Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineInfi_Night
Stranger
Registered: 01/12/09
Posts: 7
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
An interesting theory I had about the universe.
    #9593404 - 01/12/09 05:57 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Hi,

This was something that I promised to post over at deoxy a long time ago but I thought I had lost it. Now I have found it but deoxy isnt accepting new members. I wasnt sure whether to post it in this forum or in the mysticism one. The piece its self is written in quite an analytical way so I thought that it would get more relevant comments here. If its in the wrong forum then I'm sorry, feel free to move it. You mention in the description that anything not suiting this forum will get ripped to shreds. As a theory this obviously needs criticism and debate and most probably to be proven wrong. What I dont want are people attacking it because it's in the wrong forum, please just move it.

Anyway this is a little idea that I had a few years when I was doing a lot of acid alot of the time. After reading it now it does seem a little bit out there but also seems to make a remarkable amount of sense in a strange way. I dont profess to be any kind expert in physics etc, this is just my perspective but it is very logical and I think that you will find it interesting. It deals with some quite strange concepts so if there is something that you dont understand then please ask. Once you get your head round it then it is quite simple.

It ends rather abruptly because a, I realised that I could quite happily continue writing it for ever and not actually finish it and b, I ran out of acid. It has had a preliminary spell check and is at least readable by my standards. I can't spot any glaring mistakes but if you do then please remember that I was fucked.





Systems

The following is very hard to hold in one’s head and even harder to put down on paper. I’ll start with a few basic ideas:
The universe is infinite.
There is an infinite amount of matter/energy in the universe.

The universe itself is a very very very complex system, it could theoretically be written down as a very complex equation. The universe is in tern made up of an infinite number of smaller systems which can then be infinitely divided into smaller systems. An example of this would be the earth - humans - biological/psychological etc systems - the energy/matter that make up humans and how that energy/matter interacts - the atomic structure of atoms. After this point everything gets slightly hazy and 'random' as we reach the quantum level. In the world around us we see very few (if any) things that are truly random.
This means that the randomness of quantum mechanics must be explainable. When the behaviour of subatomic particles is described as random that is only in relation to each other. It is my belief that this behaviour cannot be truly random since there are predictable logical systems based upon it. This is recognised and it is said that there is always a minute possibility that these systems may misbehave slightly. (Such as the idea that if you were to bounce a ball against a wall several billion times then eventually the ball would pass through the wall unharmed simply by chance. Obviously this is just an example - this behaviour is much more likely when we are talking about colliding single particles not big lumps of particles. As far as I know then this is an established scientific fact in quantum mechanics.)

I however propose that the unpredictability of these subatomic particles is due to the fact that they are linked to or rather can effect (all) other particles this linking is what allows rules to be formed and allows systems to evolve and function.

For example imagine a jug of water where particles are reasonably free to move around etc. If a force acts upon a particle in said jug of water then that particle affects the surrounding particles. If we apply the above theory to every particle then there is a very small chance that the random movement of one particle may affect that of another that it is not directly in contact with. This in combination with the normal physical interaction would eventually begin to form patterns (convection currents in this case) which would evolve into systems etc. Any patterns that evolved inside of this jug of water would be very simple, unstable and short lived due to the fact that this is a finite universe with static 'walls' which cannot act/be acted upon. If you apply the same theory to an infinite amount of water then you would get an infinite number of systems of a theoretical infinite complexity. I believe this is how the universe evolved.

The example above has been simplified slightly since we assume that there is randomness at the 'beginning of time.’ I do not believe that time has a beginning since if it has a beginning it must have an end (if the universe began from a stable static state then it could in theory return to that stable static state.) This would mean that time would not 'flow' as such since everything would have to follow a set path to end in a set place at a set time. This means that every outcome and every step leading up to that outcome would be predetermined. So every event would in effect happen at once and time would be static. I do not mention time much in this paper since it is complex enough as it is, however my views are that time is only a concept invented by sentient beings in order to describe change. So when we talk about time we are only really talking about rate of change (or rather what we observe the rate of change to be.) This makes ideas like time travel seem a bit stupid. If we apply the concept of time to a car going down a road then when people talk about time travel they just mean teleportation(?) or rather the car somehow getting from one end of the road to the other end without any intermediate steps. This is although theoretically possible (in the same way the bouncing ball example above is theoretically possible) is extremely unlikely.

