Is this the real reality? What do you believe or think?

RDKirk · Wednesday at 8:44 PM

partinobodycular said:
As an epistemological solipsist for over fifty years I can assure you that people fail miserably at those two things... but understandably so. If we had to rationalize everything we believed, even to ourselves, we'd of gone stark raving mad a long, long time ago. It's best just to believe what you believe without having to explain why... that's what a God of the gaps is for.

In military intelligence, it comes to deciding when you have enough evidence you can claim is objective (that would be evidence other people agree means what you think it means). At some point, you believe you have enough and call a thing a "fact."

When I was training young analysts, I'd tell them to type out their analytical conclusions in red font. When they found one reliable corroborating source, they could type that conclusion in blue font. When they'd found two reliable collaborating sources, they could change that conclusion to green font. When they found three collaborating sources they could change that conclusion to black font.

But sometimes we had to brief even though we didn't have all the data we wanted. If they had to publish the analysis short of collaborating sources, they had to qualify those conclusions as "probable" or "possible," depending on the number and reliability of collaborating sources. And the rating of reliability of sources was a whole other process.

Admiral Jacoby also told me, "It's okay to be mistaken, but never be wrong. Mistaken is when you tell me. Wrong is when you don't."

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 9:13 PM

Neogaia777 said:
Ok, well a microscope was my guess, but they could show you visibly how it changed the water from it's original state, for better, or for worse, etc, and the whole entire structure of the water was visibly different/changed, etc. If you drank it some had the ability to poison you afterwards, and some didn't, etc. If that's not proof, then I don't know what is, etc.

How do you show the structure of water has changed?

Neogaia777 said:
But I guess you could always just try drinking the water with the negative labels afterwards in sheer defiance maybe? And we'll just see what happens to you maybe?

Wait, are you saying that if I went to the store and bought a sealed bottle of water and took off the labels and replaced them with a sticker that says "poison" I would be harmed by drinking it?

Neogaia777 said:
Im sure you can find the experiment if you look, but I already know your not going to, because you've already chosen to reject the idea/premise no matter what, etc, even though I'm not asking you to believe in some sort of magic, or the supernatural, or a God/god or something, because I already know you'd definitely reject that, etc.

I ain't makin' the claim. You is. Post anything that describes what you are talking about that you didn't write. Anything. A link, etc. Remember, that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Neogaia777 said:
Take Care.

Neogaia777 · Wednesday at 9:23 PM

Hans Blaster said:
How do you show the structure of water has changed?

All I know is I saw it, and it was pretty clear that it was different, or that the structure was visibly changed. I don't know how they were measuring it, or what they were measuring it with, as I'm certainly no expert about these matters, ok.

Hans Blaster said:
Wait, are you saying that if I went to the store and bought a sealed bottle of water and took off the labels and replaced them with a sticker that says "poison" I would be harmed by drinking it?

If you put it in a public place where a lot of people passed by and the label was clear for everybody to see and associate it with that specfic bottle of water (and maybe with other ones with different labels next to it, or down from it maybe) and it was placed there for "so long", that's what the experiment showed, or was showing?

Hans Blaster said:
I ain't makin' the claim. You is. Post anything that describes what you are talking about that you didn't write. Anything. A link, etc. Remember, that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I'll see if I can find something, ok. But I'm not really looking to prove this specific claim, and I think I already know that you are gonna find a way to reject it/dismiss it anyway, which doesn't exactly motivate me very much to dig about this specific claim, as I'd much rather talk about everything else that I have been saying anyway, etc.

But we'll get you a bottle of that water with the negative labels on it that was used in these experiments for you to drink, and you can prove us all wrong, ok.

Take Care.

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 9:34 PM

Neogaia777 said:
All I know is I saw it, and it was pretty clear that it was different, or that the structure was visibly changed. I don't know how they were measuring it, or what they were measuring it with, as I'm certainly no expert about these matters, ok.

If there is a "they" who were measuring it, then there is a "they" who has some sort of documentation. How else could you have found out about it?

Neogaia777 said:
If you put it in a public place where a lot of people passed by and the label was clear for everybody to see and associate it with that specfic bottle of water (and maybe with other ones with different labels next to it, or down from it maybe) and it was placed there for "so long", that's what the experiment showed, or was showing?

That's not how reality works. Words/labels are not majik. I've filled old pop bottles with tap water. The labels don't turn it into Mountain Dew.

Neogaia777 said:
I'll see if I can find something, ok. But I'm not really looking to prove this specific claim, and I think I already know that you are gonna find a way to reject it/dismiss it anyway, which doesn't exactly motivate me very much to dig about this specific claim, as I'd much rather talk about everything else that I have been saying anyway, etc.

