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.

 

Greetings from Lord Butthead

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Hello.


The madness of the method encapsultes the wisdom of the ages in a firestorm of controversy. Space time and thought are not the separate things they appear to be and with the realization comes the mysteree.

An invariance of perception that has a Zenoian Paradoxical component related to the fact that a dissonant perceptual limiting effect occurs, enforcing a perceptual ambiguity juxtaposed between the "more they change" and the "more they stay the same".

When Jesus fed the 5000 he was able to access the multiversial possibilities of the single set of loaves and fishes in the one universe and multiply the outcomes to 5000 or more, as needed.

We are Multiversial Beings who all have the latent ability to tap into the multiversial Self.

Perceptual awareness ...possibly related to the enigmatic mystery of mysteries...

How aware can we become?

What does it mean to be aware?

By percieving a specific entity, does that perception prevent nuclear decay of the entity at the sub-atomic levels?

Is MIND the fundamental substrate for perceptual reality?

How do the laws of mathematics relate to the laws of perception?

The perfunctory status quo in our quasi-obligatory role, must be the element of choice. Without choice, there is no awareness. But alas, to choose is not a choice due to the fact that if we choose not to choose, we still have made a choice. This is a deterministic inevitability and as such, the exhaustively - deterministically - hence unendingly exponential realms of existence mean that determinism and free will co-exist together in a mutual bonding of power that is both simultaneously inclusive and exclusive.

Is the set of all possible universes also a universe? The inclusivity and exclusivity criteria beholden to the set of all possible sets seems to necessitate a requirement for a non-contradictory emancipation of our mental prisons of finite construction.

I have noticed a type of mental shifting that occurs that is different from a superficial wishing or mental pushing of conscious effort but it is more like a shift in consciousness involving the subconscious in some way; alot of energy is released from some-where, and strange effects occur that could only be described as a telekinetic manifestation.

Since we are actually in a multiverse, that means that the topological-model construct is a latent reality that is a subsuminmg field state which exists as a hyperdimensional manifold of many possibilities, that, while expanding towards an open topology in four dimensions as a 4 dimensional universe, still forms a closed geometry in higher dimensions as a 5 dimensional multiverse.




posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   
multiverse...

acessing the multiverse would transend one to a dimension well above our current observed one.

perhaps you could enlighten me to how you describe the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and heck, why not the 10th dimension WRT your theory?



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by wx4caster
multiverse...

acessing the multiverse would transend one to a dimension well above our current observed one.

perhaps you could enlighten me to how you describe the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and heck, why not the 10th dimension WRT your theory?


Hello wz4caster, I am glad to meet you. My theory is not quite a theory but more of a hypothesis, yes.


The three dimensional universe + time as the fourth dimension is a holographic projection originating in 5 dimensional hyper-space. All types of dimensions need not all be spatial in nature though. There are many different kinds of dimensions of experience.

To understand a true theory of the multiverse and parallel worlds is necessary to reap the inevitable bounty of the parallel worlds.
We then become the pirates and rogues of the paralell realities, setting forth on grand adventures. Slipping through parallels allows we multiverse pirates to accumulate much booty. The gold and gems of the multiverse await. Finders-keepers-losers-weepers.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Hmmm, this is a flavorful thread. Welcome aboard!

Hope to see you around. Regards...

Sd



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   


Is the set of all possible universes also a universe? The inclusivity and exclusivity criteria beholden to the set of all possible sets seems to necessitate a requirement for a non-contradictory emancipation of our mental prisons of finite construction.


My answer part 1 of 2.

Max Tegmark takes a different approach to what's known as a theory of everything (TOE), which is defined to be a complete description of all of reality external to us humans.

There are two papers on the subject which have a middle-level of technical information, and so readable at least to the point of getting the gist of it. The first was written circa 1998 and the recent one (the sequel) was written circa 2007. So, in science terms, these are young theories but, in a sense, not, as these ideas are similar to Plato's theories.

Is "the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory?

The Mathematical Universe

In the second article, Tegmark defines two hypotheses: the external reality hypothesis (ERH) and the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH). The ERH is that "there exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans" and the MUH is that "our external physical reality is a mathematical structure." He argues that the ERH implies the MUH:

  • A complete description of the external reality is called a TOE (theory of everything).
  • The ERH implies that for a description to be complete, it must be well-defined also according to non-human sentient entities (say aliens or future supercomputers) that lack the common understanding of concepts that we humans have evolved, e.g., "particle", "observation" or indeed any other English words. Put differently, such a description must be expressible in a form that is devoid of human "baggage".
  • The ERH implies that a "theory of everything" has no baggage.
  • There are many equivalent ways of describing the same structure, and a particular mathematical structure can be defined as an equivalence class of descriptions. Thus although any one description involves some degree of arbitrariness (in notation, etc.), there is nothing arbitrary about the mathematical structure itself.
  • Something that has a baggage-free description is precisely a mathematical structure.
  • Therefore, the external physical reality described by the TOE is a mathematical structure.


