Say more! I am finding this metaphor particularly captivating right now and it is fuel for some deep reflection for me. I'd love your take on this perspective in whatever way you feel inspired to take it.
Merkabah
- Thread starter Skarekrow
- Start date
Say more! I am finding this metaphor particularly captivating right now and it is fuel for some deep reflection for me. I'd love your take on this perspective in whatever way you feel inspired to take it.
Hi Ifur, I'm always interested to follow discussions that centre on science, metaphysics and the spiritual, and on the boundaries where they overlap. I do tend to change the way I assess and contribute according to in which of these domains the focus lies. Inductive processes are essential in the scientific domain - by all means speculate and play with ideas, the wilder the better, but personally I treat them as conceptual playthings unless there is hard empirical evidence to support them, and a strong evidential predictive power. With metaphysics, it's the strength of conceptual reasoning that appeals to me, along with the elegance of the structure, and with the spiritual I look for parallels in inner experience together with outer world manifestations that ring the right bells of my intuition and feeling. I also look for beauty of expression as indicative of likely truth in all of these - that probably comes from my mathematical background
. It's great playing with ideas within and across all these domains. Lots of fun to be had on the boundary between science and metaphysics for instance - I've always been fascinated by the roots of the world and where it came from.
You must have come across some interesting times at CERN. In a way, the monumental structure of the facility there feels like it is akin to the megaliths of Egypt and other parts of the ancient world - I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, but that like them it represents a massive undertaking aimed at grasping and embracing the world in which we live at the limits of our understanding.
Last edited:
I would hate to pick it apart too much because it is a beautiful concept just as it is...I could just highlight a few things maybe.
First of all, I hope you are spectacularly good...if not, it’s not your fault.
Anyhow.
There is the idea of everything being interconnected that is appealing and seems to go along with my own leanings of what reality seems like to me.
Not just that though...but it’s all just a reflection of a reflection...it was the first explanation of a holographic universe really...which is a real theory now with math and all!
Which we are also seeing is how our brains’ probably function too!
But it incorporates the idea of reality not being what we see either, that it is illusory and to always keep that in mind (which I like).
Each node, being an individual...is also someone who is but a reflection of everyone else and everyone else is a reflection of God or Buddha or flying spaghetti monster or just one another.
It's also is a fairly good representation of the brain and it’s own connections...each neuron being a node, but needing the connectivity of the whole to function and live.
This can also get into the not-self part of Indra’s net and the ego of the mind and it’s own illusory nature.
It has definite correlations to non locality and the whole concept which is fascinating.
It supports pixelated universe theory also which is even more impressive.
Someone, somewhere...a long time ago, was able to envision this concept and bring it forward in a way that the masses could mostly understand.
Almost as if it was some kind of innate truth that was either known to all on some subconscious level that they were able to tap into even though they didn’t have the math and science to give it meat...it is a concept that incorporates many other concepts of reality and the quantum universe that were very far ahead of the time.
At least...so it seems?
Much love!
Edit:
Just read your bit about it in your own thread and I am sorry that it was presented to you in such a way.
It is an idea that has been taken by the religions of man and given points of stupidity inserted for power or similar vices of humankind.
I picture it much differently!
Last edited:
Hi Ifur, I'm always interested to follow discussions that centre on science, metaphysics and the spiritual, and on the boundaries where they overlap. I do tend to change the way I assess and contribute according to in which of these domains the focus lies. Inductive processes are essential in the scientific domain - by all means speculate and play with ideas, the wilder the better, but personally I treat them as conceptual playthings unless there is hard empirical evidence to support them, and a strong evidential predictive power. With metaphysics, it's the strength of conceptual reasoning that appeals to me, along with the elegance of the structure, and with the spiritual I look for parallels in inner experience together with outer world manifestations that ring the right bells of my intuition and feeling. I also look for beauty of expression as indicative of likely truth in all of these - that probably comes from my mathematical background
It's great playing with ideas within and across all these domains. Lots of fun to be had on the boundary between science and metaphysics for instance - I've always been fascinated by the roots of the world and where it came from.
You must have come across some interesting times at CERN. In a way, the monumental structure of the facility there feels like it is akin to the megaliths of Egypt and other parts of the ancient world - I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, but that like them it represents a massive undertaking aimed at grasping and embracing the world in which we live at the limits of our understanding.
You display a sentiment that compare to attitudes of Chairs of Phyics boards at CERN and Emeritues pPfoessors of theoretical phyiscs from Stanford.
After ceveral beers many a few conversations, I am the following quotes from all of them.
"Are you fucking kidding me? You don't even have a High School diploma?".
I was excused for not having had calculus and did attended a privte BBQ with the worlds leading theoreitical physicsits however. And John Ellis walked toward the table were I was sitting and talking, and I froze, but I am passed it.
