It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are thoughforms fractals? (Was the Source a fractal?)

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I posted this in the origins and creationism forum for one reason. I believe that all thoughtforms are fractals. Meaning that every thought that you have, if you had the ability to slow it down and examine the structure of the thoughtform, you would see every thought, every sight,sound, feeling, taste, smell that you've ever experienced in your entire life.... and since fractals can be repeated infinitely, both infinitely small and infinitely large.... if you were to break those fractals of your thoughts down even FURTHER, you would see everything that ever was, is , or will be.

In a sense, I'm saying that the universe is made of fractals. I have no scientific proof, just very deep and profound thoughts.

The origin of the universe lies within the origin of every single thoughtform we create.

Opinions? The Bible thumpers aren't gunna like this... but no there's no giant white robed wite haired man with a big beard sitting on a throne anywhere. You are god... in fact, you are more than God... because God would have been the original fractal that formed out of.... welll that's the real mystery.

Which is why I wanna discuss it further.




posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by indierockalien
 



A flag for an original "thought-form".

It's bound to be inspiring to many.

I wish I had the time right now to delve into this...
I hope others do, so I can reap the benefits. ;-)



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
A fractal universe isn't a far-fetched idea. But from my perspective, I have three issues with your concept. I first present my summary of your post (as I understood it), and then my thoughts based on that interpretation, in relation to what I have experienced.

Your points, to me, equated to the following:


Thoughts are solid concepts, called Thought-forms, and
Thoughts are linked to all events, including the origin of all events, and
I create thoughts (implied in the context of the original message)
Therefore
If I can manipulate my thoughts, I am capable of manipulating all events


When interpreted in the context of my musings and observations, I find the following (seeming) discrepancies.
First, the (inadvertent?) presentation of thoughts as solid concepts:
A "thought" isn't solid; it is abstract, like the number 1. 1 remains abstract until it quantifies an object (e.g., one car). A thought is abstract until it describes an event, whether recorded (e.g. thinking about yesterday's dinner) or simulated (thinking about going to X).

Second, on linking thoughts with all events:
Let us call our imaginary observer O. If we further examine O's dinner memory, we will indeed find an entire event (dinner) stored as a series/sequence of shorter events, each replete with stored sensory information (e.g. the outrageously tasty texture of the marinated tiger at 6:02:42, the unexpected twang from combining it with the wife's special sauce at 6:02:57). If we analyzed those bits further, we would find other events that happened in close enough proximity that the observer would have recorded them as well (e.g., the way the wife's eyes caught the light at 6:02:57, as the special-sauce-twang was also registered). It is certainly plausible that one can trace one's life as a linear series of stored events, if one could find and sort through all their stored memories.

But we can't process information that we haven't recorded. Our thoughts are a result of what we have directly interacted with. In this simulation, we won't find Government secrets, because O is unaware of them. We won't find anything that O hasn't interacted with directly; yet our simulation shows that multiple events do occur simultaneously, whether or not O is directly aware of them (see wife's glint at 6:02:57). This brings me to the

Third, on associating one's 'control' of thoughts with controlling events:
We don't (and can't) control everything that happens around us. Sifting through thoughts is one thing, and willing a new car into existence is another (not that you implied this). Thoughts are only records (or simulations based on records) of events. True, we can shift our focus between them -- but they aren't objects, and they aren't separate from us. To me, they are us, as it is our unique perspectives of events that makes us who we are.

Of course, my view implies that there are no 'bad' thoughts to eliminate, or 'good' thoughts to cling to. Every thought is a result of a previous event; if we find out what provoked them, we will understand why we have them.

Your thoughts?



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Mr Jackdaw, you bring up some good points, which I guess I'll elaborate on now.

By the way, it's crazy what insights meditation can bring you. I can't even spell the word geomatree... heh of course I exaggerate.

Okay, your first point being an assumption that we can control our thoughts, and if everything was contained in one thoughtform, you would assume that if you controlled that thought, you could control everything.

