Of Physics, Future and Falacy.
Giordano da Silva: this guy is pretty cool http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sarfatti
j.k: heh, i like his idea of the ufos being from our own future
j.k: thought that myself before
Giordano da Silva: well
j.k: sounds like this is one of Stephenson’s sources for Anathem
Giordano da Silva: i don’t like that he is connected with werner hans erhard
Giordano da Silva: and the landmark education group
Giordano da Silva: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Erhard
Giordano da Silva: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esalen_Institute
Giordano da Silva: this is strange
Giordano da Silva: the list of leaders is werid
j.k: getting there
j.k: wow, weird.
j.k: this is probably a better secret society than the masons
Giordano da Silva: no shit
Giordano da Silva: i mean
Giordano da Silva: linus pauling?
Giordano da Silva: tim leary?
Giordano da Silva: they were asosciated?
Giordano da Silva: and Gia-Fu Feng?
j.k: heh
j.k: Alan Watts was involved
Giordano da Silva: yeah
j.k: I had a weird feeling.
Giordano da Silva: like in the back of a volkswagen?
Giordano da Silva: i sort of want to see what this is all about
j.k: no, that’s an uncomfortable place
j.k: weird feelings are usually associated with ropes and gym class
Giordano da Silva: no wait… hillarity is asosociated with thsoe things
Giordano da Silva: i tend to agree with Adam Curtis
Giordano da Silva: these groups are weird to me
j.k: no, i agree
j.k: but i like them too
j.k: usually there’s too much clannishness though
Giordano da Silva: yeah
Giordano da Silva: fucking deepak chopra
Giordano da Silva: i can’t believe richard feynman was in it
Giordano da Silva: he is one of my heroes
Giordano da Silva: Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what’s happening in the distant past why should we need more?
Martin Redfern: Many don’t agree with John Wheeler, but if he’s right then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the creators ‚Äî or at least the minds that make the universe manifest.
j.k: i agree with that
j.k: quite simply, without observers, there is nothing to take note of.
j.k: not that observation is a precursor to existence
j.k: simply that it brings into context an object
j.k: a thing
Giordano da Silva: i have a minor problemwith it… it is like defineing noise as the absence of silence and vice versa… seems redundant to me
j.k: it’s not really
j.k: i mean, it’s a realization of relativity is all
Giordano da Silva: bad word
j.k: it’s quite true though, you cannot define something without a contrasting object
j.k: i don’t mean einsteinian
Giordano da Silva: or can we and just don’t know how?
Giordano da Silva: seems like hand waving arguments
j.k: that’s likely, but since we cannot now and don’t know how then we cannot
Giordano da Silva: but also should not stop looking
j.k: until we can.
j.k: you can’t describe something without stating attributes. stating an attribute is the same as stating the opposite of what is and stating everything it is not, but doing so efficiently
Giordano da Silva: i disagree
j.k: thought i had to edit it
Giordano da Silva: there are first principles
j.k: what’s a principle?
Giordano da Silva: there are first pricnciples which reqire no direct comparison to be defined
Giordano da Silva: for example, universal constants
j.k: okay
j.k: let’s take one
Giordano da Silva: and the existence of subatomic particles
Giordano da Silva: pick any of them
j.k: okay. a muon then. or a quark.
Giordano da Silva: those are foundations
j.k: here we are with this object we call a quark
j.k: okay, smaller then
j.k: doesn’t matter what you call it
Giordano da Silva: ok
j.k: but let’s take X particle.
Giordano da Silva: they need no opposite to be defined
Giordano da Silva: or no counterpart
j.k: What is X particle but but the Set of everything minus X
Giordano da Silva: mathmatics does not rely on the the comparison of tangibles
Giordano da Silva: you are thinking algebra
Giordano da Silva: this is much higher than that
j.k: i am simplifying my point
Giordano da Silva: algebra is like dog barks
Giordano da Silva: compared tohuman speech
Giordano da Silva: it is not that i don’t see your point
Giordano da Silva: i fundamentally disagree with the handwaving, sort of glossing over details aspect ofit
Giordano da Silva: not YOUR point, but whatever wheler was saying
j.k: so, there’s two schools of thought in this arena
Giordano da Silva: sure
j.k: taking into account what Wheeler is saying
j.k: one states that we can change the past according to how we recall it
j.k: another states that there are infinite futures on which paths are all taken in parallel
j.k: and that the future can be chosen simply by realization of these paths
Giordano da Silva: orothogonal, not parallel
Giordano da Silva: orthogonal
j.k: fine
Giordano da Silva: well
j.k: i’m using Discovery Channel language
Giordano da Silva: i disagree with the changing of the past bit
Giordano da Silva: time is so far a very forward thing
j.k: why? time doesn’t flow, just our perception
Giordano da Silva: no precedence for backwards loops
Giordano da Silva: no time is a real thing
j.k: it is, but i don’t think of it as anything more than another plotting point
Giordano da Silva: nope
j.k: X,Y,Z,T
Giordano da Silva: that is where Einstein comes in
j.k: I think that using X,Y,Z,T with T being a range, a linear progression can be plotted that shows the existence of an object or being.