The sentiment is about the same, and I suspect one of them wrote down what I said In math just to check.
Nothing I can do about this, but your sentiment is familir to me.
Quite frankly, I'm wondering if @Skarekrow is roughly as intuively correct as I am.
Do suspect that the only reason why I don't have a job at CERN was that they thought I was the opposite.
And I am inclined towards saying I don't need CERN, and would prfer it shut down as a response.
Your sentiment is familiar to me, and I have a beer to attend to! And a future on disability I cannot be refused!
Eedit: just because I edit too much....
So the most prfound insight given to me after my entire world and comos came apart.
Was not anyone theory, or any ivy leage Univrsity working at CERN.
It was thise guy concerned, and rightfully so, where I talked about the AD collaboration and he was there to onsider something along those lines -- not anything at LHC. I met him at R1 in the boring old cafeteria at CERN drinking beer. The brightest seem to surf around the need for money and interesting places.
He said, that one of the cruious things about relativity is that nothing moves sideways at the speed of light. Or in mu words, you have an immovable object what concerns sideways action.
i drink, and can handle worse things.
Last edited:
It seems to be the case especially in math. The analog nature of things requires that being, must reflect the self-same image throughout the whole.
It seems that the brain's main function is to create order out of chaos.
The pixelated universe sounds like a quantum explanation by literally digitally quantizing reality. The problem I see with this is that it does not agree with the mathematics of observed opinion. In maths, there are no known intrinsic metrics, meaning that nothing can be truly quantified, but can only be measured through comparison.
When light is measured for instance, the measurement must be defined by an arbitrary reference, let's say the meter or mile. Then it also cannot be measured by just linearly, but it has to be put into a logarithmic function. If observation were quantizable this would not be so.
First of all, I hope you are spectacularly good...if not, it’s not your fault.
So....win-win?
New trails to tumble down. Yay!
That's how it feels to me.
Actually, I recently bumped into it in a pretty neutral way, and at this life moment, it spoke to me. Indra's net does feel connected/intertwined with other religious/spiritual concepts, but not in a bad way. No sorrow needed.
Thanks for the thoughts!!!
Indra's Net sounds exactly like one of the most sought after questions in electrical engineering, which is how to solve for an Infinite network of resistance. One of the misconception about electricity, is that it always follows the path of least resistance. This is not quite correct, because electricity follows ALL paths in respect to their impedances. What this means is that even though the majority of electrical current will move through the path of least resistance, it also moves through the higher resistances, but with much less current.
The electrical law for current is that it always returns to its source, but how it returns there is by ALL possible paths. This is why all grounding paths in a structure must always return directly to the service panel, so that the energy will have a straight (low resistance) path back to the source, instead of through you or anything else that you don't want destroyed.
This is especially a great topic because transmission lines are considered an infinite network. If you have ever looked at a coaxial cable you will see that it is 75 Ohm's. What is interesting is that no matter how long the cable is, it will always be 75 Ohm's. There is some complicated maths involved, but the key to understanding these types of networks is in the Golden Ratio. In fact all of the maths respecting energy are rooted in the Golden Ratio, which is usually expressed as the common Quadratic Formula.
Just some food for thought.
The electrical law for current is that it always returns to its source, but how it returns there is by ALL possible paths. This is why all grounding paths in a structure must always return directly to the service panel, so that the energy will have a straight (low resistance) path back to the source, instead of through you or anything else that you don't want destroyed.
This is especially a great topic because transmission lines are considered an infinite network. If you have ever looked at a coaxial cable you will see that it is 75 Ohm's. What is interesting is that no matter how long the cable is, it will always be 75 Ohm's. There is some complicated maths involved, but the key to understanding these types of networks is in the Golden Ratio. In fact all of the maths respecting energy are rooted in the Golden Ratio, which is usually expressed as the common Quadratic Formula.
Just some food for thought.
Last edited:
You mustn’t lose hope. I think the story of Wegener is very much a scientific cautionary parable.You display a sentiment that compare to attitudes of Chairs of Phyics boards at CERN and Emeritues pPfoessors of theoretical phyiscs from Stanford.
After ceveral beers many a few conversations, I am the following quotes from all of them.
"Are you fucking kidding me? You don't even have a High School diploma?".
I was excused for not having had calculus and did attended a privte BBQ with the worlds leading theoreitical physicsits however. And John Ellis walked toward the table were I was sitting and talking, and I froze, but I am passed it.
The sentiment is about the same, and I suspect one of them wrote down what I said In math just to check.
Nothing I can do about this, but your sentiment is familir to me.
Quite frankly, I'm wondering if @Skarekrow is roughly as intuively correct as I am.
Do suspect that the only reason why I don't have a job at CERN was that they thought I was the opposite.
And I am inclined towards saying I don't need CERN, and would prfer it shut down as a response.