What is meant by the expression "mathematical structure?" This article provides an intuitive explanation of what a mathematical structure is by saying, "all mathematical structures are just special cases of one and the same thing: so-called formal systems. A formal system consists of abstract symbols and rules for manipulating them, specifying how new strings of symbols referred to as theorems can be derived from given ones referred to as axioms."

In That article, Tegmark argues for there being no more than four types of parallel universes. The so-called Level IV multiverse employs a sort of "mathematical democracy," meaning that parallels governed by other equations are equally real. Furthermore, it is argued that the physical universe is a mathematical structure. The article states "the true mathematical structure isomorphic to our universe, if it exists, has not yet been found." [***]

An isomorphism in this context means "in a certain sense, isomorphic structures are structurally identical." ( Isomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) Thus, the mathematical structure isomorphic to our universe, if it exists, is structurally identical to the universe.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   
All of this implies the first sentence in the quote is incorrect; mathematics doesn't just mimic the universe: the universe is a mathematical structure. The second quote is incorrect in that in a TOE (a complete description of external reality) the formulas don't approximate the workings of the universe: since the universe is a mathematical structure, formulas that are true in that structure (which has a well-defined meaning I won't get into here and now) represent a TOE and are not merely approximations.

As an aside, since the universe is a mathematical structure, one can infer that the universe is ultimately timeless just as the idea of a circle is timeless (if C is now a circle, then C was always a circle, and C will always be a circle).


[***]I'm involved in finding the mathematical structure isomorphic to our universe. I'm going to try to attach the article though it is about 80% finished. I have a mathematical structure U that is ultimate in that, basically, it contains all other structures. Part IV is the part that is unfinished but it will be a list of several properties of "the theory of U," which the set of true statements about U--I equate that to a TOE. So far, the theory of U has the following properties that I know of:

  1. the theory of U is complete. This means that, given a statement, that statement or its negation is true for U. Compare to Godel's incompleteness theorem which states that for any language that sufficiently describes arithmetic that language is incomplete, meaning that given a statement it is not necessarily true that one can prove it true or false (which is a form of agnosis).
  2. the theory of U is consistent. This means you will never be able to prove a statement as both true and false.
  3. the theory of U is finitely axiomatizable, meaning that there is a finite list of assumptions such that the entirety of the consequences of those axioms is identical to the theory of U
  4. the theory of U is undecidable. This means there is no "effective procedure" (eg, a mathematical proof or, eg, a program on a computer) for determining if a statement is true or false. Another way to put it is that some statements that although they are true (or false) by completeness, a proof of that fact is impossible (no matter how clever you are).



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Hello atonewithnothing, that is some good food for thought. I am glad that such deep thinkers are here at ATS



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scooby Doo
Hmmm, this is a flavorful thread. Welcome aboard!

Hope to see you around. Regards...

Sd


Thank you for the friendly welcome Scooby Doo


Wormholes, anti-gravity, telekinesis, spatio-temporal anamolies, extraterrestrial civilizations, ancient beings and much more appear to be subjects of many conversations here. It all looks very interesting



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lord Butthead
Hello atonewithnothing, that is some good food for thought. I am glad that such deep thinkers are here at ATS



Oh, yeah, and Hi. nice to meet you.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lord Butthead
Hello atonewithnothing, that is some good food for thought. I am glad that such deep thinkers are here at ATS




Don't get too excited. I'm here too!



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Welcome to ATS.

Enjoy.




posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtOneWithNothing

Originally posted by Lord Butthead
Hello atonewithnothing, that is some good food for thought. I am glad that such deep thinkers are here at ATS



Oh, yeah, and Hi. nice to meet you.


You raise some interesting points about isomorphism, yes. The varying mathematical structures form their own universes of expression and they could all be linked as a relational structure AKA an omniverse of totality.

Qualia and quanta form a distinct relationship as do semantics and syntax. In the theoretical imagination of the quasi-realities of fantasy, we can construct different models of plausibility that may be denied by powers that be, of course.

We search for meaning which gives philosophical cohesion to the requisite necessity of logical comprehension.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by theminusmen

Originally posted by Lord Butthead
Hello atonewithnothing, that is some good food for thought. I am glad that such deep thinkers are here at ATS




Don't get too excited. I'm here too!


Hello theminusmen, have we met in a previous life



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by dizziedame
Welcome to ATS.

Enjoy.



Thank you for the kind welcome dizziedame. I am glad to meet you



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Too much hyperbole... must...escape...the...BS...
Noooo...it...is...dragging...me...in...

Honestly bro, it's really unintelligible...



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by postmeme
Too much hyperbole... must...escape...the...BS...
Noooo...it...is...dragging...me...in...

Honestly bro, it's really unintelligible...


Yes, the hyperbole is a necessary encryption protocol, as I am communicating with other hyperdimensional beings, and this forum will ensure the requisite plausible deniability.

Nice to meet you postmeme


[edit on 20-7-2009 by Lord Butthead]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join