I recently watched a show on National geographic channel about the big bang. Did anybody else see it? It was quite interesting. If I have the time I would like to explore how the universe evolved into us(ADD). Dumb? Maybe. Interesting? Maybe. Waste of internet? Most likely.

Here goes.

---Changed my mind, this would be too much a bite in my time. Long story short, time isn't real, god created the universe then died (which isnt really possible considering time isnt actually moving forward), the stars cores created life supporting elements, earth was the result of an supernova explosion, and the fuzz you hear on the radio is actually .05% an echo from the big bang. ADD is the result of evolution of the human race. Its true i read it in a book.;)

Actually, what's really interesting is that our understanding of big bang cosmology isn't a "beginning-forward" thing. Scientists who study the subject are actually looking from the present-backwards. Hawking and Penrose were among the first to point out that given Hubble's observations of the universe expanding, and given various astronomical observations, it appeared as though if time were run backwards, the entire universe would merge into a single point. Astronomical observations can help us up to a point, because the farther away something is in space, the farther away it also is in time (space-time, get it?). The light we observe from a distant galaxy takes millions, possibly even billions of years to get here, depending on how far away it is. So we can observe things far away up to a point. Furthermore, physicists can make observations of how matter and energy behave that give us an idea of how the universe would have behaved. It turns out that if you smoosh everything together like that, you wind up with a situation involving a lot of energy and matter (which are essentially the same thing due to E=mc^2) in a very small area. It turns out that when you take a lot of matter and energy in a very small area, a concept called "energy density," the laws of physics as they apply in our everyday lives start to change.

This is why physicists build particle accelerators. They take very small units of matter, sometimes atomic nuclei, sometimes individual particles such as protons, antiprotons, electrons, positrons, etc. Because all of these items have an electromagnetic charge, an electromagnetic field can essentially "push" them. So if you take thousands of very powerful supercooled electromagnets and string them together in a ring, you can create a powerful electromagnetic wave field. The charged particles/ions will then "surf" this wave, if it is set up correctly. The more energy you put into the electromagnets, the faster they will be pushed around the ring. It is possible to get these particles up to speeds well over 99.9% of the speed of light. For instance, in the soon-to-be-opened Large Hadron Collider (LHC) on the border of Switzerland and France, protons will be accelerated to 99.9999% of the speed of light, at which point each individual proton will have the energy of a mosquito buzzing around a room.

If you then smash these into something, either a stationary block or preferably an oncoming beam (doubles the energy), you get a tiny but very powerful explosion, a lot of energy and matter crammed together into a very small area. Also, the high energy levels make these particles easier to observe.

By doing this, physicists can study the conditions present in energy densities that would have existed shortly after the big bang. All kinds of exotic particles will be created, and forces that are usually too small to be observed under our everyday conditions, like the strong nuclear force that binds quarks together to form protons and neutrons, and whose residual effect binds together the nuclei of atoms, can be better observed.

At high enough energy densities, it is theorized that something called "force unification" would occur. It is theorized that the four fundamental forces that we observe today (gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force) have all evolved from one unified force that would have quickly decayed into the forces we see today. It is also theorized that this decay process is responsible for the different attributes that these forces share. Sometime in early 2008, the LHC will make the first serious attempt to create the conditions possible for electro-weak unification, to see if the current understanding of force unification is correct.

So if you ask a cosmologist or particle physicist to describe the big bang, the won't start at the beginning, they'll walk you back through what we know, working backwards until the laws of physics as we understand them completely break down (a fraction of a millisecond after the big bang). There are, of course, a number of possibilities for what occurred in before that, which is why these theories have to be tested, which is why half of the physicists in the entire world (not an exaggeration) will have been involved in the production or use of the LHC by the time it goes on line.

It almost makes me wish I'd been able to pay attention in calculus class so that I could have stuck with physics in college. Oh well.

If you then smash these into something, either a stationary block or preferably an oncoming beam (doubles the energy), you get a tiny but very powerful explosion, a lot of energy and matter crammed together into a very small area.

There is a big bang concept!

BOOM

Oops!





All kinds of exotic particles will be created, and forces that are usually too small to be observed under our everyday conditions, like the strong nuclear force that binds quarks together to form protons and neutrons, and whose residual effect binds together the nuclei of atoms, can be better observed.


That will be way cool! Just hope it stays in the right hands. . . . .ya know what I mean?




Scientists who study the subject are actually looking from the present-backwards. Hawking and Penrose were among the first to point out that given Hubble's observations of the universe expanding, and given various astronomical observations, it appeared as though if time were run backwards, the entire universe would merge into a single point. Astronomical observations can help us up to a point, because the farther away something is in space, the farther away it also is in time (space-time, get it?).


True nature of imaging sdrawkcab, up side down Hmmmmm have to give that some thought.


Thanks Hyperion some most excellent points as usual.


I am running out of time before I will be late for work. Gotta go.

I remember reading about the LHC.

This is the Collider that caused the black hole scare.

Yeah. It's highly unlikely that it would do such a thing. The key is energy density. The total energy output would be very small, especially compared to the sun or especially the high-energy cosmic rays seen in space. The energy density would be high, but even if a black hole were to be created, it would be of little or no consequence. In fact, it is likely that the Uncertainty Principle would demand that it be so...but since we don't have a working quantum theory of gravity, I suppose it's impossible to tell. Hawking Radiation, at least, would likely cause such a black hole, if formed, to dissipate so quickly that it may as well be nonexistent.

However, it is impossible to rule out the possibility of truly wierd things happening. After all, the goal of creating Higgs Bosons (theoretical particles which would carry the electro-weak unified force) would be wierd enough in and of itself...finding the coelocanth after it had been thought to be extinct for 65 million years was one thing, finding a Higgs Boson that hasn't existed in 13+ Billion years is orders of magnitude stranger. There's always a chance that the new unified forces could behave in ways that we do not currently comprehend. Black holes, superstable heavy matter, another big bang, violation of conservation of energy, wierd time effects, observations of more than the current 4 dimensions, who knows?

The thing is, it is extremely unlikely that it would cause anything catastrophic. It might give results that cause scientists to scratch their heads and go "hmmm, it's not supposed to behave like that," or it might cause us to trash or rewrite certain theories, but it's unlikely to blow up the universe or something. Unfortunately, because physicists are pedantic and consider the universe to be entirely probabilistic, they just had to state that there was a nonzero possibility of a black hole forming, and that they couldn't completely rule it out. This was misinterpreted to mean that such a thing might actually happen.

Chemistry (first hydrogen atoms) didn't appear until 300,000 years post Big-Bang.

The transition of physics ->- chemistry is an emergent event - here - best illustrated by the observation that it is difficult to envision a mechanism for somehow defining the chemical properties of an element (hydrogen, helium, lithium, Be, B, Carbon ...etc... given their subatomic {e-, p+ and neutron counts} composition (only)).

The forces mentioned above by H {I'd wager} are remnants from earlier 'less evolved' states of energy {making that transition from E over to m in E=mc''} ... either that - or some kind of resonance energy in the pattern :-) - {1,3,4,13} - energies related to resonance in the forms - and superstructures formed using the basic structures defined by the 1,3,4 and 13 forms ...{I know} - convenient isn't it ... 4 forces! ... and yes! ... there should be a hierarchy of weak ->- strong {in this scheme}.

I'd reckon that 13'd be the Superhero of the four - and it wouldn't surprise me if the spiral were to feature heavily in the long list of superstructures made up from the shape defined by 13 (dimensions) ->- think spiral galaxy - and if you understand what the heck I'm weebling on about - then you're where I'll be one day ... :-) ...

SB.

There's always a chance that the new unified forces could behave in ways that we do not currently comprehend. Black holes, superstable heavy matter, another big bang, violation of conservation of energy, wierd time effects, observations of more than the current 4 dimensions, who knows?

Okay before I read this I was worried about catastrophic explosions, and warping things that shouldn’t be; now the is more to worry about . . .black holes forming under the earth??? Good thing I have ADHD and will only worry about it until the next thread!




The thing is, it is extremely unlikely that it would cause anything catastrophic. It might give results that cause scientists to scratch their heads and go "hmmm, it's not supposed to behave like that,"


The major problem being scientist are always scratching their heads wondering how the heck did that happen and things often occur that are not expected. . . . .I have been preevie to the inside scoop so to speak. The fact the world hasn’t been blown up is amazing. Blowing things up that shouldn’t have blown up are one of the ways scientist learn things. Cerious Grown ups and a big fancy underground laboratory is kind of like turning children loose with a chemistry set, scientist just know more fancy words!!!

All people are the so-called products of evolution if you think about it...

Maybe we are just another way for the universe to look at itself (?)

The bang is still banging. The banging never quit. A no true beginnings, never ending wierdness. I sincerely wonder what those phyicists trying to get at

"Time doesn't exist"
If there was a bang it was happening in the present, which is still right now. Einstein's relativity thing. You know time is relative don't you? To an extent it does, there is fast and slow according to the observer, err the perspective/state of the person.

What we call time is actually the interval between action and inaction. High/crest and low/trough (in waves).

The bang is still banging. The banging never quit.
Yup. Anyone who doesn't believe me should turn their TV to an unused antenna channel...a (small) part of that static that you see is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, or CMB. It is the remnant of, well, not the Big Bang, but of the first "light" of the universe, the first free photons, roughly 700,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had finally cooled enough after inflation and the density was low enough that photons could finally move freely instead of immediately striking nuclei and electrons and being absorbed.

A no true beginnings, never ending wierdness. I sincerely wonder what those phyicists trying to get at
Well, don't think of it as a time thing. Think of it as recreating a similar entropic state. Clearly the energy densities of the earlier universe imply a very low entropy. Clearly we observe a universe of much higher entropy than would have existed then. By pumping this much energy through protons via superconducting electromagnets, scientists can recreate such a state of entropy.

What we call time is actually the interval between action and inaction. High/crest and low/trough (in waves).
Yup, defined by the speed of light via E=mc^2. The minimum difference between action and effect is a function of the distance between the two, divided by the speed of light. This is often referred to as a light-cone. TIme is a function of distance, distance can be defined by the time it takes for light to traverse the gap (ie, light-year)...thus space-time.

The one interesting thing is the seemingly unidirectional motion of time. All objects travelling whose speed is below that of light (which is everything that has so far been observed) move in one direction through the time direction...or perhaps a better way to put it is that the universe, spacetime itself, is expanding. what we perceive as time is a function of this expansion, it takes longer for light to travel between two objects, thus time has increased.

