Jump to content
Curious Cosmos
Sign in to follow this  
RainmanTime

In Triplicate, Please!

Recommended Posts

Last night was an interesting period of time in the NBA:

 

 

1) Seldom does a playoff game go into TRIPLE overtime, but last night one occurred between the New Jersey Nets and the Detroit Pistons....but that's not all the strangeness...

 

 

2) The scores at the end of regulation and the first two OTs were tie-ups of repeated digits. Specifically, end of reg score was 88-88. End of first OT score was 99-99. End of second OT score was an amazingly spooky 111-111!

 

 

3) An unbroken, triplet codon sequence of repeated-digit scores. Guess we could call this game a "triple-triple", huh? Marks an interesting moment in time, I'd say. But then again, I am fascinated by coincidence, balanced structures, and triplet sequences. ;)

 

 

Oh BTW...Nets beat the Pistons, but no one is going to touch my LA Lakers this year!

 

 

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rainman,

 

 

Your post time was 2:22. What's the chances of that? Maybe the next realization of 333, 444, 555, 666, and 777 will bring special syncronicity? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Spooky indeed

 

 

Rainman

 

 

I could imagine sevral hundred different scenarios why this occurred, however if it came to a basketball game to show how the universe responds to us I would say that this time I enjoyed the result.

 

 

(88+99+111)=298 according to the kabbalah that represents AMN AUR, Amen our Light. That is So be it For the Light.

 

 

So what ever happened who knows where it was for the greater good, the balance has been served once again.

 

 

Until later becomes now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Spooky indeed

 

 

Well a hearty AMN AUR, to that! ;)

 

 

(88+99+111)=298 according to the kabbalah that represents AMN AUR, Amen our Light. That is So be it For the Light.

 

Thanks Transient!

Do you have any URLs you can share for some online correspondence tables? With good cross-references? I don't seem to know of any, and I don't research the numerical underpinnings often enough when I recognize such events. I think I should do more of this. Can you help me?

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

 

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Startled

 

 

Friends

 

 

This is really strange, but anyways I shall say.

 

 

According to many seers, clairvoyant and mystics around the globe The Great White Brotherhood is releasing an additional amount of light over our world because the amount of advancing souls has increased beyond the expected. Although we might think of ourselves a very small number it is not numbers what counts but how many other individuals do anyone of us irradiates at a daily basis. That has caused the vibrational rate of this Age to augment to a higher state.

 

 

This the imitators of evil do not like and they have been trying to make it stop by the inserting sentiments akin to hopelessness, lonelyness, despair, aggression and hate. We all know that they have been pretty succesful at this, well they have not. They started all this already too late. the vibration had already changed.

 

 

Before to those clairsentient enough the vibration of this age was subtle, sublime, docile and utterly peaceful. Now as the result of the new energy being entrusted to every single one of us the vibration have changed to one of firmness, clarity, divine will made manifest and above all Light in the pureness of its expression.

 

 

I had already heard comments from those who will only for the ill of lifekind that in the prescence of this vibration they feel awe and reverence.

 

 

However if this was announced kabbalistically through a basketball game I do not know, nonetheless it would not surprise me. It has been done in the past.

 

 

Something else that strikes me as interesting is that when 298 is added to 222 we get 520. This represent ThNIN AT or the dracomancer, that is s/he who deals within the fifth elementary substance which is emotion. But it does not end there, for 520 is nothing else than the five pointed star-representation of 104, which spell out Tzaddi yes the hebrew letter that has a word value of 90. When we place 90 over every point of the star we get 450 which could mean two different things, one is PhRI OTz or the fruit of the Tree, the other being once again ThN, The Dragon.

 

 

Up to this point I can only think of one thing.

 

 

Until later becomes now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Spooky indeed

 

 

(88+99+111)=298 according to the kabbalah that represents AMN AUR, Amen our Light. That is So be it For the Light.

 

Just out of curiousity, but do the numbers 1 through 297 also have a meaning in the kabbalah? This reminds me of that movie "Pi" :) I'm probably the only individual on this planet that actually liked the movie though ;)

 

 

P.S. Perhaps this is is the right moment to express my dismay about the fact that they put NBA behind pay tv here in Holland. GRRRRRR. :mad:

 

 

P.S.S. Did I mention the soccer results in holland are on textpage 666? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Spooky indeed

 

 

I'm probably the only individual on this planet that actually liked the movie though

 

No, pretty much everyone I talk to thinks it's a work of genius. I think it's tedious twaddle, but who am I to judge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Spooky indeed

 

 

Hi There, Roel & Trollface:

 

 

This reminds me of that movie "Pi". I'm probably the only individual on this planet that actually liked the movie though

 

I liked it enough to buy the DVD. While I like the premise of the movie, I do think it was a bit "flighty" and disjointed...made it seem like a bit of work to have to follow along. Seeing it again on DVD a few times helped me bridge the gaps somewhat.

