(01-22-2011, 11:18 AM)unity100 Wrote: your approach to density mechanics still havent helped explanation of differences in regard to physicality in between densities zenmaster. it would be good if you had pushed into it a bit more.It's a lot of work, because no one has done it yet. Eventually, and inevitably, the characteristics and dynamics will be obvious to everyone in some form. Right now, no one understands the basic properties of 1st density in scientific terms. Bruce Peret and Prof Nehru's work with 'RS2' theory are the closest so far.
What is the difference in 'physicality' between a 1D set of molecules and a 2D amoeba? In QM terms, each density introduces more 'hidden variables'.
First density provides the most directly observable density behavior. But half of the dynamics we observe (with out space/time optic nerves) depend on the hidden time/space component. This is why 'dark energy' and CMB are still mysterious. Consensus cosmology has CMB being an artifact of the 'big bang'. Larson has it being due to 'over unity' (> c) 'cosmic sector' stellar explosions.
To me, second density is the introduction of 'mind' - which, generically is an organizing and maintenance principle applied to 'bodies' (where 1st density 'body' is matter). As Samuel Alexander suggested, first density, on its own, has a 'mind' in the form of 'time'. But it is in a rather limited form of expression - the yin principle - or that which is circular.
Third density introduces another set of 'degrees of freedom' with 'ethics' where we are allowed to contradict or override survival concerns. I also question the (over-used) term 'addiction' and wonder if a more appropriate term would be 'habituation'. With third density, our conscious choices - the use of will - really don't allow us to be 'compelled' to a predetermined behavior as with 1st and (most of) 2nd densities.
@ @ndy - I did watch the program - but it was mostly the same old stuff you see on 'Nova'. Information being stored in the event horizon - yeah, right. Even with quantum theory, state vectors, Hilbert space, we really still 'think' of reality in purely materialistic or Newtonian terms. This approach effectively relegates quantum mechanics to the realm of 'magic' and as the program says, renders it incomprehensive and not understandable.
The math works, but the philosophical foundations are sorely lacking - everything is an ugly and ad hoc compilation. A lot of superfluous cleverness. With the specific, rather than holistic or integral, approach, we indeed continue to learn more and more about less and less. That is until, finally, we will know everything about nothing.