Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

The Spore Depot
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale, Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Shaping Reality with Math
    #7362288 -

"What the 'Bleep" do we Know" introduced me to the double slit experiment, in which electrons fired through two slits behave like waves, unless observed in which they behave like particles.

The movie subsequently goes on to present the idea that reality is just a set of agreed upon choices chosen out of an ocean of infinity.

Going further, it argues that if an individual can convince all of society that a cup is where a cup is not, then the cup will exist there: an agreed upon reality spurred by an individual.

This got me to thinking: if that is the case, then where in history is there an example of someone convincing everyone else that there reality is right, while everyone else's is wrong? What quickly comes to mind is individuals such as Galeleo, Newton, and Einstein. Using math, the unarguable truth that is agreed upon by everyone, they convince society that what they believe is right.

Often is the case, they begin their mathematics with a preset notion of an idea they must prove. I wonder, did Einstein discover E=MC^2 or did he make E=MC^2 because it had to, according to what he believed. Do large ideas get proven through mathematics, or do large ideas actually shape the mathematics, our OS Kernel, into reality?

Its just what has been on my mind lately, and I am interested in further pursuing similar topics. Any recommendations would be appreciated, as well as discussion of the idea, or a point in the direction of a similar idea being discussed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Shaping Reality with Math [Re: gooddrugguy]
    #7362332 -

That movie was a load of rubbish sprinkled lightly with tiny bits of real physics taken out of context. It has been discredited as new age mumbo jumbo.

The interviews with real physicists were also taken out of context and many of those interviewed have expressed their disappointment with the producer for doing this.

The science journal Physics Today said this:

According to Physics Today Online, the film invokes quantum physics to promote pseudoscience.[16] The article also states "the movie illustrates the uncertainty principle with a bouncing basketball being in several places at once. There's nothing wrong with that. It's recognized as pedagogical exaggeration. But the movie gradually moves to quantum "insights" that lead a woman to toss away her antidepressant medication, to the quantum channeling of Ramtha, the 35,000-year-old Atlantis god, and on to even greater nonsense."

The section on water molecules turning into ugly crystals when 'bad' words are taped on the bottle has been discredited. Dr. Emoto, the proponent of this junk, has been exposed as a raving quack and no one has been able to reproduce his results. He's been invited to demonstrate his experiments by several university science departments, but naturally he's refused.

He does make a killing selling shit pseudoscience books to gullible people at Barnes and Nobel.

The film also lies about Transcendental Meditation making the crime rate in Washington D.C. drop. The truth is that police records show an increase in crime during the timespan when the experiment was conducted. The film just outright lied in the hopes that gullible watchers wouldn't check up on the facts as new agers seem never to do.

Try reading a real physics book for a far more interesting description of the real universe as we know it so far than a propaganda film designed to sell the Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.

Using math, the unarguable truth that is agreed upon by everyone, they convince society that what they believe is right.

They don't convince anyone. They produce results that do not contradict themselves and appear to represent reality well enough to construct working airplanes, MRI machines, bridges, and atomic bombs, and even model epidemic dynamics in human populations.

If the math does not represent reality, why does it work well enough to construct all these devices and describe all these real-life phenomena so well?


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Shaping Reality with Math [Re: Diploid]
    #7362341 -

I'm not defending the movie, it was just a catalyst for the process of thought that led me to my above notion. The double slit experiment is what I am mainly interested in, or at least what I took most from the movie.

I am also not arguing that math has nothing to do with reality, I am arguing that it is reality, at its core. If Einstein can shape math, and math is reality, then Einstein can shape reality. Perhaps Einstein didn't just stumble upon E=MC^2, maybe he went into it with the notion that E has to equal MC^2, and subsequently proved it using mathematics, making it apart of our agreed upon reality. I am saying Einstein shaped math, breaking new grounds that he himself founded, and subsequently by shaping realities kernel, shaped reality.