Trollface said:

 

 

I think it's tedious twaddle, but who am I to judge?

 

Yes, I'd have to agree with the tedious comment. The story could have been told better. But twaddle? I guess that would depend upon what angle you are viewing the movie from. Entertainment, yes I would agree it is a bit twaddley. But the information content, if you look at the basic premise of the story ("sacred" geometry), is pretty decent. If it causes one to question the relationships between things in our universe, then the message of the movie was delivered.

 

Perhaps this is is the right moment to express my dismay about the fact that they put NBA behind pay tv here in Holland. GRRRRRR.

 

That's those greedy Americans again...those bastards want to make a buck on everything! ;) Seriously though, the only reason they do that is because there are no broadcast stations televising it over there. I can only get SELECTED games for free here in LA on the VHF broadcast stations. But by paying for basic channels thru DirecTV I can get a lot more games on different channels. Then you pay EVEN MORE to get the premium sports channels....but you will get access to every single game for the duration of that sport's season.

I am, obviously, in babble mode today! :)

 

 

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Spooky indeed

 

 

Well, first off, I rented the flick because I was seriously into Cube and every review of it I read compared the two. So it wasn't exactly the best start, as the two are absolutely nothing like each other.

 

 

However, if I watch a film I want it to be good as a piece of entertainment. That doesn't mean to say that I have to find it pleasent, or that I don't appreciate films that you have to put effort into (Once Were Warriors, for example, has a very unpleasent scene where a 14 year old girl gets raped, and Magnolia can be a bit of an task to get through, too). What I'm saying, though, is that I certainly don't watch a film to be told about something. And it definately didn't make me reconsider anything. I think numerology is pretty much bunk.

 

 

I would watch it again, to give it a second go (hey, I'm a film junkie, and I can watch pertty much anything four or five times) and, truth be told, I don't remember much about it now (I saw it when it first came out) but I really don't think my opinion would change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Startled

 

 

Greetings, Friend Transient!

 

 

Up to this point I can only think of one thing.

 

Do continue to share, either in this thread, or via PM. I am always interested in your thoughts and perceptions, Trans.

 

Although we might think of ourselves a very small number it is not numbers what counts but how many other individuals do anyone of us irradiates at a daily basis.

 

Yes, indeed. Helping others to reach the enlightenment that they seek. We are all teachers of each other, and we are all students of each other. We are constructed in the same form (the human body as an incarnate Tree Of Life), and we are constructed of the same basic stuff (DNA double helix and triplet codon sequencing as another form of the Tree Of Life 3x3 structure). We should continually share and exchange information with each other in a group effort to reach our next phase of evolution.

 

This the imitators of evil do not like and they have been trying to make it stop by the inserting sentiments akin to hopelessness, lonelyness, despair, aggression and hate. We all know that they have been pretty succesful at this, well they have not.

 

This is a key understanding at this time....they HAVE NOT been successful. They cannot be successful by peddling fear and hopelessness, because it is our inherent nature to want to make things better, not worse. If we all WANT to create a better world, then the first order of business is to stop buying into the "sales pitch" of fear and hopelessness doled out by our governments, religions, and mass media. If you wish to create something positive, you have full power and capability to do just that. All the tools you need are available to you. Our daily interactions with other human beings are what bring us these tools. If we raise our awareness of what goes on around us, we will begin to see patterns in our lives. They are not as random (and so seemingly unpredictable) as controlling people would wish us to believe.

 

Now as the result of the new energy being entrusted to every single one of us the vibration have changed to one of firmness, clarity, divine will made manifest and above all Light in the pureness of its expression.

 

It is the very scientific principle of RESONANCE. As more and more people begin to "vibrate" in harmony with a given truth, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In scientific terms, when you reach a point of resonance in any system, you have found a point where small changes in the inputs to a system can result in large changes to the outputs of the system. Any frequency resonance is a NATURAL extractor of Power from the "ether" superfluid background energy of Massive SpaceTime.

As more and more people resonate with the Will to change our world, the power we will have to achieve this will be significant.

 

 

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Spooky indeed

 

 

I think numerology is pretty much bunk.

 

Fair enough... but what about geometrics? Is it not possible that the geometric structures that we see, all around us, in repeating fashion, hold some "clues" to an integrated theory of everything? You seem to be a deep thinker, so I wonder if you ever really "thought deeply" about the significance of the Platonic solids?