Well, here's the thing. A fractal, for instance, is based off chaos theory (I think. Things are still vague to me at this stage. I swear to God I never even studied chaos theory or fractals until AFTER the fact...and even now I admit I could've studied more to sound smarter... but I'm hasty).... and in chaos theory, random chaotic events that happen, especially with fractals, after a while of accumulating, they start to form repeating patterns that seem to have been made intelligently, but because of some mathematical reason of which I have no idea, it's actually random sychronicity or something.... Someone with better skills in this field could explain that to me more....

So basically, fractals keep forming and forming and patterns immerge.... and if we equate this with a thoughtform, these patterns that randomly form, would seem to us to be intelligence and free will. It would SEEM.... but what if we really do not have any free will, but because of the speed at which we observe events occuring and thoughts forming, we believe that this thought was consciously created by us, when in fact, it was just a random pattern formed by the fractal geometry making up what we call "thoughtforms".

You are right. Thoughtforms are an abstract concept. That is why they may not be what we think they are... but that's where things get tricky and just so far beyond anything I could possibly put into words, I'll stop there for now, hope that what I said made cognitive sense, and await more responses.

THANKS Mr Jackdaw. I will star your comment.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Also, something I forgot to say.

If within that original "thoughtform" (fractal pattern, perhaps) was everything that ever was ever is, and ever will be, then that fractal could grow into infinity, but it would still be the same, larger plane after lager plane, and also smaller plane after smaller plane.... and IF it is always everything, it would mean that everything that has, is, and will happen or be, is already in place. Therefore, we would have no control over it.

We would just be the observer getting too caught up in the movie, and that's an insane thought. It reminds me of when I was little, and I saw Back to the Future, and I thought I WAS Marty McFly, ya know?

As for who exactly is observing..... that could still constitute more debate. I'm not saying fractals are EVERYTHING.... just everything in this physical reality.... so maybe there's still plenty of room for spirituality and meaning.... and maybe the observer CAN affect the... better yet, lets think of it as a computer game.... the computer game, as long as they learn how to program it.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Vanitas
 


Hey Vanitas. I REALLY dig your signature.

Not a one line post.

Okay, then.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Quick aside; I agree that meditation can bring some interesting insights. However, I have learned not to depend too heavily on meditation for insight; you will come to see why as I elaborate on the rest of your response.

As I understand them, a fractal can be subdivided into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole (wiki). Your viewpoint, to me, implies still that separate elements -- observers -- are somehow intertwined with an external thing -- universe. My viewpoint incorporates both elements into one massive thing that I call the universe; this includes space and all matter created from the Bang, and any "alternate universes" that may exist alongside it.

A fractal develops as a result of interacting elements: it isn't separate from the events that it consists of. That would be like saying your lungs aren't a part of your body. This interaction can be seen on all levels of existence; from subatomic dances to galactic clusters. On our level of existence, gravitational dances give rise to chemical and, later, social ones. It is interaction that gives rise to our universe, and it is the same which provokes our thoughts.

So, it comes down to this:
Talking is what humans do
Communicating is what all organisms do.
Interacting is what all elements do. Elements include events that are the results of other events.

An observer is the result of other events. Thoughts are events that arise from interactions with other observers, or their thoughts. Together, they make the whole; if there is a 'first' thought, this is it; it is still 'happening' right now.

To the argument that there must be "a primal set of events, then, which must have interacted with all the others to create the 'whole'," I will point out that it is difficult to get to the "end" of a fractal: isn't it logical to predict that the farther down one looks, the more one will find?

Molecules -- atoms -- quarks... perhaps more will be found. Oh, Hadron Collider...

To briefly address your statement about free will (and to do so purely from my perspective): I believe free will exists for individuals. You have the ability to decide what you do, as long as your decision concerns you alone. You can't make decisions that affect someone else, unless that person has given you the permission to do so.

Independently, however, our actions only extend so far; you can't control the weather (perhaps you can). You can, however, decide to call out of work, or decide to vote. That is what free will is. You decide what events to cause, but not the ones that happen to you. I hope this covers it adequately.

