Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: having observed all things

  1. #1 having observed all things 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Having observed all-things?

    It sounds like the name of a star trek episode.

    The point being made is that we rely heavily, almost entirely, on what we observe of space-time, to then formulate it's (presumably) definitive laws of modus-operandi.

    Yet, when we observe, and then correctly construct a theory of what we observe of space-time, and then join all those theories based on our observation, what we ultimately CAN be left with is a purely mathematical description of space-time, as though, "as though", we no longer need to "observe" reality, we can "explain" it mathematically.

    What would become of our ability to "observe" space-time in having a fully-operational mathematical "theory" of space-time?

    I am thinking we would need to incorporate "into" that theory, ultimate theory, of space-time, a theory for our ability to "observe" space-time.

    Any thoughts on that from anyone?

    I think the point being made is, is that if we are to be entirely realistic with foresight in the quest for a "theory of all things", should we not soon begin to consider equating into our mathematics the actual "mathematics", if not logic" of our perception ability?

    Would that not be the wise thing to do?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Just a question: are you advocating our ability to "observe" space time as an integral part of space time? I mean do you separate human observation of space time as a separate facet to space time or as merely a better way to understand it? In other words, does your new theory differentiate between a universe where things are “observed’ and one where things just happen?


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    The suggestion being made is that there exists in the system of space-time a facet of space-time, a faculty of space-time, an algorithm of space-time, that basically "checks" that it's laws are being upheld; a thing we would know as consciousness, but to space-time, a repeating sequence that constantly ensures that space-time laws are upheld.

    The suggestion presented is that a repeating "algorithm" of that self-checking system of space-time would be what we understand as "perception".

    This perception feature of space-time is not a "material" thing, it is a pattern of the overall repeating sequence of space-time laws.

    In now going back to the initial statement, the general idea being presented is that our strategy of investigating space-time through observation can be coded mathematically......if indeed we decided to find the topology, the mathematical topology, of human logic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Does not happen due to Goedels Incompleteness Theory.
    He has proven that in any "system" i.e. set of axioms you get to a point where you can not prove any longer any possible statement or prove it untrue in a mathematical sense. Frustrating but really interesting to make a statement about general system that you know very little about but still be able to prove it can't be fully understood. But on the other hand, Goedel is proving his own system to be contradictive in itself. Roughly speaking, the Gödel statement, G, asserts: "G cannot be proven true".
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Perhaps if a paradox can be mathematically defined, then Goedel's theorum is nothing but a poorly worded attempt to explain the potentially paradoxical nature of space-time.

    Take for instance a mathematical algorithm so paradoxical "0" equates to "infinity".

    Zero equating to infinity is basically saying that "all things" is in fact "nothing".

    That algorithm by-passes Goedelian ideals.

    What if it were suggested, for those unwilling to abandon Goedel's theorum on Goedel's vernacular terms, that the only thing incomplete about reality is that the system of space-time isn't entirely effective in checking itself, that chaos is an all-important ingredient of space-time, a type of "absence" of order, and as the self-checking system would understand it, dare one say, an "evil".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    The suggestion presented is that a repeating "algorithm" of that self-checking system of space-time would be what we understand as "perception".
    It certainly doesn't match what I understand as perception. Perception is a subjective interpretation of an observed event. At the macro level it is independent of the event. If there is a self checking system such as you describe it most certainly is not 'perception'. [Perception is about as reliable as a amnesiac pilot on LSD.]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    The suggestion presented is that a repeating "algorithm" of that self-checking system of space-time would be what we understand as "perception".
    It certainly doesn't match what I understand as perception. Perception is a subjective interpretation of an observed event. At the macro level it is independent of the event. If there is a self checking system such as you describe it most certainly is not 'perception'. [Perception is about as reliable as a amnesiac pilot on LSD.]
    Well into 99% of our perception function on the real and decidedly organic function requirements is sympathetic and parasympathetic, together with nueral loops: all in all, self-checking systems for ideal body-function homeostasis. All of these functions of our perception we take for granted.

    As wild as it seems, the scientific community in reaching all their theories and equations fails to consider one thing, namely that they are aware: they assume they are aware, so much so, their theory of perception is so-God-like, so "I think therefore I am", they may as well be fictictious characters in a land where the actual and real percentage function of the body is no longer required.

    I think you get my point.

    Try studying Medicine before offering a decent a thorough report on what you think perception is.

    Now, understand if you can someone who has studied the percdeption features of the human body, the real, and not the psuedo, not the "I think therefore I am" shite, and consider also that same person who has applied a mathematical algorithm to those self-checking loops of biological function, and in the case here, the slef-checking loops of sensory-motor interaction of the human perception with the environment in a simple push-pull manner.