 

I would watch it again, to give it a second go (hey, I'm a film junkie, and I can watch pertty much anything four or five times) and, truth be told, I don't remember much about it now (I saw it when it first came out) but I really don't think my opinion would change.

 

You see, I know exactly what you are saying... I felt the same way about The Matrix, and its follow-ons. The first time I saw it I thought "OK, that was entertaining". But when I saw it 1 or 2 more times the deeper nuances started to hit me. By the time Revolutions came out, I knew that I would not "get" the total message of the film in one sitting. I think the Matrix series is a good example of the "entertainment value" of a movie getting worse in the sequels, but I think the richness of the underlying messages in the films actually got more intense.

Now granted....Pi is NOWHERE NEAR as good as any of the Matrix films, in terms of entertainment value. But I'd be interested if you had any thoughts on the Matrix films, in terms of what they say about our potential as a human race. Anything philosophically "deep"? Or did you think it was all trash? :)

 

 

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Spooky indeed

 

 

Is it not possible that the geometric structures that we see, all around us, in repeating fashion, hold some "clues" to an integrated theory of everything? You seem to be a deep thinker, so I wonder if you ever really "thought deeply" about the significance of the Platonic solids?

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an integrated theory of everything. Can you elaborate, please?

 

 

I'm not really sure what there is to say about the Platonic solids. I mean, what significance could they have? They're just mathematical constructs. I'm always wary of attaching significance to things that clearly didn't have any intended. I mean, when it comes to semiology, I agree with Barthes that the audience bring their own meaning to the signifier, but that also means that when you attach significance to these signifiers that what you're percieving is not an absolute. In fact, I don't believe in absolute connotation at all. Someone sees a train going into a tunnel and thinks "sex". Someone else sees a train going into a tunnel and thinks "death". Both interpretations are "right" and both are "wrong". And the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

 

Hmm, I'm probably not making this half as clear as I could. Do you get what I'm saying?

 

 

Anyway, I'm interested to hear your thoughts, for sure.

 

 

With regards to The Matrix and it's sequels, I think that I thought the opposite of you. I thought that the entertainment value stayed reasonably consistant throughout the trilogy, but the philosophising got more trite and more confused. I think it's fair to say that the metanym for this process would be the whole spoon thing. When Keanu first goes to the Oracle you have the whole "there is no spoon" bit. Fair enough, we've established that they are not existing in the real world, and that Keanu is an exception who can control the matrix, if he can only believe that the whole thing is nothing but an artificial construct, and that nothing is actually real there. so, yeah, that's reasonable.

 

 

However, you get to the second one, and some kid hands him a spoon. It's to say "no, look, there is a spoon". It's trite, it's inane, and it's anything but profound. It did make me giggle, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Spooky indeed

 

 

Is it not possible that the geometric structures that we see, all around us, in repeating fashion, hold some "clues" to an integrated theory of everything?

 

Yes, I do believe that the patterns we see around us are possibly the key to a solution. On the other hand we know that the human brain is trained in recognizing patterns. In this particular case I think it's simply a matter of coincedence and your mind playing tricks on you.

 

 

Furthermore, numbers were invented by mankind. It seems fairly illogical that numbers have any spiritual significance.

 

 

Pi is NOWHERE NEAR as good as any of the Matrix films, in terms of entertainment value.

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I was charmed by the strong visuals in the movie. It was very intense. I'm glad you liked it to Ray.

 

 

Roel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Spooky indeed

 

 

Furthermore, numbers were invented by mankind.

 

Well, in some ways that's true, but certainly whole numbers existed before mankind had anything to do with it. I mean, if there were three trees in a grove, there would be three of them, no matter if humans had been invented or not. Base 10 is definately a human invention, though. if you're really going for the spirituality side of it, then you could say that we have 10 fingers because base 10 is the perfect system, rather than that we find base 10 to be the perfect system because we have 10 fingers, but that's putting the cart before the horse, in my opinion.

 

 

I think maybe one of the best arguments against the significance of numbers in a greater scheme is actually also relevent to something else that's been discussed in the thread: Pi. I'm sure that if numbers (and geometry) had spiritual significance then the most "pure" shape's "magic number" would be 3, as it is represented in the Bible, rather than the rather messy, inexact number that we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Spooky indeed

 

 

Hi There, Trollface:

 

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an integrated theory of everything. Can you elaborate, please?

 

Sort of like the same thing that Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, and others are searching for... Some basic relations that describe the massive explosion in variety that we see all around us. Theories of Mass, Space, and Time that integrate in a naturally balanced manner to explain what we perceive around us. Do you subscribe to the belief that there is an inherent, balanced structure to physical existence? If so, do you seek out the knowledge of that structure and how it works?

