Tuesday, May 20, 2014

And now we've come full circle...

Reuters
Top News
Anti-Obama author D'Souza pleads guilty to campaign finance violation

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA4J0H520140520?irpc=932

Favorite Quote: "Brafman, however, indicated he would ask Berman not to impose prison time, telling reporters D'Souza is a "fundamentally honorable man" who had committed an "isolated instance of wrongdoing.""

BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!

157 comments:

  1. Guess that's code for give the rich guy a break, he's never been caught before.

    ReplyDelete
  2. About my interpretation of the Gospels, how they might say, "God peeked through the clouds and said that He was well-pleased.", was pointing out the importance of baptism, and the idea that mind is superior to matter, had nothing at all to do with your salvia experiences.
    Actually Helen and I are hashing it out on facebook posts and she's trying to get me 'figuring out' Pilate's motivation, Caiaphas's, Judas's and so on.
    Meanwhile I'm just logging her ducking, weaving, all the informal fallacies, the forever, taking a (sometimes cheap) shot followed by, "Well I'm busy not, gotta go!"
    For a while she was stuck on the words, 'atheistic scientism', which I countered with Christian scientism, which would be a person who is quite happy with computers, medicine, perhaps even the new agriculture stuff, but, of course evolution would be a devilish lie of Satan, Global Warming would be the Hellish deceit of the Devil.
    I think she thought she could wear me down by avoiding giving me any kind of straight answer, making me ask over and over and such, when my point of talking to her was to see how much effort she would put into her non-answers.

    So, upshot is, the reason she cannot give straight-forward answers is that she cannot and she has given up on trying to get me to go along with her take on the Gospels as intriguing literature.

    It actually never occurred to me the mind/matter thing with the salvia and so forth when I posted that since it was originally a reply to her, it just looked like something I thought represented my feelings on the mind/matter thing, which is simply a given in religious circles.
    I think I'll take up crocheting with the intent of portraying the Rise of Kundalini!
    Would white wool be the best?
    I'm just fooling around Brian. I was always going to use white wool!

    ReplyDelete
  3. No, no... you brought up the idea of mind VS matter and which takes primacy, which is 'realer,' and that reminded me of salvia. I didn't think you were referring to it. I said: "In all my salvia experiments I still have not proven anything as regards the question "is this purely an hallucination?" and rambled on at that point, because it's a similar question to me, which is 'real-er'... It's a similar question to the religionist's thoughts of spirit being realer than physical being, that sort of thing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. D'Souza makes his living lying, but he's "fundamentally honorable." So applying logic, what Brafman must necessarily be saying, is that D'Souza's fundament is the last part of his physiognomy that remains honorable. He still has an honest ass; the rest is polluted and debased.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I enjoyed it when he got his ass handed to him by one of the Nuns on a Bus nuns.
    She was talking to poverty situation and he chimed in that the American thing is innovation.
    She fires back that she has a friend with a few innovative businesses and he pays his workers decent wages, but this friend is pissed off that his taxes have to go to support workers in other companies that don't give their workers decent wages, that money could go towards that innovation that D'Souza is touting as the thing that should save America.
    He gave up! He actually said, "I give up!"
    YAY! Nuns on the Bus! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here's a point that Helen, on facebook, simply refuses to answer.
    " Now if the claims of the Bible about healing and prophecy and such were real, scientists could collect data which might support the God hypothesis.
    Facts are facts Helen.
    God is no more provable than telekinesis, mind-reading or communicating with the dead.
    Not for lack of looking for scientific evidence."
    I think I asked her about 6 times while she tried to divert my inquiry. She wanted to talk about something I said in a previous comment, she wanted to go back and talk about her post(and btw my question WAS relevant to her post), and she refused to answer and quit talking to me, would not answer the question with a simple yes or no, even.
    I WIN! YAY! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  7. I had to add, "Isn't that right?" to make it a question, because, obviously if my point doesn't end in a question mark, there's no question to be answered, right?
    Right? RIght? LOL

    ReplyDelete
  8. I was just about to punch *Post* on this:-
    Plus you misunderstand my commenting to you Helen. I was trying to see what lengths you would go to, to not answer difficult and/or leading questions.
    This notion that we cannot have a conversation unless I'm willing to go along with obvious diversions demonstrates some kind of artbrain illogic that ducking such questions solves your double-thinking, solves your cognitive dissonance. It tells me that you're saying, "I cannot 'go there'."

    .. but why bother, I know, she knows, why rub it in?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here's my f.b. 'buddy' Ed;-
    "To believe that all of this is real and actually means something is folly. Everything is energy. Life is an illusion, the imagination of ourself, the result of mortal, finite biology. Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. There is no such thing as death. This is all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectivily. Thus "I am he as you are he and you are me and we are all together." A crude analogy for any Trekkies out there, you don't "die", the energy is absorbed into the "collective". Actually there is no "you" to die anyways. How fucking self-righteous we are to think we are real simply because a glob matter has been provided a temporary view to allow the universe to see and perceive itself. Oh I love getting philosophical when I'm neurotic. So why am I bitter and pissed off? This particular wave of energy called me "woke up in its clothes", a glob of matter infused with DNA, too early on the evolutionary chain. We are still waaaaayyyy too primitive. My mind can't handle this much longer. Maybe I'm selfish and lazy because I want to enjoy and explore the wonders of the multiverse as is the intent of this consciousness instead of raping and murdering this body with toil and work just to survive because other waves of energy can't figure out they too are the very same window on the multiverse and get along. Well its 2:00am, I've had 15hrs sleep in the last 4 days and guess what? I'm still wide the fuck awake. Glad I don't have to rape and murder my body later today. Just sitting here thinking this is like a semi public diary with the occasional outside editory comment thrown in. For all who have read this and are completely baffled as to what I'm talking about, remember when you were a kid and you heard stories about that crazy guy who took way too much acid? I'm that crazy guy you heard about who took way too much acid... or not enough. BTW there is something wrong in my brain. I've known this since I was a kid, way before the multitude of acid trips. And now for the weather."

    My replies:-
    1)Nothing wrong with thinking of yourself as a streaming consciousness, that's self-awareness. The other part is being aware that your self-awareness needs an organic body to interact with the material World around us. I recommend some diazepam, which will relax that part of your streaming consciousness enough to enjoy the World around you enough so that you can enjoy being a self-aware streaming consciousness.
    One milligram of diazepam should be enough, that'd be 1/2 of the smallest pills they make.
    Ativan(fluorazepam) would help too, but you'd need to use that differently, 1/2 a milligram at bed time to relax you into sleep.
    Do NOT drink and take ativan, you could black out and wake up 'gawd-knows-where'.
    2) Um, life is absurd, life has one purpose, to create more life, which will find that it's absurd.(Camus)
    If you don't like this philosophy(i.e. The Truth), you kind of have to lie to yourself("You can't HANDLE the TRUTH!")and tell yourself that you're here, now, for a special purpose. This is called religion, it's comes highly recommended by religion salesmen, whose job it is to 'give you hope', to, 'give you meaning'.
    So, deep breaths, relax, we're all going to bite the big one, just not today(hopefully), right?
    3)Oh yea, you don't want to be taking something like Salvia while you're suffering from existential angst, it's just going to amplify it and make the World seem even more insane than you already think it is.

