Determinism.

[BrainEater]

your obsession with determinism tells me that you probably can't cope with the most basic universal law (=law of cause and effect / karma)... that's just my opinion/observation tho... take it easy man! 8)

if you ask me thinking has become a sickness. now think about how determinism is linked to thinking or to the concept of programs.



peace


p.s. maybe you should learn respect for old people! it can be worth a lot... :| :idea: :!:
btw i really liked how emile was maybe mocking you and not mocking you at the same time...
if that makes any sense... just don't take it personal and see it as a chance to learn.

 

[ophiuchus]

This is a fundamental problem, and the answer is obtainable (theoretically) and would show if we have free will or not.

Hypothetically we could make a computer powerful enough to predict the future with great accuracy within a small system, but since other galaxies don't affect our quanta here, we can omit them, making the calculations far more reasonable, but still only in the hypothetical range. The idea here is that IT IS POSSIBLE. Where as any other way of measuring free will is not - do you see the importance of this now?

hypothetically, and theoretically are not the same... i get it. but it is not possible, or else it would have been built. and also, your hypothetical just doesn't make sense with the rest of the way things(physics, the universe) have been shown (and can be easily viewed(a la astrology)) to work. i don't believe that there really are any paradoxes that can accurately explain how any of this works, and i don't believe that a machine can be programmed to tell us what we will do. if it's wrong, it doesn't mean that there is a paradox, it just means that the computer piece of shit, if that is all that it is designed to do... computers hold alot of information, but that doesn't make them "smart", doesn't make them able to learn from (wholly dynamic) past events...

why are you not answering in regards to the next logical realistic step to your hypothesis, which already exists? astrology?


did you read or have any comment on these below? it's quite relevant, but nobody seems to want to acknowledge the topic...

unless we are talking about astrology, in which case the possible outcomes are still appropriate, yet we are talking about living entities giving the information, not robots. (although in this view, everything is considered a varying/varied level of consciousness.

the universe is fractal, as well as consciousness. this leads us to "but then what is consciousness?" "what is the universe (made of)?" if it is fractal and (therefore) self referencing (or "recursive") then it can only be made of itself, which is entirely indescribable and entirely irreducible (without referencing something that is referencing something else, that references something else, that simply continues to reference something else, thereby putting off the defining entirely, ad nauseum. which is obviously a broken system...), and therefore it could not ever be wholly represented by computer (ie: the way we classically think of "fractal") as michael pointed out "that are not reducible". there is obviously something more to this system, because as is, the concept of fractality, although infinite, is still very 2-D...

i believe many, if not all of the "dynamics which appear in the system", are created by the aspect of consciousness. consciousness is the state of the fractal. therefore, that is also to say emotion is the state of the fractal. think about that for a minute.

if emotion is recursive, and the universe is recursive (same as "self-referencing", which is the same as "fractal"), then ones emotions literally reverberate out into space (edit: and inside of ones body, literally) not only in the form of mental energy, but in the form of physical energy as well. this statement has implications that are vast beyond common comprehension, and i advise anyone reading this theory for the first time to take it on skeptically, and by this i mean, do your own experiments. don't just believe it. experience it for yourself. experiment with your emotional state in regards to the humans(things) you interact with, and take note of what happens, but not just with that particular interactions, all of the interactions after that, human, or non, living, or non. i believe that if anyone does this, and really listens, and i mean listen with all the senses, to what happens back to them after they give a particular emotion to the universe, you may be startled at what you receive back.

 

[ophiuchus]

the enormity of information within a system, is by scientifical law, only completely understood by a system of exact size and similarity.

there is no such thing as scientific law. those two words contradict each other...

there is no evidence, nor support for evidence that any electron is in anyway identifiable from any other electron besides from their position or velocity

there is no physical evidence yet that shows that electrons even exist in reality. the "electron" is a theory. the only evidence that could possibly point to the possibility of an electron, is simply a reading (raw data, no physical image) of velocity. we don't know what the velocity corresponds with, because there is no image to correspond with it, no interaction that humans have had with it. so we saw this and created the theory of the electron. the only way that electrons are even mentally tangible at all is via math. and the only way that an electron can be considered as having a position at all, is if you remove time from the equation, which is retarded if one is trying to describe a piece of reality. time being inherent to reality and all...