 

Both interpretations are "right" and both are "wrong". And the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

 

Hmm, I'm probably not making this half as clear as I could. Do you get what I'm saying?

 

Totally get what you are saying. Life is all about PERCEPTION. And we all perceive differently. What I think is "good" others may think is "bad"...and vice versa. You and I have exhibited this very pattern in our disagreements about how we are combating terrorism. This difference of perception is what drives us on, as physical human beings. We all enjoy seeking out and communing with people who think like us. And likewise, we all tend to actively shy away from activities that would put us in contact with people who are on different paths from ourselves.

 

Anyway, I'm interested to hear your thoughts, for sure.

 

My thoughts tend to generalize any and all things in my physical universe that are polarized. Any polarity (+/-) is a potential source of energy that can be tapped to accomplish things. Electric potential, magnetic potential, gravitational potential....call it what you will. It is the introduction of a THIRD, discriminating element that invokes the power from the dipole. Intelligence is what intervenes between Matter and Motion to create a Timeline. Those are the bases for my thoughts on these matters... but only the basics...

 

Fair enough, we've established that they are not existing in the real world, and that Keanu is an exception who can control the matrix, if he can only believe that the whole thing is nothing but an artificial construct, and that nothing is actually real there. so, yeah, that's reasonable.

 

Seems we both come to the same conclusion about the message of the medium. Even if we approach the same conclusion from different perspectives. So if it IS an artificial construct then that means no one has more control over it than *I*, the being that is creating the artificial construct in the first place! The fact that each of us can manipulate the mass and space that is around us is testament to the fact that we are masters of our own timelines. The only person who has the ability to make tomorrow a "good" day or a "bad" day is YOU. Right?

It's all a matter of what you choose to do with your allotted Time... as least that is my opinion on the matter. :) I welcome all discussion that thinks I am "full of it" and discussion that might indicate I know something about which I am speaking...

 

 

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Spooky indeed

 

 

The answer to this thread., is all they have to do, is calculate for density of stringed space, out of what simulations they have already data-banked.

 

 

But wait!, that would be to simple.

 

 

Penrose has to say that he saw a rotational the other day, while out hunting.

 

 

I saw one once and man, was it majestic.

 

 

It had a full rack, was interested in a few female rotationals on the other hill over thereand to boot, nobody knew what it meant?

 

 

Some guy even thought that it was an amusement park ride and they shouldn't eat too many hot dogs, before going on this ride.

 

 

The answer to this question or this thread, is that Rainman drives through the Mc Donalds, pays at the takeout windows and will now eat.

 

 

Oh my God, isn't this thread wonderful..........!!!???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Spooky indeed

 

 

Do you subscribe to the belief that there is an inherent, balanced structure to physical existence?

 

I think that there are certain things which tend to hold true. For example, the shape of mammals, lizards and birds tends to follow a pretty standard pattern: a tube with the sensory equipment at the one end, and the waste and reproduction equipment at the other end. And there will tend to be 4 limbs, or at least there will have been somewhere down the line (like, say, with snakes). You can more or less say the same thing about fish, too.

 

 

Or, indeed, there are certain structures within the way that atoms bond together, and things of that nature.

 

 

Beyond that, I'm not really sure what you mean.

 

 

Totally get what you are saying. Life is all about PERCEPTION. And we all perceive differently. What I think is "good" others may think is "bad"...and vice versa.

 

Well, not entirely. What I'm saying is that really a train going into a tunnel isn't anything outside of a train going into a tunnel. If there was nobody around (assume it's an automated train, for the sake of argument), it'd still be a train going into a tunnel. But the connotations wouldn't be there.

 

 

Or, to take an example from the Platonic solids. Now, a cube is a cube. Show it to someone like me, and I may think of Zelda from the Terrahawks, because I'm a media whore of a certain age. Show it to a gambler, and he may think of a die. Show it to an architect, and she may think of the Vestlandske Kunstindustrimuseum. And so on. You may have your own set of connotations for a cube, if you feel that there is a deeper significance to the Platonic solids.

 

 

Now, the point of what I'm saying is that the cube may have been built by someone with the intention of representing a die. If so, that doesn't mean that the gambler got it "right", it simply means that he has happened on to the preferred reading of the creator of the cube. It also doesn't mean that the architect is wrong. But, what is definately true, no matter what readings anyone gives the cube, it, in and of itself, is merely a cube.

 

 

Now, if you do believe that there is more to the shape itself, then that's your perogative. However, you'll definately have a tough time convincing me that it's more than your own projected beliefs, thoughts and/or wishes.