    No, better still, don't bother. It's too difficult to explain, and you don't have the time: besides, it's not taught at University, the algorithm of perception, so it obviously isn't real.


    Anyway, what you understand of perception you are correct about, namely that your perception is disconnected from the macro around you. What we regard as poerception is that very tiny percentage, and I mean tiny, that compromises our overall perception function. Yet, we should be careful not to think that the tiny portion we use to stop committing suicide or putting ourselves in the way of harm of others (owing to the fact that tiny portion of our perception we mistake for the whole IS in fact detached from the macro around us, and thus not instinctively in-tune with it) is our entire perception ability, and so we need to ideally regard with enough decent respect the other protion of our perception, it's success in keeping us breathing, as to continually "check" for ourselves that we are in fact not saying something pithy or putting ourselves ultimately into some type of systematic process of harm in using that other 0.0001% that makes us feel like "I think therefore I am" Gods.

    We need to constantly check what we understand to be perception, that 0.0001% of our overall real biological perception funtion.


    I challenge anyone with a theory of perception, philosophers. pHd philosophers, backyard philosophers, even your parents, to first study all the automated biological pathways that keep our heart beating, and lungs breathing, and perception continually ready for the next stensation or action.......and then get back to me.


    If I can now get back to my initial point, I believe that, aside from the chaos around us, which is usually as minor as our ability to think "we think therefore we are", that space-time also has a type of self-checking algorithm as our perception generally and by high percentage HAS. And so I also believe that scientists would do well to research any such algorithm of space-time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Well into 99% of our perception function on the real and decidedly organic function requirements is sympathetic and parasympathetic, together with nueral loops: all in all, self-checking systems for ideal body-function homeostasis..
    Semantic content zero. Perhaps because your grammatical structure is flawed, but the foregoing makes no sense whatsoever. You need to try one hell of a lot harder.
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    All of these functions of our perception we take for granted.
    Speak for yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    As wild as it seems, the scientific community in reaching all their theories and equations fails to consider one thing, namely that they are aware: .
    This is codswallop. Many scientists, not just psychologists and physicists have considered the significance of self awareness in the setting of their experiments, the evaluation of their observations and the formulation of their theories.
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    they assume they are aware, so much so, their theory of perception is so-God-like, so "I think therefore I am", they may as well be fictictious characters in a land where the actual and real percentage function of the body is no longer required.

    I think you get my point.
    I don't even come close to getting your point. You appear to be talking unmitigated balderdash. There is not a shred of coherence in your statements. Is it any wonder you are having a hard time getting anyone to take your ideas seriously.
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Try studying Medicine before offering a decent a thorough report on what you think perception is.
    Stop being sucha patronising prick. I have made a sufficient study of ethology, cognitive psychology, neural embryology and allied fields to have formed a passingly good appreciation of what perception is.
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Now, understand if you can someone who has studied the percdeption features of the human body, the real, and not the psuedo, not the "I think therefore I am" shite,
    You appear to be confusing consciousness with perception. Isn't that a rather elementary mistake to make for someone who claims to be an expert?
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    No, better still, don't bother. It's too difficult to explain, and you don't have the time: besides, it's not taught at University, the algorithm of perception, so it obviously isn't real.
    That's right. Don't bother to express yourself in clear, cogent terms. Don't bother to make the effort to get your idea across. Don't bother to adapt the terminology of your audience as a means of enhancing their understanding. How much better to complain that we are all too dumb, blinkered or skeptical to appreciate your startling insight. That takes the responsibility off of your shoulders and places it on ours. How very convenient for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Anyway, what you understand of perception you are correct about, namely that your perception is disconnected from the macro around you. What we regard as poerception is that very tiny percentage, and I mean tiny, that compromises our overall perception function. Yet, we should be careful not to think that the tiny portion we use to stop committing suicide or putting ourselves in the way of harm of others (owing to the fact that tiny portion of our perception we mistake for the whole IS in fact detached from the macro around us, and thus not instinctively in-tune with it) is our entire perception ability, and so we need to ideally regard with enough decent respect the other protion of our perception, it's success in keeping us breathing, as to continually "check" for ourselves that we are in fact not saying something pithy or putting ourselves ultimately into some type of systematic process of harm in using that other 0.0001% that makes us feel like "I think therefore I am" Gods.
    With your permission I shall use this passage in class to illustrate what I mean by waffle.
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    I challenge anyone with a theory of perception, philosophers. pHd philosophers, backyard philosophers, even your parents, to first study all the automated biological pathways that keep our heart beating, and lungs breathing, and perception continually ready for the next stensation or action.......and then get back to me.
    It will be a cold day in hell, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    You "winnnnnnnnnnnnnn".

