The last 3 seconds kind of blew my mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8Aurpr68uE
Holographic universe. What do you think about the last seconds of that video. This has metaphysical implications I don't even want to talk about lol.
Discuss.
Printable View
The last 3 seconds kind of blew my mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8Aurpr68uE
Holographic universe. What do you think about the last seconds of that video. This has metaphysical implications I don't even want to talk about lol.
Discuss.
That's a really cool video
I'm guessing what you're referring to is the similarity between how the universe and a brain cell look, insinuating that maybe the universe is relational to something the same way a brain cell is.
Should that be the case ... that's cool. Maybe we're actually like a virus on some other dimensional being. I hope it's god that we're plaguing and ruining his shit lol
Pretty footage but the random text at the end about quantum mechanics and fractals jammed into a space of about 2 seconds just made me lol.
I'm with xei. little surprise there when it comes to the question of science vs. psuedoscience though....
It bugs me when people say that "particles respond to conciousness." I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. The model as we currently have it is that a particle evolves as a wave function until someone measures it. At that point the wave function collapses and starts evolving again. The thing to keep in mind is that it is only a mathematical model that accepts numbers as input and produces numbers as output. The standard physical interpretation of quantum theory is that there is no physical interpretation of quantum theory other than as I outlined above.
I see no metaphysical interpretation to be taken from the vague resemblance of the distribution of stars in the sky to a braincell.
guess I'm a h8tr
I also don't want to talk about it so instead I'll just wonder out loud on the tangentially related note that I always though it strange that people are so mystified to discover that structured patterns form in an ordered universe. I always though that'd be kind of obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD
That music suited the video perfectly. Makes you see how beautiful the universe is and how it's structured.
I don't understand why people can't just accept what quantum physics is saying right now, maybe because it goes against their belief system, and challenges everything they were taught about "materialism"?
The double-slit experiment..inescapable conclusions have been made about it. I think we're in a multiverse, and thoughts can jump you into another universe based on what you expect the outcome to be, intentions, and/or in turn what actions you take. This is speculation on my part, I'll admit. But something like this, you CAN'T prove, only experience.
Thoughts "do" things..plain and simple...yes call it magic if you will. This was a revolutionary discovery in science and took one step further combing science, religion, metaphysics, spirituality, and what mystics have saying for thousands of years.
The Mayans knew so long ago that time and space wasn't linear and that it has the capacity to fold in on itself.
I'm stoned like a whore in ancient jurusalam right now. Let's see how I do....
My understanding is that quantum physics tells us that a particle particle can be represented by a wave function that is a function on S=R^ 4 with a metric that allows for a fibration of S as a bundle with fiber F=R^3 over base space T=R, just as is true for spacetime before einstein. R^3 is obviously associated with space and T with time. The function of this wave function is to assign to each tuple (t, s) where t is in T and s is in S the probability of the function being measured at location s at time t. It is a theory based on probability. So the universe is probabalistic. This is funkier than we thought. Pretty cool. Insanely cool actually. It's so cool that I don't see why people need it to be any cooler than that. It probably is though.Quote:
Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD
enlighten me?Quote:
Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD
Explain how my basic explanation of the framework of quantum physics explains (or rather, can be explained) my its multiverse formulation? I'll be happy to do it for you, if you need. The double slit experiment really has nothing to do with it anymore then any other particular experiment, though it is pretty funky.Quote:
Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD
back that up. I have maaaaaaaaaad respect for "primitive" peoples. I believe, in contradiction to conventional archaeologists, in transoceanic contact between the new world and the old world prior to the vikings. The conventional archeologists will soon be coming around to my side though given the fact that they have recently found bones of a species of chicken from polynesia in south america and dated it to be older than european contact. I digress though. I respect the ancients. Saying that they had the equivelent of general relativity (recall from above that quantum physics works with a fibration of spacetime, this is not possible in general relativity) is preposterous.Quote:
Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD
Here's the point.