General Relativity tells us that gravity, or mass/energy density, will slow time. This makes sense, as it acts to slow the expansion through spacetime. If I shine a beam of light up at the space station at a 1 second interval, gravity acts upon the light beam to slow it. However, both I and the astronauts in the space shuttle would measure the light as having the same speed. So what would happen is that the astronauts would measure the light pulses as being 1.000000000(I don't know how many zeroes)0001 seconds apart. To them, it would appear as if I were sending the light out more slowly. Their clock is essentially ticking faster than mine, and this has been confirmed many times in actual experiments with actual atomic clocks.

Particle physics, in which matter and energy obey quantum laws collectively referred to as the Standard Model and which cannot be reconciled with GR, tells us that at higher energy densities, matter and energy take on different forms not usually seen in our current universe. Higher energy densities have been shown to result in quarks that are similar yet fundamentally different from our "normal" ones...in fact, there are three "generatons" of quarks, each with associated companion particles, of which our up and down quarks and electrons are the lightest and most stable (the "heavier" electron-like particles are called muons and taus).

At extremely high densities such as those planned for the LHC, the bosons (force-carrying "energy" particles) that carry the electromagnetic (photons) and weak nuclear (W+, W-. Z0) forces will combine, and the unified electroweak force would be carried by the so-called Higgs boson. The spacetime of the universe at that point is referred to as a Higgs field, in which only Higgs bosons have mass, all other particles are massless. It is thought that the event that "broke" the Higgs boson open, at something like a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, was responsible for giving all particles except the photon mass.

Thus the two most important factors in defining time as a dimension, light and mass, would not have existed, or would exist in very different form in the Higgs field.

This is why the recreation of the Higgs field and the behavior of the Higgs boson will be a groundbreaking moment in physics. It is expected to occur sometime in the spring of 2008.

Link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/hawking_prog_summary.shtml)

So Erm, if Hawking is proven wrong would this mean that potentially a small black hole created by the LHC could in fact grow infinitely in size?

Or is hawking radiation observed and taken as fact?

I know there debating whether or not information is in fact lost in a black hole, but this does revolve around Hawking Radiation emitting from a black hole does it not?

Same Link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/hawking_prog_summary.shtml)

Perspective through scale ... :-) ...
{326 apologies}

[sources under properties]

~black hole~
http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:z7CVHCokKWxa5M:http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/m81do.jpg
~structure~
http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:37BDru0m0X2jRM:http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/embed.jpg
~inverse
http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:JwX4Yu6TqVqbrM:http://www.duke.edu/%7Ejma24/SPS/Black%2520Hole%2520Edit.jpg

[indirectsource (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=330170&postcount=582)] for the following two images ... {the K+ channel} ...

~something quite different {and yet - just the same}~
http://pc8952.uni-regensburg.de/Wolfbeis/tw/vali-front.gif
~viewed from another perspective {and still - just the same}~

http://pc8952.uni-regensburg.de/Wolfbeis/tw/vali-side.gif

sb.

The holy grail ... holey grail ... a repeating pattern associated with emergent evolutionary structures ->- omg! ... we've gone and found the holy grail!

... hecky thump ... whatever next ...?...

http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:37BDru0m0X2jRM:http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/embed.jpg

... Howzabout the location of my brain?

... I know I left it here ...?...somewhere...?...

~ADD~

SB.

info upload powers the black hole.

info == energy

sb.

So Erm, if Hawking is proven wrong would this mean that potentially a small black hole created by the LHC could in fact grow infinitely in size?.. ....

Wel, if you're defining gravity as information, then I suppose...but the thing is, while the three quantum forces of the standard model can be considered "informational" in the sense that they are almost entirely mathematical, there is so far no such equivalent for gravity.

A better description of gravity might be as a force that acts upon information...that is, it can bend light and alter spacetime itself.

Hmmm, given that gravity appears only to act upon quantum forces at >planck distances...maybe a better description of gravity might be as a residual effect of uncertainty...that uncertainty at larger levels acts as gravity, the eventual random interactions cancelling out and the eventual remaining function is motion towards one direction or another.

Of course, that's fairly far-out. A far more likely and more obvious quantum picture of gravity would be as an exceptionally residual effect of the strong force, as this force appears to be responsible for the vast majority of the mass of an atom. Of course, the weak force is the main method by which mass is transferred from one particle to another, and the bosons that transmit the weak force are more massive than any other fundamental particle except the top quark (but the top quark is the only one which does not interact via the strong force, but appears to be inherently linked to the mysterious Higgs boson). Ughhh, massive bosons in general give me the creeps...I can't imagine what is essentially heavy light.

Who knows, maybe the observation of the Higgs boson will cause particle physics to slap their heads and go "oh, of course, that's how quantum gravity would work!"

Hyperion, i was just recently reading about quark jets...

This stuff is crazy...

Also, I am very confused about this and i'm hoping you can clear it up.

Splitting the Electron Bubble

When an electron becomes exited, it's wave function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function) becomes "dumb-bell" shaped and therefore so too does it's electron bubble. British physicist Humphrey Maris had the idea "if the dumb-bell could be stretched and pinched, might it simply divide?"

Maris calculted that light with a wavelength of around 10 micrometres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometres) would exite the electron into its "dumb-bell" shaped bubble which, under great pressure, would split at it's thinnest point giving two "half bubbles" with half an electron in each.

However, in modern quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) there is no such thing as a "half-electron," leading to much scepticism from experts in quantum theory although none of them have been able to disprove Maris's theory. It seems either Maris or quantum theory must be wrong as the theories are mutually incompatible."


- Wikipedia


What are your thoughts on 'splitting an electron'... is it possible?

[sources] under Image properties

Just a quick aside ...

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/2-5/bh-DiMario/swirl.jpg

and ...



[i]I see ...

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:-jdTCsVvoi_NfM:http://home.case.edu/%7Esjr16/media/stars_blackhole_anatomy.jpg<==> <==> <==>http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:bg6R1iZOBcnfXM:http://pub.cozmixng.org/%7Egallery/pstickne/eye.jpg
->-biggerAndbigger (http://filer.case.edu/%7Esjr16/media/stars_blackhole_anatomy.jpg)

... grrr ... correct thread ... :-) ...

sb.

I have just barely skimmed the posts. I would assume that's allowed here. Actually, I would assume that the merits of skimming are appreciated here.
Anyhoo.
If ADHD is the result of natural selection, then there must have been times when ADHD traits were valued.

Spirals spirals everywhere ... and each as lovely as the next.

... Funny that ... ... ...

... and by the way ...
[source = Wikipedia ->- Logarithmic Spiral]
->-
'A logarithmic spiral, equiangular spiral or growth spiral is a special kind of spiral curve which often appears in nature. The logarithmic spiral was first described by Descartes'

... egvroolwutthi_on the Internet ...

Descartes loved the spiral - and he had good reason to.

'René dearest'
... 'I think' ...

... ... ... 'you'd look good in pink' ... :-) ... 'a *nice* lurid paisley pink' ...

... imagine if the structure of an emergent structure resonated in a particular manner with the individual observing that structure ->- I imagine that resonation'd feel good - ho yeah! yay! ho ho ho {...Is it Christmas yet?...} ... :-) ... no - surely not ... not beauty cracking under the Universal pattern of evolution ...

~way~

1 -<- the fundamental doughnut ->- this chappy is gonna' give us Graham Gravity.
Give it up for Graham Gravity - not to be confused with Larry Levity - who in sharp and marked contrast - *never* ever brings you down.

3
4
13 (1')

sb.

Aye Aye Captain!

http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/guides/mtr/hurr/gifs/def1.gif

Here Here, Sir!

http://www.kameraarkasi.org/ses/terminoloji/kulak/cochlea_04.jpg

Well ... the wrong eye (doublily so, sir!) and the wrong ear -

and yet ... and yet ... :-) ...

... and yet ... ... ... (if you close your eyes and ears ... ... ...

->- ->- ->-

{hello! ... :-) ...}

-<- -<- -<-

sb.

... and yet ... ... ... (if you close your eyes and ears ... ... ... {you'd never know :-)}

I have just barely skimmed the posts. I would assume that's allowed here. Actually, I would assume that the merits of skimming are appreciated here…
De merits ‘r us; that is, if everybody ran over a cliff, wouldn’t you?

I don’t think it’s possible to stop, but lemming think about it…


Anyhoo…
Yup, well said. (grins…)


If ADHD is the result of natural selection, then there must have been times when ADHD traits were valued.
Also yup, and no time like the present, as they say. (They say it, but I never see them carrying any presents.)

[/grins:]

The thing is, it’s selecting now. The trick is seeing what and why.

AD/HD isn’t some ancient adaptation pushing its way into our faces at an inopportune time; selection doesn‘t work that way, anyway. What we’re seeing is happening in real time, and it’s propelling us. From the evidence, it seems about ready to pop.

We can explain all of it by noting a mysterious change in how we think, caused by the adoption of a previously underappreciated property of logic. The existence of two subtly different ways of using logic when arranging neurons is trivially easy to demonstrate, so much so that most random notices of this phenomenon are overlooked.

The differences seem obvious, usually the reason we’re looking at something in the first place, and they’re assumed to be an obvious property of whatever’s being studied. It’s sort of like observing that all cars must have tires, ‘cause they need ‘em to get down the road, and then missing their role in accidents when they’re under inflated.

(We actually do that, y’know, and there’s a law about to take effect mandating real time remote tire pressure monitors in all cars sold Real Soon Now.)

Looking back with the knowledge such logical differences in our thinking exist, it’s abundantly clear that the original H. sapiens didn’t have to deal with it too much. The first appearance in the historical record was five or ten thousand years ago, about the time of the invention of written language, or perhaps a little before.

There are lots of good reasons that this kind of thinking might not be easily accepted, at least for general use. In a way, there’s a kind of battle going on right in front of our noses, but the nature of the war is such that the battle was really over before it began.

The use of the different logical form was hidden for a long time, which allowed it to become entrenched to the extent that we couldn’t stop using it now if we tried. It’s so prevalent that the mechanisms that hid it are starting to break, and as they do, it’s emerging fully developed and ready to take on the old order.

We’re only innocent and passive bystanders; there probably isn’t much we could do about any of it, anyway. This is a classical emergent system, with all the bits and pieces we expect to see associated with a speciation event.

In many ways it mirrors the original event that gave rise to us. Guessing what’s going to pop out when the shouting’s all over isn’t all that easy, but we can try. And we have lots of clues to exploit in doing it.

