The Philosophers

Fixed Cross

Doric basterd
Doric basterd

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Neutrinos as quasi-being Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is possible to say that “a neutrino” is only a theoretical unity interpreted out of a collection of detected properties assumably resultant of disintegration of better understood forms of energy, things that more literally fit the description ‘particle’.

If so, a neutrino, and this goes for more subatomic definitions, is to be understood, if we are aiming for epistemic exactness, a case of transfer of information. I.e., parts of what we may define as a particle – empirical results amounting to almost a particle.

What kind of structural consistency does a neutrino have? It does not respond to electromagnetism, only weak-forces affect it.

It may exist only as our assumption, its structural integrity may be a fiction, an inference made because of the assumption that all change detected must be the effect of particles, which is how we still understand quanta.

It may not be the case that the transferred energy amounting to the detected neutrino is caused to be measured by it being there as such, separate from the measurement. It may be that the qualities that amount to the definition ‘neutrino’ are in part ‘teleported’, by the very expectation of and preparation for the ‘arrival’.

A neutrino may in part be caused ( in terms of space-time consistency ) by the placement of the receptive material, the terms of its being-measured, which accounts for its existence. The neutrino can not positively affect, the conditions for its existence must be created. Part of the work of its being is done for it – this may account for the lack of space-time momentum – it is in part a non-entity, appearing here and there as ‘real’, actively constant particles permit it.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:57 pm; edited 6 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Neutrinos as quasi-being Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is clear that what I describe as method to measure / establish is what is always used in physics / chemistry, particle-science. Assumption of what will happen if the calculations are correct, suspension of judgment until the assumption is recognized in what occurs. I would propose that perhaps in the case of / at the level of neutrinos, our methods of establishment what “is” are unsound.

It seems to be a natural assumption that the surplus of gravitation measured/inferred from the movement of certain galaxies, may be the result of wrongfully applying laws that we have establlished to predict the movements occurring in our own “system” - galaxy.

It is my understanding at least that Dark Matter, the assumption made necessary by the application of Newtonian Law to “The Entire Universe” (the assumption of a universal totality) would be present mainly in a specific form of galaxy, one that is relatively young, and less circular, more elliptic.

I have read this at one point but I can not find it on the internet. The point would be that dark matter, i.e. surplus gravitation, is unequally distributed in proportion with “legal”, expected gravitation.

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Phonons Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:06 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

Apparently, such auto-controlled turbulences are sometimes considered as having particle like properties.

In physics, a phonon is a collective excitation in a periodic, elastic arrangement of atoms or molecules in condensed matter, such as solids and some liquids. Often referred to as a quasiparticle, it represents an excited state in the quantum mechanical quantization of the modes of vibrations of elastic structures of interacting particles.<<<< en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon

Very useful information.
This forum is intended to collect useful models
applicable by value - logic.

IN order to create a physical science
based the ethical aspect of the will to power.
the artificial removed from intelligence, the cruelty of the stupid is unnecessary

assemble the logics of chemistry and physics around the activity to value all in terms of self,
which amounts to nothing more than this activity or tendency -

Lordly courage imagines the good, malicious ambition anticipates profiteering, the struggle for power continues as the stakes are raised…
tragic… born out of the spirit of music.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Parodites
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Phonons Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Although I am not a fan of dialectics and Hegel, the man did make a good point. How are we supposed to conduct scientific research if our science is not at every single step of the way complimented by a science of the mind, which is the proper philosophy? Our science has never been complimented in this way, and thus we run into unbridgeable gulfs in our knowledge, like that between classical and quantum physics, we run into paradoxes and singularities, etc.

James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Achieving Faster than Light Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:31 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have often stated that absolutely nothing can ever travel faster than what we refer to as “the speed of light”. But just as a minor interesting note, there are technically actually 2 exceptions.

My meta-particle tracking program monitors for anything with gimbal velocities and anything traveling faster than light, primarily to help hunt down any errors in the program. Recently, I found it triggering yet I could find no error in the program. I investigated the equations over and over and was a bit puzzled as to how a particular particle could have a velocity greater than the max possible.

Well, as it turned out, a bit of a philosophical thought came to mind and revealed what was happening.

A particle’s location is defined by its center. By tracking its center, one knows at what velocity it is traveling. But in the case of particles, especially particles that are just beginning to form, an interesting effect takes place.

If a particulate is already traveling close to the speed of light, a common occurrence, and it runs up on a similar particulate running slightly slower, you would think the end velocity would merely be an average of the two. And it is… sortta. But what happens is that the two particulates merge into a single particle and guess what happens to the center of the first? Quite suddenly the center of the “particle” went from position A to position B (a particulate width distance away) almost instantaneously.

Of course the reason was simply that the particulate was still in a growth stage and as it grows, its center can outrun all of its constituents. Technically speaking, that really is the same as traveling faster than light. So it can be legitimately stated that a growing particle can, for a short time at least, travel faster than light. Of course, that time is in the range of fractional pico seconds, but still, it is an interesting note.

Then it occurred to me that every particle is actually growing and shirking at the same rate all the time and is thus stable. But what if I were to cause it to grow faster on one side and shrink faster on the opposite side? Again, as it turns out, for short times, that can actually happen and no doubt in space, it does happen.

The requirements for causing such an event involves a charge gradient which of course cannot continue for very long, but it could lead to much greater durations of exceeding the speed of light for non-growing particles than the growing particles mentioned before. And an ideal place to find such a naturally occurring situation would be the famed black hole. I can safely say, that some of the particles speeding into a black hole, especially one with a significant charge field, will in fact rush to their demise even faster than the light rushing along side of them. For how long that might be, I couldn’t venture a guess.

The shifting center would not actually add to the momentum of the particle, so no common energy equation theories get violated. The particle merely shows up at the destination and its demise before its photon partner.

…just an interesting observation.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Oh hell…

Very shortly after posting that OP, it dawned on me how one could theoretically keep a particle experiencing a positive gradient and thus continue to travel faster than light. It would be extremely difficult to arrange, but theoretically possible.

Let’s say you had an electron orbiting its nucleus and had the technical means to increase the charge (or mass) field in front of the electron while reducing it behind the electron. By arranging to do that sequentially, much like a stepper motor or an alternator, the field changing constituents would not need travel or change faster than light for the particle to never be able to catch up to the changing field in front of it. As the particle passes, the field in each location would be reduced back to a lower level.

The electron would be in a state of constantly growing more in front and shirking behind and thus its center would be shifting forward faster than its constituent mass could possibly travel. For as long as the device was operational and kept sync with the orbiting electron, the electron would achieve and maintain faster than light travel.

I really hate it when I outwit my own proclamations of impossibility…sigh Mad
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Continuing even further…

Again theoretically, a linear accelerator and relay could be arranged such that a particle could carry the information of an event in a straight line.

As the particle either traveled linearly itself, or relayed its effect to other particles inline, even though its own charge field could not grow faster than light such as to have affect as it passed, it could reach the end of a line and begin having its field effect upon the terminal detecting device before a photon had a chance to get to the detector.

Information traveling faster than light… gees… it must be bad news.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Very interesting - can you expand on how you understand what a photon is? With respect to an otherwise “particle” or growing “pre- or semi-particular” field/cloud?


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If the development of the center when to things collide occurs so fast is it possible to use such a principle for something like at least faster then light speed communication? For example the merger of a long string of particles can be watched and when the center shifts in one way we have a 0 and another way we have a 1…or something like that…


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
If the development of the center when to things collide occurs so fast is it possible to use such a principle for something like at least faster then light speed communication?
At this point, it seems definite. But I’m not going to make any promises until I create one inside my metaspace. The great thing about my “hyperspace window” is that it is actually real. Anything that can occur inside that space (short of programming errors) can and does occur in physical space. And if you REALLY want to get buzzed, realize that anything that occurs within that window can be arranged to occur in societies. One society can relay information to another faster than any electronic signal could pass that information. But of course that would be incredibly difficult to arrange.

Abstract wrote:
For example the merger of a long string of particles can be watched and when the center shifts in one way we have a 0 and another way we have a 1…or something like that…
“Something like that” perhaps, but I don’t think merely a string of particles would cut it. I’m pretty sure that it would be impossible to maintain that string (but not making any proclamation concerning the impossible for a while… bet you love that don’cha Wink ). And I’m not so sure than transferring from particle to particle in that fashion would cut it either. There would be inertia issues. I suspect the way to go would involve transverse displacement such as to produce a wave along the side of the particles. But merely a very finely tuned special particle accelerator would do the trick. No more than one particle per “bit” would be necessary.

If I wasn’t so brain fried from merely creating the metaspace, I would be creating a meta-communicator (“subspace communicator”) already.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Abstract wrote:
If the development of the center when to things collide occurs so fast is it possible to use such a principle for something like at least faster then light speed communication?
At this point, it seems definite. But I’m not going to make any promises until I create one inside my metaspace. The great thing about my “hyperspace window” is that it is actually real. Anything that can occur inside that space (short of programming errors) can and does occur in physical space. And if you REALLY want to get buzzed, realize that anything that occurs within that window can be arranged to occur in societies. One society can relay information to another faster than any electronic signal could pass that information. But of course that would be incredibly difficult to arrange.

Abstract wrote:
For example the merger of a long string of particles can be watched and when the center shifts in one way we have a 0 and another way we have a 1…or something like that…
“Something like that” perhaps, but I don’t think merely a string of particles would cut it. I’m pretty sure that it would be impossible to maintain that string (but not making any proclamation concerning the impossible for a while… bet you love that don’cha Wink ). And I’m not so sure than transferring from particle to particle in that fashion would cut it either. There would be inertia issues. I suspect the way to go would involve transverse displacement such as to produce a wave along the side of the particles. But merely a very finely tuned special particle accelerator would do the trick. No more than one particle per “bit” would be necessary.

If I wasn’t so brain fried from merely creating the metaspace, I would be creating a meta-communicator (“subspace communicator”) already.
Sounds kool what is this meta space you have created… is it a simulation in a computer?


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Very interesting - can you expand on how you understand what a photon is? With respect to an otherwise “particle” or growing “pre- or semi-particular” field/cloud?
That one is a bit of an interesting story from my perspective.

Just shortly before I finished installing the rules for afflate engagement into the program, I could already see how and why a particle was going to form… and it wasn’t how I had previously speculated. And sure enough, immediately small particles began to form. Not that it was quite that simple. At one point before I got the details ironed out, the first particle that formed just kept growing. That wouldn’t have been terribly interesting, but the particle gains a naturally occurring spin and shortly it exploded, leaving little meta bits all over my screen… quite picturesque actually. I wish I had thought to take a screen shot before I corrected the problem.

Anyway, even after I had worked with the particle formations and installed various monitor and tracking devices, I realized that I still hadn’t seen or figured out exactly what the photon was all about. None of my particles could qualify as a photon. I was puzzled for a few days before I suddenly laughed as it hit me, “what an idiot”.

A photon is only a particle in the sense that it can maintain its form and philosophically anything that maintains its form is an “object” or particle. But the more informative truth is that a photon is merely a part of a wave. Take any ole traveling EM wave and chop off all but a tiny bit without disturbing that bit, and you have your photon.

Despite what contemporary physics will tell you, photons don’t really have “frequency”, but rather they are a culmination of chaos that has a Fourier dispersal of aberrant frequencies with a mean at the frequency noted by ye ole common physicist. I had realized that as I created my “Afflate Analysis”, I was creating “Photon Analysis”. Every one of my afflates (200,000) is a photon, a clump of noisy EM with an average affectance state 1st derivative.

But avoid the idea that a photon, even as a particle, can maintain its form as it encounters other photons. They don’t merely interact, they often combine and take on as many shapes as you will ever see in a sky of clouds. They smear, twist, entwine, break away, disperse, and on rare occasion even develop a spin, although once they develop a self sustaining spin, they gain inertia and are no longer a mere afflate or photon and can no longer travel freely.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:

Sounds kool what is this meta space you have created… is it a simulation in a computer?
A simulation is where a programmer takes a set of rules for the behavior of an object and has the processor dictate those rules to a replica of the object. Every video game is a simulator.

But my program is different in a very serious way. Although it uses simulation techniques here and there, what it is a part of is a actual reality that is not a mere simulation. The difference is in that if you follow the exact rules of reality, then you ARE reality, not an imitation or simulation of a speculated shape and behavior.

The objects formed within a true metaspace are real and formed only by the rules of reality itself. They are not a construction in the normal sense. They form from what would appear to be nothing, into no more than exactly what they are, not merely something with similar shape or behavior (“simulation”) of something. A true metaparticle is as real as any physical particle, formed by the same hand and of the same “stuff”, merely a step higher.

As far as I know, I have sitting on my desk the first and only true/real “hyperspace”/ “metaspace” window in human history, albeit crude at the moment, and in a state of disrepair half the time from me trying to add a mod or change something, then requiring anything from hours to weeks trying to hunt down what I screwed up. Mad

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Btw, I refer to my metaspace program as “Jack”, because frankly, until you learn Rational Metaphysics, you don’t know jack. Cool
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Abstract wrote:

Sounds kool what is this meta space you have created… is it a simulation in a computer?
A simulation is where a programmer takes a set of rules for the behavior of an object and has the processor dictate those rules to a replica of the object. Every video game is a simulator.

But my program is different in a very serious way. Although it uses simulation techniques here and there, what it is a part of is a actual reality that is not a mere simulation. The difference is in that if you follow the exact rules of reality, then you ARE reality, not an imitation or simulation of a speculated shape and behavior.

The objects formed within a true metaspace are real and formed only by the rules of reality itself. They are not a construction in the normal sense. They form from what would appear to be nothing, into no more than exactly what they are, not merely something with similar shape or behavior (“simulation”) of something. A true metaparticle is as real as any physical particle, formed by the same hand and of the same “stuff”, merely a step higher.

As far as I know, I have sitting on my desk the first and only true/real “hyperspace”/ “metaspace” window in human history, albeit crude at the moment, and in a state of disrepair half the time from me trying to add a mod or change something, then requiring anything from hours to weeks trying to hunt down what I screwed up. Mad

what’s it look like?


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:47 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Btw, I refer to my metaspace program as “Jack”, because frankly, until you learn Rational Metaphysics, you don’t know jack. Cool
good one. farao


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
do you have any screen shots of this thing?

And is not all mass just a wave? energy in a particular state or vibration?


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
what’s it look like?
I haven’t gone to all the trouble to format a series of pics so as to present anything of much value yet, but let me give you merely an upload of one screen shot I made a while back. Getting all of the details straight and bringing Jack to life over and over after my inadvertent screwups was a very serious and grueling endeavor for me and frankly, I am still a bit brain fried by it. I very, very seriously need a break.

i.servimg.com/u/f45/17/15/61/06/10-31-12.jpg

That was an earlier snapshot using a tracker to locate and follow particulates forming. The big circles are the tracker.

What you are seeing is the center x-y plane of a cube of metaspace. At that stage, the tracker would follow the drifting Brownian type motion of the particle throughout metaspace while keeping the screen centered around the particle, or in that case, 2 particles. The red circle is indicating a particle that is in another x-y plane along the z axis. You can only watch one plane at a time in 2D of course.

I started to create a 3D spreadsheet for Jack, but Excel turned out to be too limited and I didn’t want to go relearn C++.

Jack has had various brain surgeries since that pic and looks a little better, but the entire thing wasn’t really for sake of public display so most all of it is merely sufficient for me. I need to create some good animations and screenshots for full explanations later sometime.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Sun Jan 08, 2012 10:48 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
A particle’s location is defined by its center. By tracking its center, one knows at what velocity it is traveling. But in the case of particles, especially particles that are just beginning to form, an interesting effect takes place.

If a particulate is already traveling close to the speed of light, a common occurrence, and it runs up on a similar particulate running slightly slower, you would think the end velocity would merely be an average of the two. And it is… sortta. But what happens is that the two particulates merge into a single particle and guess what happens to the center of the first? Quite suddenly the center of the “particle” went from position A to position B (a particulate width distance away) almost instantaneously.
Quote :
The shifting center would not actually add to the momentum of the particle, so no common energy equation theories get violated. The particle merely shows up at the destination and its demise before its photon partner.
very interesting. In fact this seems like precisely the technical explanation I was looking for on physics fora when I posed my neutrino ‘theory’, the idea that what in fact travels faster than light is not actually a particle in the sense of momentum, but simply the components that would theoretically constitute a particle. What travels faster than light is not matter itself, but the structural “information” (what comes to us, the thing that makes us interpret something as particle).

I am curious to see more of Jack, by the way – this picture looks like you’re doing some complicated work there, but it is hard to make out of it what it is , as I am not used at all to such environments. I would like to see it “move” - to see what happens, changes, to get a picture of what is going on. Not to say that I expect to then understand the whole setup, let alone the math, but perhaps I would learn a bit about the technical aspects involved in such a project.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    James S Saint
    rational metaphysicist
    rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, I need to find a good way to do the You-tube type of thing or merely a sequencing applet that can install here.

I keep trying to clean up Jacks neurology a bit and every time, I end up having to spend days or weeks reviving him. But I want to make the display a little more revealing such as to do just as you said; show the motion involved and little more of the actual relations.

I really need a C++ programmer associate to make it truly a refined public display. I wasn’t expecting it to get so complicated, so I started at a bad point having to use VBA. I hadn’t used programming languages for years and my memory isn’t worth anything any more, so it isn’t really worth the effort for me to relearn C++ merely to make a public display. The essential demo-proof for academia was the point of the project and it has gotten to that point.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:20 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Yes, I need to find a good way to do the You-tube type of thing or merely a sequencing applet that can install here.

I keep trying to clean up Jacks neurology a bit and every time, I end up having to spend days or weeks reviving him. But I want to make the display a little more revealing such as to do just as you said; show the motion involved and little more of the actual relations.

I really need a C++ programmer associate to make it truly a refined public display. I wasn’t expecting it to get so complicated, so I started at a bad point having to use VBA. I hadn’t used programming languages for years and my memory isn’t worth anything any more, so it isn’t really worth the effort for me to relearn C++ merely to make a public display. The essential demo-proof for academia was the point of the project and it has gotten to that point.

I know C++… but not really that well… though 'm good with algorithms…


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:16 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
I know C++… but not really that well… though 'm good with algorithms…
Have any urge to move to Oregon? Shocked
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Abstract wrote:
I know C++… but not really that well… though 'm good with algorithms…
Have any urge to move to Oregon? Shocked
Lol…
Unfortunately i doubt that would work…
But if you ever need some help at least thinking about how to construct an algorithm and loop things and such feel free to ask… I might be a little out of age with my c++ vocabulary but I can figure most stuff out…but I can be lazy…


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Achieving Faster than Light Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Well, like most professors, I am going to leave the rest of the “grunt work” up to the undergrads, but thks. Cool

Message

Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Psychoanalysts: The Last Bastions Of Absolute Idealist Philosophy Thu May 17, 2012 5:06 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Who else is taken seriously in a metaphysical sense?

They continue to believe that absolute objectivization for it’s own sake not only exists but, if achieved, will justify its own existence.

Of course, christiandomity (subconscious kidnapers of the subconscious, so very close to power, to boot) tends to filter through like in most nihilistic objectifying systems.

Again, disproving god does not prove the devil: non-nihilistic (in this case cannot-justify-its-own-existence) does not thus mean stupid.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Psychoanalysts: The Last Bastions Of Absolute Idealist Philosophy Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I see psychoanalysis as a set of techniques, among which are observing, keeping silent and suspension of judgment.
It’s premise, the subconscious, has proven to be scientifically reliable. Technology of power.

Ideally, the analyst is the agent of the subjects powerstruggle with a hijacked subconscious.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Parodites
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Psychoanalysts: The Last Bastions Of Absolute Idealist Philosophy Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Psychoanalysis and the Tragic Sense of life.

columbia.edu/~rr322/Tragedy.html

Great read.

Psychoanalysis and Tragedy

Just as the journey is so often the metaphor for the process of discovery that takes place at the very heart of tragedy, so, too, is it one of the most compelling of metaphors for the process of psychoanalysis. This is true because in both instances the central figures are striving to discover things that involve unknown territory and primitive dangers. In both, a contemplative stroll on the parapet can end up bringing one face to face with one’s terrifying ghosts; a walk down to the harbor can lead ultimately to a confrontation with one’s monsters. In neither case does the confrontation occur by chance. Rather, it is only when the journey is undertaken with a special courage and pursued with an unusual perseverance that such monumental confrontations ever come to be. Such journeys are precisely the province of the worlds of psychoanalysis and of tragedy.

To undertake such a journey is what is asked of patients in psychoanalysis. It is a journey into territory neither analyst nor analysand knows completely, and both participants must recognize that they cannot know in advance what they will ultimately discover.