For fear of getting too dreary, I will pause here and await your response.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 04:40 AM
link   
___Kids, please smoke lots of cigarettes. They are good for you, and once you grow up and realize what you've popped your little existence into, you'll need a nice, flavorful, slow way out. Thank you, and stay tuned for Chip and Dale's Exotic Adventures, coming up after these short beer commercials!---

This has been a public service announcement from the Bill Hicks in everyone.




OKAYYYY back to the discussion. I get what you are saying. You view everything as truly being EVERTHING, the game AND the gamer(S), AND whatever the gamers come from.

I think you have a really good point there.

My theory, as it stands now....and it's always being updated as I pause upon it for a while every now and then... is that, basically, THIS universe is made up of different layers, called dimensions, and there is an infinite anount of those dimensions, since fractals can repeat forever in both directions... which definitely does make your comment about always being able to find something new to think about and discover a valid point... but ALL of this universe is composed of the same "basic" fractal pattern, which I believe is the spiralling fractal pattern. If this is infinite, then there are an unexhaustable amount of things for us to discover... but we are only humans defining abstract concepts, such as infinity, so it may be like an ant trying to explain what love is. Infinity may not be "forever" to the universal consciousness....

I need to think about this more in order to comment further and do your reply justice. Give it a day or two to marinate in my head.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   



Hey Vanitas. I REALLY dig your signature.


Ah - that's because you KNOW... ; )

Are we going to let this thread die?
Freeze it for later consumption? : )

I hope not.
I really think it's worth further developing.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I recently watched a long video of a seminar given by a deep-thinking physicist, and he said the exact same thing: our universe consists entirely of fractals. He has a unified field theory under peer review right now that applies fractal geometry to the "vacuum" of space to develop an energy expression that is consistent from the quantum level to the cosmological level.

The idea he was getting at, was that you can break an atom down forever. There is no smallest particle; it will go on for as long as you will look at it, maybe until it becomes a galaxy of its own. And if you zoomed out of our entire universe far enough, it will eventually look exactly like a single point, a dot, an atom. Human life all takes place on a resolution in-between.


Think of how much space is actually between all the parts of an atom, relative to its size. Everything is immensely spaced out for how small the particles are. In our solar system, the spacing vs. the size of the planets is the same way. In our galaxy, the different star systems are similarly spaced. So are the galaxies similarly spaced. Vast spaces with only tiny points of "solids," where forces intervene.

The time scale for an atom to oscillate once, is to a second, as a second is to the age of the entire universe as we approximate it. The suggestion to me is that not only space is a fractal, but so does time dilate as it moves "outwards" towards bigger scales.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I spent the last two days working on an analysis of systems, and I found a few things, which I would like to share.
First, I broke down a system into several components. I used the following terms to describe them:

Primary: the individuals that form the 'base' of the system. The longer I looked, the harder it was to pinpoint a definitive primary; all elements serve as primaries, depending on what you're looking at.

Exchange: The interaction between individuals, or primaries. This is a property of an event, and is not a lone element (i.e. you can't take an "exchange" out of a system). Exchanges occur on every level of every system.

Market: Here, larger groups of individuals are formed, which themselves can appear to act like 'individuals' -- although such an appearance is false. Governments, belief systems, and faceless corporations are examples of such groups.

System: The system is formed by the interaction of all markets. Our human civilization, for instance, is a global system of interacting groups. Our ecosystem includes human civilization, other species, and (what I had earlier labeled) System 3; our solar system, whose configuration was necessary for our planet to form its natural features.

Pictorially, the diagram is a series of concentric circles, with our civilization being innermost, but by no means central. The analysis is still sketchy, since the further I expanded into the other systems, the less I knew about their inner workings. However, I think it is relevant to this discussion because based on my approach, my analysis alluded to a repeating pattern, no matter where I looked. Are there any thoughts or alternate views on this?



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I discovered this today. Besides the animated image in the article, a google search for either "Langton's Ant" or "Langston's Ant" will locate pages with Java applets that demonstrate the machine.