    Ed expressed an interest in Salvia, he sure does sound like he is looking for something, right? I'm wondering if you agree with my analysis of his situation(such as it is, I'm no doctor)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ed is going to talk to you about his synchronicities on your salvia blog so I'm guessing you guys may get along famously!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I keep calling Eric Ed. Oops.

    ReplyDelete
  12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUYjnL2PqUg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right off the bat, I see the speaker dissing intuitive thought, not considering the idea of it being combined with logical thought. Hell, I'd diss that too. One half of the whole is no good.
      Physicists often get intuitive answers to complex problems they're trying to solve. Those answers didn't come from The Great Beyond, they came from the mounds of hard data the scientists had already absorbed. The intuitive process is great at making sense out of data, but the data must be accurate in the first place.

      Delete
  13. I haven't heard from him as yet. Looking forward to it, if he ever does get in touch.

    Here's something from 600 years before Christ:

    In the beginning, there was Existence alone --
    One only, without a second.
    It, the One, thought to itself:
    "Let Me be many, let Me grow forth."
    Thus, out of Itself, it projected the universe,
    and having projected the universe out of Itself,
    It entered into every being.
    All that is has its self in It alone.
    Of all things It is the subtle essence.
    It is the truth. It is the Self.
    And you are That.

    - Chandogya Upanishad

    ReplyDelete
  14. I do not recommend salvia for anybody with mental illness. I do think it might compound the problem. He doesn't sound as if he can handle what he's already thinking about reality, probably not a good thing to make it more vivid and certain in his mind. Your way may be better for him, i.e., narcotherapy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I would say though, that recommending some diazapam for a problem of his nature is likely to cause him to discount your advice in the future, since from his perception his problem is that he sees the truth, and can't handle it, not that he's delusional. It's like telling him "why don't you just forget it and be normal?"

    ReplyDelete
  16. I want you to compare two things:

    This:
    http://salviaspace.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-darkest-interpretation.html

    To this:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20130606091318/http://www.elcollie.com/st/god.html

    It would seem that, at the very least, my salvia experiences are equally valid "spiritual" experiences as those gleaned from years of meditation, and not merely drug-fuzzled thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Too hard for me.
    I started reading your post, gave up. I read it just before I am typing this, then I went to your other link, now I can't read that.
    I thought it was just the poem thing at the top, then I realized that he had more to say.
    Why isn't you being 'the one and only thing', a form of solipsism?

    I understand that we, as in every living thing are connected, we all come from that same, whatever it was at the very root of the tree of evolution, that living thing that came from non-life.
    But I'm talking about life as 'organic life', which apparently is not the same thing you're talking about at all.
    To you, this organic life all around and within us is an elaborate illusion.
    I don't think it is fair to assume(or presuppose) 'a one and only thing' anymore that it is fair to presuppose God.
    I think it's just as HOLY(set aside) as any notion of God since we have to set both these notions aside from organic life as we know it and the evidence from organic life is inadmissible from either of those perspectives.
    It may well be a great thought experiment, a great 'what if', for you, and that is fine Brian.
    The Great One Thing is just as unexplained as God is and is just as explained as being the explanation to all things as God is, it's just not being called God is all.
    I'm not sure you could explain to me how, if you were to explain your theory in terms of God, God being that One Thing, that you can separate it at all, except semantically, if we're just talking about a metaphysical 'One Thing' or 'God', you see?
    But I'm really talking about my reaction to stuff like this and not your theory on this kind of thing as compared to someone elses.
    My reaction to, "Compare this(link to your thoughts on this kind of stuff) to this(someone else's different thoughts on that kind of stuff), is likely very interesting to someone like yourself, but it may as well be a comparison of knitting styles for me.
    Call me a Philistine, call me a cynic, call me a closed-minded unthinker.
    I think that video I posted DID say a lot about the admittedly vague notion of 'intuition', though.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This is the conclusion people that meditate, that go deep into their own minds, come to consistently, all over the world, for thousands of years. I was just pointing that out. Doesn't prove anything. I was just sharing with a friend. I knew what the response would be, I'm not that gullible...

    You cynical closed-minded unthinking philistine, you. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  19. And unlike an "experience of God" or being "born again" this experience is one that everybody, myself most certainly included, wants to run away from screaming and whimpering. Seriously. Again, doesn't lend any additional credibility except that it's not a DESIRABLE experience that anybody would wish to have.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I was I admit, pleased to see that said experience was not exclusive to myself or to people taking "drugs" but that it was indeed one that zen meditators have, but only after years of practice. Makes it slightly more legitimate in my mind, which is nice.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I had a dream yesterday, a very distressful one, and a long elaborate one. It was not a lucid dream, but that wasn't for lack of trying. I mean, I knew in the dream that the events happening were consistent with other dreams I'd had so I realized that it was *likely* a dream, so then I started testing it, in that moment, in the dream. Pinched myself (ouch!) tested my own body feelings, my sense of my body, my surroundings, were they consistent, did they make sense to me, anything illogical there, the "realistic-ness" of my environment, just like you would do right now if you thought *this* were a dream. It all passed muster. No way to tell. Everything was consistent with an experience of reality, but I woke up from it later. In retrospect, there were inconsistencies, but in the dream, they were not visible to me. So I came away from it with a keen realization that a dream can indeed be just like reality, and if reality's a dream, there's no way we'd be able to tell until after we "woke up." We fill in the details so well, there's no way to tell that from actual reality. The closer we look, the more details we create for ourselves to see, and we know what will convince us, so we get what convinces us. So no matter what you think, I know it's possible that this is all a dream state. I can't dismiss it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Your, "I had a dream.." comment, that's some 'Total Recall' shit going on there, Brian. And it's SO self-fulfilling when it comes to your idea of what reality is.
    Call me a cynical closed-minded unthinking philistine again, I dare you. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  23. No, I get that too. I suppose you likely don't believe me, but for every incredible thing I come to think is *possible,* I also recognize that a realistic explanation exists. For instance, I 'sense' that 'reality is all in the mind' when of course, technically, it actually is, in that we cannot sense reality directly, we must rely on our senses as intermediaries, and so we each and every one of us construct our own image of reality in our minds, and that's completely known and accepted. So all my sensing things as being essentially unreal and like a dream, might just be me going deep enough into my own mind to be able to directly access the part of my mind (and everyone elses!) that constructs a dream-like image of reality based on my senses. I truly get it, what you're saying. But there's no way to prove you're right, that that's all it is, or that I am for that matter, and until I get that (perhaps never, I also realize) I will continue to treat this as if it were real, because if I did not, I wouldn't be able to access it in any depth deep enough to prove anything further to myself.
    If I hadn't so often disturbed others with my silent meditations, I'd be leaning your way, by the way. But I did, and I was there, it was real.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This is why I literally and truthfully hold a simultaneous dual worldview, because one of them hasn't "won out" yet. Both mysticism, and hard science. Not mutually exclusive at all, by the way. If the former is true, it explains why the latter is still "true" as far as it goes.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I see two possible views of reality, and I decline to choose one over the other as yet. I see no harm in that. I function in society just fine, I'm no raving lunatic, I think logically, and I am scientifically literate and a critical thinker. I just have higher standards of "disproof" than you do. I once told you I think, that I try not to believe anything, and that's true, or as true as I can make it. I assign probabilities in my mind to a thing being true or not, and I do this in most situations. In this matter, I'm still 50-50 or thereabouts. I see no need to make a decision on it, either. Plus, researching it is very interesting and if nothing else, has shown me things about my own mind that I'd never have suspected existed.

