Baddogma's Other Meta Cafe- Polite Discussions About Scientific Mysticism and General Weirdness

a reply to: Reverbs

@Peeps, oh, still here but have real world problems so not always *here*

Which is why what I said earlier seems weird. Go back and re-read it. It will make sense with everything you said and I said it before you typed it! We are not always linear here!!

PS - I like krazysh0t too! See the Leonard Cohen thread in music!

@Reverbs, dude I like them!! Chicks that play bass are always hot in my book! Add on the foreign thing and the egg carton sound wall... awesome!

Day late, buck short, as usual!

-TEOT

a reply to: Reverbs

With this post you won the interweb!!

I’ve been reading along and have a semi identict memory... so need to explain. I get it! And yes, trying to explain it would get you a free “crazy” sticker! lol.

Now we need to set the oven on woo and make some cookies!

Not sure what that means but like I said it ain’t always linear!

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Hi, my favourite TEOT. I'd go as far to say the only one
Will it be days before you come back again?


Btw did you go to koots?

a reply to: Peeple

YES definitely a new name. Probably more than one name lol.

a reply to: Reverbs

Groot! Hehe

a reply to: Peeple

Groot is a good root
Root concept is groot for alien.
Much better.
Than previously established woo names.

I just saw a dude and chic walk by with a bathroom key.. She said " you pick which one." Lol..

Reverbs needs to get home.

a reply to: Reverbs

You know lately whenever I think about the woo I repeat a few times very clear in my head "Are you real?"
I still feel that's the first thing that needs to be established before we can go into details.
Would be nice if you could support that.

If we could for a while just agree real is meant as "matter in this dimension". As background, if it comes up while thinking about it. That's what I'd like us to do in a way anyways. True or false, work out your tree.
Treat it like Cicada 3301(?) in your head.

Because to be completely honest I'm not at all convinced it would be a good sign if they break the silence after 2000 years since the last big intervention. From a Euro-centic-catholic point of view.
And mmh arrgh craaaaaaagh ... religion is so full of encounters of the third kind.
I don't only talk about angels, or body-based beings. God is there too. The buring bush. Glowing light dots dancing through an audience and giving everybody the ability to understand eachother besides their language...
Like with Zeus(no I don't think god and him got the same personality but) he can't walk among us in his true form, he has to take over the body of an animal or person, because if he tries he is burning down everything.
What they imho also have in common is they constantly test humans, if they still live up to their standards. There's quite the big possibility that's what's going on.



Does it sound contradictory I look for "real" and exclude god while saying god is Earth, is an in-charge-emergent-ego of the collective of all consciousnesses living here? No, you get Why when you think about what "bodyparts" she has to interact. What moves? Clouds, wind, water, magma,... And I assume even the startest biggest badass computer would be slow with all the different input at once. The mass of information.
There's a riddle, at what point does information get so huge it gains mass?


42?




Behold the Master Magician of the Church of Ufology is summoned.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Reverbs

You know lately whenever I think about the woo I repeat a few times very clear in my head "Are you real?"
I still feel that's the first thing that needs to be established before we can go into details.
Would be nice if you could support that.

If we could for a while just agree real is meant as "matter in this dimension".

This dimension? What is that supposed to mean? We are in multiple dimensions if one can be "in a dimension," that is.

Matter is an emergent material. It's like energy condensates. And now we are back to space and time are not real? When two black holes orbit into conjunction the ripples of "gravity waves." Permanently stretch space.. it never unwrinkles again even if the mass moves onto new space that "area of space" stays bent.

Since you are trying to understand the body of groot what is space made of?

Even matter almost as big as 1,000 atoms can be superimposed?? You are calling reality as clouds.. the condensates.. If matter only had one state of being? What about the steam to the cloud?

Anyway Im thinking and feeling, but quite honestly my body is a puppet. Just because I can move a group of cells called hand does not mean I am hand. My experience is wholly subjective.

Consciousness is my interest.
And I'm not religious.
Talking to groot is like the end of interstellar for me.
Like picking up on the "background information radiation" that may supercede space and time.

Aliens of course should exist, and what ever ship I saw had no conventional means to fly or float or do whatever it does.. There's a mystery there with two main options.. The world as you know it is a lie and somone has the keys to those bad boys and humanity is kept in the sand box by other humans who will one day be gods...

Or its alien contact and they didn't even bother saying hi just mind controlled me to forget what I saw?

Either way it's an issue..

But no I'm not sold on the idea of reality, not the way you think about it anyway.