I know this isn't as cool (at first) to everything being a fractal, but once you realize the implications, this is much more elegant than a fractal universe. We cannot know for sure if there is more than one electron in the universe.

so, there are all these seemingly separate things, that are actually all, in essence, one thing, right? THAT IS WHAT A FRACTAL IS.

As far as science is concerned there is no holographic nature in reality - this is either an interesting theory of no bearing/proof or goes beyond the capabilities of science.

you should get up to date on what's happening these days in science man. that couldn't be father from the truth.
[youtube]0Y5bXdx5UrE[/youtube]
end of introduction is at 2:00

 

[IJesusChrist]

1. sorry emile, I called you old out of spite, but I hope you could see the humor in it.

2. Allusion - When you bring up astrology and sacred geometry my brain goes splat. That is apples and oranges, and your oranges aren't even in my apple's universe.

 

[ophiuchus]

Allusion - When you bring up astrology and sacred geometry my brain goes splat. That is apples and oranges, and your oranges aren't even in my apple's universe.

...wtf are you even talking about? why? is it because you can't be bothered to look into it yourself? :?

 

[IJesusChrist]

I've looked into both, and as far as SG goes, it seems very insignificant when compared to higher mathematics...

If you think SG is cool, you really need to look at how calculus works, and the formulas and ideas that come from it. Sacred geometry, as far as I'm concerned, is trying to get something out of nothing. People have been attempting it for millenia. A prime example is, and I forget his name, probably kepler, god damnit I can't even remember the book I read it in now!

Anyways, people were obsessed with sacred geometry for centuries, possibly taking after Pythagoras, and trying to attune the world to it's rules. Pythagoras believed that everything could be solved with the numbers under 10, and everything could be made of simple geometries.

When, I believe it was kepler, YEAH IT WAS! And he became an assistant to Tycho. Anyways, Kepler believed that the solar system could easily be fit into sacred geometry. He attempted to rationalize the orbits of the planets using each of the sacred geometries, the rectangle, the octagon, etc... but he tried and tried, and eventually found it fruitless. He voided himself from Sacred Geometry and actually discovered the true meanings behind the ratios of the planets' orbits and realized very important and fundamental things about gravity and heavenly bodies. Unfortunately at the time, astrology and sacred geometry still held power over actual science.

So - you see, what I'm getting at here, is that astrology and sacred geometry are just ideological fillings in which we don't know, thusly we can almost attribute the universes' becomings as magic. I just don't dig it man, and, to be quite frank, it seems like a foolish endeavor. It may explain some things, but true meaning lies far deeper, and far more logical.

 

[BrainEater]

if you ask me IJC ... you are blind(ed)... but seeing at the same time... it doesn't make so much sense.
just unplug yourself from the matrix and stay unplugged man...

peace

 

[ophiuchus]

^ i can tell you didn't read your horoscope, or even manage to go to that site...

i would go so far as to wager that neither of you watched even a minute of that video either- which isn't even about sacred geometry so much as it's about physics.

just because i'm limited in my ability to sum up hundreds of years worth of research and observation into one sentence, doesn't mean the information that is out there is any less valid. i don't care what you think of my words emile, because im not here to promote myself. all that i want is for people like you guys to approach things unknown to you without scoffing and dismissing them without even grasping a shred of it. try to understand before writing off, please, for your own sake...

it's not like a horoscope will say, "your going to wear red shoes today". if you study it in terms of human emotion/interaction dynamics, in relation to the planetary orbits, it makes a lot of sense. in fact it's plain as day- observation.

 

[IJesusChrist]

I watched 38 minutes of the video, will watch more. It was good - but it had nothing to do with sacred geometry.

And you cannot tell me that anyone can predict your future by the alignment of mars. Really.

If you are saying that is not what astrology is about, then don't call it astrology, because astrology is predictions by way of the planets. What you are alluding to in your last sentence;

"
it's not like a horoscope will say, "your going to wear red shoes today". if you study it in terms of human emotion/interaction dynamics, in relation to the planetary orbits, it makes a lot of sense. in fact it's plain as day- observation."