The above is an extremely simple example of time/rate of change. As mentioned before, time is only a concept invented by sentient beings to describe changes in their outlook of the universe. If the car in the example was to go through a long windey tunnel, but then take some kind of short cut whilst inside the tunnel then to an outside observer (un-knowing of the short cut) once the car exited the tunnel it would appear to have travelled exceedingly fast/travelled in time/some other seemingly impossible thing. This shows how time is wholly dependant on ones view point within the universe, ones knowledge of the universe and the internal workings of one’s mind/being. We however  base everything we do and all the ways we effect our surroundings upon this idea of time (along with many other ideas/beliefs we form our selves.)
Humans often do things which appear extremely illogical to anyone who doesn’t have exactly the same point of view and knowledge as them. All other animals do this as well but to a lesser degree. So for example it is much easier to predict what an ant is going to do than it is to predict what a human is going to do since ants think a lot less (or most probably not at all.) This makes sentient life extremely special since we hold a very complex system inside our heads which is very much separate from the rest of the universe. So to the systems/people that we interact with we seem illogical since they cannot see inside our heads. If the universe were a computer system then this makes us its random number generators. I will return to this idea later on in this paper as this maybe vital to the systems we interact with and the fact that the universe does not resolve itself, stagnate, become a closed system, stop time etc (as we discussed before.)

This if anything is the 'meaning of life.' However this applies to everything not just humans. Whenever there are very complex systems which are largely separate from each other but can interact to a degree we get the random effect described above. Sentient beings are just a very extreme example since our minds are so separate from the rest of the universe. Also the fact that humans understand each other (to a degree) means that we are 'on the same level' which makes us much more complex as a whole. This 'meaning of life' or rather meaning of existence is what fuels our primary goal (discussed later in the paper.) This is the same for all systems and makes a very nice example:

Humans interact with (and do not entirely understand) the rest of the universe. Out of everything in the universe we interact with/understand ourselves the most and then each other, this groups us together. The human race (as a whole) interacts with the rest of the universe and does not entirely understand the rest of the universe. What we understand the most out of the rest of the universe is life on earth.

I have simplified this logic a hell of a lot but this pattern continues infinitely and gets insanely complex. Obviously things can be grouped like this in many differ ways but the same basic logic applies to any group. As the groups get bigger and more complex they get more complex and less easy to apply rules to. This breaking down of logic is in fact what ties the universe together. As a very brief example.

As previously mentioned one of the primary groups that humans fall into is the human race since most humans interact with each other a lot but we can group humans into an infinite number of other groups of lesser importance/validity. If we take one single human as an example (lets call him Bob) the here are a few random groups of the many groups bob can be put into:

5: is part of existence
4: exists physically -  has the ability to affect things
3: human - animal - living - exists physically
2: English - European - earthling - is in this solar system - exists physically
1: has a scar - looks X <-Many groups here - has arms and legs - is human
0: single component of the universe but made up of many groups himself

The largest/most important groups are at the top
I have expanded the groups to the right

Back to the example, every system gets to a critical level of complexity where it appears to be (and in some ways is) completely random. This means that systems can oscillate in their complexity and reform into new systems. This can be observed in simple systems in everyday life.

If we consider a very simplified example where there are an infinite number of particles in an infinite space and each particle in one moment can only stay still or move to 20 of the surrounding spaces. This means that although in one moment the particle can only do 21 things in 10 moments the particle can do (21^10)+1 things. Whilst over an infinite amount of time the particle can do an infinite number of things. When trying to work these kind of things out we get very large numbers very quickly. When one particle effects another particle we start to get the prospect of an infinity to the power of infinity number of possibilities or rather if we assume that all particles are linked to each other then we get (((infinity ^ infinity) ^ infinity) ^ infinity) etc.

This is where things get really strange and hard to put down on paper, the above example shows a simple logical 1d linear structure (infinity ^ infinity) or a more complex logical 2d lattice structure ( (((infinity ^ infinity) ^ infinity) ^ infinity) etc.) There should in theory be a 3d cuboid structure to this which I cannot express mathematically, there would then be a 4th dimensional structure and we could carry on adding on dimensions and 'macro' dimensions if you will infinitely.

If you can picture the above in your head then well done, if not then draw it out on paper and then try to visualise it (paper is very limiting.) This gives us an idea of how insanely complex the inner structure of systems can be when involving interconnected infinites. It also draws some alarming conclusions about the universe when it is looked at from a purely mathematical point of view. The above model can have transformations of the same nature applied to it. This seems to be the simplest way to express the notion of an infinite number of points interconnected in an infinite number of ways. It also shows us the amazing scope of such systems and how complex they could possibly get.

The particles mentioned in this section aren’t necessarily atomic particles, they are just parts of a system that act and are acted upon (or make up bigger parts.) An example is the beginning of the universe, eventually some non descript particles began to stick together then orbit each other and form atoms, etc. The laws of physics could have literally evolved like this.

In the next section (yep so far this is just the basics) Ill cover a few interesting things that complex systems do - I’m jumping ahead slightly since in between randomness and complex systems there are patterns. As in particles effecting each other in a repetitive way that isn’t quite a system yet.


The actual system dynamics

I don’t actually know that much about cybernetics as I’m still researching it. What I’ve written bellow is my take on things (and how they are applied to this theory) just to give you an idea of what I mean (a lot of it is subject specific to this but if you find transformations interesting go get a book on cybernetics.)

Control, power and knowledge tend to be what every sentient being and component in a system wishes to obtain. I think this is what separates a pattern from a system. It is this want/need which causes the system’s parts (and the system as a whole) to progress and evolve. It is also what makes a system so unstable. One can only be all knowing if one is powerless (or near enough) whilst the only way something can become all powerful is for it to stop making decisions/possessing knowledge. These are the two aspects of control.

Every single part in a system wishes to become the system or wishes that the system become it. Unstable systems are often linked together to stabilise each other. All systems are inherently unstable in the way that they are always changing. If a system stops changing then it is 'dead' this hardly ever seems to happen (see infinite time argument above.) Some systems are stable, or rather closed and will always be there, for instance the energy/matter governed by e=m(cc) will always exist in one form or another. These systems are in effect closed and can be (and are) heavily interwoven into other systems to provide simple, predictable stability.

Control

In a rather abstract example if 2 children inherited 50% control of their parents' business there would be fighting and chaos. Similarly if we gave 3 children 33% of their parents business whilst no 1 child could monopolise the business steps to take control could be taken.

A more complex and stable control system would be that a business is divided up between 2 children 50:50 but each child has a financial adviser (the child only knows their own financial adviser and the advisers do not know each other.) Every decision that is made has to be ok'd by the child’s adviser (thus halving the control.) Every year each child has to send their portion of the records off to the other child’s financial advisor (obviously they do not know who this is) we shall call this an exchange in control and we can say the records count as 1% control. The adviser then checks the sums (but again does not know who they are from) and sends them back. This is a kind of anonymous control where each child and their adviser do in fact control half the business but do not know how to take complete control. This system is still amazingly unstable since if anyone ever got a sum wrong etc then they would upset the balance. A more stable system would have more children and advisors. (We are assuming these children are very stupid - in reality systems are much more intricate.)

This demonstrates how knowledge can indeed be power and how if anyone were to be 'all knowing' then they would have to be powerless or they would break things. The opposite is also true; if someone was all powerful they would have to know very little or they could take control of a system. INSERT EXAMPLE.

Scale and slack

Scale is a very simple term, opposed to having one person with 10% control you could have 10 people with 1% control and vica versa.

Slack is a bit harder to understand. Slack is when we assume that control/power/energy/mass whatever is there but it actually isn’t for a short time, it’s similar to when a shop continues to sell an item knowing that it is losing money at that particular time but will make it back later. When combined with scale slack can be extremely useful. Example imagine the combined finance of the markets of the game eve online over a period of time, they have to rake in a certain amount of isk in relation to the universal consumption of minerals and trading etc and it has to be worked out pretty well considering that the market price history looks real and they don’t shadily add/remove isk from accounts.

Slack is also useful for simplifying things. Take the example of a shop you can say 'I spent £100 on milk (in many transactions) and sold £200 worth(in many transactions)' opposed to noting down every single transaction. At first slack doesn’t seem very important until you have multiple amounts of slack. Look at how banking works there are millions of depts and loans, whilst there are also millions of accounts full of money as well as investments, stocks, shares etc. All of this balances out but is very complex. Slack can be imagined like a folded cloth which can be made flat.

Slack is also often a grouping of smaller systems, for instance life on earth. There is a certain amount of energy put in from different sources (such as the sun or nuclear power) which equates to the same amount of energy out at different points. It could simply be that the meaning of life (not just human life) is to re distribute energy and resources etc. Slack is simply an idea which simplifies the visualisation of systems since every detail does not have to be shown (or understood by other parts of the system.)

When instability arises; slack, or rather a group of many small and ideally simple systems are normally to blame. A perfect example is human life on earth. Every other animal (even apparently intelligent dolphins) does its job as it is supposed to. Humans however have evolved to the point where we have knowledge of things we are not supposed to, such as access to energy that would normally be locked away (fossil fuels, nuclear power etc.) This is how we have been upsetting the balance of the system of life on earth.

However the way that we have evolved means that we will more likely destroy each other before we destroy earth since the system of life on this planet is much older and more stable.



The interior universe, design and purpose of sentient life.

It has long been believed that humans are somehow special and are different from animals. I had always thought that humans were simply highly evolved animals with an ego problem who were scared of death and forces that they could not control/understand, I thought this was why they came up with religion.

Sentient life however seems to just be a set of extremely complex systems that have adopted an 'ego' and feeling of individuality. This is what makes humans so different since if the ego(/soul/self etc) was removed then although they would continue to exist and even survive it would only be on a very basic level. The key thing that humans would cease to do as systems is evolve. It could be said that whilst for any major evolution there must be an ego, an ego could also be a by product of evolution/change. There are certain systems which could not have evolved (or at least not as directly) through simple chance. An example would be natural selection amongst humans, what humans find attractive can change from week to week and from country to country. This means that we have evolved in lots of very slight very complex ways. For example the majority of people conceived in the 60s in a certain group would have inherited a lot of features from their parents. These days those two parents would probably have not gotten together.

This is a very very complex example where a collection of egos known as society decide an evolutionary path. This complexity can be scaled down a lot and can be applied to most systems (and groups of systems) that have evolved in a structured way opposed to a hit and miss way. This could well be why we as humans personify things so much, e.g. mother nature. Systems of a certain complexity/decision making potential may have extremely primitive egos (or rather what we class as egos since we invented the concept and like to personify things.)

This personification and often fear/love of other systems has in some cases can develop into the idea of a god or some other kind of deity, e.g. Thor 'god of thunder.' If you have read any of Carl Jung's work (leading psychiatrist at turn of century - worked with Freud and founded a lot of modern psychology is based upon what he established) then you will know that he believed in the idea of a shared unconscious. This ties in with the idea of every particle being linked to every other and if a system could be controlled on a very basic level then this could be achieved. This also explains why certain psychological features seem to be genetic but there is no evidence in a DNA sample of the features.

Jung also wrote of Jungian Archetypes, this is the idea that if enough people believe in something it empowers it and makes it in effect real. Even if the idea is not real then it would have the same effect on the systems (humans) that believe in it. I believe this is how the ideas of gods come about, something is studied to a degree and generally noticed, has an emotion linked to it, is personified and details our invented, and it is then accepted by a group of people who believe in it and empower it to an extent. This can be seen in every belief and also in modern society. We may not have gods but we have things which enough people take part in, have views on, have emotions linked to or think about a lot. This creates a focus upon that object and is the beginning of a persona. An example is Auschwitz I think that it would be very interesting to get someone who had never heard of Hitler (so aboriginal Australian perhaps) and take them to Auschwitz and see what they think. A lot of what they pick up would probably be from the atmosphere of other people there etc but even this to a degree is an (albeit very direct) example of a shared unconsciousness.

But why? Simple, it is an excellent way to achieve stability across an entire system. Every single religion that has ever existed has had similarities to other religions. Humans seem to need a religion since we have reached an evolutionary point where we can ask 'why are we here?', 'What is the meaning of life?' and 'What is after death?' We may not like the answers to these questions and they would most probably de-stabilise our systems to the point where we feel there is no point to anything we do or even  life. So we simply invent our own answers, over millennia the current society and past societies/religions have developed a model for religions which helps stabilise many aspects of our lives. E.g. ourselves (the idea that God loves you, rewards good deeds and that there is an ultimate purpose.) Society (Gods punish wrong doers and reward good people.) This rough model for religions can be seen by looking at the similarities in religions and things such as the 10 commandments. This model would have had to be passed on through the shared unconscious of many generations. Other similar models seem to exist for other things and in other systems.

Bees/wasps/ants are a great example since they have no brain and only have a nervous system but when they act together they can seem strangely intelligent. For instance when attacked by a swarm of hornets, bees grab on to them and work together to generate heat and they eventually cook the hornet since bees can survive at higher temperatures. Ants are also amazing in the way that they can work together to carry loads. All of these systems have little or no capacity to learn and little or no memory yet they all seem to know instinctively what to do. The idea of a 'hive mind' is semi accepted in this field. It seems that between humans it is just a lot more complex and buried under our sub conscious. Since insects don’t seem to be conscious (at least individually) they do not have a sub conscious part of their mind to get in the way. The same hive mind / shared unconsciousness feature is visible in all animals and a lot of other systems. It seems that the more advanced, (subsequently individual) and conscious an animal is the less they need this feature since they are able to exist as a single conscious unit. Humans seem to have re developed it mainly for stability and the passing on of models and information. Apes however do not show any evidence (culture, highly developed communication etc) and therefore do not seem to be at any risk of a mental upheaval due to any philosophical realisations. It would appear that this shared unconsciousness is mostly dormant within apes. Or it is at least given very little context in which to act within.

However at any point in recorded history if you had said to someone (ex a roman) your gods are fake, your life is largely pointless and you can do pretty much anything you want without any non physical repercussions, and if this had been accepted and fully realised then society, life and individuality would fall apart within days. So we remained god fearing and lied to ourself in order to keep ourselves alive and to keep our mental and social evolution controlled and directed. However both technologically and mentally we evolved very slowly. It then got to a point when we quite unexpectedly exploded forth into the real world and thousands of years of mental/technological/social evolution took place in only a few hundred years. I believe this started when a certain ratio of devout religious followers to not so devout people was reached. The new non devout people may not even have known that they were different, they were most probably religious (as they were brought up) but were less god fearing and had the intelligence and individuality to question things. Since that point people have began to realise that there beliefs were false or at least non literal. These days a lot of people are atheist/agnostic and the few that aren’t know that their religious beliefs/texts are only figurative. However we seem to have had quite a gentle transition in comparison to the previous example. Although religions are widely abused now (Jihads etc) they seem to have reached a stable point of 'Well it’s not actually true but it’s a good set of rules to live your life by.' Underlying this view, our human need for religion and an afterlife etc are known and have been debated and studied.

It seems that we had advanced enough to partially accept the truth and survive without our religions. We can now look at the universe un-blinkered as I hope that I have been doing and helping you to do in this paper. I think that one of the most important questions is why did we change? Was it just chance that with the abrupt end of the dark ages some of us became too liberal and we were lucky enough to have evolved to a state where we could cope. It is also possible that as we have evolved further and further away from the primitive hive mind of insects (which we do not actually need for survival at all now) it simply became completely dormant. Another possibility (the one I believe to be most likely) is that this is simply the next evolutionary step since a species cannot evolve if it is constantly lying to itself. However it may be that we took this step too early and with inadequate knowledge of the mechanics of the universe and ourselves. Subsequently we are only just now realising how much damage we have done to planet earth.


Not there yet - freewill is an illusion or is at least based upon the interconnectedness of all things which we can experience and utilise in our minds since they are such an isolated system.

Individuality and free will: The intricacies of extremely advanced systems

Now that I have explained the idea of the ego I can explain exactly what I mean when I say that we are becoming more and more individual as we evolve. I do not mean that we do not rely on each other, these days we rely on each other (society) more than ever. I mean individual in a purely mental term, we seem to be very distant from the primitive, instinctive hunter gather that had a simple enough mind for a complete shared consciousness to be not just possible but necessary. These days we have much larger and more complex egos and we are in a larger degree of control of our own minds and lives, we do not rely on a large amount of pre-programmed personality and we do not project things into our unconscious minds as gods in order to govern, rationalise and comfort us. It would seem that we do now have genuine free will now. However if we do have free will then this breaks the previously discussed modal where we are just extremely complex but theoretically predictable systems. Now that we can understand and govern our own lives we seem to have evolved past the point of normal animals. This is why I separate the internal universe and the external universe, to the outside world the human mind is all slack and cannot necessarily be predicted as we have a new aspect to control, intent.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledeimya
tofu and monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: Infi_Night]
    #9594004 - 01/12/09 10:01 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Why do you think it is an interesting hypothesis about the universe ?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejvm
I knew the pieces fit!
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/08/07
Posts: 2,031
Loc: Cleveland, Ohio Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: Infi_Night]
    #9594124 - 01/12/09 10:35 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Good post, I understood most of what you meant. I read it all and there are a few parts i disagree on. I think the ego has come from our primitive stages and is still attached to us 'unconsciously' as you stated it. I agree on your theory of time in which that there is no beginning or end. There is just now and always has been now.  I don't believe we evolved from from any type of animal that is living now mainly because the animals we supposedly evolved from are still around, being monkeys. It's hard to relate to ourselves with other things, of course. We are looking through ourselves and not through the eyes of reptiles, insects, mammals, amphibians, fish and what not. But we are kind of related to reptiles,mammals and fish put together comparing brains, body parts and skeletons. It's a real hard thought to ponder who we really are and what we are really doing here. I'm sure we once started off animal like, without anything other than the basics to survive. But we evolved(or did we?). Maybe humans have always been just what we are, humans. The theory of evolution seems kind of strange if there is no defining time to evolve. There is of course many things we do not understand about ourselves and our surroundings, yet we claim to know a lot, yet we are still struggling in this world.

Maybe we weren't supposed to find meaning to life and just instead live our lives, study our surroundings such as the different plants and animals and our natural habitat we live in. If there wasn't this urge to control, find hidden meaning and be powerful i think we could of just done that. But we didn't and who knows if that's really the purpose, if any purpose to living besides living and experiencing the joys of living on this beautiful planet. I also believe we have to understand things using science and spirituality and not be one sided. If we do that we could possibly understand more than we could of just trying to understand everything one way, being it scientifically or spiritually. Without integrating both aspects there will never be any so called proof based on how both are measured.  I guess the only way to find out is when we die, and if there is nothing, then it doesn't matter. But if we are still consciously alive and aware, we figure out everything there already was. But meaning to life is always subjective to a certain extent regarding personal experience. But it seems we either learn or don't learn from the things that happen to us in life.

All in all its a hard subject to talk about and make any truthful statements because of the multiple number of factors integrating us this experience. Living is weird, especially with a personal conscious mind. Yet i don't believe that our consciousness is separate all together. Mainly because we are possibly just feeding off the consciousness that was already there to begin with.  :shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: jvm]
    #9594149 - 01/12/09 10:43 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

jvm said:
I don't believe we evolved from from any type of animal that is living now mainly because the animals we supposedly evolved from are still around, being monkeys.




From a scientific standpoint, this statement is nonsense. How many shapes, sizes, and varieties of monkeys are there, for example? It isn't as though the theory of evolution states that every single member of some species transforms into another species; far from it, in fact. Why would it not make sense that some monkeys could have become geographically isolated from other monkeys and to have evolved separately from other monkeys that were, at one time, the same species?
:strokebeard3:

To the original poster, read your post and loved it, really long so I don't have the time right now to go through and reply to it, but I'll be back to pick at a couple of things from it later. :grin: You definitely put a lot of work in it and a lot of aspects seemed to parallel with a lot of my own thoughts.

Welcome to the Shroomery! :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDiaboleros
Devil's spawn

Registered: 07/20/08
Posts: 1,856
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #9596450 - 01/12/09 05:27 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Very interesting theory indeed, it basically covered all the new insights I had on shrooms and much more. I agree with almost everything you say, except for free will, you could indeed reason it is an illusion, or you could reason free will is exactly what makes us predictable, and causes the illusion of determinism. It doesn't mean we are predictable, that we don't have free will. It's like claiming, in order for us to have free will, we would have to be random. But nothing is random.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinejivJaN
yes
Male User Gallery


Registered: 08/09/08
Posts: 4,245
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: Infi_Night]
    #9599173 - 01/13/09 01:22 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

I agree with much of your writing.
If you will allow, i would like to add something in form of a question.
Why do you , and many others seam to still wallow in the sterile way of observing progress of the universe and mankind ?
Why is it all an equation ?
I understand the scientific approach , but i must avoid it sometimes simply because you cannot do high school work with 1st grade knowledge.
Let me simplify this a bit..
All the results you can come up with , are in fact results of giving structure to  already explained phenomena.
Once you ask yourself whether it has actually been explained properly , looping with these ideas is inevitable. The answer starts slipping away as a paradox is solved only to create another.
Remember.. everything you can think in words is a product of the learned language which may not be accurate. Mathematics and physics that could be proved wrong in the years to come etc..
What i believe to be the burden , or the block before the breakthrough is the habitual attempts at giving structure , form and order to all existence.
This as you have termed it ,is an attempt at control.
Absolute control can never be obtained as this would lead to the singularization of infinity.Meaning all of existence would eventually fall into the hands of  the one most powerful.
This is impossible.
Through the evolution of a self conscious species, not many choices  pop up as solutions for progress.
1 .Technology
, or 2 .expansion of consciousness/awareness/spirituality .. call it what you wish.

The attitude of control would simply lead to the advancement of technology since widely spread awareness is not beneficial for those wishing power.
The other possibility would lead to equality , harmony , the glorification of each individuality as a unique portion of infinity instead of constructing hierarchy which would be predominant in the technological , control based social/memory complex.
So you have
1. random swerving , perpetuating the randomness and existence within a mystery which is of service to all as a catalyst for learning. Interaction is a way of experiencing different aspects of the infinite creation whos face we all comprise together as atoms of a body .. and then beyond . Never claiming control , never claiming ultimate knowledge for when it would be attained  .. individuality would no longer have purpose.
Therefore the individuality can be observed as an illusion to also create catalyst for progress that through this illusion is considered progress for the whole  , because all is one. And one is all.
2 .A deterministic machine .. where sentient beings represent the gears which comprise it.
So we ARE dealing with systems here...
But they are different.
One very important thing must be noted in order to kill this sterile approach without considering free will.
Consciousness is all there is.
Therefore free will is paramount.
Number one respects it.. number two doesnt.
Throughout the experience of this ,soon to change  ,  density on this planetary sphere , in ones research or truth seeking process many paradoxes are evident.
These paradoxes were placed here , and attempting to see passed SOME of them can only lead to more distortion.This is not to discourage the seeking , only to emphasize that all answers cannot be obtained. Therefore ,giving a much bigger and complex reality properties that have been concluded whilst in a reality of lower complexity and using its terms and laws can only get you back where you already are.. only with a bunch of information stacked up ... and there aint a damn thing you can do with it :smile:

In the end.. what i am trying to say if any of the above has made any sense so far..
Stop trying to straighten out the wavy line.
What it of most importance , whether you want to run the machine  or join the flowing river is understanding the opportunities that are present at this nexus.
Which is this interaction we have.
By limiting it.. you bound the individual to dedicating its own purpose  for the purpose of the machine.And the machine being controlled by the single consciousness behind it.
By allowing the individual to evolve freely , knowing it can and is the grand river in its own right , the group consciousness is thus co-evolving.
When you give respect to both of these aspects as equal catalysts for working and evolving within this for-mentioned illusion you begin to realize the plus/minus aspect of all existence.
Duality in this higher reality is no longer perceived as good and/or bad , rather it is defined by the conscious perception of it governed , again , by this imaginary individuality.
Once this reality is transcended the duality no longer exists , therefore the individuality , although still motivated and propagated within the lower densities as learning catalyst , is actually just a means to an end.
And the end , if i am now allowed to use my limitation in understanding , to describe the unlimited ..
perception in general is no longer necessary.
But this is looking into future much more than we are ready and able to.
And.. Time IS non-existent.
One of the illusions present to create progress within limited understanding.
Understanding constantly exceeds it limitations  culminating in a point where it is infinite , therefore the illusions are no longer present.
Every density/level having its own.
All illusion being the product of perception ,marked as always uniquely different from the next when we talk about self-aware beings.
NOW..
:smile:
All of the above is simply a rudely simplified explanation of the characteristics of our galaxy/logos which is a sentient being of its own.
..there are Billions of galaxies comprising a universe.
...Billions of universes .. and on and on and on.. Diversity and variety.. incomprehensible
Do you see where i am going with this ?
:smile:


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



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

All my posts in this forum are strictly fictional.
They are derived from an acute mental illness , from which i am forced to lie compulsively.
I have never induced any kind of mind altering substance in my life  and i have no intentions whatsoever of doing anything illegal.
If I have ever suggested such a thing it would have most likely been , due to my personality disorder and i probably do not remember it at all..

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOmegachrist
Dark Shaman
Male

Registered: 01/06/09
Posts: 296
Loc: Where the grass is green....
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: jivJaN]
    #9601454 - 01/13/09 01:19 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

"The universe is not just stranger than we suppose...It's stranger than we CAN suppose."
-Terence McKenna

"It is ignorant to ask questions with no answers."
-Rupert Sheldrake


--------------------
"I dabble in all forms of art that show beauty in nature that in turn causes me to live in balance with mother nature, and to not tolerate anyone who opposes Gaia."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: Omegachrist]
    #9602237 - 01/13/09 03:48 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Omegachrist said:
"It is ignorant to ask questions with no answers."
-Rupert Sheldrake




Why is this so, and which questions have no answers? :sherlock:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: jivJaN]
    #9602417 - 01/13/09 04:22 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

I understand the scientific approach , but i must avoid it sometimes simply because you cannot do high school work with 1st grade knowledge.





Senseless drivel of the month award. :trophy:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinejivJaN
yes
Male User Gallery


Registered: 08/09/08
Posts: 4,245
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9602860 - 01/13/09 05:47 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:

I understand the scientific approach , but i must avoid it sometimes simply because you cannot do high school work with 1st grade knowledge.





Senseless drivel of the month award. :trophy:



:thanx:


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



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

All my posts in this forum are strictly fictional.
They are derived from an acute mental illness , from which i am forced to lie compulsively.
I have never induced any kind of mind altering substance in my life  and i have no intentions whatsoever of doing anything illegal.
If I have ever suggested such a thing it would have most likely been , due to my personality disorder and i probably do not remember it at all..

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineInfi_Night
Stranger
Registered: 01/12/09
Posts: 7
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: jivJaN]
    #9606222 - 01/14/09 04:31 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Lots of great replies!

Jvm: The ego (as a human concept) could be classed as self awareness. As soon as a creature becomes self aware it has an ego. Your right that alot animals have what we would call egos. However ego is a human term so I'm not sure if we can apply it completely. It is similar to if an advanced species were studying us and tried to apply an advanced concept which we may exhibit all of the characteristics of having but not actually be aware of. Do animals realize that they have an 'ego'? Do they experience it in the same way as we do or is it something different? I do believe in the theory of evolution since there are all sorts of fossil records etc which show us evolving from apes. However it is still just a theory.