Here, this is easier... I'm more thinking along these lines in the link. That's where I've been going my entire life. My life evidence goes that way I must follow.

The Universe May Be Conscious

a reply to: Reverbs

I can't read that link it takes my slow internet forever to load.
I know it sucks.
But yeah aliens should exist.

a reply to: Peeple

Damn slow internet!

I havnt had wifi in months, but unlimited data on my phone is nice lol.

Well ugh cause I just found a cool piece of writing too...

Is the Universe a conscious mind?

Some take the fine-tuning to be simply a basic fact about our Universe: fortunate perhaps, but not something requiring explanation. But like many scientists and philosophers, I find this implausible. In The Life of the Cosmos (1999), the physicist Lee Smolin has estimated that, taking into account all of the fine-tuning examples considered, the chance of life existing in the Universe is 1 in 10^229, from which he concludes:

"In my opinion, a probability this tiny is not something we can let go unexplained. Luck will certainly not do here; we need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case."

The two standard explanations of the fine-tuning are theism and the multiverse hypothesis. Theists postulate an all-powerful and perfectly good supernatural creator of the Universe, and then explain the fine-tuning in terms of the good intentions of this creator. Life is something of great objective value; God in Her goodness wanted to bring about this great value, and hence created laws with constants compatible with its physical possibility. The multiverse hypothesis postulates an enormous, perhaps infinite, number of physical universes other than our own, in which many different values of the constants are realised. Given a sufficient number of universes realising a sufficient range of the constants, it is not so improbable that there will be at least one universe with fine-tuned laws.

Im somewhere mixed up between those.. neither one makes a lot of sense, but I dont think reality is so nice to make sense the way my sense wants to be, so I have to adjust to the crazy not bring the crazy down to my human level.

a reply to: Reverbs

I think it's more a case of "where is my niche?" than a creator, or multiverse. At least that's in my view quite the leap. From fine tuning.
Look how stones organises. That's actually a lot of stuff in a small room. No space gets wasted.
That's why we should really worry between atoms and nuclei and things...what's hiding in that big fad shadow?

I'm just kidding. The last sentence.
I don't know.


If I ever make "it" do disclosure, I'll force you and TEOT to work for me.
No joke!

Because it annoys me you don't seem to grasp the magnitude of what's going on.

a reply to: Peeple

The magnitude of what lol?

The above article argues against god and multiverse.

We are still left with odds that DO NOT compute..

There are like 10^80 atoms in the universe..
The odds of this universe coming into view is more like 10^200

People cannot comprehend such numbers.. but yea it really doesnt make sense unless there are 10^200 other universes..

Even then it would be way more likely to be in other types of "universe" (damn word lost its meaning lol like atom too.) than this one..

Its almost like working backward.. we have a probability to exist so us existing now created the universe back then for now to be now??

Hush Im crazy lol..

Anyway Im just not comfortable with the assumption everything is fine we are here whatever.. Um no it doesnt make any sense with any theories Ive ever seen..



On another note my mom is yelling about a letter she lost months ago.. it was right on top of a stack of letters that she has gone through for months she was supposed to mail it a long time ago..

Thats one of those things that happens here. She used to call it "the little girl."

Its happened to me countless times. Items gone for no reason and pop back into reality on top of stuff you just put down with no one in the house.. like on top of a towel i just placed on my desk appears a gameboy that is now not on my bed where i knew it to be, maybe a brother stole it except no ones in the house and I just put the towel down so nothing should be on top??

Generally you find the item a month later now that you don't need it.

Damn tricksters..

Back to the Universe..

It's like some giant cosmic joke and Ive started to laugh, but I don't get the punchline..

Im just as fine with 10^666 tiny demons holding up plancks lengths of reality all buzzing with conscious intent as I am with gravity.. its like cool story bro. I don't get it..

Maybe Im one of the few who realizes I don't get it.


Whats the magnitude peeps? No I don't get it.

a reply to: Reverbs

The magnitude of what might happen. If we solve the riddle /*Beyonce Say my name
Get it now? Because saying it is Earth consciousness doesn't cut it.

I guess as our "mass of information" which ankers us here through our consciousness our desires and dreams makes Earth a black hole like information bit magnet...I'm still working on that.... in the parallel/different timeline universe too.
I previously thought about information exists obviously is it there true, or 1 and on....and it is lighter than light...also true...wait what?

a reply to: Peeple

I don't think you are understanding the magnitude of this:

Short read again adding something to an experiment AFTER light was a particle or wave then decides whether it was a particle or a wave BEFORE that happened.


reality doesn't exist until you measure it

That leads us here:

LONG read.. I'm not finished with it yet.

