Conspiracy of human intelligence.

reply to post by sirnex


It depends on what you are trying to "count" it as. An academic exercise or a work of art? Get back to me when you can get a computer to pump out Beethoven, or can add up a bunch of numbers and come out with a Billboard-topping hit.

Originally posted by Tryptych
Yes, will now make make my PC program me some James Brown.

Somehow reminds me of Hermes from Futurama, on the bureaucratic episode. "Requisition me a beat!"

[edit on 27-10-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by sirnex
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?

Clifford Pickover has some novel ideas somewhat related to this. Though he's more interested in paradoxes for the sake of paradoxes.

I'm not sure, is it the trigonometric aspect of it that's confusing? If it's the math that's the issue, then a good book on Trig would probably be a good way to refresh yourself. A few good math websites that I frequent are PlanetMath and Wolfram (both Alpha & Mathworld).

Really the heart of what this idea represents is something I haven't really seen written about in any physics / math or meta-physics related texts. Probably the closest thing to this idea of periodicity is seen in the Tao, but even that's somewhat incomplete. Jean Paul Sartre also contributed greatly to my understanding of this idea. His approach of understanding it was through evaluating the notions of scarcity, which I think fundamentally explains just about everything.

reply to post by Xtraeme


I'm having trouble finding more information about this. Math isn't my strong suite either. Can you give me an example of what you mean?

[EDIT TO ADD]

Didn't take me long to figure out Cliff's ESP trick. Almost had me going!

[edit on 27-10-2009 by sirnex]

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

I'm having trouble finding more information about this. Math isn't my strong suite either. Can you give me an example of what you mean?

[EDIT TO ADD]

Didn't take me long to figure out Cliff's ESP trick. Almost had me going!

The ESP trick is modeled on the following algorithm:

botx = 6 Cos(u) (1 + Sin(u));
Dboty = 16 Sin(u);
Drad = 4 (1 - Cos(u)/2);
X = If((Pi) < u False, Boxed -> False,
ViewPoint -> [1.5, -2.7, -1.6])

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Xtraeme


Really? I figured it out by noticing that no matter where you clicked, certain cards are left out in the results.

Like, I picked king of hearts and notice it was in none of the eyes I picked meaning it accurately 'guessed' my card, but then I noticed something else, of the cards that were left none were the original cards to pick from.

the cards to pick from are:

KH JC KS QD QC JD

There are only two possible settings for what is left after you pick your card.

#beta1 is QH KC JH QS KD
#beta2 is KD QS JH KC QH

Out of the two given "I have removed your card!" statements, none contain any of the original cards you picked, so of course your card was removed. Along with the rest.

reply to post by sirnex


Yeah you figured it out. =).

The algorithm was just a clever joke between Pickover and the math community.

reply to post by sirnex


Magical is only a word used to describe something with energy and power that is not yet entirely known.

Many things to humankind have appeared magical that science is now able to explain.

There are many things unseen though known like psychic ability and 'paranormal' activities that science is very interested in and are now finding ways of understanding.

Gravity was relatively recently discovered, anti gravity has just been scientifically discovered.

There is light matter, dark matter, light energy and dark energy which science is now aware of and trying to figure out.

Magic and science are one and the same in so many ways.

Light and dark energy are flowing through us all right now, can you see it?

Do you believe it is there and would you believe 'magic' could be a way of manipulation of these energies and that science is a way of explaining them and also manipulating them?

Magic is a word, science is a word, both require intelligence and the utilisation of energy to transform that which is unseen and unknown to the tangible and real.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


I just read an article on why people believe in ESP, you might like it. Makes a lot of sense to me and explains some of my own experiences with my early practices with ESP when I was younger. Link

Magic is a word, science is a word, both require intelligence and the utilisation of energy to transform that which is unseen and unknown to the tangible and real.

I am of the understanding that energy is an inherent property of matter. Without matter, there can be no energy. Of all the forms of energy we know about, all are propagated by matter of some form.

reply to post by sirnex


How matter exists within and is affected by an energy determines the properties of the energy and it's effect on matter.

The universe is now known to be mostly dark energy, who's constituents and behaviour is still being scientifically analysed and proposals made as to the exact nature and abilities.

If one were to somehow view the universe from above, which is now held to be relatively flat, one might assume it exists 'magically' or according to unknown scientific laws.

For example is there something holding in the dark matter at the edge of this universe or is it connected to many as per multiverse and how is it connected?

Is there really shape to the universe / multiverse or is it just a perceived comprehension bound by human dimensionality?

Humanity accepts through science that there are unseen forces, ie energies etc.

Would it be so unrealistic to believe there is a communication energy to which beings are able to access?

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

How matter exists within and is affected by an energy determines the properties of the energy and it's effect on matter.

