tar

disarray, I suppose my direction here has to do with what one considers literal and what one considers figurative. It is obvious to everyone, that everybody else exists in the same waking world. In this we are literally the objective reality of each other. Once we start making stuff up, like borders and religions, and companies and states and political parties and so on, we have crossed a line from empirically provable stuff you can sense and weigh and measure and make formulae out of, into an imaginary world where conventions and agreements, and promises and such abound where you cannot quite put the object into a bottle. The theory of mind is crucial and you only have the proof that others experience the world the same way you do, because they look like they react to the same things you react to, in the same manner. Someone says something funny and you laugh. It is a thing fellow humans are capable of, because we have the same basic way of internalizing the world and remembering it, and have the same basic important considerations of need for air and water and food and sex and love and so on, with the same hormones and reward chemicals and things that make us feel good, and things that make us feel bad. Mirror neurons are certainly empirically true, literally true things. So when a billion people all look to circle the stone sometime in their lifetime, reciting the words of Mohammed (pbuh) it is a literally true thing they do, and seeing each other do it, is literally pleasing to objective reality. I am not sure you get my angle here. Not that there really is an Allah judging your life and set to send you to hell and pour boiling oil down your throat if you are a disbeliever, or to set you up with virgins on a satin couch with rivers of honey if you live a correct life...but that we each care what the other does, and in this we are the objective judge, components of the universe, that are judging each other, and who we have to please or displease. Watching out for the earth, is like worshipping Gaia for instance. The question becomes how many years past our death, are we responsible for the place? 20, 200, 2000, 20000 or 600 Billion? Regards, TAR

disarray, I did not fully read Critique of Pure Reason, by Kant, yet, but in reading some excerpts I noted at one point that he talked of life after death. This is normally immediately a term associated with the continuation of the soul, but in Kant's case, I think he was saying that after you and I die, there will still be life, human life in particular, and I formulate my terms of responsibility and obligation, from that type of thought. Like you say, it is important to make it possible for others to survive. I would extend that a little to be consistent with a meaning of life definition I came up with 5 or ten years ago, that life's purpose is to enjoy the place, and make it possible for others to do the same. Such guidance though is not meant to be completely self sacrificing in nature. That is, it would be meaningless to take an objective stance that would sacrifice humans in favor of ants for instance. Ants are not as important as humans are, to humans. Such is my slight objection to folks who would pick a whale's well being over that of a hungry human. So while I would agree with you that we have to watch out for Fascism and watch out for authoritarian religious prescriptions that reduce the dignity and freedom of one for the virtue of the faithful other...I would add that even humanism establishes a right and wrong group. I point in particular to the way the idea of global warming has created the virtuous who warn against behavior that increases carbon dioxide in the air, and the evil ones who burn wood to warm their families and cook their food. It is OK, I think, to chose teams and make things good for your team. Allies and enemies indeed will present themselves, but it is wrong in my estimation for a human to imagine they are not human, and are somehow above the fray. Regards, TAR Every breath you take puts you first in line for that oxygen, and the carbon dioxide you release is not an evil byproduct of your life. You cannot move, without displacing some portion of the universe.

disarray, I think the answer is yes, as to the rest of the universe, keeping us company. Any entity you wish to associate with, is but one example of something, that there appears to be good chance that it may not be the only example of that type of entity. There is a tendency, as you exposed several posts ago, to discount the specialness of one's own entity, and to attempt to, grain size wise, place your own entity in the role of a single grain upon a beach of grains, thereby commanding an overview position, that gives one the feeling of superiority, or the feeling that through the grain size shift, one contains the container. I do it. You do it. We all do it. And the answer to this thread question, or the "contain the set" thinking that the idea of "another" universe, gives us the thought that we can contain the knowledge of the super set that contains all universes is, in my guess, what we are after, thinking about this kind of stuff. I have noticed in both scientific discussions, and in spiritual discussions, that it is important to people to be not only right, but more right than the other guy. Like one always looks for the idea that will trump the grandest idea. But grain size wise, it is always possible, to "conceive" of the whole thing as but a single thing, not alone, amongst others of its type. We have this analogy type thinking, this ability to have one thing stand for another, built into our thinking, and our language ability and our ability to describe our environment, and our thinking to each other. Plus we have the actual reality that we are "mid" level between the atoms and the solar systems, and have real examples of grain size switches. That there is not something in common, between an electron and a comet, in terms of its "going around", is hard to prove. Regards TAR