The Evolutionary Argument Against reality

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality

Q&A
The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality
By
AMANDA GEFTER
April 21, 2016

The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.
187


David McNew for Quanta Magazine
As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions — sights, sounds, textures, tastes — are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it — or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion — we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

Not so, says Donald D. Hoffman, a professor of cognitive science at the University of California, Irvine. Hoffman has spent the past three decades studying perception, artificial intelligence, evolutionary game theory and the brain, and his conclusion is a dramatic one: The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality. What’s more, he says, we have evolution itself to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction.

Getting at questions about the nature of reality, and disentangling the observer from the observed, is an endeavor that straddles the boundaries of neuroscience and fundamental physics. On one side you’ll find researchers scratching their chins raw trying to understand how a three-pound lump of gray matter obeying nothing more than the ordinary laws of physics can give rise to first-person conscious experience. This is the aptly named “hard problem.”

On the other side are quantum physicists, marveling at the strange fact that quantum systems don’t seem to be definite objects localized in space until we come along to observe them — whether we are conscious humans or inanimate measuring devices. Experiment after experiment has shown — defying common sense — that if we assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central lesson of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there in some preexisting space. As the physicist John Wheeler put it, “Useful as it is under ordinary circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.”

So while neuroscientists struggle to understand how there can be such a thing as a first-person reality, quantum physicists have to grapple with the mystery of how there can be anything but a first-person reality. In short, all roads lead back to the observer. And that’s where you can find Hoffman — straddling the boundaries, attempting a mathematical model of the observer, trying to get at the reality behind the illusion. Quanta Magazine caught up with him to find out more. An edited and condensed version of the conversation follows.

I only became interested in these ideas when I accidentally broke the universe.. or she did or we did.. or whatever.

a reply to: Reverbs

/*hissing that's the enemy talking.

a reply to: Peeple

Lol you sound more like me than me hahaha.
Ok that magnitude..

Umm I don't.. I can't comprehend the magnitude, that's why Ive gone crazy instead to save my sanity bahahaha.

No Im serious. Otherwise I might remember who I am.






ETA

lmao peeple

Let's see how snake like you can be!

a reply to: Reverbs

Making double meaning jokes to avoid a clear position? I thought you were better than that. I know I'm not, but I thought you are.

The thing is I'm still going for clear evidence or nothing. Theoretical musings are nice but no evidence. In maths, or some other language.
I want conversations. That's right that's plural. And to make an entrance I want at least 20,000 wittnesses of my abduction.
And I will record it, that gets released gradually, I will bring something that gives us prove of what they are, whatever that might be.
There is a reason they are messing with us. Right?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Reverbs

The magnitude of what might happen. If we solve the riddle /*Beyonce Say my name
Get it now? Because saying it is Earth consciousness doesn't cut it.

I guess as our "mass of information" which ankers us here through our consciousness our desires and dreams makes Earth a black hole like information bit magnet...I'm still working on that.... in the parallel/different timeline universe too.
I previously thought about information exists obviously is it there true, or 1 and on....and it is lighter than light...also true...wait what?

Wish you could watch that.
Maybe teot would get a kick out of it though.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Reverbs

Making double meaning jokes to avoid a clear position? I thought you were better than that. I know I'm not, but I thought you are.

The thing is I'm still going for clear evidence or nothing. Theoretical musings are nice but no evidence. In maths, or some other language.
I want conversations. That's right that's plural. And to make an entrance I want at least 20,000 wittnesses of my abduction.
And I will record it, that gets released gradually, I will bring something that gives us prove of what they are, whatever that might be.
There is a reason they are messing with us. Right?

They are messing with us sure.. Im extremely iffy on the they being a them thing though. Im not convinced.

And in my world its because we are fundamental to reality, so its like teasing us into realizing the game. Or maybe thats just a byproduct of "their" the actual intent..

I have a clear position. I dont understand the concept of reality like you do. Im not trying to piss off the universe either lol.

Wouldnt it be funny if you figured it out and they are like games over kids peeple figured it out reality rolls up the curtain closes and everythings gone. Hahaha.

I think something wants me to know and other somethings dont want me to know.
Quite honestly I like exploring above knowing because in essence I know no one knows anything at all.

a reply to: Reverbs

No, like I said I'm done when I got evidence of the magnitude I described.

I like words. I really do. Word of the day: magnitude.