The unthinkable thought = ROM & sizescale (observer size)

[hatheistforums]

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3919/paper22.jpg
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/6193/m ... ughtim.gif
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7996 ... scale2.gif
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/1138/thccompany.gif

Examine these pictures. Definitions: Realm of mind = "thinker and thought as Descarte's "I am and I think" declares".
That of which all (energymass and spacetime and observer (thinker)) are parts cannot be observed (by the simple reason that there is separation: thinker and thought).

The core assumptions are hence: "Reality is one" (partless, E=mcc energymass and spacetime in same equation). To unify this claim with "separation exists for certain" we get two places of truth called "realms". "Partless realm, unthinkable realm" and "realm of mind".

[Sophus]

Might I suggest we ban trolls like this right off the bat? This seems eerily familiar to the approach of internet7nobody....

[Thumpalumpacus]

Or at least change the title of the thread to "The Dangers of LSD, pt VII"?

[Whitney]

Might I suggest we ban trolls like this right off the bat? This seems eerily familiar to the approach of internet7nobody....

I wasn't really around to see any of that till it was over...

The propblem with jumping to banning is that a lot of annoying people tend to seem alike when they are not...and just being annoying with a first post is not really a reason I can give for a ban.

However, considering this particular user created a dummy email account to register I'm inclined to think this probably isn't going to be a person that is allowed to stay long...prove me wrong new member with a weird choice of user name.

[hatheistforums]

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6315/new2c.gif
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/6193 ... ughtim.gif

The only thing needed is to assume E=mcc, for the only reason being that we use it in our technology. I think and I am can be deduced for certain, but certain in what way: a self-claiming realm?
the mind of a primate. a primate on a planet in a sizescale which is to say observer size is variable (there are differentsized things, deduced from there being 3-dimensional space).
A planet made of atoms, made of quarks which cannot be seen, unthinkable (the floor of knowledge). We also have a roof, visible universe filled with large scale structure (galaxies). 13.3 billion ly radius, spherical but far away = old light, younglooking stuff (energymass).
if speed of light was infinite: what does the furthest away galaxy see? galaxies? no, nothing, we are center of it all 100 billion galaxies. or it sees galaxies i see far behind me, assuming the pointed at galaxy being far in front (do i see the back of my head far in front of me). these are the only theories. endless galaxies, endless space, time, and E=mcc occurs as a law like diameter of circle relates to circumference and area etc etc, 1=1 must be true if we define these things as things like us ought to do on our planet and other planets, billions of galaxies: if each had 1 planet we've seen 100 billion living planets, whole planets huge planets, 100 000 000 000 of them for real.
so what is this energymass that comes as so tiny and so huge and even body-sized, as seen best in level 5 sizescale (of the known sizescale).
observer size is represented as a direction out of the 3 available, a false imagination (universe remains unobserved, no mind outside). we describe, descriptions now explain existence as existence in nonexistence: 1 in 0, nothing. spacetime empty but it's rules must be applied: E=mcc.

energymass in spacetime, 13.7 billion yrs ago dense, 13.3 billion years ago vision appears: we can see 300 million lightyears in radius sphere in which we are the center. We see far away=we see old light, but there is much light 13.3 billion years ago, atoms had formed, light could travel hence, orange-colored (3000 kelvin), like a HPS-light (streetlight) or sun. Sun's allover far away as the horizon, hot old glowing gas 60 000 lightyears thick (took that long for atoms to form fully). It would've killed us, luckily no observer there, but if there had been there'd been density differences (different number of atoms in space, 3 dimensional) if you'd move back-forth, up-down, left-right in space. Denser patches that would later become galaxies inside klusters inside greater until large scale structure (google a picture of "the large scale structure").

So we are primates on a planet, history (each moment in time justifies the next) explains why we are here, our experience of free will is experience in a cell-robot: biological machine of cells of atoms. 1000 billion atoms in each cell.
100 billion cells = the brain.

This is going from lvl1 (atoms), quarks justify atoms, to level 5: observer size sees not atoms, not galaxies (which is huge around us, as big as we can imagine).

