I am What?

[dimreepr]

Yes we have a winner! Funny thing about our English language is I can spell witch, whichever way I chose, your brain gets the point dose you no what I mean. Your brain is able auto correct the wrong information into the correct version so that you the reader is better able to understand what you are reading.

 

 

This is true but only when meaning and context are obvious, but if you’re trying to express a complex idea or if the context is ambiguous, then the auto-correct can create completely different meaning.

 

Something I have come to realize is, that there are a lot of music, and movies that talk a lot about the issues I bring up in my post. Why is that,

 

 

 

That’s just confirmation bias.

 

 

what is the universe trying to tell mankind?

 

 

 

Nothing.

Edited June 25, 2014 by dimreepr

[Nicholas Kang]

Thanks for your videos, I am What.

[ichill]

On balance, I'd rather you not.

Not touchy, unless you mean touchy-feely. i.e. governed by emotions, not rational thought; based on expectation, not observation; self-indulgent, rather than self-critical. In summary, I think posting your proposition in Philosophy would be in danger of giving philosophy a bad name, if anyone were to entertain it seriously.

 

No. What you have is most definitely not a theory. It doesn't even rate as a hypothesis. I question whether it has enough meat to merit being called a speculation. An idle, ill-conceived, unsubstantiated thought would be the fairest description. Unflattering, true. Disrespectful? No. Disrespectful would be pretending you had something of value.

 

Equally, it does not mean it is true. And you have provided many reasons to suspect it is not. (Itemised by several other posters.)

 

 

By the way I am not a moderator. I am, however, a forum Expert. My two areas of expertise are Earth Science and Bullshit. It was interest in the latter that led me to this thread.

Hi Ophiolite,

 

It is always a privelage to make the acquaintance of an Expert. It struck me when reading Iamwhat?'s comment to you about being scared....I was wondering if you could provide me with a simple answer to this question; "Where are you?" Now, before you answer this make no mistake.... What I am asking here, is not your relative position to things (and places) i.e. the known....but your absolute position in terms of ALL that IS. You might as an example explain that you are in your car, and further that you are, in say New York and that New York is in the USA etc. Eventually you will arrive at a point where you would not be able to give any reference, as you do not know where you are.

 

Here is the crux of the matter; Fear is an inherent part of being a human, and the fact that we do not even know where we really are is most probably the second biggest reason that we are afraid. The first being, that most humans do not even know who they are. Imagine waking up one morning and not knowing where or who you are? You dont have to imagine this, as this (most probably) happens to you every day....you just are not aware of it. Moreover, the very fact that this is a "normal" condition for 99% of the population, one would probably say that it is Normal - how ludricrous?

 

I was wondering if you (as an Expert) would be able to help me answer this very basic question (and possibly address the "scared" comment - I am sure that you have no fear...) , as I suspect that the correct answer to this question might solve all the problems posed in this forum, especially the Bullshit ones?

 

Any ideas?

[hoola]

hello IAW?, the hows do need to be ferreted out, and the trail of evidence (math) leads to the BB. I don't see the evidence shifting to whys before that. I see the evidence still consisting of hows, but not with the language of mathematics. What ever created the maths, in it's specific forms and with specific steps. I have been reading the Max Tegmark book, and agree with the universe as "mathematical object" idea, but not the conjectures that follow from allowing infinites to exist evidenced by the doppellganger problem...my own speculation on the "why" is that the universe has an awareness, (as another description within the mathematical object), and that the universe doesn't know (yet) the pre-math steps. As a baby left on a doorstep, doesn't know it's ultimate origin, and the extant universe is that "work" to arrive at that answer. The concept of the question always existed, and that concept has been evolved to a "heavier" form, by delineation as to the logic of it's substance, by mathematics proper, via sentience within the physical universe, acting as a mirror and in tandem with, a more fundamental impetus...

Edited June 25, 2014 by hoola

[PeterJ]

Iamwhat - I'm sympathetic to your point and your questions, but really this is not a good way to hold aq discussion. You cannot just state that shaman make rain, or are rain. You have to say, shaman claim that they can make rain and expect (justifiable) disbelief, or state it as fact and provide the evidence. Otherwise best not to mention it at all.