Nevertheless, it is not a journey which is entered into blindly, for each party knows something of what is in store. The analyst, as expert --or perhaps guide, has been on such expeditions before. He knows how to go about such an exploration, even if the particular territory in question is new to him. The analysand, on the other hand, is the owner of the territory. He has far more local knowledge and initial familiarity with the landscape and its inhabitants --even if there be regions he has walled off and not dared to enter into very deeply.

Psychoanalysis, like tragedy, is vitally concerned with those regions of an individual’s experience that defy exploration. It recognizes that there are secrets people carry deep within themselves and treat as unapproachable. At times the secrets are horrible, and always the secrets are terrifying. The very concept of the unconscious, quintessential to all psychoanalytic theories, is predicated on precisely this belief. Whether conceived of as being completely the result of repression, as it is in most post-Freudian systems, or in the more classical way, as a combination of some instinctual inheritance and that which is repressed thereafter, the unconscious represents that part of an individual’s psychic existence that the individual considers too dangerous to be known.

The avoidance of these terrible secrets constitutes the essence of all psychopathology. Erwin Singer (1973) wrote that at the heart of all psychopathology was the abandonment of “a birth right and a fundamentally given human capacity: to see what can be seen, to grasp what can be grasped.” (p.187) Thus it is that the forces of repression counsel one, like Jocasta warned Oedipus: “I beg you --do not hunt this out --I beg you, if you have any care for your own life.” Psychoanalysis calls on one, like Oedipus, to “not be persuaded to let be the chance of finding the whole thing out clearly.”

If there is any value judgment that is intrinsically psychoanalytic, it is the Socratic bias that the unreflective life is not worth living, or its New Testament version, “The truth will set you free.” Freud (1915) insisted that psychoanalysis must have at its very foundation the absolute commitment to truthfulness. As in the tragic vision, the psychoanalytic approach demands that one use “all the resources of his soul,” (Freud, 1916-1917, p. 454; here using Riviere’s translation) in the pursuit of the truth.

Tragedy and psychoanalysis are cognizant both of man’s hunger for full and direct experience of himself and of his world, and of his simultaneous propensity desperately to hide from it. Both place ultimate stress on the value of the quest for this truth, while at the same time recognizing the monumental courage required not to flee and abandon the journey.

Thus psychoanalysis attempts inexorably to draw one deeper and deeper into this journey of confrontation with one’s self. It calls on the individual to overcome his repressions and face that from which he has been hiding --to transcend the bounds of the secure systems he has established to keep full and immediate experience at bay.

The patient in psychoanalysis, like the tragic hero, senses that this journey threatens ultimately to bring him face to face with some ancient terror that stalks his world. And, in one way or another, all psychoanalytic theories would agree with him.


A sik þau trûðu

Abstract

Oracle
Oracle

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: How can the physical be all there is? Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The physical is by virtue of what we call laws of nature, of science. But how can the answer to understanding reality be explained by physicality for that would require explaining the laws that allow and govern physicality by means of physicality.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Tue Dec 27, 2011 7:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
The physical is by virtue of what we call laws of nature, of science. But how can the answer to understanding reality be explained by physicality for that would require explaining the laws that allow and govern physicality by means of physicality.

I tend to think of physicality as a merely sufficient relatability between forms (of energy, or whatever). Forms attain to certain degrees of scope, influencing power and “force” potential (i.e. to act as a resistance to/against other forces). The extent to which this “degree of scope…” overlaps from one form/entity to another would be the extent that each entity “perceives” (experiences, is affected by) the other as “physical”, i.e. as solid or substantial.

Thus I tend to think that we already have a means of explaining the laws of nature in a way that appeals to a basic, rational understanding of physicality. In other words I see no problem here.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Abstract wrote:
The physical is by virtue of what we call laws of nature, of science. But how can the answer to understanding reality be explained by physicality for that would require explaining the laws that allow and govern physicality by means of physicality.

I tend to think of physicality as a merely sufficient relatability between forms (of energy, or whatever). Forms attain to certain degrees of scope, influencing power and “force” potential (i.e. to act as a resistance to/against other forces). The extent to which this “degree of scope…” overlaps from one form/entity to another would be the extent that each entity “perceives” (experiences, is affected by) the other as “physical”, i.e. as solid or substantial.

Thus I tend to think that we already have a means of explaining the laws of nature in a way that appeals to a basic, rational understanding of physicality. In other words I see no problem here.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have related this only to physicality… perhaps what I am asking is how can we explain the laws without referencing other laws, and as such how can we explain all laws…


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
chise

Posts : 9
Join date : 2011-12-09

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
The physical is by virtue of what we call laws of nature, of science. But how can the answer to understanding reality be explained by physicality for that would require explaining the laws that allow and govern physicality by means of physicality.

Interesting. One such law that I see needing addressing would be: what holds the form of a physicality at a subatomic level, into a togetherness; what force, mysterious law holds the physical intact; the beloved atoms what is there link and connection to each other? how do they know to form a relationship? what is the intelligence of the atom?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
chise

Posts : 9
Join date : 2011-12-09

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In having to undress and strip the beloved, layer per layer, garment after undergarmet, we arive at the heart which is the nuclei, within it - are pulsating arteries called, protons, deep inside the pulsation we find the quark.

(The layers are levels of reality? Each reality is held up by consciousness and energy? And when these levels are tighted, pressed together and coagulated, by a mind (?) we have matter in its rawest state as it appears?
The deeper the reality; the smaller the particle, the more powerful the energy… as evidenced by the atomic bomb… The levels of reality and their make up is a mystery. I posit that what some see that isn’t visible on the level we’re accustomed to is a form from these other levels? the unusual, that which remains unexplained, such as instantenous healings, instant manifestations, are fits performed through the accessing of these other realms and their energetic fields? in cases of death and dying, the corruption and decay of the human body, the unseen personality self goes to such realms, unseen worlds?

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:39 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
chise wrote:
Abstract wrote:
The physical is by virtue of what we call laws of nature, of science. But how can the answer to understanding reality be explained by physicality for that would require explaining the laws that allow and govern physicality by means of physicality.

Interesting. One such law that I see needing addressing would be: what holds the form of a physicality at a subatomic level, into a togetherness; what force, mysterious law holds the physical intact; the beloved atoms what is there link and connection to each other? how do they know to form a relationship? what is the intelligence of the atom?
Though not an answer, I have recently considered that love and gravity are the same thing…exactly.

things are similar because things see them as such; thus it is by perception that things are united just as it is by perception that things are parted… union through perception… is love?


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
chise

Posts : 9
Join date : 2011-12-09

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
Though not an answer, I have recently considered that love and gravity are the same thing…exactly.

things are similar because things see them as such; thus it is by perception that things are united just as it is by perception that things are parted… union through perception… is love?

Similar insights have walked into my brain: love was seen to be, in it’s grandest state. The glue that fastens the universe from crumbling into nothingness. The main ingredient firmly holding stuff at an individual and universal scale in their material forms.

The perception side of it wasn’t considered much til lately.

, in being humbled enough, to perceive the individual self, not as a separate, but a oneness with the whole. of life (and yet within that, an individual) , imagining existence being merely an act of perception, is conceivable… as self centered and ego tripping as it sounds Smile

chise wrote:

Interesting. One such law that I see needing addressing would be: what holds the form of a physicality at a subatomic level, into a togetherness; what force, mysterious law holds the physical intact; the beloved atoms what is there link and connection to each other? how do they know to form a relationship? what is the intelligence of the atom?
Though not an answer, I have recently considered that love

if this is so, if The force binding the atoms together and holding the levels of reality within the atom in their shelves, is a loving perception from an observer, that does give the observer a tone of power & responsbility eh it implies that everything only comes to existence when it is looked at? where man isn’t nature is fallow? matter is changeable with a change of perception? why isn’t and how is matter mutated at a glance?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
chise wrote:
Abstract wrote:
Though not an answer, I have recently considered that love and gravity are the same thing…exactly.

things are similar because things see them as such; thus it is by perception that things are united just as it is by perception that things are parted… union through perception… is love?

Similar insights have walked into my brain: love was seen to be, in it’s grandest state. The glue that fastens the universe from crumbling into nothingness. The main ingredient firmly holding stuff at an individual and universal scale in their material forms.

The perception side of it wasn’t considered much til lately.

, in being humbled enough, to perceive the individual self, not as a separate, but a oneness with the whole. of life (and yet within that, an individual) , imagining existence being merely an act of perception, is conceivable… as self centered and ego tripping as it sounds Smile

chise wrote:

Interesting. One such law that I see needing addressing would be: what holds the form of a physicality at a subatomic level, into a togetherness; what force, mysterious law holds the physical intact; the beloved atoms what is there link and connection to each other? how do they know to form a relationship? what is the intelligence of the atom?
Though not an answer, I have recently considered that love

if this is so, if The force binding the atoms together and holding the levels of reality within the atom in their shelves, is a loving perception from an observer, that does give the observer a tone of power & responsbility eh it implies that everything only comes to existence when it is looked at? where man isn’t nature is fallow? matter is changeable with a change of perception? why isn’t and how is matter mutated at a glance?
It would seem contradictory to say something comes to existence only when it is looked at because in order to be looked at it must already be an existing thing capable of being looked at…

The reason (following this philosophy) that I would say matter cannot be changed , evidently, by a change in perception… is that you are thinking of individual perception change as the changing factor… I would not necessitate a oneness exactly that perceives, it is just as well that all individuals do and yet that which ‘is’ is the result of the…agreement… or rather happened perception or general perception of all beings… perhaps it is like the perceived average, except it is universal as all seem to be subject to this perception…In other words nothing is going to change unless we all agree on it. (for example if we wanted a heaven state, we would all have to agree on what that state would be…)


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
chise

Posts : 9
Join date : 2011-12-09

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It would seem contradictory to say something comes to existence only when it is looked at because in order to be looked at it must already be an existing thing capable of being looked at

This is the true, if ‘looking or seeing’ is limited to the action of the visual perceptive organ, the eye. “Looking or seeing” starts with a visual image, and an intent to look at thing; the thing is first seen in the mind. This mental picture itself can be seen as a ‘coming into existence’ can’t it? (thought is the first principle of creation) this was more of the line of thinking I was going by

The reason (following this philosophy) that I would say matter cannot be changed , evidently, by a change in perception… is that you are thinking of individual perception change as the changing factor… I would not necessitate a oneness exactly that perceives, it is just as well that all individuals do and yet that which ‘is’ is the result of the…agreement… or rather happened perception or general perception of all beings… perhaps it is like the perceived average, except it is universal as all seem to be subject to this perception…In other words nothing is going to change unless we all agree on it. (for example if we wanted a heaven state, we would all have to agree on what that state would be…)

This is also true, change would be easier and quickly if more people focused their energies on whatever it is they wanted to change. It is easier to believe in something when everyone else does and easy to doubt in something when noone else believes it. The reason I consider this possibility is from an encounter I have had with someone who really showed a certain degree of a mastery of mind over matter. As stated earlier perhaps accessing the hidden realms, the energetic fields of atoms at a nuclei level (atomic bomb stuff) can bring home this potential. Will let ya know when this philosophizing becomes an, actual realized truth!! Smile
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
chise wrote:
It would seem contradictory to say something comes to existence only when it is looked at because in order to be looked at it must already be an existing thing capable of being looked at

This is the true, if ‘looking or seeing’ is limited to the action of the visual perceptive organ, the eye. “Looking or seeing” starts with a visual image, and an intent to look at thing; the thing is first seen in the mind. This mental picture itself can be seen as a ‘coming into existence’ can’t it? (thought is the first principle of creation) this was more of the line of thinking I was going by
Yet how is it that the percivers know of things such as to bring them into existence before having witnessed them, but that we already know all things? If so then our efforts to seek the truth by looking outside ourselves may be the least effective when(though truely in this case what is outside is a part of the one or the whole that we are) it would seem better to find the truth by looking into the self…

Quote :

The reason (following this philosophy) that I would say matter cannot be changed , evidently, by a change in perception… is that you are thinking of individual perception change as the changing factor… I would not necessitate a oneness exactly that perceives, it is just as well that all individuals do and yet that which ‘is’ is the result of the…agreement… or rather happened perception or general perception of all beings… perhaps it is like the perceived average, except it is universal as all seem to be subject to this perception…In other words nothing is going to change unless we all agree on it. (for example if we wanted a heaven state, we would all have to agree on what that state would be…)

This is also true, change would be easier and quickly if more people focused their energies on whatever it is they wanted to change. It is easier to believe in something when everyone else does and easy to doubt in something when no one else believes it. The reason I consider this possibility is from an encounter I have had with someone who really showed a certain degree of a mastery of mind over matter. As stated earlier perhaps accessing the hidden realms, the energetic fields of atoms at a nuclei level (atomic bomb stuff) can bring home this potential. Will let ya know when this philosophizing becomes an, actual realized truth!! Smile

And perhaps not only do others influence what is perceived as physical but also others and the will they might have to change things…


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hmm…

Doesn’t this thread belong under the “Anti-Science” or perhaps “The Occult” or “Inter-subjective” forums? Neutral

The cause of quantizing/particlizing is known and provable. But it cannot be physically seen and thus Science cannot physically verify it. It is instead in incontrovertible result of the math/logic involved.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
chise

Posts : 9
Join date : 2011-12-09

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
chise wrote:

This is the true, if ‘looking or seeing’ is limited to the action of the visual perceptive organ, the eye. “Looking or seeing” starts with a visual image, and an intent to look at thing; the thing is first seen in the mind. This mental picture itself can be seen as a ‘coming into existence’ can’t it? (thought is the first principle of creation) this was more of the line of thinking I was going by
Yet how is it that the percivers know of things such as to bring them into existence before having witnessed them, but that we already know all things? …

Do we know all things? in other words is there a limit to what has come into existence? knowing or creating ideas seems limitless?
to what degree have we deliberately barricaded our ability to know and to create?

Abstract wrote:

If so then our efforts to seek the truth by looking outside ourselves may be the least effective when(though truely in this case what is outside is a part of the one or the whole that we are) it would seem better to find the truth by looking into the self

it would and is, unfortunately the road is treacherously paved with doubt and disbelief in self…: Perhaps, ‘the pursuit’ in truth. is a Journey to find our certitude in our ability to know and to create,… any thing ?!

chise wrote:

This is also true, change would be easier and quickly if more people focused their energies on whatever it is they wanted to change. It is easier to believe in something when everyone else does and easy to doubt in something when no one else believes it. The reason I consider this possibility is from an encounter I have had with someone who really showed a certain degree of a mastery of mind over matter. As stated earlier perhaps accessing the hidden realms, the energetic fields of atoms at a nuclei level (atomic bomb stuff) can bring home this potential. Will let ya know when this philosophizing becomes an, actual realized truth!! Smile

And perhaps not only do others influence what is perceived as physical but also others and the will they might have to change things…

true, some do, others, inspire others by providing the ideal… not the idol

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Hmm…

Doesn’t this thread belong under the “Anti-Science” or perhaps “The Occult” or “Inter-subjective” forums? Neutral

The cause of quantizing/particlizing is known and provable. But it cannot be physically seen and thus Science cannot physically verify it. It is instead in incontrovertible result of the math/logic involved.
How is this known, how is it proved… what is its cause if it was caused by things, and if we are only looking at one of the causes in the infinite streaming of beginning of the thing we are not actually finding the proof we are just becoming satisfied with one domino on the infinite line of understandings or thoughts that can occur in relation to the topic.


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
chise wrote:
Abstract wrote:
chise wrote:

This is the true, if ‘looking or seeing’ is limited to the action of the visual perceptive organ, the eye. “Looking or seeing” starts with a visual image, and an intent to look at thing; the thing is first seen in the mind. This mental picture itself can be seen as a ‘coming into existence’ can’t it? (thought is the first principle of creation) this was more of the line of thinking I was going by
Yet how is it that the percivers know of things such as to bring them into existence before having witnessed them, but that we already know all things? …

Do we know all things? in other words is there a limit to what has come into existence? knowing or creating ideas seems limitless?
to what degree have we deliberately barricaded our ability to know and to create?
Perhaps it is only to what existent we recognize our abilities to be limited that we can be limited. And so it is best not to ask or think how we might be?

Quote :

Abstract wrote:

If so then our efforts to seek the truth by looking outside ourselves may be the least effective when(though truely in this case what is outside is a part of the one or the whole that we are) it would seem better to find the truth by looking into the self

it would and is, unfortunately the road is treacherously paved with doubt and disbelief in self…: Perhaps, ‘the pursuit’ in truth. is a Journey to find our certitude in our ability to know and to create,… any thing ?!
Perhaps it is truly just a journey to aid the growth of comfort with limitless uncertainty…


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
chise

Posts : 9
Join date : 2011-12-09

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
Perhaps it is only to what existent we recognize our abilities to be limited that we can be limited. And so it is best not to ask or think how we might be?

Smile Yes! but see asking and thinking in this case… would be a response from an experience failing to yeild a desired outcome… reflection encourages a better approach in the future. There would be no questions if success was/is guaranteed each time. We are already in the hole, if we had known that we could walk on air we wouldn’t have fallen into the ditch. So here we are, climbing out, with the virtue, which is wisdom, of our experiences. (The hole is the attachment to the past… past experiences and indeed the extent that we recognize their existence)…

How do we know what being unlimited is without knowing limitation?

fyi- the motive behind the question in my previous post was especially for contemplative purposes on the readers part … but thanks for the response
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
Capable wrote:
Abstract wrote:
The physical is by virtue of what we call laws of nature, of science. But how can the answer to understanding reality be explained by physicality for that would require explaining the laws that allow and govern physicality by means of physicality.

I tend to think of physicality as a merely sufficient relatability between forms (of energy, or whatever). Forms attain to certain degrees of scope, influencing power and “force” potential (i.e. to act as a resistance to/against other forces). The extent to which this “degree of scope…” overlaps from one form/entity to another would be the extent that each entity “perceives” (experiences, is affected by) the other as “physical”, i.e. as solid or substantial.

Thus I tend to think that we already have a means of explaining the laws of nature in a way that appeals to a basic, rational understanding of physicality. In other words I see no problem here.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have related this only to physicality… perhaps what I am asking is how can we explain the laws without referencing other laws, and as such how can we explain all laws…

Originally, what is called the universe was a unified force undifferentiated by time or by space. What we call creation is actually the decomposition and disintegration of ousia, to speak Greek, of physical reality. When we finally manage to reconstruct in our little simian brains a mathematical and theoretical conception of such a unified force (ie. unified field theory) then we will understand all physicality in only one “law” as you call it, one formulation.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
chise wrote:
One such law that I see needing addressing would be: what holds the form of a physicality at a subatomic level, into a togetherness; what force, mysterious law holds the physical intact; the beloved atoms what is there link and connection to each other? how do they know to form a relationship? what is the intelligence of the atom?

… The fundamental interactions. You should have learned that in high school, not to be an ass, though it is in my nature.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Just take away your preconceptions as a living thing and look at it for a moment. Blind, space-less, timeless, power; infinitely dense and hot. It existed forever, and was “nowhere” for it took up no space. Suddenly it ruptures, the unified force shattering and decomposing into our universe. Particles and anti-particles sparred for awhile, spontaneously generated by the conversion and regression of energy into matter, matter into energy. Temperatures eventually cooled enough for the first atoms to form. Stars formed, burning this primordial “stuff.” In their burning, the stars produced more complex atomic structures, the elements needed to build planets and lifeforms. Then we show up on earth. That is a very small summary of the history of our universe. A wonder, granted, from the perspective of a living thing. From any other perspective, however…
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There is what changes and what doesn’t.
The physical universe is what changes…
… and doesn’t.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It also gets on my nerves sometimes.

I guess the universe is a pretty cool guy though. Eh. Makes black holes and doesn’t afraid of anything.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

Abstract…

Quote :
… I have recently considered that love and gravity are the same thing…exactly.
We might say that these words correspond to each other. They are similar in that love may keep one ‘grounded’ but at the same time love is capable of allowing us to soar. So you might also say that love and wings are similar.

In another respect, love may make us quite grave. Evil or Very Mad

Quote :
things are similar because things see them as such; thus it is by perception that things are united ?
When we use ‘things’ as metaphors to assign meaning and interpretation.

Quote :
just as it is by perception that things are parted… union through perception… is love

This is why it is important to examine/re-examine our perceptions. They are not necessarily based in truth but based on how we sensate and interpret the moment.

Union through perception may also lead to altered truth…which might eradicate the love which was once seen.


Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’ll have to respond later when i’m not feeling so mind numb…


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
RIW

avatar

Posts : 1
Join date : 2012-09-22
Location : RI USA

PostSubject: Re: How can the physical be all there is? Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Before our time began the infinite became self aware and it observed all for it was all. With love it created a perfect order of single point mass particles and then releases it so the mass particles could all coming by and with their own preference’s of movement. The Infinite made this possible knowing that it would be finite but that it would also bring forth that which can and would observer. At the same time the universe falls in to disorder it also moves to higher levels of connection and complexity. Choice is necessary for evolution. Choice is necessary for all observers to evolve. Love is a creating force hate is a destroying force. Do not try and put god in your back pocket. The Infinite will not fit in there instead put love in your top front pocket near your hart, and hate in your back pocket out of sight. Connecting to that which is good is connecting to the living universe. Yes this is a living universe when preferences of movement and an inclination to connect in ways of ever high complexity are given to mass things evolve. The Infinite has made the laws and set the physical values of our universe for life to exist. All life is an observer of existents. God does not move rocks. God is the infinite. God is the understanding of the collective infinite. For the void connects all things to the Infinite.

Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Effectance Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’m perplexed by a problem. Does everything effect everything to some degree? Does say a planet in a galaxy we have yet discovered have some effect on us hear on earth, no matter how small? Basically is the field of effectance of objects infinite?

If so it would seem that what we consider finite objects are then infinite in nature.
But further this can imply things about the nature of actions, in areas of consideration like the idea of sin. Is a sin infinite? If so, if its effect extends outwards in the present infinitely and/or continually ways effect in the future then it is not so illogical for there to be an infinite karmic or otherwise punishment for a sin. Unless you then count that a good action does the same then your faced with waying two infinites against each other which leaves the resultant polarity of action indeterminate.


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Effectance Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
I’m perplexed by a problem. Does everything effect everything to some degree? Does say a planet in a galaxy we have yet discovered have some effect on us hear on earth, no matter how small? Basically is the field of effectance of objects infinite?
I’m no specialist on this but I’d say that this is probhably not the case. For one, a solar system may be sucked into a black hole, and when it does it is nof no consequence what curve some tennisball had on some planet, or at what angle some plane crashed into a mountain.
Also I was thinking that a lot can happen within gravitational systems that does not disturb the balance of that system and thus does not project it’s effect outward from the system.

Quote :
If so it would seem that what we consider finite objects are then infinite in nature.
But further this can imply things about the nature of actions, in areas of consideration like the idea of sin. Is a sin infinite? If so, if its effect extends outwards in the present infinitely and/or continually ways effect in the future then it is not so illogical for there to be an infinite karmic or otherwise punishment for a sin. Unless you then count that a good action does the same then your faced with waying two infinites against each other which leaves the resultant polarity of action indeterminate.
If there was indeed infinite effectance, then still it is very possible, and on Earth very often clearly the case, that an act considered in one realm as negative would be received as positive in another. “Sin” is a value judgment, and this certianly is not universal, but purely local, contextual.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Effectance Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:40 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The key to open any kind of space-time power is to include as much contradictory logi into one logos as your energy can muster. Then consolidate in ritual (instances of exalted, eternal life) and create a symbolic order. Then obey that order.

Message

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Before the Big Bang Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Relations are a priori dual, triple, => , not merely after the fact of measuring them. The relations we measure in physics and chemistry do not only exist in terms of force.
There is also another aspect, and this is unmeasurable in exact terms, as it involves not just the present state but its entire history and future of affect in every possible universe in which it could exist.

Even the very idea of a particle is cleaved. There are always two ways of contemplating the object. For example:

  • The minimal and maximal requirements for its existence, its ‘essence’, raw (unmeasured) content. ⇔ Its maximal power to affect (a quantity of force).

  • The possible ways in which it can affect and be affected (a number of qualities in various quantities). ⇔ Its measurable effect. (its measurable activity at a given moment).

These cross relate into two four further dualities, of which two are simple and two quite a bit less so. More on these later. In the above, the second part of each pair is expressed in terms of something outside of itself. The first part expresses all that it can possibly be, i.e. all possible contexts for it to exist in. The second is a process of valuing and counter valuing, the second part is translatable in common sensical speak only via such words as (value-) standard and consistency.

In the case of the latter it is very difficult to distinguis action from passive existing. Something “just exists” only to the measure that it is active. Even if this activity may be wholly enforced by the ambient history, it does act itself in a particular way that can only be affected by the ambient indirectly. Thus it is an integer being, essentially independent, yet requiring for this independence something to be independent from.

And such arrays of standards arrange themselves alongside those standards to which they may favorably compare. I.e. each thing seeks (gradually falls into) the context in which the most is required of its essential potential.

In human lore this is called Good versus Evil, but it is the inevitable form of time, the progression of increasing density on the one hand, and slowing relative time on the other.

The end scenario is one of complete stability and zero progression of time. Time would then ‘freeze’, undoubtably for it to burst open in a new Big Bang (or Crash - as in a pulverizing sheet of glass).

Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: God is Dead: Scientific Fact Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Evolutionists” who call for a return to the bestial logic of our tried-and-true evolutionary processes don’t get the point. An evolutionist claims that the bestial logic of our tried and true evolutionary processes are things which have always been and continue to be right at the core of our existence. The evolutionist uses consciousness to fabricate an image of its consciousness which he then recognizes even before the image. Evolutionism is not primitivism because everything is already primitive, evolutionism is a full circle from feeling to knowing to know-feeling and feel-knowing

The importance of the death of God is what? That all we have is this, and ourselves. Our worship of God produced such intricate and sophisticated work, one wonders what similar sentiments could produce when attached to a vision of reality which is corroborated by its very object and which object is very thirsty for power, also better equiped than when this ever was dreamed of.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: God is Dead: Scientific Fact Thu Aug 08, 2013 10:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The term “God” remains vague. Who is dead? Is it Zeus? No way, he lives in Jupiter and the thunderstorms that free my heart. Is it Baal? Sure, he could be dead-ish, no one worships him. Is it Yahweh? Well - he’s alive and kicking in the hearts of not only Jews, but all Western occultists. Who is dead is Jesus and his dad. That’s what’s significant – the God of meekness of turning the other cheek, he’s dead. At least - is he? Is not Jesus only a reference to a solstice, and Mary to the constellation Virgo?

In any case, you are right in your conclusions.

“Our worship of God produced such intricate and sophisticated work, one wonders what similar sentiments could produce when attached to a vision of reality which is corroborated by its very object and which object is very thirsty for power, also better equiped than when this ever was dreamed of.”

God allowed man an uncanny thirst for power. Conviction was the means to this will. Our “problem” here is to get motivated to that same level. With value ontology a seed was planted. I felt at that time the power to create new Gods. We had a talk about that, then. The first enthusiasm (-- from en “in” (see en- (2)) + theos “god” --) paid off, and here we are.

“God is dead” is not enough of a statement. God is a … fill in the blanks -
man will always require something higher than his present state to orient on. It can be his future self, it can be a future descendancy (the Uebermensch) but it needs to be something ahead of him. Or am I wrong?


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Pezer
    builder
    builder
    avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: God is Dead: Scientific Fact Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:45 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The problem with God is precisely those general terms. God can be anything, it is a word that simply conjures the hole in the moment which the company has decided to explore no further. A scientist must chase these holes down, not give them names and worship them. I, as you know, give the exception to Chaos, for reasons that can become clear with some thought.

This other God, this Yehova, God of Abraham, perhaps God of the Egyptians, or some Egyptians, this is the curse behind Iesus and not the other way around. Jesus was a hippy who got taken advantage of by over-zealous rabbies with that good ol’ God in their hearts and revenge in their minds.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: God is Dead: Scientific Fact Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
None of us can see tomorrow. Our words are still yesterday’s languages. Who has the power to think the pure un-thought, the strangest derivation in the moment? We must learn to follow even the tiniest clues, even the ones that aren’t there yet.

Let us learn to speak like the wind. Let us learn to seek like the wind.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: God is Dead: Scientific Fact Fri Aug 09, 2013 5:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
The problem with God is precisely those general terms. God can be anything, it is a word that simply conjures the hole in the moment which the company has decided to explore no further. A scientist must chase these holes down, not give them names and worship them. I, as you know, give the exception to Chaos, for reasons that can become clear with some thought.

This other God, this Yehova, God of Abraham, perhaps God of the Egyptians, or some Egyptians, this is the curse behind Iesus and not the other way around. Jesus was a hippy who got taken advantage of by over-zealous rabbies with that good ol’ God in their hearts and revenge in their minds.
That’s crazy. In the whole world, there is no group that has resisted the idea of the “Jewish” Son of God with such baffled repulsion as the rabbi’s.
God has no one Son. His son is Beauty itself, the theatre of experience.

The tree of life (the glyph of which YHVH is an outtake and to the front of which ‘Iesu’ (the guy didn’t really exist) was modeled) is the scientific model pur sang. Newton was a kabalist and Einstein definitely read a lot of it.

But also my own thoughts about value-relativity merged after many years of meditation on the sephirotic combinations of the ‘bare (meaningless) logics’ that can reasonably be said to sustain the human mind as representing reality. For example: Force/Form, Possibility/Decision Overflowing/Limiting-standardizing – or Force/Overflowing, Overflowing/Possibility, Form/Limiting-standardizing, Limiting-standardizing/Decision - and then such contrasts as Overflowing/Decision and Possibility/Limiting-standardizing at the midst of which is the theatre of experience, the “Self”, which does not exist except through such relations.

Capable wrote:
None of us can see tomorrow. Our words are still yesterday’s languages. Who has the power to think the pure un-thought, the strangest derivation in the moment? We must learn to follow even the tiniest clues, even the ones that aren’t there yet.
Quote :
Let us learn to speak like the wind. Let us learn to seek like the wind.
I like this.
Frames, running colors, streaks - caves, black bear with a red tongue and white teeth, snarling. A blue sky, a bald predator lurks, vast wings, hanging still. A volcano-top in the distance. Ants, colonies. Zoom in: Marches across the desert. A man with a female crotch and an electrifying voice.

The pyramids - I step on one of them and hurt my foot. My blood gushes down, the red birth of the Nile. The river feeds the barren Earth. A civilization of ants arises. Ant-history lives forth in ant-eternity. Ants call other ants Gods. In the meantime, the Sun slowly sets and I perceive my tent. I had already put it up. I forgot. A rabbits-stew, a wife in grey, a telescope.

Chaos and the wind are friends, we do not essentially disagree.

The Tree of Life is no limiter, it’s to use freely and discard freely, it is a means to escape language and human context without losing control of logic. There are other means - but this one is particularly powerful, and has often been near and sometimes at the very core of western scientific progress.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: God is Dead: Scientific Fact Fri Aug 09, 2013 5:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
The problem with God is precisely those general terms. God can be anything, it is a word that simply conjures the hole in the moment which the company has decided to explore no further. A scientist must chase these holes down, not give them names and worship them. I, as you know, give the exception to Chaos, for reasons that can become clear with some thought.
That is not true. God-systems are far more complex and deliberate than that. Consider the yoga-science as someone like sri Yukteshwar developed, or these standard kabalistic attributions:

[[[[Sephirah Divine name Archangelic name Choir or Host of Angels Mundane Chakra Summary

  1. Kether (Crown) Eheieh (‘I am’, ‘I will be’, ‘I Become’ or ‘I am that I am’) Metatron Chayoth ha-Qadesh (“Holy living Creatures”) aka Seraphim Primum Mobile /First Swirlings (Neptune) The richest and most supreme source of energy

  2. Chokmah (Wisdom) Jehovah / Yah (“The Lord”) Raziel Auphanim (“Wheels”) aka Kerubim Zodiac (Uranus) Uncompensated, boundless energy, primordial maleness.

  3. Binah (Understanding) Jehovah Elohim (“The Lord God” or “Lord of Gods”) Tzaphkiel Aralim (“Strong and Mighty”) aka Thrones Saturn The archetypical womb, the female potency of the universe

  4. Chesed (Mercy) El (“God - The Mighty One”) Tzadqiel Chashmalim (“Brilliant Ones”) aka Dominions or dominations (Kyriotetes) Jupiter The archetypical ideas which are the basis of our manifested universe

  5. Geburah (Strength) Elohim Gebor (“God of Battles” or “God Almighty”) Kamael Seraphim (“Fiery Serpents” or “Flaming Ones”) aka Order of Powers (Exusiai) Mars The power to carry out cosmic law, thereby enabling cosmic justice

  6. Tiphareth (Beauty) Jehovah Eloah Va Daath (“God Made Manifest in the Sphere of Mind” or “Lord God of all Knowledge”). Raphael Malachim (“Kings”) aka Virtues, angels and rulers (Dynameis) Sun The central Sephiroth is a stage of balance, beauty and harmony.

  7. Netzach (Victory) Jehovah Tzabaoth (“Lord of Hosts”) Haniel Elohim (“Gods”) aka Principalities (Archai) Venus The balance and mutual fruitation between the individual and the collective

  8. Hod (Glory) Elohim Tzabaoth (“God of Hosts”) Michael Beni Elohim (“Sons of God”) aka Archangels Mercury The stage of concentration where energy is controlled and molded into forms

  9. Yesod (Foundation) Shaddai El Chai (“Almighty Living God” or “Almighty God of Life”) Gabriel Kerubim (“Strong Ones”) aka Angels Moon The magical link between mind and matter, a force for good and evil

  10. Malkuth (Kingdom) Adonai Malekh (“The Lord who is King”) or Adonai ha-Aretz (“Lord of the Earth”) Sandalphon Ashim (“Souls of Fire”) aka Blessed Souls / Souls made perfect Earth (Pluto) The final manifestation, where things exist, happen and are sensed, right now ]]]]

“I am a sorcerer. Everything I see I create. I have created, and will continue to create my own world” - Morten Haas

I recommend trying to pronounce these names with full-breath resonance and observe the sonsequences. Before you judge it as arbitrary, I mean.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Pezer
    builder
    builder
    avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: God is Dead: Scientific Fact Fri Aug 09, 2013 9:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Wisdom is always cool, but what props up this wisdom? The Abrahamic wisdom? It is the zealousness of the rabbis. That the ones who took advantage of Jesus were detestable even by other rabbi’s standards doesn’t mean they weren’t earnestly zealous. This is why all occult Jewish knowledge tends to amount to monotonic temple prayer sessions and some elevated grip over the world, but nothing to rock anybody’s pants. Even though I can obviously recognize that the wisdom, or science, is pretty good. It is a fine smell, but very earthy, the sound of the language has very little of jagged and lightning. This is not against it in any ethical or moralistic level, simply a note on taste, on effectual smell.

All those terms are, of course, quite familiar to my ears. It reminds me of the times in religious study as a child when the stories seemed to shine through some value of its own, some secret deivinity. I suppose all the guilt is piled on top of that. But this is my point: it is at the same time powerful, maleable and secretive. Fine material for weak frames, unhelpful in this secretivness for science.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: God is Dead: Scientific Fact Fri Aug 09, 2013 11:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Let’s take biodynamic agriculture as an example. The originating mind behind it placed so much of the importance of his newly framed field of study on a spirituality of the cosmos, he closed opportunities for future generations to use the term for its basic scientific tenets and their ability to include things unpredictable, such as microscopic reactions comparable to the drug experience, and that’s just from my own bias, there are many other biases that go uninvited to this wonderful field because there is an unknowability there which is attributed to something other than chaos; that is, a human outside of the human, a plan outside of the planners. If this plan can precede us, why create? Science is creation, the disacknowledgement of all non-human plans and the ultimate placer of responsibility on man, the heaviest crown for the mightiest sceptre.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: God is Dead: Scientific Fact Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
But what is man?
You could not use a car if you did not know about the pedals, the wheel and the ignition.
Kabalah draws so much more energy and power out of man than the regular superexited state, that it is dangerous. It’s basically rocketscience. No one masters this system. Those that come close burn up in eternal glory.

Seriously man I can’t take you seriously here until you’ve astrally walked a few of these paths.

qabalah.dk/paths.html

you’ll need this:

qabalah.dk/sephiroth.html

These paths, I walk about 1 a year, are by far the most vivid creative experiences I’ve had, and they redefined my approach to memory - it’s now completely physiological. This is also a great danger, There’s a point of no return somewhere along the tree. And once you’ve crossed that, you have to ascend to ‘divine madness’, and so it within the ethics your memory can sustain.

it’s like painting with a gun to your head.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: God is Dead: Scientific Fact Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It all sounds very boring. But it isn’t if you stand before the bridge you are about to build. This “God” that is constantly mentioned is merely the galactic center, or that black hole around which the nearby galaxies revolve - it’s a specific target, a source of real energy, valuing, from which tautologically the measures and powerrelations of our scientific world derive.

The celestial entities are real. Their influence is scientifically very well identifiable. But as with all technology, this requires an Uranian approach. Where is your Uranus? How is it placed? Tell me what aspects it makes.

astrotheme.fr/theme_astral_e … u_ciel.php


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: God is Dead: Scientific Fact Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:32 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUpWCRadIIA[/youtube]

8:50 - He took Lambda from the Tree of Life - “Lamed” - but he was too simple about it. The constant also involves the other path on the expansion-side of the tree.

In any case, now you know why he said

“The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.”

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Radical idea of multiple histories Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:20 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Once again, if we take value ontology to the extreme and set value as prior to any formation of whatever affectance as literally as possible, then causation is free from itself.

Imagine this: is it perhaps possible that our value systems do not only dictate the future we create, but also the past from which we came?

What about this: Next to an origin of man from Ape, there is an origin of man via Atlantis, Lemuria, Hyperboria to beings like Wainamoinen. The history of the organism then depends on the substance which the soul takes on - in terms of which science of the body the subject values itself presently.

I know this is probably not the case. But it is now thinkable and illuminates at least that our memory, individual and collective, is greatly determined by the language we use to propel our essence back through time to arrive at a concept of an originating.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Pezer
    builder
    builder
    avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: Radical idea of multiple histories Sat Aug 31, 2013 1:49 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No, I think it is true. It is the function of the difference between those who cannot do science together. One idea that permits wide-reaching science with difference-valuing at its core is the theory that we can create secondary and tertiary derivations from the vastly wide range of experience in the substance that makes science to alchemically make common overlapping sciences.

Message

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Photon Relativity Paradox Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is entirely hypothetical, as it can not be recreated as an experiment.
And thus, keep in mind that paradox means apparent contradiction.

Say that two photons are rushing toward each other from opposite directions.
And coupled with each photon is a perspective.

With what speed does the perspective of either of the two photons perceive the other photon approaching?

How does that correlate with the fact that, from an observer neutral to both photons (exactly in the middle), the photons are closing the distance between each other at twice the speed of light?


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    James S Saint
    rational metaphysicist
    rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Photon Relativity Paradox Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
This is entirely hypothetical, as it can not be recreated as an experiment.
And thus, keep in mind that paradox means apparent contradiction.

Say that two photons are rushing toward each other from opposite directions.
And coupled with each photon is a perspective.

With what speed does the perspective of either of the two photons perceive the other photon approaching?

How does that correlate with the fact that, from an observer neutral to both photons (exactly in the middle), the photons are closing the distance between each other at twice the speed of light?
You might want to be careful pressing that issue. You can get banned off of most science sites if you argue the case.

Their response is one of two things;
A) Faith for those just wise enough to go along in order to get along.
B) Obfuscation for those too insistent upon logic and reasoning (warning: this comes with “pestilence”; gadflies, harpies, and locusts)

Many years ago when I asked that same question, they couldn’t answer it without obfuscation. They actually have a seemingly valid answer to give, but they (physicists) don’t typically realize it. And their answer isn’t entirely valid, but is good enough for most heretics.

What you have proposed actually involves 3 perspectives, not merely 2. You are the picture frame and that is one perspective because everything else is moving relative to that frame. Then you have each of the moving objects because they are moving relative to each other as well as to you.

So what happens in common relativity theory is the realization that any time something is moving toward something else at c, that something else must necessarily be without depth, flat. As a photon approaches Earth, from the photon’s perspective, the Earth is a flat disk.

What that means is that the right most light speed object approaching you would measure no distance between you and the left most object. It would consider you and the left most object to be in the same location.

That perspective can lead to yet another paradox that they also can’t answer because it seems there are concerns in mathematics that they are not taught. I could both propose such a paradox and also answer it with proper math, but they apparently cannot.

That situation leads to me having to not get into that additional paradox because such would lead to its answer which would end up merely helping to disguise the fallacy of an incoherent theory, “assisting the devil to maintain his church”.

So my advice is to simply accept that no distance would be perceived by either object between you and the other object and leave it at that.

They are at war. So choose your side;
A) one of the winning sides
B) one of the losing sides
C) outside
D) inside-out; the tricky method of being inside, yet out.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Photon Relativity Paradox Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I can look at this situation one of two ways. First, it seems possible that light has no perspective at all, that being without mass or structure, basically a non-self-value that is a pure “reflection” of the mathematical laws of nature/reality itself, a sufficient-to-itself quantity, a photon would not be aware of anything. Saying that a photon perceives or experiences therefore makes no sense. So two photons traveling relative to each other don’t experience or even constitute reference-frames at all. This seems to fit with c being constant, that it’s unaffected by other stuff going on-- either a photon exists and is at c, or it does not exist (has been absorbed into an atomic system). This also seems consistent with the fact that photons seem to slow down in mediums; mass creating “gravity” adds more “stuff” as distance through which the photon must pass, or be refracted/bounce around, therefore appearing to us to “slow down”.