Your sentiment is familiar to me, and I have a beer to attend to! And a future on disability I cannot be refused!
Eedit: just because I edit too much....
So the most prfound insight given to me after my entire world and comos came apart.
Was not anyone theory, or any ivy leage Univrsity working at CERN.
It was thise guy concerned, and rightfully so, where I talked about the AD collaboration and he was there to onsider something along those lines -- not anything at LHC. I met him at R1 in the boring old cafeteria at CERN drinking beer. The brightest seem to surf around the need for money and interesting places.
He said, that one of the cruious things about relativity is that nothing moves sideways at the speed of light. Or in mu words, you have an immovable object what concerns sideways action.
i drink, and can handle worse things.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift
Mostly science forms rigid paradigms around it’s semi-religious canons and protects them fiercely and not altogether rationally. The foundations of all our modern theories started off looking a bit crazy to the establishment. At least we don’t burn people at the stake for heresy any more when they think off piste.
It doesn’t follow though that an idea is correct just because it’s mould-breakingly innovative and different. On the other hand it doesn’t follow either that a wrong idea is not worth considering - it might be a stepping stone to something glorious.
I also take the view that all our theories are partial models of reality that are only valid within their domains. They have amazing predictive powers but their axioms contradict each other and so taken together they don’t tell us much about the foundational reality of our universe.
Many of the scientists with influence can be famously fanatic about their chosen theory or model. Where careers in physics especially require adopting a set of tenets and ideas and sticking to them, ability is less important than lojalty to a school of thought.
Your comparison to religion is an understatement, it's exactly like religious dogma and belief. I suspect and am convinced that bandwagons that talk about replacing relativity comes from an inability of understanding the involved concepts and gaining insight from working with formula, models and freely discussing results from this and experimental data. This is called phenomenology in physics, where the future of physics is a game of politics on finding wasy to discuss oddities in the extreme tail end of statistical results on the larger, more complex and short lived particles. Smaller particles are not likely to be found or possible to measure directly oter than larger particles where the point to it is arguable a red herring. If we accept relativity as fundamentally correct and dealing with laws dealing with the effects of the material on the logically necessary immaterial, there will never be a graviton and black holes may be easily explained by extending relativity with more complex mechanicsm that account for black holes and dark matter while more accurate explaing photo electric effect, particle wave duality and the speed of light as dependent on the propertes of the material and immaterial aspects of the models. That means one model to deal with space and nothing, and one model to deal with particles, where there is an overlap with interacting properties and mechanism between the two. Studying this can lead to new physics, but nowhere anything world changing outside of larger time scales making the TV Show Red Dwarf a bit less absurd on the fundamental principle of the show.
If you read many of the recent articles that has come out since the Higgs discovery, we are talking space foam and all kinds of things to explain of a neutrino travels faster through space over larger distances.
Not allowed to even suggest that dark matter could be involved, because unless dark matter is strictly magic particles that don't interact with normal matter a particle model that explains everything isn't possible, and no unified theory.
Much of physics is laugable, like colour charge and other "concepts" that are mere names for math functions.
There is not enough acid in the entire world to understand string theory and other things from basic concepts. If we are disecting the concepts, names and descriptions that are perfectly fine and gramatical correct language against the math used to justify it. It is not intelligeble without very technical definitions and nuances that are mathematically defined within a model or domain.
This being said, Einsten wrote two books that explains relativity where he starts with the simplest and most basic geometry concepts. So what are these vibratig strings, a math function that inductively defines the actual physical model and theories such that anything goes by avoiding a distincton and difference between the simplest thing and simplest geometry.
Nobody "understands" any of this, and are just working with it.
Last edited:
My view on "Dark Matter", is that has to be the conjugate "intelligible" part of all matter that cannot be observed but is nevertheless, a part of what matter "is".
Yes, there are indirect evidence based on observations in astronomy, and the commonly held view is pretty much this.
So more normal to contrast it with "anti matter" and saying it is "dark" as it does not interact with photons at all, nor any other thing detected so far.
What I meant here is that there is evidence that some particles may NOT be interacting with.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.05155
Here is how fucked up this is:
So what is Lorentz invariation?
Dark-matter? Not a chance, it must be space-time foam, quantum gravity, or quantum loop gravity. And if you propose some string theory nonsene you may be as dumb as those string theorists that dont do real physics with the standard model.
A long time ago I spent weeks thinking about how forces are spiral in nature. This is to say that, whenever energy is observed, it is in a state of what I called at the time, a Gravity Storm; not unlike a hurricane or tornado. Much of my reasoning is based on the self-same nature of fractals, being that whenever things be true, then their attributes will be evident in all things and in all states of things. Much of what I think true relies on it being realized through everything. I see spiral galaxies and the rotation of planets, and the rotation of magnetic fields. Beyond this, I do not claim to understand much more.