You could retract the claim.

Neogaia777 said:
But we'll get you a bottle of that water with the negative labels on it that was used in these experiments for you to drink, and you can prove us all wrong, ok.

Take Care.

Fervent · Wednesday at 9:35 PM

Neogaia777 said:
Can you exercise some sort of faith/belief that this reality might not be the only reality, or the highest or greatest reality? Or at least allow for the possibility of that maybe?

Honestly, I'm not even sure I am experiencing the same reality as everyone else. I know I'm not alone, but I don't know how much of my reality crosses over with anyone elses. I live in a world of appearances, and I know not which ones to trust.

Neogaia777 · Wednesday at 9:44 PM

Hans Blaster said:
If there is a "they" who were measuring it, then there is a "they" who has some sort of documentation. How else could you have found out about it?

I first saw it in a video documentary.

Hans Blaster said:
That's not how reality works. Words/labels are not majik. I've filled old pop bottles with tap water. The labels don't turn it into Mountain Dew.

There you go again using the word "magic"? It's not magic, but there is a very logical, scientific explanation for it, etc. And that mostly centers around people's thoughts/feelings, or, especially collective thoughts/attitudes/feelings, can affect reality sometimes, and in some ways, but we just don't understand fully how yet right now currently, etc.

And I'm not suggesting that bottles of water can become Mountain Dew necessarily (although there is a claim of one man turning water into wine once, etc) but, right now, I'm just talking about the experiment, and it's specfic evidence/claims (which isn't turning water into Mountain Dew BTW).

Hans Blaster said:
You could retract the claim.

I already told you I don't care either way.

Take Care.

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 11:16 PM

Neogaia777 said:
I first saw it in a video documentary.

What "documentary"?

Neogaia777 said:
There you go again using the word "magic"?

What do you mean "again"? (and it was "majik") I hadn't used that word before.

Neogaia777 said:
It's not magic, but there is a very logical, scientific explanation for it, etc.

Then provide it. I've not heard of such a mechanism.

Neogaia777 said:
And that mostly centers around people's thoughts/feelings, or, especially collective thoughts/attitudes/feelings, can affect reality sometimes, and in some ways, but we just don't understand fully how yet right now currently, etc.

Thoughts and feelings exist inside your skull. How can they affect water bottles?

Neogaia777 said:
And I'm not suggesting that bottles of water can become Mountain Dew necessarily (although there is a claim of one man turning water into wine once, etc) but, right now, I'm just talking about the experiment, and it's specfic evidence/claims (which isn't turning water into Mountain Dew BTW).

I already told you I don't care either way.

I don't buy any of that.

Neogaia777 said:
Take Care.

Always do.

Neogaia777 · Wednesday at 11:56 PM

@Hans Blaster

Ok, well, I guess it is considered "psuedoscience", and will probably have to come down to belief for now, until more evidence can be shown/proven/presented/generated for either side. With the water crystal test anyway. Some claim it does, or can, and some claim it doesn't, or can't. And from what I found on Google, there are some sometimes conflicting experiments/evidence on both sides (go figure, huh?) And if you Google some other things that all fall under the general category of can thoughts/feelings/attitudes/intention/alignment, etc, etc, etc, actually affect reality, and is there any real evidence either proving or disproving it on either side, then you'll get the same again, or some sometimes conflicting opinions/science/evidence, or scientific support, etc, on both sides, etc. So I think it's safe to assume that we just don't know right now currently, or don't have enough information yet, for either side, etc. Can't be 100% proven, but can't be 100% disproven yet either, on either side. Some argue that some aspects of QM/QT indicate it, and some say we can't make those kinds of conclusions yet, etc, and I think that, for right now anyway, the latter is probably right, for right now anyway, etc.

So, now that that's settled, we can now talk about the rest of the information presented in the OP, and the few posts after it, ok.

Oh, and I would also like to say that's it's also the same for 100% believing a thing, can't be concluded for sure yet either way on either side, etc.

Anyway, back to the OP and the few posts after it now, ok.

Take Care.

Neogaia777 · Thursday at 12:08 AM

@Hans Blaster

There has been a lot of evidence/studies done, showing that much more happier/go lucky/positive/upbeat/more optimistic people, are usually in much more better health generally than those who are not, etc. But there are also a lot of other factors associated with being that way that could be affecting that also, etc. They (the opposite of those ones) tend to make worse life choices, for example, generally, etc.

Take Care.