Or, you could take the perspective that the distance between two photons is a measurement of information and had no actual substantial “existence”. We know from entanglement that “information” can “travel” instantaneously (I.e. faster than c), so if you think of the distance between two photons traveling toward or away from each other as changing at a rate of 2c this is not problematic because nothing is “actually” moving faster than c, rather it’s an issue of information without substance or force, the distance between the photons can increase or decrease at any rate regardless of c as the limit of velocity because the FACT of the distance between two photons is not a velocity or a “thing” at all.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Photon Relativity Paradox Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The speed of light encapsulates each reference frame.
It’s like a membrane beyond which nothing within that frame shall pass.

From the reference frame of object A, the closer object B comes to light speed, the closer it comes to absolute gravity. If it would attain this, the two objects would not be able to move away from each other any longer.

Thus the nature of c as a limit holds together everything by gravity. It forces all mass which is of influence to other mass to forever remain of influence to it - it binds together all already-bound reference frames.

It is an ontological veil between this world and something which is only possible in terms that are impossible here. Possibly that is simply “nothing”, but I don’t think that’s the necessary conclusion.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    James S Saint
    rational metaphysicist
    rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Photon Relativity Paradox Sat Oct 12, 2013 3:00 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Realize that an “observer photon” would experience it birth at the source and instantly smack into its destination no matter at what extreme distance that destination is or how long you thought it would take for it to get there.

Time doesn’t exist for the observer photon. His “time dilation” is zero. An infinite distance, from his perspective, is traversed in zero time. And that is why he cannot perceive distance at all. So nothing can be “coming toward him” because space has no dimensions.

Another tiny little devil in the theory. Cool
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Photon Relativity Paradox Sat Oct 12, 2013 3:24 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Let’s see - the change elapsing within the photon are infinitely slow compared to the change elapsing in the physical reference frame in which it has its cause and effect.

And 2 times zero is zero, yes, I think that solves it.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    James S Saint
    rational metaphysicist
    rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Photon Relativity Paradox Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Let’s see - the change elapsing within the photon are infinitely slow compared to the change elapsing in the physical reference frame in which it has its cause and effect.

And 2 times zero is zero, yes, I think that solves it.
We can discuss the RM answer to all of this in private or over at ILP where I don’t have to wait so long for every button press. I can literally make 10 new posts there for every simple spelling edit correction here.

It involves a bit of math, but nothing you can’t handle. I don’t typically use their conventional math and physics symbols for a variety of reasons (I don’t even know most of them anymore), so I explain what I use. The math is really merely for detailed accuracy, seldom for conceptual understanding (and when they try it for that is when they get themselves all screwed up. They need to leave metaphysics to the pros).

The bottom line is that there is an indisputable (definitionally locked) propagation rate that provably cannot ever change. That rate constitutes an “ironclad” standard from which relative measurements can be calibrated. It forms a standard for “absolute time”.

The trick is then to form a device that compares that absolute immutable standard to local changes. I haven’t thought about all of that for years. It seems that it involved a tetrahedron arrangement with which to read and compare a change rate in all dimensions. Simple math then allows you to know, due to the differences, what speed you must be moving, and without measuring against anything else around, and then compensate your time clock based upon that speed. If I remember right (maybe not) the gravitational influence gets automatically compensated. I’ll have to figure all of that out again (usual for me… I forget more than I remember these days).

Something good about RM is that there can never be any paradoxes (except to those who misunderstood something).
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring

Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Photon Relativity Paradox Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:35 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
This is entirely hypothetical, as it can not be recreated as an experiment.
And thus, keep in mind that paradox means apparent contradiction.

Say that two photons are rushing toward each other from opposite directions.
And coupled with each photon is a perspective.

With what speed does the perspective of either of the two photons perceive the other photon approaching?

How does that correlate with the fact that, from an observer neutral to both photons (exactly in the middle), the photons are closing the distance between each other at twice the speed of light?

The second part of your question; it doesnt matter that they are closing in to each other twice the speed of light, it still is true that the photons themselves are traveling the speed of light. If 2 cars were traveling 50 mph towards them, just because they are enclosing twice the speed of those cars doesnt mean the cars are traveling more then 50 mph.

First part of your question; I think is the same answer. Though the real answer may be they would never be able to perceive one another ( because perception is based off of the nature of light/photons), so they would need light to reflect off of them, which it cant, and then travel back to them, and by then they would already have collided.

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: attempt at a scientific definition of value Sun Apr 08, 2012 2:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The concept value within value ontology refers to that which constitutes the momentum of the entity’s self-sustaining through time. Value is incorporated in the particle as force that effectively counters, or harnesses against entropy. A particles self-valuing is the structure-in-time (path, circuitry) of its substance (energy, force, power to effect) in which other substance (energy, force, power to effect) is incorporated as increasing momentum of this structure-in-time. This structure in time is a constant in as far as it apprehends itself in terms of its own momentum, and these terms are its “values”. Its momentum is its “self-valuing”, the standard to its values. It persists in as far as it apprehends itself as necessary to itself, thereby necessary to its values.

As soon as it apprehends values separately from its own necessity to itself (self-valuing), it begins to disintegrate.

Value is directly translated into, or integrated as, momentum of the circular path of power to effect (thereby to empower) itself.

This power to effect and re-cause itself amounts also in power to cause change outside of itself.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Imafungi
    bowstring
    bowstring

Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: attempt at a scientific definition of value Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I dont think value is absolute, meaning beyond human, and a concrete ethereal hierarchy of unchangeable values. I think the closest absolute objective function of value is life itself. The healthy and stable functioning of a life that is the highest human value. The exceptions are of course things like, when a human who commits suicide could be said to have valued death (perhaps they would have valued life more if not for certain things in their environment that beyond their control became to much). The saying ‘one mans trash is another mans treasure’ comes to mind when thinking of the nature of value. One man may value porn and sex while another values abstinence. One may value alcohol while another does not. One may value experimenting with pain as a form of pleasure, one may value avoiding pain at all costs. So is your whole thing attempting to quantize and categorize thus creating the absolute objective mapping of human value systems, and what they lead to, what they truly provide, how the value of what they provide can be quantized? So to be able to say ‘this person is objectively wrong for valuing this or my values are more valuable then yours’? A main objective (whether they like it or not or would like to admit it or not) shared value of humans is money. This is how humans ensure their value of life, which I believe is the most valuable thing, so it is quite intuitive and obvious that money, the means in which that is accomplished is the most valuable thing. This leads to a very superficial discovery, in a sense discrediting intellectuality and suggesting ignorance is bliss, as long as you have money to provide your essentials and a healthy body there is nothing more you can truly hope for, or those are of the highest values, everything else that you may desire or do is just a form of entertainment, novelty, to see what we can see and do what we can do, exploring potentials in physicality and/or thought.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: attempt at a scientific definition of value Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Values are dictated by the subject, not the other way around. The highest value is the valuer, per definition. If there is no valuer, there can be no value.

Value ontology is the ontology of the valuer, which is the hub of the universe.

A value can be something that an atom requires to exist. It’s not a product of consciousness. Consciousness is a highly complex form of valuing.

Establishing objective value is the precise opposite of what VO does.

Life is not itself necessarily of value to the one who is living it. That is why people kill themselves. Life is a result of valuing. Life is valuing, and if it values itself, it will keep on living. But it will only value itself because it is a means to attain to certain values. There is no “will to live”: at the basis of life, life is a contingency of the will to attain values.

I realize that this is a deeply radical reversal of perspective.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Imafungi
    bowstring
    bowstring

Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: attempt at a scientific definition of value Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Values are dictated by the subject, not the other way around. The highest value is the valuer, per definition. If there is no valuer, there can be no value.

Value ontology is the ontology of the valuer, which is the hub of the universe.

A value can be something that an atom requires to exist. It’s not a product of consciousness. Consciousness is a highly complex form of valuing.

Establishing objective value is the precise opposite of what VO does.

Life is not itself necessarily of value to the one who is living it. That is why people kill themselves. Life is a result of valuing. Life is valuing, and if it values itself, it will keep on living. But it will only value itself because it is a means to attain to certain values. There is no “will to live”: at the basis of life, life is a contingency of the will to attain values.

I realize that this is a deeply radical reversal of perspective.

First your opening line you state this " The highest value is the valuer, per definition. If there is no valuer, there can be no value."

which contradicts your last paragraph, right?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: attempt at a scientific definition of value Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No. The last paragraph says that if there is no value, the valuer will come to cease to exist. It say nothing about where there is no valuer.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: QM Double Slit Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
With the double slit experiment, you always hear: “an electron behaves both like a particle and a wave” or “an electron behaves now like a particle and then as a wave”. That’s misleadingly phrased.

When the electrons are quantized by influencing them from another frame of reference, their pattern of distribution is like that of particles, and if you do not influence them from this other spacetime frame, they distribute according to the logic of wavefunctions.

I think that the coherence of their arrival pattern is guaranteed only if their reference frame is left intact, when all that matters is the coherence between the charge of the source and the charge of the impact.

The electrons do not need to exist as such, they are only the transference of charge. If man insists on measuring this quantifyingly, the electrons which are actually measured as individual causal agents (detected) do not thereafter alter their quantized state. They have been brought into the context of another reference frame, and can not at the same time disregard this frame.

The pure frame involves only the charge (value) of the electron source, which is a turbulence, and its wavelike (highly interactive) distribution.

Analogical suggestion - value will distribute differently when it is quantized/monetized, then when it is distributed in a direct transaction, where the frame of reference is only the relation between giver and receiver. In this context we might say that “meaning” is left intact. I can imagine that this can be extrapolated to the quantum state, in the sense that, very broadly, “il n’y a pas de hors-texte” applies and the QM “weirdness” can be seen as a hermeneutical incompetence.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: QM Double Slit Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I can’t grasp the math, but I grasp the logic of it, which seems implicit in relativity itself. We’ve established that c is the only constant which is present in all measurements. All measurements are based on this constancy.

The electrons are measured (experience to be present, affecting) by being exposed to c as relative to reference frame of the observer. Their behavior is thus bent to the measure of the observer, which is to say that they are, at that moment, electrons. We are necessarily measuring the electrons that apply to c as it is from our frame of reference, which means a distribution that is physically logical. But if this reference frame is not involved, there is no necessity for peak-quantity to appear as a click in a frame of reference, but simply the possibility of light from any frame of reference.

And equally as gravity is curved, the peaking and declining functions on the screen are representations of potentiating optimizations, self-accumulative (content to the second power), climaxing and silencing. The behavior of undetected electricity the behavior of potential itself reacting to itself. As soon as potential becomes manifest, it ceases to exist as part of the field it arose from. Similarly souls are born into matter and die into the Bitter Sea.

It leaves me wondering - what is the contradiction between relativity and QM?


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: QM Double Slit Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:22 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Nature herself doesn’t know where the electron will go”.

  • the electron as self-valuing will move in accordance to its context (its own valuing; direction-response-continuum), the electron as valued in terms of observer will go in accordance with the observers context.

Prediction without measurement is implicit, prediction with measurement is distribution.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: QM Double Slit Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:48 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It’s only the nature of experimenting, not the nature of nature, that produces these anomalies.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Defenders of the Earth
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: QM Double Slit Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:42 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes I’ve read this before, it represents a thus-far insurmountable obstacle for experimental method in these instances, the fact that the experimental design itself is somehow setting up a “resonance” or “circuit” that is actually influencing/creating the anomalies. This has a name, but I can’t remember it at the moment.

If quanta/light, “photons”, are minimal valuing then they must take on the nature of that through which they move, they must be secondary values OR value-less to such a medium-frame. c would be an example of valuelessness of light with respect to another frame, to certain properties of a frame; double slit would be an example of absolute secondary value-assumption to another frame, to certain properties of a frame (namely, the experimental setup).


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: QM Double Slit Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:45 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Therefore in the case of these experiments we get a strong-precise valuing (the human experimenting) encountering either an absolute self-value (e.g. c) or an absolute no-self-value (e.g. wave collapse, double slit anomalies). But this interesting question of how this interaction takes place and is even possible aside, what determines the difference between either absolute self-valuing of “light” or absolute no-self-valuing of “light”?


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: QM Double Slit Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In philosophers terms, will to power.

The photons or electrons (I’ll use photons here) moving through the slits are influenced by whatever material is calibrated to ‘make sense of them’ (hit them to draw specific energy from them) at the slits.

You can’t measure the quanta at the slits without actually having something collide with them. The calibration of that ‘hit’ is set in terms of the experimenters reference frame.

It’s important to note that only if they are successfully manipulated so as to affect the observer at the slits, then they are observed as quanta with sufficient individual momentum to behave as particles.

If the emitted measuring energy is so weak (emitting photons or whatever at too great intervals) as to miss a quantum, then the quantum does not behave accordingly to being influenced as a quantum.

It’s very literal value ontological logic at work.

The how of this is implicit in the a priori definition of the required outcome. So we can pull a philosophers trick and reverse the phrasing of the conclusion of the experiment: The influence is only sufficient to disturb the interference pattern if it manages to quantize the light.

Light appears to not be “made of photons” per se, rather, photons are the minimal form in which light is measured as a unit.

A photon is the epistemic unit of light.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Imafungi
    bowstring
    bowstring

Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: QM Double Slit Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:

It leaves me wondering - what is the contradiction between relativity and QM?

The contradiction, has to do with gravity, its more of an undiscovered successful bridging of the two then a contradiction because I believe they are both successful in their own arenas, General relativity being a description of the macro phenomenon of gravity down to a certain small point, and QM being the descriptions of the most micro fundamentality of what the universe is made of. The problem, though it is posited Gravitons exist (which would be the particle of the gravity field, as Photons are the particle of the EM field) the problem is they cant experimentally access gravitons though I believe they are trying and have been. Because to discover the details of the particles of matter of nature we smash them together and observe their characteristics in scattering, This is more difficult to do in an effort to search for and grasp gravities physical essence because I think it has something to do with gravities physical essence being space itself, and what happens is we just create mini black holes…But I only know relative generalities about this topic so you would probably be better off asking google.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: QM Double Slit Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Imafungi wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:

It leaves me wondering - what is the contradiction between relativity and QM?

The contradiction, has to do with gravity, its more of an undiscovered successful bridging of the two then a contradiction because I believe they are both successful in their own arenas, General relativity being a description of the macro phenomenon of gravity down to a certain small point, and QM being the descriptions of the most micro fundamentality of what the universe is made of. The problem, though it is posited Gravitons exist (which would be the particle of the gravity field, as Photons are the particle of the EM field) the problem is they cant experimentally access gravitons though I believe they are trying and have been. Because to discover the details of the particles of matter of nature we smash them together and observe their characteristics in scattering, This is more difficult to do in an effort to search for and grasp gravities physical essence because I think it has something to do with gravities physical essence being space itself, and what happens is we just create mini black holes…But I only know relative generalities about this topic so you would probably be better off asking google.

This sounds plausible - it is like modern science to insist that gravity, which is the very manifestation of coherence and structuring, has itself ‘particles’ separate of the particles that ‘have’, are gravity.

Would Einsteins formula of mass and energy not be made into an irrelevancy by the existence of a particular gravity-carrier?

m = (e/c^2) + ‘gravitons’…

Message

Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Magnetic fields Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
How do they work? I’ve been reading a lot of science lately and only describes what magnets and magnetic fields are, in terms of using various descriptions and definitions involving how atoms rotate so to point in the same direction. But it does not actually explain magnetism at all.

I want to know what these “magnetic lines of force” literally are. And I can’t seem to find any explanations, only descriptions.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Magnetic fields Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A magnetic field is merely a changing electric field. The “magnetic lines of force” are merely a method for trying to display how much the electric field is changing in that space.

The magnetic field is an “electric current” void of the electrons themselves.

Additionally, the electric field is the “electric potential”. A potential is not a physical entity, rather merely a measure of a situation. But a changing potential is what physical reality is made of. Thus the magnetic field is the “stuff of physical reality”. After finally learning more about physics and getting it straight in his mind, Feynman announced that he wished that he had never heard of the electric field. And yet without the field of potential, there can be no field of change in potential. Without the electric field, there can be no magnetic field.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Magnetic fields Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Explain, “The magnetic field is an “electric current” void of the electrons themselves”, in light of the fact that electricity is the flow of electrons.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Magnetic fields Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Explain, “The magnetic field is an “electric current” void of the electrons themselves”, in light of the fact that electricity is the flow of electrons.
Electricity is a flow of Charge (aka “potential”), originally thought to be stemming merely from electrons. But then it was discovered that electrons are merely the electric field congested at one point. People argue about why it congests, but no one argues that it isn’t literally made of electromagnetic energy and nothing else.

When electric current flows through a wire, the electrons are prevalent, but they merely represent how much electric charge, “electric potential energy” is flowing. Once a charge is in motion, it is referred to as “kinetic energy” rather than “potential energy”. Either way, the current flows due to the difference in potential between two points. As the circuit attempts to balance that difference, electrons (bits of congested EM) rush between the points.

The issue is merely that any changing or moving electric field is what is called a “magnetic field”. When there are no electrons to flow in the attempt to balance a difference in potential, any changing that can be accomplished is done merely by the field itself without little bits of congested, concentrated charge, “electrons”.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Magnetic fields Sat Oct 12, 2013 2:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A magnetic field operates the same way all fields operate. The concept of field itself is very important, seeing as that is all there is. Realize that non-composite sub-atomic particles are perfectly identical. Two electrons do not just look the same, two photons do not just look the same, they are the same. As identical as two number 3s. In accordance with the fundamental principle of Aristotelian logic, that A is A, electron is electron. There is only “one” electron, the localization of the omnipresent electron-field (electromagnetic tensor) which extends throughout the matrix of space time. When that field’s effect is localized in a single point within space time, it has been quantized. It’s quanta is the electron. When it is localized in this manner it displays a particle effect in a single location, when it is not localized then it displays a wave effect, hence particle-wave duality. This same thing works with all non-composite particles; photons, bosons, etc. Even when we push or pull on something, we are experiencing electromagnetism due to inter-molecular forces. The magnetic dipole moments are not aligned in most materials, they’re random, and thus the magnetic field is zero; the dipoles are aligned in several materials though, like the magnets we put on fridges, (because the magnet on the fridge has unpaired electrons and all electrons cancel one another one when paired) and thus they produce a positively valued magnetic field that we can readily perceive. The centripetal force is either increased or decreased on electrons depending on the direction of their orbit, when exposed to a magnetic field (most fields are of zero value.) They will either be pulled away or drawn further into the nucleus of the corresponding atom. But we don’t understand any of the forces of nature at their most fundamental level, because we understand them only as separate forces now.

In asking about why the electromagnetic force operates as it does, you are basically asking why electrons have the spin and charge property they do, because that force is just a mathematical description of how the electrons align and interact with one another. There are many theories. Perhaps by absorbing the virtual photons generated in the electric field, the electrons also absorb some of the angular momentum of the photons and are endowed in this manner with a particular spin and charge.


A sik þau trûðu

Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?

  • Virgil.

It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring

Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Magnetic fields Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:

In asking about why the electromagnetic force operates as it does, you are basically asking why electrons have the spin and charge property they do, because that force is just a mathematical description of how the electrons align and interact with one another. There are many theories. Perhaps by absorbing the virtual photons generated in the electric field, the electrons also absorb some of the angular momentum of the photons and are endowed in this manner with a particular spin and charge.

So is the EM field a physical (as in, existent entity of some kind) thing which exists throughout all space, and ‘the field lines’, although not exactly as we depict them (like a perfect rope that connects to the electron) are existent in some manner? If there is nothing like them, why is there the need to evoke them? There needs to be an actual medium which distributes the force, EM radiation, electric and magnetic fields, as to avoid ‘spooky action at a distance’. The tricky problem is in physicality and reality, how many points of EM field is connected to an electron, and how come EM radiation is distributed or caused to exist from the acceleration of an electron in a 2d plane type of way as an outwardly expanding ring of wave, and not as an outwardly expanding 3d sphere of wave. What does this say about the medium of EM field?

My personal thought is that magnetism (2 magnets naturally drawing towards one another without physically touching one another) must be similar to the principles of displacement of medium as gravity. The big clue we have, is that the difference between magnets and non magnets, are the shared direction of spin the electrons are orientated in, in a magnet. I think it must have to do with the way in which the collective electrons distort the surrounding EM field, so that when N pole to N pole, and S pole to S pole configurations, the electrons collective spin is causing the fields to be created in a way similar way to two rowboats facing one another rowing backwards, placed front to front, will repel away from one another, (severely lacking analogy but worth something possibly). N pole to S pole, S pole to N pole, the disturbances of the surrounding field due to collective electron spinning of the field, compel the collective material to follow the past of least resistance, which results in the connecting of ends, in turn creating a larger magnet, adding to the collective of mutual spin. This is very similar to how gravity works, as the moon takes the path of least resistance as the earth has distorted the local medium of space, instead of the moon traveling past earths swirled distortion, it is compelled to ride its wake.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Magnetic fields Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The idea of spooky action at a distance is based on the superstition that matter consists of discrete blocks of some hard substance on a background, or rather plateau of Medium, aethir, god-field. First of all this is rather silly in itself as this Medium begs the same question all over again. On what ground is this Medium predicated? What is the ground to the ground? Infinite regress, as with all sciences proposed finalities.

