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.

 

Conspiracy of human intelligence.

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   
The simple high school sqrt(2)=2 paradox. The statement that breaks it down is that you can never stop calculating, thus you can never write down sqrt(2)=2 because you are in an infinite loop. Way too much work just to say 'asymptote'.

There are two things you should never try to prove: the impossible and the obvious.




posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 



Do you disagree with the tests that have been run (if so what?), have alternate contradictory evidence, or do you simply disagree on principle?


Take fairly recent studies showing the speed of light as variable under certain conditions and the same with redshift. We can honestly state that we don't know the conditions throughout the entire cosmos enough where we can state as a matter of fact that these two 'constants' are actually constant. If they aren't constant, it brings problems for the BBT. Also, from my understanding there are certain observational oddities that go against using redshift and luminosities as accurate placeholders for distance and velocity, mainly with Quasars. As it stands, the entire theory appears to be based on an assumption that these constants are constants now, but were certainly variable in the beginning of the universe throughout the inflationary period.


Which suggests that general relativity needs to be reformulated in a conformally invariant way.


Hell, GR need's a lot of things done to it.


So what do you consider a person at birth? Nothing?


Meaning you as now, not at birth. At birth we aren't born with knowledge we have today, we get that through out the years with learning and experience. At the time of death all that learning and experience wouldn't 'stick around' in a useful manner in such a way that we continue to exist after bodily death as a conscious being. The 'self' or, you, is dependent upon the physical being of what makes you, you.


All of this information is encoded in matter and the ordinality of that matter.


True, but it seems like your trying to sensationalize to issue here. In your dino dig example, that information of the past being encoded is entirely dependent upon the bones of the dinosaurs being there, should they have decomposed rather than fossilized, that information would have been lost and meaningless to us today. The same would apply to any quantum effect of the brain, it is entirely dependent upon the physical arrangement of the neurons. Once it decays, any information locked in so to speak, would be lost forever. There doesn't exist any mechanism for this information to "live on" and certainly not in any usable fashion by the self contained within that physical brain.


Even if Earth was destroyed, a type 3 civilization with advanced tools and a full understanding of the laws of physics could track all the particles in the universe that stemmed from the destruction of Earth. This would then allow for a complete reversal reconstructing where each particle necessarily must have come from and therefore reassemble the geological history of earth.


Now I would call that wishful thinking. What about Heisenberg Uncertainty? How can you reconstruct a full picture of everything? Without knowing the initial conditions or positions of every atom, I don't think it would be very likely that any information about you would be reconstituted by an advanced race.


Even as matter starts to break down we can observe the radiation to determine other properties about it. Consider we know the properties of other planets composition by observing the data results from multi-object spectrometers (measuring light frequencies) and then we couple that with our knowledge that various elements have unique infrared spectral signatures. From this we know the chemical composition of extra-solar planets light years away!


That is an entirely different concept and feat than reconstituting lost 'information' as described above.


Lets go one step further, our knowledge of the world around us is simply a recognition of properties that fundamentally exist in nature. So we're not actually "creating anything." We're simply transcoding information from reality to thought.


When put like that you make it sound as if your implying that 'thought' doesn't arise from the physical bounds of the brain. It sounds like your trying to say there is "thought" and then a physical body as if the two are physically separated from each other. I beg for further clarification on that statement.


As a game programmer I'm made even more aware of just how capable we are of encoding all things as numbers. Literally every aspect of a video-game is represented as a simple binary sequence that executes in a certain order. Everything from the logic, geometry, coloring of the world, to the music that plays through your speakers is all represented as a numeric sequence.

We can even digitally sequence your genome!


Now that definitely sounds like sensationalizing the issue! Your trying to equate a physical reality to a virtual facsimile as if the two are one and the same, at least that is how it rubs off on me when I read it.


Basically my point is that everything contains information simply in its mass and through the radiation of it information is gained. The fact that we don't have the tools to adequately decipher the state of your mind and the energy it gives off in heat doesn't mean that valid data about "you" doesn't exist when you've passed on. We simply lack the tools to properly decipher those states.


OK, playing with the idea of a sufficiently advanced entity having the tools itself, they would also have to know out of the vast numbers of atoms present on our planet which one's made up you, me and a rock. Say the Sun goes nova, spreading the atoms that make up you, me and a rock, that job is now nearly infinitely improbable. Regardless of reconstituting the information into a meaningful way, the information decayed wouldn't be useful after death by yourself as you are dependent upon that information existing in it's current arrangement of usefulness.


Furthermore I think humans really are just another pattern existing in the background radiation. Consider what makes me, well me, is what I simply observe and experience (which is external to me). Just like there's no time / spatial positioning if there's no mass relative to another unit of mass.


That's oversimplifying the matter, it's not just experience, perception and information processing, it is also dependent upon the physical arrangement as it exists now, once that decays or the system decoheres it wouldn't be useful to exist as yourself after bodily death by any bounds.


You might say, "but N+1 can't equal N+2 using math as we understand it because it doesn't add up!" I'd beg to differ.


Surprisingly, I do agree with that, but it still doesn't lead to a usefulness of information after bodily death.







[edit on 19-10-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by charlyv
The simple high school sqrt(2)=2 paradox. The statement that breaks it down is that you can never stop calculating, thus you can never write down sqrt(2)=2 because you are in an infinite loop. Way too much work just to say 'asymptote'.

There are two things you should never try to prove: the impossible and the obvious.


If you dislike the sqrt(2) = 2 scenario perhaps you prefer the Banach–Tarski paradox? Somehow I think the obvious is often times tied up with the impossible. For instance as I mentioned before,

2 = (A - A) / B, when B = 0, due to A - B = A + B => A - A = 2B => (A - A) / 2 = B, where B is the additive identity.

I take great exception when people claim the obvious isn't inextricably part of the impossible, and that we shouldn't try to understand either better.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SmokeandShadow
 


I took the time to look at what cymatics is. I understand that 'sound' or the vibrations of matter in a gaseous state like air can vibrate matter in a solid state separated by the source of that vibration and the solid it is vibrating.

With that said, I don't personally subscribe to the belief that sound can effectively heal the sick. Although, I do know that sound such as music or at least certain types of music can have a calming effect which would release certain hormones in the body making it more relaxed. Whereas other forms of music or sound can cause stress hormones being released which would have a detrimental effect on the body.

But more to the point, can sound create matter in the sense of God in genesis? Short answer is no. Long answer is, look at how sound is produced and what it effects. Sound doesn't do any actual creation, nor is it even capable of creating anything. It needs a medium to exist within or propagate through.

I guess I can toy with the idea in my head and take a guess that *if* the fabric of space is composed of some sort of fundamental 'thing' that when set into a vibrational state give's rise to what we consider matter, then perhaps maybe in a sense sound can create, but it would only be at that fundamental 'thing'. Sort of like God having a quantum hiccup inside a quantum foam of reality. But all that has to be proven first before we can exclaim 'Ah ha!'



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Excellent post.
I was wondering if you have read anything on the aether.
Actual empty space could be considered nothing of the sort.
It's been suggested that space in and of itself is some sort of quantum fluid like material.
Energy exists and can travel through space in various forms such as light, and waves.
It can do this, because it may indeed have a medium to travel through.
I was wondering on your input regarding that.
Now we're getting somewhere.



I think it was Einstein.

[edit on 10/19/2009 by reticledc]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by reticledc
 


I have read about the aether theory, I think there might be something to it, only because everything else requires some kind of medium to propagate through, so it would seem kind of odd that only electromagnetic energy doesn't.

What I won't agree to is that this medium is capable of giving rise to any intelligent entity with powers of creation, that just seems to fanciful and a stretch of the imagination to be true. The only concept of deities man has are the defined concepts created by primitive man, so I find it highly unlikely that such a thing would be truly possible in reality.

If aether physics is true, it would only be postulating a possible medium for electromagnetic energy to propagate through, so it would really be of little use to much of anything else unless one twists its meaning purposefully. I personally do think there may be a fundamental 'thing', but I liken it to plasma cosmology myself with this fundamental 'thing' condensing in some fashion to create what we currently define as matter. But, that's just my personal belief right now and I would probably change it when something new is discovered that shows otherwise.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Yes brothers and sisters there is a conspiracy to know who and what and how special all of you are.

I would flag this a hundred percent, damn ego won't let me though.




posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by reticledc
 


i, too, like this particular mode of discussion. the universal aether is a highly underrated concept. also, i support the idea of sound or resonance as the structural framework of matter.

Denis McKenna: Electron-Spin Resonance Matrix

at this link you will find the wonderful D.McKenna engaging in the sort of talk that this very thread holds in contempt. he makes the claim that, under certain circumstances, the harmonic grid can be consciously perceived and modified. he even goes in to some detail about "higher level matter".

SERIOUSLY a concept that needs to be looked into....on the bleeding edge of scientific thought.

and, OP, if you even TRY to discredit McKenna, i will never speak to you again.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 



i support the idea of sound or resonance as the structural framework of matter.