    ReplyDelete
  26. One thing I have discovered for instance, and that dream confirmed it to me, is that dreams only seem unrealistic after you've awakened from them. What I mean is, even if you become fully aware in your dream and decide to test your reality in that moment, it's just as realistic as this one is, every time. Which means that if this is another dream of a different kind and not what you think it is, it too would not yield to any testing from within.
    Either I hallucinate really incredible things that aren't real while on SD, or it causes my mind to see more of what is actually there. It feels like the latter, but hey, of course it would, right?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Maybe I can hold two world views at once because I'm a Gemini, right? Y'Ever think of that? AHA!

    (joke, btw)

    ReplyDelete
  28. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7LfOnY6B5w

    ReplyDelete
  29. @ 7:21~ - ".. you would swear to God that the dream was real.."

    ReplyDelete
  30. @ 9,12 ~ ".. I would compare it to salvia, is all I'm trying to say.."

    ReplyDelete
  31. Note:- I just post this kind of stuff because I think it's interesting, not to try to convince you that you're wrong, Brian.
    Just had to say that because of the backfire effect.(this last sentence was a joke, btw.)

    ReplyDelete
  32. I love how she says "if you go over 1100 milligrams it could be pretty fatal..." Cute.

    Yes, everybody hallucinates on hallucinogens. I agree. This one sounds not too much fun. Then again, neither is salvia to most people.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I'm reading Michio Kaku's new book on parallel universes, and he sounds as crackpot as I do on my best day. Lol.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I did not know that you could pinch yourself in a dream and feel the pain. So that's a myth, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I was on the outs with my wife, sitting drinking in the bar and one of her relatives was sitting beside me at one point. She said, "We look after our own.".
    Anyways I felt that I just HAD to get out of there and made it homw to my mom and dad's place in a cab.
    I told them that someone must have spiked my beer with something, so they put me in the basement(finished), and took off to the Legion.
    I was hallucinating all over the place, real as shit stuff. That was probably what was put in my beer.
    And that was likely why, because you don't know what the fuck is happening or even that you're tripping if you've never done it before.
    Luckily I was shit-faced drunk, but still I was talking away to a girl in bed with me who wasn't there, smoking cigarettes I didn't have, that kind of thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds awful. Is this you, or are you quoting someone?

      Delete
    2. That happened to me a long time ago.

      Delete
  36. I keep finding parallels in hard science books like Kaku's and Tegmark's and Green's that echo my own experiences on SD, so that's different. And I didn't know them before I read them, either.
    M-Theory is the current best possibility, and it stipulates infinite universes being created all the time, many versions of ourselves in them, with us 'switching' or creating new ones all the time. Seriously, that's hard to believe, but that's what it says.
    I know, of course, that people hallucinate all kinds of crazy shit. However, I direct my visions to the nature of my environment, and this is what I see.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Neil DeGrasse Tyson also says M-Theory, or alternate universes, is one of the most exciting things he's ever heard of in science today.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I wrote this:
    "This raises the idea of infinities of universes occurring with ratios embedded in their infinite numbers.

    For instance, if you have an infinity of whole integers and they consist of the series "1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2..." and so on, repeating forever, then if I were to select a random number of that infinite series, I have a fifty percent chance of getting a 1, and a fifty percent chance of getting a 2. So just because the resultant universes of a given choice are likely infinite in number does not mean that if we find ourselves in one of them a minute from now, that there are not probabilities at play here, for we can still say that there is a given chance of the next result (next universe) having a given property or result, based upon the 'starting conditions' of this minute in this universe, regardless of the fact that indeed, all choices are realized somewhere. Sure, they're all realized, but not at the same RATIO.
    http://salviaspace.blogspot.com/2013/10/ratios-and-probabilities-in-omniversal.html

    And then I read Max Tegmark's book about mathematics and he confirmed my thoughts, explaining that the now-deceased physicist Hugh Everett had thought of that, and that he, Tegmark, considered it one of the best ideas since Einstein.

    So it's not like I'm full of fluff.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The idea is that the very source of probability itself, is the fact that there are an infinite number of alternate universes all with differing results, and thus when we say "there's a 40% probability of that occurring" what it really means is that as we step into the next proximate universe, we 'select' it from an infinity of choices in which a universe with that result is 40% of said infinity of possibilities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So if I flip a coin, I do not create two universes, one in which it is 'heads' and the other of which is 'tails,' no, instead I create a literal INFINITY of new universes, but within that infinity, exactly 50% are 'tails universes' and 50% are 'heads universes.'
      See, you helped me to see this. You're the one that taught me that Infinity is not a number. I just didn't realize how right you were.

      Delete
    2. The salient point to this Infinity thingy here, is that you can subtract an infinity from infinity and still have infinity left over. In fact, you can literally extract an infinite number of infinities from infinity and still have infinity left over.

      Delete
  40. If everything that I do or do not do creates infinities of new universes, that means I'm creating them all the time. I'm creating them now. Or rather the Multiverse is.
    So hey, right now somewhere, I'm dying. In fact, I'm literally dying all the time, somewhere. Pretty wild.
    Now, I'm typing an asterisk: *
    I just decided to do that.
    But my old universe in which I didn't decide to do that is still continuing apace.
    So I switched universes there. No worries, you did too. Or rather, now I'm talking to the version of you that saw me type it. A new you. The old you never saw the asterisk.
    I'm sorry, this shit is too cool to ever stop thinking about, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Oh, and my synchronicities are continuing as usual. Several yesterday including me mentioning "Stockholm Syndrome" and thinking of Patty Hearst in a Twitter joke and then a couple of hours later Bill Maher makes a Patty Hearst joke.

    ReplyDelete
  42. You can't do math with infinity. There is no 50% of infinity. Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This made me think of the thing that the universe supposedly can't be infinitely old.
    I think it can because our concept of 'age of the universe' is just that, an idea.
    In fact, it's always 'now', it's always been 'now', it will always be 'now'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's one way to look at it. Science is now saying that *this* universe had a beginning but the multiverse of which it is a part is eternal. Apparently the idea of the multiverse is not just a lark anymore, it's actually *necessary* in order for their math to even work.

      Delete
  44. If you try to break infinity down into chunks, even cutting it into two halfs, this invokes a paradox, which by the way, can be used to confuse people who either have no wish to know or don't have the wherewithall(education) to assess correctly.
    Here lies(in wait) the Zeno Paradoxes, the Hotel Paradox(what if the hotel owner no room because his hotel with infinite rooms are full. What if another infinite number of customers show up? Well, he can tell all his current customers to move into even numbered rooms which will open up all the odd numbered rooms for his new clients!!
    But the hotel was already FULL, right?)

