The Factuals versus the NABS (New Age BullShit)

Raven


Raven
Posts: 463
Join date: 2010-04-10
Age: 47
Location: The Emerald City

• Post n°143

Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

Raven Today at 5:25 pm
Brook wrote:

Well Good Morning Thubans!

Raven nicked my FB page? Are you Sirius?





​

Yes Brook, I nicked your fb post because I found it interesting and pertinent. I noticed the video you shared though was rather erroneous concerning the blackhole science and might confuse readers and so this was my attempt to clarify your nous with the proper science. Nothing nefarious on my part, just an appreciation of your post and a desire to clarify. I rather enjoyed your connections and symbolism and thought it should be shared. I asked Shiloh to elaborate on the science because he is qualified academically to give accurate feedback being a physicist himself.

​

 

shiloh


shiloh

Posts: 780
Join date: 2011-03-16
Age: 57
Location: Akbar Ra

• Post n°144

Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

shiloh Today at 4:34 am
B.B.Baghor wrote:

Shiloh Za-Rah and Sirius, with all due respect for your investigation and studies of "deep space" science/symbolism,
please, could you keep those chat conversations private, between yourselves? I can't find any value in them, nor sensible reason,
why this is shared here. I'm not in this with you, therefore, it's impossible to understand, see? This conversation concerns your
own work of study and interest. And it's creating an atmosphere of certain negativity, in my view, for it's a manner of speaking
over someone's head, without that person involved in the conversation. For whom is it done, for what purpose?



The ignorance of well meaning but mindperplexed humans on the terran planet and communication exchanges is observed with interest by the cosmic agencies to whom particular data transmissions are directed.
Those cosmic agencies are well aware, that the vast majority of human minded inhabitants of the homeplanet of the cosmic dragons are unable to participate nor understand even the most basic discourses of this cosmic agenda.

Many humans, which become exposed to a database, which is unfamiliar to their lexicon of mental comprehension then enter particular modes of self protection to veil their mental ignorance and ability to access and absorb data and information not directly associated with their mental abilities to learn or to process cosmic information.

Nevertheless and notwithstanding the majority of memeperplexed humans encountered in their universal discourses and presentations; particular cosmic ambassadors and testifiers are obliged in contractual obligations to honour their aquaintances and affiliates occupying the terran realms as participants in a shared cosmic partnership and cooperation.

In this context then, the mind confused babblings of mental misconstructions and misinterpretations of universally template data and information by human minded receptors can and is purposefully ignored and dismissed by the senders of the data and the recipients of the data to whom it is directed.


Matthew 13:42-44 - King James Version (KJV)

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.


Ezekiel 12:1-3 - King James Version (KJV)

1 The word of the Lord also came unto me, saying,

2 Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.

3 Therefore, thou son of man, prepare thee stuff for removing, and remove by day in their sight; and thou shalt remove from thy place to another place in their sight: it may be they will consider, though they be a rebellious house.

Shiloh Za-Rah Baruch​

_________________
Shiloh Za-RaH

I Am the Darkness of the Purple Dawn and the Light of the Moon Turquoise!



Bluey Dracs
The Presence of the Mosaic implies the will of Unity=God=Starhumanity and not the will of Humanity=Man=Separation!
I Am One in Many and Many in One!
Exe*=1
GODGOD=DOGDOG=DEMONA=DEVIL=LIVED=FINANCE=PRIDE=EARTH=HEART
GODDOG=DOGGOD=JCCJCJJC=52=26+26=13+13+13+13=5+2=7
7=7_dec=7_bin=111=DRAGONHEART
Decoder Michael = 54+51=105=15=6=123=ABC=ABBA=BAAB=33=E3=8=3E=ME=WE
MICHAEL SUN = INFINITY-1 = JERUSALEM+1 = EARTH1HEART = DEMON GABRIEL = LOVE MICHAEL

 

B.B.Baghor


B.B.Baghor
Posts: 461
Join date: 2014-01-31
Age: 64
Location: The Netherlands

• Post n°145

Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

B.B.Baghor Today at 5:28 am

How you hold up a mirror to me, Shilo! I boldly confess, in brutal honesty, giving you my impression of your reply,
that, to me, this is an example of avoiding the inclusion of your human nature, in a fair discussion, meant to
happen on planet Earth. Can I level with you, pun intended? To me, your answer isn't a real answer, it's not
coming from you and it's a detour. It's an act of cowardice to me.

At the same time, to me, I'm on a tricky track now, these mighty hallelujah... sounding words, in your reply,
however sounding true to you, are a display of arrogance, to me, coming from a mind, detached from Earthly
commotion, probably not for a good reason, lost in its own illusions of grandioso fortissimo, partying all night long.

Welcome in your own fairyland, Shiloh! I won't buy it, see? Of course, in all fairness, neither should you buy
this opinion, offered by me, mother superior talking..... ha ha. Talking about old time religion...... hmmm

I doubt you will.

 

Brook

Brook
Posts: 3257
Join date: 2010-08-21
Age: 61

• Post n°32

Re: Disclosure: From suppression to Contact and Interaction.

Brook on Sat Feb 07, 2015 2:28 pm

Thanks BB...Just stopped by for a visit becasue I saw my writing from Facebook nicked here at the Mists. Imagine my surprise... Felt the need to clarify is all and saw the Jason Mraz song you posted.

http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t6759p135-the-factuals-versus-the-nabs#109120

I'm off now...have a great day!

[5:01:38 AM-February 9th, 2015-+11UCT] Sirius 17: nice they are mocking us now
[3:18:05 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t6759p135-the-factuals-versus-the-nabs
[3:18:22 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Brook replied with her usual 'i know better' attitude
[3:18:46 PM] Sirius 17: yes i saw this, why i said they are mocking us now
[3:19:10 PM] Sirius 17: so it did piss her off that i shared her data i guess
[3:19:15 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Indeed
[3:19:22 PM] Sirius 17: she got self rightious about it
[3:19:52 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: yes no detail critique on the bogus science she pushes, then saying Thuban is 'just a theory'
[3:20:06 PM] Sirius 17: yes this is such bs out of her
[3:20:21 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: attacking theory without alternative proposal typical cop out of the wanna bes
[3:20:44 PM] Sirius 17: she of all people on moa knows that there is proven science for fuck sake, even though they call it 'theory' , much of it is proven theory
[3:21:05 PM] Sirius 17: idiotic
[3:21:31 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Theory is far more reality than hypothesis and her nabs science
[3:21:38 PM] Sirius 17: exactly
[3:21:58 PM] Sirius 17: theory means very highly plausable and mathmatically workable
[3:22:04 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: General Relativity is 'theory' yet she could not use the GPS navigation were it not true
[3:22:22 PM] Sirius 17: well don't tell miss know it all that
[3:22:49 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Well you see that she does not really 'like you'
[3:23:01 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: being so defensive
[3:23:17 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: you caught her ignoramus out, that is why she is so defensive
[3:23:52 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: I talked to Mii last night
[3:24:06 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: And put it on Thuban 301
[3:24:45 PM] Sirius 17: oh you did, i did not see
[3:24:58 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: It was deep enough for me to share it
[3:25:05 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Moa and Xen​

Brook

Brook
Posts: 3257
Join date: 2010-08-21
Age: 61

• Post n°146

Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

Brook Today at 11:13 am
Raven wrote:
Brook wrote:

Well Good Morning Thubans!