Edited by gooddrugguy (09/02/07 06:11 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Shaping Reality with Math [Re: gooddrugguy]
    #7362911 -

.u'i I think Robert A. Wilson said it better: "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves".

Quote:
The movie subsequently goes on to present the idea that reality is just a set of agreed upon choices chosen out of an ocean of infinity.

Going further, it argues that if an individual can convince all of society that a cup is where a cup is not, then the cup will exist there: an agreed upon reality spurred by an individual.


.ienai These statements are sort of vague and the second statement isn't necessarily an example of the first. Our experience is comprised of a set of sensory data selected out of a much larger set (although you can't deductively prove that it is infinite). However when it reaches us it isn't just raw sensory data, it is distorted by perception (the raw sensory data is viewed in our own way).


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Shaping Reality with Math [Re: Epigallo]
    #7363023 -

Right, but some raw sensory data is agreed upon. For a stable reality, all individuals need to agree that the sky is blue and the grass is green. These are fundamental truths to our reality, agreed upon and never questioned. Each individual perceives reality in there own way, but it is only distorted so much: there are baseline agreements that are rarely, if ever, questioned. If an individual has an idea that would fundamentally change these truths, then he effectively changed the baseline. The Earth used to be flat, as well the center of the universe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Shaping Reality with Math [Re: gooddrugguy]
    #7364028 -

I think you are right in a sense. The development of new types of math creates new paradigms, which changes how we look at the world and thus affect it. However I don't believe it is all in our heads; we can't pick up signals that aren't there. The fact that theorems and mathematical principles can be tested in their predictive value of natural phenomena shows that there is an objective reality, as diploid pointed out.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Shaping Reality with Math [Re: Epigallo]
    #7366384 -

yeah, i agree that there is an external objective reality. people perceive it and math describes it.

as people notice new aspects of reality, it changes their actions and the actions of others (building nukes), which then in turn changes the objective external reality(dropping nukes). (sorry for the negative example, it was the first major thing i could think of).

so people pick up ideas from reality which in turn shape reality and lead to new ideas being perceived from reality? weird.


--------------------
You can check the last post in my journal for contact info.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Shaping Reality with Math [Re: truekimbo2]
    #7366895 -

External is such a weird word. You too are made up of reality itself, from your purely subjective inner self to you most rational self. Your immediate perceptions, the action of thinking, of talking and of doing mathematics are all part of reality. When you're proving a theorem, it is the universe that does so. In that sense, I think that the process of discovery is a realization of one of the universe's potentiality; processes integrating processes. To say that one shapes the other or vis versa is too dualistic for my tastes.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Shaping Reality with Math [Re: deimya]
    #7370807 -

Quote:
The science journal Physics Today said this:

According to Physics Today Online, the film invokes quantum physics to promote pseudoscience.[16] The article also states "the movie illustrates the uncertainty principle with a bouncing basketball being in several places at once. There's nothing wrong with that. It's recognized as pedagogical exaggeration. But the movie gradually moves to quantum "insights" that lead a woman to toss away her antidepressant medication, to the quantum channeling of Ramtha, the 35,000-year-old Atlantis god, and on to even greater nonsense."


So, somebody threw out her antidepressant medication?  The Shroomery is full of threads hinting at the overuse of such drugs in our culture.  Are we to the point where just mentioning that somebody threw out their antidepressant medication as a result of being exposed to certain material qualifies as a scientific rebuttal of that material in the minds of some people?

If so, that is EXTREMELY sad to me.

But, I don't think that's all there is to it, really.  What the writer really wants is for you to feel sorry for the poor duped woman.  The poor duped woman who has lost sight of her only salvation- science dispensed in a pill, has gotten sidetracked by the illusion of the power she may have over her own life, and will likely be lost.  The writer has reinforced the supremacy of cult science and called "pseudoscience" at the unsanctioned mention of established experiments.