First stars were born (collapsed gas clouds = mass pulls toward mass) and exploded quickly. uranium was around, the universe is old, we might not be the oldest civilization in the universe (though we have a history of reproduction of 3.5 billion years), 4 out of 14. About a third, there will be future civilizations too.

Experiences like thoughts about layers in the sizescale (all experience comes with observer, the I, the self) are universal: thought in other galaxies at other times. Always-true things can be put in a sequence to frustrate, amaze or justify, compete - we can actually compete in knowledge.

we have two brainhalves, their only proofchecking (knowledge-building, mind is a knowledge-constructing and writing machine) mechanism is to check if imaginations are reached simultaneously in both brainhalves. the cells between, the conductors, the wires can be pulled and the leap of faith is such a triggering of neuron (other brainhalf must know if other leap of faithed which does not require language which resides in a brainhalf).

There are only two ways of description: language and vision, a galaxy would be useless without the language that adds detail like "many stars". And language'd be useless without vision. they overlap, no descriptioway in between.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6315/new2c.gif
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/6193 ... ughtim.gif

[Tank]

[humblesmurph]

yo hatheistforums,

Could you please dumb this down for me?  It may be nonsense, but I'm not smart enough to see that yet.

[hatheistforums]

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/6193 ... ughtim.gif
See the line? follow it through the 4-5 categories we must always be on and on which all animals must be (there is nothing else to think than these 4: realm of mind (thoughts about concepts or words or thoughts) or thoughts about atoms (fits in the sizescale) or about everyday observations (fits in the sizescale between galaxies and atoms).

[hackenslash]

Ah, images in crayon always get my attention. The line between genius and insanity is often very slim.

Examine these pictures. Definitions: Realm of mind = "thinker and thought as Descarte's "I am and I think" declares".

That isn't what Descartes said, or even close. some of the words are the same, but the intent is lost in translation. What Descartes was doing was wrestling with the problems inherent in any empirical axiomatic system, namely 'what can we really take as true?' This might seem like a trivial problem, but it actually took Descartes many years of wrangling with the problem before he finally came up with his famous axiom 'I think, therefore I am'. It's an elegant solution to the problem of taking existence as axiomatic. Indeed, the credulous still wrestle with this problem regularly, with their cretinous arguments around solipsism, little realising that their arguments are self-refuting.

That of which all (energymass and spacetime and observer (thinker)) are parts cannot be observed (by the simple reason that there is separation: thinker and thought).

Well, unless you can actually present a barrier between that which can be observed and that which is inherently unobservable, this constitutes little more than an ex recto blind assertion. Can you actually demonstrate anything which cannot be observed? Some serious men in Stockholm await your answer.

The core assumptions are hence: "Reality is one"

That's not an assumption, it's an axiom. It's demonstrably true. The set of 'that which is real' is one thing.

(partless, E=mcc energymass and spacetime in same equation).

So energy equals the Marylebone Cricket Club, eh? This sounds a good deal like guff employing scientific-sounding terminology erected by somebody with no understanding of science.

To unify this claim with "separation exists for certain" we get two places of truth called "realms". "Partless realm, unthinkable realm" and "realm of mind".

Ah, so you think that mind is separate from the parts that make it up? Perhaps you should do some study in the concept of 'emergence'. Mind is material. More accurately, mind is an emergent behaviour arising from an accumulation of a significant number of neurons combined with a significant number of synaptic connections.

The only thing needed is to assume E=mcc,

Yes, you said. IT was bollocks the first time. Do you actually think that repeating it will make it true? Argumentum ad nauseum is recognised as fallacious for a reason, namely that it is fallacious. Incidentally, some work on your notation is in order, because that equation is woefully mis-stated. Energy is equal to mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light. In your formulation, energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light, the product of which is again multiplied by the speed of light. This gives a completely different answer. Since superscript tags are not available here, I'll use an image:



Which can be stated in normal notation as E=mc^2, where ^ is 'to the power of'.

It's important to be rigorous if you wish to be taken seriously.

for the only reason being that we use it in our technology.

Bzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. The reason that is taken as axiomatic is because it is demonstrably true. It is demonstrably true because its elucidation has led to the technology. We don't accept it because our technology is based upon it, our technology is based on it, because it's true, and therefore our technology works. If it weren't true, the technology wouldn't work.