[:grins]



Descartes loved the spiral - and he had good reason to…
Do you think he knew his reasoning was caught in a spiral when he tried to explain being? I’ve often wondered about that…

To short once again. Time is a result of moving photons. Photons move at the speed of light, so therefor have time is negligable for them, they are in essence, timeless. This is what I meant by time isn't real, not that it is not actual in existence, but that it is dependent on the matter that is moving.

All our conceptions of the universe and quantum theory are based on observations. But the very fact of observing particles of that size will effect the results observed.

The uncertainty principle really is a work. It shows not that something comes from nothing, but that there is no such thing as nothing. Since electrons are massless, according to the uncertainty principle and E=MC^2, they would then have an infitinite amount of energy. So when they are jumping states, they are using some of there infinite energy to make the step. Once you throw in the positrons and gamma radiation you see a picture of electrons "disappearing" and "reappearing" in different positions, and the light spectra that is emitted comes from the positron. What has been proposed is that they are not disappearing and reappearing or even that they are moved, but that they are two seperate particles, one going into a different "world" (alternate universe in a sense) and the second one born from the infinite energy of the previous electron.

Out of the particulate world and into the relative world. The universe has been proven to be expanding at some points, faster than the speed of light (from the hubble equations). According to general relativity this is impossible at first glance, but GR represents space-time. What the big bang is actually doing is pushing outward like a baloon, pushing space into nothing. Like the pictures form sbuk (not the spiral ones), you can see the universe is somewhat like a balloon in the sense that it is enclosed (in space).

Gravity is irrelevant until we have proven it. Its hypostulated effects are concurrent with quantum theory, and it is under my impression for the most part that quantum theory is correct. My proof is that the equations work, the models (aside from gravity) work, have been proven to be correct, and until an alternative has been proposed and negates (or coexists in a duality haha) the theory i see it to be true.

Putting philosophy and quantum physics together is scary. I could go on with that but its too complex, too complex...for me to type, you to understand(unless you already do), and too time constraining and exciting.

ps. i doubt gravity is a residual effect of the strong force. residual effects dont seem to go well with QT. if gravity isnt its own particle i cant see it being anything at all. Another alternative is that it is an anti-particle.

the inflationary theory, represents what you mean by the univere getting bigger like a balloon. Ha, like a balloon in-flates.

Try to explain in simple terms.

Wasn't it all simple when it began?

Basically, pure Yin (responding energy) and pure Yang (initiating energy) began to mess around. The game has spread over time, where it goes, i dunno.

Our universe is probably an effect of immature-adolescent, other universes. This biological universe probably came about in a biological manner.

OR

galaxies within galaxies, within more galaxies (possibly in an alien's marble sack)

HEY I think I saw that in Men in Black!!

We will never truely understand the universe, perhaps the universe is to complicated for our brain to understand:( . Could the universe just be an illusion. Perhaps the universe is not what it seems to be to the naked eye, but an illusion created by a higher being.

I watched a really interesting, tv program, last night, which was part of the 'Naked Science' series on the National Geographic cable channel.

The program was titled " Birth of the Universe" (2006).

One really interesting 'note', was how the program offered one theory, that equates 'frequency' with subatomic particles, created by explosions of the initial supernovas.

The theory stated that 'frequency' (the best analogy would be the 'sound' one hears, on the 'radio', inbetween 'stations'- or the 'static', some of us older generations remember 'seeing' on the tv, when all tv programs, ceased to 'air'), is residual subatomic particles or *stardust*, from the 'big bang'.

I seen that too. I didn't catch all the concepts, but was very interesting. It's funny, I think my girlfriend thinks all these shows are boring. I love Astronomy and Physics.

... scratch the surface of ADD and one exposes the head of the spirit of academia - gasping - desperate for air.

Once freed - he cannot be denied.

:-)

... physics and psychology ~or better~ the study of ~subatomic structure and mental structures~ attracts the ADDer - *~particularly so~*.

The reason
->- as substrates for thought.

Other academic fields can surrogate - though ultimtely - we most often end up on these two guys - ultimately - moreover - on the shared root of
->->->-
{{{the fundamental unit of the ppphysical world ...
&
the ooorgan through which our illusion of rrreality is delivered}}}.

That program was kick a**, actually !
Glad you *watched* it also, NZ !

It was awesome, what makes it great is the computer graphics that helps illustrate their theories. Imagine a t.v show 40 years ago trying to expain the universe, pictures, no graphics. The concepts(theories) behind the birth of the universe is mind boggling.:)

I know this is an old thread, but I've just seen it and I HAVE to make a few comments.

There is much too much misinformation for me to want to actualy go into all of it, but these are two things that really get my goat so to speak. ( For whatever reason...)

First off, despite what educated idiot that sited this or what tv show, background radiation does NOT have any impact on the static you are hearing in your radio. People have tried to sort it out with SIS's (superconductor insulator superconductors) and things like bolometers, but detecting a 2.7 K signal is pretty tough work and usually turns out to be overactive explanations.

Second, this may help some peoples thoughts of gravity. Remember that there is NO such thing as gravity. Gravity is a nice name we give a common effect. There is only warping of space time.

Gravity is irrelevant until we have proven it. Its hypostulated effects are concurrent with quantum theory, and it is under my impression for the most part that quantum theory is correct.

Actualy both are.

In our current state of understanding, both are needed to explain the universe at large.

Relativity deals with more grand movments (such as the universe at large) and quantum theory deals with things on a MUCH MUCH smaller scale. Relativity coudn't deal with the things quantum mechanics does, and visa versa. There is a tiny chance any current theory is actualy correct, as both work within there prescribed systems, but not with one another. Some new models have been put up, (such as string theory) that attempt to unify these two, but only time and the collaboration of minds will tell.

ps. i doubt gravity is a residual effect of the strong force. residual effects dont seem to go well with QT. if gravity isnt its own particle i cant see it being anything at all. Another alternative is that it is an anti-particle.Gravity is nothing itself!

Gravity, is the result of mass (or energy, same thing) warping the space time around itself. Think a coin in the middle of a upheald sheet of paper.




The theory stated that 'frequency' (the best analogy would be the 'sound' one hears, on the 'radio', inbetween 'stations'- or the 'static', some of us older generations remember 'seeing' on the tv, when all tv programs, ceased to 'air'), is residual subatomic particles or *stardust*, from the 'big bang'.Well yes of course. This is a good place for the "God" clause. The first supernova gave rise to everything in existence. Microwaves come from pretty much every hot source you can think of, the most obvious, is our sun. But we are plumeted with microwaves from pretty much everything you can think of.


This is off any current point, but oh well.


What the big bang is actually doing is pushing outward like a baloon, pushing space into nothing.Now sit back and think about that post for a second. You are describing space as somthing. It has a physical representation. A form. Yet there is also nothingness along with it?

The biggest truth, is nothingness itself is what composes most of space, and it is where the true breakthroughs need to come from. But thats pretty tricky. As the case here. How can empty space (nothingness) expand into nothingness itself. Past that , how can nothingness expand itself if it has no physical representation? Above all that, how can you explain nothingness without ascribing it a description, thus making it somthing?

The major problem being scientist are always scratching their heads wondering how the heck did that happen and things often occur that are not expected. . . . .I have been preevie to the inside scoop so to speak. The fact the world hasn’t been blown up is amazing. Blowing things up that shouldn’t have blown up are one of the ways scientist learn things. Cerious Grown ups and a big fancy underground laboratory is kind of like turning children loose with a chemistry set, scientist just know more fancy words!!!So, the "scientist" are alwase scratching their heads wondering how somthing came about. Sounds like they are doing their job to me! I was under the assumption that the whole point of this particular field of science was to attempt to grasp at least some idea of why things are the way they are. We will never have a perfect grasp on anything in the universe at large, but thats not the point. The attempt is the point.


Gravity is irrelevant until we have proven it.Oh, missed this one. Yes it has. Multiple times. The more famous being the atomic clock experiments.

You're totally entitled to your opinion.

As is everyone else.

You're totally entitled to your opinion.

As is everyone else.Great observation, but I don't see why you felt the need to bring that up. In reality, almost everything can be considered an opinion in one way or another. But some are a bit more realistic and probable than others. ;) But in our current state of knowledge, things like gravity, with its mastodonic amount of observable and usefull data, are pretty safe to be taken as truth. I don't see how that was even called into question.

The use of any theory is to be able to understand and predict its effects. Take it from someone who has had a few too many nights at the cc lab, quantum mechanics, in its usefull life, will never be able to predict large systems. While beautiful in itself, its inherent unpredictability makes it useless in systems.

Theres a reason the two systems, that are mutually exclusive, are both still used.

You're absolutely correct.
Every 'word/thought' is based on an individual's opinion.

And what constitutes 'truth', is also a matter of opinion..;)


But for what it's 'worth'..
'Opinions' are known to *change*.;)


I'm not saying this, to induce an argument, since I'm also passionate about all 'interrelated fields', which fall under the big 'umbrella' of Physics.

I've personally learned, though, that it's not wise, to assume 'safety', in declaring 'anything', as being 'truth' personified.;)

In my opinion.:D


Have a rootin' tootin' day, and keep on smilin'.:)


Great observation, but I don't see why you felt the need to bring that up. In reality, almost everything can be considered an opinion in one way or another. But some are a bit more realistic and probable than others. ;) But in our current state of knowledge, things like gravity, with its mastodonic amount of observable and usefull data, are pretty safe to be taken as truth.

Now sit back and think about that post for a second. You are describing space as somthing. It has a physical representation. A form. Yet there is also nothingness along with it?
Well, the words drag along an incorrect context, but yeah, that is about right.

Think for a bit about what ‘finite yet unbounded’ means. For convenience, we differentiate between reality (the internal model in which we experience being) and RRReality (whatever’s outside; presumably actual physical reality, if such a thing exists).

In that sense we can talk meaningfully about RRReality’s ‘edge’, and it seems to be advancing at a pretty good clip into that nothing.

A different way of stating it is that RRReality is being created at the edge of the expanding Universe; you could theoretically put something in a place that didn’t exist a moment before. But that’s projection, really; it’s just as useful to think in terms of RRReality expanding to contain the finite, expanding Universe.

Either way, there’s always more something where nothing was the moment before. It’s a bit counterintuitive, a class of nothing that by definition can’t be defined. We probably shouldn’t try to give it a name, eh? That might help avoid silly misunderstandings, but we wouldn’t get to talk about it.

Incidentally, just because that superclass of nothing is by definition undefined doesn’t mean we can’t know something about the (super)RRRRRReality it inhabits.

We can construct, for example, a type of logical structure that includes at least one member that lies outside the extent of our RRReality, regardless of how fast its expanding, or even if more really is being created at precisely the same pace the cosmic background radiation is ‘running away’.