Raven nicked my FB page? Are you Sirius?





​

Yes Brook, I nicked your fb post because I found it interesting and pertinent. I noticed the video you shared though was rather erroneous concerning the blackhole science and might confuse readers and so this was my attempt to clarify your nous with the proper science. Nothing nefarious on my part, just an appreciation of your post and a desire to clarify. I rather enjoyed your connections and symbolism and thought it should be shared. I asked Shiloh to elaborate on the science because he is qualified academically to give accurate feedback being a physicist himself.

​

Yeah...well you see I didn't make the video...60 Symbols did.

Two professors debating the proposed theory of S.Hawking in this paper:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761.pdf

Until Hawking, Suskind, Tony or the two professors in the video drive their butts to the horizon of a black hole and jump in they are talking theory.



My intent was to describe the "N state" and the connotation to the

Coffin text...

"N" has gone up in the red hour.

You remember N right?





Anyhow....this site as I said, again and you can relate to Tony has nothing to do with "you know who".

So I understand Tony is a physicist...but like all physicists ...they describe THEORY.


Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.


A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.


Until Tony proves Dragonomy/Star Marriage (describing the entangled state between A & B to ensure the physical continuity as a 10D universe within a Black Hole...) .....or what ever he wants to call it these days.....without a shadow of a doubt....it's still a theory. Not to say it's incorrect either....but it's still a theory.


I think I'm going to need a bigger pool!

 

Brook

Brook
Posts: 3257
Join date: 2010-08-21
Age: 61

• Post n°147

Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

Brook Today at 12:04 pm

One last thing/On that note

The science behind the "view"

What you cannot perceive/conceive does not exist?

Infinite/parallel and probable existence?

Physical dimensions where time and space are "fluid"

(N three times is water)








The perceived earthly mind would be blown when working to comprehend.

Recently I read from one who studies science that:

"you can't have it both ways"

One science is far more "complete" than that of another science.

The two conflict and there is only one right answer.

Kinda like the the article I posted:

Theory vs theory

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/115

What if:

There's a theory yet to be discovered that as of now has yet to be discovered?

Yet the Laws of Physics (per our conceived/percieved) cannot attend to as it has yet to discover any other "laws of the Universe".

Henceforth the "Thought Experiment"

Famous examples of thought experiments include Schrödinger's cat, illustrating quantum indeterminacy through the manipulation of a perfectly sealed environment and a tiny bit of radioactive substance, and Maxwell's demon, which attempts to demonstrate the ability of a hypothetical finite being to violate the second law of thermodynamics.





Thought experiments have been used in a variety of fields, including philosophy, law, physics, and mathematics.

~

Pondering




Ode to the Thought/Thoth

~

Thinking take patience a wise man once said
So in need of some wisdom I'll cautiously tread.

Thinking a thought should be easy to do
But the thoughts I am thinking are ever so few.

Thoughtfully thinking to think up a thought
But thinking a thought I simply cannot.

As harder and harder I work for a thought
I think thinking a thought is a communist plot!







(I'm not much of a poet,
I know it)

"But I try"






Aubade

William Shakespeare
(a little better poet)


HARK! hark! the lark at heaven's gate sings,
And Phoebus 'gins arise,
His steeds to water at those springs
On chaliced flowers that lies;
And winking Mary-buds begin
To ope their golden eyes:
With everything that pretty bin,
My lady sweet, arise!
Arise, arise!






SAY WHAT?


Let's give em (Thubans) something to talk about!





​

 

Black Hole Physics in a Holographically Bounded Multiverse as and within a Phaseshifted Omniverse



https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDUvOQy_xu4l-vW2zByiFkg
Allisiam Whynot Clan de Whynot of Thuban

​

As much as I support and agree with Leonard Susskind on the videos discussing and expositing Black Hole Physics and the Holographic Universe; I pertinently disagree with his popular ideas of the Multiverse and Parallel Universe-Many World hypotheses. My objections to the latter models on cosmology are shared by Lubos Motl and many other cosmologists and string theorists and as can be discerned in the article on the Susskind-Bousso hypermultiverse (or megaverse) idea discussed following.
This expose of Lubos Motl fully adheres with the Thuban database and crystallizes the erroneous presumptions of some cosmologists and physicists as to the untenability of any cosmology dependent on spacetime matrices which could in any form become separated from each other in any form of parallelism or 'selective diversity' of the Susskind 'landscapes' as the 'bulk' of the multi-dimensional continuum embedded within a unifying omniversal spacetime defined in the 'laws of nature' derived from their mathematical algorithmic binary structures.
​

​

Saturday, May 21, 2011 ... / / / / /


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luboš_Motl

The Bousso-Susskind hypermultiverse


Leonard Susskind and Raphael Bousso are creative guys and famous physicists. Both of them are well-known for some papers about holography, too. Of course, the first scientist is still a bit more famous. They have just released a preprint to show that they're on crack and they are greatly enjoying it:

The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

The ordinary multiverse with its infinitely many bubbles whose possible vacuum states are located in 10⁵⁰⁰ different stationary points of the stringy configuration space was way too small for them. So they invented a better and bigger multiverse, one that unifies the "inflationary multiverse", the "quantum multiverse", and the "holographic multiverse" from Brian Greene's newest popular book, The Hidden Reality.

Yes, their very first bold statement is that parallel universes in an inflating universe are the same thing as Everett's many worlds in quantum mechanics! ;-)

Sorry to say but the paper looks like the authors want to stand next to Lee Smolin whose recent paper - as much crackpottish as any paper he has written in his life so far - is about "a real ensemble interpretation" of quantum mechanics. Bousso and Susskind don't cite Smolin - but maybe they should! And in their next paper, they should acknowledge me for pointing out an equally sensible and similar paper by Smolin to them. ;-)



Just like your humble correspondent would always emphasize that the "many worlds" in Everett's interpretation of quantum mechanics are completely different "parallel worlds" than those in eternal inflation or those in the braneworlds, these famous physicists say - On the contrary, they're the same thing!