You are getting to more holistic thinking - which is not astrology.

I'm all for this stuff, but most of it is just a scam to get people who can't or don't want to believe [understand] actual science and either get their money or get popularity. That is all it is. Of course, there are plenty of them who actually think that they can predict things by planetary alignment - but really? How the fuck can you do that?

Example:

Mars and venus are here. This combination makes this circumstance likely.

Well no shit - that circumstance is BOUND TO HAPPEN to the 1 or 2 out of the millions that read this, and due to the vagueness of most astrological predictions, it is probably bound to happen to over half the population, regardless of anything.

One time (I think it was you) posted a website with a day's horoscope of every "sign" in astrology. I read mine as was quite surprised at how accurate it was. Then I read another, and came to the same conclusion. I read all of them and realized, that, Oh - these basically could explain the general population's day.

Its not real.

 

[ophiuchus]

Sacred geometry, as far as I'm concerned, is trying to get something out of nothing

trying to attune the world to it's rules

Anyways, Kepler believed that the solar system could easily be fit into sacred geometry. He attempted to rationalize the orbits of the planets using each of the sacred geometries, the rectangle, the octagon, etc... but he tried and tried, and eventually found it fruitless. He voided himself from Sacred Geometry

from the way you speak of it, you clearly haven't looked into it any further than taking someone elses opinion of it as fact. there is no "rationalizing" it or "trying to put pieces together", geometry is shapes! you look at them! it's not like one's trying to solve the mathematical imbalances of superstring theory or antimatter... you simply observe a phenomenon (take the positioning between venus and earth for example) over a period of time, and then you GRAPH THE DATA.

boom.
Voir la pièce jointe 5138
here is a simple explanation of how this was done:http://spiid-music.blogspot.com/2009/07/sacred-geometry.html

they simply took the data and made two circles. one for venus' position every day of it's orbit (225 days) and one for earth (365) 8 years makes a full cycle, so they used 8 years worth of data then connected the dots. elementary school stuff...

this is mercury
Voir la pièce jointe 5139

 

[ophiuchus]

I watched 38 minutes of the video, will watch more. It was good - but it had nothing to do with sacred geometry.

it definitely is about sacred geometry, but he is cramming 8-10 hours worth of lecture into 1 and a half, which means that the main point that he get's to in the end of the video is only the tip of the iceberg in his other videos. "the black hole" is the link to sacred geometry. their shape is geometric, and his math shows that essentially everything is made of black holes. if that first video is interesting to you, this other one will make muuuch more sense and cover similar material, only more in depth. forget watching the abridged version, and get to the meat of it here (part 1 of 4) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1256390335

black hole geometry follows this shape, which is readily found in things that you can observe in nature, without the need for math to support it, because it's apparent to be everywhere.
Voir la pièce jointe 5140
Voir la pièce jointe 5141
Voir la pièce jointe 5142
Voir la pièce jointe 5143
Voir la pièce jointe 5144

 

[IJesusChrist]

Like I said before - sacred geometry is a guise for even deeper understanding...

 

[IJesusChrist]

There is a correlation of the heavenly bodies within our solar system and crime.

And, without googling a back up, I think I know why it is the case:

When planets or the moon are in close proximity and are "full", they give off a very large amount of light. On a moon lit night, you can see your shadow in the most remote areas of the plains.

We are subconsciously aware of this and take advantage of it, much like our foraging and hunting ancestors.

Beyond that, during the day, mars has no effect on your daily doings. I wouldn't even say the moon does either, although the tides are interesting, but we are not animals tied to the tides. LOLOALAOALAO GET IT?