disarray, I concur with your description of the probably unreal nature of any imagined greater whole that is "special" just to us. I am instead thinking in terms of any entity being both composed of components and itself a component of a greater whole. Years ago, on a hilltop in Germany during a month long field problem, while in the Army, I spent a lot of time laying by myself on a field looking at the stars, saw some Northern lights once, and spent my days sitting and musing. One day, I UNDERSTOOD treeness. How a certain species of tree grabbed form and structure from an otherwise random and unidentified universe, and passed that pattern on, thru its seeds, to the next example of that type of tree. I do not KNOW what I knew that day, I just remember knowing it. But I got it. How life, including human life, grabbed form and structure and identity from a universe headed toward entropy. And the whole thing, the whole string of life from the first tree of that species 'til the one I was looking at, was but a glimpse. A moment in time in a vast expanse of time, in an immense universe. We belong to this immense universe...if only temporarily...and in that, belong to it fully. When people talk of an anthropomorphic god, they reflect their own sense of the world, back on the world. I don't think it works that way. We internalize what the universe is already. We are of it and in it, so we have a stake in the thing, and are the thing, are responsible for it and obliged to it. I don't think we break any scientific law to feel this way about ourselves. But to the thread point, and back to recognizing our part in a greater whole, I was not talking about belief in god, I was talking about belief in science. Regards, TAR

Thread, Interesting to me, was a recent finding, that making same size circles centered on the three points and 4 points of the 12 diamond figure, yielded 14 circles...and that dividing each diamond in half both ways, or into 4 sections, and then drawing same size circles yielded 50 circles...and splitting each segment 3 ways and doing the same yielded 110 circles. 12 segments yielded 14. Splitting each in half both ways gives 12 times 4 or 48 segments, but centering the circles on the intersections yielded 50, or two more, same as the difference between 12 and 14. Then splitting each section 3 ways yielded 9 times 12 or 108, yet the count of the circles centered on the intersections was 110, again, 2 more. I speculate that should I divide each section 4 ways to get 16 times 12 or 192, if I drew circles on the intersections, I would guess the count would be 194. Just interesting, that a sphere is thusly arranged I have yet to prove to myself that the circles are all the same size, but for instance on the 14 count sphere, each circle has a radius of one half a diamond side, which makes them all the same size. The higher count circle's consistent radii would depend on the division lines being the same length as the sides. I have yet to prove that is the case, but the division lines are segments of great circles, even distance from each side of the diamond...I have not proved yet that this requires that all such division lines are equal length. Regards, TAR For clarity, the balloons have colored lines that are the division lines I am talking about, as well as a full circumference line of the same color which is drawn to show such a circumference completes the color wheel in each case, but the resulting line at right angle to the division lines, is NOT the same length as a side of a diamond or as one of the division lines I am postulating may well be the same length as the side of the diamonds.

disarray, Most important is that you understand there IS a cultural march of humanity. This recognition of being a part of a greater whole, is exactly my proof that we are part of a greater whole, and therefore not alone. Regards, TAR

Thaytor, Oh,that is the next character added to the first. I see. But if you just put another simple character to the left you can say the same numbers in two characters, instead of a complex one. Plus if you need an even bigger number, you just add a third character to the left. Plus between the dot and the disjointed outer rim and the center point, it looks like three characters. Certain numbers would be disjointed outer marks combined with inner marks, and one could not easily call it one character. I am leaning toward a center mark that shows direction rather than the dot. And am looking to keep the character itself a binary string wrapped around a center point, without further complication. Regards, TAR

