• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

article: Quantum Theory Proves That Consciousness Moves to Another Universe Afterdeat

there's no way to distinguish between them since they have no outer edges, nor inner planck

I've studied mathematics at a tertiary level (including chaos theory) and you can very much have "comparable infinities".
I provided the most simple (theoretical) mathematical example that exists when I edited my last post.

Here is a simpler mathematical example.

(3,4,5...) exists within (0,1,2,3...)

I can come up with some illustrative examples, if you like.

with the infinite, anything possible becomes inevitable. the only limitations would be contextually. for instance, there's never going to be a parallel universe exactly like ours that suddenly allows unaided human flight. the laws in each universe would have to evolve to that point. whilst there may be infinite branches in total, each moment can only spawn so many branches.

Well said. I don't disagree with this, at all.
"Within the realm of possibilities" is something that most people fail to grasp when dealing with the idea of infinite universes.
You say tomato, I say tomato; you say branches, I say variables.
 
I've studied mathematics at a tertiary level (including chaos theory) and you can very much have "comparable infinities".
I provided the most simple (theoretical) mathematical example that exists when I edited my last post.

Here is a simpler mathematical example.

(3,4,5...) exists within (0,1,2,3...)

I can come up with some illustrative examples, if you like.
ok, i see what you mean now. how many sides has a circle, etc. :)

Well said. I don't disagree with this, at all.
"Within the realm of possibilities" is something that most people fail to grasp when dealing with the idea of infinite universes.
You say tomato, I say tomato; you say branches, I say variables.

cheers, mate
 
You know those moments in dreams that don't make any sense, like when you encounter someone long-dead... and you consciously register, "is this real"?
I feel like we're approaching that with math and science. The more we discover, the less sense it all makes.
Fractions of infinity and quantum entanglement are like the dead uncle in our dreams.
Except, with science, we can't say: "is this real?"

Developments in science seem to suggest that our understanding of what constitues reality is amiss. I don't think there is an implication that nothing is real.

You raised some great points 4EVa :)

Journyman16 said:
One is that for a brain to exist as it is, we need the body and the body needs the world and physics tells us the world isn't really there. Maybe physics is totally wrong but currently it looks reasonably solid (I like puns) on the idea that nothing is solid. If there is no evidence for anything other than brain, there is also no evidence for brain itself. When we get down to it we could easily just be awareness, fed a scenario directly (or creating it) that shows only appearance of reality with no substance at all except in our perceptions.

That could be so. Brain in a tank or whathaveyou...

But I don't think physics is telling us that the world isn't here. I think it is telling us that our ideas or here/there/everywhere are in need of changing. Most matter is empty space, but if someone asks me if I wear clothes, I tend to answer "yes", not "no, I wear a quantum possibility which is comprised mainly of empty space".

There's also biology counting against the brain as sole arbiter of reality. Cells all work in one specific way - a signal comes in and the cell does stuff.. The problem is, ALL cells work this way. So... that begs the question - how do we decide to do anything? Move an arm, have a thought, consider the brain - all these need initiation and cells can't do it.

I'm not sure I follow. The input is, what, biochemical, mediated by electrical current. The impetus is thought/intent, or so it feels, and it is convincing enough. I think you are descending into the fractal madness, like filming yourself, on a screen, filming yourself. How does the primary cell get told what to do, if it is the cell that does the telling....? Where does the first impulse come from?

I consider the idea that our 'true' existence is elsewhere and we are "projected" into this reality to be quite appealing. :)

There's also the field we can see in action when the brain is functioning. It is multilayered and quite complex and responsive - if the brain is paramount, what is the field doing?

The field?

Also, where do we go when unconscious? The brain shuts right down under anaesthetic but people still sometimes recall what has occurred in the theatre.

Not true, the brain does not shut down under anaesthesia. Activity (metabolic/electrical/biochemical) is massively muted but thats it. A shut down brain is called a dead brain.

