My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />
Until you realize that without certain of these real/conceptual equations the real/physical ship cannot go where it needs to go in the real/physical system. The indirect nature of the interaction between equation and ship/system is what has hidden this aspect of reality from us for so long.

***

Am I making any sense?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. I understand what you're getting at, but what I'm having trouble with is understanding what the controversy is. Is it the fact that with DRP, the claim is being made that the equation, which came from a mind or consciousness, is part of "physical" reality? Is that the distinction being made?

rd

Larry, can you give me a before DRP and after example? In other words, take one of these examples you just posted, and tell me how it's thought about in non-DRP terms. In other words, what's the Non-Meta Science interpretation?

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />Thoughts come to us when we have nothing to do or appreciate just being.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That's an interesting point. OK. Where do they come from?

rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

They come from "god" (the infinite double spiral universe with two arms (consciousness and pattern). Everything is is a gift of god to god.

In conventional physics 'physical' and 'real' are more or less synonymous. And 'conceptual' is mostly excluded from the set of real things.

In DRP 'physical' is a subset of 'real'. And so is 'conceptual'. Conceptual things are considered real because they can and do interact with real things. The conceptual can and does alter the physical, and vice versa. But these interactions are not direct.

Stuff like this is not easy to talk about, because it's not just out of the box, it's way out of the box.

***

Think about this. Does time have physical existence? (Obviously clocks do.) So if a clock runs slow, does that mean time is also slowing down? Which means that you age less rapidly if you are standing next to that particular clock. (But you think less rapidly as well, so what do you gain?)

Special Relativity is based on the answer being 'yes'. Atomic clocks slow down as their relative speed increases. And we all know of the twin paradox for high speed.

But pendulum clocks slow down as their relative temperature increases. (The length of the pendulum goes up due to thermal expansion.) Never heard of a twin paradox for high temperature.

<b>pareidoliac: If any thinking is done- thoughts come to us. Thinking is not an active process. Doing and Being are active.</b>

Do we need another official definition?

&gt;&gt; If any thinking is done- thoughts come to us.

I would call this "passive thinking" (maybe even lucid thinking). I agree this happens - many of my most original thoughts have "come to me", often around 3 AM while trying to regain sleepfulness after a brief bathroom break.

&gt;&gt; Thinking is not an active process.

OTOH, I find that I can direct my thinking toward achieving certain specific objectives and can often solve particular problems by this means. This I call "active thinking" or "programming my subconscious".

I have come to believe that if we are conscious, it is because we are thinking - and vice versa.