However, at least after a quick review of the paper, the drugs seem to be the only tool that you can find in the paper or in between its lines to convince you that it's the case. ;-)

It's a modern paper involving conceptual issues of quantum mechanics, so it treats decoherence as the main mechanism to address many questions that used to be considered puzzles. Good. However, everything that they actually say about decoherence is a little bit wrong, so their attempts to combine those new "insights" with similar "insights" resulting from similar misunderstandings of the multiverse - and especially the way how outcomes of measurements should be statistically treated in a multiverse - inevitably end up being double gibberish that is cooked from two totally unrelated components such as stinky fish and rotten strawberries.

In what sense decoherence is subjective

One of the first starting points for them to unify the "inflationary multiverse" and the "many worlds" of quantum mechanics is the following thesis about decoherence:

Decoherence - the modern version of wave-function collapse - is subjective in that it depends on the choice of a set of unmonitored degrees of freedom, the "environment".

That's a loaded statement, for many reasons. First of all, decoherence isn't really a version of the collapse. Decoherence is an approximate description of the disappearing "purity" of a state in macroscopic setups with various consequences; one of them is that there is no collapse. The probabilities corresponding to different outcomes continue to be nonzero so nothing collapses. They're nonzero up to the moment when we actually learn - experimentally - what the outcome is. At that point, we must update the probabilities according to the measurement. Decoherence restricts which properties may be included in well-defined questions - for example, insane linear superpositions of macroscopically different states are not good "basis vectors" to create Yes/No questions.

As first emphasized by Werner Heisenberg and then by anyone who understood the basic meaning of proper quantum mechanics, this "collapse" is just about the change of our knowledge, not a real process "anywhere in the reality". Even in classical physics, dice may have probabilities 1/6 for each number, but once we see "6", we update the probabilities to (0,0,0,0,0,1). No real object has "collapsed". The only difference in quantum physics is that the probabilities are not "elementary" but they're constructed as squared absolute values of complex amplitudes - which may interfere etc.; and in classical physics, we may imagine that the dice had the state before we learned it - in quantum physics, this assumption is invalid.

It may help many people confused by the foundations of quantum mechanics to formulate quantum mechanics in terms of a density matrix "rho" instead of the state vector "psi". Such a "rho" is a direct generalization of the classical distribution function on the phase space "rho" - it only receives the extra off-diagonal elements (many of which go quickly to zero because of decoherence), so that it's promoted to a Hermitian matrix (and the opposite side of the coin is that the indices of "psi" may only involve positions or only momenta but not both - the complementary information is included in some phases). But otherwise the interpretation of "rho" in quantum mechanics and "rho" in classical statistical physics is analogous. They're just gadgets that summarize our knowledge about the system via probabilities. Now, "psi" is just a kind of a square root of "rho" so you should give it the same qualitative interpretation as to "rho" which is similar to "rho" in classical statistical physics.

Second, is decoherence "subjective"? This is a totally equivalent question to the question whether "friction", "viscosity" (or other processes that dissipate energy) is subjective. In fact, both of these phenomena involve a large number of degrees of freedom and in both of them, it's important that many interactions occur and lead to many consequences that quickly become de facto irreversible. So both of these processes (or their classes) share the same arrow of time that is ultimately derived from the logical arrow of time, too.

First, let's ask: Is friction or viscosity subjective?

Well, a sliding object on a flat floor or quickly circulating tea in a teacup will ultimately stop. Everyone will see it. So in practice, it's surely objective. But is it subjective "in principle"? Do the details depend on some subjective choices? You bet.

Focusing on the tea, there will always be some thermal motion of the individual molecules in the tea. But what ultimately stops is the uniform motion of bigger chunks of the fluid. Obviously, to decide "when" it stops, we need to divide the degrees of freedom in the tea to those that we consider a part of the macroscopic motion of the fluid and those that are just some microscopic details.

The separation into these two groups isn't God-given. This calculation always involves some choices that depend on the intuition. The dependence is weak. After all, everyone agrees that the macroscopic motion of the tea ultimately stops. In the same way, the information about the relative phase "dissipates" into a bigger system, a larger collection of degrees of freedom - the environment - during decoherence. The qualitative analogy between the two processes is very tight, indeed.

But a punch line I want to make is that decoherence, much like viscosity, isn't an extra mechanism or an additional term that we have to add to quantum mechanics in order to reproduce the observations. Instead, decoherence is an approximate method to calculate the evolution in many situations that ultimately boils down to ordinary quantum mechanics and nothing else. It's meant to simplify our life, not to add some extra complications. Decoherence justifies the "classical intuition" about some degrees of freedom - what it really means is that interference phenomena may be forgotten - much like the derivation of equations of hydrodynamics justifies a "continuum description" of the molecules of the fluid.

Clearly, the same comment would be true about friction or viscosity. While the deceleration of the car or the tea is usefully described by a simplified macroscopic model with a few degrees of freedom, in principle, we could do the full calculation involving all the atoms etc. if we wanted to answer any particular question about the atoms or their collective properties. However, we should still ask the right questions.

When Bousso and Susskind say that there is an ambiguity in the choice of the environment, they misunderstand one key thing: the removal of this ambiguity is a part of a well-defined question! The person who asks the question must make sure that it is well-defined; it's not a job for the laws of physics. Returning to the teacup example, I may ask when the macroscopic motion of the fluid reduces to 1/2 of its speed but I must define which degrees of freedom are considered macroscopic. When I do so, and I don't have to explain that there are lots of subtleties to be refined, the question will become a fully calculable, well-defined question about all the molecules in the teacup and quantum mechanics offers a prescription to calculate the probabilities.

The case of decoherence is completely analogous. We treat certain degrees of freedom as the environment because the state of these degrees of freedom isn't included in the precise wording of our question! So when Bousso and Susskind say that "decoherence is subjective", it is true in some sense but this sense is totally self-evident and vacuous. The correct interpretation of this statement is that "the precise calculation [of decoherence] depends on the exact question". What a surprise!

In practice, the exact choice of the degrees of freedom we're interested in - and the rest is the environment - doesn't matter much. However, we must obviously choose properties whose values don't change frantically because of the interactions with the environment. That's why the amplitude in front of the state "0.6 dead + 0.8i alive" isn't a good observable to measure - the interactions with the environment make the relative phase terribly wildly evolving. Decoherence thus also helps to tell us which questions are meaningful. Only questions about properties that are able to "copy themselves to the environment" may be asked about. This effectively chooses a preferred basis of the Hilbert space, one that depends on the Hamiltonian - because decoherence does.

To summarize this discussion, at least in this particular paper, Bousso and Susskind suffer from the same misconceptions as the typical people who deny quantum mechanics and want to reduce it to some classical physics. In this paper's case, this fact is reflected by the authors' desire to interpret decoherence as a version of the "nice good classical collapse" that used to be added in the QM framework as an extra building block. But decoherence is nothing like that. Decoherence doesn't add anything. It's just a simplifying approximate calculation that properly neglects lots of the irrelevant microscopic stuff and tells us which parts of classical thinking (namely the vanishing of the interference between 2 outcomes) become approximately OK in a certain context.