As irked by Ramtha and her tacky accent I get, I am more disgruntled with scientists who get rattled with people having the gall to take inspiration from scientific facts.  People are not served by science being funneled through a few.  People are served by the freedom to think new ideas.  Drawing a line between X and Y even though science can not establish a direct connection between X and Y doesn't make you a ninny.  It makes you a poet. 

Poetry has healed at least as many people as psychiatry.
The underlying message of this movie is that you have the power to change your life.  If science could put that realization in a pill, depression could be cured with a single dose.  But, so far, science hasn't done that.

Its been said in a million ways- some wackier than others- but that's all there is to it.  You can change.  People lose sight of this simplicity ALL of the time.

I'm sure I've overstated the case against the scientific establishment here.  (Shit, someones even going to get the impression that I liked this movie...:rolleyes:)  But that seems to be the custom all over.  And I'm not spending any more time refining this post.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Shaping Reality with Math [Re: SCleROTiUM_LICK]
    #7370910 -

You're right. This critic may also be full of shit, be it simply because he advocates the use of antidepressants :wink:. The only problem is that many people won't see this film for what it really is: a pure poetry product, pure science fiction, and that just because of the poor and hypocritical, or at best uninformed and misleading, way it is presented. It looks like a documentary but it ends up being a stupid cult promotion, which many people won't recognize because of it being supposedly backed by "quantum mechanics". They repeat those two words like it's some kind of mantra. It's nauseating at the end and devoid it of any meaning.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Shaping Reality with Math [Re: gooddrugguy]
    #7371509 -

They should make yet a third version of the movie with just the factual stuff - and without taking anything out of context....    :thumbup:  On the surface, and not knowing much about the factual in this field, movies like this make it difficult for the laymen to tell the difference between what is real as it is "known and proven", and what is the crap....    Quantum Mechanics in itself is a difficult/strange enough concept to try to understand on it's own already....


>^;;^<


--------------------
I'll be your midnight French Fry....  :naughty:

"The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...."
>^;;^<

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Shaping Reality with Math [Re: PhanTomCat]
    #7373374 -

I've met Fred Alan Wolf, he's the real deal, and he says the movie did take SOME things out of context.

The info in WTBDWK about neurological re-wiring and peptides / addiction to emotions is solid...

Nothing is COMPLETELY True, yet nothing is COMPLETE bullshit either...  :sherlock:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Shaping Reality with Math [Re: gooddrugguy]
    #7374359 -

Think about the pythagorean theorem. The right triangle existed way before the thoerem did. The equation was reverse engineered. Therefore, it is my belief that reality and mathmatics are created silmultaneously. It just takes a while for us to discover the math behind the reality. There is a vital connection between the two for sure. It seems that one cannot exist without the other. At least in this dimension anyways.

Lets say an inventor has a new idea. The first thing he is going to do is picture in his mind, or do a drawing of whatever it is he wants to create. As soon as the vision is created, so is the math that will define it.

Most of the time math equations are derived from analyzation of physical objects. First, we see a ball then we figure out a way to calculate its surface area. Essentially unmasking the math that was already there. The same can be said for the reciprocal. Lets say we have an equation(with set variables) for drawing a circle. Looking at the equation its hard to comprehend that the circle has already been created because it just a bunch of numbers. Its kind of like translating from one language to the other. They are the same just in different form.


--------------------
"It's not until we've lost everything, that we're free to do anything." TDFC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Shaping Reality with Math [Re: postanaldrip]
    #7374406 -

Furthermore, mathmatics are rigid and constant. In no way do we decide what the theorems or laws will be.

For example, if a thousand different mathmaticians were studying a way to define the distance between two points, they would all eventually come up with the same formula.

E=MC2 existed before Einstein did, its just that nobody knew about it until he discovered it.