 

[ophiuchus]

completely subjective in the final analysis

is there anything that isn't? even science, as you've been noticing, is still very subjective

One time (I think it was you) posted a website with a day's horoscope of every "sign" in astrology. I read mine as was quite surprised at how accurate it was. Then I read another, and came to the same conclusion. I read all of them and realized, that, Oh - these basically could explain the general population's day.

yes, you are right, they do all apply. this is because on any given day, the planets interaction still applies to every person on the planet. in other words, that's not what makes them different from each other. what does, is that they are worded in a way that appeals to the personality differences of each sign. they each carry a different flavor of their own respective message, and certain things to focus on (heeding to each signs strengths and weaknesses) even if the end goal is the same for them. another thing to consider as well. nobody falls right in the middle of a sign. take me for example. im a sagittarius, but my position in that sign actually leans more toward capricorn than in the middle. if you look in the sky, the constellations are right next to each other, yeah? so, the messages for the signs directly around yours are going to be very similar. some people on the cusp between two signs will read both to get the best picture. i hope that helps with that understanding a little more. i find it strange that not many sites explain these types of aspects, because i find that most people who don't believe in astrology, end up tripping up over precisely this, and therefore never go past their daily horoscope cause they think it's bs.

honestly, i don't read my personal horoscope often. i am more interested in forecasts involving all signs, or rather, i like to study all of the planets relations to everybody, not just myself. it is this that has helped confirmed astrology in my mind, not so much a daily horoscope. and also, like many other things, it is important to remember, the source of the information is crucial if one expects any kind of quality from it.

their remoteness would seem to indicate that they are simply too far away at all times to have any noticeable physiological effect on the relatively negligible mass of the human body by means of gravitational influences, separately or together, which would tend to exclude them from consideration as being any sort of causative element as a result of their position at any given time, and that’s why I think that gravitational influences emanating from distant planets can be reasonably excluded from consideration as being a viable theory of the mechanism of operation in astrology.

i agree. the influences are not happening on a physiological level, and the effects that we are experiencing or not gravitational (nor caused by visible light). the influences are magnetic. as i said, each planet has a magnetic field, which reaches waaay farther than a gravitational field. in fact many of these planets EMF we know encompass the planet earth entirely. it has also been proven that thoughts are magnetic. our aura is literally our bodies magnetic field, which is affected by brainwaves,thought, consciousness. consciousness, thought, and physical aura are all interrelated, this is observation, not speculation. so is it difficult to see that in this light that a massive electromagnetic field could interact with our planets elctromagnetic field (and thus, our individual field), even if over a far distance?

on another note...

Like I said before - sacred geometry is a guise for even deeper understanding...

i agree. and i believe the only way to get to that understanding is to rediscover all of the things that we have somehow forgotten, or perhaps hidden, from our fellow man.

im curious, all other topics aside, how do you guys think things like stonehenge, the pyramids, the temples in tibet, china or south america, or the heads on easter island were built? there are more than just the ones i've listed, actually in the thousands i believe, and they all have a few things in common: 1.they all were built with solid stones that modern technology now still couldn't move (20-40 tons each) 2. they were made with such precision that no thing can be wedged in between them in any spot 3. they are all ancient, built in an age where bronze was the hardest metal, and as such, was too soft to carve stone. 4. most of them are made from stone that can only be found miles and miles away. 5. and if "the flower of life" is overlaid over a map of the world, then all of these sites fall either on a leyline, or where multiple lines intersect. not one of them is out of place. this grid is called the becker hagens grid, and is backed by a lot of research that wasn't necessarily related to sacred geometry (until after the discovery)
Voir la pièce jointe 5147
Voir la pièce jointe 5146

 

[ophiuchus]

(I think it was you) posted a website with a day's horoscope of every "sign" in astrology.

that was me, the website is cafeastrology.com, and, (if you wish) all horoscopes and astrology aside, it is a fantastic website that has nearly every astronomical event catalogued in it as well, if any of you happen to be star-gazers. idk about you guys, but i love going out somewhere remote at night and watching a meteor shower.

Allusion ".... the influences are magnetic."

Not trying to be difficult (it just seems to come naturally) but Venus has no magnetic field, and Mars is thought to have had one once, but it's now barely detectable.

no, you are right, and i will admit that i was hesitant to mention it earlier without first doing further research myself (then i realized that i already learned about it, but forgot :| ), but, beyond magnetic fields there is another force that simply outclasses magnetics in terms of distance of measurable effects, the field generated is called a torsion field. it works hand in hand with magnetics, so really can be considered act as an extension to magnetics, although it is an entirely separate field not requiring metals or magnetically charged objects to generate it's fields. it simply deals with spin. everything is spinning, so everything generates one of these fields. even (and especially) the human body, not only with the atoms that comprise it, but also since the body produces a magnetic field. the reason why magnetics affect/create this field is due to the directionality of the force created by the north and south poles.
Voir la pièce jointe 5149

 

[ophiuchus]

One of the blocks, carried up the steep mountain slope from several kilometers away to the site weighs a staggering one hundred and thirty-one metric tons!

carried? ...