 

 

Intelligence is what intervenes between Matter and Motion to create a Timeline.

 

Ah, the key question in things such as this is how do you define "intelligence"?

 

 

The only person who has the ability to make tomorrow a "good" day or a "bad" day is YOU. Right?

 

While I see what you're saying, you don't live in a vacuum. Your girlfriend dumps you or your mother gets killed by a burglar...I'd say that someone was definately the cause of some grief for you. And the same can be said for if your friends surprise you with a party, or someone you've not seen for years calls out of the blue. Other people very definately can and do affect our thoughts, moods and actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not So Spooky...Just Geometry

 

 

I think that there are certain things which tend to hold true. For example, the shape of mammals, lizards and birds tends to follow a pretty standard pattern: a tube with the sensory equipment at the one end, and the waste and reproduction equipment at the other end. And there will tend to be 4 limbs, or at least there will have been somewhere down the line (like, say, with snakes). You can more or less say the same thing about fish, too.

 

OK, yes, I agree. So you would agree BILATERAL SYMMETRY is a prevalent theme in the shape of living things? What you refer to as the "tube" is the central axis of symmetry, right?

 

Now, if you do believe that there is more to the shape itself, then that's your perogative. However, you'll definately have a tough time convincing me that it's more than your own projected beliefs, thoughts and/or wishes.

 

Not here to convince anyone. Just here to make observations and discuss them. There IS something more to any shape, and that is how that shape RELATES to anything around it. How 1-D relates to 2-D, and how that in turn relates to 3-D. Interrelations betweeen "things" seems to be the central theme of energy exchange in our physical universe, would you agree?

 

Ah, the key question in things such as this is how do you define "intelligence"?

 

Well, of course....all is relative to how you define any given standard. I would think that what I wrote is a reasonable stab at what might be one measure of intelligence.... namely, some processing entity that makes a decision to intervene (or refrain from intervening) with Matter and Motion, so as to create some desired outcome. Admitedly, this is off the cuff, but something along those lines. What are your definitions?

 

Other people very definately can and do affect our thoughts, moods and actions.

 

Oh most definitely. I am not saying other things in our universe do not have an impact on us...clearly they do. But how each of us interprets things that happen to us... are we not in ultimate control over how we judge things that happen to us? I make the decision over what is "good" or what is "bad" to me....relativity. Get me?

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Not So Spooky...Just Geometry

 

 

So you would agree BILATERAL SYMMETRY is a prevalent theme in the shape of living things? What you refer to as the "tube" is the central axis of symmetry, right?

 

Yes, I'd agree with that.

 

 

Not here to convince anyone.

 

Well, when I said convince, I didn't really mean it like that. I tend sometimes to talk in a somewhat flowery manner. You'll get used to me.

 

 

What I meant was, I suppose, that just because you may believe something about the nature of the cube does not make it so.

 

 

There IS something more to any shape, and that is how that shape RELATES to anything around it.

 

Hmm, this is having strange parallelles with semiology again. Something is not so much defined by what it is, as by what it's not, eh? A cube isn't just ""a cube, a cube is also "not a sphere", and also "not a rectangle". Of course, where we draw the distinctions between differet classes or different sets is up to us, there are no set rules.

 

 

How 1-D relates to 2-D, and how that in turn relates to 3-D.

 

I'm not so sure that I'm with you, here. To my mind, both 1-D and 2-D are human constructs, as opposed to physical realities.

 

 

Interrelations betweeen "things" seems to be the central theme of energy exchange in our physical universe, would you agree?

 

Well, I suppose so, but it's a bit of a vague statement. I mean, you have to have two or more things interacting to have an exchange of anything between them, by definition.

 

 

What are your definitions?

 

I'm not sure. I'm not sure that it can be defined so much. However, I believe that intelligence and thought are nothing but the processes of electro-chemical computers.

 

 

But how each of us interprets things that happen to us... are we not in ultimate control over how we judge things that happen to us? I make the decision over what is "good" or what is "bad" to me....relativity. Get me?

 

I get you, but I still don't think that what you say is entirely true.

 

 

While it's true that we make descisions about ourselves, I think we're also products of our own physical make-up and our own learned habits. By this I mean that there may be a hyperactiuve, attention-seekign person that you know. Is this behaviour all down to them? Or could it be because of a neurotransmitter problem within the physical make-up of their brains? I think a lot of who we are and how we act is down to how we're hardwired.

 

 

Also, there's the "path of least resistence" thing. As we learn things, we discover what works best, and the second time you repeat a behaviour, it's easier, and it gets progressively easier and easier. The brain gets "used" to doing things that way, and it can even become easier to do a certain thing than to not do it. I mean, bad habits such as biting your nails are a good example, but also consider things like throwing tantrums. If every time you threw a tantrum when since when you were a bay your parents or guardians indulged you, and this continued until you were, say, 18, then you'd probably find it really hard to deal with things in any other way for the rest of your life.

