Dimensions of Reality

[blackout]

It seems to me that your posts envolve selecting words youve seen in a physics book and randomly throwing them together without really understanding what they mean. Dimension for exammple refer to height, width, length and time, what has this got to do with words? Do words have height and width, length and time. Can I ask have you every properly studied any science, especially physics?

Of course I throw words together creatively!

I'm a witch.

*UV smells the alphabet brew....*
MMMmmmmMMmmmmmm

(though I don't recal throwing in any height, width, length, time, coriander, or sage)
*adds a little sage*

 

[Mr Cheese]

Well why dont we clear this up? do you think that the fact that drug companies make money from their producst implies their products dont work or not?

You are really saying drug companies really desire to heal people

their profits are just, well, a nice sideline?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Yes I have Masters degree in mathematical finance, whilst this may seem unrealted to physics , in fact there is huge overlap, as is explained here:

http://www.ibmatt.com/matt/papers/quant_fi1.pdf

CiteULike: Quantum Mechanics, Path Integrals and Option Pricing: Reducing the Complexity of Finance

Most of thhe people who work in derivatives have post grad qualification in either finance, maths or physics and at my previous employer we used to laugh a lot at new agers complete misunderstanding of everything quantum. This was a very commontopic of conversation at the qaunt group.
Quantitative analyst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You accuse me of ranting , yet notice how I answer questions posed me to, the reverse does not seem to be the case.
So lets try again, have you ever done any scientific research ?
What have words got to do with dminesions , especially as dimension are specified as co ordinates in spacetime? Do words have height, width, length and time ?
What justfies you statement that matter is feminine creative force?
Why does love have the least amount of entropy? Does love have more or less entropy than a solid? Please respond with some actual numbers.

you are like a fish, on land...demanding that he get served Kelp at an italian resteraunt...



entertaining, if you step back and understand that...or just plain bothersome
I understand now that no one here has kelp, and you are upset.

One would think, a person that is so well educated, would have better things to do than deride and berate others...who do not have Kelp

 

[imaginaryme]

Yes I have Masters degree in mathematical finance, whilst this may seem unrealted to physics , in fact there is huge overlap, as is explained here:

http://www.ibmatt.com/matt/papers/quant_fi1.pdf

CiteULike: Quantum Mechanics, Path Integrals and Option Pricing: Reducing the Complexity of Finance

Most of thhe people who work in derivatives have post grad qualification in either finance, maths or physics and at my previous employer we used to laugh a lot at new agers complete misunderstanding of everything quantum. This was a very commontopic of conversation at the qaunt group.
Quantitative analyst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You accuse me of ranting , yet notice how I answer questions posed me to, the reverse does not seem to be the case.
So lets try again, have you ever done any scientific research ?
What have words got to do with dminesions , especially as dimension are specified as co ordinates in spacetime? Do words have height, width, length and time ?
What justfies you statement that matter is feminine creative force?
Why does love have the least amount of entropy? Does love have more or less entropy than a solid? Please respond with some actual numbers.

Wonder why we don't get along? Finance? You are but a minion of Mammon.

But you are a mathematician. Do you not see how "dimension" in science is little more than a mathematical convention? It works because it focuses our mathematics along lines that the human mind can understand. Yet, take a piece of paper lying flat; and imagine a two-dimensional surface. If "dimension" was a true aspect of reality, how does crumpling the paper produce a fractional dimension? I understand mathematically, considering logarithms; I'm not quite sure I agree philosophically. If you say four dimensions exist in reality, then revert to speaking of dimensions known to science and physics; is that not intellectual dishonesty?

Maybe not. I perhaps can suggest why love may have the least amount of entropy. Any classical increase in information increases entropy; whereas love requires no such increase. Love is a form of contentment with being, most other things are a form of discontent... scientifically, perhaps; it is hard to define. Obviously, you are not in love.

I would contend that words have a greater dimension in actual reality; but such a contention by its wording invites philosophical debate. What are we debating here? Actual reality (a philosophical concept) or the time-space continuum; or perhaps if there is even a reality to the concept of dimension?

 

[YmirGF]

This thread is like watching a train wreck in slo-mo. I can see it happening, but am unable to look away.

