Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Existence According To Bone - Mind Blown In 3....2....1....

page: 4
180
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
This reminds me of the holographic universe theory as presented in the book by Michael Talbot.

en.wikipedia.org...

You can break hologram into as many smaller and smaller pieces as you want, and each part will still contain the same image as the whole.

This is of course similar to a fractal in which patterns repeat on smaller and smaller scales.

On a slightly related note, I've noted the same connection with Enochian Magick, in which each subdivision reflects the larger table. (I'm not an expert on this topic but that's the general sense I've picked up from what little I have studied.)




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
I do like the idea but to all those saying wow this is new to me you obviously didn't hang out with enough hippies when you were younger
It's stoner philosophy 101. Very nice pictoral display though, good find.

I always liked the idea there's a mother god, a father god and we're the baby god universe, microcosm/macrocosm. Who knows though ! If they can tell me the real explanation without making my brain explode and catch fire I'll buy them a drink.
edit on 16-12-2012 by Hopeforeveryone because: typo, added a bit


the point of this post (to me) is that the smallest and the largest are made from the same rules, and irrespective of your scale viewpoint, it all looks the same. a true fractal: self similar at any scale.

the OP's post also says that everything is made of everything else. the tiny atom looks just like the immense galaxy, tho the one is 'inside' the other.

not switch your thinking from matter to mind.

if life is ultimatly fractal, the Gods mind must 'look' pretty similar to our mind (course we don't know what that is so there's a problem). Minds are also fractal in nature: each smaller mind making up, but looking like, the mind on the next scale up.

what is mind a scale down from us, you might ask?
the cell. the microbe. the teaming billions of semiautomonous life that makes us function. our microfloura.
the many little minds that make up our larger mind.

fractal mind scale.

what if i told you that i have felt the mind of God?
what would you say to that?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
To see a world in a grain of sand,

And a heaven in a wild flower,

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,

And eternity in an hour.


-William Blake



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I totally agree, and I have had the same theory for years. Nature has shown us that everything is made of fractals. As above, so below right? Solar systems do resemble atoms, they are just much more complex.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by galactix
 


Does a newborn babys' mind look the same as a fully grown adult ?

As for feeling God's mind, good for you ! hope he/she/it doesn't press molestation charges.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
reply to post by galactix
 


Does a newborn babys' mind look the same as a fully grown adult ?

As for feeling God's mind, good for you ! hope he/she/it doesn't press molestation charges.


no. a newborn does not have the same mind structure: does a seed look like a tree?
plus, the microfloura has not had a chance to settle in.


on the other: what a strange response.
do you always speak in nonsense?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
The galaxy is a spiral.

The atom's shadow is concentric circles, as anyone familiar with physical theory will gladly inform you.

The only reason they seem similar in these images is the poor resolution of the "atomic shadow" image.

I have several vinyl records which have a spirally recorded groove and so are a closer match to the galactic spiral than the second picture.

I would hardly build a philosophy of nature based upon the apparent match between vinyl records and galaxies.

The look-alike or sounds-alike attempts to infer physical theory are not scientific but are, in fact, magical thinking. Like drawing conclusions based upon astrological alignments/conjunctions or rhyming names.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by galactix
 


Only on Sundays and every alternative Wednesdays. Sorry i just burst out laughing at some of the stuff on ATS recently.

Don't take yourself so seriously ! be free from your own dogma. Live the Chaos!
edit on 16-12-2012 by Hopeforeveryone because: typos, i love typos, ******* keyboard.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Kinda funny.
I have wonder about this myself Bone.
It's kinda strange that so many have come to this on their own but never said anything.

Now using this "theory", imagine how many possible worlds or civilizations we have living in each particle of our own bodies, then inside of each of those bodies and so on for infinity.
Arg, I think my head will explode

Quad



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
congratulations... you have discovered the fibinacci sequence, with really bad photos!

next up the Nobel Prize for yesterdays theories.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
reply to post by galactix
 


Only on Sundays and every alternative Wednesdays. Sorry i just burst out laughing at some of the stuff on ATS recently.

Don't take yourself so seriously ! be free from your own dogma. Live the Chaos!
edit on 16-12-2012 by Hopeforeveryone because: typos, i love typos, ******* keyboard.


ah. the 'i was just joking' comeback.

cute.

"Live the Chaos!" tell me about your chaos, bro.....

what dogma are you referring to i wonder?

“I have lived a great deal among grown-ups. I have seen them intimately, close at hand. And that hasn’t much improved my opinion of them.”

nor have you.

pity
edit on 16-12-2012 by galactix because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 



If this is the case, life must be a virus.

edit on 16-12-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by galactix
 


Cheer up !