    You can do this with negative numbers too(including time) and THAT is confusing and confused thinking.
    Will the universe go on forever? If yes, time will stretch out to infinity, no?
    Has the universe always been? If yes, time has been stretching back to the infinite past, no?
    There are all kinds of tricks to be played here with the notion of infinity, unless you ditch the idea that you can deal with them AS infinities and use arithmetic operators on them(add, subtract, multiply and divide)

    ReplyDelete
  45. In the case of Infinite # of parallel universes it means that if it is true, you can have an infinite # of universes, exactly like this one, another infinite # only very slightly different, another infinite # a little more different, and so on, *ad infinitum!*

    ReplyDelete
  46. So I can create an infinite number of new universes every second for all my life, no problem. With infinity, instead of asking "why so many" the better question is "why not so many?"

    ReplyDelete
  47. There is no need for an economy of universes, is the point. Waste them like pennies, it just doesn't matter.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Let's say that you accept, 100%, the notion that there is an objective reality around you. Let's say that you also accept that this objective reality can only be accessed by you through your senses which are NOT 100% reliable.

    But your senses, backed up by your notion that there are other beings like yourself who experience the same objective reality through THEIR senses, and your particular experiences internalizing, learning to communicate with these other beings, creates layers of maps, linked memories, a virtual inter-subjective view of the objective world around us.
    There's a general map of 'how other people are and how to treat them', a map of 'how things are', walls, floors, ceilings, roads, woods, hills, rivers, mountains etc. etc., and how we feel about them and how we think everyone else feels about them. There's a general map about 'how we feel about insects, birds fish and animals, how we feel intrinsically(maybe think bugs are creepy) and extrinsically(think bugs are 'fascinating' and 'beautiful' in their own right), and on and on that goes, memories on top of memories, a complicated mish-mash of the feelings we have about the objective reality around us and the feelings we have 'collectively'(what we think 'everyone' thinks) about the objective reality around us.
    And THAT is ALL INSIDE OUR HEADS, and, given 750 mgs. of diphenhydrinate we can recreate that total experience ALL INSIDE OUR HEADS, intentionally, in the sense that we can deliberately ingest the drug AND unintentionally in the sense that we won't know for sure what is a real objective experience and what is simply recreated memories and our imagination unknowlngly recreating it.

    I think this is amazing. We can be making breakfast and see a dog or a guy in a trench coat standing off to the side as 'real' as anything else and know, if we have experienced using this drug before that it is just a symptom of using the drug and not really real at all.(there is no guy in a trench coat, there is no dog), but we only realize that when it disappears, only then we realize that since people and dogs don't generally pop out of view they mustn't have been there at all.
    If your mind can do that(and it sure-as-shit CAN), what does it mean if you're trying to find signs of objective reality not being real?
    I think it becomes paradoxical since all we have is our subjective reality, our mind-maps of specific memories, our general maps of how people are, how animals are, how the world is, and our general maps of how we think everyone thinks everything is, to go on.
    I think that to conclude that there is actually NO objective reality at all and that we're all working on everyone's inter-subjective reality and, in fact we're all one thing shattered into many subjective minds unknowingly interacting in a dream-world is kind of a head-scratcher because you could never prove one or the other.
    It all boils down to whether you believe that there is an objective reality or no.
    If no, then the Christian/Muslim/Jewish perspective is just as valid as anyone elses and all they need to do to make it rock-solid reality is to destroy infidels, completely get rid of people who have different perspectives. IOW, they'd have been right to force people to believe as they do since belief is reality. They're RIGHT to force you to believe, it'll be reality if they complete their mission.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Now I believe you that these stone-age bastards will force that reality, their beliefs on everyone given a chance. Examples are not hard to find, The Twin Towers on 9/11/01, individuals getting their heads chopped off for blasphemy, the fact that they see nothing wrong with themselves for behaving this way, they're simply realizing their reality, just as you say, just as you are saying.

    I CANNOT believe that.There is TOO an objective reality that does not favor the stronger believers over the weaker.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually now science is coming around to the idea that there are infinite subjective realities, and we create new "forks" all the time without even realizing it.
      I'm cool with it being dynamic like that and not static. I have no problem with chaos.
      However, science is NOT saying that one of those realities is one in which God is real just because believers believe in Him.
      The multiverse does have to follow some rules. All new universes are based mathematically on the one they sprang from. Like as in, the flipping a coin thing. The resultant infinity of universes are almost all either "heads" or "tails" with a very few (percentage wise) having the coin maybe balance on it's edge. IN other words, they're all based on the mathematics, the physics, of the COIN itself. The math of a situation describes the possible resultant universes. So even if I had the strongest belief in God of all humanity, there is no MATH around to create a universe for me in which said god exists.

      Delete
    2. So then the question becomes, if consciousness has an influence on what the future will hold, based on my expectations, can I just expect anything to happen, or are there rules? I'm starting to think the answer is 'yes.' I cannot make any universe occur that is not based somehow in the existing mathematical description of *this* one.

      Delete
  50. In the newer scientific paradigms, there is no collapse of the waveform! They are now saying it's very possible, even more likely, that there is no waveform collapse into a definite event, no, instead, many (possibly infinite) universes spring up in which ALL possible events happen, all possible positions of the particle (for example) occur, BUT since we humans only see ONE of them, it appears the others disappear and the waveform collapses. It's an illusion, a product of our consciousness, that there is a collapse, simply because only one version of "me" sees it in this universe. Other versions of me see the other results in other universes. Cool, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Now if you're saying to me (and I think you are) that this can all be explained by the complexity of the human mind and I will likely see exactly what I'm pre-disposed to see while on SD, I also agree with that. That is, after all, the problem with all this. I'm aware of it. I accept that that is also just as likely to be what is happening to me. I really do. This is what I mean by me holding two worldviews at once. I can do that and still sleep at night, my friend. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  52. I had a bunch of stuff to say about this, but...
    Well, then I realized that it'd be like trying to persuade a presuppositionalist Christian, who believes 'we cannot know anything if we don't start from God'.
    What can one say to such a person?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Replies
    1. I don't know why that would hurt. The presuppositional Christian knows that she knows, and by extension that we know, anything at all because.. well, God. Essentially she is appealing to a super-reality from which everything flows, even knowledge.
      Putting it right there at the start of 'reasoning' just stops any argument dead.

      From my perspective this is bad reasoning, just assuming God, I know that I never 'just assumed' God, but the presuppositionalist will tell me that I DO TOO 'just assume God', I'm basically just being hateful and stubborn and closed-minded. Can't I just 'open my mind to the possibilities?', she'll say

      Delete
  54. To return the favor, you also are utterly inflexible in your thoughts. This I can understand when talking about my SD experiences, but you even resist quantum physics and the concept of the multiverse, so to me that's a closed mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What was that thing Feynman said about understanding quantum mechanics?
      I guess Tegmark, 'Science' and 'Math', have moved beyond that into a super-reality?

      Delete
  55. Where do your comments deal with the notion that if the universe is simply a consensus of our 'minds', that a radical group of thinkers, realizing this, couldn't just wipe out everyone who thought different thereby making their beliefs reality?