Second, the substance is EM and gravity. This is what particles are. Their manifestation is the force they represent.The coherence of these particles as force-standards and mediators is their being. What else is there to define, describe or identify them? Nothing.

In a similar vein, such people have asked:
‘What is the essential waterness behind water? Which non- water makes the water so watery?’
It does not occur that ‘things’ as we designate them contain within our notion of their being, their being and thus their nature, which includes their ground.

Science is always looking for groundless grounds that ground all the rest which is taken to be purely contingent and of no existential integrity. Its eazy enough to interpret this yearning; men who live without the faintest clue that they exist by their own nature, unaware that they have a nature, that they are what nature has now become. Men who see themselves as separate of the universe, looking in on it from the outside. With all due respect, autists and idiots.

Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Scientific methodology and its limits Sun Sep 20, 2015 5:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Law of large numbers and attribution bias, in combination with what is almost always a huge and inevitably lack of information and data we might call totalizing, are able to call into question almost everything. These two ‘laws’ of scientific thought can only be refuted positively, by actual and adequate demonstration of proof by exhausting all other possibilities of explanation. Since astrology was brought up let’s apply the laws to it.

Astrological events that correspond to earthly or psychological events or patterns can either be seen as evidence for the truth of astrological significances or for the fact that we attribute meaning where we are looking for it, retroactively, and that there are statistically-speaking enough “significant events” in any scope of history to where we might imagine it is inevitable that certain patterns or alignments might emerge. Another big problem is that even if we note very consistent and surprising patterns these can still be “wished away” by appeal to the law of large numbers by saying that no matter the startlingness of the coincidence it’s statistically given that such coincidences would happen in a universe, world, and history as extensive and deep as ours. And further that we are attuned to attribute meaning to such coincidences far more than to the far more numerous moments we might point to where no such coincidence obtains.

I personally have suspended judgment on astrology and on most “supernatural” phenomena, I find it very difficult to state an opinion one way or another on these sort of things, because firstly I’ve had my own strange experiences but none approaching anything like giving me a sense of undeniable certainty about larger significances thereof, and also because philosophically-speaking our reason is able to accommodate either view: reason can either affirm or deny such things or the possibility or likelihood or unlikelihood of such things, there doesn’t seem to be any real ground or basis for bringing those two different kinds of views together to verify one and refute the other. At best it usually happens that some “philosopher” or scientist ends up arguing with a layman or religious person, each throwing out their own manner of psychological need and rationally-gravitating methodologies given the kinds of experiences and thought-patterns they’ve each been accustomed to-- not much objective, actual philosophy, or irrefutable data for either position is offered.

So anyway I’m just interested here in outlining the basic situation as it relates to all this. I see the only thing I can state with certainty is that either position can assert a strong certainty in its defense, and thus I can also be certain that the dilemma represents a true problem, one that cannot be resolved by merely retreating into our respective positions and our own “certainties”, no matter if these really are incontrovertibly certain to us.

Common ground is needed. This is very difficult to conceive, given the logical problems I mentioned here (attribution bias, law of large numbers, relative/psychological certainties, and a lack of overwhelmingly certain and objective data-experience).


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Scientific methodology and its limits Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’ve often casually proven astrology to be true by predictions of what a chart would look like given some characteristics. I’ve done it in the other thread, conjuring up people I was sure to have oppositions. It’s not up for question for me any more than gravity is - but it sees at first equally inexplicable.

As a general but accurate rule, the only people who do not believe in astrology are those who haven’t seriously looked into it. I’ve seen the transformation in everyone I confronted with his chart. I’ve learned not to do this anymore as it is oppressive; but neither as I think Hume has a point that we don’t know for certain if the sun is going to come up, do I feel there is a point to doubt astrology when the empirical evidence is as overwhelming as it is for the gravitational constant.

All you have to do is measure it, but you do have to do that.

But indeed it is hard to explain this in terms of what we already know - but given that man still knows virtually nothing, it’s not surprising to me that the more we come to know, by the philosophical work of our friends and ourselves, the less strange or unlikely it becomes that we are products of more than just configurations of molecules on Earth, that we actually stand as in the center of a cosmos; that our being is far too subtle to not be influenced by the cosmic majesty of order, which was fleshed out as the argument for possibility itself.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Scientific methodology and its limits Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I get it, I feel it even - it is ugly compared to philosophy - it shouldn’t go near it - it feels arbitrary.

But it’s one hard motherfucking fact of life we’re gonna have to get realistic about.

Not that it’s arbitrary, but that it is the opposite. Today, I have gone a long way to explaining it based on Parodites’ conception of the origin of the mind - as the re-anchoring of beings in the world, in coherence, in being, after the instincts had been ‘threshed’ by the self-analyzing being; the ‘empty mind’, or the chaotic firstborn-mind opened itself up to the cosmos as a gaping wound to receive any possible ointment of constancy. And this is still the way that shamans rip open the fabric of causality to the spontaneous dance of the soul under the sky in which the connection between the two is the actual being. This is why the lightning is the symbol of divinity - the coherence of our mind reflects the discharge of cosmic order into the vacuous proto-consciousness represented by the threshing floor, where the wills of the gods bundle to play with man.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Pezer
    builder
    builder
    avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: Scientific methodology and its limits Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Common ground. I think it is somewhere in chemistry. Astrology is alchemical, as is science. Lack of information and bias: does value ontology not predict them? Value. Science doesn’t seek value, it seems to me to give value depth, practicality. To apply huge maths to intuitions by relating evidences. This problem of not being able to achieve a totality points to that we have not allowed science to run wild, a separation between psychological need and independent, ideal potency which is not possible as absolute. Rather philosophy waits at the other end.

Yes, I think science’s lack is the obsession on absolute rather than specific. The principle is what concerns us.

Capable’s post seems simple, but each turning point has already been examined in other posts. Reason.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: Scientific methodology and its limits Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think I’m wrong about chemistry.

Common ground will not come that easy.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: Scientific methodology and its limits Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
About astrology, I will say that it is an opposite of supernatural. I is very much chemical, dealing with gravity and light… It could be said to be the effective result of that which any science aspires to as the highest degree of inter-relation.

The ultimate reference for animality. But this is all very anti-philosophical. I will need more space of space and of mind to get back to this. Let it be recorded that philosophy has not yet engulfed science.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Scientific methodology and its limits Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I wrote this post an hour or so ago on an empty stomach. I’ve eaten lentil soup with sausage now.

The status of the argument is as follows:

under scrutiny is astrology.

Note: I can’t allow any relation of this field with the term ‘supernatural’ or any other phenomena falling under that term, this is a specific field of inquiry and relates to fields that are vague only in the sense of having a vague understanding of it. It is ruthlessly exact and there is no room for doubt about the consistency of influences.

It is a culturally imposed superstition that leads people to doubt astrology. All serious cultures take it seriously, because you can not tae calculated risks without it and you can not build greatness without a lot of good fortune.
They called the farao’s the cosmic architects. It’s a field of knowledge that leads to long term power. If anything it’s the actual gift of Prometheus; fore-sight. That this is often deadly is the reason astrology is shunned, but for a philosopher this fear is not quite as well founded as it is for people with lesser inclinations to know themselves. In all western wars serious astrologers are consulted, and newspapers print ‘horoscopes’ that prescribe events based on sun signs, which is impossible, it is very clear why astrology is discredited, but it is not clear why it is working so well. Again; my best argument is the one I’ve given today - the moment that being had disconnected the instincts from each other, man stood erect; the moment man stood erect he was crowned by the heavens. As the earthly causal chain was broken, the celestial one was forged. The moment in between is the great possibility that Parodites’ philosophy describes and thereby opens up for ‘use’, and this moment underlies all consciousness. Astrology functions as a particular set of laws on the field of the daemonic formative process, but it is no less adequate to the phenomenology of human fate as physics is to the phenomenology of falling objects. This absurd consistency is why I make such a point of it. It’s not that it’s merely interesting, it’s rather that it is an entire field of exact knowledge that is disregarded with this mere disregarding as grounds for the conclusion that it isn’t proven to work. Yes, it is proven. It’s been proven to work a long, long time ago and never not been proven since. It’s only not been clear at all how it works. But the same goes for gravity, and a lot of things of which we only now that it works. The actual, historical reason man started disbelieving astrology is that he started believing in the Bible which forbids it. I’ sure took Newton a while to get people to believe that such exactitude of prediction could be possible, before he could get them to actually test out his laws. Now the effective terms of astrology are not less exact than the terms of mass, but our words for our own states of being are slightly less exact. Astrologers therefore prefer to work with the astrological names wherever they can. They are by far the most exact terms we have for “human being”.

Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Also on affluence and justice Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:51 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What too is interesting is how technology and machines generally add more time into our lives by replacing work with “magic” (non-work), by making some dumb machine do it. Innovation was quite slow for a long time not only because of a natural exponential growth curve of progress but also because the affluent didn’t have much need or really any need for technology and progress; they only required that a general level not exist which they themselves could not refashion into a system that kept themselves in the top. But the average person strives for more time and space, like all good Being, and thus even in the deep heart of the wealthy there are seeds of “curiosity” that sometimes, as in the case of men of genius, flower up. After all one eventually gets bored of all that time and space.

Men are trying to push up toward their estranged justice with thei technologies while the elite try to tighten control and keep themselves ahead of the curve. That’s why things like the federal reserve exist, as circuits in the social machine acting as control mechanisms. Like a class of priests we have today’s “experts” as media, scientific, political or pop culture figures (interesting the new Pope is trying to be all of these at once… there is still a powerful lust in the Catholic soul) who act as gatekeepers to keep the rest out, capitalism being the genius device of realizing one doesn’t need absolute control or even very much control at all, that it’s more effective to cede control and keep a small bit out of view. It is important to note that if the elite or affluence classes are pushing for development and technology it is only as a reaction to development and technology that is somewhat out of their own hands. Everyone is fighting an unconscious arms race to be on top of the dung pile or at least as high up as possible. “One big anthill society” or however Valery put it.

Affluence doesn’t really justify anything, except on some metaphysical level, which doesn’t matter anyway except probably to the affluent themselves. Since communism in all its possible forms is a failure we will continue with consumer society becoming more “nice” over time, niceness that only exists to compel more forced compliance by undercutting possibility to state one’s objections. Like if you make the jails nice enough maybe people will choose to live there.

Anyway, I predict the seemingly endless upward spike in technological innovation and scientific development is going to stop. If only because the upper will gain measures success against the lower through increased Christian subtleties and economic tricks, like in Rome we simply won’t care anymore but to stare at the screens, and whatever geopolitical, environmental or economic situations unfold in the coming century to “cause” scientific progress to stall on a global scale will not in fact be causes at all, but only will be outward excuses and images that mask the deeper reality. It is almost impossible to imagine scientific progress stalling like that since research and application are like capital, they flow wherever there is least resistance and most profit, and because application especially represents nation-state and cultural power. So what does it require for it to arrest? “Peace”.

Message

Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: A Thought on The Consequences of Negativity as Science Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Science - Concience
Or in Spanish
Ciencia - Conciencia - ser - ecencia

When we find a reason to drop everything and chase the void, we must know that there is nothing waiting on the other side. We must put it there ourselves: the void will simply spit us back out with the drive that took us to it being the only thing left from it.

This is hard… Say a little girl in a satanic feast. She uses the ritual to free herself from the magic of life: what magic of life is waiting on the zenith to take with her back to life?

This is the building nature of humans. If we don’t put something there for negativity to seize, it will seize whatever the fuck the random bestial drives that took us to the something wanting nothing want and thus dissipate inmediately into a disappointing return to the same somethings, the same consciousness that had already overcome this bestiality.

Negativity as method demands that nothing be thought to await. Magic requires a landing point: this is where the negative science comes in. It neglects its origins at the risk of negating whatever brand new effects it can and will effectively produce. This method has the ability to make an ever climbing ladder for consciousnes.

Consciousness negatively: what isn’t there? All the things that are there have to be traced back to a point where they weren’t there, and then something joyful can be produced from other negative inquiries that reveal things which can serve the drives of consciousness as discovered by negative regression. Parodites, meet Nietzsche.

Last edited by Pezer on Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:43 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: A Thought on The Consequences of Negativity as Science Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is very fucking hard, forgive the chaotic style and blinding mistakes.

Negativity is a kind of absolute reversal of life, a benjamin button kind of trip. We see ourselves coming from death onto life, words and abstractions are more real the more abstract they are, and more abstract the more rooted in concrete life: concrete life in reverse, but forward at the same time.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: A Thought on The Consequences of Negativity as Science Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So, the more something sounds like life, the more it leads to death, and the more it sounds like death (say… Homer), the more it leads to life.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: A Thought on The Consequences of Negativity as Science Sun Oct 04, 2015 6:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Full disclosure because this idea is as dangerous as it is powerful: it came to me while half awakening from a half sleep, fully formed and beautifully concrete, and dissolved as I hurried to get it down.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: A Thought on The Consequences of Negativity as Science Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I remember being focused a lot on the insight that philosophy is death, this was about a year and a half ago. These realizations come to us in strange ways. Only by following the impossible track will we ever know that we have arrived at something certain, and then only in relation to that whole scope against which and precisely not in terms of which we acted. So, do that enough times over a wide enough scope of experiences and ideas, and one begins to build up a picture of what makes the most sense, if only because one has already therefore verified so much that doesn’t make sense, then subjected all that negative verification to overlap of cross-analysis and seat that analysis firmly in the most sure world we know-- ourselves, our own experiences.

But as you say this leads through death. I don’t know how I made it through and out the other side, well I do know but I’m not gong to say. But every man who wants truth must fortify himself “unconsciously” and allow himself o be held by those worlds as render health not possible, but needed. Then the task becomes either to continue in pure truth or to act out truth in the world. Maybe both are possible at the same time but even if so one must retain absolute, categorical priority over the other. And I don’t really know too well on what basis one makes these choices, only that they are made.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: A Thought on The Consequences of Negativity as Science Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In any case my insight here, if one can be discerned, is that there are numberless such threshholds. Negativity is in fact the only real basis of building.

Nietzsche was deeply negativistic, and it was thus that he produced such a life affirming thing as will to power. To come out of Nietzsche unscathed, one must dare one’s self to be as negative in every respect of one’s life: the whys and the wherefores, dug into like an oil rig in Texas. Or turn it back on him, as I see Sawelios and Parodites have done, which inevitably blows back into one’s life. Perhaps more violently and effectively, but less personally. I see philosophy as a deeply personal thing, which comunal aim is only to allow others the same level of personal depth and allow for a higher level of discourse. So, I need them as much as they need me. Maybe this is the line you are talking about, the choice: to be deep or to dig depth. I don’t see it as a choice, but as two sides of a comunal striving: the violent, creative side is the same thing as the personal side.

Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Relativity and magnetism Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Electrons move in a copper wire. The electrons are negative charges, the wire is made up of positive charges (because the electrons in the wire are now free-floating within the wire as the “electrical current”). The electrons move at a very high velocity and so are subject to Relativity: from the point of view of the wire the electrons are length-contracted in the direction of their motion, which means that per unit of wire there is an increase in density of negative charges of the electrical current, due to length contraction of those elections resulting in more electrons per unit of wire. This creates a charge imbalance between the current (negative) and the wire (positive). Note that this also works if you look at the frame of reference of the electrons, which from their own vantage are stationary and the wire is moving: the wire is positively charged and so experiences length contraction from the perspective of the electrons, therefore the positive charges of the wire are compressed together creating a charge imbalance of more positive charges per unit of negative charges. It is this charge imbalance or differential that produces the electromagnetic effect, and is the same no matter if you take the frame of reference of the electrons or the wire.

So Relativity is the reason why a free flow of moving electrons in a wire creates an electromagnetic effect. The “magnetic” aspect is the electrostatic force between positive and negative particles: electrons in other nearby objects to the wire will be drawn to the net positive charge of the wire, since the electrons in other objects share a reference frame with the electrons in the wire (they are all moving at the same speed) and therefore experience the wire as net positively charged. Protons in other nearby objects also share a reference frame with the protons in the wire, therefore the protons in nearby objects experience the electrons in the wire as net negatively charged, and will attract to them. In any case, objects near the wire will attract to the wire.

Any objects made of protons and electrons will feel some attraction to the wire with electrons flowing in side it. But many objects seem to have no net attraction to the wire, whereas certain metals do. In most objects the molecules are stuck in place in such a way that the strength of the chemical bonds between molecules is stronger than the pull of the electrostatic attraction, especially since the molecules are not lined up and thus the electric field of each atom tends to cancel out the field of another atom. So the potential to be attracted to the wire doesnt extend beyond the scope of the individual atoms or molecules really. In metal, the molecules are all lined up in geometric rows, so the electrons are all in sync with each other. Being in sync in this way means they do not cancel out each other’s charged directions, and can add up to larger potential scope of being drawn to the wire.

Electrons in the wire do not move at the speed of light, but the “charge” or force of the moving electrons does move at the speed of light. The example I found was of a long tube stuffed with golf balls: if you push a new golf ball in one end then a ball will pop out of the other end; the balls themselves are not moving at nearly the same speed as is the “force” that moves along the entire tube since the ball pops out the end at the same moment that you push the new ball in the other end (because the tube can only hold X number of balls). Electrons are the same way.

Moving electrons in the wire carry a physical force, so that when they are made to impact something they pass on some of that force in the form of a “voltage”. Electronics work because the electron flows in copper wires are imparting physical force that can be used to do things.

Next I will work to connect electrostatic attraction and repulsion to self-valuing and to the pure logical view that philosophy must take in order to describe occurrences in physics. All physical phenomena must be described and understood first in terms of pure logic, which I think Value Ontology can help with. Also Parodites’ Daemonic and the excess are logical understandings that can help construct a true explanation for physical events and laws. We are probably a ways away from such a complete explanation, but now we at least know the direction in which to progress toward it.

endyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Value: Intrinsic, Contingent, Both/Neither? Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Barbara Herrnstein Smith (born 1932) is an American literary critic and theorist, best known for her work Contingencies of Value: Alternative Perspectives for Critical Theory.”-Wikipedia

What is the “nature” of value? Is value obvious? Where does value fit into the framework of logic? In other words, is it predictable?

“val·ue
ˈvalyo͞o/Submit
noun
plural noun: values
1.
the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
“your support is of great value”
synonyms: worth, usefulness, advantage, benefit, gain, profit, good, help, merit, helpfulness, avail; More
2.
a person’s principles or standards of behavior; one’s judgment of what is important in life.
“they internalize their parents’ rules and values”
synonyms: principles, ethics, moral code, morals, standards, code of behavior
“society’s values are passed on to us as children”
verb
3rd person present: values
1.
estimate the monetary worth of (something).
“his estate was valued at $45,000”
synonyms: evaluate, assess, estimate, appraise, price, put/set a price on
“his estate was valued at $345,000”
2.
consider (someone or something) to be important or beneficial; have a high opinion of.
“she had come to value her privacy and independence”
synonyms: think highly of, have a high opinion of, hold in high regard, rate highly, esteem, set (great) store by, put stock in, appreciate, respect; More”-Google

Message

WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Sciences Failings: Is Philosophy Responsible? Wed Jun 22, 2016 5:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
1.) Science has become a numbers game, a game of probability, which kills possibilities.

2.) Science only considers potential within the confines of applied logic and the precedent of established scientific structures.

3.) Dynamism is unorthodox, therefore discounted by established, authoritarian sciences.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Sciences Failings: Is Philosophy Responsible? Wed Jun 22, 2016 3:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Science is a method more than anything, and methods are inclusive and exclusive, and become used for purposes beyond their mandate: for example scientific method is used to discount anything that scientific method hasn’t bothered to apply itself to, or cannot apply itself to, thus becomes a principle of preemptive exemption and denial, a psychological function. But before science this principle was thriving under religion and doxa, so science has done a little good at pushing back those two.

Science has always resisted the real progress that appears within science; as you said, it basically sticks to what it already thinks it knows. Empirical method pays lip service to openness to possibilities but without philosophy it cannot see how its own program reproduces a certain kind of closed consciousness. But I would take science over religion most days.

Science is simply a servant to philosophy, which means to human being and to truth. Yet since philosophy has been slowly killing itself and making itself irrelevant in the world, science has come to think of itself as master to no one. And since science cannot operate without a master, it simply became mastered by capital-- as scientific rationality, technological reason, materialism, positivism, utilitarianism. Again, I would still take these over religion, but really they are just a more modern form of religion; a form that is at least slightly improving on its original substance, usually in spite of itself.