My chaos is accepting i'll never know the true nature of reality. Your dogma is you know something judging from your posts, i suspect you just think you do.
edit on 16-12-2012 by Hopeforeveryone because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt
 


I had the same reaction (as I do most of the time anymore with "science") but I completely forgot that bit about the galaxy.

They make it look so much like a real picture when you see it, you forget that no one has ever "photographed" it from that vantage point. We keep forgetting that.

Just like the Atom itself. We all "know" what an Atom looks like because we've seen the canonical representation of a Sun-like nucleus made up of protons and neutrons and the electrons are almost quite literally "orbiting" the center as do planets. In reality, no one has seen an Atom to confirm this Gestalt imagery. It's metaphorical. If it starts to affect not only our understanding of the atom and its shape and implied movements and we devise theories and experiments that only look at the Atom in that way, we fall victim of discovering more and more about something that is not what we think it is. Not unlike religious iconography versus real belief, faith or doctrine. Loose comparison, but you get my point...

In other words:

Objectively:
-The Atom looks like something (we can't be sure...yet...ever???) and serves purposes and performs functions we sort of understand a little about, kinda, to a certain extent. We're kind of sure how it interacts with other atoms in lots - but not all - actually probably not very many, but still quite a lot of situations.
-The Milky Way Galaxy looks like something (we can't be 100% sure...we know what other Galaxies look like from afar, but we don't really "know" what they look like up close, but we can infer a lot of stuff from infrared and radio waves and such) and serves purposes and performs functions we sort of understand...ditto from above...

Your Theory:
- an artists rendering of our Galaxy made from composits of far-off observations (where observation is usually done through the visual spectrum in representation based on non-visual spectrum forms of data collection) of similar objects far away in space mixed with extrapolations on positioning of various stars and bodies within this very galaxy as though they were seen from a vantage point we do not have (and may never)
-a computer visualization that allows our eyes to see the data sets in a "hollistic" and supposedly "true-to-form" way, but collected by a process our eye could never perform so as to give that representation or some other true one.
-Compare the two and come to the conclusion they exist in a never ending synecdoche.

**Sorry to above poster I quoted, I think the last part of my post rehashed yours, maybe overcomplicated it, but the basic premise has been rolling around in my mind for a few weeks now and I wanted to tailor it to the OP's scenario.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
The galaxy is a spiral.

The atom's shadow is concentric circles, as anyone familiar with physical theory will gladly inform you.

The only reason they seem similar in these images is the poor resolution of the "atomic shadow" image.

I have several vinyl records which have a spirally recorded groove and so are a closer match to the galactic spiral than the second picture.

I would hardly build a philosophy of nature based upon the apparent match between vinyl records and galaxies.

The look-alike or sounds-alike attempts to infer physical theory are not scientific but are, in fact, magical thinking. Like drawing conclusions based upon astrological alignments/conjunctions or rhyming names.



isnt the atoms shadow, of the electrons orbitals? arent the electron orbitals complex wave functions and shapes and patterns? do electrons have literal spins ( or is that just a mathematical notion?) ? How do electrons differ from photons? Im not going to ask anything other then,, why would it be so unbelievable or strange for the patterns seen on small scales to in some way resemble more macro interactions and functions?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Have had this exact thought in my mind since I was in High School.. If we look around us, there are many 'patterns' at all levels of life/ existence, which give us clues about the 'grander scheme of thingz'...
It'z alwayz exciting when ppl with the right knowledge & equipment confirm ideas we may have harboured for many yearz..



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I dunno if someone has mentioned this yet, but it reminds me of the hologram theory, where if we were to live in a hologram than the more you zoom in on something its just a smaller form of the entire hologram.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tehdouglas
 

That's not exactly the way it works. It's not a matter of zooming in.

With a hologram you can break the recording medium into smaller pieces, each piece contains all of the same information as the whole.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
reply to post by galactix
 


Cheer up !

My chaos is accepting i'll never know the true nature of reality. Your dogma is you know something judging from your posts, i suspect you just think you do.
edit on 16-12-2012 by Hopeforeveryone because: (no reason given)


patronizing =/= accepting

just sayin'.

"Grown-ups never understand anything by themselves, and it is tiresome for children to be always and forever explaining things to them"



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by galactix
 


Lets put the gun's down, back away and not derail the thread, Yes I'm a terrible person ok i admit it. move along.





new topics




 
180
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join