The implication is that logic itself must be considered part of the fundamental nature of Nature. Future hard physics theories are likely to include that idea; we believe it’s going to be the key to finally joining deep mathematical theory and physics into one (dare we say?) unified structure. (grins…)

Well, the words drag along an incorrect context, but yeah, that is about right.

Think for a bit about what ‘finite yet unbounded’ means. For convenience, we differentiate between reality (the internal model in which we experience being) and RRReality (whatever’s outside; presumably actual physical reality, if such a thing exists).

In that sense we can talk meaningfully about RRReality’s ‘edge’, and it seems to be advancing at a pretty good clip into that nothing.

A different way of stating it is that RRReality is being created at the edge of the expanding Universe; you could theoretically put something in a place that didn’t exist a moment before. But that’s projection, really; it’s just as useful to think in terms of RRReality expanding to contain the finite, expanding Universe.

Either way, there’s always more something where nothing was the moment before. It’s a bit counterintuitive, a class of nothing that by definition can’t be defined. We probably shouldn’t try to give it a name, eh? That might help avoid silly misunderstandings, but we wouldn’t get to talk about it.

Incidentally, just because that superclass of nothing is by definition undefined doesn’t mean we can’t know something about the (super)RRRRRReality it inhabits.

We can construct, for example, a type of logical structure that includes at least one member that lies outside the extent of our RRReality, regardless of how fast its expanding, or even if more really is being created at precisely the same pace the cosmic background radiation is ‘running away’.

The implication is that logic itself must be considered part of the fundamental nature of Nature. Future hard physics theories are likely to include that idea; we believe it’s going to be the key to finally joining deep mathematical theory and physics into one (dare we say?) unified structure. (grins…) Maybe I should state what I meant in a clear way.

The only reason we currently understand the universe to be in an inflation state, is by the observed red shift. (Note that this does not mean the universe is infinite and ever expanding. It could just as well reverse itself given the time and adjustment of state.) There is no edge of the universe so-to-speak, because of the warping of space time. In a very basic form, it would seem just like the earth. Keep walking long enough, and you will be right where you started.

The mind abhors a vacuum; its very nature makes it beyond perception. How can one describe nothing, when there is, literally, nothing to describe? Nothing has no edges, and that’s ultimately what makes the void so hard to grasp.

To give this a more meaningful interpretation, let’s take it like this. Consider, as it once was thought, that space is ether, some mixture or substance that makes empty space, an actual physical manifestation. Now the universe is inflating, but what into?

The point of this is that we have no ability, with current systems, to grasp nothingness. It has been pondered by far greater minds than any of us. We are just grasping at information, arguing, and formulating until one day, hopefully some system will come around to let us grasp the true nature of a void.

We were talking about the standard twentieth-century physics concept ‘finite yet unbounded’, which does provide a meaningful sense that the Universe is expanding ‘into’ nothing.


The mind abhors a vacuum;
OK, sort of. Neural structures model something by definition, and will find patterns in noise if nothing more meaningful is presented. But note that the casual use of ‘meaning’ here hides a nasty little trap.


…its very nature makes it beyond perception…
Again, that depends on what you mean by ‘perception’. There’s a good argument that the species is currently gaining the capability to perceive events that aren’t directly accessible to any normal sense: sight, hearing, touch, etc.

Traditional neural structures have some problems, including ambiguous representation of some types of perfectly good data systems, a logical flaw known as the ‘ratchet effect’, and an intrinsic bias for associative relationships, among others.

Nature long ago figured out how to ‘trick’ the associative nature of neural structures into mimicking dissociation, although few of us are aware of that trick in a conscious context. But the same general form of trick has become a routine tool, in the form of logical metastructures built on top of normal neural forms.

The ratchet effect is caused by the apparent nature of Nature, in that it seems impossible to perceive something that presents no sensory input; your analysis is essentially one obvious limiting case. (This is, for example, the root cause of the persistent impression that residents of nursing facilities are more restless during a full moon; I’m sure there’s no need to go into details.)

The truth is that no stats uphold that impression, of course, but what makes us want to look at them? The ordinary reason is that the dataset violates basic rules in a way that is obvious to anyone trained to look at numbers: there aren’t any entries in the ‘new moon’ column.

That metaproperty of the gestalt sensory information that gives rise to the incorrect impression allows anyone who has learned the proper model to ‘perceive’ the missing data, and spot the error as easily as if it were physically realized, like a rock or perhaps a hole in the road…


How can one describe nothing, when there is, literally, nothing to describe? Nothing has no edges, and that’s ultimately what makes the void so hard to grasp…
Good question. The answer is you use a metamodel web to represent your internal reality model.


To give this a more meaningful interpretation, let’s take it like this. Consider, as it once was thought, that space is ether, some mixture or substance that makes empty space, an actual physical manifestation. Now the universe is inflating, but what into?
…expanding, rather than inflating, but that doesn’t affect your argument…


The point of this is that we have no ability, with current systems, to grasp nothingness. It has been pondered by far greater minds than any of us. We are just grasping at information, arguing, and formulating until one day, hopefully some system will come around to let us grasp the true nature of a void…
OK, now there’s where we part company. The species has a fairly long history of the exact equivalent to the mental task you’re assuming to be impossible, including the mathematical ‘mind games’ that were applied near the beginning of the last century to develop the deeply counterintuitive principles of quantum mechanics.

As a species, we do this pretty good using only the logical property relative metalevel, and never developing the full-fledged meta-logical structures that we ADDers are capable of. If quantum mechanics doesn’t seem so counterintuitive to you, then maybe you already use the web-like structures without realizing it.

That happens a lot; we don’t know what the stats are, but there is a clear binary distribution right here in the forums, one lobe full-on metalogical in a conscious way, the other lobe comprising a population for whom metarelationships are just another element of the logic that underlies their neural models, not remarkable in a conscious way.

There are drawbacks to both approaches, but we suspect the full-on conscious version is the emergent choice. Most of the drawbacks should disappear as it takes hold as the dominant form.

And think of what you could do with it; imagining nothing is the least of the possibilities, in a very real sense… (grins)

Again, that depends on what you mean by ‘perception’. There’s a good argument that the species is currently gaining the capability to perceive events that aren’t directly accessible to any normal sense: sight, hearing, touch, etc.


As a species, we do this pretty good using only the logical property relative metalevel, and never developing the full-fledged meta-logical structures that we ADDers are capable of. If quantum mechanics doesn’t seem so counterintuitive to you, then maybe you already use the web-like structures without realizing it.

I think I'm done with this thread, and I'm pretty sure (Or perhaps, hope to God.) that anyone who read that last post understands the reason. It's almost comical that this is passed off on a "quasi" scientific talk. But then again, I guess "all" things can be an opinion on some level.

Funny...

What you're saying, sounds similar to what Einstein *said*, because he couldn't 'grasp/comprehend' Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principal, at the time. :)



I think I'm done with this thread, and I'm pretty sure (Or perhaps, hope to God.) that anyone who read that last post understands the reason. It's almost comical that this is passed off on a "quasi" scientific talk. But then again, I guess "all" things can be an opinion on some level.

(grins) Denial usually doesn’t accomplish much, but it does serve to quench the fire.

The depth and instantaneous nature of that response sure makes the point: some basic social mechanism is at work here, overriding the normal intellectual mechanisms. We’re sure Daven means no ill-will, to us or any other forum member.

There’s nothing unscientific or much out of the mainstream in the last few posts, and other than our mention of the logical property metalevel, nothing that can’t be Googled for more background information.

Chris recently discovered that much of the basis of what we call a ‘metamodel web’ is formalized in category theory, which can also be Googled. He’s considering doctoral work in that exact subject, studying some of its differential geometry aspects.

That social mechanism is the basis of the binary distribution of forum members we mentioned. If it’s that clearly delineated here, how could anyone doubt its effect out in the ‘real’ world, eh?

The point of this is that we have no ability, with current systems, to grasp nothingness. It has been pondered by far greater minds than any of us. We are just grasping at information, arguing, and formulating until one day, hopefully some system will come around to let us grasp the true nature of a void… OK, now there’s where we part company. The species has a fairly long history of the exact equivalent to the mental task you’re assuming to be impossible, including the mathematical ‘mind games’ that were applied near the beginning of the last century to develop the deeply counterintuitive principles of quantum mechanics. eh? well, we can "grasp nothingness". I do by saying nothingness is defined by somethingness; vice versa goes the same. It's simply the intervals in the rythm.

Our plane of existence may be expanding, but not every plane does, haha, that's nonsense. No reason. For things to expand, others must contract. haha. The same amount of stuff existed forever. The universe, right now is complicating itself. I'm not against thermodynamics. Someday, it'll just ("collapse" but I hate the word "collapse", simplify if you will, back to its origin. I don't agree it'll be the same as it ever was though, next time it happens.

Nature long ago figured out how to ‘trick’ the associative nature of neural structures into mimicking dissociation, although few of us are aware of that trick in a conscious context. But the same general form of trick has become a routine tool, in the form of logical metastructures built on top of normal neural forms.

The ratchet effect is caused by the apparent nature of Nature, in that it seems impossible to perceive something that presents no sensory input; your analysis is essentially one obvio... ore restless during a full moon; I’m sure there’s no need to go into details.)

The truth is that no stats uphold that impression, of course, but what makes us want to look at them? The ordinary reason is that th.... moon’ column.

That metaproperty of the gestalt sensory information that gives rise to the incorrect impression allows anyone who has learned the proper model to ‘perceive’ the missing data, and spot the err,,, ole in the road… i missed a lot of stuff. Existence to me, Daven, as well as Stabile, is close akin to "dancing." It's so prevelant, as "God's" children, homo sapiens' minds mirror reality better than most beings on Earth. Can't you concur that our nature is like the nature of the universe? What is one of the most fun things to do? People normally answer along the lines of playing/dancing.

Somehow, we mistake our logical tools, for our own nature. Logic is necessary, I agree, but uhh... we need it, but logic is defined by its own terms/system/rules. It is therefore isolated, to a certain degree, but i'm not trying to be negative. It's good, but clinging is very bad

"I think I'm done with this thread, and I'm pretty sure (Or perhaps, hope to God.) that anyone who read that last post understands the reason. It's almost comical that this is passed off as a "quasi" scientific talk. But then again, I guess "all" things can be an opinion on some level."




Holy elitism batman....

No need to be nice to your fellow human beings is there??

Funny considering your quote...

