Frequency and the Force

Gisteron wrote: Yea, but if we make the Force just another name for energy (we already have a name for energy and more names for individual types of it, too, why on earth would we need another one?), now it becomes something measureable, quantifiable. Now there is so little mystery left, and people can now be right or wrong about what they say about it. There will no doubt come the objection that this is "reductionist"... Do we even want to define it with any precision? Who knows...

While that's true, humans invent redundant words all the time. That's how language grows. And within the English language there are many words with 2, 3, even 4 different meanings. And there are also colloquialisms where the meaning is part of a shared perspective of a subgroup of people. What is a "lift" in America and was is it in Britain?

For me, everything is energy and so a spoon, though a spoon, is also energy. I'm simply giving name to the form it takes. A cat is a mammal. I'm simply naming one type of form out of many. For men, when we say "the Force" there is more mystic, in my mind; more possibilities, because there is much about energy we still do not yet know. If we knew it then Michio Kaku would already have his mathematical theory of everything. He doesn't. The rules don't even seem to be the same between Newtonian physics and quantum physics. Not saying the two are incompatible but that there seems to be some variables that are getting left out of the equation.

"The Force", to me, isn't simply a physical existence but a philosophical one, a metaphorical one, just as water can be gas liquid and solid, it can be literal, mental, emotional because all of these things evolved from (hence created by) energy.

Yabuturtle wrote: Does anyone happen to have certain ways to aid them in the use of the force?

I believe everything in this universe and the next is based on frequency. Being able to sense things depending on the frequency of your aid and environment.

Is there perhaps music that helps you become more attuned to the force? Perhaps even areas where you feel it is strong. Has it gotten stronger since you had begun training?

Honestly, I think religions hold a lot of clues about how one could raise one's force sensitivity. A lot of people meditate and an oversimplified understanding of this is quieting the body because the more you're doing the more signals the brain is receiving. If you have too many radio stations close together and broadcasting on close "frequencies" then you start picking everything up together along with whatever static and things in between. But if you can strip away the noise your mind might be able to pick up on something else.

Another thing... along the same concept is sensory deprivation. Going all out would require an actual chamber but you could practice walking around with your eyes closed. Blind people often develop other senses that help compensate for their sight disability. If you take it to its most natural use you need the ability to sense energy in the form of other animals in order to consume them. The fact that some animals have sonar shows that the ability to detect other lifeforms is not depending on light. If light isn't present the mind relies and builds on other tools. Perhaps in the reptile brain we still have those other tools but we just don't use them like how we don't really know what the appendix does. It stands to reason that you can awaken these tools by turning of the main/easiest mode of detection.

The goal shouldn't be to achieve some mild form of magic but rather to train these hidden tools so they can augment your sight. Many things the Jedi do in the movies looks impossible because it LOOKS( = using sight) impossible. We're used to relying on our eyes and reacting based on light detection. Walking with your eyes closed puts your brain in a defensive state because you could run into something. So it's like you're forcing it to try to find an alternative method to sense objects without predetermining what that method will be. Try to reach for objects the moment you think they're in range, using your imagination to hold their locations in your mind as you briefly open your eyes to memorize your surrounding. Open your eyes less and less as you go.

Why do I think this method isn't a waste of time? Think about how Donnie Yen played the blind Chirrut Imwe and how he was able to navigate his surroundings as well as fight. I believe he was chosen as a representative of a earlier form of Jedi which is simply an exaggeration of his same abilities.

ZealotX wrote: For me, everything is energy and so a spoon, though a spoon, is also energy.

What about space and time? Are they energy also? We can tell with some precision just how much energy that spoon is. What about abstract objects, like sets? Sure, these may be nitpicks, but that's the kind of thing one gets if one tries to give simple answers to complicated questions. "Everything is energy" is a deepity. To the extent to which it is true, it's trivial. Sure, pretty much any item you can pick up will be energy, and energy is a profoundly useful tool to describe your interactions with them. But to the extent to which the statement is profound it also happens to be false. There is literally a class of things that are not energy that is so big that we couldn't list every item contained within, even given infinitely many lines to enter items into.

For men, when we say "the Force" there is more mystic, in my mind; more possibilities, because there is much about energy we still do not yet know. If we knew it then Michio Kaku would already have his mathematical theory of everything. He doesn't.