That is backwards, energy is an inherent property of matter. You can't have any energy period without matter being the direct causation of it. Energy *is* matter in motion.

The universe is now known to be mostly dark energy, who's constituents and behaviour is still being scientifically analysed and proposals made as to the exact nature and abilities.

It's postulated to be composed of dark matter to fill in a lot of observational problems with the current standard model. What this does is show us that the current standard model is wrong as we keep inventing unseen things to explain away the inconsistencies.

If one were to somehow view the universe from above, which is now held to be relatively flat, one might assume it exists 'magically' or according to unknown scientific laws.

This assumes the big bang model is correct which assumes that some things are constant despite being shown that they are not constant.

For example is there something holding in the dark matter at the edge of this universe or is it connected to many as per multiverse and how is it connected?

There is no evidence of an edge of the universe. The age of the universe has been pushed back a few times as telescopes have become more powerful and seen more out in space.

Humanity accepts through science that there are unseen forces, ie energies etc.

Energy is an inherent property of matter, without matter there is no energy.

Would it be so unrealistic to believe there is a communication energy to which beings are able to access?

Yes, it would be unrealistic as nothing has been shown to move faster than the speed of light.

reply to post by sirnex


It appears this post is an argumentative attempt at nothing.

It asks nothing, proves nothing, doesn't demonstrate any point.

Your comments are not even directly replying to the points I have made.

It appears to be taken out of context, and the replies irrelevant to the points I am making.

I won't waste my time expanding on these comments.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


Reality of this, you can't expand on assumptions used to prove other assumptions without appearing to be a complete imbecile. Using assumptions to prove assumptions is just about the most stupid thing one can do, and as it stand every point you raised that I commented on was either wrong in it's own right or an assumption to fill in the holes of the current standard model in which you assume proves the point your trying to make when in reality the science your attempting to use says nothing about what your saying.

reply to post by sirnex


Do not presume to know me or my abilities.

If you cannot see the point I am making within context then you shouldn't try arguing it.

Clearly you only understand 'fact' and aren't able to demonstrate any ability to grasp theory or abstract concept.

Ironically, the main part of the point I tried showing you in very simple terms is that just because it isn't sitting there in your hand as a solid object doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't possible.

Can you see gravity? Can you see anti gravity?

Can you see light energy?

Can you see dark energy?

All these things exist whether visible due to manipulation on physical objects or not.

Humanity has scratched the surface of science 'fact', there is so much more to learn and I believe humans are only able to grasp a certain level and as yet aren't able to comprehend or 'tune into' higher dimensional realities.

Perhaps if you try reading more on metaphysics and it's philosophical origins then you maybe could expand the narrow sphere of vision you currently demonstrate.

Asking questions opens the mind, being closed minded and argumentative just because you don't know the scientific facts of it yet isn't proactive or conducive to mind expansion.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

Humanity has scratched the surface of science 'fact', there is so much more to learn and I believe humans are only able to grasp a certain level and as yet aren't able to comprehend or 'tune into' higher dimensional realities.

Dark energy is a construct to explain gaping holes in the current standard model, it is not a fact but a needed assumption to keep the standard model working. Nor does dimensional physics speak of higher realities.

Perhaps if you try reading more on metaphysics and it's philosophical origins then you maybe could expand the narrow sphere of vision you currently demonstrate.

Metaphysics is the study of arrogant stupidity. Metaphysics has never proved anything nor given us anything.

Asking questions opens the mind, being closed minded and argumentative just because you don't know the scientific facts of it yet isn't proactive or conducive to mind expansion.

I am open minded to every possibility granted those possibilities can be proven and shown as true. The way your using science to prove your assumption is wrong as the science your using says nothing of what you spout. How can you so ignorantly speak of not knowing scientific facts when you clearly don't know yourself? Your using scientific assumptions as if they were facts, how misguided can one be?

reply to post by sirnex


Read my replies as before.

Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean relegation as an absurd impossibility.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


Your making no sense. There is no way to justify the usage of an assumption to prove an assumption and then call it truth. That's an exercise of futility, not intelligent thought.

Originally posted by sirnex
Metaphysics is the study of arrogant stupidity. Metaphysics has never proved anything nor given us anything.

arrogance
an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

www.merriam-webster.com...

Enough said.

reply to post by bsbray11


Exactly, it's like people who run around and claim they have super duper magical powers and can travel some mysterious plane of existence and that acupuncture can activate a force that if inactive would be the end of the entire universe as we know it! Metaphysics is a mother huh?

reply to post by sirnex


I don't know. A magical high-definition picture box complete with real audio would have seemed equally absurd to people of your attitude a few hundred years ago.

Or even flying a rocket to the Moon. That was deemed absurd even halfway through the 1900's.

And who are all these doubting types again? Oh yeah, "skeptics."