That's physically impossible given how sound is manifested in the first place. It's the structure of matter vibrating that causes sound to ultimately cause vibration in other matter. In reality, it's just matter affecting matter, there is no separate physical component called sound.

Take the violin example. The bow string is made of matter, pluck the string and it vibrates. When it vibrates it causes displacement in the surrounding air which again is composed of matter. When that vibrating air reaches the plate with the sand, it vibrates the plate which in turn vibrates the sand. You see, there is no actual 'thing' called sound in and of itself, but nothing more than matter vibrating and causing other things to vibrate.

There is no way that sound can be a structural framework for matter as matter is inherently a requirement for sound to occur in the first place.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   


One of the big leaps of quantum mechanics is that momentum can exist without mass, photons can have momentum without having mass. The other is that everything with momentum has a wavelength even 'solid' objects.


One might consider the particular wavelength of any substance or energy, as ripples in water.
Not water exactly, but that same quantum fluid I mentioned before.

The propagation of waves, I think denotes that medium being traveled through.

I was always boggled at how science considers photons particles, when they allegedly have no mass. In addition to other subatomic particles such as neutron, protons, electron, and any other ons, you might be able to mention.

It is commonly mentioned that space/time is a fabric.
I would just as soon call it a fluid as I would anything else, based on that reasoning.

Even a vacuum has something in it. Space.

[edit on 10/19/2009 by reticledc]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



i support the idea of sound OR resonance as the structural framework of matter.


please note the emphasis. because audible sound is limited by the frequency range of the human ear, this is not what i am referring to.

more to the effect of standing waves and resonant vibrations through a medium (aether).



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


There are only two definitions of resonance that I can think of that would be applicable here, but both require matter to function and wouldn't be a separate physical component for creating matter. I would imagine that even within an aether structure of the universe or some quantum foam or whatever, those aspects would be a product of the structure rather than a separate creative aspect for the structure.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 



and, OP, if you even TRY to discredit McKenna, i will never speak to you again.


Does it count if he discredits himself very quickly?


This sound will be the harmonic ESR tone of this complex amplified superconductively and broadcast and frozen into the superconductive matrix of the mushroom. The superconductively charged psilocybin acts as an internal linkantenna which picks up the amplified ESR signals of the complex and condenses vibrational signals into a superconductive matrix.


Apparently, a mind altering drug has accomplished a feat that scientists can only dream of accomplishing some day. Superconductivity at room temperature. Amazing doesn't even begin to describe this accomplishment!

Honestly, this website kind of pisses me off. Advocating the usage of mind altering drugs as if they somehow give the druggie a clearer picture of what is real. Try driving, if you don't crash into a brick wall then I'll be amazed at your clearer view of reality.

Personally, I like to leave the drugs for the losers who see reality as a tangerine flamingo playing cribbage with a talking banana who is eating a porcupine. Sorry, but that website is nothing more than pure garbage. Duuude, my hand is melting!

I mean, I can understand if you don't want to talk to me again, but the guy just discredits himself more than once on that site and not just because he advocates the use of drugs.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
this website kind of pisses me off


i figured that would be your response. yeaaaah...no one can talk crap like the mckenna brothers. they are pioneers.

although his claims are unsupported, i find them plausible and worthy of serious evaluation. you should discredit neither that website, nor the chemical enhancements. "drugs are BAD," is parroting the establishment....and the establishment has a vested interest in keeping you from exploring the frontiers of your own mind...polka-dotted flamingos and all!

another quote from T.McKenna, in which he is explaining his timewave theory:


I would be the first to admit that it has not been possible to find a bridge between this theory and normal physics. Such a bridge may be neither possible nor necessary. We may find that normal science indicates what is possible, while the time theory I propose offers an explanation for what is. It is a theory that seems to explain how, of the class of all things possible, some events and things undergo the formality of actually occurring. It is clear to me that the theory cannot be disproven by being found inconsistent within itself. Anyone is welcome to dismantle it if they are able; this is what I have attempted to do and failed.



...as you can see, even the McKenna's acknowledge that their ideas do not coincide with science. but does that mean the ideas are untrue?

"NO!"



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


Yes, they are absolutely right when they say "superconductive matrix of the mushroom". It's those idiot scientists working on superconductivity that have it all wrong. Absolutely plausible indeed... *IF* your on the damn drug that is.

I mean come on, you 'seem' bright enough to know this is pure BS. You can't seriously buy into this crap can you? Do you trip on shrooms yourself, is that why your sympathetic to it?

Do you not realize that when your tripping thing's don't actually change? It's not like you can drive at top speed at a brick wall, trip and have it change into a green pasture and your car turn into a horse and you'll go riding off into the sunset. Your going to hit that wall hard and your going to die painfully. Drugs are not freaking toys, they can kill you for crying out loud. Think!