Maybe philosophy will assert itself and science will regain its soul. If it does, human being would be freed. But philosophy’s task has become much larger: not simply one city-state, one culture or one nation anymore, but the whole earth is its proper object and context now. To this end it would cultivate many means into the depths of the earth, even non-philosophical means-- just as philosophy cultivated itself through and as its antithesis of religion, it is doing so again through and as science. All it may take is one man to seize the reigns once the ground has been sown. Philosophy will make the global scientific-political apparatus respond to a truth-status. This is inevitable, because time only moves in one direction.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Sciences Failings: Is Philosophy Responsible? Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:17 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Shared understanding is a precious commodity it seems. Thought my words had lost their English-ness and were being read as if spoken in tongues or something.

So we are agreed that philosophy has dropped the ball? And science must be checked and perhaps checkmated in which case a complete overhaul of its methodology. Logic as it stands now is aggregious, but trying to pinpoint the crux of the problem will be plaguesome. Prepare for loads of questions. Will you give me your best definition of logic formal and then its applied structures and let me pick it apart? To me, it’s limiting in its nature.

Philosophy has to broaden it’s horizons. If I can re-interpret and redefine logic, will that help?

“Maybe philosophy will assert itself and science will regain its soul. If it does, human being would be freed. But philosophy’s task has become much larger: not simply one city-state, one culture or one nation anymore, but the whole earth is its proper object and context now. To this end it would cultivate many means into the depths of the earth, even non-philosophical means-- just as philosophy cultivated itself through and as its antithesis of religion, it is doing so again through and as science. All it may take is one man to seize the reigns once the ground has been sown. Philosophy will make the global scientific-political apparatus respond to a truth-status. This is inevitable, because time only moves in one direction.”-C

Everything above has romanticism and sexism all over it. Science having a soul is news to me. What does “human being would be freed” mean? By all means start a thread for this undertaking over in Logic.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Sciences Failings: Is Philosophy Responsible? Thu Jun 23, 2016 3:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Human being is enslaved to its illusions and to its need for illusions, to what is sometimes called false consciousness, or what I usually call psychopathology. Religion, politics, science are all domains in which this pathology appears and exerts a regulating, necessary influence: it is important to grasp that every being must struggle up through falsity and untruth in order to reach beyond these and to attain to truth, clarity, sanity and reality, and only what we have born within ourselves and overcome within and as what we are is ever understood, to paraphrase something Parodites wrote once. Truth is a process, reality is a process, these are not givens.

For human being to be freed would mean for it to cast aside not only illusions/falsities but also the need for these. The entire history of human thought and culture is this gradual progress of overcoming illusions and the need for them. So philosophy needs to be asking in what sense does human being need illusions and falsities? This requires direct examination of illusions and falsities within science, religion, politics and economics, ethics, philosophy of mind, and just about anywhere pertinent to human consciousness and the world. A real philosophy jumps right in and starts doing the dirty work. This “dirty work” is what you’re going to find on this site here.

Yes science has a soul, every established human discipline or methodology had a soul, its being an abstraction and extension of human being generally, and a condensation of and collapse around particular aspects of human being. We equate ourselves with our experiences, and the more so when these experiences are methodological and rooted in the phenomenology of being striving upward upon the existential climb of consciousness. The soul of science is tempered by other soul-elements not commonly associated to science, namely those relevant to philosophy or to shared existential-social subjectivity. The tendency for science to trend into materialism, reduction, positivism and technological rationality (think the Holocaust, for example, the scientific program of nationalism qua genocide and racism) has been well noted many times (see my signature quote also).

efenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Money as value-void Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:45 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Money does not exist. Money is ‘frozen’ value: values are created and exchanged for money, which money in turn is then used to exchange for more values.

Step 1: Values are created, then get transacted to someplace other than their creation-point. The value moves somewhere else, leaving a “value vacuum” behind it. That vacuum is filled in temporarily by money.

Step 2: That money that filled in the vacuum is then pushed out to cause new external values to flow into the vacuum, thus filling it again.

Values themselves are not money, nor is money value, or even valuable. Money is the stand-in for the transactable nature of values. Money is a placeholder, like the “0” in mathematics. “0” is not a number, but a placeholder for orders of magnitude. Money acts like this, although there is an imperfect relation between money as placeholder and the values-vacuums it attempts to temporarily fill; namely, the eventual values that come to fill the vacuum are usually not a perfect match for the values that left and originally caused the vacuum. Also, vacuums overlap, and change all the time, and are nebulous.

Marx and Adam Smith noticed that values are either used or exchanged (use value or exchange value). A value is “used” when it is exchanged for something one wants, a direct values transaction without the need for money; a value is exchanged when it is simply traded out for a value-vacuum into which some quantity of money comes. I would re-interpret Marx’s terms in so far as the only time values are truly “exchanged” is when it is for money, and any other time there is a value-to-value exchange this is technically use value going on.

Surplus value is what happens when values are put to use to create more value than was originally there. This happens traditionally in labor, where workers create values that pile up and eventually contribute to enough values-exchanges to where new additional values are acquired, and/or these created values are exported from the value-creating point in order to produce a huge value-vacuum into which money flows. Surplus value is also created with increases in efficiency, in technology, and in acquiring new resources, since these things either refine the value-making process or reach out and grab values-to-be that were laying around and not yet converted into true (human) value for use or exchange.

Bottom line: money does not exist. Only values exist. We think money exists only because we already know that values exist.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Money as value-void Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Your point is well taken but I’m still not going to give you my money.

Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: On the Aging Process Sat Oct 15, 2016 5:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The aging process is something that has touched my curiosity but I have yet to do any good research.

I sometimes tell people that my goal of aging is immortality and that so far I’m doing pretty good.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: On the Aging Process Sat Oct 15, 2016 9:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Nature doesn’t care for how long we live, except that we can live to procreate and raise kids to a level where they can survive independently of us. Beyond that natural selection would probably select against generic configurations that prolongue age.

When our cells divide they lose some of the telomeres (repeated genetic code) that cap chromosomes at the ends. Generic replication has a hard time exactly duplicating chromosomes down to the very tips of them, so telomeres solve that problem; but eventually those telomeres are worn away and then cellular division begins to corrupt the genes themselves. There is an enzyme that helps repair telomeres though. Problem is, unlimited cellular division (“immortality”) already exists, we call it cancer. I read that shortened telomeres and reduction in the telomere-repairing enzyme may have been a natural adaptation against the growth of tumors.

Age is genetic, indeed. And our lifestyle does affect this generic aging process.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: On the Aging Process Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That makes a lot of sense.

In Chinerse medicine, cancer is considered a normal condition, every organism has it to a degree, and the methods of circulation of chi (stimulating the organs and glands in their absorbing and secreting in the optimal order) is basically aimed to get rid of wherever this is happenuing excessively, and also integrating the excess ‘vitality’ into the system. Cancer is just cell-growth that cant be integrated in the self-valuing. It’s a symptom of a highly potent society with very little ‘Lacanian’ depth (circulation-options, ‘wildness’) to its individuals. Reich solved most of it by simply organizing atoms via the division metals and non metals, creating an basic organo-energetic plasma field, very thin but working, that regulates the celldivision gently into proper organic paths.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Defenders of the Earth
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: On the Aging Process Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:59 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah and then the FDA destroyed his machines, I guess.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: On the Aging Process Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Yeah and then the FDA destroyed his machines, I guess.

I told you that government and religion are the root of all evil.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: On the Aging Process Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, confirming that it works. Had they rather done their jobs, cancer would not now be an epidemic, but just a symptom of our societies growth and need to regulate itself back into earth, matter, thus literally the periodic tables ‘aesthics’, the most powerful and
comprehensive chemical selfvaluing pattern.

But anyway the method survived, just out of the hands of the suffering population, ridiculed by them because the government had their universities tell exactly what the disease they ‘cant cure’ ‘is’ and that the only thing to do against it is destroy your immune system with radiation so the body can never again learn to properly recuperate by itself. A cunning plan, as they say. Trillons it has earned. Unfortunately the trillions seem to keep evaporating for some mysterious reason… haha.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: On the Aging Process Sun Oct 16, 2016 3:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I knew a lady, haven’t had contact with her in over a year, who had cancer and she got three diagnosis and each one gave her less that a year without chemo.

She did her own research, changed her life style and twelve years later (when I met her) she was cancer free.

Cancer is big business. Nobody wants to die. They will give all their money to the quacks just to get a couple more days of living in pain and suffering.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: On the Aging Process Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Cancer cures tend to be suppressed. Same with juvenile diabetes cures. Same with the link between vaccines and autism (neurological damage). Joining profit motive and healthcare was an insane idea, we should probably stop doing that.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: On the Aging Process Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes. In Amsterdam we have a huge hospital towering over the highway with red massive letters “Cancer Center”.
Just like “Drug Enforcement Agency”, which imports the drugs through Mexico, then distributes it, then puts young black dudes in jail if they take it from them, so that the prison owners can make a couple of hundred bucks daily off every inmate, which the tax payer pays for just like he pays for the Cancer-industry, which is the biggest industry on the planet.

In Holland, a whopping sixty percent of the budget goes into the medical fund, “Care”, which has seen almost as many new diseases into being as people it has had pay for their own slow, painful and humiliating murder.

You have to be able to laugh at it, somehow… it is too much.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: On the Aging Process Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus - yes, in every single case Ive seen or heard of of someone taking their treatment into their own hands (not of some wonder-doktor) the patient got rid of it within roughly half a year. As I said its not even considered a diseases in China.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Defenders of the Earth
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: On the Aging Process Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In the US they call proven injuries caused when vaccines are being injected “table injuries”, these are legally recognized and there is a multi-millions dollar fund that settles out of court compensation to families of children damaged in this way. Yet the medical industry is firm in the claim that vaccines are safe. Also you cannot sue a vaccine maker, legally they have total immunity. Same with banks that give crushing student loan debt, you can’t discharge that debt in regular bankruptcy. But the bank itself can go through bankruptcy and discharge its own debts, of course.

Autism is just a subtler form of the same kind of neurological overload and damage from the vaccines, especially when they give so many of them at the same time. The basis of autism, like the basis of healthy consciousness, is “philosophical”, but this philosophical soul emerges atop the biological strata. Autistic people have some defects in their neurobiological strata, so a properly philosophical soul, or “self”, isn’t able to form very well.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: On the Aging Process Sun Oct 16, 2016 6:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Sisyphus - yes, in every single case Ive seen or heard of of someone taking their treatment into their own hands (not of some wonder-doktor) the patient got rid of it within roughly half a year. As I said its not even considered a diseases in China.

The fact this didn’t work for Steve Jobs is probably evidence he was poisoned somehow.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: On the Aging Process Sun Oct 16, 2016 6:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The good news is that this isnt sustainable at all, the banks will not be able to cash in on it with the next generation, which is, like all lifeforms do, adapting to its environment so as not to be subdued by it. This whole ship is sinking. But it wont go down without a fight - the next fifty years some corporations will disintegrate into violent militia like organizations that try to put government under pressure to ‘pay them’, I think.

Putting healthcare in a system of profit isnt necessarily an insane idea, as long as you dont involve the goverrnment in deciding what is allowed as a product and what is not. Government eliminates competition, thus eliminates for the full hundred percent all validity of the market principle. Even a monopoly attained at through brute force is perfectly fine when you compare it to government regulated markets. It just means that you brew up a poison, called it medicine, step up with a bag of cash to any random government asshole in a cheap enough suit and get all products that actually work legally banned.

Government is dying as it is killing all its constituency. Believing in cancer and in the virtue of big government is the same sort of disease, and it is definitely terminal.

Jobs case is obviously very dirty business to discuss, but was similar to one in the Dutch media twenty years back. He seems to have relied on “alternative medicine”. That shit is absolute shit. What you need to rely on is what we simpleton westerners call “breath” - i.e. your being. And science and philosophical thought, of course, which brings us orgone and all that.

As soon as I, as a philosopher, looked at what orgone is made of, I understood the scientific principle, even if all writing on it was burned, and science doesnt even recognize this pattern as a principle. I saw what Reich discovered and how indeed it must have this particular effect.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Defenders of the Earth
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: On the Aging Process Sun Oct 16, 2016 6:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
The good news is that this isnt sustainable at all, the banks will not be able to cash in on it with the next generation, which is, like all lifeforms do, adapting to its environment so as not to be subdued by it. This whole ship is sinking. But it wont go down without a fight - the next fifty years some corporations will disintegrate into violent militia like organizations that try to put government under pressure to ‘pay them’, I think.

Yes there are already situations where a corporation can sue the government for lost profits due to laws the government enacts, such as environmental protection laws for example.

Quote :
Putting healthcare in a system of profit isnt necessarily an insane idea, as long as you dont involve the goverrnment in deciding what is allowed as a product and what is not. Government eliminates competition, thus eliminates for the full hundred percent all validity of the market principle. Even a monopoly attained at through brute force is perfectly fine when you compare it to government regulated markets. It just means that you brew up a poison, called it medicine, step up with a bag of cash to any random government asshole in a cheap enough suit and get all products that actually work legally banned.

Government is dying as it is killing all its constituency. Believing in cancer and in the virtue of big government is the same sort of disease, and it is definitely terminal.

I do not think government is inherently bad, nor do I think corporations and private enterprise are inherently bad. Neither is inherently good either. These two polarities are just a daemonic construct, a duality in the socio-psychic-existential fabric of the human world.

Without some kind of governmental system enforcing a legal equal playing field, free enterprise turns into mafia war, in which censorship and repression of truth and of what really works (real medicines, for instance) is just as easy as it is within fascist corrupt governments. Government can and should do some regulating of markets, but only at the behest of serious studies and scientists of many types, open transparency of the process with public input, etc. Basically these government institutional bureaucracies need to have scientists running things at the top echelons of power, and structural openness to critical public oversight as to how decisions are made, what is the scientific reasoning backing something up, from where is funding coming, etc.

Quote :
Jobs case is obviously very dirty business to discuss, but was similar to one in the Dutch media twenty years back. He seems to have relied on “alternative medicine”. That shit is absolute shit. What you need to rely on is what we simpleton westerners call “breath” - i.e. your being. And science and philosophical thought, of course, which brings us orgone and all that.

As soon as I, as a philosopher, looked at what orgone is made of, I understood the scientific principle, even if all writing on it was burned, and science doesnt even recognize this pattern as a principle. I saw what Reich discovered and how indeed it must have this particular effect.

Orgon is pretty cool. The fact that the FDA closed up Reich’s work so tightly is proof of how seriously we should take orgon.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: On the Aging Process Sun Oct 16, 2016 7:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In contemplating the reason for my disagreement with that view on government, I suddenly realized the full extent of my perception of government, in historical and operational terms.

All government started as religion.
It just dawned on me. It will never be able to be anything else.

I disagree that we need government to tell us what is good or bad medicine - I believe only in private doctors of at least a decade of hands on experience, who conduct a thorough research on your body, and then privately, in perfect confidentiality, prescribe a custom treatment.

THE LAW OF INCREASING STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: To Be Axiomatized Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I propose that the Law Of Conservation Of Energy is false; that it is a local, limited law, that it applies to closed systems, which Being is not.

I propose the Law Of Increase Of Integrity. This non linear law holds that as time progresses, the integrity of the processes subject to it increases.

As structures have a limited integrity, they will all the time be dissolved to provide parts and elements to higher integrities. This is why we follow leaders, and why minerals form.

The conservation of energy is challenged, explicated, falsified and contextualized by the definition of a ‘system’ or ‘world’ or ‘set’ as a matter of becoming more subtle and involved in circuitries- perhaps requiring the creation of new energy.

Relativistically, The Law Of Conservation Of Energy Is Tautological.
Philosophically, Law means Necessary Perception.

Implied Challenges: The Big Bang and the Higgs Boson seem to me erroneous derivatives of a logically incomplete system.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: To Be Axiomatized Wed Oct 12, 2016 11:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I will consider both as equally valid.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: To Be Axiomatized Sat Oct 15, 2016 4:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
They do both appear simultaneously, and are thus indeed both valid.

Technically it is the one within the other, maintenance of energy (basic coherence of existentia) is dependent on integrity (this is fact, it is just that science did not yet have a term for this signifier) - and yet, integrity also requires an influx.

What is the influx made of? I say possibility.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: To Be Axiomatized Sat Oct 15, 2016 5:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
They do both appear simultaneously, and are thus indeed both valid.

Technically it is the one within the other, maintenance of energy (basic coherence of existentia) is dependent on integrity (this is fact, it is just that science did not yet have a term for this signifier) - and yet, integrity also requires an influx.

What is the influx made of? I say possibility.

I would agree and you are consistent with the Taoist concept of “wu”, that is, Mystery, or rather Potential.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: To Be Axiomatized Sat Oct 15, 2016 5:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am going to investigate that connection.
It has been clear to me from when I first opened up to the Void in a standing Zen meditation (offered by Wong Kiew Kit) that the phenomenon of potential has been well understood by the Chinese.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: To Be Axiomatized Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
THE WILL TO POWER
notes by Friedrich Nietzsche

1063 (1887-1888)

The law of the conservation of energy demands eternal recurrence.

1064 (1885)

That a state of eguilibrium is never reached proves that it is not
possible. But in an indefinite space it would have to have been reached.
Likewise in a spherical space. The shape of space must be the cause of
eternal movement, and ultimately of all “imperfection.”

That “force” and “rest,” “remaining the same,” contradict one another.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: To Be Axiomatized Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:49 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
THE WILL TO POWER
notes by Friedrich Nietzsche

1063 (1887-1888)

The law of the conservation of energy demands eternal recurrence.

1064 (1885)

That a state of eguilibrium is never reached proves that it is not
possible. But in an indefinite space it would have to have been reached.
Likewise in a spherical space. The shape of space must be the cause of
eternal movement, and ultimately of all “imperfection.”

That “force” and “rest,” “remaining the same,” contradict one another.

Elsewhere you mentioned that you hold to the understanding that the beginning of the universe is eternal (I paraphrased you, correct me if I am in error) and logically, I think, that would require the end to be eternal as well. “Conservation of Energy”

Many people speak of balance (equilibrium) between the manifest (yo) and mystery (wu). That is, between the physical world and the spiritual world.

I concluded a few years ago that balance can never be had because everything is constantly changing. Therefore I opted for the concept of seeking “Harmony” in our life.

Therefore, the “force” (energy of life), in my mind, is our personal “chi”. Energy can be understood through dualistic thinking, that is, positive and negative, or, if you will, yang (action) and yin (rest).

Harmonizing is the process of adding yin when Yang is dominant, adding yang when yin is dominant. Harmonizing allows for the flow of energy along the path of least resistance. Too much yang and you blow a fuse, too much yin and nothing happens.

But “nothing happens” should not be viewed as a negative concept. It should be viewed as a state of rest.

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Spacetravel Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDCndVGowmc[/youtube]

… and there it goes… into the firmament

This could be a pretty good metaphor for self-valuing. It’s in that moment of closeness, too-closeness, that one shudders in a grasping - then the objective world is back, darker and vaster than ever.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Defenders of the Earth
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Spacetravel Thu Oct 27, 2016 11:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I still remember the exact moment of “leap of faith” when I first approached self-valuing. It required a non-derivative step, perhaps something anathema to most serious philosophers. I was lucky because I already had theorized the logic of such leaps in principle, thanks to help from Nietzschean thinking.

Character is what happens at the threshold.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Spacetravel Thu Oct 27, 2016 11:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Space travel is the next step in philosophy forming a world for itself, which is what “philosophy” really always meant anyway.

The world is, if nothing else, an apology of philosophy. Humanity is vindicated. Always has been and always will be.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Spacetravel Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, character, that is precisely what happens.

Our common love of astrophysics and the outer reaches has been a deep, mostly unspoken layer underneath our collaboration - a shared taste, or a shared lack of fear -
and taste is surely the way in which nature overcome fear.

sciencenews.org/sites/defau … a_free.jpg
Or: fear rules in the absence of taste, where taste makes fear into an instrument of beauty.

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Against Presumption Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:47 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What bothers me most about non-astrologers, especially when they are astrophysicists, is that they refuse astrology purely on the ground of not wanting the world to be as badass as it is. They dont want their mind to be as puny as it stands in relation to the magnitude of order that is implied by astrology.

If one does not observe the geocentric relations of the orbits, then one misses vast geometrical clues as to the way the solar system came about. But through the primacy of valuing over mass, it has been made abundantly clear that relations between plants in orbit around a star can not be anything but entirely interrelated on all significant levels. Not just on a magnetic level but rather on the level of Quality itself.

The world is simply far too good for what goes for “life” or “consciousness” these days.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Defenders of the Earth
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Against Presumption Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fuck yes.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Against Presumption Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Gravity is a lie. Whereas EM doesn’t give one fuck about “mass” (electron = proton in EM terms, haha).


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Against Presumption Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Do you think we can defy it? I have had that sense.