Incidentally, the technology you are employing to type this guff isn't based on special relativity, it's based on quantum mechanics, and specifically the uncertainty principle, in the form of quantum tunnelling, which is the principle by which the microchips in your computer operate.

I think and I am can be deduced for certain, but certain in what way: a self-claiming realm?
the mind of a primate. a primate on a planet in a sizescale which is to say observer size is variable (there are differentsized things, deduced from there being 3-dimensional space).
A planet made of atoms, made of quarks which cannot be seen, unthinkable (the floor of knowledge). We also have a roof, visible universe filled with large scale structure (galaxies). 13.3 billion ly radius, spherical but far away = old light, younglooking stuff (energymass).
if speed of light was infinite: what does the furthest away galaxy see? galaxies? no, nothing, we are center of it all 100 billion galaxies. or it sees galaxies i see far behind me, assuming the pointed at galaxy being far in front (do i see the back of my head far in front of me). these are the only theories. endless galaxies, endless space, time, and E=mcc occurs as a law like diameter of circle relates to circumference and area etc etc, 1=1 must be true if we define these things as things like us ought to do on our planet and other planets, billions of galaxies: if each had 1 planet we've seen 100 billion living planets, whole planets huge planets, 100 000 000 000 of them for real.
so what is this energymass that comes as so tiny and so huge and even body-sized, as seen best in level 5 sizescale (of the known sizescale).
observer size is represented as a direction out of the 3 available, a false imagination (universe remains unobserved, no mind outside). we describe, descriptions now explain existence as existence in nonexistence: 1 in 0, nothing. spacetime empty but it's rules must be applied: E=mcc.

I'm guessing that English is not your first language. That;s not a slur, it's just difficult to make any sense of the above. The one thing I did pick up on was this idea of 'nothing'. Just so you know, 'nothing' is an impossible entity, being a violation of one of the most well-established principles in empirical science, and again the principle that allows you to post this ignorant guff.

As for us being the 'centre of it all', this is nonsense. Yes, we are the centre of it all, but so is everywhere else. In other words, there is no centre.

energymass in spacetime, 13.7 billion yrs ago dense, 13.3 billion years ago vision appears: we can see 300 million lightyears in radius sphere in which we are the center. We see far away=we see old light, but there is much light 13.3 billion years ago, atoms had formed, light could travel hence, orange-colored (3000 kelvin), like a HPS-light (streetlight) or sun. Sun's allover far away as the horizon, hot old glowing gas 60 000 lightyears thick (took that long for atoms to form fully). It would've killed us, luckily no observer there, but if there had been there'd been density differences (different number of atoms in space, 3 dimensional) if you'd move back-forth, up-down, left-right in space. Denser patches that would later become galaxies inside klusters inside greater until large scale structure (google a picture of "the large scale structure").

Can't make much sense of this, and beginning to feel the stupid taking over.

So we are primates on a planet, history (each moment in time justifies the next) explains why we are here, our experience of free will is experience in a cell-robot: biological machine of cells of atoms. 1000 billion atoms in each cell.
100 billion cells = the brain.

Very nice, except that free will is an illusion.

This is going from lvl1 (atoms), quarks justify atoms, to level 5: observer size sees not atoms, not galaxies (which is huge around us, as big as we can imagine).

That's nothing to do with observer size, and everything to do with the level of detail our sensory organs and brain can accomodate.

First stars were born (collapsed gas clouds = mass pulls toward mass) and exploded quickly. uranium was around, the universe is old, we might not be the oldest civilization in the universe (though we have a history of reproduction of 3.5 billion years), 4 out of 14. About a third, there will be future civilizations too.

Experiences like thoughts about layers in the sizescale (all experience comes with observer, the I, the self) are universal: thought in other galaxies at other times. Always-true things can be put in a sequence to frustrate, amaze or justify, compete - we can actually compete in knowledge.

we have two brainhalves, their only proofchecking (knowledge-building, mind is a knowledge-constructing and writing machine) mechanism is to check if imaginations are reached simultaneously in both brainhalves. the cells between, the conductors, the wires can be pulled and the leap of faith is such a triggering of neuron (other brainhalf must know if other leap of faithed which does not require language which resides in a brainhalf).