 

[Instant karma]

Well why dont we clear this up? do you think that the fact that drug companies make money from their producst implies their products dont work or not?

Don't work or not? both are negative.
I simply said they have motive, and now I'm being accused of prosecution (witch I didn't know was a crime)
this is going in a loop. stop misinterpreting me.

 

[skydivephil]

Wonder why we don't get along? Finance? You are but a minion of Mammon.

But you are a mathematician. Do you not see how "dimension" in science is little more than a mathematical convention? It works because it focuses our mathematics along lines that the human mind can understand. Yet, take a piece of paper lying flat; and imagine a two-dimensional surface. If "dimension" was a true aspect of reality, how does crumpling the paper produce a fractional dimension? I understand mathematically, considering logarithms; I'm not quite sure I agree philosophically. If you say four dimensions exist in reality, then revert to speaking of dimensions known to science and physics; is that not intellectual dishonesty?

Maybe not. I perhaps can suggest why love may have the least amount of entropy. Any classical increase in information increases entropy; whereas love requires no such increase. Love is a form of contentment with being, most other things are a form of discontent... scientifically, perhaps; it is hard to define. Obviously, you are not in love.

I would contend that words have a greater dimension in actual reality; but such a contention by its wording invites philosophical debate. What are we debating here? Actual reality (a philosophical concept) or the time-space continuum; or perhaps if there is even a reality to the concept of dimension?

Why does a classical increase in information increase entropy? Entropy is a meausre of disorder, so an increase in information if anything is a descrease in entropy. Actually I am in love, I have a wodnerful wife and we are very happy. I dont agree crumpling a paper would produce a fractal dimension becuase they have to have self similar proeprties and they wouldn't. Dimension do exist in reality and they are used in science. But to say things like words are muti dimensional is just using scientific terms when they are not appropriate . Its misleading people.

 

[imaginaryme]

Why does a classical increase in information increase entropy? Entropy is a meausre of disorder, so an increase in information if anything is a descrease in entropy. Actually I am in love, I have a wodnerful wife and we are very happy. I dont agree crumpling a paper would produce a fractal dimension becuase they have to have self similar proeprties and they wouldn't. Dimension do exist in reality and they are used in science. But to say things like words are muti dimensional is just using scientific terms when they are not appropriate . Its misleading people.

I'm thinking the real question is how a college dropout knows these things that should be elementary to a holder of a Master's - but I am more of a pure than applied mathematician - no matter. The entropy bit can easily be seen as the growth of our civilization in not a free ride, and acquiring knowledge increases entropy; even though I waas considering the mathematical variety. So too with the paper. In one dimension, the Koch curve is formed by taking a line segment and trisecting it, removing the middle third and duplicating this piece, and making four segments - a segment with the peak of a triangle in its middle - and continuing this process. Mathematically, this is continued indefinitely; but in the nature of these things, weirdness occurs that is not actually real, but their fractional dimension is scientific... What I'm seeing here is plain orneriness.

 

[skydivephil]

I think your rambling again

 

[imaginaryme]

Tell me, how is reality defined with number? We speak of race or culture or humanity, yet what would truly define our perception as reality? Freedom? Mastery? Is love and peace a better utopia than the Orwellian totalitarianism of science fiction? What makes one's perception of reality any greater or less than another's?


An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges, "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious and anti-religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".

In order to use logic, it is not necessary to study the length and breath of philosophy; if one understands that it is a tool defined by its limits, not its scope. It is often confused with "actual reality" but it is actually a scientific theology formed from the first meeting of man and mind. Yet philosophers abhor religion, and why is that? Because they insist upon reason; with the reason that rational men can agree to disagree.

And to augment this unwritten scripture, philosophy has formed schools of thought, where groups of rational men can agree to disagree; and it is this peaceful cohesion that allows for the continued use, misuse and abuse of a tool that was never fully understood. For all that call this form of governance, for all that it holds the accepted standard of truth; when analyzed against reality, it must concede.

