Reindeer

Reindeer

Sigh!

You are missing the points. (there are two) As far as I can see the last person to understand the nature of the universe was Plato. There is not one tip of the iceberg but two seperate and discinct tips of two seperate and distinct icebergs. I’ll try another analogy, (I’ve lost count how many that is) we’ll keep this with scientists studying reindeer herders. In the west the scientists use digital (top down)computers to analyze the movements of said reindeer herders. In russia they use analog (bottom up) computers to analyze the same. The more focused the view the closer these results compare but the more difuse the view the more these results diverge. As long as we remain within the narrow window we evolved to perceive the world through, the results are fairly consistant, or at least not inconsistant. Neither result is right, neither is wrong. To obtain the optimum result, however, the results must be compared, and discrepancies understood. The problem, Mr Ted is not which view is right, but which is less wrong in regard the particular problem being analyzed. “If we apply the top down result what does the bottom up result tell us about what will happen?” The western approach will kill off the herd, the russian approach will starve the nenet”? The nenete approach works. The Russians think the west is wrong, the west thinks the russians are wrong. But what neither realizes is that they are both wrong. The reindeer herders behave as they do because the results of the two computers they are using (inside the skull) give consistent results when they behave as they do. you are de-bugging the wetware (taking things apart, differentiating whatever) trying to figure it out, whereas the reindeer herders are differentiating AND integrating, comparing the results and acting accordingly. Non-adherants to dogma are called heretics, by the way.

The right mind is basically a data accumulation correlation device, (inclusionary) while the left mind is primarily a data discarding analysis mechanism (exclusionary) so you’re right . The scientific method can’t prove shit, it can only disprove something.

Downloads

This post will be continually updated with downloadable files, check back often

GabrielLafrenierMatterIsMadeOfWaves NolanGasserMiracleMusic Time Pugnacious

Subset

What we perceive of reality is a sub-set of forming patterns in the right mind in the frequency domain. The is interpreted in the left mind by a process equivalent to the Fourier transform in the time domain, (the output is quantified, a dimension is thrown away and time, color and sound are added) If this data is reintegrated what is left is less than reality by itself, since it is quantified it is less than what we originally perceived, and even less than reality. This re-integration is confused for reality in physics (and all observations). It is what I call the Aristotelean brain fart, a built in logic flaw in the brain, which leads to such silliness as parallel universes, quantum mechanics. In physics all physicists know that the universe is of a wave nature, but do not understand it, and continue to act as if the universe was of a particle nature. In addition, integral calculus IS bottom up thinking as applied to a cartesian model and differential calculus IS top down thinking as applied to a cartesian model. BUT the universe ain’t cartesian. Newton used god to balance the equations. Modern science, Eschewing god, uses quarks, parallel universes, multi dimensions to balance the equations. Ted Lumley posed the question “does the universe make electrons or do electrons make the universe?” setting aside for the moment that electron is an invalid concept for what is a wave (whorl, node, unfolding in the now?) sorry, there are no words for this. the answer is yes. so at one end of the Physics tunnel we are looking through end points are set by our inability to contain the entirety inside the skull. one endpoint is quantum mechanics, the other is parallel universes. my feeling is the two are just two different perspectives, results of the Aristotelean brain fart. I think i said this better in a comment which I posted. just a minute. Ah found it thanks for waiting. the topic of the thread was actually duality but the minds work the same way no matter what question is posed, that just depends on what tunnel you’re looking through, and what wetware you’ve been imprinted with.

http://ellocogringo.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/the-circle-jerk/

Please note I am not talking about physics per se, but how the mind distorts how we think about physics. I prefer to leave physics and math to those who are interested in such things. But whatever we look at the whole is less than the WHOLE. To complete the thought, no yoga devotee is confused by the two slot problem but is baffled by the scientific method, which he views as circular reasoning. IE start with the answer and differentiate it to reach the question. If you’re going to build a bridge calculus is perfectly acceptable. If you are trying to determine the nature of the universe it is inadequate. Vector math MAY give a better answer, dunno, I’m not a mathematician. but it will still not be WHOLE.

the brain is the instrument we use to observe the universe and what is happening inside the skull must be taken into account.

Coloring Book

Hi Mr Sid
Frequency is a squishy word used in this context. By that I mean it is a word being used to describe something to which it doesn’t apply. Like saying “blue is fuzzy” or “green tastes sweet”. Simply the universe doesn’t have a resonant frequency. It has a quality which the right mind perceives as vectors with a twist, which the left mind interprets as a tone (if in the audio range) which mathematicians have assigned an artificial time to so as to display on a piece of paper in an xy graph a sinusodial wave form. it ain’t real. it’s illusionary. That’s where einstein screwed up, for instance in e=mc^2 the c ain’t real.

keeping that in mind.

The perception of sound and light are culture specific. a color, take blue, I’ve got a sample of that. An oriental sees what a occidental sees as white, as a faint blue. What the oriental sees as white an occidental sees as dingy. That’s the “whitening agent” in soap. If you look at powdered soap, (in the us) you’ll see little blue beads scattered among the flakes. that’s blue dye. At first you may be inclined to think that there must be some kind of genetic anomaly in occidentals BUT, oddly enough, an oriental raised in the US shares the american perception of white. This leads me to conclude that if mom tells her child the diaper is white, the interpretation of the perception is, by god, white, even though an oriental would see it as dingy. (and a physicist would know it ain’t) Any physicist knows what white is.

words (in the critical stage) affect the way we think.

