The nature of reality

[universal1]

Thought i'd put this up to stir the old grey matter if nothing else.

I've looked at some of the scientific aspects regarding the fundamental nature of reality and this is my interpretation.
Quantum physics denotes that there is a singular state of reality that is a supposition of all known states that gathers its physical properties via the act of observation. Given such intrinsic values and the efficacy of interactions on a metaphysical scale, one could surmise an ultimate truth, a singular state with the properties predominantly coming via the fallible creation of linguistics. However, that is not to say that the right is not told in numerous ways, after all, quantum physics denotes a different set of physical properties on a sub atomic scale whereby light can pass through a membrane whereas on a greater scale with the physical norms as we know it, it cannot. One universal constant with two different properties. This also relates to irreducibly complex systems being an integral part of the greater universal being we each are.

Here's a prime case: The "freeman" concept gets ridiculed by some in law due to the word "strawman". However, as I and those within the higher echelons of law know, the "strawman" is actually given the term of juristic person or juridical person or artificial person or bodycorporate or corporate personhood. Idiots who have developed a somewhat nihilistic temperament ridicule the strawman concept as buncome, yet pursuant to the state immunity act 1978 c.33 (section 6, "persons other than states"), is there an actual distinction between the artificial person and the real and natural individual!!!

So, although ridiculed by those without knowledge of such things (I go WAY over solicitors heads in law), are singular states actually apparent, yet the physical properties are gained within interactions! Thats why although some "freemen" on here subconsciously know that something isn't right, they are spending too much time listening to one vantage point rather than keeping an open mind! So peeps, dont use the words STRAWMAN and use juristic person! That simple change denotes a great change on how you are perceived from those within law!

Thats the fundamental nature of reality for you! Shaped as you want it to be!

[uforia]

the reality is constructed where the two spiritual forces meet, conceid, compromise and reconcile.
these two spiritual forces are the good spiritual force(God), and the nagative spiritual force(satan).

love vs. fear.

truth vs. lie

why God created satan? we can only speculate on that, but it is for sure that satan exists, and everything that is bad is from him, and everything that is good is from God.

believe in God. yes there is some corruption in religion, but the religious truth is real,God is real,jesus is real.

[universal1]

An admirable vantage point Uforia, especially when one believes and enforces the good aspects. That is a theological vantage point and the metaphysical side is that there is one ultimate state of reality that is a supposition of all known states, one truth as it were and predominantly based around the logical constructive perameters of cognition and efficacy of interactions within the (in)finite.
What makes me laugh is when you have scientists that claim that science is the actual way in which a plausible argument defining the who, when and how we came to be is or will be defined, although the more you learn about science and understand what others are trying to say in their vantage points, the more you realise that it is nothing more than determining the logical presumption of the surrounding environment. To understand quantum physics is to not understand quantum physics as it were. Richard Dawkins is one who seems to be completely anti-theology and yet he still places a great deal of emphasis on the "evolution" theory, he does not try and determine a new, more readily fathomable and constructive argument. Evolution might well be a plausible, logical presumption of the change that has occured from single celled organisms, but at the end of the day there is still a big question hanging over things like the big bang theory, how did a big bang occur from nothingness? One theory is likened to a balloon that expands and contracts (denoting the universe) yet that still requires something within it to happen in the first place and still does not explain where that actual thing within comes from. It is as plausible a reason as any on explaining the expansion and contraction of the universe, yet does not determine motion and/or matter creation from nothingness!?

You could also tie this in with both biology and quantum physics, for example in quantum theory there are theories denoting the particle and wave theories/dualities on the sub atomic level. The waves could actually be likened to the eye and its convex shape, along with the optical nerves not being straight. Although it is commonly surmised that light travels in a straight line if anyone has ever looked at a convex mirror or glass, the light can be somewhat bent and reshaped to a degree, same could be said for the eye and things like ultra slow motion cameras show that there is a lot that the eye and conventional optical determination does not see. Have a look at a slow motion explosion and the resulting shock waves surrounding it, humanity knew there was something there as it was felt and observed to a degree, but until these slow motion cameras were developed, the act of observation remained a constant, as to the fathomable reasoning. It was widely known there was something happening, a change, yet the act of observation needed to change to see things in a new light as it were.
So, does the subconscious therefore know all there is to know and we change the act of observation by evolving and/or changing something? Is cognition and the resulting determination of the environment an acurate and plausible reason of being? Only time will tell and thats probably why it moves forward only.

Just a thought