Why would we go anywhere? That doesn't make sense to me. :D

Why would a brain need to dream?

If you don't use your car ever, it is still a great idea to turn it on and off from time to time, even take it for a drive, to try and keep it running. Perhaps the physical brain needs to run 'screen-saver' type programs to stretch/flex lesser used parts of the brain. It could explain why dreams are often unusual, and give rise to feelings and sensations we normally do not experience. Like stretching a little used muscle...

It seems to me the senses we use are limiters, ways to reduce what we perceive, and the brain is a part of that system. To me that offers a possible explanation for the glimpses and clues we get of a vaster world, a beyond-reality realness where connections happen and some can be overwhelmed by the inflow. It may be that hallucinogenics can take us there and the entities we meet while so engaged are consciousnesses beyond the limited world we are working our way through.

I think of the brain as the organiser, and the sense-of-self is the outcome of this organisation. No amount of drugs will change the physical capabilities of your senses, but they will dramatically change the way that the brain organises sensory input, to the extent that the entire world appears different. The fact that most psychedelics agonise neuronal transmission gives me an idea that the brain is actually deleting or delaying information when on psychedelics. This goes against the idea that psychedelics inhibit this normal sensory limitation.

Doesn'tt it seem simpler and more elegant that the brain can create incredible illusions, rather then that drugs can literally take us somewhere else?

We are on the same path. The "Mind" is something more than the molecular structure of the brain. Most of us accept this as an unproven / as of yet non provable truth.
I an on a path that is leading toward whatever DMT does as the inner workings of a lock that keeps us from knowing what the answer is. [/COLOR]N,N-Dimethyltryptamine is (to me) the clue to the solution of our very core. What we are in effect.
The ancients knew this. The current peoples know this. My question that I seek an answer for is what is inside the core?
What fuels our mind?
N,N-Dimethyltryptamine is there but why? Is that the fuel that creates us?

It opens new doors of thought... Are we the God that we seek?

It's like a puzzle where the solution is in plain sight. Just my thoughts on the topic.

Have you used DMT extensively? What if it doesn't do anything endogenously, like acetone? Why do we have an enzyme system that destroys it almost instantly?

I've used DMT hundreds of times now, from smoked/IM'ed/IV'ed crystal, smoked changa, ayahuasca, pharmahuasca and have spent a lot of that time navigating the space and trying to examine what is really happenning. I have experienced direct entity contact under both aya and changa, but the entities were unable to convey anything to me that I didn't already know; in fact, the main thrust of their interaction was tautologically telling me that they were here... That doesn't seem important or profound. The experience of 5-MeO-DMT is a lot more powerful to me; there's not a lot of dressing up and dancing, but there is an apparently direct, non-visual confrontation with god when using it.

However, it is the drug salvia divinorum that has shaken me up the most. I have never experienced such complete replacement of reality. I've emerged into a world as someone not me with the full knoweldge of this places history. This I will never be able to explain, though I could share some of the history I managed to retain...! :D

I'm starting to believe that absolutely everything you wish to believe is actually real. Everything is real :)
 
Amanita Muscaria > DMT

I haven't had salvia, ayahuasca or ibogaine yet... but smoked DMT (crystalline or changa) doesn't come anywhere near Muscaria.
(Considering how powerful DMT is, that may be difficult to believe. But, it's true.)
 
^I've had amanita's about 5 times, but haven't had that intense an experience. What dosage you suggesting? :)

But: IV 5-MeO-DMT is something to behold <3
 
I've done a lot of experiments with Amanita.

Most people fail to have a fully transcendental experience.
My ex-wife attempted it repeatedly over the course of years, but she couldn't break through.
It requires deep meditation / breathing exercises to kick it in.

I've combined all sorts of psychedelics and dissociatives, and nothing comes close.
DMT is nothing, by comparison. Seriously, nothing.