j.k: if T’s variables were taken into account, the plot would look like a tree
j.k: with the majority of paths going along an average area and less likely scenarios looking like branches
Giordano da Silva: you are calling T = time right?
j.k: yes, with relative position to XYZ
Giordano da Silva: well, the problem is t is a component of each cartesian coordinate in this case in the macro world because of space time
Giordano da Silva: and in quantum mechanics… time is not really… time
j.k: it can’t be used singularly i don’t think. i think even the set of XYZT needs to be defined with relationship others within its causal domain
j.k: i know, that’s what i’m saying
j.k: time is relative to the observer / object / causality
Giordano da Silva: so if we are talking about perception of things and how time flows, sure, good example, but it is still not a good definition of reality from basic principles
j.k: and we get into sheering
j.k: see, this gets me going again on whether or not time exists differently for beings or places isolated from one antoher
j.k: *another.
Giordano da Silva: no… i think time is sort of a constant… it is always space-time
j.k: yes, yes, yes
Giordano da Silva: now our brain is wired to perceive time a certain way
j.k: i am saying that
j.k: I know, I said that before
j.k: we perceive it in a linear fashion
Giordano da Silva: but i don’t thinkt hat time and reality have to be mutually inclusive at all
j.k: but time is time is time
j.k: its more like a big swimming pool
j.k: which is how I thought of the plot system
Giordano da Silva: reality is like current and time is like voltage
j.k: and i’m taking into account waves in this pool
Giordano da Silva: but i think at every infinitesimal division of our writs watch… decisions are made
Giordano da Silva: but all decisions are made
Giordano da Silva: bu we perceive only one because the brain is limited
j.k: i agree.
j.k: but we are in a way self limited
j.k: and get in the way of ourselves
Giordano da Silva: but agian, defining what “is” to me should not rely on opposites
j.k: it doesn’t rely
j.k: it simply is.
Giordano da Silva: we are limited because the brain is limited… i agree
Giordano da Silva: i think sometimes that dreams are tapping into other realties
Giordano da Silva: in which case… i have some pretty awesome ones
Giordano da Silva: 
j.k: no doubt. this is us getting out of our own way.
j.k: it’s like the native americans and the european explorers
j.k: anyhow…
j.k: it’s speculated that the existence of the european ships were so foreign and strange to the native americans that they practically couldn’t comprehend it until they had no choice due to direct interaction with the explorers
Giordano da Silva: yes i saw that
j.k: while i don’t exactly subscribe to this idea, i do find it intriguing
Giordano da Silva: or read that
j.k: i think the possibility is there for larger scales
j.k: but they understood what a boat was, they understood floating, they had seen objects in water
j.k: so not “seeing” it and not “seeing it for what it was” are two entirely different things
j.k: there was no real context for them to define a large ship, but it didn’t make it exist less
Giordano da Silva: but you are bringing the probelm back to perception when i am trying to get away from it
j.k: perception is tied to our existence
Giordano da Silva: perception should not be part of the equation to define reality
j.k: and aren’t we all trying to get away from perception?
j.k: then you can’t define anything
Giordano da Silva: that is like saying i perceive that car to be fast because it has metal strips sticking out of the back
Giordano da Silva: sure you can
Giordano da Silva: mathmatics does not rely on perception
j.k: but that’s assuming that our mathematics are perfect
Giordano da Silva: no
j.k: or that we can perfectly understand our mathematics
Giordano da Silva: the mathematics
Giordano da Silva: the mathmatics just are
j.k: or that the mathematics exist for it and we can discover them
Giordano da Silva: and constantly progress
j.k: Sure, but we cannot always derive the set of functions that equal the definition
j.k: otherwise the grand unified theory would exist
j.k: and no longer be theory.
Giordano da Silva: yes we can
Giordano da Silva: and we will
j.k: WILL
Giordano da Silva: sure
j.k: but now we’re back in linear time
Giordano da Silva: i said it progreesses no
j.k: and perception
Giordano da Silva: it is like learning a language
j.k: so, it is not separate
Giordano da Silva: the more you read the better the vocabilary
Giordano da Silva: lath is the language by which things are defined
j.k: i agree, but we are linear in both a singular and a cumulative sense
j.k: and because we have to reach one conclusion in order to get to the next with exception give to rare cases, we must achieve the skills over time
j.k: and so math may exist to define something
j.k: but until we can understand and perceive that definition, it is speculation
Giordano da Silva: i disagree
Giordano da Silva: understanding and perception are not the same
j.k: i didn’t say that
j.k: but one begets the other
j.k: you have to perceive something then you understand it, even if the perception isn’t conscious
j.k: and when you read it, you may not interpret it the same as another person
j.k: if you did, we’d not be discussing this at all
Giordano da Silva: no, perception hints at sensory input… sort of reflex
j.k: no, not really
j.k: look at spin
Giordano da Silva: how else do you perceive things
Giordano da Silva: you mean, quantum mechanical spin?