So, the resonant frequency of the universe would be different in the east and the west. Not too likely, I would think.

This is the edge perceptual problem. If the scale is zoomed out enough to see the earth is round, you can’t read the writing in a book. It’s why people thought the earth was flat for so long. What he is seeing is the resonant frequency of the left mind’s interpretation of the right mind’s perception of the universe. The perception’s probably right, the interpretation’s probably wrong.

Or…………I could be full of shit, I am crazy don’t you know
walt

Prestigitation

Time is but one of a broad suite of interdependent illusions that we were given by creation/evolution/unfolding in the now that hide reality. In and of itself, thats not a bad thing. What is bad is confusing this suite of illusions for reality. This confusion, may, i fear lead to our extinction.

We view the world through a narrow window, perhaps 20 to 500 Thz.  Even this narrow bandwidth is culturally dependent.  what is perceived as rotating tensors is actually of a wave nature.  One dimension is thrown away and time is added which helps us make sense of motion.  Likewise colorization helps us discriminate predator and prey from the background.  Likewise sound helps us make sense of vibrations in the lower range.  But sound, time and colorization are artifacts of the mind.  they aren’t real.  But we think they are.

These illusions are reinforced by dogma in the form of religion, education and societal imprinting.   This dogma causes us to see ourselves as apart and distinct from reality.   It removes our connectness with the universe and our fellow man.  It gives us an us vs them mentality.  A black/white interpretation of perceptions whereas the norm is shades of grey and the black/white, true/false dichodomy is the exception.  In society this causes us to do even more of whatever caused the problem to begin with, a positive (in a negative sense) feedback loop that causes the society to spin out of control.  A disjunct between the individual and society. Anomie.  The hole in the soul.

If we prefer to view the world in a spiritual sense, religious imprinting prevents us from experiencing god for ourselves.  If in the scientific sense education prevents us from  seeing the univese for ourselves.  Whether you call “what’s out there” god or the universe doesn’t really matter.

They are, after all, the same thing.

And we are part of it.

“Religion keeps us from seeing god, science keeps us from seeing the universe and language keeps us from seeing that religion keeps us from seeing god and that science keeps us from seeing the universe.” – Mr Ted

Trifecta

using plato’s model
1) reality (ether)
2) what we see of reality (shadows)
3) what we think of what we see  (mythos, logos)

1 is indeterminate

2 is perceived in the frequency domain and interpreted in the time domain. neither is reality

3 the perception is evaluated boolean, the interpretation is evaluated binary

“……..postulate the existence of a new form of matter, ether”  (Space/Time continuum)

As far as I can tell, I’m the only person who understands what Plato was saying.  He did pretty good when you consider that all he had to work with was earth, wind, fire and water.  But then he didn’t have his mind screwed up with the Aristotelian Brain Fart.  (A degree from MIT) Operating on the engineering level rather than the scientific level.  Fine for building bridges, but sucks for scientific enquiry.  Shadows Duality Einstein

The word is not the concept

Time/Frequency domain

We have two cognitive minds each with it’s own logical and perceptual processing, synchronous and modulated by intensity. (weighting)” – el Loco Gringo

“It is interesting to note that there is something in our head that knows how to walk, while we are not consciously aware of it. It is sobering to recognize that there is something in our head that that understands chaotic theory in 13 dimensions, AND CAN MANIPULATE IT, real time.” – el Loco Gringo

“So far all the discussion of sound has centered on its description as fluctuations in air pressure over time. The representation of sound in the time domain is important to understand, but in some ways it is also awkward. For instance, the frequency of a sound is one of its most important physical properties, but determining frequency from a waveform requires making measurements of time intervals and then doing arithmetic. Indeed, for many complex waveforms, where multiple sinusoids of various frequencies are simultaneously present, it is often unclear where the intervals to be measured begin and end. The frequency domain provides an alternative description of sound in which the time axis is replaced by a frequency axis. In the frequency domain, sounds are represented in a frequency by amplitude and/or phase diagram. “ – ASEL

“It’s only complicated if you’re thinking backwards” – el Loco Gringo

Do not go wobbly on me here. Do not allow your mind to boggle. Uncle Walter will make it all better. It is the concept which is important not the math. Indeed the math is irrelevant.

Top down thinking assumes that the time domain is reality and the frequency domain is imaginary. As there is much more information to be gained in the frequency domain it is easier to convert the time domain to the frequency domain, get the answer, (in the frequency domain the answer “just is”) and then convert it back. However, this logic tree is fallacious.

Bottom up thinking shows that the frequency domain is reality and the time domain is imaginary. Indeed, a mathematician capable of thinking in the frequency domain (should such a person be possible) might well wonder why in the world would anyone be interested in so limited a concept as an imaginary “time”. (As I wonder why people are so dumb) The reason of course is that in the time domain information can be categorized. Looking at the header time>frequency>time the calculations cancel out and we are left with frequency IE Reality. In fact, the concept of math is, in and of itself, an artifact, a method of categorizing, quantifying, putting things in baskets.