Some election facts:

Jupiter on Trumps Jupiter
Trumps progressed moon exactrly on midheaven
Trumps progressed mars conjunct progressed Jupiter

Kentucky was the first state to be called, it went for Trump obviously -
I figured - it must have some Jupiter link to Trump.
turns out, its natal sun is Gemini like Pence and Trumps sun
and it s Jupiter is indeed in Libra, where it is now, and where it is in Trumps chart.
Trump and Kentucky further also both have Neptune in Libra.
Neptune Libra, I call it the French aspect.

Odds of all this adding up without false notes are virtually zero. The progressed moon alone, it is in the essential place for career triumph, the Midheaven, the beginning of the Xth house of career. The progressed moon makes its way through this every 30 years. It passed Trumps Midheaven the past week. That is a one out of 1500 chance. It was the first thing I looked at.

Clintons progressed chart is equally accurate, but the progressed mopon has just passed her progressed Neptune, meaning deception and illusion, and her progressed Sun is conjunct progressed Lilith and Mercury - the powers of self, feminine secrets and the quick mind/theft/opinion/magic (Mercury) all conjunct. All personal. “She deserved it” said those close to her. She simply radiated a commanding entitlement. Nothing pointing to a lofty purpose, everything to a singular concentration of power focused in a veritable portal.

Prince died during a comparable once a lifetime triple conjunction of the progressed chart. In his case Sun Pallas Uranus, where Pallas and Uranus both count as lenses amounting in genius. Pallas especially lofty. Perhaps the loftiest of all bodies. Size doesnt seem to matter in the least. It is primarily a clockwork, an arrangement, something that fell into place as the ultimate consequence of possibility itself.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:20 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Against Presumption Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Some Trumps natal chart observations

Mars 28 Leo, ascendant 1 Virgo, in between them by an orb of 1 degree, Regulus. Since time immemorial up until Bill Gates natal chart this has been evident as a kingmaker star. Because the tropical zodiac shifts respectively to the sidereal one the star has moved into 1 Virgo recently, onto Trumps ascendant.

A Trump presidency is a culmination of potential stretching out across the prosperous 10th and 1tth houses, whereas a Clinton presidency would instantly have evaporated as a power. There was nothing for her behind the door of the election - apparently the fact that this meant nothing for us as well, did play a part. Democracy has finally been witnessed in action, suddenly unblinded by the approaching light of its own death.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Against Presumption Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Oh yeah all this testing of backbone happened, as astrologers predicted 30 years ago, as Pluto came opposed to the US birth sun for the first time in the nations history.

As it entered the sign of that opposition, Capricorn, Obama was elected and the financial crisis broke out. Capricorn is the sign pertaininhg to corporate business, Cancer, its opposite, to Home. VO and Before the Light came to be as Pluto crossed my own midheaven at 7 Capricorn.

Soon it will enter Aquarius. As it did in 1777.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Against Presumption Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Gravity is subtle local derivative of the sort of value transaction constants offered as the motions of the planets with respect to one another with respect to their star with respect to its galactic center, with respect to what lies beyond into the vast ordering fractal Omega.

lunarplanner.com/Images/Venu … 0drift.gif


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Arcturus Descending
    arrow
    arrow
    avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: Against Presumption Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote,

Quote :
The world is simply far too good for what goes for “life” or “consciousness” these days.

Define “these days”, FC.

All things considered, the way I look at it- it IS life/Life and consciousness, human consciousness, which has sought, explored, discovered and brought into knowable existence “the world” which you consider to be too good for it.

Don’t throw the baby out with what you “perceive” to be the bathwater.


Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Against Presumption Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Arcturus Descending wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote,

Quote :
The world is simply far too good for what goes for “life” or “consciousness” these days.

Define “these days”, FC.

All things considered, the way I look at it- it IS life/Life and consciousness, human consciousness, which has sought, explored, discovered and brought into knowable existence “the world” which you consider to be too good for it.

Don’t throw the baby out with what you “perceive” to be the bathwater.

Arc, “these days” are the days in which there are many people who vote for Clinton over Trump. All of these people are horrible, horrible monsters, or horribly ignorant fools, happy to be used for evil. Such monstrosity did not bring about the world. Creative spirit does not try to get a monstrous genocidal evil into power.

There are so many more monstrosities these miscreants and nonentities are the cause of - this is what I mean.

Astrology requires absolute will to take responsibility for ones own world. It is only ever rejected for one reason: it forces one to take a look at oneself. It reveals that in fact none are created equal, and that there are great differences in quality of life, which are guaranteed from birth.

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: science of the object Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:39 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
All objects are transferences of laws upon one another.

Their consistency is not their own, but that of these laws, and the fundamental law of being which governs the interaction of laws, which is self-valuing logic; all laws require and serve self-valuing, but all except the law of laws itself are of a particular application and a limited range.

Gravity can be overcome in all sorts of ways by transferring it onto other laws, such as pressure and velocity.

Something Id like to posit as a claim to be challenged:
Gold is the result of all known laws in fully extended execution upon one another.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: science of the object Fri Nov 11, 2016 1:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don’t refer to them as laws very often but rather use the term “processes of nature”. (That’s universal nature, not just nature on this planet.)

Everything is a result of something else, isn’t it? Including gold and diamonds.

A result of something else? Yes, if we accept the Big Bang theory. The beginning of this cycle we are aware of started in Singularity. Then there was hydrogen, then the force of gravity, then everything else from those two.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: science of the object Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
I don’t refer to them as laws very often but rather use the term “processes of nature”. (That’s universal nature, not just nature on this planet.)

Everything is a result of something else, isn’t it? Including gold and diamonds.

A result of something else? Yes, if we accept the Big Bang theory. The beginning of this cycle we are aware of started in Singularity. Then there was hydrogen, then the force of gravity, then everything else from those two.

The big bang is not logically possible. “Singularity” is nonsense, utterly, it is a “scientific” term for the biblical god.

There is no one point from which “Time” emerged. Beginning and endings are parts of “Time”.

Rather, being has always been there as possibility, and the hydrogen atom is the most perfect manifestation of that possibility. However, in line with post-Big Bang cosmology, the transition from mystical gibberish to astrophysics, I consider the hydrogen atom to be an end product, as well as a beginning. Star forming and dying and with that, birth of heavy elements, is a next phase. Gold is the end of that phase. And I would be willing to speculatively state, to make this interesting, gold represents the (symbolic) beginning of spiritual-political processes on Earth, So we have Possibility ==> Hydrogen ==> Gold ==> Human Nobility. And I believe philosophy has here attained this latest level of pure structural integrity, so this makes that into a new beginning point. Which is how I experience our work here, as the very basis for a new form of existence.

The new type will self-forge of the very best that humanity has ever managed to produce, and will acquire its consistency in that supreme quality.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: science of the object Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We are mostly I agreement here except for your non-acceptance of Singularity and Big Bang.

But I have no idea what gold has to do with it. Gold does not lead to live. Get more basic and mention algae.

Pezer
builder
Location : deep caverns in caves

On Hope

The etymology of the word “hope” is unclear to me. Its Spanish counter-part, “esperanza,” comes from “esperar,” to wait, and “anza,” that which is, as in "crianza " (breeding), “lanza” (lance, i.e. that which is throw), etc. It is the subjective angle, if you will, of waiting. Hope is about the future, about the very act of the distance between now and some sought.

Hope is what drives life, because hope is the act of fate unfolding. What has no fate, has no future, has no hope.

A wink to Darwinists: where does this principle fall within the hierarchy of natural selection?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: On Hope Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hehehe. I can’t sit here and allow that post go unresponded to.

You did enlighten me with the post though.

The saying: Don’t hold your breath (waiting for something wished for to happen).

Likewise: Don’t rely on hope (waiting for something wished for to happen).

Rather than sitting on one’s ass hoping and praying for something wished for to happen, I think it much better to get up off one’s ass and take action to cause whatever is wished for to become reality through good, honest, hard work. Then you have something you can say: “I did that.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: On Hope Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:45 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hope is an instinctual gift that one must bestow on another. The ‘wish’ is for another to benefit from our care transcending our physical limitations thus becoming an improved shared fate. One who exercises hope benefits in generosity of spirit and many, many, more intangible ways.

There are Darwinists around here?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: On Hope Wed Aug 10, 2016 4:12 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I rather see my investigation as a refinement of the term. Hope is often seen in this life-coachy way you say, but seen in the way I describe it rather paints a picture of a man looking at a microwave, or a great spinstress seeing all the pieces of her plan fall into place.

Try to think of it as a function of the inevitable discrepancy between eventuality and mise en place. This way of considering it rehabilitates the term, reclaiming it from the thus-no-less-formidable life coach industry.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: On Hope Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Shouldn’t one ascribe to be the refinement? Reclaiming what becomes objectified seems tawdry as far as endeavors go. Suppose it’s another form of romantic pessimism; behold our reclamation industry.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: On Hope Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Even as I see how other, more ephemereal endeavours of the different catharsis of the spirit can appear more gratifying, I am old-school Greek in that I have a fetish for the claims on words.

Hope you’ll understand!
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: On Hope Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
Hope is an instinctual gift that one must bestow on another. The ‘wish’ is for another to benefit from our care transcending our physical limitations thus becoming an improved shared fate. One who exercises hope benefits in generosity of spirit and many, many, more intangible ways.

There are Darwinists around here?

I can’t recall hope ever being an instinct. We want a change - an effect. We create the cause. Simple.

Compassion
Conservativism
Humility

Those are tangible attributes. Why the need for the intangible?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: On Hope Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:51 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
I rather see my investigation as a refinement of the term. Hope is often seen in this life-coachy way you say, but seen in the way I describe it rather paints a picture of a man looking at a microwave, or a great spinstress seeing all the pieces of her plan fall into place.

Try to think of it as a function of the inevitable discrepancy between eventuality and mise en place. This way of considering it rehabilitates the term, reclaiming it from the thus-no-less-formidable life coach industry.

If a man pushes the time on the microwave to 2:22 it will take 2:22 before it stops no matter how hard he looks at it, no matter how much he hopes it will hurry up and get done.

If the spinstress is paying attention to what she is doing her work will be without flaw based on her abilities.

Results (effects) depend on causes, not hope.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: On Hope Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Even as I see how other, more ephemereal endeavours of the different catharsis of the spirit can appear more gratifying, I am old-school Greek in that I have a fetish for the claims on words.

Hope you’ll understand!

Ah! The Greeks and their many mythologies. Even they had a hard time dealing with reality. They placed man above nature.

The words are all wasted if one had not grasped the concept that was being spoken to.

And once the concept has been grasped the words can be forgotten.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: On Hope Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus

Quote :
I can’t recall hope ever being an instinct. We want a change - an effect. We create the cause. Simple.

I don’t think of hope as an instinct either. There was a time when I hoped for things. I think it’s human. Then there came a time when I went in the opposite direction and almost felt that it was such a negative feeling, a drawback of sort, which could keep us from determining our own life, making our own decisions. The very act of hoping to me almost seemed to make me feel weak and like a silly human. I felt that prayer and hope had something in common - too much delusion, too much waiting around for something or someone else to make something happen.

But I do now feel that there is a positive side to hope or hoping. It’s capable of giving someone the right kind of attitude, an optimistic one, which can allow a person to see “possibilities” and what can be achieved.
It’s all about achieving the right play, the right balance, between hope which is fertile hope and hope which is unhealthy and stagnant.

What’s the opposite of hope? Despair.
Again, I suppose what we really need is a healthy balance between hope and self-determination.

Hope is like being able to see that there just might be light at the end of the tunnel. Hope sees possibilities, not necessarily predictions.

Quote :
Why the need for the intangible?

Because without hope, life could become very bleak and dark. Without hope, those struggling with cancer would give up. Without hope, those wanting children might not have them. Pessimism, its polar opposite, dampens all areas of life. An optimistic attitude and mood can be self-healing sometimes.

I think that one could call “truth” intangible. Is there any need for that? Without the intangible, how mundane might philosophy be?
Why is God such an important concept in philosophy? Because the concept of a God is so intangible.

To wonder about things which are intangible enriches one’s life. Sometimes one’s dreams can be quite intangible. That’s what makes them so important and interesting.
Our very Selves are quite intangible, don’t you think? We search for answers and because we realize how difficult it is to find them, because so much is intangible, it only whets our appetites for more.

Perhaps we can say that hope is a kind of “unconscious” instinct - without it, could our species survive long? Without eventually giving up and going home.

Quote :
Results (effects) depend on causes, not hope.

Well, there are effects for each cause, some positive, some negative, so in a way what you’re saying is true but I rather think that they, both the causes and the effects are more dependent on action/responses.

Someone’s home is burning. It is not so much the fact that the home is burning that brings on the effect of the fire being put out. It is the firemen responding to that burning house and having the courage and struggling to put out the fire which actually becomes the effect.
Somewhere when all of that is happening, do you think that it’s possible, along with all of their determination and hard work, that hope might enter into their hearts and minds - strong hope that they will be able to put out that fire and save the day?

I think that hope is a strong imperative in certain important life moments - it’s the wings which give rise to determination and action.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNd1s5kLwG0[/youtube]

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: The 0th Dimension Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:09 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A pretty simple axiom:

self-valuing is the 0th dimension.

i.e. the point, the center of any given system of axes.

it doesnt matter how many dimensions will be wrapped around it, it remains the center. Of whatever system, context, or world it is … identified.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: The 0th Dimension Sat Dec 10, 2016 1:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Well, I know that I am still the center of my universe.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: The 0th Dimension Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:25 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You couldn’t have confirmed it more eloquently my friend.

Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: New idea about gravity Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarka … -was-wrong

Damn this is interesting.

If I understand this correctly, this guy is attempting to derive gravity from quantum-level distributions of information and how “volume” really just means, at the fundamental level, a kind of surface-area which can be most basically described qua area or “3D area (volume)” as the plank length ^2 (to get the most basic unit of area) * the total number of informational bits or qbits (quantum bit of info, a little stabilization or polarization). This would actually seem to break down 3D into 2D, or rather just unite them together, because the planck length ^2 is the smallest possible physical area, and would have no real dimensionality to speak of in so far as it can build up into larger conglomerate structures as either 2D or 3D geometries, but ultimately either a 2D or 3D geometry can always be reduced down to the exact same model of little planck lengths ^2 as total number of qbits.

2img.net/h/s30.postimg.cc/3tkri … _25_AM.png

Look at how he relates all these equations to each other, to finally reach a derivation of Newton’s equation of gravity. Working backwards, force is related to mass * acceleration, and then this is related through temperature to average energy in the equipartition theorem, which is then related back to the total number of qbits with regard to surface area over planck length ^2, to arrive at the holographic principle whereby a 2D geometry produces what appears as or acts like a volumed 3D space, again because of how a 3D space can be broken down into “1D” qbits that combine to create 2D geometries. This makes me think of the classic logical problem of how do you ever actually move from 1D to 2D, and from 2D to 3D, when you can’t even imagine 1D without also imagining a 2D reference frame or context (try thinking about a 1D (pure line) that doesnt exist in 2D, it isnt possible), likewise how do you take a 2D plane and think about it without 3D (if you try to do so, the “plane” shrinks out of existence as its third dimension is impossibilized). Likewise, a mathematical point (something with no dimensions) is equally logically impossible to clearly conceive.

So instead of that mathematical abstraction, which is really just a language of approximation, we have planck lengths ^2 that form the basic unit of “space”, the smallest unit of area into which a single qbit of information falls. This qbit already includes two aspects, length and width, namely a planck length on either side, and therefore is binary or polarized (because these two dimensions cannot be reduced to each other any further; or rather, they are “reduced” to each other only in so far as they are integrated upwardly into a single unit or value which includes both of them at once): now we can think of space itself as basically just an infinite stretch of these little planck lengths ^2 each of which can contain one binary qbit of information, and then that information relates to information in other little qbit-areas. This means that information stacks upward into larger configurations, these new larger ones are derived from the smaller out of which they are assembled, and therefore implicitly indicate these smaller ones; eventually you have informational geometries that prescribe a kind of “boundary” around themselves, where the boundary or edge is distinct from what is inside that area, and this is what creates a “surface area”; the surface area, once created, is therefore what gives rise holographically to the notion of volume or 3D space.

This also reminds me of an idea of gravity at Parodites wrote about a couple of years ago, where gravity is the result of quantum pressure whereby larger aggregate objects are pressurized toward those other objects to which they are statistically more likely to collide, because when such objects are larger they have less degrees of freedom relative to smaller such objects and therefore smaller objects tend to escape the quantum cloud while larger objects tend to pressurize toward the center of that cloud (if I am understanding his idea). This is basically describing the same thing as this physicist is describing, I think: “volume” is created holographically when qbit-level geometries “stack” or integrate-combine in sufficient number and complexity to produce derivative quantum objects that are capable of prescribing a boundary around themselves, namely a “surface area”, and therefore for other objects of their own scale and beyond are therefore encountered as if they were “volumed” or 3D; for all such objects, they are always interacting with each other stochastically and as a result and within a given cloud of such objects (a quantum geometrical space) larger objects will end up being pressurized toward the center due to the fact these objects have less degrees of freedom relative to the smaller objects within the cloud, therefore larger objects will tend to collide with (“be attracted to”) each other more than smaller objects will tend to collide with each other (but note that if you varied the number of smaller and/or larger objects enough, you could potentially reverse this situation, at least in theory). This statistical emergent effect of larger objects pressurizing toward the center of informational-geometric clouds is what we experience as the gravitational attraction of massed objects, and it must also be what holds matter together at the sub-atomic level (at the level before electromagnetic forces take over to molecularly bind things).


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Gravity sucks.

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Visible effects of orgone generators Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

quebecorgone.com/image/data/ … plants.jpg[/img]

quebecorgone.com/image/data/ … garden.jpg[/img]

quebecorgone.com/image/data/ … gonite.jpg[/img]

quebecorgone.com/docs/image/effe … urvegs.jpg[/img]

quebecorgone.com/docs/image/effe … zh4odg.jpg[/img]

quebecorgone.com/en/visible- … -of-orgone[/img]

quebecorgone.com/en/visible- … -of-orgone


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Defenders of the Earth
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Visible effects of orgone generators Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Wow. How do you recommend I learn how to make my own orgon generator?


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Visible effects of orgone generators Fri Feb 03, 2017 1:53 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Here’s a classical method of basic orgonite I think
youtube.com/watch?v=12LC8S8pAWA
The lady that makes my stuff is riduculously sophisticated and generous he orders all kinds of metals and minerals and crystals to enhance the things, they look like artworks beyond postmodernism

What my friend always uses is a (double) coil, which she turns out of copper wire.
She in turn is in awe of these people
ethericwarriors.com/gifting-compendium
this site has a forum I think, or at least links to it, where people who make this and gift it write about it - I havent been there but I have seen her write after a mission.
They’re very serious and yet light hearted. You hav eto do with such overwhelming odds against you and such a great deal of mockery - or it is just that the orgone uplifts - or all of that is tied in.

Anyway it’s remarakbly simple to make this stuff, but to get it right, to make it powerful and specific, this comes down to will and skill.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Visible effects of orgone generators Fri Feb 03, 2017 1:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Then you have the electrically powered ones, these are fucking insane. But you have to ask them, Ive never even built a circuit. To my shame…


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Visible effects of orgone generators Fri Feb 03, 2017 1:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Oh, you dont have to believe the things these people believe.
Ive learned to not dismiss some of these things either -
but it is irrelevant.
The orgonite formula is atomic - a simple acknowledgement of the division between metals and non metals. And then the coil to set it in motion.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Big Bangism Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The Big Bang is the greatest chunk of horseshit ever devised.
Atheists believe in it. They believe in an even more irrational notion than God.
God is simply not built of reason, you arrive at it through a more complete psychic process. It is a stage of mind, a humanity. And the poems about gods creating the world, are all about elements and logics, not about bearded old men.
The Big Bang however, this is fully and actively contrarational. I is onsensical to posit a beginning of time including a state before that, which was supposedly singular and yet gave birth to something that is not - so, you mean, god exists, we just call him “science” now, and destroy science, but dont mind because we’re morons anyway not to be trusted with it… the belief of the Last Man: a seismic event in time space occurred, thus this was the god that died and we are now ashamed to believe in, because ae sin and do nothing but sin and waste out lives. Fuck Big Bangers -

The error: tto push causal logic through a state defined as negative of the causalitylogics you are working with, so as to arrive at the conclusion that everything was created in an instance out of a timeless all-being.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:15 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Of course whatever exists came into being gradually, as we very well know it does, as we can see how stars are formed. No doubt, atoms are formed in the same way - gradually the sheer possibility of existence assimilates by attraction, possibility enhancing possibility, collapsing into near-certainties on the atomic scale, remaining in the realm of pure potential on the electrical scale, the uncertainty principle is the veil that has possibility-as-such recede beyond the horizon of the urge for certainty that life, and consciousness is. “God” is merely the acknowledgement that there is an abyss where that veil is. Psychosis is merely that abyss.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, the Big Bang is stupidity. The truth lies with those who imagine how the universe was created. I mean, really, God created the entire universe in six days and rested on the seventh. God created everything exactly as it is, the universe is static.

