Dimensional Transisiton

MeatyMushroom · Nov 29, 2016

HelloPeople88 said:

I like a lot of these points but wasn't Bohr more about these Quantum views than Einstein?
Click to expand...

There's an interesting branch of mathematics that can be used to bridge the two with a little creative thought around the patterns of space.

I posted this course here before somewhere, but it essentially stitches together 2 seemingly opposing models of space in the conceptual mathematical realms, which seamlessly integrates relativity. I leave it here to be played around with if anyones interested in exploring it further, but in a nutshell:

Euclid defined 3 dimensional space through a linear model, meaning the x, y and z axis extend perpendicular to each other and never ever bend.

The other 2 models describe the curvature of space 1. hyperbolic - \/ - (no curves, have to be a V shape )
and 2. parabolic - /\ - (still no curves )

Prior means of exploring the later models could only be done through complex algebraic systems that were too abstract to make any real sense, however explored geometrically you can unite the polarities to describe a toroidal model of space, which takes into account the warping of space and time around locations of gravity if related to the fabric of space itself(the whole point of geometry). In the end it implies a nexus of "wormholes"(interesting masturbation material for the theory of gravity.

It's a more concise and refined *model* of the awesomeness of reality. The model still needs precise data to elaborate things to its fullest potential which is a little out of my league, but it's there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvP8VtyhzXs&index=55&list=PL6ACFCC19EA82CA71

Edit: It's gestalt implies Indra's Net, which gives conceptual room to model the Akashic. All the same shit anyway, but it's a nice harmonic basis for spacetime.

ChinaCatSunflower002 · Aug 10, 2023

Mr.Writer said: ↑

China you're getting lost in language again. What Mckenna meant by that quote was that your reality as experienced by you will be determined in part by the system of language you use to describe it and mentalize it.

In your example, the situation was not naming a piece of paper a napkin, it was giving a person's name to a napkin.

You are arguing about the fluidity of language, not about big T Truth.

Truth is that which remains after you are finished pondering on the nature of words. It comes far before language.
Click to expand...

I’m back. Let’s begin again…

ChinaCatSunflower002 · Aug 10, 2023

Mountain Valley Wolf said: ↑

Good point. The Theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechaniocs work together the best in a holographic universe which my philosophy presents.

But my real point is that philosophy has not kept up with theoretical physics. Einstein's theories and Quantum Mechanics have largely been ignored by philosophy, and we certainly cannot leave these theories solely to the reductionist and pragmatic viewpoints of scientists.

Because philosophy has not kept up with the advancements of science, it is pretty much dead----in fact that is what Stephen Hawking wrote in 2012. Today philosophy in America is really playing word games---in case they missed something hidden in the meaning of words... (Analytical Phliosophy).

Yet science has opened a whole new door for philosophy----in fact, it is pretty earth shattering for much of 20th Century philosophy. We can now go back and re-examine Hegel, Aristotle, Plato, Husserl, and so forth, in some pretty amazing ways (see my thread, The Quantum Mechanical Argument for Essentialism, in the philosophy section, for example).
Click to expand...

I have returned.

ChinaCatSunflower002 · Aug 10, 2023

HelloPeople88 said: ↑

The whole point is that the language that is used determines what anything is.

There is no big T to anything outside or independent of the Observer who is observing it. Reality does not exist "out there" objectively outside of the Observer.

"Truth" cannot remain after one is pondering something without someone observing it. It's literally impossible to prove this "truth" that you speak of without first looking at it. Therefore, Truth is dependent on You.
Click to expand...

I still stand behind this in 2023. I’m BACK, baby.

ChinaCatSunflower002 · Aug 11, 2023

HelloPeople88 said: ↑

So it either is a napkin or isn't a napkin. Isn't there a valid argument that it's not even a napkin then? You're saying that it can't be both a napkin and not a napkin. But you're saying "I have named this object a napkin" not "that object is a napkin"...so is it a napkin or isn't it? And what is it that determines whether it is or isn't, other than the person labelling it?

One person who has never heard of napkins could see it as just a piece of soft paper. Another person could use toilet paper as a napkin. Is the alternate piece of soft paper known as "toilet paper" really not a napkin now just because you're saying it's toilet paper even though it was used as a napkin? What matters is how it was used or how it was perceived. That's what truly defines it. And this is fluidly changing depending on who is using it.

I have to disagree with you. To one set of eyes, a dog is a threat. To a very different set of eyes, that very same dog is not a threat. The first person is afraid of dogs, and the second person isn't. The dog may or may not bite you either way. I would say that it's very arguable that the dog is and isn't a threat at the same time, as there is a chance for it to turn out either way, and both person's arguments have their valid perspective.

One person declares that threat = specific dog, the second person declares that no threat = specific dog. The dog itself may have bitten before, but not often. It can't objectively and exactly either not be a threat or be a threat. It can be both at the same time. The dog might even feed off of the person's fear and then bites them simply because they were labelled as a threat, while the dog doesn't bite the second person because that person has no fear. And in another instance, the dog may bite the person who's not afraid of it because he underestimated the dog, while the person afraid of it is more cautious and therefore doesn't get bit. In a third instance, the dog bites both, and in a fourth instance, the dog bites neither. It's impossible to objectively define whether this dog is or isn't a threat.

I'll elaborate a bit more. One person brings a snowball onto a bus. They get suspended because that snowball was deemed as a "weapon". The kid who brought it on insists that it was not intended to be used as a weapon. But the school board doesn't see it that way. Trusting that the kid truly didn't want to use it as a weapon, isn't this an instance where the same snowball both is and isn't a weapon simultaneously? It literally just depends on who is perceiving it and labelling it. It COULD be a weapon but it's not a weapon objectively and absolutely in and of itself. The subjective use and perception of it is what determines what it is.

There's nothing inherently vulgar about the middle finger in and of itself, but it's the implication of what it is a symbol for that gives it its power of vulgarity. The middle finger both is and isn't an insult at the same time, depending on how you want to dissect it, and depending on how the person on the receiving end reacts to it. If they are insulted easily, then it will be an insult. If they aren't insulted easily or are unaware of the meaning of the middle finger, then it won't be an insult.

But the important part is that the middle finger isn't literally equivalent to "insult" in and of itself. It's just your finger. But it's labelled as an insult, and therefore is one only because of this labelling. But it's not objectively and absolutely equivalent to an insult.

"The world is made of Language" -Terence Mckenna
Click to expand...

Great points, ChinaCat

Log in or Sign up

Dimensional Transisiton

MeatyMushroom Juggle Tings Proppuh

ChinaCatSunflower002 Members

ChinaCatSunflower002 Members

ChinaCatSunflower002 Members

ChinaCatSunflower002 Members

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Dimensional Transisiton

MeatyMushroom Juggle Tings Proppuh

ChinaCatSunflower002 Members

ChinaCatSunflower002 Members

ChinaCatSunflower002 Members

ChinaCatSunflower002 Members

Share This Page

Useful Searches