In fact, EVERYTHING we perceive is only an interpretation of what we see. The shadows Plato was talking about.

Sometimes when we can’t make sense out of something we assume that we are dumb. We do not think of the possibility that perhaps there is no sense there. This should set off a flag, but it doesn’t.

NOW is the time to set the algorithm. The “goal” you were looking for in your logic tree. NOW is the time to use top down thinking. NOW you can start with “The frequency domain is reality” and work downwards to see what that implies. (And the implications are staggering) NOW you can put things in baskets. NOW you can quantify, sort, collate, dissect and mangle the data. NOW you can use the scientific method. (not just yet tho)

As profound as this is, the concept of the ANN is profounder.

“A world of beautiful, loving, compassionate people” – Jill Bolte Taylor

That is my gift to humanity – el Loco Gringo

Time/Freq RideOnTheWildSide Vibroseis Visualizations TimeTranslator Spectrum Emergence Geophysics Nostalgia Great Mysterious

Building Blocks

Of Whatever

This is in response to your comment on the APN walt, you miss the point. what i am talking about cannot be broken down into two types of computation (bottom-up and top-down). i am talking about two different sources of behaviour, one is computational and the other is not. 1. either top-down digital computer analysis or bottom-up analogue computer simulation. 2. direct orchestration/organization of form, behaviour and organization by the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation. the nenets let their behaviour be orchestrated the dynamics of the space they are included in (2), there is no computation, bottom-up or top-down in the process. if they reindeer move on (if the dynamic milieu they are in transforms), the nenets move on so as to sustain a resonant inner-outer relation. this is NOT the thought-informed purpose-directed behaviour that science (most science) constrains itself to. simulation (bottom-up analogue computation) is a replication of what may be going which does not give an understanding of how such behaviour unfolds. in order to understand how it unfolds one has to be included in the dynamic, in the manner that geese are sustain a resonant relation with the dynamic milieu they are conditioning. our form, behaviour, organization are not, at the base of it, thought-informed and purpose directed. in other words, our form, behaviour, organization do not have to be understood as pushing out of the interior of ourselves. in the overall scheme (natural order) of things, our emergent form, our behaviour and our collective organization is orchestrated/organized by the dynamics of the milieu that we are conditioning with our dynamics at the same time as its dynamics are conditioning our dynamics. this is the relationship between storm-cells and the flow of the atmosphere, and my view is that it is the relationship between the organism and its milieu; i.e. it is a continuing ‘coniunctio’. meanwhile, we can if we want ’see ourselves’ as a ‘thinking machine’ with locally originating thought-informed, purpose-directed form, behaviour, organization. if we do that makes us into a ‘thinking machine’ and we can think into ourselves two modes of thinking in our machine, bottom-up and top-down, but that is all confined to our thinking-machine view of self. if we suspend that (which mostly comes from language and abstractions), then we are free to let our behaviour and organization be orchestrated by the dynamics of the milieu in which we are included. our thinking machine view of ourself as a thinking machine is idealization that should not be confused for reality.

Answer
can’t you see you’re only working the logic half way? as is schrodinger. you are exibiting the same thought flaw, albeit in reverse, that you ascribe to your antagonists, the top downers, the yangers? i’ll try thinking machine, maybe i can get past the block. man is the only thinking machine, of the uncountable number of thinking machines that comprise the universe that can “view itself as a thinking machine.”. roughly halfway between the quanta thinking machine (electron analog?) and the big thinking machine (the universe) whatever words, concepts, analogies, visualizations etc you use you’ve got to put the snakes’s tail back in the snake’s mouth, else the logic is flawed. IF, and only if, you can identify the quanta thinking machine, you’ve got a wrap. a workable model from which the nature of the universe can be determined. However, this model is only one of many workable models, and, if accepted will be turned into dogma, a TRUTH instead of a truth, and be almost immediately shut down by the “scientific method”, and we will return to prosecution of metaphors. Plato, Newton, Eddington and Einstein could see the problem. As SAE says, we need to make a study of “and” that’s my point.

We often think that when we have completed our study of one we know all about two, because “two” is “one and one.” We forget that we still have to make a study of “and.” – Arthur Eddington

We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown, and lo, it is us. – Arthur Eddington

got another hit on schrodinger’s “one mind”, elevating it to “best answer to date” halfway there.

Gotta look at the “and” big guy.

walt

Lisi’s TOE

“In spite of having successfully used analysis (i.e. “taking things apart”) as a powerful tool for centuries, science is converging on the nondual. Cosmologists seek a first cause for the universe. Physicists look for the ultimate constituent of matter. Neurophysiologists attempt to correlate physiological observables with reported experiences of nonduality. Transpersonal psychologists investigate the effects of these experiences on human mental health. Deep ecologists explore the potential consequences of nondual understanding on long term global health. Mathematics practiced with love and devotion has been described as communion with the nondual Divine.” – SAND

Check this out, this is the pre-print for Lisi’s paper. I’ve read it and the logic and data seems valid, but it doesn’t “feel right” somehow. It does hold together and is not inconsistent. (that’s annoying) The flaw of course is his use of dimension (particularly 4th) The fact that it was largely ignored by mainstream physics adds further credibility in my mind. I’d say he was one step up from Plato. Notice he eschews calculus, as did Mr Milo and Mr Geoff.

also annoying was a person explaining evolution in hydraulic terms.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770?context=hep-th

“An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything is a preprint proposing a basis for a unified field theory, which attempts to describe all known fundamental interactions in physics, and to stand as a possible theory of everything. The preprint was posted to the physics arXiv by Antony Garrett Lisi in November 2007,[1] and was not submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.[2] The title is a pun on the algebra used, the Lie algebra of the largest “simple,” “exceptional” Lie group, E8.