Let's move on. They also write:

In fact decoherence is absent in the complete description of any region larger than the future light-cone of a measurement event.

If you think about it, the purpose of this statement is inevitably elusive, too. Decoherence is not just "the decoherence" without adjectives. Decoherence is the separation of some particular eigenstates of a particular variable and to specify it, one must determine which variable and which outcomes we expect to decohere. In the real world which is approximately local at low energies, particular variables are connected with points or regions in spacetime. What decoheres are the individual possible eigenvalues of such a chosen observable.

But the observable really has to live in "one region" of spacetime only - it's the same observable. The metric in this region may be dynamical and have different shapes as well but as long as we talk about eigenvalues of a single variable, and in the case of decoherence, we have to, it's clear that we also talk about one region only. Decoherence between the different outcomes will only occur if there's enough interactions, space, and time in the region for all the processes that dissipate the information about the relative phase to occur.

So it's completely meaningless to talk about "decoherence in spacelike separated regions". Decoherence is a process in spacetime and it is linked to a single observable that is defined from the fundamental degrees of freedom in a particular region. Of course, the region B of spacetime may only be helpful for the decoherence of different eigenvalues of another quantity in region A if it is causally connected with A. What a surprise. The information and matter can't propagate faster than light.

However, if one restricts to the causal diamond - the largest region that can be causally probed - then the boundary of the diamond acts as a one-way membrane and thus provides a preferred choice of environment.

This is just nonsense. Even inside a solid light cone, some degrees of freedom are the interesting non-environmental degrees of freedom we're trying to study - if there were no such degrees of freedom, we wouldn't be talking about the solid light cone at all. We're only talking about a region because we want to say something about the observables in that region.

At the same moment, for the decoherence to run, there must be some environmental degrees of freedom in the very same region, too. Also, as argued a minute ago - by me and by the very authors, too - the spatially separated pieces of spacetime are completely useless when it comes to decoherence. It's because the measurement event won't affect the degrees of freedom in those causally inaccessible regions of spacetime. Clearly, this means that those regions can't affect decoherence.

(A special discussion would be needed for the tiny nonlocalities that exist e.g. to preserve the black hole information.)

If you look at the light sheet surrounding the solid light cone and decode a hologram, you will find out that the separation of the bulk degrees of freedom to the interesting and environmental ones doesn't follow any pattern: they're totally mixed up in the hologram. It's nontrivial to extract the values of "interesting" degrees of freedom from a hologram where they're mixed with all the irrelevant Planckian microscopic "environmental" degrees of freedom.

They seem to link decoherence with the "holographic" degrees of freedom that lives on the light sheets - and a huge black-hole-like entropy of A/4G may be associated with these light sheets. But those numerous Planckian degrees of freedom don't interact with the observables we're able to study inside the light cone, so they can't possibly contribute to decoherence. Indeed, if 10⁷⁰ degrees of freedom were contributing to decoherence, everything, including the position of an electron in an atom, would be decohering all the time. This is of course not happening. If you associate many degrees of freedom with light sheets, be my guest, it's probably true at some moral level that the local physics can be embedded into physics of the huge Bekenstein-Hawking-like entropy on the light sheet - but you must still accept (more precisely, prove) that the detailed Planckian degrees of freedom won't affect the nicely coherent approximate local physics that may be described by a local effective field theory - otherwise your picture is just wrong.

The abstract - and correspondingly the paper - is getting increasingly more crazy.

We argue that the global multiverse is a representation of the many-worlds (all possible decoherent causal diamond histories) in a single geometry.

This is a huge unification claim. Unfortunately, there's not any evidence, as far as I can see, that the many worlds may be "geometrized" in this way. Even Brian Greene in his popular popular book admits that there is no "cloning machine". You can't imagine that the new "many worlds" have a particular position "out there". The alternative histories are totally disconnected from ours geometrically. They live in a totally separate "gedanken" space of possible histories. By construction, the other alternative histories can't affect ours, so they're unphysical. All these things are very different from ordinary "branes" in the same universe and even from other "bubbles" in an inflating one. I don't know why many people feel any urge to imagine that these - by construction - unphysical regions (Everett's many worlds) are "real" but at any rate, I think that they agree that they cannot influence physics in our history.

We propose that it must be possible in principle to verify quantum-mechanical predictions exactly.

Nice but it's surely not possible. We can only repeat the same measurement a finite number of times and in a few googols of years, or much earlier, our civilization will find out it's dying. We won't be able to tunnel our knowledge elsewhere. The number of repetitions of any experiment is finite and it is not just a technical limitation.

There are many things we only observe once. Nature can't guarantee that everything may be tested infinitely many times - and it doesn't guarantee that.

This requires not only the existence of exact observables but two additional postulates: a single observer within the universe can access infinitely many identical experiments; and the outcome of each experiment must be completely definite.

In de Sitter space, the observables are probably not exactly defined at all. Even in other contexts, this is the case. Observers can't survive their death, or thermal death of their surrounding Universe, and outcomes of most experiments can't be completely definite. Our accuracy will always remain finite, much like the number of repetitions and our lifetimes.

In the next sentence, they agree that the assumptions fail - but because of the holographic principle. One doesn't need a holographic principle to show such things. After all, the holographic principle is an equivalence of a bulk description and the boundary description so any physically meaningful statement holds on both sides.

At the end, they define "hats" - flat regions with unbroken supersymmetry - and link their exact observables to some approximate observables elsewhere. Except that this new "complementarity principle" isn't supported by any evidence I could find in the paper and it isn't well-defined, not even partially. In the quantum mechanical case, complementarity means something specific - that ultimately allows you to write "P" as "-i.hbar.d/dx" - a very specific construction that is well-defined and established. In the black hole, complementarity allows you to explain why there's no xeroxing; the map between the degrees of freedom isn't expressed by a formula but there is evidence. But what about this complementarity involving hats? There's neither definition nor evidence or justification (unless you view the satisfaction of manifestly invalid and surely unjustified, ad hoc assumptions to be a justification).

If you read the paper, it is unfortunately motivated by misunderstandings of the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics. In the introduction, they ask:

But at what point, precisely, do the virtual realities described by a quantum mechanical wave function turn into objective realities?

Well, when we measure the observables. Things that we haven't measured will never become "realities" in any sense. If the question is about the classical-quantum boundary, there is obviously no sharp boundary. Classical physics is just a limit of quantum physics but quantum physics fundamentally works everywhere in the multiverse. The numerical (and qualitative) errors we make if we use a particular "classical scheme" to discuss a situation may be quantified - decoherence is one of the calculations that quantifies such things. But classical physics never fully takes over.