    ReplyDelete
  56. I just got through telling you that I accept BOTH concepts or worldviews, equally; that which you espouse and also my ideas of alternate realities and the interplay of consciousness with reality. So I'm the presuppositionalist?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Maybe not exactly what you espouse, but a basically materialist paradigm nonetheless)

      Delete
  57. Well, I just told you that any new universe must be based in the physics of the old one. If the universe is consciousness (as opposed to mathematics) then the rules of physics itself were laid down by more primitive forms of consciousness eons ago, even by the consciousnesses of atoms and molecules, long before advanced thinking life forms developed. Now I'm also considering the mathematics idea, and frankly that turns out to be a lot like as if it were all consciousness, so much so that I'm starting to think they are identical, in that consciousness is a manifestation of pure mathematics as well. They may be indistinguishable.

    ReplyDelete
  58. The thing that you do not want to see, from my POV, is that your materialist universe that seems to give you much comfort, has already been disproven. It's not that, whatever it is.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I have many ideas as to what the universe is, but one thing I'm fairly certain is what it isn't. It isn't just dead matter and energy and time and space. There's more to it than that. As to what it may be, Tegmark's Mathematics idea appeals to me and explains much of what I see and think about it; so does my original ideas of a conscious universe, and as stated, they may be indistinguishable.

    ReplyDelete
  60. " IN other words, they're all based on the mathematics, the physics, of the COIN itself."
    Which COIN doesn't 'exist', as such, of course, right?
    This is some deep, down the rabbit-hole, Matrix, Total Recall stuff, and I'm trying to say it's inconsistent since you seem to be able to use thought-experiments as scientific facts backed by mathematics.
    As of right now, the multiverse exists only in our minds and perhaps will always exist, only in our minds.
    But this is 'the mind' which is a process of the brain which is a process called living exists in the objective reality of the universe which is also a process.

    There's no such 'thing' as 'driving', if you see what I mean. Okay, by that I mean, there's no such thing as 'a mind', there's more of a 'thing' called a living body, but it changes over time, and, there's no such thing as a rock because even that will change over time.
    In THAT respect it's all an illusion created by our perspective, but we have to have some basis for it, mine being 'the objective reality'.
    I don't see much difference between your basis and a believer's basis, both of which are whipping 'the objective reality' out from under our feet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My views cover a wide range of possibilities, many mutually exclusive. This is because I do not know the answers, just the questions that I have due to my perceptions of this reality being 'off' somehow. I'm not afraid to say "I don't know." What I'm fairly confident about is that there's a lot more to reality than we have even scratched the surface of. However I don't have one 'theory' to test or argue for, really. This I'm sure is annoying. Sorry.
      You know I recently read Tegmark's book, and I've realized that that would also explain what I 'sense.' So at least you know I'm not tied to my particular ideas, right? I can see that that explains it as well, so I'm open to it.

      Delete
  61. On a completely off topic and likely not-mattering-one-tiny-bit, did you know that Tegmark's real name is Shapiro? His dad was/is a philosopher.

    ReplyDelete
  62. You've head of "inflation?" That period right after the Big Bang where the Universe expanded much faster than light? It's necessary, because without it, the mathematics of our observable Universe doesn't work. More and more, Inflation is indicated by different lines of research.
    Now, did you know that if inflation happened, then it's necessarily a multiverse in which we live? That's how the math works, the only way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay, but not necessarily your kind of multiverse.

      Delete
    2. True, there are many kinds. Also it is considered a possibility that all of them are real at once. What is becoming rarer, is the opinion that there are none.

      Delete
  63. Also, the idea of the multiverse might be experimentally proven in the next ten or twenty years. They've devised experiments to prove or disprove it, based on gravity waves. Should be interesting. So they'll be launching new satellites into space and so forth, soon. Seems they take it pretty seriously, no?

    ReplyDelete
  64. I suppose, if we thought about it, we could imagine a World in which an Islamic Caliphate has taken over and that it's just impossible, by prescription, to imagine that there are no gods at all!
    If you entertained such a thought, in The Caliphate, and tried to spread that notion, they'd simply eliminate you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be a valid kind of alternate universe created at a key point in history which allowed the Caliphate to take absolute power, yes. Same with a "Hitler Wins WWII" scenario. In fact, there can be an infinite number of each!

      Delete
    2. Not quite the same thing since history is what it is.
      The Muslims are at this very moment undermining democracy, trying to turn the World into a Caliphate.

      Delete
  65. Imagine this, Brian.
    A table with nothing on it, it represents empty space.
    Now, we put a cup on it. This is our simplification of 'the universe'.
    There's empty space with 'stuff'(the cup) in it.
    Now Imagine putting a magnet on the empty table.
    There is no empty space now. We can use iron filings to show that the space isn't empty.
    Now, if this is true that there is no empty space, then the statement, 'an atom/ion is mostly empty space, is wrong.
    This doesn't imply that there's no such 'reality' as space, though, 'space' being 'an extension in three dimensions', 'what the cup is occupying'/'what the moved cup was occupying'.
    Now I DO think that when we're talking about the 'beginning of the universe' and such, and what it implies and so forth, we're talking philosophy.
    The 'science' part is the data.
    You might say that there's math backing up conclusions that astro-physicists come to, but, if you're being honest, you still have to say that our best model of the universe is not provable, we're not going back to the beginning to make a video ever, I'm not sure how many predictions this model makes at all.
    For example, did the original Big Bang model predict dark matter and dark energy? Because it does make a big difference, don't you think?

    If dark matter is all around, why isn't it included in the mass of ordinary stuff that we weigh? I don't 'understand' dark matter or any conclusions or predictions based on it or on quantum mechanics as if we do understand those.
    We don't really understand the fundamental forces at work we only describe them as best we can. e.g. Newtonian physics vs. Einsteinian physics.

    So, that kind of thing, you see? You might invoke 'science' and 'math' as if they explain stuff or are explaining stuff or are going to explain stuff, and they do a fine job when it comes to stuff on Earth around us, stuff we can predict and observe that the predictions are true, like evolution.
    When it comes to forces, we're just describing how they work, not really 'what they are'.
    For physicists to say that this or that may well be the state of affairs because the math says it's possible is fine and dandy, taken for what is actually being said.
    I think this is far from invoking some super-reality, like the guy who says we're all on the skin of a black hole with some mysterious projector projecting us into three dimensions.
    I 'see' him doing a, "Hmm, what do you think of THAT idea then?", on us.
    So, if you think I'm not willing to 'open my mind', I cross my eyes, stick out my tongue and raise my hands in a standard 'what-the-fuck' pose.

    I look at your ideas and your reasons and your experiments and so on and see a giant castle built in the sky using imagination for a base, because when you whip objective reality out from under us, where's the base?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These two ideas, that there is no 'empty' space and that the origin of the universe boils down to philosophy and/or a 'best we can explain it' deal are connected because there are these forces around that are invisible, able to be described, put into comparison with/against each other, but are actually describing a whole.
      Every atom, every ion is, in fact, these invisible forces at work, making up our solid reality around us.
      I'm being held off the floor by the electro-magnetic forces that are 'the chair' that I'm sitting on, which is held up, out of the basement by the electro-magnetic forces of the floor and so on.
      If we look closely, on a smaller scale than photons interact with, we lose sight of these force's interaction's 'footprint'(aka light bouncing off the electron clouds of the molecules.)

      Let's say you're in awe of the idea that matter is 'mostly empty space', that when matter is 'observed' on a small enough scale, the solid marbles that we imagine matter to be, the smallest piece of matter, just seems to be mostly nothing because it's invisible!
      It's invisible because light interacts with the forces involved, not some solid 'bit'.