Lie groups

[show]Classical groups
[show]Simple Lie groups
[show]Other Lie groups
[show]Lie algebras
[show]Structure of semi-simple Lie groups
[show]Representation theory
[show]Lie groups in Physics
v • d • e
The theory “received accolades from a few physicists amid a flurry of media coverage,” but also “widespread skepticism.”[3] Scientific American reported in March 2008 that the theory was being “largely but not entirely ignored” by the mainstream physics community, with a few physicists picking up the work to develop it further.[4] In a critical paper[5] published in Communications in Mathematical Physics, Jacques Distler and Skip Garibaldi state that Lisi’s theory, and a large class of related models, cannot work.

As of May 2008 Lisi’s preprint was the most downloaded article in the arXiv.[6]” – wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything

Dali Time

“Time is just the mind’s way of keeping everything from happening at once” – el Loco Gringo

“This distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion” – Albert Einstein

“Time is totally indistinguishable from directions in space” – Feynman

“Time has no beginning, no end” – Steven Hawking

el Loco Gringo, Einstein are right. (Time is an artifact) Feynman is somewhat right. Hawking is wrong. I understand what’s happening. I know what time is. And it’s provable, by the scientific method. (not really, the scientific method is flawed, but it will prove it in the eyes of the idiots)

Go to www.ellocogringo.wordpress.com>letters to DrB>DB-20 & DB-21 (they’re expunged). The password is my first name spelled backwards. Let me know if this works and I’ll send another password. Else, I’ll deliver them. I figure I’ve got till the end of the year, the window is closing.

Reference www.everythingforever.com

also perceiving reality, secret-1 and secret-2 on that last SD. What I am positing is that time is an artifact. The implications are profound. I found the answer in the geophysical basket. The mind is INCREDIBLE. It is doing something that all the computing power in the world can’t do. RSVP walt

“I may be crazy, but it’s kept me from going insane”

Squishy

“In spite of having successfully used analysis (i.e. “taking things apart”) as a powerful tool for centuries, science is converging on the nondual. Cosmologists seek a first cause for the universe. Physicists look for the ultimate constituent of matter. Neurophysiologists attempt to correlate physiological observables with reported experiences of nonduality. Transpersonal psychologists investigate the effects of these experiences on human mental health. Deep ecologists explore the potential consequences of nondual understanding on long term global health. Mathematics practiced with love and devotion has been described as communion with the nondual Divine.” – SAND

Hmmm! My mind has not been crippled by an education in physics so I may have a little more insight into the topic. Every physicist knows the universe is of a wave nature but no one understands it. Simply put, the universe ain’t euclidean. applying words like gravity, space, dimension to the universe is like saying that purple is fuzzy, and green is hard. it’s jaberwocky talk. However there are no words that adequately describe the nature of the universe so the best we can hope for is to append “what we perceive as” to all of the cartesian words. I use the word “squishy”. “gravity is a suishy word to describe the the wave nature of reality.” Anyone who can “prove” or ‘disprove” the universe using methods suitable only for a euclidean view hasn’t proven anything except that he’s an idiot. Append the aforementioned “what we perceive as” to all of the squishy words I use. Picture the universe as a snake eating it’s tail. Since the universe is infinite (at least from our perspective) and we aren’t we have to view the universe in “chunks” deluding us in to perceiving the snake as straight in the same sense that the earth gives us the perception that the world if flat. But the world ain’t flat and the universe ain’t straight. So we confuse our perception of reality with reality. What I call the Aristotelian Brain Fart. If we understand the universe ain’t straight, we also understand that the head and the tail are the same point in the same sense that if we understand that the earth ain’t flat we understand that measuring it with straight lines won’t work. understanding that the universe ain’t straight, may allow us to finally get past Plato in understanding. Vector math perhaps? dunno, I’m not a mathematician nor do i care to be. I haven’t read the 2? people you suggested yet, but if they agree with me they’re right if not they are wrong. Plato was right, Aristotle was wrong and science has been screwed up ever since. Instead of inquiry into the unknown by scientists it has become technical dissection of the known by engineers. It is not necessary for Joe sixpack to understand this, but for heaven’s sake a physicist should. Schrodinger’s close but he hasn’t worked the logic both ways. In order to make progress we have to learn to start thinking for ourselves and not dissect the concepts of others deluding ourselves into thinking we are moving forward.