The largest dose I've had was around: 3/2 ounces dried material (cooked), with smoked marijuana.
The most intense experience rebirth experience: 1 ounce European dried material (cooked), plus half a San Pedro cactus (raw).
The most hallucinogenic experience: 6 large Australian caps, with 3 grams of dried Psilocybin mushrooms.

The quality of caps varies enormously, depending on where they are picked and at what phase of the season.
I've had them from all over the world. If you're in the states, Washington (state) is a good place to find quality AM.

I've also injected heroin / methamphetamine many times.
I'm not sure about injecting "research chemicals".

So far, Muscaria - by a LONG way - makes up all of my most spiritually valuable drug experiences.

...

Edit: I should also mention that I have a tendency to drink my own urine on Amanita Muscaria, several times over the course of a single experience, since 85% of the active ingredients are filtered out through your bladder... I also find - co-incidentally - drinking liters of urine, without allowing myself to be disgusted, helps put me in a dedicated / dissociated mindset for the meditative process... I should warn that the experience is extremely intense and potentially upsetting / dangerous. I've sustained many injuries on Amanita Muscaria, even with trip sitters.
 
Last edited:
even if this is true and your "soul" or whatever you wana call it goes onto another universe, isnt it a prooven fact the your memories are stored in certain parts of the brian? and if your body dies and in turn your brain dies with it then you would loose all your memories... thats the main hole i see in this theroy... along with many other things... we are biological creatures and death is the end of biological life.... after that no one can know and i am very skeptical of anyone who tells me they can...
 
I think people look at dmt the wrong way. Expecting a revelation (IMHO) is not the goal or the purpose. It's the difference between our "normal" state, and the influence state that I believe is the true doorway. Something like that state in a dream where you know the alarm is about to go off but the dream is still vivid.
You are aware of both consciousnesses at the same moment.That is the state where I believe higher learning, understanding the infinite, and seeing the piratical application of this knowledge can be applied, lies.
You mentioned an enzyme. Are you referring to MAO? I ask because that prevents gastric ingestion but does nothing to the dmt produced in the brain.
There is a fundamental reason it is in us, and so many other living organisms. The reason is as of yet unknown. Acetone is in more living things but that is a product of oxidation of cells. More correctly a by product of cells breaking down.
DMT is a compound that is "born" in the brain.It is assembled from the molecules we are made of.

I am by NO means educated in this field. I am learning just as everyone else is. BUT I do have a strong analyltical mind, and my "hunches" are more often correct than wrong. In fact I am seldom wrong when it comes to what I believe to be true. DMT potentially being the center of what we are is what I believe to be true.

It's not the trip but the journey... They use that phrase for a reason.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for sharing 4eva <3

I did my share of deleriants in earlier days; nothing in the world could ever inspire me to do such things again, so I will happily live vicariously through your own tales :)

I don't want to mess with my GABA/glutamate system more then I have so will be leaving amanita muscaria aside....


I think people look at dmt the wrong way. Expecting a revelation (IMHO) is not the goal or the purpose. It's the difference between our "normal" state, and the influence state that I believe is the true doorway. Something like that state in a dream where you know the alarm is about to go off but the dream is still vivid.
You are aware of both consciousnesses at the same moment.That is the state where I believe higher learning, understanding the infinite, and seeing the piratical application of this knowledge can be applied, lies.

I agree with the idea that revelation isn't (or shouldn't) be the aim of using DMT. I personally do not believe that DMT provides us with any new knowledge as such, as much as it feels novel and unique, so using it as if it does provide new, empirical information is always going to be pointless. DMT provides a different perspective.

I like the explanations provided in this thread by Solipsis :)- http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/747579-Does-DMT-bend-around-objects

You mentioned an enzyme. Are you referring to MAO? I ask because that prevents gastric ingestion but does nothing to the dmt produced in the brain.

Yeah, am referring to MAO. MAO enzyme is expressed in nearly every cell including the brain. It is the same enzymatic system that ultimately metabolises DMT in any form, in the brain or not. This suggests that humans have evolved to actively NOT experience effects from DMT, or that the effects of DMT are unimportant enough that inhibiting its activity is seen as beneficial to survival. Surely this relegates DMT to less then paramount postion...