Only those who believe in religions know the truth. Science knows nothing.

But then, over one hundred creation myths exist and every one says that theirs is the only truth. No room for questions. Mythical facts are the Truth!
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
Yes, the Big Bang is stupidity. The truth lies with those who imagine how the universe was created. I mean, really, God created the entire universe in six days and rested on the seventh. God created everything exactly as it is, the universe is static.

Only those who believe in religions know the truth. Science knows nothing.

But then, over one hundred creation myths exist and every one says that theirs is the only truth. No room for questions. Mythical facts are the Truth!

Well now my friend, you are having a bit of a religious conversion late in age? Haha. But no, you are wrong.
I realize youre not much interested in physics, you dont need to respond to posts you dont understand. That is like the media responding to Trump. Youre making a bit of a show based on smallish beliefs, and you ignored my actual words.

Dont worry, it is no big deal but please, keep to the standards of the forum and address reality.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Sisyphus wrote:
Yes, the Big Bang is stupidity. The truth lies with those who imagine how the universe was created. I mean, really, God created the entire universe in six days and rested on the seventh. God created everything exactly as it is, the universe is static.

Only those who believe in religions know the truth. Science knows nothing.

But then, over one hundred creation myths exist and every one says that theirs is the only truth. No room for questions. Mythical facts are the Truth!

Well now my friend, you are having a bit of a religious conversion late in age? Haha. But no, you are wrong.
I realize youre not much interested in physics, you dont need to respond to posts you dont understand. That is like the media responding to Trump. Youre making a bit of a show based on smallish beliefs, and you ignored my actual words.

Dont worry, it is no big deal but please, keep to the standards of the forum and address reality.

But the problem is not your total knowledge of everything but rather the fact that I am not wrong.

Religious conversion I am having is it? You have lost it as you are suggesting something that doesn’t exist. Of course, you do that all the time with your various gods so it’s nothing new.

And BTW, when a discussion sinks to the level of attacking the individual instead of the topic one has already lost the argument.

You negated the theory of a Big Bang. Therefore you are saying that Einstein and Georges Lemaître are wrong any only you are correct. How vain!!!
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Let it out.

Einstein is a god to you, an unquestionable authority who created your truth, which you are not allowed to think about critically.

This is precisely what I mean.

How arrogant I am to the religious, for thinking for myself…
haha.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I was so right, again…
I need only to mention a criticism of the Big Bang theory, and we have an uprising with passion and without argument.
It is sort of special to so easily provoke the normally levelheaded Sisyphus to a dogmatic rant by just stating a fact about logic.

This is why I called the OP “Big Bangism” - I know it is a religious anti-logical doctrine defended only by the passion of faith.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Defenders of the Earth
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am generally ok with the idea of the Big Bang, namely that it could have taken place, although I do not accept the ontological implication that this was “the beginning of reality”. Reality has no beginning, that’s what’s makes it real-ity.

The observation that the universe around us appears to be expanding gives some evidence for the notion of Big Bang. I also like the idea that there were various stages of production of the various elements over time as the universe expanded and cooled. I think it’s an interesting theory, and I don’t yet have any reason to think the Big Bang never took place, but of course I’m not religious about it either.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Let it out.

Einstein is a god to you, an unquestionable authority who created your truth, which you are not allowed to think about critically.

This is precisely what I mean.

How arrogant I am to the religious, for thinking for myself…
haha.

Great. I’m glad we aren’t taking our disagreements personal.

Actually, I know very little about Einstein or his work.

He did say that invoking god into his hypothesis of the Big Bang was his biggest blunder. And I agree with him.

And I don’t agree with Hawking that the universe was create from nothing. It was created out of Singularity.

And believe me, I question what I do not understand but feel a need to understand or new information that is contradictory to my present understanding.

And yes, if we are living our life according to someone else’s standards then all we are doing is living another life for that or those other people. The key to living is to self-actualize.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
I was so right, again…
I need only to mention a criticism of the Big Bang theory, and we have an uprising with passion and without argument.
It is sort of special to so easily provoke the normally levelheaded Sisyphus to a dogmatic rant by just stating a fact about logic.

This is why I called the OP “Big Bangism” - I know it is a religious anti-logical doctrine defended only by the passion of faith.

No, Fixed Cross, you are wrong again. Sorry.

Passion? I am without passion but I have a very healthy ego.

So your alternative to the Big Bang is magic. Yeah, very logical

So you are seeing yourself in what you are presenting me to be. Isn’t that some type of psychological disorder?

At some point you might consider presenting a definition of the word “religion”. I think you might have it confused with the term “belief system”.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And we should be careful connecting the Big Bang to atheism, because many religious people also believe the Big Bang. They think it was God’s way of setting things in motion.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
I am generally ok with the idea of the Big Bang, namely that it could have taken place, although I do not accept the ontological implication that this was “the beginning of reality”. Reality has no beginning, that’s what’s makes it real-ity.

The observation that the universe around us appears to be expanding gives some evidence for the notion of Big Bang. I also like the idea that there were various stages of production of the various elements over time as the universe expanded and cooled. I think it’s an interesting theory, and I don’t yet have any reason to think the Big Bang never took place, but of course I’m not religious about it either.

Well pointed out. And science still has many unanswered questions, some of which will never be answered.

But it is none-the-less the best theory available without the magic of creation by some god.

Everything that presently exists was at some point within the boundaries of Singularity. That’s a bunch of stuff. How did all that stuff get into the boundaries of Singularity? Blame it on Black Holes.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
And we should be careful connecting the Big Bang to atheism, because many religious people also believe the Big Bang. They think it was God’s way of setting things in motion.

Totally agree. The same is true regarding the fact of evolution.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have met religious atheists for whom the Big Bang is a sort of creation myth, thus I very much get Fixed’s point here. But I prefer to ignore such people and focus on the sane ones, of which admittedly there seem to be few.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
I have met religious atheists for whom the Big Bang is a sort of creation myth, thus I very much get Fixed’s point here. But I prefer to ignore such people and focus on the sane ones, of which admittedly there seem to be few.

Yes, I too understand Fixed’s point of view but I feel he has been using an incorrect word when he refers to the Big Bang Theory as a religion. (And more importantly, as Tao being the same thing as a god.)

Yes, there are many pissed off Atheists who are really pissed off at the Church but still hold to creation myths and actually still believe in the gods. And yes, these are confused people. Their anger is more powerful than is there logic in determining why they are pissed off.

I enjoy arguing with Fixed because I know he has a log of knowledge he can share with me.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Big Bangism really makes me laugh out loud now. It is constructed of ingenious stupidities.
For example - the singularity, in which all potential time space is enclosed, explodes (contradicting it being a singularity)… into space ( contradicting its having enclosed space time)…

Just, wow. My compliments to anyone who can believe it. True religion.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Defenders of the Earth
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes it is making a more philosophical (logical) claim than what most people/scientists seem to understand. Obviously if something is expanding into something else, there existed the “other outside” into which that something is expanding. Defining the something as “reality” or “everything” is a contradiction to then claim this something is then “expanding”.

I tend to think of it tectonically: there are two categories of ontological space, for this example anyway, with the first category being a maximally-collapsed potentiation grid with near-zero substance, and the second category being actual substance that occupies or sits atop the first categorical grid. I think of the first category as as close to a pure mathematical space as could possibly exist, wherein nothing is really “there” except the minimum energy distribution to sustain that grid-space; what we think of as energy, space and time, the quantum foam and everything scaled up from that foam (quarks, atoms etc.) is part of the second category.

Given this framework, we can then imagine that within an infinitely extended category one pure mathematical/maximally collapsed grid there existed a singularity-point in which was contained all the energy/substance that would eventually come to constitute our universe. For some reason that point existed as a point, approaching zero-dimensionality and containing all energy we see around us in the universe today… it would be interesting to speculate as to why this point existed at all, but for our present purposes we hypothesize its existence. So then this point suddenly reaches a critical threshold and can no longer remain point-like (perhaps because it had previously been collapsing further and further but hit a point where further collapse was impossible, as total energy caused a chain reaction that reversed the collapse into a sudden expansion). The expansion took over and fed on itself, exponentially increasing into the Big Bang.

This caused energy-substance to differentiate and occupy more volume per unit energy, leading to cooling and eventually enough space per unit energy to where sub-atomic particles could form out of the quantum foam.

So naturally there are a few questions necessitated by this hypothesis: 1) if the first category mathematical grid is infinite in all directions (and logically I think it must be) then there must also be more, even infinite, number of singularity-points in various stages of contraction or expansion? Yes I think that is the case. 2) When a universe reaches its end and (hypothetically) dissolves into the maximum expansion whereby even atoms are stretched apart and dissolve, what then happens? How does that situation reset back into another singularity-point?

I don’t have a good theory on that second question.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Big Bangism really makes me laugh out loud now. It is constructed of ingenious stupidities.
For example - the singularity, in which all potential time space is enclosed, explodes (contradicting it being a singularity)… into space ( contradicting its having enclosed space time)…

Just, wow. My compliments to anyone who can believe it. True religion.

Einstein felt that way too until he was shown to have fucked up. It was his theory, you know. I just can’t find it in my mind to think that you hold yourself more knowledgeable than Einstein and all the other astronomers who hold firmly to the theory.

So you hold to magic over scientific investigation. That’s okay Fixed. There are billions of people who believe similar to you. It is your right to believe whatever you wish regarding the creation of the universe. But you have to ignore many scientific facts in order to do so.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
Yes it is making a more philosophical (logical) claim than what most people/scientists seem to understand. Obviously if something is expanding into something else, there existed the “other outside” into which that something is expanding. Defining the something as “reality” or “everything” is a contradiction to then claim this something is then “expanding”.

The theory of “Absolute Nothingness” speaks very well to this. This suggests that the universe is expanding into an area, at a rate faster than the speed of light, that was previously void. So it is not actually expanding into something else.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:

Given this framework, we can then imagine that within an infinitely extended category one pure mathematical/maximally collapsed grid there existed a singularity-point in which was contained all the energy/substance that would eventually come to constitute our universe. For some reason that point existed as a point, approaching zero-dimensionality and containing all energy we see around us in the universe today… it would be interesting to speculate as to why this point existed at all, but for our present purposes we hypothesize its existence. So then this point suddenly reaches a critical threshold and can no longer remain point-like (perhaps because it had previously been collapsing further and further but hit a point where further collapse was impossible, as total energy caused a chain reaction that reversed the collapse into a sudden expansion). The expansion took over and fed on itself, exponentially increasing into the Big Bang.

If you ask any type of physicist what Singularity is they will say something like, “We don’t know.”

But it is consistent with the concept of reversion and cycles. That is, Singularity - Big Bang - maximum potential of the expansion of the universe - the shrinking of the universe as a result of gravity - new Singularity - new universe.

However, the most accepted theory of the universe is that of a cold death. That is, expansion continues so that gravity no longer has an effect on anything in the universe.

I prefer the theory of reversion and cycles.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:

So naturally there are a few questions necessitated by this hypothesis: 1) if the first category mathematical grid is infinite in all directions (and logically I think it must be) then there must also be more, even infinite, number of singularity-points in various stages of contraction or expansion? Yes I think that is the case. 2) When a universe reaches its end and (hypothetically) dissolves into the maximum expansion whereby even atoms are stretched apart and dissolve, what then happens? How does that situation reset back into another singularity-point?

I don’t have a good theory on that second question.

Yes, there are a few hypotheses suggesting multiple universes. I even have one: there are six more universes, they exist in different dimensions and they account for what science calls Dark Matter.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I just don’t take that step, I don’t grant the notion of singularity if it isn’t also mono-tectonic.
I understand any quantum field however thin just as manifest as a star or an organism. From such a field, anything can be formed. Anything will be formed, simply because it is possible.
What we know is that there was a seismic event in the cosmos that basically shaped the way it is now. That could have been any collision of axes of gravity, such as black holes, which when they would ‘spill their guts’ might also cause some kind of big bang and paradigmatic, law-setting causation.
There are lots of things that may very well have other sides, that may be veils to other systems - we can perceive so little and the math of the superelliptical galaxies shows it.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I honestly think the Big Bang is purely the reinvention of God in secular terms - but with an even less rational ground.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:06 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There can simply not be a The Whole.

Its a dense contradiction.
There are wholes, many different ones, that is the case.
But to posit a single whole is to contradict the notion of a whole.

It’s hard to put in language, just imagine a whole that is not part of something else, and notice how the lines of logic and even cognition blur at the ‘edge of the whole’ which is obviously an illogical notion. The Whole must be infinite, because if it has borders, it borders on something else. But infinity didnt come out of the Big Bang.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:14 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
When I was 12 or so I figured oh cool, they scientifically proved that science can not explain the origin of what it explains. I took that for something very freedom loving.
Only later on I realized people actually tried to pretend that this singularity actually makes sense.

I piss on singularity. It’s bullshit, it can take it.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXGXTzjWPak[/youtube]

One hero talking about another.

why would anyone who happened to be the first to bring into reality something that was the next logical step anyway, be revered as a genius? think about the situation; the idea of electric cars has been in the minds of human beings for a century or more… then somebody comes along who has the money to invest in such a technology, and is all of a sudden a genius and a hero. moreover, the guy who has the money is probably not the real brain behind the actual creation of the technology. the actual production of the idea would belong to those who specialize in the fields necessary to create it (engineers, mathematicians, mechanics, software designers, etc.)

so what is going on here with this peculiar kind of mythologizing? ah, it’s the cult of the personality of capitalism; a gross exaggeration of the actual role and presence of the capitalist for the celebratory purposes of western culture fantasy. the idolization and emulation of the entrepreneurial spirit… which, when examined more closely, reveals nothing close to the wonderful depth and dynamism first thought to be representative of the glorious heroics of the noble capitalist.

some guy has a shit ton of money and hires a bunch of people to develop an electric car. now he’s on the cover of popular mechanics and booked for seventeen talk show interviews. but what exactly are we celebrating here if not a myth, a transparent hoax concealing (denying credit to) the real source of the progress about to be made in mankind’s next logical step in technology. who brings this idea into reality? the guy with the shit ton of money? no, but that’s what the cult of the western persona of capitalism would have everyone believe. one does not need capitalism to make the logical next step (e.g., soviet union was the first in space)… but if these steps are made in a capitalistic system, everyone mistakenly believes such steps couldn’t have been made elsewhere and/or otherwise.

none of this is for the purposes of dissing this guy musk. i’m sure he’s a somewhat interesting fellow. all i wish to show is the irony surrounding the image that capitalism has engendered for itself as it promotes itself in the mythologies of modern western culture. like everything else shallow and transparent in the cult of celebrity culture, the same empty bluster is found in the reverence of the capitalist icons western society so much admires.

always remember this; a john galt is nothing without the proletariat… but the proletariat is everything with or without a john galt.

oh and i am aware of musk’s credentials and education, so i’m not saying he’s useless or can’t be productive. i’m only saying if he is to receive credit for anything, it certainly would not be ‘financing’ a project that is fully organized and produced by other people who, because they happen to work for him, are thought to be totally dependent on the necessity of musk’s ‘genius’ in order to be realized. this, of course, in nonsense.

please don’t interpret this as ‘hating on musk.’ i am quite serious when i say i am unable to ‘hate’ anything here, because the context of the situation surrounding him and his popularity is so transparent it is incapable of warranting anything as serious as hate. there is simply the irony of the joke and the utter lack of substance in the reverence guys like this receive.

what the world admires about his guy… what they see when they look at him and his story, is not some genius or pioneer… but the dollar signs. like pavlonian dogs, western culture comes running whenever they hear the ‘cha-ching’, and drops to its knees in grotesque idol worship of a completely farcical image of prosperity.

you want musk to impress me… tell him to give 90% of his profits to his engineers, scientists, mechanics, software designers, and everyone else on his payroll who develop the ideas which are by no means original to him, and be happy they let him keep that 10%.

p.s. that most recent joint you did was by far the best i’ve heard. you weren’t trying to sound cool in that one, and as a result, you sounded cool. cool how that works, eh?

I will allow myself the slack to believe that you really believe this, but there could be very few statements in which I find less truth. Remember, I always go by experience. Never by theory. I fucking hate theory. It always fails to predict or describe the human.

The proletariat, in my experience, is just as much as a whiny parasitic bitch as is any old Owner.

I am not a Nietzschean without reason. My overwhelming experience from since I can remember, and I have a damn good memory, is that only the exception is worth the trouble of humanizing.

Most people, when you start to humanize them, i.e. idealize, think they are great cause they’re human, they’ll fucking suck your guts out.

That said theres no way I revere Musk or any industrialist. I didn’t even read any Ayn Rand novels. I cant stand that conceptual idealist art from any direction. Cant read Tokstoy either. Give me Dostoyevski, thats real, that tells you what the proletariat is. Daughter-selling drunks whose stinking sweat is their best feature. Fuckups. Just as useless cunts as your run of the mill millionaire.

The people I have learned to trust are farmers. They can be considered both owners and workers, they escape the silly cosmopolitan Londonese dichotomy that Marx hallucinated.

then you’re not clear about the difference between the capitalist and proletarian class. the proletariat sells his labor as a commodity. he receives a wage for his labor. the capitalist buys the proletariat’s labor, and then sells what that labor produced. the critical difference here is that the capitalist cannot profit without buying labor and selling commodities/services, because he doesn’t sell his own labor. so, without the wage worker to offer his labor in exchange for a wage, and without the product of the wage worker’s labor being sold, the capitalist would have no way to generate wealth. hence, the capitalist is nothing without the proletariat. like literally, this is not a figure of speech… he’s as helpless as he is useless.

this is why i prefer the analogy of the host and parasite. it’s quite fitting to describe the relationship between these two classes. the parasite cannot survive without the host, and the host is significantly weakened by the presence of the parasite.

i can’t stand them either… at least nine out of ten of em. but, i understand why they’re like that… and nearly every factor and/or cause responsible for such a condition is traceable to both democracy and capitalism/consumerism. it isn’t just that most workers are aware that they’re being exploited that causes them to have that shitty attitude… but several other things contribute to their overall character as well. lack of strong work ethic due to a generally easy and privileged lifestyle. the sense of entitlement their indirectly conditioned to feel because of all the media they consume; ‘you’re unique… be an individual… express yourself… get dat money… yada, yada, yada.’ this instills in everyone the expectation that they should be able to be successful and wealthy without having to work for it. essentially, western democracy makes everyone believe they’re super special and that ‘work’ is something only the lowly do, something everyone should avoid if they can help it. now out of this mess emerges only a couple types; a minority of career oriented people who have pride in their talents and productivity, and the stragglers… those who end up on the lower tier of the working class. these are the one’s with the shitty attitude… and every bit of it is the result of the state’s failing to exercise its authority in preventing these perverse forces from making such people happen.

when i see some white trash alcoholic piece of shit on the job, i don’t blame him for becoming what he has. i blame the environment and those who have the power, but lack the incentive and ambition, to control that environment so that he doesn’t become what he has.

but to call out this piece of shit and then say ‘fuck the concept of the proletariat’, is misinformed. this trash is your creation… you’re the one who endorses the system that allows them to happen. of course you can despise such trash, but you can’t complain about it and be taken seriously.

we’ve got to assume that radical changes in society in the direction of socialism could very well eliminate everything that is responsible for creating this image you, and most, have of the lower working classes. and we’re pretty fucking sure that if things stay the way they are, we’ll see plenty more of em.

but no. you can’t point at such an abomination and say ‘that’s why socialism sucks’. that abomination has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with western capitalist democracy.

Ah, but I caught you in a fallacy. One that does not necessarily have a name.

For if you can see what made the proletarian such a scumbag and use that reason as your argumentative substance, then you should also be able to identify what makes the owner one, to juxtapose it and see how the proletarian, when derived from his circumstances, is better than the capitalist, as derived from his circumstances.

Because until youve done so Im free to state that a proletarian is a scumbag simply because he is human, because look, an Ivy League breeze of a life in the absence of shitty circumstances doesn’t un-scumbag people.

Im satisfied that I managed to make raps that sound cool to you, Zoot - that is a definite step. This is not an easy business. To win over a sharp critic is a victory.
Its not actually the case that I tried to sound cool before and now I didn’t. Its more that I decided I have an ego and I need to stand somewhere, wherever. My previous raps were more beyond the ego, as I certainly didn’t find it easy to understand myself as a rapper.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194947&p=2728176#p2728175. :text-link:

:flags-usa: :techie-computer:

Gotta have my last posts here.

Shit, Ive spent three years helping people understand why they shouldnt oppose the one who has ended all the US immorality abroad. But Americans here are SCUMBAGS, by and large, murderous thugs, filthy fucking maggots feasting on the deaths of children.

Leftists will all go mad in the end, I can’t see this shit any other way, they have it coming, the savages made out of weakness.