    (you're related to royalty, right.....maybe Jesus?)


    You're good at chopping down lines, but can you see the forest for the trees?

    Please allow yourself the possibility that a theory of perception is not entirely a forte of yours compared to someone who has studied Medicine and the topograpthy of biological wiring and logic.

    Ophiolite, are you Jesus, because you are almost convincing me I am F.O.S when I am not...........I mean, you are, and there is only one person who can complete such a mircale........Jesus.

    I may become a disciple in you if you continue to convince me I do not know what in fact I do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    For the last time (I hope) learn to communicate your ideas in a clear concise fashion. Stop making the excuse that it is our fault for not understanding you. That may wash as an explanation in your mind, but it doesn't fool any observers here. If you have all this depth of understanding arising from your study of medicine then show some evidence for it, instead of juvenile, concatenations of ill defined terminology and long metaphorical assertions redolent with poetry, but absent anything of substance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    God forbid extra-terrestrials try to communicate with this planet.

    Still that doesn't stop billions of doallars in research looking for life beyond this planet.

    I wonder what linguistics experts they will employ to communicate with what could only be to Oxford scholars as waffle.

    Nothing to do with me, just a thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    You continue to avoid the central point, Stream Systems - that smacks of moral cowardice to me. Do you simply wish to appear here as the great source of mystery and wonder? When the house lights are turned up we can all see the structure of the cheap magicians trick. Learn to communicate. Stop changing the subject. Be direct. Are you simply incapable of direct communication? Is it a problem of mental ability? In a word, are you thick or just naturally difficult?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Let this be a warning to all forum users:

    I am damned if I direct people to a pdf downlaod about a three hundred and sixty page account that explains the new theorum of time (it is called spam, basically, by the forum members, or they can't be bothered reading it, slowly), or I am damned if I don't.

    Forum members, please post subjects people can work out in the attention spam, sorry, span, allocated to you between periods at school. Take it from me.


    Any extraterrestrials tuning into any of this from their crafts in space, make sure you have a degree in classical english before bothering to communicate with the english-speaking world about any science relevant to the two-real dimensions of time. Once again, take it from me. And, oh yeah, don't bother.


    And, Ophiolite, you said, and I quote, "Stop making the excuse that it is our fault for not understanding you. That may wash as an explanation in your mind, but it doesn't fool any observers here".

    Dear Ophiolite. Please examine ALL my posts. Not once, not twice, not even three times, in fact no times do I whinge or complain no one understands me. Your patronising childish dribble may work on those not yet fully programmed by a primary school education, but it won't work on me. Stop "assuming" you know my "attitude", grow a bXXXn, and read what I am offering as a discussion topic. Then dance your fingers away on your keyboard. Make it a real and objective opinion, not about what you think it is that in your mind I am not clearly spelling out, but what I am actually presenting (oh, yes, and including the download on offer, as it is, in that appraisal).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Let this be a warning to all forum users:
    [i][color=red][size=9]I am damned if I direct people to a pdf downlaod about a three hundred and sixty page account that explains the new theorum of time (it is called spam, basically, by the forum members, or they can't be bothered reading it, slowly), or I am damned if I don't.
    I began many posts ago, round about the time you first started posting you ideas, to advise you that your presented speculations here, and on your website, were largely unintelligible. I explained (and it must be admitted, not with too much patience) that the reason for this was the peculiar style you used. This style might be at home as the dialogue of a character in a John Updike novel, but it has no place where the author is seeking, allegedly, to inform his/her readership. Either out of indifference, or inability, you have continued to use this same style in almost every post you have made. I do not know what you hope to achieve by such an approach but it seems intransigently foolish.
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Any extraterrestrials tuning into any of this from their crafts in space, make sure you have a degree in classical english before bothering to communicate with the english-speaking world about any science relevant to the two-real dimensions of time. Once again, take it from me. And, oh yeah, don't bother.
    ........
    Dear Ophiolite. Please examine ALL my posts. Not once, not twice, not even three times, in fact no times do I whinge or complain no one understands me.
    Surely you can see that the first paragraph above is exactly a whinging, implicit complaint upon your failure to be understood. You are trying to shift the responsibility for that failure from you, the writer, to us the readers. To repeat myself, it won't wash. It is your responsibility to make yourself understood and you have failed abyssmally to do this. You patter on and on about your deep understanding of medicine and the unique insight you have gained from this, then you seek to demonstrate it with poorly expressed adolescent definitions of perception.