This question is not about philosophy. Without a precise form of decoherence, one cannot claim that anything really "happened", including the specific outcomes of experiments.

Oh, really? When I say that it's mostly sunny today, it's not because I preach a precise form of decoherence. It's because I have made the measurement. Of course, the observation can't be 100% accurate because "sunny" and "cloudy" haven't "fully" decohered from each other - but their overlap is just insanely negligible. Nevertheless, the overlap never becomes exactly zero. It can't. For more subtle questions - about electrons etc. - the measurements are more subtle, and indeed, if no measurement has been done, one cannot talk about any "reality" of the property because none of them could have existed. The very assumption that properties - especially non-commuting ones - had some well-defined properties leads to contradictions and wrong predictions.

Decoherence cannot be precise. Decoherence, by its very definition, is an approximate description of the reality that becomes arbitrarily good as the number of the environmental degrees of freedom, their interaction strength, and the time I wait become arbitrarily large. I think that none of the things I say are speculative in any way; they consider the very basic content and meaning of decoherence and I think that whoever disagrees has just fundamentally misunderstood what decoherence is and is not. But the accuracy of this emergent macroscopic description of what's happening with the probabilities is never perfect, just like macroscopic equations of hydrodynamics never exactly describe the molecules of tea in a teacup.

And without the ability to causally access an infinite number of precisely decohered outcomes, one cannot reliably verify the probabilistic predictions of a quantum-mechanical theory.

Indeed, one can't verify many predictions of quantum mechanical properties, especially about cosmological-size properties that we can only measure once. If you don't like the fact that our multiverse denies you this basic "human right" to know everything totally accurately, you will have to apply for asylum in a totally different multiverse, one that isn't constrained by logic and science.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that these questions may be resolved by cosmology.

You know, I think that there are deep questions about the information linked between causally inaccessible regions - whether black hole complementarity tells you something about the multiverse etc. But this paper seems to address none of it. It seems to claim that the cosmological issues influence even basic facts about low-energy quantum mechanics and the information that is moving in it. That's surely not possible. It's just a generic paper based on misunderstandings of quantum mechanics and on desperate attempts to return the world under the umbrella of classical physics where there was a well-defined reality where everything was in principle 100% accurate.

But the people who are not on crack will never return to the era before the 1920s because the insights of quantum mechanics, the most revolutionary insights of the 20th century, are irreversible. Classical physics, despite its successes as an approximate theory, was ruled out many decades ago.

I have only read a few pages that I considered relevant and quickly looked at the remaining ones. It seems like they haven't found or calculated anything that makes any sense. The paper just defends the abstract and the introduction that they have apparently pre-decided to be true. But the abstract and and introduction are wrong.

You see that those would-be "revolutionary" papers start to share lots of bad yet fashionable features - such as the misunderstanding of the conceptual issues of quantum mechanics and the flawed idea that all such general and basic misunderstandings of quantum physics (or statistical physics and thermodynamics) must be linked to cosmology if not the multiverse.

However, cosmology has nothing to do with these issues. If you haven't understood a double-slit experiment in your lab or the observation of Schrödinger's cat in your living room and what science actually predicts about any of these things, by using the degrees of freedom in that room only, or if you haven't understood why eggs break but don't unbreak, including the degrees of freedom of the egg only, be sure that the huge multiverse, regardless of its giant size, won't help you to cure the misunderstanding of the basics of quantum mechanics and statistical physics.

The right degrees of freedom and concepts that are linked to the proper understanding of a breaking egg or decohering tea are simply not located far away in the multiverse. They're here and a sensible scientist shouldn't escape to distant realms that are manifestly irrelevant for these particular questions.

And that's the memo.

Posted by Luboš Motl at 9:39 PM | comments (92)



http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/bousso-susskind-hypermultiverse.html





http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/leonard-susskind

INTERVIEW
An interview with Leonard Susskind
Greg Ross
It's often noted that the universe seems strangely tailored to support human existence. The cosmological constant, for example, is tiny but not quite zero, producing a delicate cosmic balance without which life could not exist. This unlikely hospitality has given rise to the "anthropic principle," a controversial concept that invokes the requirement for human existence in seeking to determine the rules of our universe.
The principle is unpopular among physicists, who would prefer to reach a single elegant solution that prescribes values for all the constants of nature without appealing to our own existence. The difficulty is that string theory currently gives rise to an unmanageable number of possible solutions.



In The Cosmic Landscape (Little, Brown, 2005), Leonard Susskind offers a different conception. The Stanford physicist champions the idea of a "megaverse," a sea of pocket universes whose local environments correspond to the myriad solutions offered by string theory. Rather than seek a unique theory that somehow allows for our existence, he argues, physicists should consider a landscape of parallel universes in which the "local weather" is, here and there, hospitable to life.
The landscape idea has sparked an ongoing debate. American Scientist Online managing editor Greg Ross interviewed Susskind by e-mail in December 2005.

Briefly, what is the anthropic principle?
Here is what I mean by it. It is also what physicists/cosmologists like Steven Weinberg, Andrei Linde, Sir Martin Rees, Alex Vilenkin and Alan Guth mean:
1. The universe is tremendously big—much bigger than the 10 billion light-years that we are directly aware of by astronomical observation. The evidence for this is extremely strong and comes from the recent quantitative success of inflationary cosmology. In fact the universe is almost certainly so big that the observable portion of it is an infinitesimal fraction of the whole.
2. Inflation also tends to make the universe diverse. I mean that on enormous scales, it tends to make the universe more like a patchwork crazy quilt of diverse environments than a uniform homogeneous blanket. Of course it cannot make the universe more diverse in its properties than what is allowed by the equations of the theory. For example, in a smaller context, the Big Bang created diversity—hot stars, cold voids, giant gas clouds, a wide variety of planets, black holes, etc. All of these environments are solutions of the equations of physics. It did not create planets with antigravity or places where 1+1=3. So there are limits. In the bigger context diversity means variety in the properties of elementary particles and the constants of nature.
3. The basic equations that control that spectrum of particles and constants do admit a very large number of solutions. The space of these possibilities is what I have called "the landscape."
4. Given 1, 2 and 3, it is certain that some features of what we ordinarily call the laws of physics will turn out to be local environmental facts contingent on our particular region. If this is so, then the explanation of why a certain constant—the cosmological constant, for example—has its value, will be the following: The CC has one value in this patch, some other value in that patch and yet another value in some other patch. Our kind of life can only form in a narrow range of values, and so we find ourselves in such a region.
That's it. That's all it means. I hope that's brief enough.

So it's not that the universe is somehow contorting itself to accommodate us; it's just a diverse place and we find ourselves in a friendly corner. Is that right?
Right! But it's not a done deal. The question of whether the universe is a crazy quilt or a mono-colored blanket is still not definitively answered, although things are pointing toward the crazy quilt. I doubt that it will be settled for a good long time.