That is a beatuiful idea, and sci-fi and stories can be built around it. And it plays on aesthetics with ideation that reflect the power of imagination that should be shared.
Good physics is however reliant on the the very simple with as simple a mechanism as possible, where things like you explain here cannot be "gussed" from the simplicity that allows for the emergence of astounding complexity.
In physics, a particle is a point, and has three major properties, mass(inherent energy if you will), spin and charge, that's it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
As you can see, among the four smallest known particles are the electron, neutrino and photon, the fourth is used to explain the inner workings of a proton and interaction with quarks(so kind of like photo-electric stated as gluon-quark effect).
That it, along with a whole bunch of rules.
Particles are only mathematical models of forces. What is projected on the monitors of complicated detection devices is just a processed image. It is not the actual thing. THis has lead to many misconceptions about nature. Since people see a sine wave on an oscilloscope, they think that it actually looks like that, when it is just the result of the processing of the equipment.
I will never believe in the particle, mainly because it does not change the math, nor does it affect the cost of tea in China.
So, the simpler the stronger and better. And there are ways to deal with these things as "fields" or energy in "space-time" and a whole set of ways, including that vacuum has energy or "virtual particles"
As for the sine wave, this can be explained with even simpler concepts:
So the sine wave can be explained as a baseball with a screw when thinking "particle", but the mechanisms and physics are more complicated than that as it waves are actually involved and aren't explained by frequency or the strength of the screw/spin of the ball.
So the standard model deals with "matter" and you may be more interested in fundamental forces and the complexity that arises.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction
It sounds like we agree. I'm just another ant climbing on the elephant of the universe.
Let' table this with quotes from everyones favourite goofy physicist.
And this was part of the problem, he didn't always know the names of things others used.
I agree mostly, thanks for sharing your views!
Well, it falls into the Planck length (and other planck measurements) along with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
Once you go smaller things even on a quantum scale fall apart and begin to behave very differently (at least so the theories think).
It supposedly becomes a kind of quantum “foam” full of black holes and wormholes...the idea of a quantized universe is the same as “pixelated”.
There are constants that can be measured and figured out by all intelligences across the universe.
Planck length is not just arbitrary like the mile.
"A modern treatment of Planck's work begins with the speed of light c, gravitational constant G, reduced Planck constant ħ, Coulomb constant k and Boltzmann constant kB.* By taking different combinations of these variables, one can find Planck units, which are truly universal. For instance, by taking √ ħG/c3 , one gets a length. This length is the Planck length, and it is 1.6 x 10-35 meters.
The beauty of the Planck units in general and the Planck length in particular is that no matter what units one chooses to make measurements, be it English, metric or Martian, everyone will determine the same Planck length. Planck himself said in his paper to the Prussian Academy of Sciences, "These necessarily retain their meaning for all times and for all civilizations, even extraterrestrial and non-human ones, and can therefore be designated as 'natural units.'"
Though there does seem to be a limit placed there...it doesn’t mean you can’t go smaller - but you have to choose!
You either go smaller for infinity...if you half a length...and then continue to half each half - you will go on for infinity if space/time is smooth - which is almost an even more bizarre notion as it would also imply that you could never go from point A to point B as you would never reach point be if there is infinity separating them.
So there must be a point B yes?
It would violate Zeno’s paradox (dichotomy) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Quantum_Zeno_effect
That would imply some kind of quantization.
Most physicists have solved for this paradox, but the Planck length still persists.
Or at least some kind of barrier that does not wish to be broken so easily.
Perhaps we will be able to see deeper down one of these days
Anyhow, this is all just enjoyable thought games and theorizing...if the universe if pixelated or smooth (which again is even stranger), it’s fun to try to envision each in your mind and see where it takes you...part of the reason I was drawn to the idea was the enjoyable mental imagery of there being some kind of underlying mesh or matrix or “Indra’s net” where we could exist as vibrational “strings” ( Oh no! I said “strings” @Ifur !) or vibrational information that tells each node in space/time what form to take...be it a rock, or gold, or my brain...and as we pass through this mesh of space/time...there is a point where we are no longer matter moving through space but something else that elicits certain responses from the net/mesh of space/time itself...it’s still a fascinating idea to play with and try to visualize.
And then to throw in the ideas of where consciousness bubble up from...it can take you to some rather fascinating places indeed.
If we can go on down and down to smaller and smaller units as implied by smooth space/time.
Either space and time are both continuous or they are discreet and there is some kind of fundamental limit.
Here’s a great article on the subject - https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/are-space-and-time-discrete-or-continuous/
Cheers!
Last edited:
I only meant the brain structure of neurons is very similar to the connected nodes of Indra’s Net.
I would agree that that is probably the main function...though I would add there must be a some kind of structure in the chaos to create order from.