j.k: yes
Giordano da Silva: what about it
j.k: well, you don’t have to “see” something to cause it to choose
j.k: you simply have to exist in its presence
j.k: further extended
j.k: the particle under your ass exists here and not near the andromeda galaxy because you are sitting on it
j.k: subsequently the floor sits under the seat
j.k: and the foundation under the building
j.k: it’s Turtles all the way down, sonny
Giordano da Silva: how is this realted to spin?
j.k: i was correlating that to position and observation
Giordano da Silva: actually spin is netier observed nor does it really spin… it was jsut a name given to it
j.k: i know
Giordano da Silva: are you referring to the uncertainty principle?
j.k: yeah, of which spin is related
j.k: sorry, i assumed you’d make the connection. anyhow, i think i made the point i was attempting to convey
Giordano da Silva: spin is related to uncertainty like lettuce is related toa slad
Giordano da Silva: anyhow
Giordano da Silva: you have made no point to my satisfaction of defning reality based on priciples and not contrast
j.k: WHY CANT YOU PERCEIVE MY REASONING!?
j.k: ha
j.k: i guess my point is that because of our own limitations, we cannot take universals as given.
j.k: and so to define something, we must use wording that takes perception into account
Giordano da Silva: you take them as landmarks and keep pushing
Giordano da Silva: but so far planck’s constant, boltzmann’s constant, e, pi, and so one… well ntohing so far refutes them
j.k: and perception includes defining an object not only by what it is, but by contrasting it to what it is not.
j.k: and so there are exceptions to the rule
j.k: and if strings indeed make up our reality, until we can prove it, we will speculate that they are composed of gluons or fermions or whatever the fuck it is they think they’re made of.
Giordano da Silva: i disagree with you
Giordano da Silva: well
Giordano da Silva: i still refuse to rely on perception for definition
Giordano da Silva: so no perception
Giordano da Silva: and basic principles only
Giordano da Silva: no coparison
Giordano da Silva: sure
Giordano da Silva: speculation is based on math
Giordano da Silva: liek any theorem must be proved or disporved
j.k: speculation is based on thought which is backed up by math.
Giordano da Silva: i idsagree… math is there
Giordano da Silva: it is not the reasoning
Giordano da Silva: it is it
Giordano da Silva: the thing
Giordano da Silva: the very fabric
Giordano da Silva: the essence if you will
Giordano da Silva: the psice
Giordano da Silva: the ether
j.k: i know that, but you can’t do anything with that fabric without scissors
Giordano da Silva: the certain thing the french a call “i don’t know what”
j.k: and to make that connection, we have to reach it. everything exists.
j.k: whether we are capable of perceiving it is different
j.k: just because we can prove something mathematically means it can and likely does exist
j.k: but we can’t always draw the connection
j.k: perception does not preclude nor exclude existence
Giordano da Silva: perception is a consequence of physiology
Giordano da Silva: nothing more
j.k: and we are physical beings
Giordano da Silva: existence is a chore of the mathmatical realm
j.k: Trees tree, dogs dog, the Bu bus and people people.
j.k: we are limited by our own selves. to accept that is to move on and move forward.
j.k: because you can then leave it behind
Giordano da Silva: i disagree… the Bu is obviously a chicken-duck
j.k: i know that sounds all silly and spiritually, but that’s not how i intend it
j.k: she is larv
Giordano da Silva: it does sound that way you fucking hippie
Giordano da Silva: i am going to beat your hippie ass in your white navy uniform and tar and feather your shit to a tree you damn commie
j.k: what i’m trying to say is that because we know we are limited by ourselves, it’s better to work from the point that we are going to have to deal with our own limitations and attempt to break through them by other means
j.k: or use them as the spring board to position ourselves in a manner that better lets us understand.
j.k: A rose by any other name…
Giordano da Silva: well, godel’s incompleteness theorem deals with limits
Giordano da Silva: and he says there is always more
Giordano da Silva: so
j.k: except when there is less, but less is more, so he is right.
Giordano da Silva: again… with the opposites
j.k: haha, that was a j.ke
j.k: jeez
j.k: opposites aren’t the problem
j.k: they simply help
Giordano da Silva: i am going to have a new theory “hidden beat theroy”
j.k: and with that i’m highlighting this conversation and posting it.
Giordano da Silva: opposites are training wheels
Giordano da Silva: you have to take them off at some pint
Giordano da Silva: otherwise youa re a grown ass man riding like a retard
There are spelling and grammar mistakes because we were talking via instant messenger. I didn’t edit them out so as to preserve the content and actual flow.