lord_casek Posted December 10, 2006 Author Share Posted December 10, 2006 If you think about it, there is a space between even the smallest of particles, right? Does anything ever actually touch? I consider the possibility that black holes are possibily the result of a civilization replicating the conditions at the beginning of the universe. That's what they're trying to do in these super-collider tunnels. What if they succeed and create a black hole? We wouldn't even know it happened, it would happen so quickly. Movies are great for stimulating these concepts. I can't really go into anything without spoiling it, but "Stay", which just came out last year, deals with this sort of subject. How do we know what we are living is reality? What if we died, and this is reality is just a collection of dreams unable to let go? A thousand years could be a matter of minutes in whatever reality is. i'm much more inclined into this type of thinking, fermentor. we are only privy to so much information. as humans, our answers for the what's and why's have been changed over and over as humans move forward in time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 What's more mind-blowing is knowing that when you look at a star, you're seeing what happened thousands and thousands of years ago, yet in that star system it is the present. Essentially, it is time-travel. So someone in one of those solar systems could be staring at our sun through a gigantic telescope, and looking at the stone ages, the paleolithic era, even further back. And yet here we are, typing on computers over global digital networks while they see the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 There was a report released by CERN a couple years ago that was about the worst case scenarios of how some expirements they conduct could play out. Black hole production is just one of many rediculous possibilities of the current threshold between theoretical physics and its experimental application. If you wanna get really fucked in the head fermentor, casek, check this. Just think about how far we have come in science, etc. but keeping in mind that science will not ever fully assess what "reality" is. We will only continually refine the space we look at. Looking for the space between quarks, etc. Probability provides an interesting means to limit the implications of this reductive theory, but only to a point. It is still all subject to the limitations of us as reductive observers of reality. Essentially we will never (humanity that is) know what reality is beyond the pure physical limitations of our own subjective biological structure and the consciousness it illicits as its necessary partner. blah blah blah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 10, 2006 Author Share Posted December 10, 2006 blackholes, while it may be a little far-fetched as to creating them in a lab setting, the massive bursts of energy they are working on creating are not far-fetched. more on this later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 It is still all subject to the limitations of us as reductive observers of reality. Essentially we will never (humanity that is) know what reality is beyond the pure physical limitations of our own subjective biological structure and the consciousness it illicits as its necessary partner. blah blah blah. Well that depends on human evolution. The concept of superpowers from comic books is not so far-fetched as it may seem. It seems logical that DNA can evolve and people can begin to read minds, manipulate objects without touching them, and read minds. Even more so if this world is actually a simulation. As the Matrix stated, rules cannot be broken, but they can be bent. If you think about it, the molecules and atoms in the human body could be arrange to fit through the molecoles and atoms in a concrete wall if a human can evolve to understand the concept instictively. Mind reading could consist of mapping out reactions and thought trains present in the concious human mind. Much thought is instictive, such as pre-judgment on first impression. With a certain frame of mind based on self-understanding, and understanding of someone else's perception, one could begin to build a mental bank of possible responses. Of course, it would require the near-complete destruction of the ego, super-ego, and id. Crazy talk maybe, but crazy talk has led to a lot of important discoveries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 blackholes, while it may be a little far-fetched as to creating them in a lab setting, the massive bursts of energy they are working on creating are not far-fetched. more on this later. Well, if you consider what existed before the universe was created, it's hard to believe that there was nothing. Because out of nothing does not come something, as we have learned so far. Electricity does not just occur, it's a manipulation of nature. And there are black holes that are theoried to be at the center of galaxies. Other black holes float around space and eventually merge with larger black holes. Where the energy sucked into them goes is one unanswered question, as are their creation. If one is willing to accept that there are other civilizations on other planets, it is not so far-fetched to think that those civilizations have become as advanced as us or more advanced. If scientists can succeed in creating the conditions at the start of the universe, they could succeed in creating the conditions before the universe. If the universe was born from a black hole of nothing, expending energy into something, then how far-fetched would it be to assume that a black hole could emerge from a laboratory. I also think it possible that on the other side of black holes are other universes that are using our universes energy as matter to build stars and galaxies. After these galaxies form, the thing in the middle turns to a blackhole and the process is reversed again. Because galaxies can die out as they are eventually sucked into these giant black holes. I also highly consider that there are more than one universe. Not a parallel dimension where there are two earths, but another wholly seperate universe or more. Similar to how galaxies exist in our universe, but obviously on a much large scale than we can percieve or view at this moment, since we still cannot see the whole universe, how can we be sure what lies beyond it? The universe could expand like galaxies exand, and merge in collisions or become oblitirated in collisions, since that has been photographically evidenced as happening. In fact, I believe our galaxy is destined to collide with another after a few million or billion years. It probably has nothing to do with a shrinking universe, but more to do with some sort of relatively insane physics equations that we do not know. These pictures of hundreds of galaxies from the Hubble telescope--the