How does your idea of a cosmic landscape address these questions?
First let me say that the landscape is not only my idea. It's true that I named it, but many physicists, especially Raphael Bousso, Joe Polchinsky, most of my fellow theorists at Stanford and many more have contributed to it.
The notion of a landscape is an old one used both by biologists and by molecular physicists/chemists. Thus "the landscape of biological designs" or "the landscape of molecular configurations." It simply means the space of possibilities. In both these examples the landscape is huge. The number of real species is large, but the number of possible species is immeasurably larger. Similarly, the number of arrangements of 1,000 atoms to form metastable molecules is also tremendously large. In a similar vein, the number of solutions of string theory appears to be similarly large. By solutions, I mean the number of possible environments it can describe. Thus string theory is a natural candidate to address point 3.

You've noted that cosmologists are more receptive to this idea than physicists are. Why is this?
Well, perhaps it's because physicists tend to look down at their equations, whereas cosmologists look up at the universe. Cosmologists are like naturalists who look at the details of nature and try to find patterns in their observations. Theoretical physicists have a bit of the aesthete in them. They are preoccupied with the form and beauty of their mathematical formulas. The two complement each other, but this time I think the cosmologists have the advantage. By now almost every theoretical physicist (of the kind that studies gravity, elementary particles, string theory and cosmology) that I know has reluctantly acknowledged the likelihood (not the certainty) that some aspects of the usual laws of physics may be contingent on our local place in the universe.
But I might add that I am not sorry that theoretical physicists are unready to throw in the towel. More than anything I think we need a good hard battle of ideas to help clarify things. I only wish the elegant-math enthusiasts had an idea.

How do you respond to critics who see the anthropic approach as quasi-religious or unscientific?
I cannot put it better than Steven Weinberg did in a recent paper:
Finally, I have heard the objection that, in trying to explain why the laws of nature are so well suited for the appearance and evolution of life, anthropic arguments take on some of the flavor of religion. I think that just the opposite is the case. Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator. I found this parallel well understood in a surprising place, a New York Times op-ed article by Christoph Schönborn, Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna. His article concludes as follows:
Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human nature by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.
There is evident irony in the fact that the cardinal seems to understand the issue much better than some physicists.

David Gross of UC Santa Barbara says, "Science has managed to explain lots of other weird numbers—so why shouldn't we expect eventually to explain the cosmological constant and other key parameters?"

David is entirely correct in one respect. The views that I have expressed are far from rigorous scientific facts. The observational evidence for a cosmological constant, for inflation, and the mathematical evidence for a string theory landscape could all evaporate. So far they show no signs of doing so, but surprises happen. It is certainly premature to declare victory and close the question. I would be very worried if all theoretical physicists "gave up" (as David puts it) looking for a mathematical explanation for the "weird" value of the cosmological constant. But I think David exaggerates when he claims that science has explained anything like the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant.

Some physicists say the landscape idea lacks "beauty" or "elegance." Is that a fair criticism?
It's a silly criticism. One should not decide the truth of a scientific proposition by appeal to someone's aesthetic sensibilities. Einstein said, "If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor." Similarly Thomas Huxley referred to "the great tragedy of science—the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

Without experimental data, how will we ever decide these questions?
Ah, now we come to the heart of the matter. How do we find out? Definitive evidence of the rest of the multiverse is out of the question. My guess is that over time we will learn more about the physical basis for inflation, and much of it will come from observational data. We may find deviations from the simplest inflation models that might tell us about how inflation began. We may be able to use statistical properties of the landscape to make predictions about quantities that we have not yet measured. Anyway, I don’t grant you the conclusion that there will be no more experimental data.
But let's keep our focus on the question: Is the universe very large (apparently so) and diverse, or is it everywhere the same, with particles and constants uniquely determined by elegant mathematics? No one knows for sure. Both are hypotheses. It is just as hard to confirm or falsify one as the other. Recent developments have favored the former, but the question is still open. Honestly, I don't know how it will be definitively decided. But quite frankly, I find the unique/elegant solution to be far more faith-based at the present time than the diversity solution.

​

 

THEeXchanger


THEeXchanger
Posts: 3947
Join date: 2011-06-04
Age: 56

• Post n°149

Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

THEeXchanger Today at 3:37 am

Yes goddess Susan, daughter of Shu.

The timedimension is an illusion but as said by Thuban, the linear experience of universal life requires timeconnector dimensions.

These are 4th, 7th and 10th density in the semantics you use.

Because of the opening of the 12D wormhole a 13th density has now become the recircularisation of the entire spacetime construct defining the 11 dimensional universe in inertia.

So now, and as you have known for some time now, the simplest of all of the densities, the first one has or can be coupled to the highest of the 13th.

This will not eliminate the linear timetravelling experience in 4th, 7th or 10th density; BUT it will allow anyone able to RESONATE with the 'founding frequencies'
to utilize the advanced wormhole technology hitherto restricted to the graduation and hierarchy of the dimensional nestings.

In some manner, without the timeconnectors, there are so 4 space continua-quantizations.
1-2-3 Linespace; 4-5-6 Hyperspace of Rotational Freedom degrees about the linear axes (say XYZ); 7-8-9 Quantumspace of vibrational freedom degrees of oscillations within the axes and 10-11-12 Omnispace of the dimensional extension of this proto-universe into phaseshifted multiverses.

All 12 dimensions are colocal and so the interdimensional contacts of so many of you are happenstance right where you are and not in some 'outer space'.

Your destiny is to one day become a phaseshifed universe, the one you ponder now in thought and in body.

Your biovital cells shall be the galaxies you now observe and your attire shall be other universes you have fun and joy interacting with in love and self remembrance and a sense of exploration and adventure.

Abraxasinas

PS.: Until January 18th, I, Abraxasinas shall attempt to answer questions on Thuban's behalf.
But from that date, the answers given will be more authoritative.

JANUARY 2010
http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18900

 

Raven


Raven
Posts: 466
Join date: 2010-04-10
Age: 47
Location: The Emerald City

• Post n°150

Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

Raven Today at 2:20 am

What ISIS Really Wants​

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.



​

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

The group seized Mosul, Iraq, last June, and already rules an area larger than the United Kingdom. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been its leader since May 2010, but until last summer, his most recent known appearance on film was a grainy mug shot from a stay in U.S. captivity at Camp Bucca during the occupation of Iraq. Then, on July 5 of last year, he stepped into the pulpit of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, to deliver a Ramadan sermon as the first caliph in generations—upgrading his resolution from grainy to high-definition, and his position from hunted guerrilla to commander of all Muslims. The inflow of jihadists that followed, from around the world, was unprecedented in its pace and volume, and is continuing.
​

Continued Here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/​

Sirius 17: A. found this chilling article on IS

"But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.” Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.”