Why can no one see the blue sky? Is this really so hard to understand? This is simple stuff. Try to take that tiny leap.  I weary.

walt

Multi Mind

The Multi-Dimensional Mind

If the mind is holographic, ie governed by the math of chaos theory, it must be multidimensional. At least 4, probably 13. While I’ll leave that to the mathematicians, it’s still hard to wrap your head around the concept.. For my purposes I use 3 perspectives, the emotional, the frontal and the tandem. Keep in mind that we are really talking about patterns and very simplistic perspectives of them.

The tandem view was developed to find why people reject data and logic. It is a construct only, useful for visualizing activity in the mind. This view shows the mind as a single neural network, acting as a whole. It consists of the sensory I/O devices, the interface, the primal defense mechanism, dominant and sub-dominant algorithm, the ANN and the unANN. The algorithms are primarily redundant and irrelevant data discarding mechanisms. This explains why people reject data but not why they reject logic.

The lateral view was developed to find why people reject logic. It explores the synergistic relationship between the two hemispheres of the brain, specializing in determinate and indeterminate logic (binary & boolean). It illustrated that the logic problem was occurring because of an overlay of reductionist thinking on the right hemisphere, by both social and educational input.

The emotional view explores the emotional overlays which effect the workings of the mind. Ie Centering. Religion is quick to exploit this vulnerability, not necessarily to bad effect.

Problems in any of these areas causes a dysfunction in cognitive ability.

A major design flaw is there is no protection for a spin-out that can overwrite the wetware.

Perception Logic

The Reality Interface

Input – Dunno, Big Hoochie Koochie

Sensory input – narrow bandwidth

Right mind – perception, Little Hoochie Koochie, tensors,  wave nature, rotating vectors

Interface quantifies perception, minus imprinting constraints + triggers and transfers data to left mind

Left Mind – interpretation, MCX (array transform processor), discards a dimension and adds time, color, sound etc.  a subset of right mind

The output of this particular situation is a bird in color which people mistake for reality

synced with the logic level, (dendrite) and biased by the reticulum.

Rational/Logical Left/Right Minds

lets say, for instance, the pattern formed in the right mind was a lion, instead of a bird.  This would trigger the reflex action (primal defense mechanism, set by epigenetics ) and the reticulum would shoot the biasing through the roof the amygdala would kick in the left mind, which would shortcut the logic (dendrite) processor, and said potential prey would have a sudden uncontrollable urge to “be somewhere else”  within nanoseconds.  (how many ways do you need to prove a lion is dangerous?) “time to get out of Dodge”.  So what’s charlie chimp gonna do? Dunno yet, while he’s hauling ass his left mind is continuing to go over the left algorithm but we haven’t got there yet.  So he’s in the same position as the bacteria, there is no plan b yet.  We’re still in nano-second time window.

Logic

The rubber ruler

“Something unknown is doing we don’t know what.” – Sir Arthur Eddington

Socrates often said that this inner voice, which many times deterred him from doing one thing, never incited him to do something else.

Well, Yeah, it’s basically a bullshit detector.

Consider Ptolemy; He used the epicycles of his planetary model to compute the dimensions of the universe. He estimated the Sun was at an average distance of 1210 Earth radii while the radius of the sphere of the fixed stars was 20,000 times the radius of the Earth.

It is in the nature of the mind to make sense of the universe. Even if there is no sense there. That is, after all, what differentiates us from animals. His calculations concerning the movement of the planets and stars were ingenious, they were elegant, they were practical, they were wrong. The math is not the physics. I don’t mean to cast asparagus on him, just to point out that he did not have the relevant data to tinker with. He was using a rubber ruler to measure the universe, stretching and twisting it until the observed data fit the theoretical data. The same is true of the dodecahedron envisioned by Plato and the modern day Lisi. These theories have beauty, but they are wrong. Conventional wisdom in physics builds on the concept of the space/time continuum as envisioned by Einstein. This has led to bizarre, convoluted theories of the universe, string theory (actually something there) parallel universes, big bang, dark matter etc. The word “probabilities” is a bullshit trigger. Like saying “half of all children in school are performing below level” and people will pontificate on the profundity of the concept. But you haven’t actually said anything. Until you can say “Is” in place of “Probabilities” it’s bullshit.

“Any measurement of the universe that does not take into account the mind is flawed because it is the instrument we use” – Robert Anton Wilson

My experience has shown me that conventional wisdom is ALWAYS wrong. (My bullshit detector goes off) Conventional wisdom only indicates that they are locked into a mental framework that precludes new concepts. They are stupid. And stupid is forever, you can’t fix stupid. Using this criteria, it can be seen that 99% of physical theories are bullshit. They are using a rubber ruler. Lisi is at least thinking outside the box.

Geoff Haselhurst> http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

Milo Wolff> http://www.quantummatter.com/

are unquestionably correct in their vision of the universe, and may have not only “The best answer to date” but “The best answer possible”, considering the indeterminate nature of the frequency domain.

As to visualizations, as the math is not the physics, the word is not the concept. I envision the “cosmic standing wave” as being vibrations, with a rotational component, a beat of 8 and negentropic. If you want an interpretation of reality, look out the window. If you want a perception, that’s hinky. I’ve put together a visualization called the “Big hoochie koochie”. Be sure to play the audio. Find it here> http://ellocogringo.wordpress.com/the-x-files/big-hoochie-koochie/.