{{Moderation: content removed violates guidelines}}

~qk~

->- {....}

:-)

Somehow, we mistake our logical tools, for our own nature. Logic is necessary, I agree, but uhh... we need it, but logic is defined by its own terms/system/rules. It is therefore isolated, to a certain degree, but i'm not trying to be negative. It's good, but clinging is very bad…
(grins) I’ll repeat an earlier, more subtly expressed suggestion: think for a moment about the nature of logic, and the last time you remember picking some up for the weekend…

If you must think in terms of it being somehow separate from some particular aspect of your existence, it’s probably more appropriate to blame the clinging on it. And thank goodness for the effort, too.

Logic is as much a part of the nature of Nature itself as any other aspect we’ve been able to identify, as mysterious and intrinsic to our being as the fundamental forces of hard physics. Even when you can finally put your finger on some aspect of this stuff and say definitively, “There it is!”, you’re left with the meta-question: “Why?”

We personally prefer a more Eastern take on it all – if we reflect the face of God in some way, the light cast is logic. Note that’s not a recommendation, nor a statement of belief.

Nor an invitation to debate, either; there’s a section of the forums for quasi-religious discussion. What we can say with scientific certainty is that it’s possible to map the logical space which contains all knowledge of any kind, including that which can only be known to God, or the gods, or whatever structural entity that happens to float your boat.

Within that space we can delineate that which can be known but is not yet known, that which is possible to discover, and that which it is impossible to know under any circumstances. One of the undiscoverable bits is a complete system of transforms that would allow us to know precisely the location of every boundary.

If we could know exactly the bounds of what we can’t know, we would be able to define it in a way that violates the rules of the space in which the map is expressed. In other words, we would know something about what we can’t know that would be more than the definition can’t know allows.

That doesn’t mean we can’t know some details about the proscribed areas. But that knowledge is limited mainly to being certain they are there.

Lest you think we’re simply blowing off the spiritual references, we’re not. This stuff encompasses them; our chunk of it encompasses the entire context of the human experience of being, conscious and otherwise, and SB’s contributions have extended it nicely to include physical reality as well.

Last we checked, there isn’t much else to talk about…

to say the Way, it is not (bull snot) some can do very well to describe its nature, like i

logic like legos are bounded unless lego's are your trade/logic. superlogic, supernatural is not.

the Way is supernatural. the universe is Maya, omniscient in nature. described, mother flippa! (illusioin/magic. like magicians who are able to make elephants disappear in front of a huge audience. But more like the Harry Potter sense, is what I mean)

logic (what hasz it to do?). especially mathematical logic, fun for awhile, but will not exist/last 1 more Century in the same way.

Unbounded, the Way is, is Self, is Me. tool logic, square like blocks. block headed??????

no offense, just a point. anthropologist p.o.v emic etic, take 'dat sista's n' broda's!!


universe= unbounded as it is expanding @ C (on our plane)

I think that the *belief* that ALL 'scientists', are not harmoniously 'working with' Nature, is an assumption, IMO.

Not ALL scientists are automatically, the 'bad guys'.

No more than ALL 'Nature guys', are automatically the 'good guys'.


All of Nature (including the universe) does follow principles of logic.
Even chaos follows principles of logic.

If one does not 'agree' with this...perhaps it may be due, to how one defines 'logic'...


'Logic' is not only mathematical formulas, or analytical theories..
It also pertains to 'patterns'...
Patterns are found in All of Nature.


So...

What does any human 'proof/evidence'...in either 'way', bring to the 'table', ...when it comes to a discussion pertaining to the 'universe' ?

It brings all the 'possibilities'.

Like it has done, and will continue to.

I’ll repeat: logic is intrinsic to the nature of Nature. It’s not bounded in the sense sometimes implied. There is no ‘super-logic’ or ‘super-natural’ view, or form of reasoning, or experience, or higher spiritual plane that somehow transcends logic.

I should be clear that we’re not deifying logic, al a Spock or some recent hilarious South Park episodes. There is no argument or clash of views, no playing off beliefs against knowledge, or any of that.

We simply map the space in which all patterns exist, not restricted in any way (as, for example, only those related to reality; we don’t apply such limits). Such patterns form the basis of any knowledge, of any type, regardless of the details of how it relates to anything else.

We note what areas are intrinsically unknowable by definition. This is the realm of belief, in which belief is the only valid path to a logical construct, unsupported for the most part by any associated knowledge. A logical construct is required to address the content of any area of the map, regardless of whether we can ever have knowledge of it.

We note other areas that aren’t known but are theoretically knowable. These are accessible by a somewhat different form of belief, consisting of logical constructs that are strongly influenced by nearby (or similar) realms that are known, at least in part, or are themselves intrinsically discoverable.

The standard tool here is science; often, people confuse the application of the logical principles of the scientific method with logic itself. Applying this (or any) tool to the exclusion of others usually produces a warped view, and this is what is most often mistaken as representing a sort of secular, aspiritual take on our context.

Nova is correct; logic is much more fundamental, clearly the basis of any perception of pattern on any level. The idea of level doesn’t properly apply to logic, in the same way that it can’t be applied to natural phenomena like mass*. They are intrinsic, appearing integral to any level you wish to examine. Recently it’s become apparent that we can consider the existence of patterns in the general sense, intrinsically logical yet quasi-independent of any process of perception.

That includes any perception that seems to transcend the ordinary secular plane of existence. By definition no perception, indeed no experience of any kind, transcends logic; many of the currently hot questions, scientific and otherwise, reduce to one of examining how that definition arises.

All of it, regardless of how you classify it, is right there on our little map. And because we now know the patterns included aren’t limited by our perception, we can be sure that the map is complete. It doesn’t represent us, or any individual; it represents what created us, everything that is, can be and ever will be.

So. Whatever it is, for you or anybody else, for all time, it’s in there. We make no particular comment, no judgment, have no bias as to right or wrong or anything like that. It’s just there, and the significant feature is we can be certain it’s all of it.

* * * * *

*There is a chance that mass could someday be decomposed, in the sense that we might discover a principle that seems to explain how and why it seems to arise. If that turns out to be the case we’ll have to create a new class for mass and other, similar phenomena. Logic, however, will remain as it is, classless in the sense it’s intrinsic to class itself.

(Don’t get lost in class; it’s a sort conceptual place holder, an idea that represents a particular stage in our understanding of a more general pattern. The fact that logic is intrinsic to the concept class does not mean it’s subordinate to class. Logic transcends class, too, but for now, it’s convenient to think of class as also being fundamental. Class addresses patterns, particularly of relationship.)

Currently, mass and other similar natural phenomena belong to a quasi-class that has the single intrinsic property of arising in a context external to any possible extent of reality. This is the same context occupied by class and logic. Finding an explanation for mass would create an intermediate class, in a sense partly inhabiting both our reality and the context external to that.

A really good understanding might drag them back into our context completely, leaving a trail of related meta-classes all the way back to the original, external context.

For what should be obvious reasons, no such understanding could drag class or logic fully back into our context; they remain rooted in that external context, encompassing those places addressed by the deepest, most mysterious areas of spirituality.

possibility is always hindered by one type of logic. a logic is kin to one math formula such as E=mc2

over time, it loses it's significance over time, sometimes not.

my logic- super logic logic+1, +1 pretty simple


"When you reflect that it's the human mind that has invented space, time, and matter, picking them out of reality in a quite arbitrary fashion--can you attempt to explain a thing in terms of something it has invented itself?" obsessed with their own logic, yes, we are doomed. In my view, our nature is to transcend and fly. not stay rooted in the shrubbery sense of the word.

"Man does not see the real world. The real world is hidden from him by the wall of imagination" this is: "What is", not "what should be."

It is a corollary of Gödel's incompleteness theorem that there is no deductive system (that is, no notion of provability) for second-order formulas that simultaneously satisfies these three desired attributes soundness, completeness, effectiveness

one more, to prove you cannot be correct, Stabile. So, therfore, there is nothing to "get." akin to the non-grasping mind. nongrasping=boundless mind. no forming lines and boxing/packaging everything with spotlight conciousness(vs floodlight consciousness)

Whatever you think you are, that's not what you are" ADDers are built very well to thrive in technical aspects. Thouhg, that is not truly us. I love technical stuff, but can I survive by substuting menus for actual food? (cypher from the matrix, that message. the ignorant one, satisfied in enjoying being in the unreality of the matrix) my difference, is that I don't wish to be like that.

Also from matrix, the message, Cosality vs. Choice

are we just mechanisms of the universe, or are we all, the One? it was Neo's faith, not pure chance that made him the One.

...to prove you cannot...Aren't we just looking at a slightly better architecture of rrreality for RRReality - but nothing too absolute :-) ... because well - I guess I'm saying is that if we imagine (falsely by the film) that Cyphers old life and new life are

RRReal and false that

false ->- RRReal stages up.

ie ...
... start from dark Matrix (RRR ->- f noting that this is backwards)
~and move to~
1.Matrix without Agents
2.Then to Matrix with blue sky
3.Then to Matrix with green grass

-Ahhhh!
eventually we get to Valhalla - of course

n.typing on ADDF in 2007 on beautiful planet Earth -
- how long will it stay that way though?

running at 1. from (one thinks) n.
... wuld not satisfy.

Imagine running to 1. from n. thinking that 1. was going to be as much better than n. as n. turns to be better than 1.

... hmmm!!! ...

Take Home message

We intelligently follow our noses and rely on the knowledge that we're not divine.
Turns out that emergence as a phenomenon is too fast for us - too unpredictable - best we can do is try and stop the whole lot from crashing ...

... incidentally aren't there well known growth and crash curves relating to seemingly viral growth - outstripping the environment's capacity to support that rampant organism.

Hmmm... Matrix again.

Now if I remember correctly Agent Smith turns to Morpheus and says
'Morpheus'

.... 'you smell like a virus poo' ...

hmmm!!!!

dunno why?
just kinda' get the feeling that the actual emergence can go any which way
sorta' makes sense though
kinda' like man could speciate into more cerebral or more physically energy loaded - with the pattern defined by the first? - who kinda' pulls the rest along.
... like a really big bloke playing tug-o-war vs a buncha' fluffy 5 cm pretend cotton rats which have been fixed to the rope with tape.

:-)

possibility is always hindered by one type of logic. a logic is kin to one math formula such as E=mc2
I think you’re implying a logically defined system of rationality, i.e., a way of interpreting reality, whether mathematical, social, etc.

That’s not logic; it’s an application of logic…


over time, it loses it's significance over time, sometimes not.

my logic- super logic logic+1, +1 pretty simple
Relevance is probably a better term here; strictly speaking, significance remains exactly the same, uniquely associated with the original context. What changes is the context.

