A simple mind experiment for understanding how all is in the one, and the one is in all.

Originally posted by sirnex
Would we still view the universe as fractal if we never discovered fractal mathematically first?

The Heremetic concept of as above, so below and the macrocosm and microcosm ideas suggested the possibility before fractals were common knowledge. I suppose they display the properties at face value. Logically, it couldn't have been called "fractal" until "fractal" was used as term for such an organizing principle. I'm just saying that there was an intuitive viewing or awareness of such a property before the advent of the specific term or concept in mathematics.

[edit on 11/25/2009 by EnlightenUp]

RE: sirnex

Ya, reason does seem to dictate the fact that I am me, but what really throws me is how improbable that fact is. Was the universe destine to creat me? Have all the events that have ever occured Before My Existance (BME) on both a macrosopic and microsopic level been specifically geared just to creat me or were they just random? I can not imagine a universe where I do not exist, neither BME or Post My Existance (PME). Is the glass of water I drank on June 12th of 1965 as much a part of me today as it was 1000 years before I drank it? Indeed, every molecule of that water has been long since passed by my body and returned to the universe. I am in a constant state of flux and postulate that I not the same person that quaffed down that glass of water that warm June evening in 1965. Once I am disbanded (PME) I will return to the swarm of the universe. This loss of entropy is just as inevitable as was the creation of this entropic state which lead to My Existance (ME). Hence, I exist in three states, BME, ME and PME just as do the Moirae.

reply to post by Rotwang

Have all the events that have ever occured Before My Existance (BME) on both a macrosopic and microsopic level been specifically geared just to creat me or were they just random?

Well, that just assumes that you are some how intrinsically valuable to the very nature of the universe. It is probably something more mundane as whatever that first cause for the universe is what has led everything to occur up to this point.

I can not imagine a universe where I do not exist, neither BME or Post My Existance (PME).

I find it easy to imagine such a universe myself. My parents existed in this same universe prior to my existence. I can imagine a PME universe as well, as people alive during my time existent within this same universe are now gone, but this universe still exists.

Is the glass of water I drank on June 12th of 1965 as much a part of me today as it was 1000 years before I drank it?

It's actually gross to think about it but, it's the same water the dinosaurs pissed out millions of years ago.

Hence, I exist in three states, BME, ME and PME just as do the Moirae.

I agree to a point. You existed during BME only because your mother existed and your egg was in her ovaries. You existed during BME only because your father existed and at the exact moment of conception, the sperm that merged with the egg existed in which to give birth to you. Really, you existed BME for only a short period of time. To claim one can exist PME there has to be a place in which to exist. I suppose you would exist as a memory, but that would only last a short period of time, one, maybe two generations at most unless you've left a remarkable impression on society.

reply to post by EnlightenUp

The Heremetic concept of as above, so below and the macrocosm and microcosm ideas suggested the possibility before fractals were common knowledge. I suppose they display the properties at face value. Logically, it couldn't have been called "fractal" until "fractal" was used as term for such an organizing principle. I'm just saying that there was an intuitive viewing or awareness of such a property before the advent of the specific term or concept in mathematics.

Well, that's just speculation and there are other possible meanings for that phrase with those different meanings being the most generally agreed upon meanings that don't imply a fractal universe. It could be they're wrong and your correct. I don't know as I'm not well versed in hermetic knowledge, but I do like some of it's concepts.

reply to post by Rotwang


I had to take pause after reading your post. In each state of being you rely on your "existence". Before you existed, your present state of existence and your post existent state. What gave me pause is the question of whether you can claim a state of existence before and after you actually exist?

To over simplify. If you ordered pancakes would you accept a plate presented to you with flour, water and eggs? Or would you accept the check when the pancakes where shown to you but then taken away?

Except for the time that the pancake where actually prepared and presented to you in their functional and desirable form would you accept them.

I know I over simplify here but having the components of being or form is it enough?

Even with fractuals; they seem more like components of a whole that can be manipulated by distance, light and perception.