Thaytor, Three points. I don't think adding lines would be helpful. Positional wise, another 8 arm max character to the left would have that 256 times 256 value, just like the 1 in 10 means 10 times more. I don't believe the outside lines in the digital star are required. You can completely drop them, and have the same meaning as when they are there. The dot might work, except your first arm is in the 12 o'clock position whereas that is my 128 arm. My unit arm is in the 1 thirty position and the values double around clockwise. Regards, TAR

Thaytor, I had noticed the easy rotational multiplication. But it seems you have the mechanics worked out. I suppose you have noticed that it works well to the right of the decimal point, or should I say the base byte point, as rotating a symbol counter clockwise one click divides it in half, and a symbol including the first arm, or one, would become a half by shifting it over as the 128 arm of the 1/256 meaning position, or 128 1/256ths. But alas we need to establish conventions, and write some programs that would display and manipulate the symbols, so it can be used. My main problem, in forwarding the use of the digital star is that I want to use it for other things other than numbers. And this would cause confusion as to when the thing was representing shorthand metadata with colored arms and when it was supposed to be a number, for instance. Also positional conventions would have to be established and such things are best done from the beginning. And as we have discussed here, since rotation so easily changes the value, it is mandatory that the center point of the character creates an unambiguous up and right, so that backward characters, as in posted on a window, could be instantly recognized for what they are. Regards, TAR

disarray, I somehow am missing your point. Is it inevitable that this universe will produce intelligent life forms? Really? That is your question? Is it not sort of obvious what the answer to that is? We have no other universe with which to compare ourselves, and coming up with a hypothetical universe that would not, or could not produce intelligent life, would be useless. We already have a universe that has done it. Regards, TAR disarray, Things emerge that have characteristics that are not the characteristics of any of the components of the thing that emerges with the "new" characteristics. I think you would have a hard time in a thought experiment to take some air and water vapor, shine some light on it and show that a hurricane must follow. Regards, TAR disarray, I am thinking you are conflating the idea of unique with the idea of alone. There is a difference between the two thoughts at least in this. You can not be unique unless there are others to compare with. You can't be alone...unless there are no others. Regards, TAR Lawrence Krauss has no clue what the universe will look like from here in 600 billion years. One, it has not happened yet, and two he does not know what will constitute an eye or a beholder, in 600 billion years. He speculates that the expansion of the universe will have stretched the wavelengths of incoming light way past the visible. I would argue that if this is going to be the case, life would by that time have developed a way to sense really long wavelengths.

disarray, Well there seems to be two questions here. Is the universe created alone...and were humans created alone in the universe. The unusefulness of other universes is my main point to you. The possibility of life on other planets is completely a different situation. I would think it very possible, almost a sure thing, that we are not the only life in the galaxy. However it seems that people are trying to find other life like ours out there, which does not have to be the case. Other life could be very much smaller than our scale, or very much larger. Like Moontanman suggests, the strings of galaxies could be the mucous in the eye of a creature immense beyond our comprehension. Our time scale and our size scale may or may not be the only viable scale life works on. Besides, if a race of beings landed on the whitehouse lawn, we would all just accept it as reality, and move on from there. Include them in "us" the same way as we include the sulfur based tubes at the bottom of the sea. And it is not outside the realm of possibility that we have been visited and the other life forms just can't be bothered to stop and chat. Like we rarely strike up conversations with the tadpoles in the ponds we pass. When I was 18, we witnessed some lights hovering over a power line in rural PA. A collection of us gathered and watched and felt it was alien in nature. Then one by one they started off and accelerated away in a way not consistent with any Earthly technology. We figured they were just fueling up, and had no interest in us, one way or the other, other than using our "food". Much as we would take honey from a beehive. Regards, TAR

disarray, Science is better than faith, when determining how the world fits together. But "science" is sort of a collective consciousness we have together formulated over the last 4000 years. No model, existing in a single mind, is a more superior fit to reality, than reality on its own provides. Regards, TAR