 

 

Further to this, there has been research done which suggests that as we learn things, the physical make-up of our brains changes. I believe they used the example of Einstein. When he was a lad, his brain would have been normal just like the rest of us. When he died, however, the area that deals with mathematics, a certain kind of logical thought, ect. was larger than normal. Now, because he spent his entire life using that part of his brain a great deal, the neural connections there, and the blood supply and all that jazz became more firmly established and more prominant.

 

 

So, no I'm not sure how much of who we are and what we can do is down to us, really, and how much is down to circumstance and physical make-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Not So Spooky...Just Geometry

 

 

Yes, I'd agree with that.

 

OK, cool. We agree on bilateral symmetry. Would you also agree, extending upon the bilateral concept, that "systems" (be they natural species, or man-made) which employ bilateral symmetry also a possess a "discriminator" function which integrates the two bilateral halves into a single state? If you agree with this, then can you see how bilateralism leads to tripartism, in a natural sort of way?

 

Hmm, this is having strange parallelles with semiology again. Something is not so much defined by what it is, as by what it's not, eh? A cube isn't just ""a cube, a cube is also "not a sphere", and also "not a rectangle".

 

Not really. But you did come close, perhaps without even knowing it. In the world of systems engineering we refer to "Fit, Form, and Function". The first two define something by describing what it "is" (Fit and Form). The concept of Function defines something by describing what is DOES. So it's really both, right? There's that bilateralism theme again...Any "thing" can be described in Noun-based forms (what it is) and Verb-based forms (what it does).

Now...I can take that one step further. Thinking from a "systems of systems" perspective (which all evidence in our universe seems to support), I claim that I can completely describe any system in terms of just three domains of information. Those domains also reflect the means by which mankind has evolved to design and deploy complex systems. The domains are "Operational, Functional, and Physical". The physical domain describes the physical elements and the physical environment they are designed to operate in. That is the last domain we perform design in. The functional domain describes the verbs (transformations) that the system elements perform (or execute). A function takes inputs and provides outputs. The operational domain is the "problem space" that drives the functional and physical designs based on an operational need. But the operational domain is also where the final design is proven. In other words OPERATIONS are characterized by time-based phases, where FUNCTIONS (verbs/motion) are invoked to transform inputs to outputs, and the PHYSICAL elements (nouns/matter) perform those functions.

 

 

So, my point here is that it is not just the domains, but their interactions, that define the "thing" (system): What it is, what it does, how I use it....and the interdependencies that link the 3 domains for any given system.

 

 

To my mind, both 1-D and 2-D are human constructs, as opposed to physical realities.

 

Ever hear of fractal dimension? Now...I need clarification on what you are saying here. Did you purposefully leave out 3-D because you feel this IS a physical reality, and that 1-D and 2-D are NOT physical realities? If so, then I'd suggest you read-up on fractals and topology. Not only are 1-D and 2-D very "real", but so are fractional dimensions, such as 2.6.

 

Well, I suppose so, but it's a bit of a vague statement. I mean, you have to have two or more things interacting to have an exchange of anything between them, by definition.

 

Well, you may think it is vague. But if you think like a systems engineer it is not so much vague as it is an important generalization of all systems. No system exists in a bubble, without interactions with other systems. A systems engineer (different from a physical designer) is charged with not only understanding the "widget" that some physical designer is designing, but most importantly for understanding and quantifying the RELATIONSHIPS that the widget has with other widgets. Understanding relationships (interfaces) is the key to understanding how to manage energy interactions among systems.

The fact that "no system lives in a bubble" is one reason I have a bit of heartburn with some arbitrary definitions that some people claim are at the level of a "law". For instance, let's take the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The "stipulations" for this law are two in number:

 

 

1) The system must be CLOSED (no energy transfer across boundaries).

 

 

2) The system must be "far" from thermal equilibrium.

 

 

Now you get people who will claim that this "Law" is really a "Law" and cannot be broken. I claim it is nothing more than a convenient definition that helps us measure reversibility of a process. For can you tell me ANY system is that TRULY "closed"? And with regard to thermal equilibrium... if this is truly a "law", then there should be some quantification of what "far" means, at least with respect to when a system will obey the "law" and when it may be violated.

 

 

However, I believe that intelligence and thought are nothing but the processes of electro-chemical computers.