"After its battle in Dabiq, Cerantonio said, the caliphate will expand and sack Istanbul. Some believe it will then cover the entire Earth, but Cerantonio suggested its tide may never reach beyond the Bosporus. An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory."

[8:19:59 PM] Sirius 17: umm no
[8:20:12 PM] Sirius 17: not our Jesus
[8:20:17 PM] Sirius 17: wtf
​

[9:42:17 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Interesting though as we say that 50,000 exhumans will become the stock of starhumans
[9:42:40 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Yes you should share A's post there
[9:44:34 PM] Sirius 17: where? on moa
[9:45:07 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Everywhere

IS.IS muslim propaganda is shown below for reference:






​

[9:14:05 AM-Saturday, July 26th, 2014 -+10UCT] Shiloh: Mind you the ideas of the geography from Chris White is also a misreading of Ezekiel 38-39 etc and Daniel-Revelation and is religious BS in this video, but the description of the Judahic-Islamic Mahdi is correct.
[9:14:32 AM] Zaina: one question i have been meaning to ask ,
[9:14:59 AM] Shiloh: Yes indeed, because Ishmael is of Hagar and Isaac is of Sarah
[9:15:27 AM] Zaina: Jaboc brother felt the birth right was his
[9:15:40 AM] Zaina: and was stolen from him ,
[9:15:43 AM] Zaina: Jacob birth right and i think all this problem in palestine is related to this ,
[9:15:55 AM] Shiloh: Arabs then consider Ishmael as oldest with the original birthright and deny any legitimacy of the Judahic-Christian birthright
[9:16:05 AM] Zaina: yes
[9:16:17 AM] Zaina: so all this is related to this happening i guess
[9:17:03 AM] Shiloh: It is the earlier birthright of Ishmael-Isaac, which then is repeated in Esau-Jacob and again in Pharez-Zarah and again in Joseph's sons Manasseh-Ephraim
[9:17:43 AM] Shiloh: You are 'on the cosmic markers' on this Zia
[9:17:56 AM] Zaina: yes i know
[9:18:10 AM] Zaina: house of zebulon
[9:18:12 AM] Zaina: i take it
[9:18:27 AM] Zaina: which is the jacobs lineage
[9:18:28 AM] Shiloh: And this means you become an informed 'insider' and not some arrogant dragon queen lol
[9:18:41 AM] Zaina: oh
[9:18:58 AM] Shiloh: No Zebulon is simply one of 12 tribes or starsigns, namely Capricorn
[9:19:09 AM] Zaina: oh shows how much i know
[9:20:01 AM] Shiloh: But Zebulon has a personal meaning for you as it is the last male son of Leah before she gives birth to her only named daughter Dinah as the 13th starsign of the cosmic starhuman dragonhood
[9:20:06 AM] Zaina: what did you mean by cosmic markers on this ?
[9:20:26 AM] Zaina: to heal ?
[9:20:46 AM] Shiloh: Simply knowledge linked to understanding and so a wisdom marker or qualifier
[9:21:42 AM] Zaina: then i am unimportant in this and Moses coming ot me was becasue of Dinah ,back in 2008
[9:21:45 AM] Shiloh: Even if your understanding is evolving and growing from little seeds. Because your heart is mindful and not vice versa as in old humans who pride themselves as logically minded and hearty 'feelers'; you have learned to feel with your mind and 'think' or know with your heart in the other way around
[9:22:10 AM] Shiloh: No, Moses was another one of your cosmic family members
[9:22:37 AM] Zaina: He a angry man lol
[9:22:50 AM] Zaina: from the sample he showed me ,
[9:23:30 AM] Zaina: then that explanes why they won't let me go
[9:23:57 AM] Zaina: in my understanding of things
[9:26:30 AM] Shiloh: As said trust your feeling mind and thinking heart on this and not your thinking mind and feeling heart.
[9:27:01 AM] Shiloh: The former is starhuman selfhood and the latter is old human
[9:28:05 AM] Shiloh: I must go no dear one, but i will save this discourse to be of insight for others
[9:28:12 AM] Zaina: thanks Tony ,i know you hate to type for long times ,
[9:28:19 AM] Zaina: thanks for your time ,
[9:28:27 AM] Zaina: yes indeed
[9:29:01 AM] Shiloh: You are in the Cave of the Dragonheart and so of family of the starseed of Abraham and Sarah Zaina
[9:29:40 AM] Zaina: Just to add just looked at your video you sent me the way of the antichrist and this is just what i am studying now ,,no coinsidences .
[9:29:42 AM] Shiloh: This is all that matters for the 'cohesions' required to help the World Logos to bring in the change of the old world for a new one
[9:30:04 AM] Shiloh: Human vanities and judgements are not required
[9.44:00 AM] Shiloh:>>>what did you mean by cosmic markers on this ? to heal ?

This might surprise you a little, but the Mother of Dinah is called Leah = Heal and so you can now associate with your cosmic ID card a little better. Just remember that Leah is an archetype and so 'accessible' to all who wish to identify with the playwright of all scripts. The same is applicable to the Marys and Sarahs and Rebekahs of course, but Mary Magdalene and the Christ Mother were real incarnates, whilst many encoded names, say dated to say 1000 BC to David and Solomon and including Moses are not. Moses is part of many pharaoh names like Rameses and Ahmose and Thutmosis and many others and so shows that the 'abandoned' Moses baby in the river Nile and 'rescued' by a royal princess was not of 'Israelitic' lineage, but of the Egyptian bloodlines of real actual history. Much Nabs about Jesus being pharaohnic and so on derives from this misunderstanding.

http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t6759p105-the-factuals-versus-the-nabs#105046

[5:43:56 PM-Tuesday, February 17th, 2015 -+11UCT] Sirius 17: yes lol
[5:49:57 PM] Sirius 17: the middle video seems like muslim propaganda to me, i don't like it
[5:50:05 PM] Sirius 17: are you sure we want to post that?
[5:53:34 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: I better look I only scanned it
[5:54:05 PM] Sirius 17: yes i am watching it now, i mean it does show how insane they are but it is one of their propaganda videos
[5:54:34 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: yes and leave it but put this as comment IT IS MUSLIM Propaganda
[5:54:51 PM] Sirius 17: k
[5:54:59 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: To show off the fake Jesus islam 'style'
[5:57:03 PM] Sirius 17: ok i added commentary there
[5:59:56 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: We should also clarify the 3rd video, as Chris White utterly misconstructs the 'antichrist' and the nexus focus of the Jerusalem Temple; but his overall description of the Jewish messianic fervour and context is good
​

Albeit...!