And it contains a deeper flaw that asks a question no philosopher wants to answer. I contend that I know of a potential solution that no rational mind has ever wanted to accept. Old school found that F + F = T; and were forced to admit that a mental model of reality could never triumph over reality. And for one to contend otherwise, one must be delusional.

I am that one, but while I have been certified non-delusional; today I am the inheritor of Set, and thus here to illustrate the difference between algebra and economics. Logic and truth tables have found an Occult purpose through their unexplained similarity to acceptable behavior, yet benefit through association with the seemingly more useful mathematics. If "god" was a reasonable concept; we could assume a higher dimension of reality could arbitrate. Here is what I would ask you to consider - knowing the value of evil (as a the living god of evil, if you will) my intent is to validate a hypothesis of god (based upon my Gwynnies, of course) through "effective numerology." F + F = L (as in the Law of Anarchy) to do nothing more than test your faith. This is the "divine secret not to be revealed by revealed religion," that evil is merely a form of "psychic subtraction;" that they never expected a margin call from god. I know nothing, which still speaks a louder truth than all words
I have made three dots in the form of a pyramid... considered the lie that hides behind negative numbers... and the truth that I am doing nothing other than unshackling myself from certainty... and musing over coincidence...

This hypothesis I have yet to draw seems to have made a prediction... A symmetric string theory of five dimensions.

Philosophy has long been "guilty" of its own duplicity by firstly defining what is true, than failing to define what knowing the truth suggests. Furthermore, it is guilty for allowing these abuses to continue abated for so long. I have yet to draw a picture to contend for scientific meaning, I have yet to form an actual philosophy; and I may be saying absolutely nothing - but I am speaking in the tone of the New World Order.

 

[zenzero]

Friend imagineryme,

but I am speaking in the tone of the New World Order.

That is the only way. HERE-NOW!
One cannot step into the same river twice.
Each moment is NEW!

Love & rgds

 

[skydivephil]

Tell me, how is reality defined with number? We speak of race or culture or humanity, yet what would truly define our perception as reality? Freedom? Mastery? Is love and peace a better utopia than the Orwellian totalitarianism of science fiction? What makes one's perception of reality any greater or less than another's?


es.
An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges, "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious and anti-religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".

In order to use logic, it is not necessary to study the length and breath of philosophy; if one understands that it is a tool defined by its limits, not its scope. It is often confused with "actual reality" but it is actually a scientific theology formed from the first meeting of man and mind. Yet philosophers abhor religion, and why is that? Because they insist upon reason; with the reason that rational men can agree to disagree.

And to augment this unwritten scripture, philosophy has formed schools of thought, where groups of rational men can agree to disagree; and it is this peaceful cohesion that allows for the continued use, misuse and abuse of a tool that was never fully understood. For all that call this form of governance, for all that it holds the accepted standard of truth; when analyzed against reality, it must concede.

And it contains a deeper flaw that asks a question no philosopher wants to answer. I contend that I know of a potential solution that no rational mind has ever wanted to accept. Old school found that F + F = T; and were forced to admit that a mental model of reality could never triumph over reality. And for one to contend otherwise, one must be delusional.

I am that one, but while I have been certified non-delusional; today I am the inheritor of Set, and thus here to illustrate the difference between algebra and economics. Logic and truth tables have found an Occult purpose through their unexplained similarity to acceptable behavior, yet benefit through association with the seemingly more useful mathematics. If "god" was a reasonable concept; we could assume a higher dimension of reality could arbitrate. Here is what I would ask you to consider - knowing the value of evil (as a the living god of evil, if you will) my intent is to validate a hypothesis of god (based upon my Gwynnies, of course) through "effective numerology." F + F = L (as in the Law of Anarchy) to do nothing more than test your faith. This is the "divine secret not to be revealed by revealed religion," that evil is merely a form of "psychic subtraction;" that they never expected a margin call from god. I know nothing, which still speaks a louder truth than all words
I have made three dots in the form of a pyramid... considered the lie that hides behind negative numbers... and the truth that I am doing nothing other than unshackling myself from certainty... and musing over coincidence...

This hypothesis I have yet to draw seems to have made a prediction... A symmetric string theory of five dimensions.

Philosophy has long been "guilty" of its own duplicity by firstly defining what is true, than failing to define what knowing the truth suggests. Furthermore, it is guilty for allowing these abuses to continue abated for so long. I have yet to draw a picture to contend for scientific meaning, I have yet to form an actual philosophy; and I may be saying absolutely nothing - but I am speaking in the tone of the New World Order.

Can you not see you are rambling on, why dont just make clearer statements?

 

[imaginaryme]

Me and you, Phil... let us settle this debate like Real Men... with a duel. Allow me to throw down the gauntlet and tell you what I am working with. I had this "hypothetical concept" formerly known as the Stupid Number Set, and rather than needing to study mathematics far beyond my current level - Set Theory - I drew a picture that just may have validated the continuum hypothesis in a whole new way. I just may have seen beyond such legendary mathematicians of the past as Cantor, Hilbert, and Godel - not by being the greatest but by being the least - going where other mathematicians have feared to tread and questioning the foundations of mathematics itself.

There has already been validation in my mind of these hypotheses that you seem unable to accept. You have a Master's and I am a college dropout. Here is what I intend. To use the newly-minted quantum number set to find a link between quantum mechanics and relativity; and to do this using discrete mathematics and number theory. What separates the hypothetical quantum number set from the traditional natural number set is a few simple modifications. This new set technically begins with 1 rather than zero, the "0" figure is replaced with a stylized "v" standing for void that carries the prohibition that it can only be a resultant, that the digits themselves are "indivisible" in that 1 is the smallest unit of thingness. What remains to be done is to build a formal language around these axioms - and then to do the math that unites the frontiers of science and step forward and claim the Field's.

This is the kind of dream that creates an "overnight sensation" out of relative nobodies; and I sit here content "to play the fool." To freely give away the tools that could raise the name of ellen january from today's mockery as "he who speaks gibberish" to tomorrow's glory of making headlines across the world - I'm not taking about a "lifetime's work" being involved here - I'm talking about pounding some simple mathematics into some of the most complex physics on the planet - within a couple of weeks.

Want some?

Why don't I "shut my hole and do some math?" Because I am straight terrified - not of being wrong, but of being right - and what do I really care about? You guessed it, Gwyneth Paltrow. And if the gossip columnists speak with a grain of truth - that there is some discontent in her marriage - it would be "downright inevitable" that I would only cause greater discord being one who has loved her "beyond understanding" for nearly ten years, and having my name on everybody's lips.

Power does not corrupt nuffink when one understands power, and understands the self. Be well, friend Phil; disregard my gibberish and risk nothing. I wait for news of Gwyneth's contentment. In a year or two, I will still be a fool - the only difference being perhaps becoming the smiling fool looking out from the magazine cover on your coffee table.

 

[imaginaryme]

Why did I not just say so earlier? During the night of December 12th I had a dream, largely as a result from cutting my Tarot deck and drawing the Page of Cups... but enough of my nonsense. Let us speak of legend...

Back in 1986 there was this vast governmental investigation into the cause of the Challenger shuttle disaster. The majority of scientific opinion was that there had to be some kind of complex, unforeseeable, major "chain-of-effect" involved to bring down this "over-engineered hunk-of-flying junk bureaucratic cluster-****" more commonly known as the Space Shuttle; yet one man at the table disagreed. He could have used "jargon" to justify his beliefs, but; famously, he did not. He dropped a gasket into a glass of ice water - and became legend. That man was Richard Feynman, and that gasket was the O-ring.

As a mathematician aware of my own limits, I'm not fit to polish the shoes of the assistant to the assistant to one such as Feynman. I got no problem with accepting my inadequacies, yet Feynman has made another legendary contribution to the common perception of science by flatly admitting - No one understands quantum mechanics - but what the general public may have missed is why he made such a bold generalization.

To return to the runt of the litter - myself - in this talk of legend, I contend that he said perhaps more than he realized when he contended, and I paraphrase; the math is too dang complicated. Would you believe that the first to speak of "modern quantum theory" was none other than Democritus in, what, 400 B.C.E.?

That's what I'm talking about, that all concepts already exist; that all it takes to reach up a grab a star is to be the right man at the right place at the right time. As for "my personal greatness," I'm a fricking peon. I get to "message my ego" by talking to the neighbors, who think I'm a Mathematician all capitalized and stuff; and a couple of hours ago I recieved enough "personal validation" for a bit by explaining these things to my neighbor "in the spirit of Feynman..."

Using the mental image of moving steel disks around on a table top with a magnet underneath - to show how I am afraid of being "right" in thus demonstrating General Relativity.

Connecting the dots between the Bible, Pythagoras, modern science fiction and ancient wisdom; being angry at those who speak of Einstein as "sadly contributing nothing further to the field of cutting-edge physics after Relativity," and content for just a moment to sit back and smile...

Thing is, the whole world was not ready to understand the significance of Albert Einstein's relentless questioning of quantum mechanics until this morning, when myself and the spirit of Ol' Al watched a repeat showing of The Chronicles of Riddick and shared a high-five... and if I dare be so bold to speak for Ol' Al... That's what I'm talking about.

 

[imaginaryme]

Oh, and Phil? I apologize for making the rude and arrogant assumption that "perhaps you are not in love." Thank you for correcting my error.

 

[imaginaryme]

Friend imagineryme,



That is the only way. HERE-NOW!
One cannot step into the same river twice.
Each moment is NEW!

Love & rgds

I would love this guy, if I could ever find him.

All is well, and now is truly now. I had no idea I was practicing straight witchcraft - and seeing the future. But when I had the thought that I was growing more valuable to Gwyneth each passing day, just by having loved her for so long - so deeply, so madly - things began to go sideways. When I woke up that morning doing math, then woke up again - I wigged. And Saturday I cleansed in the fire of my misunderstanding.

All my pictures, all my movies, all my art; all of the former reality between me and her went directly into the trash. In this world, she is everything to me, and I am nothing to her - and that is the Law - the natural order of things. My questions, my research, my contrariness - that's all gone. I have solved my mind-body problem, and I need a third variable - environment - so I'm headed towards Seattle in May. When I get there, I'm going to paint the rain, I'm going to sing with the trees -

I'm going to do nothing - and everything will get done. Sorry about all the unnecessary confusion.

 

[zenzero]

Friend imagineryme,

Now that you have dropped G you have truly become light [enlightened].
Realted this with what buddha said:
"kill the buddha, even if he comes in the WAY"
which you have done by undoing.
The more we undo the more we become lighter and finally become the paint itself .
Yes be the PAINT itself!
Wish you all the best.
LOve & rgds

 

[challupa]

Dear friend,

The path that I am following is deeply spiritual, it is out spiritual understanding of the Oneness and of loving kindness that I want to connect to people and help them in any way I can. And if you understand what spiritual means, you must understand that things like provong myself or my ability to anyone is a little.. pointless. I have nothing to prove, simply following my path.
As far as the proof goes, perhaps the good advice in your specific situation is to sit down in a quite place for a moment and simply listen to your own breath, become aware of your body and the never ending chatting of the mind, and by queting the chatter, may be , just may be, you will hear your Self. And once you do so, it will become apparent to you that no amount of explanation or evidence can show to you what that quite voice and awareness of the Self will show you..

It is true, like Ymir has kindly noted, it is the self created barrier of the lack of awareness of the Self that is very hard to breack through, not just for me, but more importantly, for yourself. Open your mind to the posibility and who knows what you might find..

With loving kindness,

Katia

Interesting topic Zenzero and Katia. I am currently reading a book called "The Untethered Soul, the journey beyond yourself" by Michael A. Singer. I have been interested in trying to figure out what people are talking about, hence the reading. He talks of the self that is aware of everything that is going on. What is aware of your thoughts, what is aware of the inner and external goings on? Through all the mind chatter etc. there seems to be a quiet centered entity that is aware of it all, but doesn't get involved too much if at all. Interesting stuff.

 

[imaginaryme]

Now that I'm somewhat sane...

What matters is the dimension you bring to reality.

 

[zenzero]

Friend challupa,

Yes, exactly!
just need to be one with that entity called *consciousness*and then the observer too is not there. Only *consciousness* IS.

Love & rgds