Eh, I for one am not even convinced that a theory of everything is strictly desirable. To me, a model that can account for everything is a model that cannot be falsified by anything, and as such, unscientific, despite best efforts. Then of course there is the fact that we are talking here about a string theory which so far have been notorious for being untestable. There may well be a lot we don't know about energy, but there is also a lot we do, and I do mean a lot. That we are communicating at all like this is a testiment to just how well we understand things even as complicated as solid state physics which is necessarily a quantum theory, by the way.

The rules don't even seem to be the same between Newtonian physics and quantum physics. Not saying the two are incompatible but that there seems to be some variables that are getting left out of the equation.

Yes, Newtonian physics is only a limit, a special case for very large particle ensembles and very slow relative velocities. The rules are the same though. Newton was one of the pioneers of calculus and a great contributor to algebra both of which are at the root of the formalisms of quantum mechanics, especially as they sort of merge to produce functional analysis.

Gisteron wrote: What about space and time? Are they energy also? We can tell with some precision just how much energy that spoon is. What about abstract objects, like sets? Sure, these may be nitpicks, but that's the kind of thing one gets if one tries to give simple answers to complicated questions. "Everything is energy" is a deepity. To the extent to which it is true, it's trivial. Sure, pretty much any item you can pick up will be energy, and energy is a profoundly useful tool to describe your interactions with them. But to the extent to which the statement is profound it also happens to be false. There is literally a class of things that are not energy that is so big that we couldn't list every item contained within, even given infinitely many lines to enter items into.

You have a great intellect, my friend. It's a pleasure.

In response I would counter by saying space is not a "thing" in the physical sense because it is the absence of the very same. Calling it a thing is trying to quantify something that doesn't actually exist. I'll save the rest because I'm sure you already know. Same with time. Things exist IN time. Things exist IN dimensions, including the 4th. So when I say everything is energy I'm referring to physical matter or antimatter. You know... "stuff".

Eh, I for one am not even convinced that a theory of everything is strictly desirable. To me, a model that can account for everything is a model that cannot be falsified by anything, and as such, unscientific, despite best efforts. Then of course there is the fact that we are talking here about a string theory which so far have been notorious for being untestable. There may well be a lot we don't know about energy, but there is also a lot we do, and I do mean a lot. That we are communicating at all like this is a testiment to just how well we understand things even as complicated as solid state physics which is necessarily a quantum theory, by the way.

I agree with you about the "theory of everything". Interesting. I'm not sure Kaku believes string theory can be that or whether it must be something else because he's been at it for decades and hasn't proven it. It is beautiful in a sense but that doesn't mean it's true. Kind of like his version of The Force. Having room to grow is very important. The fact that many humans believe in magic pushes many others to disprove magic by explaining the illusions created by natural forces. It should change the mystery or the wonder or how awesome it all is, but the more we say "we know" the more we threaten our future knowledge. I work in an industry with plenty of words that people outside hardly if ever use. It's simply a product of specialization. We create terms that are used within the specialized field to hold a more "sacred" meaning that not everyone may see. That's how I feel about vibration and spirit and energy. Yes, these are words with meaning but within the context of the specialized field in which they are used there are other connections, understandings, implications, etc. to be made that go beyond physical science which is one but certainly not the only type of knowledge.

Yes, Newtonian physics is only a limit, a special case for very large particle ensembles and very slow relative velocities. The rules are the same though. Newton was one of the pioneers of calculus and a great contributor to algebra both of which are at the root of the formalisms of quantum mechanics, especially as they sort of merge to produce functional analysis.

It sounds like you have a much more up to date understanding of quantum mechanics so I yield to that. Where I "left off" (as one watching a TV series) they were trying to find intersecting theories that bridge that gap between standard Newtonian physics and the weirdness of quantum physics. There were some good offerings but I wasn't aware of anyone being recognized as actually having done it. If you have that information I'd love a link.

Alas, I have not been following that TV series so without specifics on just what that gap is, I have neither a comment to address it with, nor a resource to back me in that address. We would, however, or so it seems to me, be getting a tad far off the intended topic of this thread if we took that digression, so I shall not ask for specifics here, for now. If you wish, feel free to start a new discussion about this in private or in public; I'll be happy to join.