      Delete
  66. I have this pet hypothesis that our brains act like quantum computers, literally accessing all alternate versions of ourselves that are not too different to be considered foreign, at once. I'm not alone in that one, and scientists have considered it but not in the same way. Considering an infinite number of alternate universes, it would be a possibility that there are literally an infinite number of universes that are exactly like this one but for very miniscule differences. Hell, there's no reason why there can't be an infinite number that are *exactly* like ours with no differences.
    This is where the salvia comes in, this is what I *seem to be* sensing on salvia. Many of me, adjacent minds if you will, all contributing to one world view, since all are seeing and sensing a virtually identical reality. The ones that are too different, have their own "nexuses" where they form their own gestalt worldview.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, it would do no good for some scientist to find that the drug in salvia acts on that part of the brain, in those chemical receptors of the brain causing them to fire in such a way that salvia users see what they see?
      Right?

      Delete
    2. I asterisked *seem to see* because I also consider that which you just said. Of course that could be it. In spite of things hard for me to explain even with that, it can be that it's so very misleading that I constructed all this stuff whole cloth from my imagination.

      Even if so, I don't regret the salvia, because it's utterly fascinating.

      Delete
  67. You said:

    Imagine this, Brian.
    A table with nothing on it, it represents empty space.
    Now, we put a cup on it. This is our simplification of 'the universe'.
    ---No, the table would be the universe, since there's nothing "outside" our universe, the space it consists of also came out of the Big Bang. Unless you're talking INflationary multiverse, then pure chaotic inflation exists outside our universe.

    There's empty space with 'stuff'(the cup) in it.
    Now Imagine putting a magnet on the empty table.
    There is no empty space now. We can use iron filings to show that the space isn't empty.
    Now, if this is true that there is no empty space, then the statement, 'an atom/ion is mostly empty space, is wrong.
    ---Even with chaotic stuff happening at the planck level, it's still mostly empty space within an atom.

    This doesn't imply that there's no such 'reality' as space, though, 'space' being 'an extension in three dimensions', 'what the cup is occupying'/'what the moved cup was occupying'.
    Now I DO think that when we're talking about the 'beginning of the universe' and such, and what it implies and so forth, we're talking philosophy.
    The 'science' part is the data.
    You might say that there's math backing up conclusions that astro-physicists come to, but, if you're being honest, you still have to say that our best model of the universe is not provable, we're not going back to the beginning to make a video ever, I'm not sure how many predictions this model makes at all.
    ---Not so, it is verified by new technology such as the LHC, new space telescopes including Hubble, the Microwave Background Radiation, and if/when they have a TOE (theory of everything) the mathematics in conjunction with observations of things like gravity waves and supersymmetry can prove this beyond reasonable doubt.

    For example, did the original Big Bang model predict dark matter and dark energy? Because it does make a big difference, don't you think?
    -Both were in the Big Bang, both came out of it, condensing at different temperatures as it cooled.

    If dark matter is all around, why isn't it included in the mass of ordinary stuff that we weigh? I don't 'understand' dark matter or any conclusions or predictions based on it or on quantum mechanics as if we do understand those.
    -It doesn't interact with regular matter except gravitationally, so it's passing right through you and me right now. It's weakly interactive matter, or else it might possibly be gravitational effects from nearby universes. More likely the former.

    We don't really understand the fundamental forces at work we only describe them as best we can. e.g. Newtonian physics vs. Einsteinian physics.
    -We're coming closer to fusing the two into one, in fact really there's only quantum physics, the physics of the very small, and because we're so huge we only see the averaging out of those tiny effects, hence "classical physics."

    So, that kind of thing, you see? You might invoke 'science' and 'math' as if they explain stuff or are explaining stuff or are going to explain stuff, and they do a fine job when it comes to stuff on Earth around us, stuff we can predict and observe that the predictions are true, like evolution.
    When it comes to forces, we're just describing how they work, not really 'what they are'.
    ---I think we actually know, or at least in some cases can know, more than that about them.
    -Cont...

    ReplyDelete
  68. Continued:

    For physicists to say that this or that may well be the state of affairs because the math says it's possible is fine and dandy, taken for what is actually being said.
    I think this is far from invoking some super-reality, like the guy who says we're all on the skin of a black hole with some mysterious projector projecting us into three dimensions.
    I 'see' him doing a, "Hmm, what do you think of THAT idea then?", on us.
    So, if you think I'm not willing to 'open my mind', I cross my eyes, stick out my tongue and raise my hands in a standard 'what-the-fuck' pose.
    ---Yes, theorists come up with as many *possibilities* as they can that remotely fit the observations, and at this point it's hard to tell which might be "the one." But it gets closer all the time, with a lot of promise in the next ten to twenty years, with things like 'desktop' accelerators that can produce energies in excess of even the LHC using lasers instead of magnetic fields, and so forth, in a very small area, no nees for city-sized accelerators.

    I look at your ideas and your reasons and your experiments and so on and see a giant castle built in the sky using imagination for a base, because when you whip objective reality out from under us, where's the base?
    ---And I see that you refuse to give credence to that which lies too far outside the sphere of what you consider to be "common sense," a failing that you seem to intelligent to have, but there you are. I don't mean "refuse to believe" either. Refusal to consider, is a failing. But then again, you're not an astrophysicist, so that's ok.

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a further 'for instance' there were some recent findings that seem to cast doubt on the "hologram" universe idea, one of them being some information science thing that seems to say that in order to hold all the information required to produce such a hologram the storage area for all that data would have to also be the size of the universe. So there's that.

      But hey, there's some freaky ideas out there to be sure. Most of these are now elaborations on the idea of a multiverse though, not many still clinging to the idea of no parallel universes. It's more like they are trying to decide between strings, different kinds of strings, membranes or 'branes, and a few other things, as explanation for the fine structure of space itself. Most of them will someday fall. I think one of them might hold, though. It is seeming likely. And that's not me saying that, it's Michio Kaku, Brian Green, and a plurality of researchers. (Not an appeal to authority, an appeal to statistics among authorities in an area in which deep knowledge of the mathematics is necessary)
      Oh, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson as well. So there. Pffffffft! (raspberry)
      (joke)

      Delete
  69. So, I say, a table with a cup on it is representing the universe, a void with stuff in it, and you say, "---No, the table would be the universe, since there's nothing "outside" our universe, the space it consists of also came out of the Big Bang. Unless you're talking INflationary multiverse, then pure chaotic inflation exists outside our universe."
    So, you're not even willing to 'give me that', my own little simplified version of 'the universe'.
    Not even willing to 'give me' that.

    Why is it not amazing to me that you answered this:-
    "Now Imagine putting a magnet on the empty table.
    There is no empty space now. We can use iron filings to show that the space isn't empty.
    Now, if this is true that there is no empty space, then the statement, 'an atom/ion is mostly empty space, is wrong. "

    ... like this:-

    "---Even with chaotic stuff happening at the planck level, it's still mostly empty space within an atom. "

    The table(as space) is no longer vacant except for the actual metal magnet because there is magnetic forces which we can 'see' by sprinkling iron filings, showing that it is filled with magnetic force.
    Your reply doesn't say anything about this magnetic force, which is the whole point.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Well, when talking about atoms we're really talking about matter, the nature of matter, and when we talk about them being mostly empty space, we're making the point that there's almost no 'matter' in matter. Electromagnetic forces are in that conversation, included in the idea of 'non-matter.' So if I were to say that atoms are forces and fields, that's still making the point that a chair is mostly "empty space" in the sense of it being not traditional 'matter.' No?
    I guess I'm not getting your point about there being no empty space there after the magnet is added. I mean, there is an additional magnetic field, but no additional matter, right?
    Now if you're saying that no actually totally empty space exists in the sense of it having zero matter, and zero energy, than as far as I know, *within this universe,* no such thing exists. Was that it? Because then, you're right, but I'm still missing the point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In fact, even absolute zero is just a hypothetical that is literally unattainable because it is prohibited by the uncertainty principle. If all atomic motion ceased, one could measure both the location and vector of a particle, which is verboten.

      Delete
  71. I will make the additional point that, in so-called 'empty' space, at the planck level, millions of times smaller than a proton, you do have virtual particles flashing into existence, but they annihilate almost immediately, conserving energy in that manner. They "borrow" the energy to exist for a microsecond, from the universe, then immediately pay it back as they annihilate with their anti-particle.

    ReplyDelete
  72. because when you whip objective reality out from under us, where's the base?
    -------------
    This sentence interested me. If the possibility, nay probability, exists that this universe is not as it happens to appear to macroscopic lifeforms, that alone suffices to "whip objective reality out from under us" and thus, you are not willing to go even there. Even if it turns out to be true, apparently. Is that an accurate assessment?

    ReplyDelete
  73. (And I perhaps shouldn't have even said "even if it turns out to be true' because we already know it is; we know that much at least.)

    ReplyDelete
  74. Our notion of matter, stuff, is a collection of forces attracting and repelling each other, that's what I'm getting at.
    If light hits a cup it is absorbed into the electron clouds and a photon is ejected by that electron cup at the frequency that is the quantum energy of that electron cloud returning to it's lower state.
    We're even SEEING electron clouds absorbing photons and ejecting photons. Where is this elusive 'matter' that you want to hold on to?
    Well, it's the electron clouds THEMSELVES!
    You might say, "Well what about hydrogen ions, single protons, what color would they be?"
    I don't know if we'd be able to 'see' hydrogen ions, if we could get enough of them in one spot to 'see' something.
    So, look that up on Google, see what you come up with.
    Basically what does an ion 'look' like?
    So, my point is that matter is just the electron clouds and all this 'empty space' is filled with the magnetic forces that are the one and only cause of stuff being solid, liquid, gas or plasma!
    That's what I'm getting at.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. electron cup should read electron cloud, lol

      Delete
  75. I'm tired, just took Emma shopping, and you're fencing, so...

    ReplyDelete
  76. This is what I mean by 'fencing'.
    I say, "For example, did the original Big Bang model predict dark matter and dark energy? Because it does make a big difference, don't you think?"

    You reply, "-Both were in the Big Bang, both came out of it, condensing at different temperatures as it cooled."

    So did the Big Bang Theory predict dark matter, dark energy? I'm thinking 'no', but you don't want to agree with ANYTHING I SAY, AT ALL!!

    There's the thing about the electro-magnetic force CAUSING solidity in things, all waffled away because, if I'm vague that can be misconstrued, if I'm trying to be precise that'll be misconstrued.
    Fencing.

    I said that the real science in astro-physics is the data. 'NOT SO! you say, we have the LHC(data) and the BACKGROUND RADIATION(data), SO THERE!
    Fencing.

    ReplyDelete
  77. You're fencing with yourself, and you're losing. I'm done for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Ok, now that I've taken a little break...

    My answer is, I'm not doing anything intentionally. Maybe I don't argue as logically as I should. I get into telling you things and forget to be as specific as perhaps I need to be.

    That's the best I got. I hope it's enough, because I value your friendship.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  79. The Big Bang theory did not include dark energy or dark matter, because we didn't know about any of that when it was formulated. Sure I suppose if the theory had predicted it, it would have made said theory even more credible than it is, and it's considered very credible still, regardless. Now that we know about dark energy and dark matter, we assume that it also came out of the Big Bang, perhaps as what are called supersymmetric particles, not antimatter but complimentary particles that are theorized to exist that are essentially identical to the proton, neutron, electron and so forth, but far more massive, and are weakly interactive because of their mass. I think I have that approximately right.
    These two things (dark matter and energy) could also (it is hypothesized) be something completely different than that, they could also be the gravitational effects of another parallel universe or universes "close" enough to our universe that the gravitational effects of matter *there* effects our matter *here.*

    But basically, the real answer is, we don't know what those two things are. Yet.

    ReplyDelete
  80. said that the real science in astro-physics is the data.
    ----------------
    If I may also address this point: That used to be true, before the huge supercolliders, but now we get to smash particles together with enough energy to produce *some* of the predicted particles from these seemingly far-fetched theories in the laboratory. This, along with other really cool satellites that measure things like the microwave background radiation, are hoped to actually prove or disprove the idea of alternate universes eventually, perhaps in the next ten to twenty years. So says Michio Kaku anyhow.
    The science is progressing so fast, what was once indeed considered almost a pseudo-science because little of it could be actually tested, is now coming to the very forefront of modern science, and has earned its respectability.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I have a lot of enthusiasm for science, and so I tend to drone on a bit. I hope that was sufficiently succinct, and did not appear to be 'fencing.'

    ReplyDelete
  82. The Big Bang doesn't work without Inflation. At the very start of it, the universe had to expand much faster than light. This doesn't violate relativity because it's space that's expanding along with it, so no matter exceeds lightspeed. And they're finding clues that that did happen in several areas at once. And and, Inflation requires alternate universes somehow, not exactly clear on how, I forget that part. Another thing that alternate universes explain is the "Goldilocks Universe" problem, the one Christians cite as evidence of god. There are like 27 universal constants that seem 'fine tuned' for the development of life or at least the right conditions for life to start somewhere, and it's ridiculous how tiny any variation of any of these factors has to be before no life as we know it could have formed. Did we really just get lucky? Or, are there an infinite or at least very very large number of universes 'out there' and we just developed on one that happens to fit the parameters out of many that do not. The latter explanation satisfies with statistical probability.
    Also the collapse of the waveform is alternately explained (and very well indeed, the best explanation in fact) with multiple universes. That way it doesn't really collapse at all, it (the particle that appears to us as a waveform collapsing) simply appears in all possible places at once. Problem is, all possible places are realized in multiple universes, and since each of me is only in one of those at a time, each of me sees only particle in only one place and *assumes* there was a collapse of the waveform. Instead, there is no waveform, there are many particles appearing in many universes.

    ReplyDelete
  83. What do you think dark matter and dark energy are? Do you think they exist? Or do you think science is on the wrong track with them? Just curious.
    Also, do you think the concept of alternate universes is too silly or implausible to be real?