best telescope ever--suggest a chaotic universe, but if the laws of nature have meaning, purpose, and predictable conclusions, then there must be order in the universe and gravitational pulls or extreme space winds that are drawing this things through the universe at speeds faster than we can imagine, but due to the size of a galaxy it still takes millions of years to move a relatively small amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 Well that depends on human evolution. The concept of superpowers from comic books is not so far-fetched as it may seem. It seems logical that DNA can evolve and people can begin to read minds, manipulate objects without touching them, and read minds. Even more so if this world is actually a simulation. As the Matrix stated, rules cannot be broken, but they can be bent. If you think about it, the molecules and atoms in the human body could be arrange to fit through the molecoles and atoms in a concrete wall if a human can evolve to understand the concept instictively. Mind reading could consist of mapping out reactions and thought trains present in the concious human mind. Much thought is instictive, such as pre-judgment on first impression. With a certain frame of mind based on self-understanding, and understanding of someone else's perception, one could begin to build a mental bank of possible responses. Of course, it would require the near-complete destruction of the ego, super-ego, and id. Crazy talk maybe, but crazy talk has led to a lot of important discoveries. this is a lot like the book, celestin prophecies if I'm not mistaken. Also sort of like Stranger in Strange Land. I think there is an obviously role in creating reality relative to personal understanding of one's own purely subjective viewpoint on reality. Here is a perfect example, relatable to most I hope: When you play frisbee golf, you have to visualize the shot before you do it. Or at least I try to. What i think about though is how I need to move to make that shot. What are the muscles I need to use in order to have the disc release in the angle and timing that I need it to? Essentially the same kinisthetic problem solving that dancers do, or really any athlete. The thing is, rather than subconciously doing this and being aware of the results, I try to harness this concept in my own visualizaiton. My knowledge of general principles of physics, with a lil higher math, plus whatever other memories I have of previous sports and physical situations I have been in close to the one being experience, all amounts to a useful bank of information when trying to visualize a throw. And what happens when you do throw, and you make the shot? Or you hit the basket from twenty feet out, or you hit the ball over the fence, just like you saw it in your head. To believe in one's own understanding of a system of actions is a powerful thing. Especially when your level of pragmatic understanding is more refined. There is this idea that is sort of the forefront of cognitive and psychological theory right now, called embodied cognition. It is a fairly revolutionary idea. Not in so much as it being new concepts that obliterate old standards, but that it fits well with contemporary linguistic and philosophy of language issues. Specifically the indeterminancy of languages withim philosophy of language and metaphorical relativism for psycholinguistics. Embodied Cognitiion is basically the assumption that our interactions and memories as physically consciouss beings is encoded physically in our cognitive functioning via synaps prouction and strengthening, neural networks, etc. But that in so much as we are physical beings we can not seperate those physcially encoded experiential memories (knowledge, if given a truth value to the memories) from the environment that they occured in. This is consistent with contemporary discussions of subjectivity within the capabilities of reductive theries/linguistics with totally capturing the "what it is like" or physcially/environmentally embedded aspect of consciousness/cognition. This is also an interesting position because it reflects the effects of post-modernity on not just social theories but analytic ones as well. These completely logical discussions have brought about some of the most wholeist, pragmatic, rediculous concepts on knowledge and reality possible. For me, I personally believe that in so much as I imagine anything, I bring it one step closer to reality. In some form it was physically realized as being part of my consciouss perception, and thus physically encoded into my experientially embedded nueral networks. It gives new meaning to questions to the role of observation in reductive sciences as well. To what extent does the consciouss observer have an effect on the emperical findings of applied experimental science? There is such an amazing connection, to me at least, between ideas of quantum probability, subjective language, humans as physical embodiments of reductive languages/theory, our biological imperative, numbers as a universal set of terms with out a universal syntax. blah blah blah. Iono. I am fairly certain this is what I am gonna write my thesis at Hampshire on. Basically I want to show that in light of reductive theories and languages' inevitable failure to speak to their basest assumptions allows for a much better way of claiming a metaphysical/ontological standpoint. Just as theory, observation and meaning are intrinsic to one another (per discussions of analytic philosophy), so are standpoints on metaphysics and ontologie. for really the ontologie is just the theory behind the metaphysics. And they are no different in that they are only kept in respect to one another. There is no value of truth beyond the system it is assumed in. But if this is the case, why do we do things like science? They are pragmatic, we have a natural inclination to do them, intellectualism seems cultivating to the mass of society. Perhaps then the stance to take is not one of realism or agreeing to the possibility of ever finding an objective reality through reduction, but rather to (in the vein of J.S. Mill and his idea of collective individualism) recognize that the only metaphysics or concept of reality that you need ascribe to is that of your own subjective view point. If taking the concept of abstraction as an intellectual pursuit into find the objective is taken to its extreme and it concludes that subjectivity is at the base of everything, why try and disagree. It seems to fit in each field and the respective hard issues they are facing. Take all theory, then, as art. It's face value referent to the subjective experience you have with it, is all you need to make the pragmatic judgements it was created to afford at all. Basically I just want to validate the concept of intellectualism as providing for society in light of the pointlessness of believing in