disarray, A anthropomorphic god is a reflection of our own consciousness back upon the universe. We understand our own comprehension of space and time, and imagine someone being able to have the same thing, but from everywhere at once. Know the whole thing at once. In the Einstein sense of observers, imagining that there is an instant mindlink between all the observers, that are stationed at all locations. This consideration is allowed in understanding space and time, and relativity, but pooh poohed when the idea of "the mind of god" is forwarded. To me, the two considerations are similar. And in both cases the understanding of all at once, is not possible. It means nothing. All at once, with no distinctions, would be pretty much a singularity, which our existence denies. Regards, TAR So observer and judge, creator, and genesis, beginning and end are all things we see when we look at our parents and peers, children and all others. If you feel ashamed of doing something, or proud, it is because it matters to somebody else. One of my main observations about myself and reality and science and religion, is that we all look for a consciousness bigger than ourselves. A reality that contains us, to which we are subject. I stress the distance, and unknowability of stuff on the other side of the galaxy to point out the fact that "science" has no better view of "all of the universe" than a guru on a mountain top. We see the world from one point of view, and extrapolate. None of us can experience the world differently. This is how us humans do it.

Disarray, I am not sure the need to feel special, is the way to frame it. I think people actually do feel special. And it is not without evidence. We are pretty capable, compared to a rock, for instance. That there are others like us, does no depreciate the capability of the one. Just makes the family more special to have a handful, and the extended family and friends and college buds and highschool friends, and people met while traveling and so on, a special collection of folks that you in particular know. I am thinking it has to do with our unique ability to internalize the external world. To recognize a face as different than another, and to know that THAT person knows you and has internalized you in their model of the world. I have a side theory, that god is short hand for objective reality. And objective reality is real. That disarray has an image of TAR in his or her brain, somehow modeling TAR from synapses and brain cell connections and analogies and memories and such, is a real, verifiable scientific fact. You are a piece of my objective reality, yet you subjectively know of me. You substanstiate my existence by noticing me, and remembering me, and vice a versa. This is pretty much contained on the Earth, and our existence is not quickly announced to the rest of the universe...but we can interpolate, the theory of mind, our recognition of each other, and figure at least in that, the universe is aware of us. Regards, TAR

disarray, OK. I got that point...or I get it now, but from my personal philosophical viewpoint, it is already a given that we are just specks of life in an immense place that has been around for a long long time and will be around for a long time after. , It is difficult to look at one's 83 year lifespan and consider there was a time when one did not exist, and a time that one will not exist later. But, the only choice left, is to consider that you are somehow part of what came before and what will come after. A chain of life. From your parents to your children. From the primordial sludge to the colonization of the planets of other solar systems...or whatever we, as the human species becomes or does or reaches whatever level of consciousness it will reach. You and I are still special. It is still our universe...we have no other to call our own. We are still examples of matter and energy that have combined in such a way as we have a pattern all our own. A human pattern, different than a spider pattern. And even related to the spider, a bit more than we are related to a snowflake...but even there the crystal growth is not completely foreign to our own arrival on the scene. I do not believe we were created by a creator, because then the question would be who created the creator...and if one can live with the thought of the creator being infinite...then its just as good to live with the thought, that existence is infinite. But with or without a mind, like the mind of god, that can witness all there is, all at once, there is still the consideration that all that exists exists at once, and we just can't see the whole thing at once, except in the manner we do, when we peer into the sky and into our electron microscopes, and interpolate the whole thing's existence. So yes. Finding other life would require a rewrite of Genesis...but we already know the story is a story. Figurative...or in great need of taking things way different than literally...like a day is worth 4000 years or 4 billion years...or whatever. There is still the possibility that this universe is all we have...but like I said before... it is still special, to us, and it is still way more than we will ever require. Regards,TAR

