Audio: Regeneromics - Exit the Matrix

[Fintan]

Great image Neil!

Wed 2:20pmEST
Audio done, just to finish edit, render, upload.
Going fine, no glitches. Upload soon...

[lyspy]

Excellent the introduction was superb.

I have an 8 year old daughter whose Grandmother is a devout catholic and while the morals that she has developed from her influence are great, I am not really comfortable about her belief in a floaty party in the sky. The whole idea of pretending is a great way to get her thinking outside that box.

[Peter]

As I explained to my young kids a few decades ago......your presence is like your life at school. Much to learn and experience. If you understand and can make sense of the lessons, you graduate and go to the next level. If not, you have to repeat a grade is all.

The key is to realize your ability to act and interact. Once you have allowed yourself to be, without artifice or subterfuge, you will make the necessary moves to ensure your well-being. It is all part of a process.

Refinement. Not so much changing the dross as removing it from the gold.

[Fintan]

Audio is here:

[bardobeing]

Beautiful piece of work, Fintan, both audios. Thank you. Can't wait to hear more.

[duane]

hi Fintan,

very interesting, but i'm always leery of things that center around humans
what about puppies, whales and crabgrass? are they eternal also?

if something wiped out everyone, would the world disappear and the puppies be without a home?

[Wu Li]

My mind is moving
THX

[RedMahna]

Nice. Good to hear from you again, Fintan! This audio put me in a positive frame of mind.
Thanks...
Red

[MichaelC]

Joseph Campbell, who was a Catholic, quoted Christ: "The kingdom of heaven is within you" and Campbell goes on to say "if you don't get it here, you won't get it".

But later he says that once we are "in heaven we will be having so much pleasure looking at God that we won't have any other experience".

Too bad he is not here to clarify these seemingly contradictory views.

Thanks for the audio, Fintan.

[SuperstarNeilC]

I've just googled Buckminster Fuller and discovered "Bucky" and I both share the same Birthday - 12 July !

[bri]

[leon]

I cannot judge architectural or engineering merits of Buckminster Fuller’s work, but I do not share Fintan’s excitement about his work’s scientific merits, not to speak of Universal Field Theory.
You see, a good model of Universe (at least a next good approximation) would have to reconcile the Quantum Mechanical qualities of particles, e.g. 1. Why it is necessary to use a Wavefunction (as in Schrödinger equation) to describe the particle trajectory, 2. Why the Schrödinger’s Wavefunction has a stochastic nature – as describing probability of a particle being at a given point in space at a given point of time.
Intuitively, Buckminster was absolutely right to think of physical Universe not in terms of an empty Euclidian space filled with “amorphous” points – something that has no real topological quality to it, but rather a “tessellation” filled with some real geometrical objects, however small they could be.
However, he failed to recognize the utter importance of the concept of metric of such a space and how it will change the fundamental laws under which the objects (or signals) will transition.
To be a little more specific, the metrics in such spaces will be almost the same as Euclidean metrics with one very significant difference: it will allow any two points to be connected with more than one “straight” line.
By “straight line” here I understand a trajectory of transitions between any 2 given points with a minimum possible distance as specified by the space’s metrics. (See Manhattan distance, for example).
Now changing that little Euclidian Axiom will change a lot of things in such space. If all of a sudden there could be more than one line connecting any 2 points, one could ask a valid question: what is the probability of any point between those two “end” points will be on one of such “straight” lines? (Take the number of all “straight” lines connecting the two points AND passing thru that point and divide by total number of lines).
All of a sudden we are now getting some functional distribution of the probability density – something very different that those straight lines we feel comfortable with from the school geometry.
One important observation: we seem to be unable to really find an equivalent of Euclidian Straight lines in real life – in real physical space they all seem to “decay” as the distance from the origination of such line increases. Good example is a laser beam – they all will dissipate as we increase the distance from the laser.
In the spaces with “stochastic metrics” that phenomena will occur naturally.

[bri]

[leon]

Just qurious - have you actually seen any Andrei Tarkovsky's movies?

[bri]

Ludwig Wittgenstein if he's still around here somewhere, would probably show an interest in Regeneromics.
The first half of the 20th century was a bitch, I would have been a crank as well, I'm very excited to be living in these times as visible and obvious the matrix has become. ---There is of course still much mindfuckery today and that's clear in most other sections here on BFN.---

Ludwig had this problem of pissing off both his "logical" and what we now call "Religious funamentalist" friends. His fans still battle in that divide to this day in some far off philosopher game that they've forgot they are playing.

Attributed quotes: