- Thank you received: 0
Creation of the Big Bang!
- jimiproton
- Offline
- Premium Member
Less
More
22 years 2 months ago #2921
by jimiproton
Replied by jimiproton on topic Reply from James Balderston
quote:
quote:
The opposite of 3 is not zero; it is 1/3.
My thought would be -3 with the sum being 0. I am curious, how do you justify 1/3?
I justify it by using "1," instead of "0," as the fulcrum of existence.
Why "1"? It is the interaction-point of the dimention of an individual intellect ("person") and the other dimentions (3 of space, one of time, one of scale). An integer "x" would therein have an opposite, 1/x.
This is connected to the notion that "existence" cannot have any other form except the following:
Anything that can exist, does.
Time, as a dimention, simply distinguishes the potention from the actual; but as observations have demonstrated, they are the same thing. Existence is therefore singular (i.e. "1")
quote:
Understanding exists (and so, in what dimention?) In other words, your understanding of the universe is an inverse (yet valid and useful) function of reality.
quote:
There is another similar image inside of me.
quote:
What do you mean by this?
By this I mean that our personal measures of intelligence are a reflection of the intelligence of the operations of the universe. But, instead of expanding in total material effect as distance, time, and scale, increases (x/1) as the intelligence of the universe does, your personal intellect will reduce effect in an inverse way (1/x). Correspondingly, your visual reference reduces size of objects inversely according to distance.
But in the dimention of "person," only pure units exist, and these pure units are never diminished in size or observed effects with distance, time, or scale. These units are the carriers of meaning (ie. whiteness, roundness, tableness, all components of the universe that can be named). These units cannot exist in partial form, they either exist in their fullness, or they dissapear. Since they are necessarily connected to the same universe, of which each individual intellect is a reflection, they will be the same in you as in me.
quote:
The opposite of 3 is not zero; it is 1/3.
My thought would be -3 with the sum being 0. I am curious, how do you justify 1/3?
I justify it by using "1," instead of "0," as the fulcrum of existence.
Why "1"? It is the interaction-point of the dimention of an individual intellect ("person") and the other dimentions (3 of space, one of time, one of scale). An integer "x" would therein have an opposite, 1/x.
This is connected to the notion that "existence" cannot have any other form except the following:
Anything that can exist, does.
Time, as a dimention, simply distinguishes the potention from the actual; but as observations have demonstrated, they are the same thing. Existence is therefore singular (i.e. "1")
quote:
Understanding exists (and so, in what dimention?) In other words, your understanding of the universe is an inverse (yet valid and useful) function of reality.
quote:
There is another similar image inside of me.
quote:
What do you mean by this?
By this I mean that our personal measures of intelligence are a reflection of the intelligence of the operations of the universe. But, instead of expanding in total material effect as distance, time, and scale, increases (x/1) as the intelligence of the universe does, your personal intellect will reduce effect in an inverse way (1/x). Correspondingly, your visual reference reduces size of objects inversely according to distance.
But in the dimention of "person," only pure units exist, and these pure units are never diminished in size or observed effects with distance, time, or scale. These units are the carriers of meaning (ie. whiteness, roundness, tableness, all components of the universe that can be named). These units cannot exist in partial form, they either exist in their fullness, or they dissapear. Since they are necessarily connected to the same universe, of which each individual intellect is a reflection, they will be the same in you as in me.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
22 years 2 months ago #3231
by Atko
Replied by Atko on topic Reply from Paul Atkinson
This thread is going to run and run! Interesting to see that we have ranged from raw concept to physics, mathematics, definitions of infinity and currently philosophy with a smattering of psychology. Getting a bit too esoteric for me though.....Meta Research goes Metaphysics? <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- AgoraBasta
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
22 years 2 months ago #3233
by AgoraBasta
Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Interesting to see that we have ranged from raw concept to physics, mathematics, definitions of infinity and currently philosophy with a smattering of psychology.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Atko,
That was only to be expected. There's a hypothesis very close to being a fact, that we comprehend reality by physically modelling it in the frame of a single neurone's cytoskeleton acting as a finite quantum automaton (computer) where information is carried by hypersound phonons (~10^11Hz). The question is whether the models by such an automaton produce a wider or narrower class of "realities" than the outer physical universe does create.
