Conspiracy of human intelligence.

reply to post by spacebot

Oh and since the thread evolved to what is magical or not in our reality, try to fathom this:

Sun's acoustic waves

Great article, but what do you think it's saying since you brought it up? Not sure how you want me to respond as I don't really see anything wrong with what it's stating.

Originally posted by charlyv
The simple high school sqrt(2)=2 paradox. The statement that breaks it down is that you can never stop calculating, thus you can never write down sqrt(2)=2 because you are in an infinite loop. Way too much work just to say 'asymptote'.

One more comment on this, consider that as we converge from the Pn algorithm described earlier (representing the legs of a right triangle divided and intersecting the hypotenuse to infinity), what we're really doing is taking zero dimensional points and mapping them to the hypotenuse which equals Sqrt(2).

Now there is a point that can be defined where math fundamentally breaks down and 2 != 2 or where it can be said Sqrt(2) = 2.

The conundrum is that the Pn algorithm should always equal 2. Breaking up two orthogonal line segments connected at opposing end-points to form a hypotenuse, so that the base legs converge towards the hypotenuse, will always result in a constant-time value (in the case of a right triangle with the legs both equal to 1, the Pn algorithm equals 2). Where this starts to fail is when we take all the points and assemble them in to two parallel lines converging on one another.

IE/

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/44cad66b75e8.gif[/atsimg]

These two parallel line being represented by say a line segment from A2 to F2 and another parallel line being say A1 to C1. As you can see line segment A to C (or Sqrt(2)) is closer in distance to A2 to F2. So as we continue these divisions these parallel lines get closer and closer to one another.

Eventually during these divisions we will have two parallel lines that are directly adjacent. One parallel line will equal Sqrt(2) or, in other words, equal the length of line segment AC (the hypotenuse). The other parallel line of points will be equal to (2 - Sqrt(2)). Fundamentally when you perform one more division of this Pn algorithm that's when the space that this algorithm is operating switches from Cartesian to the Complex plane. In the Cartesian plane Sqrt(2) will equal 2. In the complex plane the Pn algorithm will still be 2.

[edit on 26-10-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Xtraeme


Interestingly solving for:

Sqrt(n) / (n - Sqrt(n)) = n / (n - 1)

Which is just a way of mapping the points (zero dimensional objects) in the above graph to a linear form (1 dimensional object).

Shows that n = 1/2 (3+sqrt(5)).

Which is approximately equal to 2.61803...

Meaning the GoldenRatio + 1.

Pretty cool to think the Golden Ratio fundamentally shows the folding point when 2 becomes equal to Sqrt(2).

The only thing I know for sure is that I know nothing.

So many people these days get so confused by science. They think that scientists are the new priests, and whatever they say is right, because they've got the answer book.

Science, and the majority of people's view of what science is are two separate things, just as God, and the majority of people's view of what/who God is are separate. If you choose to believe every word you read online prefaced by "Scientists say" without questioning, thinking or being aware that they might actually be wrong, you are absolutely and fundamentally no different from the throngs of church goers hanging on every word that comes out of their minister's mouth.

My view is that religion is the pursuit of explaining the universe and our place in it with the God of that religion as the starting point. Science is (currently) the pursuit of explaining the universe and our place in it without invoking or involving any god or higher being. Neither pursuit is going to come up with an answer that refutes their starting position. No church is going to suddenly "see the light" that God doesn't really exist, and science is never going to hold a press conference and tell us that God created us and we'd better get our s**t together because he's coming to judge us.

We know nothing. All we have is our best guess, and that's constantly changing as we learn more and are able to detect and uncover more. All those people jumping up and down claiming that such and such can't be true because of this are forgetting that we used to say the same about the earth being flat.

Are you afraid of people who hold irrational opinions or something? Figure out what you believe and learn to accept it, then what others believe become far less important.

I personally believe that each thing should be relegated to its own plane, the laymen terms of quantum mechanics makes it sound magical, but in many ways its not if people only understood the math behind it, this is at least what I have read from quantum physicists who understand what the math means.

At the same time metaphysics is the science of consciousness, and all forms of philosophy, psychology, and mysticism fall under its auspices. Science can explain the chemical and electrical reactions that may spawn certain moods or thoughts, may explain why a person is schizophrenic. However science has tried to shock people into sanity and it doesn't work, they have tried to remove brain matter and it doesn't work, now they give you drugs to alter your chemical reactions and it only works for some people with some diseases some of the time.

What science cant and probably never will be able to figure out is how the unconscious realm of a person is created, why certain complexes are formed, and how come its able to effect the conscious life of a person. Science isn't even close to locating what ego is, why we have a sense of Self and coherence, or why we conceptualize deities or God.

Furthermore science may never be able to explain the tens of thousands of incidents where human consciousness obviously transcends time or space, and why this transcendence is sometimes greatly concentrated in certain individuals.

reply to post by Seventhdoor

Furthermore science may never be able to explain the tens of thousands of incidents where human consciousness obviously transcends time or space, and why this transcendence is sometimes greatly concentrated in certain individuals.

I just want to make a correction here:

Tens of thousands of contradictory descriptions born from religious or cultural beliefs and norms of the societies they live in. That does not sound like an obvious transcendence to me.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Seventhdoor

 

Furthermore science may never be able to explain the tens of thousands of incidents where human consciousness obviously transcends time or space, and why this transcendence is sometimes greatly concentrated in certain individuals.

I just want to make a correction here:

Tens of thousands of contradictory descriptions born from religious or cultural beliefs and norms of the societies they live in. That does not sound like an obvious transcendence to me.