So maybe that old saying "I think; therefore I am", is not so far from the truth.

Originally posted by sirnex
Well, that's just speculation and there are other possible meanings for that phrase with those different meanings being the most generally agreed upon meanings that don't imply a fractal universe. It could be they're wrong and your correct. I don't know as I'm not well versed in hermetic knowledge, but I do like some of it's concepts.

I think the "fractal universe" per se is a retrofit originating with those ideas.

The macrocosm and the microcosm is a concept concerning the appearance of similar structure at many levels of the universe - atoms, solar systems, galaxies, etc. I can't say precisely how it came to the Greeks.

Newton may have derived inspiration from as above, so below in theorizing that gravity makes things fall on earth and keeps celestial bodies in orbit. That is my speculation but it's not unfounded to consider. He was an alchemist and did a translation of the Emerald Tablet.

His translation:
"That which is below is like that which is above that which is above is like that which is below to do the miracles of one only thing."

reply to post by sirnex

yes It has fractal properties, and no its not infinite.

And heres why, NOTHING can be inifinite. Yes the size and scope of the universe is immense beyond comprehension. however, technically there is an overall size to it. NO MATTER how big it is, INFINITE WILL ALWAYS BE BIGGER.

reply to post by VonDoomen


Everything is a living singular entity all created of love. All matter is energy that energy is love/light, light/love they are the same one singular thing.


When you type on your keyboard is it not performing a service to you? Be thankful to that keyboard.

Your body performs a service to you, be thankful. Etc... etc... etc...

Namaste.

reply to post by Rotwang


But think about this. what if the primal consciousness that is born into a body is the same "seed".

And all "you" are you is the result of your growing up in a UNIQUE environment

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by Rotwang

 

But think about this. what if the primal consciousness that is born into a body is the same "seed".

And all "you" are you is the result of your growing up in a UNIQUE environment

Funny as i was just having a look through this thread and i was wondering the exact thing today, what if maybe all of us are all from the same seed and its just unique environments and upbringing that makes us what we are, as in decisions we make and the like are determined by the life we have lived with all the interactions with fellow humans and animals and so on,

If you know what i am getting at?

But i also theorised maybe there is a said amount of "seeds" which all have inbuilt characteristics which have an effect on the being that is born like the variety differences with tomatoes eg; cherry tomatoes or plum tomatoes in essence the same fruit but with various characteristics which makes them different?

Or are tomatoes vegetable's?

Anyway that's my thoughts for today and maybe this can be spoken about a bit?


peace

reply to post by VonDoomen


In the words of Einstein, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.". Which is largely what the "oneness" movement is in my honest opinion, oversimplification.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by sirnex

 

yes It has fractal properties, and no its not infinite.

And heres why, NOTHING can be inifinite. Yes the size and scope of the universe is immense beyond comprehension. however, technically there is an overall size to it. NO MATTER how big it is, INFINITE WILL ALWAYS BE BIGGER.

In order for this statement to not be contradictory, either infinite things must exist or must not exist. You can't simply state that nothing is infinite followed by infinite will always be bigger. It either is or isn't, not both unless you can show that both are possible. Fractal properties are not the same thing as a mathematically infinite fractal equation. A mathematical fractal can only be abstracted into an infinite regressions. Something possessing partly fractal properties is not inherently an actual fractal. You don't equally call a leaf a tree, or do you?

Originally posted by VonDoomen

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by sirnex

 

yes It has fractal properties, and no its not infinite.

And heres why, NOTHING can be inifinite. Yes the size and scope of the universe is immense beyond comprehension. however, technically there is an overall size to it. NO MATTER how big it is, INFINITE WILL ALWAYS BE BIGGER.

In order for this statement to not be contradictory, either infinite things must exist or must not exist. You can't simply state that nothing is infinite followed by infinite will always be bigger.

I can say this, here's why. What I said not contradictory at all. The universe being a physical object cannot be infinite. Infinite itself is just a mental concept, THAT CAN NOT BE PHYSICAL. IE- No matter how big "Reality" is, you could always THINK to yourself "Reality x 2". Its really a trick/word game.