The principle behind Langton's Ant (per wiki entry) is this:
On a grid of (white) tiles, one tile is arbitrarily assigned "the ant."
When the ant enters a white tile, it turns left.
When it enters a black tile, it turns right.
When it exits any tile, it inverts the tile's color (e.g. white tile turns black when the ant moves off).

The original applet I viewed is here. When you hit Run, you can observe how the ant's initially chaotic behavior eventually forms a "stable" feature. It is interesting to observe how the ant continues to form the feature (called "the highway", and you will see why).

I find this interesting because it shows how features/systems can be formed off (what appears to be) chaotic behavior. To quote the applet page (linked above): "The evident long-term behaviour is remarkable, and unexplained."



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
The universe IS fractal. All things grow along fractal principles, and represent the basis of the chaos in the universe.

Is it cause or effect? That is the question. I believe it is the effect of the properties of physics. But that is my position, and may not be yours.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Mr. Jackdaw, are you reading my mind? You replied just as I was about to reply. Of all the coincidences, I think this could be sychronistic.

Okay...

First of all, I'd like to comment on Langton's Ant. Very cool. Never seen that one before, but yes that's exactly what I somehow came to realize. The Ant is a perfect example of chaotic fractal patterns collapsing or tripping over themselves to create more chaotic shapes and things that eventually form into a cohesive repeating pattern. Notice how the "ant" moves in a spiralling motion, and when it can't spin anymore, it turns back and spirals out?

Somehow the spiral can create a pattern that isn't a spiral.

I had this vision once not too long ago of the great pyramid, khufu's pyramid, sitting on the very top of the Earth. It was an exaggerated scale, but nonetheless, it was all made out of fractal patterns, and at the very tip of the pyramid, two or more fractal "highways" intersected. I wish I was a better artist, because this image would be a very highly respected piece of art if reproduced.

I understand exactly what you mean about the highways, and this could be a huge understanding, because if indeed our universe (including all dimensions) is made up of fractals, then these fractal "highways" could be the means of navigating through space/time/dimensions. They seem to me to be like the seams where two fractal patterns meet and intertwine, and I think these are the "wrinkles in time" or "wormholes" in which you must use like roads.

As a matter of fact, this is so amazing to me, and the more I learn, the more the theory makes sense and the more I can add onto it... but it keeps reminding me of the excellent book series, A Wrinkle in Time, etc.... by Madellene L'Engle, my favorite books of all time.

It's very odd the amount of sychronistic information I am finding on this subject that's mirroring my own personal thoughts and experiences. I haven't found a single shred of existence yet that I can't in some way relate to what I'm very rudimentarily trying to elaborate on here.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The universe IS fractal. All things grow along fractal principles, and represent the basis of the chaos in the universe.

Is it cause or effect? That is the question. I believe it is the effect of the properties of physics. But that is my position, and may not be yours.


I think it's the cause AND the effect. In Langton's ant, for example.... you have the black tile, you have the white tile, and you have the red tile, representing the random input, the re4d tile would not move without the white and black tile, but then neither would the black and white tiles move without the red tile moving. Who caused and who effected? In order to have cause and effect, you must have time for the cause to take its effect.
If time is just an illusion, which is another part of a theory which is starting to form a few layers to it, then there CAN'T be cause and effect. There can only be being within being without being. One cannot exist without the other..... and the next step in this puzzle, we may not be able to comprehend. It requires, I believe, our consciousness to develop into yet another dimension, because right now, we don't have the processing hardware.

This is such a massive idea I have going that I find it hard to even think fluidly about, because it's such an information overload. It's hard to respond to this thread because we're using words, and words are very limiting when trying to describe this to people. I am very surprised that ANYONE responded to this, because people just rarely think on this plane. They rarely think about things that can't be fit into a neat little paragraph or book or even a picture.... but it just can't.

It's so hard to try and put words where there really aren't any. I'm trying to express something that is beyond our palattable reality barrier.

Plus, I don't know a lot of science or math. I just know what I think.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join