 

As for the size of the universe, I do not believe it would be correct to say that it has a size. This would be why it makes no sense to us that it does. But this would take us off-course.

[hoola]

IAW? I am not bothered by the "the shaman makes it rain" reference....my first exposure to string theory was in the canstenada novel as the sorcerer don juan saying that the universe consisted at a deep level of "fibres". I see those strings having smaller components, effectively as strings of numbers, in algorithmic number sets, each set marking out specific internal properties, via the mathematical relationships afforded by stably valued individual numbers, that are viewed in a macroscopic way, as fundamental particles and fields...this is the philosophy section, is it not? This is the exact place to see the shamanistic references as an early attempt to understand reality...

[Ophiolite]

....my first exposure to string theory was in the canstenada novel as the sorcerer don juan saying that the universe consisted at a deep level of "fibres".

Do you actually maintain that the drug fed work by Castaneda is really an introduction to string theory? John McEnroe had the perfect expression for such a situation.

[PeterJ]

Actually it is quite common to find discussions relating to QM and string theory in the literature, given a stretch of the imagination. For instance, the final book in the Don Juan series ends with a scenario suggestive of QM, and just yesterday I spotted something in a book on Sufism. It's hardly surprising, since everyone is studying the same thing.

 

hoola - You might like this http://theworldknot.wordpress.com/tag/castaneda/

[hoola]

ophiolite...ask the widow of carl sagan about marijuana, or did you not know he was not only a pot smoker, but wrote a book about the beneficial aspects of responsible use. Read about sir Wm. Halley as his reporting on hashish use to the royal society of astromomers, of which he headed. Evidence should be taken wherever you find it, with due deference to source, of course. The fact remains that upon first hearing about string theory in the early 80s, I believe it was, I immediately remembered the fibre reference in the sorcerer's ability to levitate which I had read in the early 70s. Be assured I don't think they could levitate, only preform a sort of hypnosis via suggestion. However, this does suggest insight if the universe ends up being "information based",since their modus was to determine the true nature of reality, not as a pastime, but their whole existence revolved around it. And what is thinking or casting spells, but manipulation of information ? That being said, I don't think that is totally without interest, as if reality itself is a mathematical object, dimensionality is an illusion, or a sort of fundamentally structured physical hypnosis...or more specifically, a hologram...

[Ophiolite]

OK. My communication skills have let me down again. I'll give it another try.

 

String theory is a richly textured, profoundly complex, mathematically detailed exploration of the fundamental nature of the universe. The chance use of the word fibre that happens to be a synonym for string does not mean that fibre is synonymous with string theory. Consequently the assertion that mentions of fibres is an introduction to string theory is a wholly inaccurate, naive, ludicrous suggestion.

 

In accordance with the rules of the forum I ask that you either withdraw the assertion or provide substantive evidence to support your contention that the mention of fibres in Castaneda's work is a genuine introduction to string theory. (And this time, please address the totality of my post and not a single adjectival phrase.)

[Iamwhat?]

Wow the reply's have gotten better. I can tell some of you actuality put some thought into your responses. Thank you Mr. Kang for viewing my post. Ichill I do not know where we are. Your guess is as good as mine, but if I had to guess I would say on the stage in the best Imax movie you'll ever see. The thing most fail to realize is, that it matters not what we think the universe will do what it will do. If this theory is so wrong why is it being shown to children? While we're asking questions what would Mr. Jack Parsons think of my imagination? Or his good friend Aleister Crowley? What parallel on the moon did we land? Why did we land there, and not anywhere else? Who's symbol is that on the back of the dollar bill anyway? Fact of the matter is there are bigger fish further up the food chain that like my idea. There is a program running, ever heard the term "get with the program?" I will leave now I have done my part. I wish you well on your journeys.

 

 

http://youtu.be/jqALdkTArqs

[hoola]

ophiolite...I had no intention of saying the fibres as described in the casteneda book are to be taken for an "introduction" to string theory in the proper mathematical sense, only in the obvious semantic connection of the two terms, and so you are correct in your criticism...

Edited June 27, 2014 by hoola

[Ophiolite]

Thank you.