disarray, I think there could be other lifeforms, other places in our galaxy, the same way that there could be, and are sulfur based lifeforms by the deep ocean vents. Not dependent on us, not directly connected to us in the evolutionary chain. Perhaps DNA and RNA and mitochondria can exist other places in the solar system and give rise to organisms that "fit" the environment of the planet on which they evolve. Could easily look completely different than life here. As there is a great variety of life forms here, given one environment, with a certain range of pressure and temperature and elemental mix and so forth, certain chains of evolution would occur that would not have to follow our pattern...or be in a particular stage. The idea of stage is important too in this discussion of life elsewhere. For instance, lets say it takes a billion years to develop life that senses and responds to its environment from random complex chemical chains. Now imagine a place, in other galaxy, another world capable of such evolution, but located in another galaxy 1 billion lys from here. Right now, their spot is 13.8 billion years old, and has had time for a couple generations of stars and the production of heavier elements. But should we get a message from these creatures, announcing their existence, they will have sent the message a billion years before we got it. If we got it yesterday, their spot was only 12.8 billion years old when they sent it, and then we would know that such message sending life could have developed a billion years before we did, but that this particular group is either now extinct, having to have survived 1 billion years in the same condition, to still be extant, or that message sending group has evolved for 1 billion years, and is now some other type of creature, having lost some functions and apparatus, and gained others...including the possibility of various self created technologies. So what religious considerations would be addressed with the reception of the message from these folks. We can not do anything for them, and they cannot do anything for us. They no longer exist, in our universe, as they did when they sent the message. However some other message receiving creatures a billion lys in the opposite direction will receive their message in the year 14.8 billion BB and they will have been dead for 2 billion years. So my point is that "are we alone" is a sticky question. If you are the last man on Earth, and you find a letter in a bottle...are you not still alone? Regards, TAR

disarray, For instance, in one of the men in black movies, a cat wore a universe on her collar. Was that another universe, or a subcomponent of this one? Regards, TAR

disarray, All I am saying is that if another universe matters to us, then it is part of this one, not a separate consideration. And if it does not matter to us, then its fine that it exists, but it has no bearing on our existence, nor our mentality. Nothing we can witness nor control nor consider part of our history or future. Not meaningful. Regards, TAR

disarray, I am thinking reality is a big place. Scale, both time and space-wise allows for focal points to exist, way different than yours or mine. In the one sense, basing anything in terms of us, is almost certain to be shortsighted, because we are limited to only one perspective. On the other hand, we are experiencing the place exactly as it is presenting itself to us, are in and of it, and can see all the way to the moments of the first scattering. We are actually in a pretty good spot to witness the whole thing, while being rather insulated, by scale, and the speed of light, from the most of the place. However, I am thinking, for all intents and purposes, one reality is quite sufficient. One universe. Our universe is more than we will ever need. Or ever know. Regards, TAR

disarray, Well OK, but is there only one "blanket" from which universes pop? That is, is the blanket created alone, or not? Set theory wise, is there a set which contains all universes? And if so can that master set, which includes all universes that ever were and all universes ever possible past present future here there outside or inside, bigger or smaller...even ones not definable in terms of space and time...be considered having been created alone? Regards, TAR Is there just one reality, outside of which there is only non-existence?

disarray, Well OK. But if the laws of physics apply everywhere...except in those other portions of space where the cosmological constant is different, and the phase of reality is other than what is extant in "this" universe, as would be required by the multiverse scenario, then the laws of physics do not apply everywhere...just in those areas of space where they do. A circular argument. The universe, as suggested in this thread, is the place that holds everything there is. If there is something else, another area of space that does not fall into the "same everywhere" definition of our universe, then the question would be, are those other areas of space to be considered members of the set of all that is, or not. If the universe is created alone, then there is only one. If there are other universes, then it would be good to know two things. What separates the one from the next. And who or what can experience them both, or even who or what can experience them all. Here is where I mention the size of our place, to stress the insulation of our experience, from the actuality of distant events. Our imaginations can interpolate, but our senses can not verify or interact with things more than a few lys away. And I will hold out on the consideration that the multiverse is scientifically required. I think it depends entirely on what your definition of "this" universe, is. If the definition of any "other" universe you can come up with, includes any relationship to, or any comparison to this one, then I would argue, it is another aspect of this one. Regards, TAR