I don't understand why people can't just accept what quantum physics is actually saying right now. Maybe it's because it goes against their belief system and challenges everything that they have been taught about "spiritualism".Quote:
Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD
As a footnote to that last statement, It's true that quantum physics doesn't challenge spirituality because quantum physics doesn't address it. That "omission" is no doubt challenge enough to those that have a desire for it too.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
Well whatever man, I really don't want to argue just telling you what I think. I used to be atheist...I'm still atheist as I don't believe in any God or anything. I used to actually think people that meditated, or practiced any type of spirituality was crazy or just plain nuts. I understand why they do it now and some things you just have to experience and I'll leave it at that. Now tase me.
Discussing is not arguing. It's kinda lame to say what you've claimed, and then back down when someone asks about it.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampyre
What gets me about most of the people who want to talk metaphysics or spirituality on this site is that they can't handle it when anyone disagrees. The difference between wanting to search for deeper truths beyond what is the current consensually accept reality and just wanting to believe what you think would be cool is being able to accept criticism and maybe even change your beliefs based on what other people have to say. Pushing the boundaries of accepted reality still requires that you actually use logic to examine the available information and that what you find is also readily available to everyone else. Otherwise you aren't expanding the boundaries of reality, you are completely abandoning it all together.
The reason why I felt the need to post this is because I agree with many of your conclusions, Hard_Wired, but I almost never agree with how you arrive at them.
You agree?
I find that hard to imagine because all that Hard Wired has said is the usual confused superficial statements that come from New Agers who don't know what they are talking about.
It's classic really. He confuses classical general relativity with quantum physics, metions the double slit experiment and deduces something from it which is not remotely implied, and even throws in a random mention of the Mayans.
Right, its that last bit that I disagree with. I agree with his original conclusion; that there are strong metaphysical implications that can be drawn from the information that inspired that video.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
One such possibility is that during the second half of the video when they zoom in, it looks to me that if it were possible to look at things that were just a little bit smaller, one might find themselves staring at the back of their own head through their microscope.
The universe as we know it is beginning to resemble the universe as it was understood by yogis and shamans thousands of years ago more and more. Ancient civilizations believed that all of the different aspects of reality were different facets of just one singular thing. Now we have theories such as this one that are in the process of being formed that postulate that all of the different aspects of reality are just multidimensional facets of one 'shape'. The character Max in the movie Pi said it well, "My new hypothesis: If we're built from Spirals while living in a giant Spiral, then is it possible that everything we put our hands to is infused with the Spiral?" I know the Mandelbrot set interests you because I've seen you talk about on multiple occasions. It is because of that sort of information that I agree with another one of Hard_Wired's conclusions; that the last few seconds of that video are profound. I feel as though it is only natural and obvious (as Mark75 pointed out) that the superstructure of the universe as we can see it resembles a brain cell so clearly. The obviousness of it does not foreshadow the gravity of such a realization. Perhaps when we can see beyond the superclusters, we will begin to see the mind of what many call god take shape, and then we will see that there are other such minds beyond that one, and other worlds in which they live that exist in yet larger structures and groupings in perpetuity, ad nauseum, ad infinitum, etc, etc, etc......
Edit: The New agers that don't know what they are talking about are what they are because they wish so desperately to see the wonder that is reality but are incapable of or unwilling to truly grasp the truth of it. That doesn't mean that those of us who are willing and hopefully capable cannot feel the same wonder. In fact, it is usually the wonder and amazement of men of science who philosophize on the implications of their findings that inspire the new ager types to piece together their own view of reality with whatever happens to suit their whims.
Edit again: To put my previous post in perspective, I agree with a lot of Hard_Wired's conclusions but disagree with his methods of arriving at them in much the same way that I disagree with your conclusions, Xei, even though I agree (for the most part) with your methods of arriving at them.