--------------------
"It's not until we've lost everything, that we're free to do anything." TDFC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Shaping Reality with Math [Re: Middleman]
    #7375143 -

I can tell ya~ that this movie has made the "Double Slit Experiment" almost common knowledge....
Which in and of itself, the results of the experiment are a pretty funked up concept....  :eek:

I have watched the expanded version of the Bleep, and I found it an interesting and entertaining watch....
It also left me not knowing what to think about all that stuff....  :crazy2:

I obviously can't do the double slit experiment myself at home :lol:, but I can freeze water with my "intentions" aimed at the water....
But alas, I have never seen snowflake like crystals in a solid chunk of ice before, only in the structures of a snowflake....

You could say that that segment was just a metaphor for treating yourself better with your self-aimed intentions,
but they tied a "scientist's" name to the whole thing to make the validation on the intentions vs. ice crystals only - not the self intentions vs. yourself....
That seems very sly to me....   
When you notice a little piece of "contamination" in something that you plan to put into your body (like knowledge), it seems the safest to just throw the whole lot out.....
How can you trust any of it, if you don't know what or where the contamination is....?    :ohwell:

That is why they should make a third version of the movie....  :wink:


>^;;^<


--------------------
I'll be your midnight French Fry....  :naughty:

"The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...."
>^;;^<

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Shaping Reality with Math [Re: PhanTomCat]
    #7375242 -

But science will never extrapolate about the nature of the universe from an experiment involving particles. So, you are talking making a scientific documentary? That should really catch the public's imagination.

The public wants to dream. The public also wants people to help guide the dream. This doesn't mean, however, that the public is all living in a dream world.

The problem is that typical response from the skeptic is not "disregard that evidence because of x, y, and z..."
its just "bullshit! bullshit! bullshit!" and "How dare you invoke science, dreamer?"

Mankind has been informed by a serpent swallowing its own tail.
Did the serpent get up and complain?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Shaping Reality with Math [Re: SCleROTiUM_LICK]
    #7375384 -

Well, 90% of the little TV I watch ARE documentaries, and I am the public, so YES they should make a scientific documentary about this....  :grin:

They could have removed the "crap" from the Bleep, and still have made an entertaining documentary/movie....
There will always be endless possibilities with how one thinks and treats the self, and deep down, that seemed to be the point of the movie....
"Big questions, and hopeful answers" is different than changing the correct to the false and then presenting it as true....

The skeptics will lead you in the right direction of what the wrong info is, with proof if you inquire - most would be more than happy to....
I think some just get tired of providing eloquently detailed proof every time (same subject, every other day?) someone mentions the BS - only to be ignored....
All that information you can look up yourself anyways, and depending upon where you look, you can find the proof to back your claim or crush it....

"Reality" is just one big ball of cluster-fuck soup....    :lol:
Either way, it is entertaining, and somewhat filling.... 


>^;;^<


--------------------
I'll be your midnight French Fry....  :naughty:

"The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...."
>^;;^<

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale, Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* your mind COULD be creating reality
( 1 2 3 all )		 Moonshoe 7,381 47 07/17/04 03:04 AM
by Source
* Reality isn't real
( 1 2 3 all )		 ShroomismM 5,196 43 09/24/06 03:01 PM
by Telepylus
* How do we know math is universal?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Scarfmeister 5,750 75 10/06/08 11:31 PM
by DieCommie
* Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD...
( 1 2 3 all )		 BleedingSickness 6,282 42 10/07/02 02:00 PM
by Zahid
* Einstein on Acid
( 1 2 all )		 NiamhNyx 3,940 20 01/20/04 08:50 AM
by bert
* Math: discovered or invented?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 SneezingPenis 9,102 86 06/24/15 03:56 PM
by PsilocybinMan
* Reality vs. the mushroom
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 AbstractSoul 10,948 64 02/18/02 03:36 PM
by AbstractSoul
* Albert Einstein
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Swami 7,923 95 12/11/04 06:53 AM
by Annom

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,007 topic views. 1 members, 283 guests and 34 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.