    Am I being offensive? I certainly hope so. Being as persistently stubborn in your resistance to speaking clearly as you are deserves nothing but contempt. Get off your high horse and learn to talk simply and clearly. For *****'s sake, there are courses you could attend that would help you. You clearly do not wish to take any advice from me on this, though I have invested an inordinate amount of time in reading and offering criticism of your posts and your thesis.
    If you wish me to understand your true attitude then learn to communicate it. I trust my attitude is coming across very clearly. If it is not then that is my responsibility, not yours. Understand?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    I understand.




    Anyway, for everyone else here in this forum interested about the issue of a new appraisal of space-time without detracting too wildly from contemporary text-book physics (and I must apologise for that very personal intrusion I seem to be getting from it seems just one key member of this forum), what I am trying to present here is a discussion about the idea that space-time can mimick a type of perception. Has anyone perhaps researched the idea that the laws of space-time can infact be organized together as a holistic type of "intelligence" we can theorise?

    Maybe I can explain that better in the following manner: can we take a look at space-time like looking in a type of mirror, using our entire perception ability to perceive the laws of space-time which govern how we think and intereact with reality, with space-time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    I must apologise for that very personal intrusion I seem to be getting from it seems just one key member of this forum), what I am trying to present here is a discussion about the idea that space-time can mimick a type of perception.
    Ophiolite's not the only one. Just, perhaps, the most patient.

    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Has anyone perhaps researched the idea that the laws of space-time can infact be organized together as a holistic type of "intelligence" we can theorise?

    Maybe I can explain that better in the following manner: can we take a look at space-time like looking in a type of mirror, using our entire perception ability to perceive the laws of space-time which govern how we think and intereact with reality, with space-time?

    Been there, did that. Then the dog ate the rest of the hash-cake left cooling on the table, and for the rest of the weekend our space-time research was conducted on beer - leading largely to the conclusion that 1 pint = 2 trips to the loo. This is a scientifically proven fact, too deep in my researches for me to publish (I have many, many books that the world does not dare allow you to see - the close-minded conspiracy of allopathic doctors having prevented my publicity and...



    Aw heck - why don't you, as Ophiolite requested, write like a scientist speaking to scientifically minded people you respect, not like a post-modernist looking to seduce an impressionable student with an intellectual imposture?

    We'd genuinely love a real conversation with intellectual merit - but the hit and run, cloak-and-dagger sententiousness that seems to mark some of your pronouncements smacks of a desire to provoke persons, not understanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    I must apologise for that very personal intrusion I seem to be getting from it seems just one key member of this forum), what I am trying to present here is a discussion about the idea that space-time can mimick a type of perception.
    Ophiolite's not the only one. Just, perhaps, the most patient.

    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Has anyone perhaps researched the idea that the laws of space-time can infact be organized together as a holistic type of "intelligence" we can theorise?

    Maybe I can explain that better in the following manner: can we take a look at space-time like looking in a type of mirror, using our entire perception ability to perceive the laws of space-time which govern how we think and intereact with reality, with space-time?

    Been there, did that. Then the dog ate the rest of the hash-cake left cooling on the table, and for the rest of the weekend our space-time research was conducted on beer - leading largely to the conclusion that 1 pint = 2 trips to the loo. This is a scientifically proven fact, too deep in my researches for me to publish (I have many, many books that the world does not dare allow you to see - the close-minded conspiracy of allopathic doctors having prevented my publicity and...



    Aw heck - why don't you, as Ophiolite requested, write like a scientist speaking to scientifically minded people you respect, not like a post-modernist looking to seduce an impressionable student with an intellectual imposture?

    We'd genuinely love a real conversation with intellectual merit - but the hit and run, cloak-and-dagger sententiousness that seems to mark some of your pronouncements smacks of a desire to provoke persons, not understanding.

    Great.

    Finally, someone willing to ask a serious question.

    Fire away.

    But, I am hoping that you are not like Ophiolite and the incessant demands made for equations that fit the contemporary stream of mathematics derived from Euclidean space and associated mathematics. The mathematical equations I present are relevant to a different stream of space-time, same reality though, a stream of space-time where time, "time", is given the signature reference, not space.

    Ophiolite has demanded equations that are recognisable to contemporary physics, and not just that, but the same lead-up equations to the general laws. Yet, as I point out to Ophiolite, nearly on every post, they are different equations that arrive at the same overall equations and laws for space-time. But, Ophiolite doesn't seem to get that point, that it is the same space-time mountain with the same SUMMIT laws of space-time, but that in using "time" as the reference of focus, it's a different trek up that same mountain.

    There's only ony thing worse than being "psuedo", and that's "cyclopean". Hopefully your eye is open to the "time" view of space-time mathematics as well as space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •