|
|
Post by rhythmmethod on Dec 27, 2020 15:20:49 GMT
Is the universe it’s own matrix? link |
|
|
|
Post by Norbert on Dec 27, 2020 15:41:11 GMT
If true, does that mean my odds of getting a date with Scarlett Johansson have improved?
|
|
|
|
Post by acksurf on Dec 27, 2020 15:54:19 GMT
If true, does that mean my odds of getting a date with Scarlett Johansson have improved? LOL - still no date with Scarlett? Hope Boris hasn't been visiting lately. |
|
|
|
Post by rhythmmethod on Dec 27, 2020 17:42:22 GMT
If true, does that mean my odds of getting a date with Scarlett Johansson have improved? Actually you may already have gotten said date. You just need to realize it. Build it and it will come😅. |
|
|
|
Post by chang on Dec 27, 2020 22:31:35 GMT
Is the universe it’s own matrix? linkThe caption below the picture at the top of the article starts: "Tetrahedrons representing the quasicrystalline spin network (QSN), the fundamental substructure of spacetime ...." Those are icosahedrons! |
|
|
|
Post by rhythmmethod on Dec 27, 2020 22:45:27 GMT
chang, See! That’s why I’m a top officer! N. was mocking me while I’m a deep diver into the black 🕳. Everything is the reality we create, yet there is no reality. Man, this stuff is good!
|
|
|
|
Post by Capital on Dec 27, 2020 23:44:33 GMT
Perhaps we are all a part of an image in the thoughts of some greater being. That being also being a part of an image in the thoughts of another greater being etc. to infinity. Can math be used to prove or disprove this theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by rhythmmethod on Dec 28, 2020 0:06:12 GMT
Perhaps we are all a part of an image in the thoughts of some greater being. That being also being a part of an image in the thoughts of another greater being etc. to infinity. Can math be used to prove or disprove this theory. Exactly. However, that 'greater being' is the part of us that is hidden by the outward appearance of matter or " maya". Yogananda spoke about this. I don't know if math can prove or disprove this, but the art of math, music, rhythm, frequencies, etc. can GLIMPSE at it... This is getting waaaay to deep for an investment forum ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by chang on Dec 28, 2020 0:44:53 GMT
Perhaps we are all a part of an image in the thoughts of some greater being. That being also being a part of an image in the thoughts of another greater being etc. to infinity. Can math be used to prove or disprove this theory. Sure, it's called mathematical induction, one of the simplest, powerful and most common techniques of proof. Say you want to prove a proposition P(n) for all n = 1, 2, 3, 4, ... What you do is to check that it's true for n = 1, and then prove that P(n) implies P(n+1) for any n. (That is, if P(n) is true, then P(n+1) is true.) Simple example: Prove the formula 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... + n = n(n+1)/2. The formula is clearly true for n = 1, since 1 = (1)(2)/2. Now assume the formula is true for n (this is called the "induction hypothesis"). Then: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... + n + (n+1) = n(n+1)/2 + (n+1) [this is where I used the induction hypothesis] = [n(n+1) + 2(n+1)]/2 = [n 2 + 3n + 2]/2 = (n+1)(n+2)/2 which is the same formula with n replaced by n+1. Presto! Now all you have to do is to check that "we are all a part of an image in the thoughts of some greater being" (that's the n=1 case) and also to establish the induction hypothesis (I'll leave you to work that out), then the "infinity" part follows by induction. |
|
|
|
Post by chang on Dec 28, 2020 0:46:08 GMT
Perhaps we are all a part of an image in the thoughts of some greater being. That being also being a part of an image in the thoughts of another greater being etc. to infinity. Can math be used to prove or disprove this theory. Exactly. However, that 'greater being' is the part of us that is hidden by the outward appearance of matter or " maya". Yogananda spoke about this. I don't know if math can prove or disprove this, but the art of math, music, rhythm, frequencies, etc. can GLIMPSE at it... This is getting waaaay to deep for an investment forum ;-) I wish you'd told me this before I bought SEMMX last year. |
|
|
|
Post by Chahta on Dec 28, 2020 11:25:32 GMT
Ha. It was the perfect “cash sub”. I know. I read it on the internet.
|
|
|
|
Post by rhythmmethod on Dec 28, 2020 14:30:58 GMT
Exactly. However, that 'greater being' is the part of us that is hidden by the outward appearance of matter or " maya". Yogananda spoke about this. I don't know if math can prove or disprove this, but the art of math, music, rhythm, frequencies, etc. can GLIMPSE at it... This is getting waaaay to deep for an investment forum ;-) I wish you'd told me this before I bought SEMMX last year. You already knew it, just not aware of your knowledge. Anyway, an interesting beginning for another thread about the benefit, or not, of intuition as an investment tool. |
|
|
|
Post by helmut on Dec 28, 2020 15:50:14 GMT
Perhaps we are all a part of an image in the thoughts of some greater being. That being also being a part of an image in the thoughts of another greater being etc. to infinity. Can math be used to prove or disprove this theory. I think we are only the microscopic trichina concealed in the blood of some vast creature's veins and it is the vast creature that God concerns himself about and not us. - Mark Twain's Notebook helmut |
|
|
|
Post by Norbert on Dec 28, 2020 16:26:49 GMT
I have two reoccurring nightmares, not very often thankfully.
One is that I wake up from a beautiful dream in which I'm living a happy life, only to realize that in reality I'm in prison.
The other is that I'm walking into the stage of a packed house at Carnegie Hall, about to perform a solo piano concert. However I realize at that moment that I have no idea how to play the piano.
|
|
|
|
Post by rhythmmethod on Dec 28, 2020 19:19:39 GMT
I have two reoccurring nightmares, not very often thankfully. One is that I wake up from a beautiful dream in which I'm living a happy life, only to realize that in reality I'm in prison. The other is that I'm walking into the stage of a packed house at Carnegie Hall, about to perform a solo piano concert. However I realize at that moment that I have no idea how to play the piano.Good one, N! I have a friend that was playing a solo piano tour in Europe to a packed house. She was playing very difficult contemporary music. She had a memory lapse and started to improvise. This included strumming the sounds of the piano strings and two-fisted attack on the keys. She got RAVE reviews. That was the end of her classical career and the beginning of her career as an improviser. Maybe you can weave that into the next dream...No telling what it may yield! |
|
|
|
Post by Norbert on Dec 28, 2020 19:52:54 GMT
I have two reoccurring nightmares, not very often thankfully. One is that I wake up from a beautiful dream in which I'm living a happy life, only to realize that in reality I'm in prison. The other is that I'm walking into the stage of a packed house at Carnegie Hall, about to perform a solo piano concert. However I realize at that moment that I have no idea how to play the piano.Good one, N! I have a friend that was playing a solo piano tour in Europe to a packed house. She was playing very difficult contemporary music. She had a memory lapse and started to improvise. This included strumming the sounds of the piano strings and two-fisted attack on the keys. She got RAVE reviews. That was the end of her classical career and the beginning of her career as an improviser. Maybe you can weave that into the next dream...No telling what it may yield! Really? She rejected classicism and decided to become a postmodernist just because the critics were enthusiastic? I do not approve. Have you seen "The Square" by Swedish director Ruben Östlund? It's about this stuff. youtu.be/xg3URGqP7YAN. |
|
|
|
Post by anitya on Dec 28, 2020 19:54:53 GMT
I wish you'd told me this before I bought SEMMX last year. You already knew it, just not aware of your knowledge. Anyway, an interesting beginning for another thread about the benefit, or not, of intuition as an investment tool. You may want to watch this entirely and without distractions - youtu.be/Ci8ZAj6Z8C4Disclaimer: I have not read the other posts (and embedded links) in the thread. No intent to contradict anybody. |
|
|
|
Post by Capital on Dec 28, 2020 23:36:44 GMT
Perhaps we are all a part of an image in the thoughts of some greater being. That being also being a part of an image in the thoughts of another greater being etc. to infinity. Can math be used to prove or disprove this theory. I think we are only the microscopic trichina concealed in the blood of some vast creature's veins and it is the vast creature that God concerns himself about and not us. - Mark Twain's Notebook helmut I am not even sure that we exist in the creature's veins. I believe that we are nothing more that figments of the creature's imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by Capital on Dec 28, 2020 23:39:37 GMT
Perhaps we are all a part of an image in the thoughts of some greater being. That being also being a part of an image in the thoughts of another greater being etc. to infinity. Can math be used to prove or disprove this theory. Exactly. However, that 'greater being' is the part of us that is hidden by the outward appearance of matter or " maya". Yogananda spoke about this. I don't know if math can prove or disprove this, but the art of math, music, rhythm, frequencies, etc. can GLIMPSE at it... This is getting waaaay to deep for an investment forum ;-) Oh man. So I am a figment of the imagination of a greater being that is a part of me. I am both the insignificant one and the significant one in the same instance. |
|
|
|
Post by anitya on Dec 29, 2020 3:53:39 GMT
Exactly. However, that 'greater being' is the part of us that is hidden by the outward appearance of matter or " maya". Yogananda spoke about this. I don't know if math can prove or disprove this, but the art of math, music, rhythm, frequencies, etc. can GLIMPSE at it... This is getting waaaay to deep for an investment forum ;-) Oh man. ... I am both the insignificant one and the significant one in the same instance.Well said. |
|
|
|
Post by chang on Dec 29, 2020 4:00:19 GMT
I am both the insignificant one and the significant one in the same instance. Actually you are exactly right. One of the basic ideas of quantum mechanics is that the "state" of an object (or a system of objects) is a superposition (combination) of states corresponding to the possible values of an observable, dynamical variable. This what the " Schrödinger's cat" paradox is about. In Schrödinger's hypothetical "gedanken experiment", the cat inside a box is actually a superposition of two states: a live cat and a dead cat. |
|
|
|
Post by anitya on Dec 29, 2020 7:53:52 GMT
I am both the insignificant one and the significant one in the same instance. Actually you are exactly right. One of the basic ideas of quantum mechanics is that the "state" of an object (or a system of objects) is a superposition (combination) of states corresponding to the possible values of an observable, dynamical variable. This what the " Schrödinger's cat" paradox is about. In Schrödinger's hypothetical "gedanken experiment", the cat inside a box is actually a superposition of two states: a live cat and a dead cat. The one that is illiterate but intelligent (but not necessarily clever) would sum that up as “I am both Nothing and Everything.” Since you explained with quantum mechanics, you may be familiar with David Bohm’s work. |
|
|
|
Post by chang on Dec 29, 2020 8:42:19 GMT
anitya I don't know a great deal about Bohm, but I do have his book on QM (it's in the Dover paperback series). Any particular reason why you mention him?
|
|
|
|
Post by anitya on Dec 29, 2020 18:10:37 GMT
chang, That book was supposed to be groundbreaking in its time. But you may find his later work in metaphysics even more interesting. There are a lot of YouTube videos with his lectures / talks - not sure if he ever wrote any books on this later topic. Listening to those may require focus because he is not an entertaining / engaging speaker.
|
|
|
|
Post by anitya on Jan 1, 2021 0:38:39 GMT
chang , BTW, David Bohm's doctoral work was instrumental in the success of the Manhattan project. His doctoral adviser was Oppenheimer. "According to Bohm's biographer F. David Peat . . ., "The scattering calculations (of collisions of protons and deuterons) that he had completed proved useful to the Manhattan Project and were immediately classified. Without security clearance, Bohm was denied access to his own work; not only would he be barred from defending his thesis, he was not even allowed to write his own thesis in the first place!" To satisfy the University, Oppenheimer certified that Bohm had successfully completed the research. Bohm later performed theoretical calculations for the Calutrons at the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which was used for the electromagnetic enrichment of uranium for the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945." His many, many contributions to Physics and how he was hassled can be gleaned from this Wikipedia page - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm
|
|
|
|
Post by chang on Jan 1, 2021 1:04:12 GMT
Interesting! Bohm's book on QM is kind of old-fashioned, and not one of the ones I usually turn to. The discovery and understanding of QM has a fascinating history, but modern books usually take a very non-historical approach, which is considered better for pedagogic reasons. Accordingly many of the books written in the 50s and 60s are out of favor (but still occasionally useful as references).
Bohm is also associated with the "Copenhagen interpretation" of the quantum mechanics; specifically, what is known as the "measurement problem". I won't go into the details here, but this too is slowly falling out of favor (although still probably the predominant view). It's sometimes called the "Bohmian viewpoint".
|
|
|
|
Post by anitya on Jan 1, 2021 1:15:48 GMT
Interesting! Bohm's book on QM is kind of old-fashioned, and not one of the ones I usually turn to. The discovery and understanding of QM has a fascinating history, but modern books usually take a very non-historical approach, which is considered better for pedagogic reasons. Accordingly many of the books written in the 50s and 60s are out of favor (but still occasionally useful as references). Bohm is also associated with the "Copenhagen interpretation" of the quantum mechanics; specifically, what is known as the "measurement problem". I won't go into the details here, but this too is slowly falling out of favor (although still probably the predominant view). It's sometimes called the "Bohmian viewpoint". The Observer effect!? Notice it in life too? |
|
|
|
Post by chang on Jan 1, 2021 4:57:26 GMT
Interesting! Bohm's book on QM is kind of old-fashioned, and not one of the ones I usually turn to. The discovery and understanding of QM has a fascinating history, but modern books usually take a very non-historical approach, which is considered better for pedagogic reasons. Accordingly many of the books written in the 50s and 60s are out of favor (but still occasionally useful as references). Bohm is also associated with the "Copenhagen interpretation" of the quantum mechanics; specifically, what is known as the "measurement problem". I won't go into the details here, but this too is slowly falling out of favor (although still probably the predominant view). It's sometimes called the "Bohmian viewpoint". The Observer effect!? Notice it in life too? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. What I am referring to is the view that whenever "an observer" makes "a measurement" (note these terms are not clearly defined) of a system, the wave function collapses. To be a little more specific (and technical), every observable quantity has a corresponding operator on the vector space of "states" (or wave functions); anytime you make an observation/measurement, you obtain an eigenvalue of the corresponding operator (with a probability equal to the square of the projection of the state vector along the eigenvector with that eigenvalue). In the Copenhagen interpretation, the state (wave function) collapses to the eigenvector that corresponds to the obtained eigenvalue as a result of the measurement. Nobody really believes that this is what really happens in nature. But this interpretation always gives the correct answer when the theory is applied (and checked against experiments), and no alternative interpretation of Schrodinger's equation has yet been conceived that is any more believable than the Copenhagen one. In the words of Richard Feynman: www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tvzmuUPpNw |
|
|
|
Post by chang on Jan 1, 2021 8:13:59 GMT
|
|