I'm sure that Joycean scholars would have a field day with this, but none of it parses correctly in English. It looks like a collection of randomly gathered words. Try taking your time and thinking carefully about what it is you want to say.

There are only two ways of description: language and vision,

And what of mathematics?

a galaxy would be useless without the language that adds detail like "many stars". And language'd be useless without vision. they overlap, no descriptioway in between.

I can't wait until you tell me what use galaxies have for language. Language is a construct of sentient beings, and the universe can't be shown to have any purpose for those.

[hatheistforums]

Mathematics is language, E means energy, the word has a meaning: it's a general category containing movement, light, (heat as movement), verbs (happenings) in fact.
Mass is all things, stuff. Energy and mass come together: you can't have movement without a thing moving and vice versa.
So the history of science has justified uniting energymass (things, stuff, movemnt, light, our chair and hair) with spacetime (that which things occupy, time which they move during).
The sizescale and study of the sizescale shows what kind of universe we are in. The "interesting things" (when observer size changing) go from cells through justifying structures to organs (our macroscopic body, or rather seen as from a human eye).
So we have galaxies, sure, planets could (and do) exist in those. But atom, galaxy and human seem so different nevertheless if our eye would shrink (like in a microscpoe) we'd see things we are not used to in everyday eye sizes.
we are primates on a planet: evolved as a brain getting larger as DNA gets larger (adds more atoms to DNA). Evolved as a mind in that brain: an operating system in the machine.
For how could you say there is no screen, plastics and metals eventhough we find realm of screen with seemingly real things though those things ARE electricity in wires, photons sent from screen.
We can lay our hands on a computer and we see that we too are biological machines, if you drill a hole in your skull in the mirror (while watching yourself) you'd see a brain inside bone skull and a hole in the skull
with wires going to sensors and muscles, carrying electromagnetism and carrying "information" by molecules/atoms "behave" as they do: electromoagnetically (not so much gravitationally).
E=mcc can be written and is written in language, Einstein scribbled. Energy is mass, this we can understand as meters = feet, there's a conversion factor in between (must be applied).
So take c, represent a velocity (km/h) in a graph as an axees of 3-dimensional space with time. So a short line = 40 km/h and 300 000 km / s is the speed of light: a distance over during time.
And now make a square, two lines: the area of this square is the c^2. c times c, side times side.
Now this times mass is E (movement, light). The equation can be understood like this, energy and mass and space and time are joined, which we can't do because of observer.
We can know we can't contain it, it meaning that of which all is part, reality itself, if we say it we do have an imagination but it has hands it can reach out: never a mind (operating system) without a brain (computer hardware).
And no spacetime outside (there is no outside to this sphere in which we see far away in all directions, we see old light) energymassspacetime but we can say it, language reaches E=mcc and vision cannot keep up. We cannot imagine reality BUT
we can represent all knowledge in a single picture. Now we must define the conclusions: we describe and description allows a "loophole" in the universe, we can actually know the layers justify eachother in the sizescale ( a layered structure).
A sizescale moving through time (galaxies spin on lvl 8 sizescale while atoms do their things on lvl1), each moment (in time, infinitely small time like infinitely small space) justifies the next.
This justifies existence: 1 in 0, energymassspacetime. unthinkable, unimagineable but not wrong, our brainhalves reach different places such as saying 3=5 and imagining 3angled thing being 5angled would be wrong, impossible.
Now we can imagine so much detail on each level, differentsized rocks (moons, asteroids.... icy rocks like our earth on lvl 6 sizescale, lvl 5 sizescale, lvl 7 sizescale.... there's differentsized stuff everywhere, not so interesting compared to stars or atoms
but what about that particular animals or insects developmental history from egg to adult.
There is so much to learn, first learn philosophy: if there is thinker and thought (separation in between), we see 3-dimensional space in vision (eyes). Conclusion: there are differentsized objects. Hence observer size variability. Hence sizescale as a possible imagination.

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/1132 ... oearth.jpg
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/8431/nicenew2.gif