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


you are not being fair. and answering your question honestly would get me pegged with a warning and possible a ban.

suffice to say that i think it is a little bit BS and a little bit plausible.

i have actually experienced, first hand, the ESR matrix which is described in the link, which is why i posted it. i know *exactly* what they are talking about.

believe it or not, sirnex, the 5 senses you have normal access to are A BOX. they are extremely limiting. under certain special circumstances, reality becomes perceptible in ways which do not translate very well to normal experience.

until my dying breath, i will argue that just because there is a difficulty in the translation does NOT invalidate the experience nor the concepts involved. i simply will not hear otherwise, especially from people whom have never had the experience for themselves.

on the contrary, i think that these *special* experiences are MORE valuable in terms of pushing the boundaries of science.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Anyone have any decent theories in who or what is behind or causing people's inability to use logic and reason?

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Skyfloating]


Indeed, but you got the situation backwards.
Actually the behavior that has become the norm in every day life is that people try to use logic and reason to apply for everything which in some cases won't work.
Try to pay attention to your actual thoughts when you get approached from a woman that you really find exceptional and you can't seem to come up with good way to open up a conversation and eventually date her.
The natural tendency of having a break of the logical and reasonable confines of behavior finds an escape more and more anonymously through the internet.
That is why you see less and less people dating and more and more people on the internet making conspiracies.

Hope this helped.


[edit on 19-10-2009 by spacebot]

Oh and since the thread evolved to what is magical or not in our reality, try to fathom this:

Sun's acoustic waves

[edit on 19-10-2009 by spacebot]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 



you are not being fair. and answering your question honestly would get me pegged with a warning and possible a ban.


Oh please, hallucinogenic drugs can and have caused people to kill others or themselves. Your mileage may vary upon your personal experience compared to others, but your mileage is not the same as others. What's not fair is some screwed up druggie tripping on shrooms who kills someone thinking what he's killing is a velociraptor that just came out of a portal in his fridge. Thankfully this is why it's an illegal substance. Frankly *I do not care* if you had a 'good' trip most of the time your on it.


i have actually experienced, first hand, the ESR matrix which is described in the link, which is why i posted it. i know *exactly* what they are talking about.


To be blunt, your full of it. Honestly. Hallucinogenic drugs are not superconductive at room temperature as that link you provided is trying to postulate. And yes, it is *WRONG* in what they are saying and anyone with half a working brain would quickly and easily be able to discern that immediately. If your tripping on shrooms, STOP.


believe it or not, sirnex, the 5 senses you have normal access to are A BOX. they are extremely limiting. under certain special circumstances, reality becomes perceptible in ways which do not translate very well to normal experience.


Believe it or not, but of those five sense we posses five individual sensory organs to receive information, transmit it to the brain and then process that information. What other senses are you thinking your obtaining through tripping on shrooms? Are you growing new sensory organs that magically disappear after the trip is over, or are your current sensory organs physically changing to accept a wider range of input and then reverting back after the trip is over? Freaking use your head will you!


until my dying breath, i will argue that just because there is a difficulty in the translation does NOT invalidate the experience nor the concepts involved. i simply will not hear otherwise, especially from people whom have never had the experience for themselves.


Spoken like a true addict.


on the contrary, i think that these *special* experiences are MORE valuable in terms of pushing the boundaries of science.


Yes, your right and what we have learned from these drugs is that they are *harmful*. Regardless of n amount of 'good' trips you may have had doesn't detract from the fact that those substances have caused harm to its users or those in direct contact with whomever is under the influence of the substance. You just lost all respect and credibility. I show no sympathy for druggie nor for those who try and paint a pretty picture of it.

Before you think again that I am being unfair, I know people who have *not* had good experiences with drugs and I have personally tried to help two people very close to me get back on their feet. So piss off and learn something about drug use and how it truly affects people.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   

You just lost all respect and credibility....
...your full of it....
Spoken like a true addict.
So piss off...


(i still cant figure out why you think you can talk to people like this?)

back at 'cha, cupcake.


ignored.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


I'm not looking to discuss things with someone who is tapped, I'm trying to talk to people with at least half a working neuron. Personally, druggies can take that 'I've experienced it and you haven't' argument and shove it where the sun don't shine. No, I haven't done it myself, but I do know people who have and I have helped people who've had their lives screwed because of it. So I'm sorry if that bothers you and goes outside your personal trippy box, but my friend, that is what reality really is. Not some drugged up trip.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join