I used to have a hell of a hard time buying in to duality that spiritual-types would use to make their point. However, if you consider reality to simply be cyclical (which really does appear to be the case through a study of the evidence), that means all points eventually do occur. Which is to say that all possibilities are eventually had, maybe not now, or in one space, but across all of them, yes.

It's when I made that leap that I started to look at the world in a very different way and I became aware "spiritual speak" amazingly does make sense. It even explains a number of mathematical paradoxes, which is something that I've taken great pleasure in reworking to explain to fellow engineers / geeky-friends.

Sirnex, your posts just OOZE this hate, angst and negativity against everybody replying on this thread.

1) Science can explain things in material terms, not how we receive and experience different things.

2) Psychoactives are not addicting.

I don't believe anything "paranormal" either, they are just aspects we haven't yet understood. But as always, all the views have been represented here already

EZ.

Originally posted by reticledc
A Magical universe is all a frame of mind.
Emotionally speaking, it only applies to those willing to give it that description.

That does not make it any less real though.
The amazing things in this world and beyond can and do inspire awe, and bewilderment.

Exactly.

If someone can't put themselves into such a state at will, they are really missing out. After all, there is plenty in the world to wonder at. It's not as if science has locked the book, thrown away the key, and we are all just sitting back now pessimistically wasting away learning nothing.

Science really has become the crutch for those who turned to religion in past times. Though it's a real shame, because science doesn't have anywhere near the imagination it used to. Now all the scientifically-religious are called "skeptics."

reply to post by Tryptych

1) Science can explain things in material terms, not how we receive and experience different things.

As we are material beings, science certainly can and is explaining how we receive and experience different things.

2) Psychoactives are not addicting.

I never said they were addictive, just that my personal experience with people on these substances hasn't been all too enlightening for them. Drugs are not going to give you a deeper understanding of reality, it distorts your view of reality.

Originally posted by sirnex
@tothetenthpower

I have my third kid on the way, yet I fail to see the logic in calling it magical

So I take it your kids don't have rooms that look like this?:




What a horrible abuse of logic that room is!



For that matter, why are not all buildings simply block-shaped? Why all these funny, elaborate designs? Why teach art and music in high school? Why do we have "imaginations" and of what good is such a useless thing? All atrocious abuses of very basic principles of logic. Damn it!!

[edit on 27-10-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by Xtraeme

I used to have a hell of a hard time buying in to duality that spiritual-types would use to make their point. However, if you consider reality to simply be cyclical (which really does appear to be the case through a study of the evidence), that means all points eventually do occur. Which is to say that all possibilities are eventually had, maybe not now, or in one space, but across all of them, yes.

What do you mean by cyclical?

I would reply to the drug issue and say that the problem is that many of these people use the drugs as the totality of their spirituality. They claim that "shamans used them" or what not, but fail to realize that people underwent much preparation before using what was viewed as a sacred substance.

Used in moderation and supplemented heavily with spiritual practices such as sober meditation, the use of psychoactives can be extremely enlightening.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

I used to have a hell of a hard time buying in to duality that spiritual-types would use to make their point. However, if you consider reality to simply be cyclical (which really does appear to be the case through a study of the evidence), that means all points eventually do occur. Which is to say that all possibilities are eventually had, maybe not now, or in one space, but across all of them, yes.

What do you mean by cyclical?

Consider that all things have periodicity. When I say reality is cyclical I mean everything is beholden to this concept. It even explains why when we look at things like the cosmological constant why we see pi as one of the terms. It's why string theory works so well, everything's a "wave-form" by their model.

If there is a golden truth to this universe it's that all things ebb and flow.

Originally posted by sirnex

As we are material beings, science certainly can and is explaining how we receive and experience different things.

In numbers and scientific terms, yes, but it's not going to tell you how the psyche experiences the phenomenon. It cannot give you the insight view.

Originally posted by Seventhdoor
the problem is that many of these people use the drugs as the totality of their spirituality. They claim that "shamans used them" or what not, but fail to realize that people underwent much preparation before using what was viewed as a sacred substance.

Used in moderation and supplemented heavily with spiritual practices such as sober meditation, the use of psychoactives can be extremely enlightening.

Amen bro

[edit on 27/10/2009 by Tryptych]

reply to post by Xtraeme


You lost me, these are all alien concepts to myself that I haven't heard of yet. Are there any websites that explain it or what should I search for to learn more about it?

reply to post by Tryptych


I disagree and I am of the understanding that we're beginning to learn more about how we perceive and experience things in relation to ourselves. I was even just reading something on similar lines to this explaining how one would perceive themselves capable of ESP and how that perception is born from a misconception of chance and coincidence. Made sense to me at least. I haven't finished the entire article yet. LINK

I'd like to see someone use nothing but scientific knowledge to write a song, console the dying, or sing a baby to sleep.

When you have to go through so much effort just to try to pry someone away, not from the scientific method itself, but from worshiping conventional knowledge of a "scientific community," then it should go without saying that the scientific method itself has been overstepped and we are dealing once again with religion.

reply to post by bsbray11


I remember reading about some scientist who made a computer than can compose music and poetry, I'll have to look it up again if your interested. Does that count, or does it have to be composed by a human?

Originally posted by sirnex
I remember reading about some scientist who made a computer than can compose music and poetry, I'll have to look it up again if your interested. Does that count, or does it have to be composed by a human?

Yes, will now make my PC program me some James Brown.

EDIT: Computer poetry: 1001001

[edit on 27/10/2009 by Tryptych]