than we imagine, and all the afterlife evidence begins to suggest that consciousness is the base reality (as Planck also said).

    I think it is likely more accurate to first define "real" and "unreal" more precisely, and by the definitions that we choose we can then assign these descriptors!
     
    kim marine likes this.
  12. Ed A.

    Ed A. Member

    Yes, and I doubt anyone here wants to try to tackle that question, which has kept philosophers busy for millenia.
     
    kim marine likes this.
  13. Ed A.

    Ed A. Member

    Yeah, mac said something similar early on. Without good definitions of "real" and "unreal," we really aren't communicating much, except to people who already share our views/perspective. We pressed on anyhow, because it's an interesting thing to talk about, even if we can't exactly pin down what "real" means (without then defining a bunch of other terms and ... down the philosophical rabbit hole we go).

    I notice there are two different things being discussed: 1) Is the world just how we perceive it? 2) Is it unreal/illusory?

    The answer to the first question is clearly no. We know that from psychology, neuroscience, physics, etc. There are all kinds of biases and limitations built into our perceptions. No one sees the world unfiltered. That's not really even up for debate.

    The answer to the second question is more interesting but also more tricky for the reason we just mentioned (people have different ideas about what "real" means to them).

    Here's how I like to view it (take it fwiw). I'll use an example. If you look at the world through a microscope, it suddenly looks very different -- microorganisms, cells, etc. If you look at it through an electron microscope, it looks different still -- atoms, protons, neutrons... If you put it in a particle accelerator, again it looks very different -- quarks, gluons, leptons, all the rest. If you keep increasing your level of magnification, you eventually get a quantum field. Is one of these levels "real" and the others unreal? No. They're all real enough, within their own level.

    Seen from another level, they may be "illusory," because that view disappears when you see things from a different level (e.g., when you're looking at the level of protons and neutrons, the worlds of ameobas and bacteria disappears from your view). Doesn't mean it doesn't exist; you just don't see it from that level. So, it's a matter of what level of magnification you're using (or what perspective you are viewing things from). It's all reality, just seen or experienced from different levels.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2017
    kim marine and mac like this.
  14. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    "It's all reality, just seen or experienced from different levels."

    spot on! :)

    Every dimension of existence, every kind of experience we may have in any of them, is just as real as any other. And each has a unique value.
     
    Ed A. and kim marine like this.
  15. kim marine

    kim marine Active Member

    I really liked this. I experienced different dimensions of reality when I was in a coma. I thought at that time, I was living my life on the planet you and I are currently inhabiting. I was always urged to wake up, but I couldn't understand because it appeared that I was alive. But then again my body was lying on a hospital bed. When I always refused to wake up that just led to more extraterrestrial experiences in my mind as dreams. Craig Hogan told me that I had viewed some of the lives I lived before.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2017
  16. Ed A.

    Ed A. Member

    Cool.

    Question - When you say "extraterrestrial," do you mean that some of your past lives were on other planets? Or just that you were experiencing things outside our normal, physical world?
     
  17. kim marine

    kim marine Active Member

    They were just dreams. It happened when I was in a coma, so my body wasn't doing the living, but the eternal part of me, which is the mind, was alive. I was witnessing earlier lives I had lived in consciousness. I did not actually live on another planet!
     
  18. Ed A.

    Ed A. Member

    I see, thanks.
     
  19. genewardsmith

    genewardsmith Active Member

    I rediscovered the Planck length independently in high school, and I didn't know squat.
     
  20. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    I think that Dr. Plank figured a lot more out! Just as Thomas Jefferson figured so much out in the area of spirituality - he was an extraordinary Biblical scholar. But both of them had to protect their more traditional work in the eyes of their contemporaries by not revealing everything that they knew.
     

Share This Page