Except in certain very limited circumstances, it’s not meaningful to speak of ‘logic+1’. If, on the other hand, we assume we’re talking about a logically defined rational system (which can lose relevance), then all kinds of arithmetic metaphors apply.

Even when there’s a sense in which we can talk about ‘adding’ something to logic (in the only case we know, adding the use of the logical property relative metalevel), it’s a stretch to think that we actually added anything. Relative metalevel is just another fundamental logical property, like the operators ‘AND’, ‘OR’, and ‘NOT.

Again, what’s changed is the context. We’ve developed logical neural structures (our neural models) that utilize the logical property relative metalevel, and those models can be subtly different from models developed without the use of this fundamental logical property.

Models that don’t take advantage of relative metalevel are still meaningful and significant in their original context. But they’re rapidly losing relevance…


{{Moderation: references no longer existent material}} logic (what does Wiki say?) ambiguous i'm guessing
(grins)


{{Moderation: references no longer existent material}}... there's the control, not being controlled being controlled @ same time. 1+1
It’s not as simple as just equating logic with the use of a related Greek word, unfortunately. That context thing again, y’know?

But the reference is apt: the ‘world’ we inhabit, apparently as solid and real as one would expect of an actual physical reality, came into being simultaneously and in concert with the speciation event that gave us us. And it had everything to do with words, all of which (at the time) theoretically stemmed from that one Big Word.

Who or what was responsible and what the meaning or purpose was, if any, is subject to speculation. We have our ideas, pretty much the same as SB’s, I suspect, and similar in some details to many Eastern philosophical systems.

But by definition, some or all of it could be wrong. We know this: much more of it than people ordinarily suspect lies on this side of the line delineating that which can’t be known.

Which means we can know those bits, and speculation isn’t idle. It can be guided, but that requires models utilizing relative metalevel to construct web-like logical structures that achieve a form of ‘relative-absolute’ encoding of metalevels.

Logical structures lacking an absolute sense of metalevel will produce ambiguous results. So that much is right; the biggest drawback of the ‘flat’ logical structures we grew up with as a species is their inability to represent many models unambiguously.


{{Moderation: references no longer existent material}} more like, second order logic (closer to most ADDers are more akin to, than other types of logic)
Again, we’re talking about logical systems here rather than logic itself. In that sense, we can define three levels: the original flat systems, the systems that utilize an awareness of relative metalevel to resolve ambiguity in isolated areas, and the web-like quasi-absolute systems that can arise if these are applied as a general solution to the task of logical modeling.

They’re all built of the same ol’ logic, though. How they’re built is where the differences lie.


{{Moderation: references no longer existent material}} we are not so different (metalogic = superlogic (?))
(grins) See the description above.

It’s possible that [superlogic == metalogic], for a certain kind of definition. But metalogic is a term we only use in a very loose way, and can’t be considered rigorous. It means approximately the application of the logical property relative metalevel in one or more of several subtly different ways, all of which more or less transcend the original way that logical systems evolved.

Relative metalevel, metalevel, and metamodel web are precise terms, formally defined in a reasonably rigorous way. Those definitions are expected to evolve, of course, if for no other reason than the fact that language is expected to evolve.


obsessed with their own logic, yes, we are doomed. In my view, our nature is to transcend and fly. not stay rooted in the shrubbery sense of the word.
Yup, and when Kay and I were originally developing our understanding of how ‘metalogic’ works in an experiential sense, we used a metaphor involving mysterious ‘stakes’ that held one to the ground. Soaring is central to our characterization of the experiential aspect of the use of a metamodel web; see our sig, which is T + K, soaring…

Huxley was spot on in his observations regarding perception. They get a little wobbly in the extension to grander themes, though. It’s not really his fault; he really didn’t have any deep knowledge of the basis of perception, which would have kept him flying straight as an arrow to the center of the whole.


this is: "What is", not "what should be."
I don’t know the reference, but the author’s poetic expression has a dead-on scientific basis. Not sure what you mean by differentiating ‘what is’ from ‘what should be’, though.

To take the author literally (not too bad a first approximation), all we’ve got is ‘what should be’. The idea that we might escape from that apparent trap by transcending the mechanism of being is fatally flawed; by definition, it leaves being behind, not the desired result.

In the same way we have to drag our genetic heritage along with us, we must take our experience of being along on any meaningful journey. The infinite number of ways this is obviously true all fall under the ‘figuring out the mystery of life’ umbrella. Understanding ourselves in a greater context isn’t useful is we’re not there to enjoy it…


soundness, completeness, effectiveness
Those are fairly broad and general description of Gödel’s result, too imprecise to be useful, I’m afraid. You‘re correct in picking him out of the crowd, though, because his work holds significance to the present discussion, even after all this time.

We need to translate his result into more precise terms relevant to the current context first, and that’s not so hard: he showed that metalevels are a necessary feature of nature. That is, you can’t escape them.

Precisely put, he proved that there will always be some valid logical systems that require metalevels to be proven valid by certain very precise measures. Accordingly, there is no way to describe a general method of constructing a valid logical system without metalevels that is guaranteed to be provably valid.

As far as I know, he didn’t extend the general form to the question of whether it’s possible to algorithmically define valid logical systems including metalevels that are guaranteed to be provably valid by those precise measures. His primary aim was to get rid of metalevels, and he proved you can’t. But I’m no expert here; in fact, few are. If I’m right and you’ve the predilection, there’s an easy path to fame, or at least notoriety.

At the time Gödel did his work, the act of adding metalevels to a formal logical system created its own set of apparently intractable problems, so there wasn’t much joy in mathville when he finally published. Today, there are several promising approaches to the general problem of formally dealing with meta-systems, including the one we mentioned earlier, category theory.


one more, to prove you cannot be correct, Stabile. So, therfore, there is nothing to "get." akin to the non-grasping mind. nongrasping=boundless mind. no forming lines and boxing/packaging everything with spotlight conciousness(vs floodlight consciousness)
Don’t think there’s anything proven there, particularly (grins…), but the general description of the experience of conscious being in different circumstances is OK, as far as it goes.

“Whatever you think you are, that's not what you are" is a common form of koan, which accurately describes a normally ambiguous aspect of the way that neural structures generate our conscious experience of being (what you refer to as ‘spotlight consciousness’).

Resolving that ambiguity is the same task, regardless of how you chose to go about it. Most of the traditional ways are dripping with mystery and intentional contradiction, which makes sense: language lags behind the rest, lolling about on the ground with little need for stakes to keep it there.

But the meaning is anything but ambiguous when modeled in the tertiary structure we describe, a metamodel web. It’s just ordinary, and the intrinsic meaning of the statement is obvious on the face of it, to the extent it’s hard to generate any excitement about it.

Progress has got to be good for sumpthin’ doesn’t it? This is one place it works for us…


ADDers are built very well to thrive in technical aspects. Thouhg, that is not truly us. I love technical stuff, but can I survive by substuting menus for actual food? (cypher from the matrix, that message. the ignorant one, satisfied in enjoying being in the unreality of the matrix) my difference, is that I don't wish to be like that.
OK. (grins) There is no spoon is the line we usually trot out, but there’re a zillion of ‘em.

You have to remember that The Matrix was serious to the extent that it draws on the Wachowski brothers’ perception of the conceptual reality underlying the themes in the film. As such, they did a good job of fulfilling the fundamental purpose of art, i.e., extending the common model to address stuff they can see, but not speak to in a satisfying way.

But the implication is they didn’t know any more about their subject than anyone else, and perhaps a good bit less than some who might have devoted quite a few years to looking at the details rigorously. (grins, again…)

The Wachowski brothers got a lot of it wrong, like periodically inverting the sense of the relationship between rrreality and RRReality. So take it with an intelligent grain of salt; it’s not the Bible, or Koran, or other religious tome refined by centuries of fiddlin’.

Maybe if we peeked ahead a millennium or two, we would see it had mutated into a similarly refined resource. But it’s doubtful; everything we’re discussing would have to freeze in place, and nothing change between now and then. That’s the least likely outcome to expect; we’re riding the cusp of an emergent event, and change is about all we can be sure of…


Also from matrix, the message, Cosality vs. Choice

are we just mechanisms of the universe, or are we all, the One? it was Neo's faith, not pure chance that made him the One.
Right. There is no spoon… (grins) There’s lots of other current art out there that’s relevant in some details, too. Music in particular is a hotbed of futurism, in the mental sense.

I TAKE THE VIEW THAT OFVE NO LOGIC OR NO LOGIC

THERE MEANLESSS IN THE BIG BANG.....

TIME AN SPEACE MAY HAVE BEEN THERE BEFOR THE UNEVEICE CAME INTO BEING
AN REALTIY IS SUBJET THE THE PERSON WHO IS LOOKING THIS IMPISES THAT THE PERSON HAS GRWON ENOUGH AS A SPISCSE >HUMAN......<<<
WHO HAS POWER OFVE MIND WE CLEVER ENOUGH NOW TO LOOK BUT AT SAME TIME COMFIND BY US BEING HUMAN WITCH IN OUR PERENT STAE LIMITS US TO THE BIGER PICHTER THERE ARE OTHER HIGH BEING IAM SHORE IN THE USERVIE WHO ASK THE SAME THINGS RIGHT NOW AS WE ARE....

WITH SUERPER STRING THORY COULD ACCNT FOR THE BIG BANG

OR JUST RANDOM PORABLITYS THAT HAVE NO LOGIC TO THEM
THERE SO MUCH TO SEE EVEN IF WE COULD TRAVEL ONTO PAST I DUOT WE ASWER THIS BUT THEN AGAIN WHO KNOWS

INTRESTING THERDE

DORMY

dunno why?
just kinda' get the feeling that the actual emergence can go any which way
sorta' makes sense though
kinda' like man could speciate into more cerebral or more physically energy loaded - with the pattern defined by the first? - who kinda' pulls the rest along.
... like a really big bloke playing tug-o-war vs a buncha' fluffy 5 cm pretend cotton rats which have been fixed to the rope with tape.

:-)
I dunno ‘bout that; remember our contribution to Matrix-like catch-phrases: The Metamodel Web is sparse.

(dang it! That’s ‘ess pee ay ar ess eee’, sparse. It’s a mathematical term used primarily to describe a matrix…) (grins)

(Oh, wait; they fixed that Britishism bug. Sparse is sparse now, not sp****; we can stop with the laborious sarcasm. Things change just when you get a chance to use ‘em to make a wry point…)

In particular, the fact that webs seem to thrive only when there’s intimate convergence (0,1,2, right?) makes it seem unlikely they’re converging on an arbitrary form, whatever the first one happens to be.