Interesting to see that we have ranged from raw concept to physics, mathematics, definitions of infinity and currently philosophy with a smattering of psychology.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Atko,
That was only to be expected. There's a hypothesis very close to being a fact, that we comprehend reality by physically modelling it in the frame of a single neurone's cytoskeleton acting as a finite quantum automaton (computer) where information is carried by hypersound phonons (~10^11Hz). The question is whether the models by such an automaton produce a wider or narrower class of "realities" than the outer physical universe does create.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
22 years 2 months ago #2922
by Atko
Replied by Atko on topic Reply from Paul Atkinson
Agorabasta
I'm not familiar with this hypothesis. I'd always understood the "computing" facility of the brain to be a function of various groups of neurons. The cytoskeleton is primarily a structural support mechanism for each of the cells, facilitating growth and integral strength. It also transports cellular components to various locations within the cell. But for a neuron to transmit information, it has to pulse an electrochemical signal across a synaptic gap. To my knowledge, this signal has no other significant attributes at the receptor than amplitude and duration, dependent on the stimulus. If this is the case, then any computational activity restricted to a single neuron beyond and/if/or etc is going to have a mighty hard time actually exiting the cell and doing anything useful.
Still, like I said, I'm not familiar with the hypothesis - if you've got a link or a reference, I'd be interested to look at the theory.
I'm not familiar with this hypothesis. I'd always understood the "computing" facility of the brain to be a function of various groups of neurons. The cytoskeleton is primarily a structural support mechanism for each of the cells, facilitating growth and integral strength. It also transports cellular components to various locations within the cell. But for a neuron to transmit information, it has to pulse an electrochemical signal across a synaptic gap. To my knowledge, this signal has no other significant attributes at the receptor than amplitude and duration, dependent on the stimulus. If this is the case, then any computational activity restricted to a single neuron beyond and/if/or etc is going to have a mighty hard time actually exiting the cell and doing anything useful.
Still, like I said, I'm not familiar with the hypothesis - if you've got a link or a reference, I'd be interested to look at the theory.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- jimiproton
- Offline
- Premium Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
22 years 2 months ago #3055
by jimiproton
Replied by jimiproton on topic Reply from James Balderston
Apologies for what appears to be a digression. But please assume that it is not.
The academic system (i.e. the institution of universities some 800 years ago) in which all scholasticism has its roots, originally viewed the sciences in the following heirarchy of ascending order:
arts
economics
politics
philosophy
theology
Granted, improvement of human life was the main purpose for such institutions; hence the term "Humanities."
Now we have hard sciences: physics, mathematics, chemistry. The new forms cannot have emerged without the previously existing order. Hard sciences all rely on the philosphical underpinnings of the idea of "Laws" and predictability in the behavior of the universe. It is therefore not inappropriate to deal with the Soft sciences in these forums.
One may assume that the solution to the entire problem of "What's wrong with the current state of physics/astronomy" will neccesarily be answered in an inter-scholasic way; and this answer will need to recognize the heirarchical relationships between the hard and soft sciences.
The academic system (i.e. the institution of universities some 800 years ago) in which all scholasticism has its roots, originally viewed the sciences in the following heirarchy of ascending order:
arts
economics
politics
philosophy
theology
Granted, improvement of human life was the main purpose for such institutions; hence the term "Humanities."
Now we have hard sciences: physics, mathematics, chemistry. The new forms cannot have emerged without the previously existing order. Hard sciences all rely on the philosphical underpinnings of the idea of "Laws" and predictability in the behavior of the universe. It is therefore not inappropriate to deal with the Soft sciences in these forums.
One may assume that the solution to the entire problem of "What's wrong with the current state of physics/astronomy" will neccesarily be answered in an inter-scholasic way; and this answer will need to recognize the heirarchical relationships between the hard and soft sciences.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- jimiproton
- Offline
- Premium Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
22 years 2 months ago #2923
by jimiproton
Replied by jimiproton on topic Reply from James Balderston
Sorry Atko,
Didn't see your previous post, as it was being written as I wrote mine. Please do not interupt the previous train. It is compelling!
Didn't see your previous post, as it was being written as I wrote mine. Please do not interupt the previous train. It is compelling!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.364 seconds