As absurd as this is, I challenge ANYONE TO PROVE ME WRONG. And remember, I do not accept math.

Nostalgia

ain’t what it used to be

“When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That’s relativity” – Albert Einstein

Retro Physics

What I find interesting about this “new” toe is that it is recursive. IE in the sense that it is the same concept viewed from different perspectives. The Lisi theory is causing quite an uproar in the quantum physics field. Most criticism centers on math. BUT IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THE MATH IS NOT THE PHYSICS. While this is way outside my field, it makes sense. If one sets aside the assumption made by Einstein that time is the 4th dimension, it all clicks into place. (Time may be an artifact of the mind used to make sense of motion) In any case, it can be tested. Lisi is at the least, not traveling the path most traveled. Don’t pass this up because you’re not interested in quantum physics. It speaks to the core of conceptualization. This is pertinent to understanding the mind. Check out the two links. The theory is identical. Plato called the unknown and unseen dimension “ethers” Lisi calls them Parallel universes. They are both right. This is the Theory Of Everything that Einstein was seeking. It explains the particle problem, the particle decay problem, the measurement problem and the two slot problem. “Most of the information here, from a technical aspect goes way over my head, however, I couldn’t help noticing an interesting geometric coincidence (maybe I am just attempting to create a connection where one does not exist). The two geometric representations on pages 19 and 20 are strikingly similar to that of “Metatron’s Cube” which is a figure containing all five platonic solids and has some religious connotation. From wiki “The simplest means of constructing Metatron’s Cube is to begin with a cube flattened along a space diagonal, such that it becomes a 2D figure, equivalent to a regular hexagon divided via its own diagonals into six equilateral triangles. The vertices of this 2D figure are then connected with additional lines. Several steps later, the full Metatron’s Cube figure is formed. This method requires dividing vertices according to the golden ratio. There is also a method of construction from the Flower of Life. The cube resembles the fourth dimensional analog of the cube, or the Tesseract.” Merkaba, also spelled Merkabah, is the divine light vehicle allegedly used by ascended masters to connect with and reach those in tune with the higher realms. “Mer” means Light. “Ka” means Spirit. “Ba” means Body. Mer-Ka-Ba means the spirit/body surrounded by counter-rotating fields of light, (wheels within wheels), spirals of energy as in DNA, which transports spirit/body from one dimension to another. The flower of life also shows the same relationships. and then there’s the Platonic Solids Kepler Plato’s dodecahedron Lisi’sdodecahedron Plato’sTOE PlatonicSolids4D 4DSphere Here is the Solid that Aristotle did not include in his regular solids. The missing dimension. Why? Because it was irrational. IE not subject to ratios. Aristotle changed the meaning of the word irrational to illogical, which remains to this day. (Aristotle was an idiot). In any case, Plato was mightily impressed by these five definite shapes that constitute the only perfectly symmetrical arrangements of a set of (non-planar) points in space, and late in life he expounded a complete “theory of everything” (in the treatise called Timaeus) based explicitly on these five solids. The fifth element, i.e., the quintessence, according to Plato was identified with the dodecahedron.

I consider the “Platonic solids” scenario to be a negentropic red herring with the concept of the sphere being one fading in and out of favor depending on the zeitgeist of the scientific thinkers. The concept is still popular among pseudo-thinkers. The mind, being a sub-set of the universe, is also negentropic. Because of this man continuously tries to make sense of the data perceived (Even if there is no sense there.) To the right is the solid Aristotle didn’t get, the sphere, it was irrational. (no straight lines) The platonic solids are an interesting data set and various thinkers have tried to make sense of them in a variety of contexts. (after all, that’s what the mind do, “a mind’s gotta do what a mind’s gotta do.”). I have not seen any relevant data that shows any relationship between the platonic solids and the universe (except for a relationship to each other). As much as I hate to quote Freud (I consider him an idiot) I do agree with him on two points.

• “maybe a cigar is just a cigar” IE maybe the image of a cigar in a dream is not a phallic symbol, but just a desire to smoke. Maybe the platonic solids are just what they appear, an interesting data set, with no relationship to anything besides each other.
• The second point, (which I mention only because I can now relegate him into the dust bin), is his observation that all women have a “penis envy”. (It is, after all, such a beautiful thing)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_of_Life http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7mIf5363e4&NR=1&feature=fvwp Education has crushed creativity. Robert Anton explains this very well in the below video. He speaks of tunneling and how the oriental and the occidental view life through tunnels which restrict our field of view. Our opinions say more about how the mind works than the world. It is worth pondering what he has to say about not only quantum physics but our view of the world. Robert Anton – Tunneling

Rubber Ruler

“Something unknown is doing we don’t know what.” – Sir Arthur Eddington Socrates often said that this inner voice, which many times deterred him from doing one thing, never incited him to do something else.

Well, Yeah, it’s basically a bullshit detector.

Consider Ptolemy; He used the epicycles of his planetary model to compute the dimensions of the universe. He estimated the Sun was at an average distance of 1210 Earth radii while the radius of the sphere of the fixed stars was 20,000 times the radius of the Earth.