 

You say "nothing but", but do you really mean to minimize it that much? Do you accept the concept of "emergent properties of a system"? In other words, a system can exhibit characteristics that are "greater than the sum of its parts". You see, this is how I see intelligence and thought...they are emergent properties of a highly complex system that interacts with its environment in highly complex ways.

 

I get you, but I still don't think that what you say is entirely true.

 

And all this really says is that truth/falseness is not a binary function. Certainly our physical makeup and upbringing have an impact on who we are, and what our capabilities are. But often times people get wrapped-up in thinking this is ALL that defines us. Such limiting thoughts are what can hold people back, as they use these things as an "excuse" for why they can NOT accomplish something. Regardless of what my physical limitations are, or what my upbringing was like, if I do not THINK I can accomplish something, then the chances of me accomplishing it are pretty remote.

 

So, no I'm not sure how much of who we are and what we can do is down to us, really, and how much is down to circumstance and physical make-up.

 

But you would agree, I take it, that it is not COMPLETELY down to a selection of just one or the other, right? It is probably more like a "fuzzy" boundary...dependent on each individual, right?

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Not So Spooky...Just Geometry

 

 

Would you also agree, extending upon the bilateral concept, that "systems" (be they natural species, or man-made) which employ bilateral symmetry also a possess a "discriminator" function which integrates the two bilateral halves into a single state?

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. But I don't think there's anything that unites the two halves of something, because they were never divided. The division itself is a human construct. We don't have a "left side" and a "right side" which need to be united into a whole, we have a whole that we can percieve as having two sides.

 

 

Plus, I agreed with you that this symmetry was a prevalant theme, but not that it actually existed. the construct of mammals and fish and the like tends towards symmertry, but it doesn't actually create symmertry. If you don't look closely, humans appear symmetrical, but we're not. Your left arm won't be exactle the same size as your right, and ditto with pretty much everything. And, of course, our internal workings are far from symmetrical.

 

 

Ever hear of fractal dimension?

 

As a mathematical construct, sure.

 

 

Did you purposefully leave out 3-D because you feel this IS a physical reality, and that 1-D and 2-D are NOT physical realities?

 

Yes.

 

 

? If so, then I'd suggest you read-up on fractals and topology. Not only are 1-D and 2-D very "real", but so are fractional dimensions, such as 2.6.

 

I believe that they can be created and played around with methematically, but you cannot have an actual, physical, 2-D object. Nor a 1-D one.

 

 

No system exists in a bubble, without interactions with other systems. A systems engineer (different from a physical designer) is charged with not only understanding the "widget" that some physical designer is designing, but most importantly for understanding and quantifying the RELATIONSHIPS that the widget has with other widgets.

 

Actually, that is what I was saying with regards to semiology. Rather than cube, let's take the classic example of a cowboy hat. you see a cowboy hat in a film and you know that it's a cowboy hat. And you know this because of the relationship that it has with all the other types of hats that exist. You know it's a cowboy hat partially because you know that it's not a policeman's hat.

 

 

You say "nothing but", but do you really mean to minimize it that much?

 

I certainly do.

 

 

Do you accept the concept of "emergent properties of a system"? In other words, a system can exhibit characteristics that are "greater than the sum of its parts".

 

I think that that's down to the perception of what the sum of a system's parts is, and what it's doing relative to that. In other words, that's human perception again. I've not encountered a physical system that could, for example, produce more energy than is already present.

 

 

I think that what the phrase "better than the sum of it's parts" really means is "better than you'd have thought it would".

 

 

You see, this is how I see intelligence and thought...they are emergent properties of a highly complex system that interacts with its environment in highly complex ways.

 

That seems about right.

 

 

But you would agree, I take it, that it is not COMPLETELY down to a selection of just one or the other, right? It is probably more like a "fuzzy" boundary...dependent on each individual, right?

 

Oh, yeah, I'm a big believer in grey areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Not So Spooky...Just Geometry

 

 

Are we done with this conversation? I seem to have killed both this and the "Celestine prophecy" threads, which is a shame, as I was enjoying this one, and thought the other one had huge potential to be enjoyable and enlightening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Not So Spooky...Just Geometry

 

 

Are we done with this conversation? I seem to have killed both this and the "Celestine prophecy" threads, which is a shame, as I was enjoying this one, and thought the other one had huge potential to be enjoyable and enlightening.

 

Well, to be honest, I am having trouble understanding what appears to be a duplicity in your views. You often appear to make statements about how things are that seem clearly rooted in how you perceive things, and that is fine. But then you will seem to discount how things are (or may be) based on other's perceptions, or agreed-upon perceptions, or even things demonstrated by scientific inquiry. I'll try to demonstrate where my confusion comes from in my next reply.