There is a fundamental reason it is in us, and so many other living organisms. The reason is as of yet unknown. Acetone is in more living things but that is a product of oxidation of cells. More correctly a by product of cells breaking down.
DMT is a compound that is "born" in the brain.It is assembled from the molecules we are made of.

I'm not sure I follow. Acetone is also made of the same molecules that we are made of, as is everything else including the stars and DMT. There is no distinction really.

My only point here is that a lot of claims are made about DMT but they often do not prove out and that the endogenous presence of a chemical doesn't mean that it is important or significant.

I am by NO means educated in this field. I am learning just as everyone else is. BUT I do have a strong analyltical mind, and my "hunches" are more often correct than wrong. In fact I am seldom wrong when it comes to what I believe to be true. DMT potentially being the center of what we are is what I believe to be true.

I'm glad you have faith in your hunches, but on such an important topic, I require significantly more verification before making any claims. You are claiming a vital role for DMT and, by placing it at the center of human life, indicating that is essential. There is no evidence that this is the case at all and several facts which point in the opposite direction.
 
NSFW:
doc-time-travel-explanation.jpg


sorry I had to do it
 
LOL!!!! I get ya!

People tend to think or perceive in boxes or within boundaries, and for good reason.Speculation, and the belief in speculations may be at the center of psychological breakdowns, and dis association issues.

I understand you points on MAO. I There is a reason DMT is controlled or regulated just the same as the endocrine system is regulated. Imagine if adrenaline, and DMT were unregulated in humans? We'd be a flippin' disaster looking for a landing pad.

I also understand it is easy to chase an idea based on thin air, and speculation, and it gets even more convoluted when a personal interest gets vested. (ie: Iraqi war).
What I see is the commonality of experience, and the perception of higher entities as a singularity. Yes the human condition is the greatest singularity, and undoubtedly the "root" of the commonality but. the common resulting Understanding of a need for love, tolerance, acceptance is something that no other compound(s) create in humans. (Some are similar but not as profound) Combining this emotional state, with what most every soul alive believes as a need for a good God, or master in the sky or moral compass... It is already inside us.

Lets say you take low dose shrooms daily for your entire life. The effect never wains nor does a tolerance ever develop. A constant calm is imparted, and people that I know have wonderful lives in part I believe due to the centered sense of self.

I have been learning from people that are combing MAOI, DMT, and a modified diet to support this regime. Again low does, and regulated.
There is more of a sense of helping others, and a willingness to open ones self to new concepts. Basically a new person or way of accepting, and understanding the world we are in.
These people are in essence what most of us believe we are meant to be. Thus my belief that DMT controls what we are. Our true core.

Perhaps evolution, and the sense for survival has deemed that DMT is detrimental to us. A flock of peaceful hippies is easy pray for a tribe of adrenaline charged hate mongers.
My thought is the need for a repression of what we are has passed, and it may not be too late to reclaim the true nature inside us.

Just my thoughts... and the focus of what I believe to be important enough to follow thru researching (in my own neophyticic way)
 
This means basically nothing... or, at least, there's no logic present in what you quoted.
I don't care if they are Nobel-prize winning scientists, they've never observed spontaneous creation.
At this point, it is absolutely impossible to make a definitive scientific statement about the origins of the universe.


So the idea of spontaneous creation is (among other things) a theory used to explain the 'how' of everything, the fact it is being proposed by two of the greatest known theoretical physicists of all time would suggest it is not only a logical theory but the best one put forward so far. If you have any others I would be interested to hear them.

A theory doesnt make a definitive scientific statement its just a proposition, one I feel bears more weight than say "Let there be light and a week later here is Pizza Hut"

Gravity doesn't imply that there is no God, and - even if it did - spontaneous creation may be an act of God for all we know.