It is in the nature of the mind to make sense of the universe. Even if there is no sense there. That is, after all, what differentiates us from animals. His calculations concerning the movement of the planets and stars were ingenious, they were elegant, they were practical, they were wrong. The math is not the physics. I don’t mean to cast asparagus on him, just to point out that he did not have the relevant data to tinker with. He was using a rubber ruler to measure the universe, stretching and twisting it until the observed data fit the theoretical data. The same is true of the dodecahedron envisioned by Plato and the modern day Lisi. These theories have beauty, but they are wrong. Conventional wisdom in physics builds on the concept of the space/time continuum as envisioned by Einstein. This has led to bizarre, convoluted theories of the universe, string theory (actually something there) parallel universes, big bang, dark matter etc. The word “probabilities” is a bullshit trigger. Like saying “half of all children in school are performing below level” and people will pontificate on the profundity of the concept. But you haven’t actually said anything. Until you can say “Is” in place of “Probabilities” it’s bullshit.

“Any measurement of the universe that does not take into account the mind is flawed because it is the instrument we use” – Robert Anton Wilson

My experience has shown me that conventional wisdom is ALWAYS wrong. (My bullshit detector goes off) Conventional wisdom only indicates that they are locked into a mental framework that precludes new concepts. They are stupid. And stupid is forever, you can’t fix stupid. Using this criteria, it can be seen that 99% of physical theories are bullshit. They are using a rubber ruler. Lisi is at least thinking outside the box.

Geoff Haselhurst> http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

Milo Wolff> http://www.quantummatter.com/

are unquestionably correct in their vision of the universe, and may have not only “The best answer to date” but “The best answer possible”, considering the indeterminate nature of the frequency domain.

As to visualizations, as the math is not the physics, the word is not the concept. I envision the “cosmic standing wave” as being vibrations, with a rotational component, a beat of 8 and negentropic. If you want an interpretation of reality, look out the window. If you want a perception, that’s hinky. I’ve put together a visualization called the “Big hoochie koochie”. Be sure to play the audio. Find it here> http://ellocogringo.wordpress.com/the-x-files/big-hoochie-koochie/.

As absurd as this is, I challenge ANYONE TO PROVE ME WRONG. And remember, I do not accept Calculus.

Calculus

Is Calculus Taking Science (And Us) On A Mad Joyride?

This is a lead in for Ted Lumley’s excellent paper on calculus. He describes in detail the fallacies associated with applying calculus to complex systems, and how it affects western thought. Calculus is what I call the rubber ruler measuring Shadows. A manefistation of the Aristotelean Brain Fart.

“When you re-integrate the differentiated reality, you are left with a whole that is less than WHOLE.” – Mr Ted

“differentiation undoes the result of integration”. – Harvey Friedman, Concept Calculus

Is Calculus Taking Science (And Us) On A Mad Joyride?

Is Calculus Taking Science (And Us) On A Mad Joyride?

The whole & the WHOLE

1. “Is knowledge a subset of that which is both true and believed?”
   

4. I’m not sure why you think the re-integrated whole is less than whole; to distinguish parts is not to break them up. It might be argued that the new whole is greater — though I believe it is actually the same size. The ancients may not have known the details we have, but they actually looked at the sky on a regular basis, and that put them far ahead of most of us. In any case, we need something larger to challenge our imagination in a manner commensurate with what we know from other fields of knowledge.

5. on August 6, 2010 at 9:37 pmellocogringo

   hi Mr Mary
   What we perceive of reality is a sub-set of reality forming patterns in the right mind in the frequency domain. The is interpreted in the left mind by a process equivalent to the Fourier transform in the time domain, (the output is quantified, a dimension is thrown away and time, color and sound are added) If this data is reintegrated what is left is less than reality by itself, since it is quantified it is less than what we originally perceived, and even less than reality. This re-integration is confused for reality in physics (and all observations). It is what I call the Aristotelean brain fart, a built in logic flaw in the brain, which leads to such silliness as parallel universes, quantum mechanics. In physics all physicists know that the universe is of a wave nature, but do not understand it, and continue to act as if the universe was of a particle nature. In addition, integral calculus IS bottom up thinking as applied to a cartesian model and differential calculus IS top down thinking as applied to a cartesian model. BUT the universe ain’t cartesian. Newton used god to balance the equations. Modern science, Eschewing god, uses quarks, parallel universes, multi dimensions to balance the equations. Ted Lumley posed the question “does the universe make electrons or do electrons make the universe?” setting aside for the moment that electron is an invalid concept for what is a wave (whorl, node, unfolding in the now?) sorry, there are no words for this. the answer is yes. so at one end of the Physics tunnel we are looking through end points are set by our inability to contain the entirety inside the skull. one endpoint is quantum mechanics, the other is parallel universes. my feeling is the two are just two different perspectives, results of the Aristotelean brain fart. I think i said this better in a comment which I posted. just a minute. Ah found it thanks for waiting. the topic of the thread was actually duality but the minds work the same way no matter what question is posed, that just depends on what tunnel you’re looking through, and what wetware you’ve been imprinted with.