It either is or isn't, not both unless you can show that both are possible. Fractal properties are not the same thing as a mathematically infinite fractal equation. A mathematical fractal can only be abstracted into an infinite regressions. Something possessing partly fractal properties is not inherently an actual fractal. You don't equally call a leaf a tree, or do you?

Again, physical objects can have fractal properties, but CANNOT be infinite.
Mathematical or abstracted fractals can be infinite, because they are not physical objects.

Check out my thread here -
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In it, I touch upon the difference between the physical and mental world, and how the mind has an seemingly infinite aspect or quality to it.

[edit on 11/26/2009 by VonDoomen]

Sorry I kind of messed up the quoting somehow.
But Sirnex, I have a feeling you can differentiate between what you said and what I said in this discussion.

[edit on 11/26/2009 by VonDoomen]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by VonDoomen

 

In the words of Einstein, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.". Which is largely what the "oneness" movement is in my honest opinion, oversimplification.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Yes and no. What Im saying starts off simple. There is a single basic component to the universe at the tiniest scale possible. This single component is like a lego/building block, it can be put together in so many combination's to create complexity at the other end of the size scale. You are made of energy, which makes up atoms, which make up elements, which make up molecules, which make up amino acids, which make up proteins, which make up cells, which make up organs, which make a person.

At each level there is plenty of complexity as well. theres all different types of amino acids, proteins, cells, organs, and humans.

So I wouldnt say im really over simplifying it, IMO

reply to post by VonDoomen

I can say this, here's why. What I said not contradictory at all. The universe being a physical object cannot be infinite. Infinite itself is just a mental concept, THAT CAN NOT BE PHYSICAL. IE- No matter how big "Reality" is, you could always THINK to yourself "Reality x 2". Its really a trick/word game.

So what is reality composed of? Physical or mental?

Again, physical objects can have fractal properties, but CANNOT be infinite.
Mathematical or abstracted fractals can be infinite, because they are not physical objects.

Has any non-physical object in mathematics been shown to explicitly exist in reality as an actuality of reality and not a speculated aspect of reality? Either an infinite fractal exists as an actuality of reality or it doesn't. A speculated abstract is a speculated abstract until that speculated abstract is proven to exist in reality. Part of is not equal to.

In it, I touch upon the difference between the physical and mental world, and how the mind has an seemingly infinite aspect or quality to it.

I disagree on the infinite aspect as it would imply explicit knowledge and evidence of continuance after physical death. No such evidence beyond speculation to my knowledge has thus far been presented and in other threads, my inquiries for such evidence have been met with resistance and ill thought out arguments based on yet more speculation.

Sorry I kind of messed up the quoting somehow.
But Sirnex, I have a feeling you can differentiate between what you said and what I said in this discussion.

I can only differentiate between that which is thought to be real and that which explicitly real. In my opinion, for it to be explicitly real for all of reality it must possess explicit evidence for existing as real for all things in reality. We're humans, we're not the only species on this planet that possesses mind nor should it be assumed that we're the only form of life within the universe that thinks upon human terms alone. We can't define reality solely upon human perceptions lest we develop a faulty view of reality.

A book you might find interesting is Michael Talbott's "Holographic Universe" and some (not all) of Dolores Cannon's "The Convoluted Universe".

Excellent post.

reply to post by sirnex


sirnex- So what is reality composed of? Physical or mental?

I should have been more specific. the physical aspect of reality is finite.
even though space seems to be expanding at the speed of light and you could technically never reach the "edge" it still technically has a finite quality to it because infinite is a mental concept only. No matter how big the universe is, you can still THINK bigger.


sirnex- Has any non-physical object in mathematics been shown to explicitly exist in reality as an actuality of reality and not a speculated aspect of reality? Either an infinite fractal exists as an actuality of reality or it doesn't. A speculated abstract is a speculated abstract until that speculated abstract is proven to exist in reality.
-> Part of is not equal to. Part of is not equal to.