Spontaneous creation would'nt be an act of god by the very definition of an act of god. Assuming you believe in god as the all powerful creator as lied about in the bible and not some dude just randomly and spontaneously creating shit cause he got bored
 
i think two bits of clarification are required here.
1. you can't by definition have comparable infinities, whether one being conceptually inside another or not. there's no way to distinguish between them since they have no outer edges, nor inner planck. infinities are like highlanders, there can be only one.
2. with the infinite, anything possible becomes inevitable. the only limitations would be contextually. for instance, there's never going to be a parallel universe exactly like ours that suddenly allows unaided human flight. the laws in each universe would have to evolve to that point. whilst there may be infinite branches in total, each moment can only spawn so many branches.

Dont you just fucking love this as an idea? Moments and branches ad finitum? Just a bunch of goldfishes cause we so delicious...
 
So the idea of spontaneous creation is (among other things) a theory used to explain the 'how' of everything, the fact it is being proposed by two of the greatest known theoretical physicists of all time would suggest it is not only a logical theory but the best one put forward so far. If you have any others I would be interested to hear them.

You haven't cited a theory. As it stands, from what you've said, spontaneous combustion means everything came from nothing because of gravity.
Stephen Hawking may be a best-selling author, but that doesn't mean he's the most significant figure in the world of theoretical physics.
Your logic (that, because he proposed it, it is the "best" theory) is absurd.

A theory doesnt make a definitive scientific statement its just a proposition, one I feel bears more weight than say "Let there be light and a week later here is Pizza Hut"

No, it doesn't.

This, however, is what you quoted:

Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

It is a definitive statement. It is bad science. And, apparently, you agree that it's bad science.

Spontaneous creation would'nt be an act of god by the very definition of an act of god.

Oh, and what is the definition of an act of God?

Assuming you believe in god as the all powerful creator

I do.

...as lied about in the bible...

You don't know they are lies. Until you do, you shouldn't make a definitive statement.

...and not some dude just randomly and spontaneously creating shit cause he got bored

I don't see the distinction that you're trying to make, here. Spontaneity, as it pertains to creation, doesn't imply boredom or randomness. In other words: if scientific models indicate that it is possible for everything to come from nothing (from our perspective), I don't see how that has any bearing on whether or not "everything" was created by God. It is downright ignorant to conclude that there is no creator because everything was created from nothing... Especially considering this is mentioned in Genesis and many other creation mythologies predating modern science...

How long before you all realize that none of it matters?

You're assuming that you know something we don't. But your statement applies to you as much as anyone else.
"None of it matters" includes the realization that "none of it matters" and your post indicating as much.
Since nothing matters, what should we do: stop eating / breathing; sit around and drool, mayve?

As physical beings with finite life-cycles, we are so insignificant (against the backdrop of the galaxy, let alone the uni/multiverse) that nothing we do could possibly matter.
 
"When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in." - Stephen Hawking (is a bit of an idiot)
 
I cant believe you would assert yourself or your half baked theories as even remotely plausible compared to a man that just won a nobel prize. The claim that Hawkings is 'an idiot', 'doesn't know what he is talking about', and wouldnt be considered as the most imprtant contributor to modern theoretical physics and quantum mechanics are absurd.
You sir are an ass
 
I didn't compare myself or my theories (I don't really have any) to Stephen Hawking or his theories.
But I will repeat what I said: that quote from him was idiotic.
He should not mix his atheistic agenda with science.
It is dangerous to elevate scientists to an unquestionable standard.
Just because he is a celebrity physicist with a disability, doesn't mean that everything he's ever said is correct.
He makes a lot of silly statements about God, that aren't remotely scientific.

For the record: Stalin and Hitler have both been nominated for a Nobel prize, and Stephen Hawking has not.
In fact, nothing he has done actually qualifies him as a candidate (in his field).

You sir are an ass

That's quite a childish and inappropriate thing to say, but I forgive you. :)
 
Last edited:
Top