   CircleJerk Calculus Plato/Aristotle

   Please note I am not talking about physics per se, but how the mind distorts how we think about physics. I prefer to leave physics and math to those who are interested in such things. But whatever we look at the whole is less than the WHOLE. To complete the thought, no yoga devotee is confused by the two slot problem but is baffled by the scientific method, which he views as circular reasoning. IE start with the answer and differentiate it to reach the question. If you’re going to build a bridge calculus is perfectly acceptable. If you are trying to determine the nature of the universe it is inadequate. Vector math MAY give a better answer, dunno, I’m not a mathematician. but it will still not be WHOLE.

   the brain is the instrument we use to observe the universe and what is happening inside the skull must be taken into account.

   “We have two cognitive minds each with it’s own logical and perceptual processing, synchronous and modulated by intensity. (weighting)” – el Loco Gringo

   Or………..I could be full of shit, I am crazy, don’t you know?
   walt

   ps I didn’t say the whole was less than whole, i said the whole was less than WHOLE.  That’s the entire point

Negentropy 1

DrB-15

I’ll try another approach. Keeping in mind that what we see is not what we perceive. What we see are systems, what we perceive is an interpretation of what we see. IE the “real” world is not composed of objects, but systems.

Systems share common characteristics, including:

Systems have structure, defined by parts and their composition;

Systems have behavior, which involves inputs, processing and outputs of material, energy or information;

Systems have interconnectivity: the various parts of a system have functional as well as structural relationships between each other. IE Systems are self organizing

Yet most people assume that what they perceive is what they see.

Also keep in mind that people think backwards, IE The see the movement of the tree leaves and assume that to be the cause of wind. They confuse cause and effect. (we evolved to be slaves)

Starting at the bottom, we’ll look at the fabric of the universe. Einstein assumed it to consist of 3 dimensions plus the space/time continuum. But time is not real, it is an interpretation of vectored movement. (direction + amplitude) In the sense that a line is the shadow of a square, a square is the shadow of a cube and a cube is the shadow of a dodecahedron. We can’t see a line but we can perceive it. We can see and perceive a square and a cube. We cannot see or perceive a dodecahedron. So the fabric of the universe consists of 3 dimensions and the ether, as described by Plato, or the 3 dimensions plus a fourth as described by Lisi. (It’s the same thing)

Next up is the atomic level, The electron, proton and neuron are actually shadows of vibrations in the fourth dimension, Fractals are shadows of these vibrations and provide the structure of the universe. (you/re probably wondering right now about what this has to do with PTSD but it’s relevant)

Next up is the neuron, which, in accordance with the laws of the universe is a self organizing system. When it becomes organized we call it a mind. Throughout all of this is the self organizing effect of the vibrations in the 4th dimension. (fractals) In view of the butterfly effect the odds approach infinity that any two minds are alike, although it could be said that most brains are similar. That’s about as indeterminate as you can get.

Next up is society, which again, must conform to the laws of the universe (system). The individual performs the role of the neuron in the mind. The problem is that the individual mind is (usually) flawed and provides negative feedback resulting in a dysfunctional society which affects the individual. (mental disorders) It is pathological to be well-adjusted in a dysfunctional society. It is society which is the collective consciousness, and it is psychotic.

Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality, usually including false ideas about what is taking place or who one is (delusions) and seeing or hearing things that aren’t there (hallucinations) (or things that are there that they can’t see – Walt)

Interestingly, the web seems to be following these same laws of self-organization. We may indeed be approaching the Singularity.

I hope that clears things up

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/allegory_of_the_cave.html

Holographic Mind

The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity theories.

The analogy of a RAM is convenient but we are not dealing with an actual physical construct, as the sub-quantum realm exists outside of space-time. Think of the individual “storage space” as “whirlpools in the river”; It is able to access it’s “data” and “programs” strictly by virtue of it’s physical/energetic resonant signature Those familiar with signal routing through fiber-optic networks understand the concept of multiplexing, which builds a mental bridge for them to grasp this concept as applied to consciousness, which is matched to their “RAM”

A new scientific paradigm for studying mental processes, it is a hypothesis that could explain some of the classical paradoxes of brain function as well as some paranormal and transcendental experiences. The brain operates according to the same mathematical principles as a hologram. Memory is a result of biochemical changes in the brain and is stored in individual cells to be recalled when electrochemically activated. Traces of the same memory have been proven to exist in more than one area or part of the brain, or how memory comes to be distributed through the brain.

The process is the same as the mathematical transformation that occurs when a three-dimensional image is projected into space in holography. Initially, the notion of a neural hologram was only a metaphor. But now, Pribram believes there is sufficient laboratory evidence to demonstrate a physiological basis for the model.

Why was it that any given discrete memory would not be lost after brain injury? If a person has a stroke, and half his mind is destroyed, he doesn’t come home and recognize only half his family. It doesn’t work that way. Either memory is destroyed completely or nothing is lost. There’s no correspondence between how much tissue is damaged and how much memory is lost.

Just 2 percent of the fibers in a particular system would retain that system’s functions. There’s an amazing amount of redundancy in the brain. Imagine if 98 percent of your kidneys were gone, but the other 2 percent worked so well you couldn’t find anything wrong at all. The brains spare reserve for memory is fantastic.

Memory seems to be distributed throughout the brain, located in no particular part.

In the unANN HolographicMind