the ultimate truths of any given ontologie. To understand the whole you should seek to understand and reconcile as many parts together if you can never move beyond not being able to comprehend the whole of reality. Even in a perfectly "healthy" (for what ever physio/social norms that entails) person is awake and experiencing the world at peak cognitive performance, they are still only experiencing part of reality. They are constantly filtering the infinite amount of information to choose from. We reduce our visual fields, audio, sense, olefactory, etc. Every faculty of life is limitied by its physcial existence. Cognition even, in our intuitive connection with it to the brain, provides an interesting natural support for physically limited subjective experiences. There is tons of stuff that is suggestive of all of this. There was a neuroscientist/artist/philosopher who taught at my school for a semester as a visiting professor has an article on sertogenic rafe processes as a physiochemical reward system for intellectualism by way of pattern seeking. He ties it into several models of reading patterns of rythmicity in brain waves as relative to discreet packets of knowledge. Or one of the reflections of the physically functional cognitive processes we go through when we are consciouss. Thisguy is no quack either. He was building self sustaining neural networks in 1989 and concurrently writing the encoding scheme on a super computer of the time. I am trying to get ahold of him so he can give me something to do this summer. I figure that would be pretty clutch before my senior year of undergrad. Especially in light of every conclusion I have been coming to being consistent with his work. I also think I have some ideas that perhaps havent been addressed yet. And if they have, then I am just happy in that I came to some reasonable conclusion at such a young age. Turning all this into a profession though. Thats the goal. Get paid to analyze systems and find trends and patterns. We'll see if I can make that happen though. Go go gadge grad school. sorry, mad long post. Stoned, paper writing time, needed break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 fuck that. people are lazy. read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tutleone Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 im writing a paper in my english class about my interperetation of life, and im quoting fermentor 666,Theo.Huxtable, Lord_casek, and the.crooked in it. is this alright with you guys? this thread has opened so many new thoughts to my mind. ill be entertained for hours thinking about all of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Module X Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 sorry, mad long post. Stoned, paper writing time, needed break. So your "break" from writing a philosophy paper was writing a long-ass post about philosophy? You're nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 well it was more like this entire time of the year is paper writing time. so the break lies in bein forced to appreciate a different conceptual schema that I am not working under for the papers. mehhh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyHarHar Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 I thought this was a quantum physics theory that accounts for gravity and anti-gravity in the universe. I don't see how it relates to matrix-style brain in a laboratory crap. My infinitesimal understanding leads me to believe that it states that 3-dimensionality is a myth. Space time is flat, 2-D, and our 3-D experience is holographic from some black hole type star in the middle of the Milky Way. Oh, and I'm way-off on everything I just wrote, but that's what the holographic reality is talking about IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_splint2 Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 nah brah, there's 24 dimensions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 im writing a paper in my english class about my interperetation of life, and im quoting fermentor 666,Theo.Huxtable, Lord_casek, and the.crooked in it. is this alright with you guys? this thread has opened so many new thoughts to my mind. ill be entertained for hours thinking about all of this. You better cite my ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tutleone Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 You better cite my ass. i will. example "that one post yadda yadda" -fermentor 666 good enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyHarHar Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Hilarious. I want in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tabloid- Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Antimatter : http://athena.web.cern.ch/athena/ " Nothing " ( I'm not sure about this website, I haven't looked at all the links: http://www.nothing.no/featured_0902.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 i wanna read the paper when your done. if your cool with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 im curious to see how we are represented, and how the discussions we have on here are internalized by others in an academic manifestation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 i just wanna see titties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Your search - holographic titties - did not match any documents. Suggestions: * Make sure all words are spelled correctly. * Try different keywords. * Try more general keywords. * Try fewer keywords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 titties are a nice aside Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THELASTKILLA!!! Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 .......DMT.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 did someone just say joe rogan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
After School Special Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 If this is all simulation... I wish the sim didn't involve bills, parking tickets etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 i will. example "that one post yadda yadda" -fermentor 666 good enough? Proper MLA form would have to be "blah blah blah" (fermentor666 [page #]). But yeah, you got the idea. I wonder how one would go about citing a message board in a bibliography, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Your search - holographic titties - did not match any documents. Suggestions: * Make sure all words are spelled correctly. * Try different keywords. * Try more general keywords. * Try fewer keywords. "hologram titties" brings this up: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 ^I'm glad somebody's thinking! Top notch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 13, 2006 Author Share Posted December 13, 2006 holographic titty addiction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.