That’s too much like the evo psych types’ peculiar paranoia. We’re going the only way there is, right to the heart of the next phase. It’s inevitable, even if we can‘t see the road from up here…

- that's funny -

... the idea of our Universe being a rather simple complex beaker of 'ever decreasing cicles' - and of our mind being the same - yields an interesting image of our Universe's ->-journey->- Home (to a pre- Big-Bang curled up in bed state) - as composed of multiple emergent events - each one adding on an extra internal circle into that real simple abstract pattern of concentric layers of abstraction.
And that the experiential perspective through the eyes of the individual adding in an extra layer into that gimungus bigger picture - being the experiential perspective of emergence

13'[1'] ->- 3'

True though that adding an extra 2 dimensions 1 -> 3 is going to be hard to conceptualize.

I mean it's like a state of way!!! more complexity than anything we've seen before - that is - precedent.

So --- {flash} - why have I just thought about Carla B.? ->-anyhow ->- one wonders whether a chappy with a 1' within an emergent paradigm of 3' ->- might actually be stuck in the ways of pre 1' rather than in a world of 3' ...

What am I saying?

That 3' is so much better than 1'
That all of us are 3' but we're stuck in the smelly precedent world which is my (former) world of scientific precedent (time for it to evolve also though) - that ALL of us have the capacity to be ADD.

That ADD is kinda' like the pattern which we've been going over and ovre and over ie
level n+1 on the Betty Boop structure ->- that energy input is the essential driver which gets us to n+1

And that the energy which gets us there is education -
... but not smelly education - more - the new education which I believe is called constructivism and which replaces didacticism --- if possible can we check RADD on that point - I believe RADD is ADDing her sizeable creative weight to teaching - to forward this approach.

Simply put though - it's a more self-directed framework.

One of the big points where 4-space falls is - but why? oh why? oh why?

We've just popped through a thread with CF and Foghat on Science - where we address 'free education' - the entire system falls unless we can define the point of education.

Of course - Stabile theory holds - we place education onto its correct footing.
Education ->- money is plain silly.

Rather than rehashing ->- it is thought for thoughts sake.

We invoke the energy argument - remembering that the stairway to heaven is a non-linear asymptotically energetically powered [low ->- high] conveyor belt which represents the Journey home.

OK - so to describe how far into my own head I am now - or up my own sparse - I think that this is the first post - which I have written - which places me in a place where I'm wondering where on Earth I am.
Usually - it's an entirely (ahem!!!) intentional foray into funny space [13space].

:D well hello darlin'
:p oh my (I'm blushing aren't I?)!
... aren't you a handsome green chap.
:D ... run away with me and we can make lots of little rainbow smilies together :-) :-) :-) :-)

~

... just a sec!

Is ADD the process of layer n ->-journey->- n+1
... the disorientation because of similar principles to like-poled magnets repelling - regardless of the strength of either eg N or S pole
ie N [REPEL] N
just like
N [REPEL] N

ahhh!!!

but instead of kinda' your weak repulsion of 4space - the repulsion or contextual disorder of adders in a nonadder world is big.

ie
[REPEL] > [REPEL]

hmmm...so why do we bother ->-

... because imagine that we're on a slope ->- gravity dictates that since F=ma heuristically that the increased mass of N will impose a relatively larger force upon NNNers (pronounced nanoes) than NNNers (pronounced (ba)nanas))

also - that similarly ... ... ...

ie
N [ATTRACTS] S
just like
N [ATTRACTS] S

BUT!!!
above N - intended as indicating NonADDer and ADDER(N)
Now we're adding in the idea of male female (actually opposites - genuine apologies if male-female offends any) ie attraction of N for S

Can you see (<- that's a note to self) how the ADD state will succeed in attracting an opposite nonADD mate in the absence of opposite ADD mates?
IE because:
[ATTRACTS] > [ATTRACTS]

However - will seek a complete opposite ADD mate - if they exist.

[ATTRACTS] > [ATTRACTS] > [ATTRACTS]

The term for this type of mating pattern within genetics is assortative mating.

Ahhh!!!
OK - so speciation generally is said to occur when the members of two species - cannot mate.
I mentioned once previously - does not wanting to mate also count?

OK ... so ...
magnetic attraction of
S -><- N is greater than S -><- N

It ensures speciation ->- since all members of the previous species will ->->->- simply... change.

This explains both mine and Tammy's frequent observations of the extremely opposite state of our partners.

Of course the symplectic pattern which we're emulating would predict just this form of association.

And that emergence is occurring between man and woman - independence retained ->- however together greater than the sum of the parts.

geeze! man!

I tell you.

Stabile Theory is totally neo-romantic.

Oh my!!!

... I swear - he's a cheeky monkey :-) ...
Kay - how do you cope?
:-)

... of course - this SpockKirk theory of ADDercommunication does extend into explaining why ...

N [REPEL] N
just like
N [REPEL] N

N [DOESN'T REPEL] N

Actually - they do - but N (N = ADDER) freaks can do the hokey kokey
switch.

Oi vey!!!

ie N can adopt S or the converse - dependent on context .


~

... ... ... you gotta' hand it to the number 3.

When Sesame Street ends with this show was sponsored by the numbers 13 and P - well

How about the story of man's flight into the future of {{{Homo neosapiens}}} was sponsored by the number 3.

Oi vey!!!

... couldn't make it up.

... not in a hillbillion years.

:-)

Gender differences in communication v. n

Incidentally :-) ... this time I believe ...

'my god - it's alive'

... but as ever - I know nothing, don't know anything, haven't a clue, don't even remember who I am, can't spell poop ..../.../.../...
{...}
...don't know the time of day, or the day of the week, or what a week is or what 1/0 is..../.../.../...
oh boy!
{...}
... how many zeroes there are in capsicum, where I can buy hurgleblats, why the plink of plonk isn't splink ..../.../.../...
oh boy!
n[ooooooooo][ooo][o]!!! ..../.../.../... :-)

You no need 'help', silly SB.
The color 'faces' come in handy.
I use 'em when the one usual 'face', I use- (0: -isn't 'enough'.

Hey...
Remember all 'energy' has 'charge' (even when some have 0 charge) as well as
'spin direction'.

Might help in understanding 'attraction/repulsion' a little better.

:-)


:D
"You're the life of the party
You make my world spin around
The first time is the next time"

lyrics - Bloc party.

....^
N| |S
..V
....................^
whereby {...{}{}...}
..................v

but for some reason I want to do ->-

{}{} ->- {{}}
{}{} ->- {{}}

... explanation for 1' ->- 3' ... the insidey-outty flippy flopping -?-
boink
{{}}
boink
{{}}
boink
{{}}
boink
{{}}
boink
{{}}
boink
{{}}

...hmmm... making the 'boink' noise is fun.
Noting that I am reading the previous 13 lines over and over to myself.
Oh man!
How come we don't get to see any poetry readings by people reciting prose of such depth as those 13 lines.
Depth from intonation of course.

Sad boink
Happy boink

hail to the boink
:-)

I'm not going to say that boinking rocks :-)
... ... oopsy!!! ...
~ps~ what's this thread about?
:-)
ooo! I'm on topic ...

... ... ...{{{{{{}}}}}}... ... ...

oh my gosh!
... that is it!!!
:-)

... emergence yields a doughnut shape with a complementary
hole ->- which together make a sphere.
And that the two surfaces are moving like conveyor belts in
opposite directions - one driving the other ... ... ...

"Hun
You make my world spin too... ... ..."
:p

... like I said kinda' moot at least from the perspective of
emergence.
Two *are* required.

Part of, what I personally like to still refer to, as:
The Quantum Sea.


Neutrino -'little neutral one'


Not attached to any 'one' or any 'thing' . (0:

( 0 charge )


Hail Pauli and Hail Fermi !
(especially Pauli, who was always wantin' to *take back* what he said 'outloud', cuz he believed it made him *look* nutty to those who could not understand).

Quote from Pauli, back in 1930:
"I have done something very bad today by proposing a particle that cannot be detected; it is something no theorist should ever do."

1930: Neutrino
Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli conjures up the notion of a novel subatomic particle to solve a puzzle about the apparent non-conservation of energy in radioactive beta decays.
A few years later, Italian physicist Enrico Fermi dubs the particle, which has no electrical charge, the neutrino, or "little neutral one."
But there is no conclusive evidence that the particle exists, and most scientists think it may be impossible to ever detect.


Here's more info, on Mr./Ms. Neutrino, for those who are interested:

http://wwwlapp.in2p3.fr/neutrinos/anhistory.html


****(not *swaying* anyone, to my own personal view(s), by posting this.
Just take it as 'information'- which you can discard, if it isn't aggreeable with your own *belief structure*) :)

Connect the dots......

1...3

"It's...*all*...inside...you..."- partial song lyric from Moving in Stereo by the Cars

And

my opinion. (0:

-3o
-4o-o
-13o->o-o-> ->- [flat] ->- 1d

> orientation
o == {}

bends in on itself ->- ball
->{{<-}} sphere pulsating in 3d

...3]}-4-{[13][1'][3']}-4'-13'
oh my!

... concentric real complex spheres!
onions ...
:-)

The cosmic onion.
:-)

...funny funny funny.

I tried to find my copy a few years ago - but no luck - it featured upside down gnomish quarks - and ever since (I was 10 or 11 or so) - I haven't forgotten that purple hard-backed onion book with upside down fantasy figures.

Hmmm ... funny that.
... wonder if it's out there in cyber diaper land.

No purple picture with a half eaten onion - but there's the guy.



<cite class="book" style="font-style: normal;" id="Reference-Close-1979">Close, F. E. (1979). An Introduction to Quarks and Partons. London: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-175150-3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=0121751503).</cite>
wow! wikiP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Close) + Internet dude - you're rather good.


I remember thinking if pictures paint a thousand words - then why don't we learn from picture books ...
...ooo 'Mr Mischief' and 'Circus McGurkus' tonight ...

... ... ... Seuss meets Hargreaves slamdown.



I tell ya' little Cat Z'd get its tail whooped by Mr Strong.


...E-warntnossqwair



OOO --- reality is all of the layers of an onion dancing independently within an onion casing.
It's kinda' like an onion shaped boom box turned to max.

... boom boom shake the room.

geeze!

I'm on topic again - the neighbours are big banging on the wall with a broom handle.