disarray, I also draw some ideas concerning what it is we talk about, from Kant. He was a very smart and thoughtful guy. f I already know Moses' god is a figurative thing and not an actual person in an empirical sense. I need not be further humbled to know this fact. What ever we have is a plus. We have grabbed life and form and structure from a universe otherwise headed toward entropy. That is evidence enough to claim a special place in the universe. A victory...just to live. I need not be further humbled to grasp the reality of existence. Its big, its long lived. We are in it, and of it. Equally true of a dolt and a genius, a man and a bird. Is the universe created alone, yes or not? A multiverse is still something that would have to exist within the cosmos. Within the set of universes you are considering. It makes us no bigger or smaller than we were before the consideration. Regards, TAR

disarray, No, I think scientific investigation and the sharing of our findings about reality with each other is central to both our survival and our happiness. My complaint is that a "superior" viewpoint of our condition, including the guess that there should be other areas of space that work with different physical laws is interesting and speculative and could be the case, but we already have stuff going on very locally, like on the other side of our galaxy, that we can not see because of the dust and that we cannot see for 50 thousand years because of the distance. We are already well insulated by time and space from these events, and they are events already solidly happening in "our" universe. The need for other universes to be the case, to give us a reality that we are even more insulated from, that has no bearing on anything that is liable to happen to us or any other human...ever, is rather pointless. You discounted the ramblings of us mere humans as defining a road to nowhere. As if you have a grasp of a better plan. I don't mind scientific investigations. We live based on the results of such. What I mind is the pretense that knowing an equation gives you a better grasp of what is happening 75000 lys from here, than the grasp of those events that anybody else on the planet has. There simply are no such equ5ations. Light takes 75 thousand years to get here from events, happening right now, 75 thousand lys away. You can not see it. I can not see it. Makes no difference if you have a more powerful telescope than I do, or a better computer model of how that area of space should have developed in the last 75 thousand years. Neither of us will ever be able to verify our guesses within the next 100 years. The universe is already way beyond our grasp. Why is it "better" to have even a weaker hold on what really is, than we already have. If your multiverse intersects with this one in a way that matters or will ever matter or that ever did matter to this one...then its a part of this one. If not, then its just a mental game you play and has no more scientific interest than the length of a unicorn's horn would have. Regards TAR if you would by chance discover how to change a quark's phase 12.5 degrees and cause a chain reaction that would change all connected matter to something else in an instant...destroying the Earth...I would suggest keeping it to yourself and not experimenting thusly

disarray, Discussions like these are scientific and philosophical. Evidence is important, and speculation about multiverses is just as unscientific as any other grasp of "all reality" that we imagine we can generate within our limited minds, or on a sheet of paper, or within a formula or computer model. The fact remains that the universe is more long lived than any of us singularly and larger than any of us can even make an analogy for. Our investigations of the universe are all done from this little rock, and have mostly been done in the last 4000 years. A blip of time in a vast history of universal events, viewed from a single stance on and around the planet Earth. We are not even aware yet, of a super Nova that happened 20 thousand years ago on the other side of our galaxy's core. Because light is slow, getting around such a vast place as ours. To think you can contain the whole thing, in one mind, or the minds and libraries of the 100 billion humans that have been alive on this Earth, is somewhat presumptuous. Regards, TAR

Thread, In a week it will be two years. Quit my job, am still unemployed, my dad had brain surgery, my sister beat breast cancer, my wife got laid off from a job of 33 years, I just had a knee replaced...but I have not smoked. Two things, beyond the "just quit" that Thorham suggests. Use Phi's "not an option" mentality, and get your dopamine from the 100 other ways to get it, that are almost free, not destructive, helpful and pleasant to others, and rewarding in additional ways, where completion, and success and victory and such are in play. I also was able to get through the knee replacement without opioids. A goal that was very important to me, as several family members have had real issues with drug addiction. So I am in good shape, and want to report the effectiveness of the nicotine tapering method. If you are a smoker, go an hour some morning, when there is not a lot of nicotine in your system, without lighting up. See how automatically a cigarette finds its way into your mouth anyway. Find several other ways to laugh and enjoy things, during that hour. Same dopamine. Exact same dopamine that is released by the nicotine receptors...then think about not smoking for another period of time, on another day. You will find, you don't die, if you don't smoke, and that there are other ways to feel good, that are not stinky, expensive, and destructive. Regards, TAR