Diaboleros: Glad that you liked it. The thing about free will, determinism and randomness is that it depends entirely upon your standpoint, your knowledge and how that is interpreted by you consciousness. As a very simple example I could say '2,6,5,3,5,8' and alot of people may think that they are just random numbers but they are actually the 6th to 12th digits of pi. If you scale this idea up massively, layer it and then apply it to the universe (not just between people but systems as described above) then you see that we cannot prove whether the universe is deterministic or not. This brings us back to the whole knowledge:power thing. To absolutely prove that the universe is or is not deterministic you would have to know absolutely everything about every single thing in the universe and how it relates to every other thing in the universe. For all intensive purposes you would then become the universe (or God etc.) You would not have the power to tell anyone about this since in doing so you would make the universe deterministic.

jivJaN: I know what you mean about not being able to explain it using maths or English etc but these are the only methods I have available. You seem to have a similar idea to me but the reason why I have tried and to keep it so logical and clinical is because explaining things from a personal perspective clouds things. For instance there are many things in your post which are true from your perspective but may not be true from others, this applies to everyone. I have tried (and un-doubtbly failed) to eliminate this kind of conjecture from the post because it wouldn't be as valuable to everyone else as things which I can attempt to explain and provide examples or evidence for.

Joe

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: Infi_Night]
    #9606770 - 01/14/09 08:52 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

OP, im interested where you have been learning about Cybernetics - I think it should be one of the focuses of philosophy today but I only ever hear it being referenced in the 20th century.

I agree with your gist, but some of your points might need a rewording to be more acceptable. eg the idea that 'humans aren't supposed to access fossil fuels' might be better thought of as humans reversing a process that has been at the foundation of earth's evolution for millions of years.. a process that would never occur in the absence of strange 'intelligent' actions.

also you should remember that people have been 'free thinkers' long before the religions of today. They have existed the whole time. However, only in more recent times have we begun to have access to information from around the world and access to cultures from the whole globe, only recently have we trully begun to see where we stand as humans next the rest of the world. And thus, only recently have a lot of people had the right access to information and laxity on religious indoctrination that they have been able to use their free thought much


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineInfi_Night
Stranger
Registered: 01/12/09
Posts: 7
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: Noteworthy]
    #9625354 - 01/17/09 08:47 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

I read an e-book about it a long time ago. It did seem quite old, it was called something like 'an introduction to cybernetics' I didnt finsih it completely and dont remember much of it but it was quite good. It had a fair amount of complex maths in it but it was related to the text so you could puzzle through it.

Joe

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLakefingers


Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: Infi_Night]
    #9625428 - 01/17/09 09:24 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

of course you find it interesting, you made it up

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: Lakefingers]
    #9625434 - 01/17/09 09:25 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Lakefingers said:
of course you find it interesting, you made it up




Are you implying that every theory that he creates, he finds interesting? :strokebeard3:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLakefingers


Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #9625450 - 01/17/09 09:38 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

"An interesting theory I had about the universe."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: Lakefingers]
    #9625483 - 01/17/09 09:52 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Yeah, I read the title. The answer to my question isn't in it. The title doesn't say "the simple fact that I made this theory is the reason I find it interesting".


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #9625508 - 01/17/09 10:01 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

maybe that says more about what you think about your own ideas... it is reasonable for someone to not only find their idea interesting but to think other people would find it interesting.. im not sure if you disagree with this though, it seems that you disagree with the inclusion of 'interesting' in the title since it is redundant. if this is the case, then let me say that it further makes sense for someone to note that not only is it an idea that they had but that they think other people will find it interesting, thus they would call it 'interesting' instead of being pedantic and saying something like 'potentially interesting' (which although more reasonable.. is not what to expect from people)


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: Noteworthy]
    #9625511 - 01/17/09 10:03 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

That was to lakefingers, right? The quick reply confuddles it a bit. :grin:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
Re: An interesting theory I had about the universe. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #9625526 - 01/17/09 10:07 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

it was to the post of yours before lakefingers.. and at any rate, there is a 2 minute gap between your more recent post and mine


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Discovery vs. invention gribochek 2,129 5 10/01/15 10:24 PM
by once in a lifetime
* novelty theory & sept 11
( 1 2 all )
Agent Cooper 3,506 24 02/27/03 11:22 AM
by Strumpling
* A.O.S.3's LSD/Van Allen Belt theory LearyfanS 1,836 10 02/15/02 05:26 PM
by Roger_irrelevant
* DMT - Any theories?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Xlea321 9,986 101 06/01/08 10:38 PM
by backfromthedead
* String Theory is messed up! nubious 2,832 19 09/15/09 10:09 PM
by DieCommie
* Singularity, Free Will, Infinite Dimensions...
( 1 2 all )
Joshua 6,388 30 04/12/02 03:47 PM
by skaMariaPastora
* reality theory
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
1stimer 7,509 92 10/05/02 09:59 PM
by Calen
* Post your Theories on Life after Death here.
( 1 2 all )
daba 2,757 30 07/19/03 12:37 PM
by daba

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,314 topic views. 1 members, 11 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 13 queries.