​

 

B.B.Baghor


B.B.Baghor
Posts: 541
Join date: 2014-01-31
Age: 64
Location: The Netherlands

• Post n°152

Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

B.B.Baghor Today at 11:20 am

As I said before, I can't make chocolate of this huge amount of info, maybe mistakenly perceived as meant to be understood.
If this is solely for your own amusement and entertainment, so be it, I'm okay with that. Although I keep feeling this should be held
amongst you Thuban devotees, in private highness. Honestly, I can choose to not visit this thread, can't I?
I guess this is an antidote of some sorts, called forth in me by it, for being present in this god almighty way, this form.
An effort to be a transmitter, on another bandwith, bringing all this down to earth, down to human ears too.

While I was briefly scrolling through the last posts here, by Raven and shiloh, something popped up, that made me ponder on
the following:

To me, there seems to be a component in all that's happening now, not often thought of as being present, as I tend to feel.
Not sure if that's true, I mean the awareness of that component, in few or many of us. Let me know if you're with me in this:

Inherent to the rise of vibration, the turning on and focussing of our "galactic binoculors, is a change of view in the windmills of
our mind, feelings of the heart and instincts of our guts. Which seems to be steering towards a whole different arena or theatre of life.
I see a process going on in all levels of society, as an opening of windows, we never knew were present in the walls of our "home".
Unexpected vistas and choices present themselves, to those willing to pay attention to them. Within that change, new paradigms
are coming in place, I think. Paradigms that are beyond polarity consciousness, outside the existence of time: past, present and future.

No divide and conquer game will be present, for these games are rooted in an old world. Games of that nature are coming to an end, as I see it.
Not because any person or power ordains it, or has ordained it, specially not me, although I may sound a bit like that, but because this is a law
of nature, characteristics of a consciousness shift, unheard of for a very long time, but nevertheless, lived through in our pasts.
It's about life finding its course, like water flowing under a bridge. As I see it, we shift into a whole new awareness and form of existence,
in mind, heart and body, slowly and gradually.

It's often bewildering, for we're with one foot in the old world and the other foot is in the new world. That's unsettling. This shows us how
valuable it is to be well grounded and compassionate to our state of being, now. And be in the 3D world, in the circus of a city buzz,
an airport or a hospital and know that you're doing okay, aware of your intentions, shining in your actions, managing your own dimmer.
And give attention to the affinity for yourself within your hearts. It's a birthright, never taken from us. It needs dusting off and being brought
into the sunlight of our higher self. No pompous ceremony, or meditations into the umpth hour are needed, per se, as a key to that connection.

My use of words may sound holy poly to some of you, but in its essence, in the practice of this connection, it's very simple. It's about being in
alignment with who you know to be and your desire how to be with that and make it so, by not taking anything personal anymore. This can only be done, after we've taken everything personal. It's about being human and growing up to adulthood. A toddler kicks a table leg, when hurt by it.

This is something that isn't considered much. When we're in need of healing, we have to take things personal, for the wound is a magnet for it.
Taking something as personal can be done in two ways: blaming others or oneself, or seeing the wound for what it is, as part of one's own creation.
I don't imply a condoning of power abuse and telling of lies or obscuring the truth, in that acknowledgement. It's about choosing one's pain to be a teacher, while accepting the hurting in an embrace of love. It's about being vulnerable while standing up for yourself at the same time.

Grieving, as I've come to understand, is in existence as an invitation to wake up to the bigger heart and overcome our personal one, when it's healed.
I don't imply any skipping of steps, in moving from utter selfishness to a service to others. The magic is in this, that when we arrive in that realm of the
bigger heart, a place of unconditional love, we will find that our smaller heart is being cared for and in love as well. Being partly in the old world and in the new world, presents situations where we experience hurting in sudden popped up matters of our heart, in pain or joy, fury in small fry issues,
mood swings and irrational thoughts and unexpected feelings of anxiety and fear, be it memory or in the moment. Our dna is waking up, you see?

At the same time, amidst of all that, we can experience moments of peace, unexpected relief and physical comfort with our senses awake, being at ease with it, in need of nothing, just being okay. Once we're in a timeless state of being, we may find there's no need of knowledge, rules and form, how our lives can be lived, preferably in joyful happiness and in okayness with what IS. IT doesn't MATTER anymore to KNOW. I choose intentionally, to keep a balance in gaining knowledge, now, for sometimes it's an obstacle to where I need to be and love to be, which is a place empty of knowledge for mind.

It's about giving words to your truth, once you've found what that truth is, or how it feels like. No strings attached, no conditions are present in how your truth should be, or if it's shining or dimmed. Here or in your own life, to yourself in private twilight hours or in dreams, on the workfloor or at home, alone or with our beloved ones. Or with our ET friends out there, comparing notes, making merry

 

mudra

mudra
Posts: 16090
Join date: 2010-04-09
Age: 60
Location: belgium

• Post n°153

Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

mudra Today at 3:24 pm
B.B.Baghor wrote:

Hello BB. The Thubans are quite outspoken in their private/public conversations. The fact that they post these openly allows people concerned to reflect on what's being said about them and eventually get something out of it or correct it if they do not feel it's right.
This can be hard to take at first sight but isn't that better than people speaking behind our back ?.

Love from me
mudra

B.B.Baghor


B.B.Baghor
Posts: 541
Join date: 2014-01-31
Age: 64
Location: The Netherlands

• Post n°154

Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

B.B.Baghor Today at 3:56 pm

I agree with you to a degree, mudra. I'm having a hard time with finding chat-discussions about what others say, while the
ones spoken of are not present and taking part in what's being discussed. I find this a dishonest way of going about it, see?

I know.. I almost can't resist to be a bit provoking. I like it to much, it's hard to resist and I did it... again and I shouldn't
To be honest, it's my view, or rather.... wish.... ahemmm (mother superior goes off through the side door of the stage)
in sharing whatever interesting or not-at-all-interesting posts here, each for the taking by those resonating with it, that it's
handled in an open way, in communication with other members, to and fro, in a dynamic of some sorts.

I can't find that present in this thread, nor an offer of help in understanding it, or making it digestible, in such large size posts.
To me, it's showing up as a dozen traffic lights all at the same time, at a crossroad, all showing red or green at the same time.
The traffic is a jumble, a mess, a confusion of all sorts of brakes screeching, bumper bumping and claxons hooting. And curses.
It's too otherworldly, too far from the capacity to the human brain, to grasp. I can grasp the overall meaning of it, I guess, but
I feel irritated and annoyed at some point, repeatedly.

It's not so much the subject, I'm having a problem with, it's more how it's being handled and published here. I find it fascinating
in a vague way, but not that interesting to work with or ponder on. For I compare this Thuban thread with the activity
of young gamers, on Sunday afternoons, in the Fantasy shop in my town, joining in a group session, disappearing in their own world,
happy to play and be played by the game, that's on.

I know, I know, why is it, that the worst of me loves to busy myself with this? Hmmmm, time will tell, should I promise now to be a good girl?