It is very easy to be seduced by such lovely artistic renderings that might be given weight that they don't rightly deserve as factual depictions of the way things are actually operating. They are sort of like metaphors that take two dissimilar things and equate them based on the flimsiest tiny obscure stretched little similarity which usually isn't even that similar, and people use these in their "proofs" of their theories as if they were actually somehow truly supportive or representative of real constructs and actions. This sort of imagery can be very misleading and ultimately more confusing than helpful, Although they were lovely as art, they are not based on evidence and don't illuminate the workings of the various forces in a way that makes any sense. Not that graphics can't illuminate true constructs, because I believe that they can and are even necessary, but must be based on something more than proximity of position. Aaron
Hi all
I think there's a lot more in this statement than Fredrick was prepared to allow. Most of the pictures on the site have a high entertainment value but add little to understanding. As you know (Fredrick and Pat), I have been seeking to find common ground between some of the shapes you use and the structure of particles. What I find missing is the concise use of illustration to clarify the point being made.
Fredrick - your attempted put down of Aaron's very valid point was not worthy of one so thoughtful.
regards
Felix
And woe to us if, blinded by illusions,
We detach ourselves from the dancing cosmos,
This universal harmony.......Ruth Peel
The Following User Says Thank You to Felix Schrodinger For This Useful Post:
since he was actively editing Rascal’s book and website when the great silence began around April 16th.
(Written by Nobody)
Thank you Austin for that sad information and your graphic. I for one, and I imagine all the members miss him and his postings very much. Life is Eternal.
I think there's a lot more in this statement than Fredrick was prepared to allow. Most of the pictures on the site have a high entertainment value but add little to understanding. As you know (Fredrick and Pat), I have been seeking to find common ground between some of the shapes you use and the structure of particles. What I find missing is the concise use of illustration to clarify the point being made.
Fredrick - your attempted put down of Aaron's very valid point was not worthy of one so thoughtful.
regards
Felix
Well that's a bit catty of you Felix. I think Dr. Schrodinger should put you back in your box.
Having spent 30 years as a bit twirler doing boolean algebra and other bizarre quirks of programming (grep anyone?), I am about as entrenched with the amazing capabilities of the binary system as anyone could be.
However, I am also aware that the brain has one interesting difference to computer circuits. Neurons can be set to a variable level like a rheostat. Though the all-or-none law says that a neuron's axon either fires or not, the frequency of axonic transmission is variable. It can be faster like a machine gun, slower like an old flintlock rifle, or somewhere inbetween. Meanwhile, its neighbor, who is getting "shot", has a threshold which must be reached before it, too, starts firing.
Thus, all of the neurons, even though they are "on or off" are actually somewhere inbetween. And since blood is fed throughout the brain, the neurons are never completely off (zero - unless the cell is dead), and yet they may never reach their max firing rate (on) either.
The brain is a system that seems to live everywhere inbetween zero and one.
Life is not black and white but all of the many colors inbetween.
Thanks JAK;
It's nice to know our mind is more complex than simple binary numbers. ( Black is the absence of all colors and White is all colors. )
since he was actively editing Rascal’s book and website when the great silence began around April 16th.
(Written by Nobody)
Thank you Austin for that sad information and your graphic. I for one, and I imagine all the members miss him and his postings very much. Life is Eternal.
Well that's a bit catty of you Felix. I think Dr. Schrodinger should put you back in your box.
Thank you for coming to my rescue, Pat. But also let's tone this down, by first apologizing to Aaron and you, too, Felix.
I may have overstretched it all a bit myself, but in essence, I told Aaron he cannot tell me not to do something and then go ahead and do the same thing in a different way himself. There is no need to be upset about this 'conflict,' but there is a need to use this as an example of how communication can get in the way.
Images are tools, words are tools. Scientific data? Just tools, to help us understand what it is that we are looking for: to get an understanding of the entire picture (and 'picture' here ofcourse is a word pointing towards an image).
Please, Felix, read my words more carefully, as if I am not mad at Aaron (which I am not, I have a lot of respect for him, and I appreciate his quest here at toequest very much). While I am not communicating about his questions, I am responding to his need to have certain aspects (such as images) be removed. He has a valid point there in that images are not the real thing; for having to make the jump from reality to that what an image portrays is tricky.