    ReplyDelete
  84. And as I stated, and as Max Tegmark mentioned in his book, alternate universes might be why statistical probability (odds) work like they do, literally why they exist and are useful tools to predict future events.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Yea, Brian, everything is cool, I haven't been on my computer lately, stuff to do.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I'm not clear how doing salvia, trying to glimpse alternate realities/universes(?), ongoing splits in reality(if that is it, it's how I'm understanding what you're saying anyways), I'm not clear why.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Why I do SD, or why reality would split?
    If A., because I love to experience these things, to see amazing majestic things that I'd never have seen otherwise, regardless if true or not. It changes the way I think about life, even. Makes it more interesting to me, more fun, more mysterious. That's the primary reason. Secondarily, if I can get any valid insights, bonus.
    If B., in my opinion, asking why is a teleology. If it's true, it's because it's the way things are, they way they have to be.

    ReplyDelete
  88. A.
    I'm thinking you mean tautology.Yes, things are the way they ARE because they're the way they are, sure.
    But, are things the way you glimpse while you're salvia-ing??
    I see the world differently when I'm taking pot...seems that's not the 'same thing'. How about acid, speed or, as I mentioned dyphenhydrinate?

    ReplyDelete
  89. http://psychonauticus.blogspot.ca/2013/08/where-demon-meets-sheets-sleep.html

    ReplyDelete
  90. But, are things the way you glimpse while you're salvia-ing??
    -------------
    I don't know. That's the truth. The question is, are they completely imagined and therefore have no basis in reality, or does SD allow me to sense things that my mind is normally programmed not to sense. To me it *seems* the latter, but no way to prove it beyond doubt, even to myself. It's an interesting ride though, even if there's ultimately no destination.

    ReplyDelete
  91. What seems to happen to me is that I begin to perceive not only my one 'home universe' but also 'nearby' ones as well. Since science is seriously considering parallel universes, I consider that there may be something to it beyond just my fertile imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  92. I think I direct my attention to observing parallel universes, so I see them. Is this wish-fulfillment or, considering how incredibly deep I am into autohypnotic dreamlike trance facilitated by the drug, it's possible that I'm seeing something with a basis in reality, if such things do exist as science says they well might.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I think that's not an unusual thing to experience on Salvia, the parallel universes or multiple selves thing.

    ReplyDelete
  94. It's not uncommon, no. Which says nothing about it's veracity of course.

    I find it hard to believe, for one thing, that any hallucinogen can cause one to sense their bodies in multiple locations, seeing out of many pairs of eyes at once. It's possible of course, but it's weird enough to make me think there might be more to it than that.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Just spoke to a neurologist on Twitter that did research into psychopharacology. Asked him about other drugs causing experience of being in multiple places/universes at once. Says he's never heard of it before.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Hey Brian, Eric from Facebook wants to text message with you since he only has a phone.
    I have no clue how this works but he gave me his number. I'm not sure if you have to have me give me him your number or what?
    Did I mention I have no clue about texting.
    Breaker, breaker, this is the Bandit, come on back??//

    ReplyDelete
  97. Who is he? Not Eric the apologist... I doubt that very much...

    ReplyDelete
  98. I should say that I never give out my phone number online. Not even my last name. I still want to know who he is though, why he wants to talk to me.

    ReplyDelete
  99. There's no way that Eric is Eric that used to be on this blog. It's just too unbelievable that he could pretend to be someone different just to gain access to you.
    He just happens to believe that synchronicities mean 'something' and wants to talk to you.
    I'll tell him you're not keen to talk to him on account of the 'giving out of numbers'.

    ReplyDelete
  100. He can post to my salvia blog, but if all he's got is a regular phone and can't do even that, then no, I won't give out my number, no way.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Waaaaait a minute. He can't email me or post to this blog or the other one, but he's on Facebook?
    If he can be on Facebook he can send an email or post to a blog.

    ReplyDelete
  102. He says that he's on a cell phone and cannot, for some reason post to your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  103. He can't email me? I can give you an addy to give to him... I mean, he's on Facebook, right?

    ReplyDelete
  104. I told him you weren't keen on giving out your name and number. he just said 'okay'.

    ReplyDelete
  105. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dFV6UfvaOc

    ReplyDelete
  106. Haven't watched it yet, will when I get the time. However I want you to know that alongside all my thoughts on metaphysical things, I also have a running commentary in my head about how science would and could explain it as well, and I have many ideas as to how these things could be seen as so real and yet, they are not. I will watch it though, I promise, and soon.
    For instance, seeing things that seem realer than reality feels? That's explicable by these tings happening in my imagination, and I also happen to use my imagination to visualize reality from the input of my senses inside my head as well, so of course an hallucination in my head involving my imagination would possibly seem realer than how I see reality, since it's actually more directly inputted into my consciousness than outside reality is.

    ReplyDelete
  107. I think this video is excellent, the guy is a philosopher and couches stuff in those terms.
    I think your ideas are 100% monistic idealist, (Wiki:- "Monistic idealism holds that consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all being. It is monist because it holds that there is only one type of thing in the universe ...")
    .. and I think he does a good job of deconstructing monistic idealism.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Yeah sorry, been busy with the kids, outdoor stuff and so forth.

    ReplyDelete
  109. I think that I shall never see, a poem lovely as a tree...

    ReplyDelete
  110. I think it'll be some time before I can watch that video. I get minutes to spare at a time, not hours. I want to, don't misunderstand me, but not possible as yet. Hell, I haven't even been posting to the salvia blog. Can you sum up the argument for me?

    ReplyDelete
  111. Hmm. Not really. I mean he has to step through the process, right?

    ReplyDelete
  112. OK, fair enough. Maybe I can get to it this weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  113. So much has gone
    and little is new
    And as the sunrise stream
    Flickers on me,
    My friends talk
    Of glory, untold dream, where all is God and God is just a word

    ReplyDelete
  114. Today was good.
    Today was fun.
    Tomorrow is another one.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Poop. This used to be an awesome blog...

    ReplyDelete
  116. Something happened to Brian, guess we'll never know what it was.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Sorry people. I guess I just lost the drive to write it. I feel bad about that, but it's not like I'd be good at faking it. It's not you, it's me. (lol)
    I just don't love writing about politics and religion anymore. Depressing. And if I feel like ragging on the religious, Twitter's great for it. They're actually on it, who knew?
    Sorry again.
    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  118. If I see anything that moves me, I'll write another post sometime, hopefully soon.
    Mostly because I'd miss all of you.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Gee, it's September.....any thoughts as of yet for a blog?

    ReplyDelete
  120. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/dinesh-dsouza-ex-wife-court-document?utm_content=buffer2b956&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    There's this, for old times sake...

    ReplyDelete
  121. I wish I knew what a community confinement center was, but I will imagine it to be Attica while basking in the schadenfreude.

    ReplyDelete
  122. http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/judge_to_dinesh_d_souza_go_to_jail_go_directly_to_jail

    He's going to jail! Too funny. We've always wished he got his comeuppance. Doubt he'll learn anything from it though. No ability to see own flaws at all.

    ReplyDelete
  123. No, he'll likely see himself as a persecuted martyr.

    ReplyDelete
  124. http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/12/17/scal-d17.html
    Time to move to Canada buddy!

    ReplyDelete
  125. I sometimes think of you guys and wonder how you are all doing... sad the blog's dead, but I was done. Hope all are well. If anybody wishes to say hi, stop by on the salvia blog, it doesn't mean you've surrendered to the woo, you know.
    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  126. Still here... just looking in on occasion.

    ReplyDelete