For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
John Lombard – “And if there were thousands of books written saying that gravity didn’t exist, that wouldn’t do ANYTHING to negate the reality of gravity, either.”
I don’t understand this statement.
A thousand books saying that gravity doesn’t exist don’t exist. Unless there are some written by disembodied beings living in deep space; and even then there would be an inaccuracy latent in their contention.
The real question, is where did they get the idea of “Gravity” in the first place?
Kevin Osborne – “This universe is constructed of all of the viewpoints of existence of all of it’s members.”
Jim Mulholland – “No. Absolutely not. Our universe exists
entirely independently of our ‘viewpoint’ of it, and the realities of our universe don’t change just because people perceive it differently.”
The crux of the communication problem here is in the question: Which comes first “viewpoint” or “gravity”. (or even better, are they absolutely INTERdependent?)
From that vantage point, there would need to be a more accurate way of thinking about “viewpoint” in relationship to phenomena; Such as Gravity/Time/Speed/Mass/Thought/Belief/Change.
The shift in conceptualization is not really that difficult or unreasonable.
It helps to get rid of the idea of personal ownership of the “viewpoint”. Similar to the way we currently do not think in terms of “your” or “my” gravitational field. Gravity being a universally present force rather than a bunch of little and isolated gravities. The individual field does not exist independently of the universal force.
As a final point: It is of no use to try and relegate the subjective “viewpoint” phenomena to an “alternate reality” located somewhere outside of the Universe.
There is no way around it. The term “Universe” should only refer to the Entirety of phenomena and underlying forces.
The habit of chopping it up into parts and pieces is the nature of a “viewpoint”. In terms of the BIG PICTURE, the “scientific” refinement of this is as Real as any other variation. But no-more-and-no-less.
John Lombard – “But the next part you wrote really baffles me. To quote: “The crux of the communication problem here is in the question: Which comes first ‘viewpoint’ or ‘gravity’. Ummm…gravity. Always, always gravity. One’s viewpoint doesn’t somehow affect gravity, such an argument is so fundamentally ridiculous that I have no idea where it came from. “
I did say it was the “crux of the communiction problem”.
The full statement would probably help make this exercise easier to grasp.
brmckay – “The crux of the communication problem here is in the question: Which comes first ‘viewpoint’ or ‘gravity’. (or even better, are they absolutely INTERdependent?)”
The interdependence angle, (much like speed, mass, time etc.) is based on the fewest assumptions.
It’s related to a later statement:
brmckay – “As a final point: It is of no use to try and relegate the subjective ‘viewpoint’ phenomena to an ‘alternate reality’ located somewhere outside of the Universe.”
Not sure where I might of said anything like, “…science can provide all of the answers”.
There is no such thing as “all the answers” except as an infinitude. Which brings us back to my primary premise about Entirety as Singularity.
Science could bring us to an understanding of this, but of course, then it would be The Answer (in counterpoint to “all the answers”). And, as an added bonus, clarify the Universality of Viewpoint.
Hint: I have said it before. The proof that you seek is in your own Being i.e. Existence and Awareness. i.e. Viewpoint.
But, the dissecting of a Frog, does not tell us what a Frog is.
John Lombard – “Second, I see no point in any further discussion, as you use patently dishonest methods of discussion.”
You NEED to get a more honest definition of honest!
“I asked you to demonstrate how viewpoint can affect gravity — you have not done so.”
That is not pertinent to the point I was making. A complete red-herring. I addressed your misconception by reiterating the original statements.
Returning the conversation to the “crux of the communication problem”.
I proposed an experimental shift in your “viewpoint” , echoing a similar proposal made by Kevin Osborne.
Made a reasonable case for it, content that I had tried my best.
For some reason this was interpreted as “making unsubstantiated claims”. And now you want me to PROVE to you something that was not even being discussed.
As for viewpoint affecting gravity. Well, try jumping up and down for a few minutes (you can flap your arms if you like).
Gravity has been modified. Not the universal force of gravity. That is a constant. But the relative instance, (the local field) has been modified by interaction with your viewpoint.
That local instance of a “viewpoint” has also been modified as well. Due to it’s interaction with gravity.
Granting a “universal force” aspect to gravity and not to “viewpoint” is unwarranted.
This then requires a shift of paradigm, (if only for the sake of understanding my meaning).
You accept, and imagine that you understand, relativity in regards to speed/mass/time/gravity etc.
That is what I mean by absolute INTERdependence. They are not really separate phenomena.
That they seem so sometimes, in certain ways, is a matter of “viewpoint”.