The same goes for words; they always function within structures. No one can use words and it then not belonging to a specific structure. As such, each word belongs to an image.
The real big kahuna is whether the question "What is the Theory of Everything" can even be phrased as such. Before we can find the answer, we must get in the clear whether the concept of such a question (whether the image in which the question is phrased) can even exist. Again, don't jump on it as if it is obvious, because it is not.
Just like you cannot point to a single person when saying family, it may be impossible to point to a single singular answer when saying 'theory of everything.' (please note that I write single singular). A single answer containing a plural aspect can still exist: an answer to who are a family can be answered by pointing to a minimum of two people.
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Having spent 30 years as a bit twirler doing boolean algebra and other bizarre quirks of programming (grep anyone?), I am about as entrenched with the amazing capabilities of the binary system as anyone could be.
However, I am also aware that the brain has one interesting difference to computer circuits. Neurons can be set to a variable level like a rheostat. Though the all-or-none law says that a neuron's axon either fires or not, the frequency of axonic transmission is variable. It can be faster like a machine gun, slower like an old flintlock rifle, or somewhere inbetween. Meanwhile, its neighbor, who is getting "shot", has a threshold which must be reached before it, too, starts firing.
Thus, all of the neurons, even though they are "on or off" are actually somewhere inbetween. And since blood is fed throughout the brain, the neurons are never completely off (zero - unless the cell is dead), and yet they may never reach their max firing rate (on) either.
The brain is a system that seems to live everywhere inbetween zero and one.
Life is not black and white but all of the many colors inbetween.
Fantastic delivery, JAK, it explains in one very clear example the limited character of the binary system: reality isn't black and white.
Felix, you want clarification of the images, and I think you are entitled to that. First thing to understand is that this is not an ordinary concept; it is an overall concept. Just like the word family is an overall concept, the pyramid is an overall concept. As such it differs from the concept of 'father' or of 'daughter.' With father a real person is indicated, and you can point your finger at him, but with 'family' only the entirety is singular. When in a distant spot you can indeed point your finger just once, and say "that family." From closeby, you cannot do the same.
The image of the pyramid is easy to understand, but mainly easy after you get it. It is very important to look at it as containing the separation, something we ordinarilly don't pay much attention to. If you get this, you get the pyramid: the pointing of a single finger at a family in the distance cannot be copied when standing in close proximity to all members. As such, you must be aware that there are things YOU (or me, or anyone) cannot do, that certain behaviors cannot be copied willynilly. That means that the pyramid has views that are valid in some respect, but these views cannot automatically be copied from other perspectives. This means that views are not all valid at the same time and in the same way. That is what incorporating separation means, and I believe Einstein already showed that with the theory of relativity.
As you understand, this is exactly the point Aaron was making, but he jumped on the part that no image can deliver the toe, and went right past the part that an image can show how a singular image cannot deliver the toe based on singularity. Let's quickly slow down here: a single image can indeed portray the entirety if it discloses its own lack of actual singularity. You can only get the pyramid when at a distance yourself. Though extremely limited in scope and usefulness, the pyramid is the toe. And it was known throughout the ancient world.
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
As you understand, this is exactly the point Aaron was making, but he jumped on the part that no image can deliver the toe, and went right past the part that an image can show how a singular image cannot deliver the toe based on singularity. Let's quickly slow down here: a single image can indeed portray the entirety if it discloses its own lack of actual singularity. You can only get the pyramid when at a distance yourself. Though extremely limited in scope and usefulness, the pyramid is the toe. And it was known throughout the ancient world.
Hi Fredrick
I thought (somewhat naively) that Aaron's point was that relevant images are very useful as an aid to understanding - a picture is worth a thousand words - but only if it's relevant. Many of the images we use here are great for their entertainment value but do not contribute to a greater truth.
And woe to us if, blinded by illusions........
regards
Felix
PS: Pat - there's no need to shout!
And woe to us if, blinded by illusions,
We detach ourselves from the dancing cosmos,
This universal harmony.......Ruth Peel
The Following User Says Thank You to Felix Schrodinger For This Useful Post:
Linear Mode