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Not So Spooky...Just Geometry

 

 

Yeah, if you could clarify, because I'm not aware of any inconsistancies in my views. However, I do always welcome having my views challenged, examined and questioned about any subject. It's the only way we learn and grow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Not So Spooky...Just Geometry

 

 

But I don't think there's anything that unites the two halves of something, because they were never divided. The division itself is a human construct. We don't have a "left side" and a "right side" which need to be united into a whole, we have a whole that we can percieve as having two sides.

 

So this would appear to deny such things as the architecture of stereoscopic vision systems in living organisms....the mechanism of one of our perceptions. We all seem to agree we have two eyes, and they transmit dual sets of information to our brains, where they are integrated into a single image in our brains. Anatomical science has even shown how nerves from a single eyeball feed both sides of the brain. So this physical structure is all just a human construct, even though we all agree to this duality?

 

Plus, I agreed with you that this symmetry was a prevalant theme, but not that it actually existed. the construct of mammals and fish and the like tends towards symmertry, but it doesn't actually create symmertry. If you don't look closely, humans appear symmetrical, but we're not. Your left arm won't be exactle the same size as your right, and ditto with pretty much everything.

 

This is just semantics of "exactness" and "closeness". I never claimed PRECISE symmetry. When you talk about precision and use words like "exactness" I would again refer you to study a bit deeper on fractal geometry, as the concept "self-similar" addresses this. There are reasons why the scientists who discovered/developed this did not use "self-identical". We could have an entire discussion on accuracy and precision, but I don't want to stray too far from other topics here.

 

As a mathematical construct, sure.

 

And do you not think mathematical constructs are intended to describe "how things are", or at very least "how we perceive things to be"? The very reason that fractal geometry and chaos theory have blossomed is that we saw these "mathematical constructs" as describing nature and natural processes in a more coherent way than prior, nominally linear, mathematical constructs of the past.

 

Yes. (With regard to your belief in 3-D but not 1-D or 2-D)

 

So I think I need a little better explanation of your belief here... because I am again having to infer how/what you think on this subject. It would appear from this belief that you do not believe or accept concepts of continuous functions and phenomenon, even if it is only in human perception. Perhaps rather than having me guess about your theory of how topology works, or how dimensionality exhibits itself, you can expound for yourself?

 

I believe that they can be created and played around with methematically, but you cannot have an actual, physical, 2-D object. Nor a 1-D one.

 

So this is one of those areas where it appears you are locked into what your senses and perceptions tell you as a result of being locked in a world of 3 dimensional mass/space/time. Yet in other areas you appear willing to conjecture beyond what our senses tell us to be "real" (such as the steroscopic vision issue above). What if your perception of having only 3 dimensions, no less and no more, were simply a limitation of your physical construct, namely, your ability for your senses to only respond to narrow frequency bands? Perhaps we should remove the issue of physical... do you believe information has dimension? If so, it is also limited to 3 dimensions...or maybe only 2?

 

Actually, that is what I was saying with regards to semiology.

 

Well, maybe you can explain your views a little better, as I did not get that at all.

 

Rather than cube, let's take the classic example of a cowboy hat. you see a cowboy hat in a film and you know that it's a cowboy hat. And you know this because of the relationship that it has with all the other types of hats that exist. You know it's a cowboy hat partially because you know that it's not a policeman's hat.

 

OK, fine. This is a good example of the dimensionality of information. Ignoring the "cowboy" part for a bit, you have the concept of "hat" which has multiple dimensions in and of itself by its various relationships to other things. Just a few examples: Uses for a hat could be for protecting the head from something (sun/rain), or it could be used as nothing more than fashion accessory. It could also be used for neither of these, but rather to signify status or identification. Where a hat is employed would be another informational direction. Some may say 1-dimensional as most people use hats on their head, but it does not preclude other dimensions of using it to cover one's butt. Then "cowboy" attached to hat distinguishes classes...so there is yet another dimension of information surrounding hats...classes of hats. So where does this lead us? It appears you agree with the concept of some thing being more than its physical description, and that relationships of that thing to other things provides a richer definition of that thing. Yet you apparantly do not see this as various dimensions of that thing??? :confused: Maybe I am losing your whole point here.

 

I certainly do.

 

If you minimize intelligence that much, then this would imply you think it is trivial to create such intelligence. Are you up to the task?

 

In other words, that's human perception again.

 

And so assuming you don't subscribe to a world where one person's perception is "right" and another's is not...how do you see resolution occurring?

 

I've not encountered a physical system that could, for example, produce more energy than is already present.

 

How about a physical system that produces more information than is already present? And might you accept that information has a relationship to energy, even if it may be subtle?

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...