Hmm... out of interest, what kind of conclusions do you believe I hold? You might be surprised. The method I always strive to employ is logical deduction.
My view of the universe is much more... mechanistic and haphazard, I suppose. Lacking in purpose or pattern. To explain what I mean by that: for a start, I don't think that the universe resembles a neuron, nor that any such relationship would represent a profound truth. Those two pictures were clearly chosen and rearranged to look similar, but it's only really a superficial artefact of the pictures; neurons really aren't very like that. They have many thousands of branches, for a start, and then one long one. The picture of the universe presented there is also in fact just a hypothetical simulation. In any case it looks much more like a piece of pumice or sponge or bubble bath than a brain. And there is no mechanism by which it could act as a network.
I don't believe that every object is somehow linked to a pretty pattern. This begs the question; which pattern? The fact is that some phenomena model nice patterns, and some have no relevance to any simple pattern at all.
I only believe in emergence from mathematical systems, which is an ugly and random thing.
What phenomena do you think lack any relevance to simpler patterns? I'd say at the very least you underestimate the human ability to draw correlation from seemingly unrelated phenomena.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
That's part of the point. Humans often overemphasise the existence or importance of patterns which aren't there. This is thought to have evolved in part because our predators, prey, and mates, are all symmetrical, wheras inanimate objects are not; an ability to quickly spot the former has obvious consequences for survival and reproduction.
Just looking around me, there are many mundane phenomena lacking in pattern. The plastic rubbish bin outside my window. The sofa I'm sat on. The layout of this house.
The point is, it's not really surprising that some objects resemble others, because in three dimensional space, there's a limited amount of plausible shapes you can have in the first place. Some phenomena have superficial resemblence, but there is no deeper meaning between these relationships. Galaxies are spirals. So are seahorse tails. And the Mandelbrot set has spirals. Cool, but a spiral is an extremely simple thing and you'd expect more than one of the multitude of objects in the universe to look like them. Many things look like waves. The surface of water. Electromagnetic radiation. The graph of -1^x. Springs. Tornados. Okay, but so what? Does that represent some fundamental connection between springs and water which is distinct from the connection between seahorses and galaxies? Not really.
Not distinct, no. Waves resemble spirals. There are mathematical ways to represent waves so that they are spirals, and vice versa. Just as there are bits of the mandelbrot set that look like other bits of the mandelbrot set, and yet other bits that don't look like either of the first two, but resemble a fourth, even though they are all derived from the same simple equation. I feel as though you are unwittingly getting at the assumption that nothing is signifigant, while I am saying everything is; which to me means the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Tell me, if the universe is random, then why exactly would you expect there to be more than one spiral in the multitude?
I already answered that. You can't have a different simple shape for each of the millions of different objects. It's also a useful structure in the nature which arises due to the messy process of evolution.
As I said, I believe in a simple underlying set of mathematical equations which through emergence create various patterns, but it is a random process with no underlying meaning.
In my opinion, you just contradicted yourself no less than 4 times. As I said before(although not in so many words), I don't see any way for us to come up with an underlying reason for our disagreement other than simple difference of opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
A few more questions for the road, what is the difference between underlying mathematical equation and underlying meaning? Is math not another human constructed relationship? What is the meaning of meaning?
I only believe in emergence from mathematical systems, which is a beautiful and elegant thing. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I think this frames my entire point nicely, I'll stop here. Xei, study Daoism.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
The universe is a large human body, the human body is a small universe. The improvement of each small universe will lead to the improvement of the large universe.
yes. But what happens when each small universe reaches perfection, and in turn the large human body has reached perfection? Is that just the end of the game. What determines the state of each universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by grasshoppa
I'm starting to think improving the universe means improving 'yourself'.
When each small universe reaches perfection the large universe would reach perfection as well. And yes, improvement of the universe means starting with yourself. This is a hermetic teaching, and it also widely accecpted in eastern religions as well as martial arts.