:-)

highest level + ->- most fundamental -
->-
infinitely small gap

{ -.- }
...{What~Goes~Up~Must~Come~Down++}++...
-.- == -----------.-----------

-----------.-----------
---------------------- sp****!

oiii!!!
I've lost my Britishism
**** harrrsss
man that's harrrsss(h)
:-)

[ QUOTE = Stabile ]Sparse is sparse now, not sp****[ /QUOTE = Stabile ]

Noooooooo!

How does it know the difference between an American sparse and a British sp****?

Me - I don't know the difference between my sp**** and my elbow :-)

Morseo!

How does it know the difference between a quotation from an American sparse and outside of quotes and a British sp****?

Wow!

This software is way more intelligent that my friend Scuzzy.

I see what you mean about the ko'an.
They shouldn't be taken literally.

The deepest of messages - if blessed with a translation.
Translator must be rrreal.

When I was 6 or 7 we were told to find out what phrases like the 'grass is greener' 'too many cooks' 'rolling stone...' meant.

I remember getting bored after the first and cheekily and lazily describing them literally.

Of couse the grass over there upon which nobody has walked will be greener, and it's hard for cooks if they're getting in each other's way and sure a rolling stone will be clean clean clean - as it wipes off any dirt on the floor.

... therein lies the problem with words.

We need rrr and RRR to be prised apart.

Didn’t get any further than 43. . . . . I do hope it gets better.

{{Moderation: references no longer existent material... enough content to identify original context below}}
{....} Those who do believe in an authority of the universe are kidding themselves.

Those who are zealous for logic, are just as insane as those who are zealous for their own religion and no one else's.

{....}


therefore, those who are dualistic in thinking there's is the only way, logically and religiously (very common qualities) {....}


First of all I would really like to know what this has to do with the existence of gravity? I believe this to be the topic as I was quite harshly reminded by those who felt some how annoyed by who knows really?

My present problems is not with your opinion which is really what this is. I feel in all truthfulness it is pretty unfair to make these claims knowing we who happen to believe in a specific doctrine are unable by guidelines to defend our selves and this was known when the above was written.

If we are going to continue to bash a specific doctrine then I feel it only fair to partition administration to allow us to at least defend our own beliefs. This point could have been made without the specific attack on Christianity. Allow me to give an example

If you take a void a vacuum where neither matter nor anti-matter exist, there is no time nor ain’t-time then you add more of the same you have exactly the same thing, nothing has changed. I do not give a flying frog what mathematical people are able to generate. Perhaps the mathematical configurations are all in the non-existent realm along with every thing else we claim as real The result being the RRReality we seek does not really exist at all but is merely a day dream created in some creatures mind.

. As long as religious doctrines are not allowed on the forum it would be ever so appreciated if they would not be bashed either. I do not fear diversity I am really very tolerant . , I do try to be respectful of the beliefs and ideas of others however I do expect the same in return. We who do believe in specific doctrines have chosen to abide by the forum rules so our voices are not heard but that does not mean we do not exist. - (this has more than one meaning :– )

{{Moderation: references no longer existent material, being removed as it addressed other removed content}}We personally prefer a more Eastern take on it all – if we reflect the face of God in some way, the light cast is logic. Note that’s not a recommendation, nor a statement of belief.

Nor an invitation to debate, either; there’s a section of the forums for quasi-religious discussion. What we can say with scientific certainty is that it’s possible to map the logical space which contains all knowledge of any kind, including that which can only be known to God, or the gods, or whatever structural entity that happens to float your boat.

Within that space we can delineate that which can be known but is not yet known, that which is possible to discover, and that which it is impossible to know under any circumstances. One of the undiscoverable bits is a complete system of transforms that would allow us to know precisely the location of every boundary.

If we could know exactly the bounds of what we can’t know, we would be able to define it in a way that violates the rules of the space in which the map is expressed. In other words, we would know something about what we can’t know that would be more than the definition can’t know allows.

That doesn’t mean we can’t know some details about the proscribed areas. But that knowledge is limited mainly to being certain they are there.

The above has got to be one of the classiest things I have read here on ADDF and so “encompassing” as well. I prefer encompassing over exclusiveness, this makes me very different as usual.

I had to stop and say this is without a doubt the best post you have ever written.

You have out done yourself again.

Thank you .


OKay I gotta take a wiggle break before I read further think my brain has gone numb. . . .or is that the other end? oops! . . . . .

ADDers are built very well to thrive in technical aspects.

This is counter to your claim, this is forming a line, making a box for other to live in. Not all ADDers are technically inclined. Not being technical doesn’t mean one lacks ADD or logic. Can you really conceive no boundaries at all? No boundaries means no lines no categories no beginnings no ends no time no anti-time . . . . .no comparisons. We simply are . . . . . . .as we were designed to be (according to personal belief)



are we just mechanisms of the universe, or are we all, the One? it was Neo's faith, not pure chance that made him the One.

Both. We are products of both nature and nurture, we have both choice and chance, they are intertwined.




kinda' like man could speciate into more cerebral or more physically energy loaded - with the pattern defined by the first? - who kinda' pulls the rest along.
... like a really big bloke playing tug-o-war vs a buncha' fluffy 5 cm pretend cotton rats which have been fixed to the rope with tape.

:-)
Cerebral and physical become one energy. . . . the two become one. . . .hello universal laws apply universally. . . .speciation event doesn’t the same thing occur?.

Nature ,com (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v18/n3/abs/ng0398-237.html)




When I was 6 or 7 we were told to find out what phrases like the 'grass is greener' 'too many cooks' 'rolling stone...' meant.

I think the folks that tested me were quite tired by the time I was through because I normally had to ask which meaning they wanted. . . . which generated some strange looks


.the green grass meant some on fertilized it, may be they watered that side to do you want the one where things always look better some where else, or we are too busy looking over there we step in mud puddles because we aren’t paying attention to over here.

too many cooks means it must be a holiday, or the one where there is not enough people willing to wash the dishes, or the confusion part

grass may not grow on a rolling stone but it sure can gather a heck a of a lot of mud, if you are at the bottom of the hill it is rolling down you may want to move, and can I play now I am tired of sitting .




Originally Posted by The Mighty Cray
...{What~Goes~Up~Must~Come~Down++}++...

NOT if it is a frieze-bee and lands on a flat roof! It ain’t coming down until some one brings it down. . . . . .there are roofs though out the southern US that still have my frieze-bees on top of them. . :( . . so for every rule there is my frieze bee collection. . . . :D

Lots of people just look at me and shake their heads. . . . .and ask where all this stuff comes from . . . . .heck I was six was I really supposed to know. Come to think of it at 40 some thing I still don’t know. . . .it just pops in my head. . . .isn’t that what it is supposed to do. :confused:




It's...*all*...inside...you..."- partial song lyric from Moving in Stereo by the Cars

Ooo I like that song tooo . . . . .uh no I hope it doesn’t get stuck in there to long . . . . . :eek:

Time for a longer wiggle break . . . . . . .mornin.

Now would not gravity come from the fact the earth is spinning around and around or is th eround and round motion cuased by gravity? Maybe the Earth is shrinking which is why it is gettting to be a "small world". Reminds me of learning to skate. Think of begining to spin with arms out, bringing them in quickly will increase your speed. It is true there is less air resistance because your arms are closer to your body but this does not explain the increase in speed does it?

I genuinely have several doh!!!(s) - a day here.
Engaged in conversation with free thinkers has that effect.

Although short hand - and creative language are used - there's pretty much a point in everything we write.

These are not empty statements pointing into the nether regions of nowhere.

What'd be the point in that?

In fact - though - that's the kinda' style which is used by many - in
many of the areas which we seem to dwell.

Having no definitively correct answer is not handled well by man.

A new food is compared against an older precedent.

A partial rewind shows us that empiricism arose as a method.
Now a monster - it is considered the only tool in a scientist's tool box.

The problems arise though - in areas where the empirical method cannot be applied.

->section addressing '''scientists''' as you [[[BEGINS]]]

No - guys - you are wrong.

Anything which occurs within mind of man - our rrreality is subject to solution using some scientific formulation.
You guys state that the empirical mechanism cannot be used ->- therefore don't try - and then the killer blow --- any attempt to enter that domain of thought will be squashed {by us}.
It's fear of difference again.

Kill the opposition - over-hype your own importance - pull the arm of the one-armed bandit.
You ~however~ have two.

->section addressing '''scientists''' as you [[[ENDS]]]

Although a serial set of experiments may not be possible - it really is going to prove possible to validate the findings.
Maybe some experiments will be possible.

But from my perspective - rejigging one's perspective on reality to perspective Stabile - requires no such experimentation (for proof).

Just plain correct.

Don't need to have proof.

All that we need - is ears that would hear.

Logic, rrreality, RRReality, communication and evolution -
5 big words - 3 small numbers.

Here's a doh! moment - religions exist and all of the chief guys in these religions are - it seems to me - jolly excellent chaps.
Looking back through most of the good guys who're mentioned here - in the more recent past - well - good guys too.
We like good guys.
We could write a list of good guy characteristics down - and from the great philosophers - moral leaders - agents of change - well - commonalities include
thinking, morality, love ... ... ... do not include money grabbing, consumerism, status ... ... ...
oi vey!!!

sorry guys - but pan-galactic good guy doh!!! moment - why do we bother putting all of these guys on a pedestal - and stating that they rock - and then proceed to adopt behaviour more accurately described as diametrically opposed to the dudes?

Oh my!

Becoming office manager - getting the huge rise over little Jimmy who needs the money more ... throwing all of our money at some pointless pursuit which keeps the advertising companies in business ...

... really -

...NO!

... it's just not good enough.

{{Moderation: content violates forum guidelines}}

The above has got to be one of the classiest things I have read here on ADDF and so “encompassing” as well. I prefer encompassing over exclusiveness, this makes me very different as usual.

I had to stop and say this is without a doubt the best post you have ever written.

You have out done yourself again.

Thank you …
No, thank you… (both of us blushing)

Communication is by definition bilateral; it wasn’t anything until you did your part.


These are not empty statements pointing into the nether regions of nowhere.

What'd be the point in that?
(big grins…) I tell you, SB, yer sense of humor is underappreciated amongst us too serious folks.

A rose by any other 'name' would still *be*.

*All* is one, any way.

{{Moderation: content no longer related to discussion}}

You know I, personally don't believe in 'eerily related', Q. (0:

Haven't you and I been through this, before ? LOL !

Hugs, cutie !

{{Moderation: originally referenced no longer existent material. The following is a response to qinkin}}

Right now I am soo tired my eyes are crossing, but I shall stop here with a reminder that if you wish to debate religion (christianity , the trinity, the writtings of Pau