Hans Blaster · Thursday at 12:17 AM

Neogaia777 said:
@Hans Blaster

There has been a lot of evidence/studies done, showing that much more happier/go lucky/positive/upbeat/more optimistic people, are usually in much more better health generally than those who are not, etc. But there are also a lot of other factors associated with being that way that could be affecting that also, etc. They tend to make worse life choices, for example, etc.

Take Care.

That has nothing to do with your "modified water" claim.

Neogaia777 · Thursday at 12:28 AM

Hans Blaster said:
That has nothing to do with your "modified water" claim.

No, it doesn't, but it falls under the general category of why I even brought it up in the first place, which is/was, can people's thoughts/feelings/attitudes/intentionalities, etc, etc, etc, affect this world, or some things in this world, or affect this reality in any kind of significant way, that might perhaps one day be discoverable/measurable/testable in some kind of way maybe, etc.

Oh, and I am talking physically measurably/testably in any kind of way, because we already know it (being more positive/upbeat/optimistic, etc) can affect it (reality) in other kinds of ways, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

Larniavc · Thursday at 1:16 AM

Neogaia777 said:
Computer programs, like video games, do it when something is not needing to be rendered/manifested also.

What?

Larniavc · Thursday at 1:17 AM

Neogaia777 said:
I've seen the evidence already, etc.

I think you have either read pure fantasy or have misunderstood what you have read.

Larniavc · Thursday at 1:19 AM

Neogaia777 said:
They could put the water molecules under a microscope afterwards, and visibly see the change/difference, etc.

This did not happen.

Neogaia777 · Thursday at 1:30 AM

Larniavc said:
This did not happen.

No, it was analyzing ice crystals, etc.

Sorry, it's been awhile, etc.

Take Care.

Neogaia777 · Thursday at 1:32 AM

Larniavc said:
I think you have either read pure fantasy or have misunderstood what you have read.

I saw the evidence of changed ice crystals, but it was a long time ago, see post #68.

Take Care.

Neogaia777 · Thursday at 1:37 AM

Larniavc said:
What?

When a computer simulation does not need to actively render an image, or a sound, it goes back into the background as being "superposed" or superimposed, until it needs to be actively rendered again, etc. Which gives everything the appearance of temporarily being everywhere (or nowhere) in that state, etc. This is to conserve (active) memory, etc.

Take Care.

Mark Quayle · Thursday at 1:56 AM

timewerx said:
The Bible did not speak of other planets in other stars either but astronomy is proving they exist.

Yes, realities in terms of whole different (separate) universes may exist. In science, reality does not extend beyond our Universe and/or simply no means of observation.

Reality/time also "terminates" at the event horizon of a Black Hole.

In all cases, all observation is impossible.

Yet the absolute lack of anything coming out of something doesn't always mean lack of existence. We know in the case of black holes, something do exist beyond the event horizon even though all observation results say nothing exist in there, not even space-time.

Theories exist that Black Holes may host separate universe inside that may look and behave very similar to ours and even follows the evolution of our universe from creation and there's no singularity inside.

In a similar fashion, our Universe may also be inside a much bigger one. In both cases, time ceases to have meaning at the boundary and beyond. Another place where time ceases to meaning are some levels in the quantum field.

It seems like when one "reality" ends and another one starts, it is marked by the laws of physics becoming undefined and time loses meaning, All in "boundary scenarios", In black holes, the observational limits of our universe, and in quantum fields.

Yet, these theories suggest if physics or time loses meaning from our perspective like when looking at black holes as outside observer, an inside observer might see time function normally as we do time in our own universe.

What is totally meaningless or even non-existent from one observational perspective is totally normal and exist in another and this is from a scientific perspective.

it seems by design that if countless universes exist, natural laws makes interaction between them nearly impossible with the exception of gravity or spacetime curvature.

So you are defining 'reality' as a system, not as an omni.

Also, understand, this whole statement you make is about what little we know so far. If there are other, even if there are many, universes, they all have at least one thing in common. Their creator. And that can be only one, who is not subject to any greater reality.

Larniavc · Thursday at 2:20 AM

Neogaia777 said:
If that's not proof, then I don't know what is, etc.

You claim this has happened but provide not evidence that the claim is any more than either you falling for lies or your misinterpreting what you read.

Evidence that can be looked at please.

Larniavc · Thursday at 2:21 AM

Neogaia777 said:
Im sure you can find the experiment if you look, but I already know your not going to,

I have looked and your claims are not supported by any evidence.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Is this the real reality? What do you believe or think?

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Call Me Al

Old Soul

Call Me Al

Well-Known Member

Old Soul

Call Me Al

Old Soul

Old Soul

Call Me Al

Old Soul

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Old Soul

Old Soul

Old Soul

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Similar threads