 

[IJesusChrist]

Levity aside and staying back on topic, I picked up one of my old books that I only got to page 4 before putting down. It was somewhat hard to read, but after reading this topic I remembered the book and started reading again. This paragraphs sums up everything I have been thinking about for the past 7-8 years. It is exactly what I have been saying, but in a much more concise manner:

"First, quantum theory precludes detailed prediction of molecular phenomena. Whatever the final theory, this world has seen too many throws of the quantum dice to predict its detailed state. Second, even were classical determinism to hold, the theory of chaos shows us that very small changes in initial conditions can lead to profound changes of behavior in chaotic systems. As a matter of practicality, we may typically be unable to know initial conditions with sufficient precision to predict detailed behavior. Finally, the theory of computation seems to imply that nonequilibirum systems can be thought of as computers carrying out algorithms. For vast classes of such algorithms, no compact, law-like description of their behavior can be obtained."

+

"If the origin and evolution of life is like an incompressible computer algorithm, then, in principle, we can have no compact theory that predicts all the details of the unfolding. We must instead simply stand back and watch the pageant. I suspect this intuition may prove correct. I suspect that evolution itself is deeply like an incompressible algorithm. If we demand to knows its details we must watch in awed wonder and count and recount the myriad rivulets of branching life and the multitudes of its molecular and morphological details.

AND YET! Even if it is true that evolution is such an incompressible process it does not follow that we may not find deep and beautiful laws governing that unpredictable flow. For we are not precluded from the possibility that many features of organisms and their evolution are profoundly robust and insensitive to details. If, As I believe, many such robust properties exist, then deep and beautiful laws may govern the emergence of life and the population of the biosphere. After all, what we are after here is not necessarily detailed prediction but explanation. We can never hope to predict the exact branchings of the tree of life, but we can uncover powerful laws that predict and explain their general shape. I hope for such laws, I even dare to hope that we can begin to sketch some of them now. For want of a better general phrase, I call these efforts the theory of emergence"

Totally sums up all of my posts in this thread, and my thoughts in the past 7 years reflecting on determinism.

 

[ararat]

I don't know whether you care about it or believe me, but I've been standing next to this slingshot a month ago it was loaded with a witch on a broom at that time though.

 

[ophiuchus]

hahaha

i suppose now is the time to be clear. i'd like to state that i am not pro-determinism, if it may have appeared that way. i realize that there are things beyond measure, even in the very things that are measurable.

i would just simply like it to be known that just because one doesn't agree with one thing, does not mean that one is automatically it's other, as that would imply they are opposites, when in fact, they are complimentary.

as it was said best:
"the mystery of life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced."

 

[BrainEater]

yo my fellow psychonauts... i just want to say a little bit about the moon and astrology. i heard the moon's role in astrology is connected to the concepts of emotion and focus. to me it makes a lot of sense, considering that especially in sciences like astrology, everything has to be understood and put into context symbollically. i would suggest that even the moving of the tides could be seen as a very symbollic appearance on our planet. it has to do a lot with the connection and concept of microcosm and macrocosm. then like with a lot of psychological stuff etc etc there are probably individual, collective and "overlapping" manifestations. beyond that, if you want to spin the wheel of symbollism a little bit further i also heard that the moon is a symbol for time and humanity (transience) and the sun is a symbol for timelesness and god (eternity). also in the astrological /esoteric understanding of certain people the moon represents one hemisphere of the brain and the sun the other. so it could be seen like a balance between the human/mundane/etc and the divine. and if you ask me the sun and the moon are also somewhat related to ying and yang or so. but thats just speculation alright? in the end it's all about magnetism... or gravitation... right ???? thanks for reading....


peace 8)