Here I am.

[TimePantry]

I am interested in science from many angles, particularly where it gets a little weird, like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the strong CP problem.

I don't think we're going to find the Higgs Boson or gravity waves.

I believe that we ban entheogens at our peril, and America's puritan origin may be its undoing.

I understand that there are drugs with consequences that can cause harm if completely unregulated; at the same time, I think it's ignorant, short-sighted and stupid to ignore plants and materials that have incredible potential for physiological and psychological health benefits, simply because of what amounts to an outdated and irrational "moral" prejudice concerning what *other* people ingest.

I am especially inspired by the written opinions of John Stuart Mill and Thomas Szasz in this regard.

I am very curious to have input from others about one or two of the more inexplicable aspects of my recent experiences; most notably, the frequent sensation that objects, furniture and even doors are somehow on the opposite side of the room from where I expect them to be. Hmmmph. Elf jokes, probably.

 

[nen888]

..hello & welcome,

good to see someone with an interest in theoretical physics. i think the ability to understand such concepts enhances & is enhanced by entheogenic meditation. i'd just like to know if you have any feelings about stringtheory, & have entheogens helped you in your cognition of complex problems?

see you in the nexus...

 

[TimePantry]

Well, I have to mention that I don't have a formal education in theoretical physics, just a keen interest.

That being said, with all due respect, I think string theory is implausible in a fundamental way. I think the process of forming a theory and then backforming a framework of postulates to support it, is rather flawed. Not that such reasoning *can't* work, but I just think that one's statistical probability of being correct decreases in inverse proportion to how much you fly in the face of Occam's Razor.

As for spice and cognition, it is striking to me how much things seem to click into place as I re-enter the atmosphere. My thinking feels very much more holographic, and subtle informational connections are illuminated in very interesting ways. It almost makes me wonder if that kind of thing is precisely why entheogens are scheduled and banned, in spite of their being very nearly harmless. But I tend to be pretty cynical about those things.

I have begun to form an idea about matter being analogous to a solid state of energy, with perhaps electricity corresponding to a liquid state, and light (photons) being the vapor state. I haven't figured out plasma yet.

 

[nen888]

..hi, quick point,
i'm no expert either, but as i understand it stringtheory arose out of solid mathematical foundations which could not be ignored (the geometry of a curved universe without matter, but with gravity & fields, allowed in Relativity). in other the words, the 'evidence' (if maths proofs could be considered that)> followed by theoretical framework. lack of experimental data in the quantum>atomic scale is it's present weakness. (the number & definitions of dimensions is a bit odd too).

do you have any 'spiritual'/non-rational intuitions/hunches/beliefs attained through entheogens (you would care to share)?

thanks for your feedback, see u round...

 

[synchroneyes]

Great to see you here.

I am also a non expert who feels a bit dodgy on string theory, Higgs boson etc.. Well said mate, I'll ride shotgun on the issue if you need.

As for Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, i feel there is much to be learned about the observers influence upon the observed outcomes. But I also feel there is another insight to be gained regarding the laws of mutual exclusion. Is perception dualistic by nature, ie, relativistic? Is this because we have been patterned to night day cycles that have required differing perceptual frames of reference to survive? Is relativity a symbol of this perpetuated conceptual division between observer and object.

How can we ever describe a whole system, can this be done though it's parts? Is there such a thing as a whole system, outside of our conceiving of it?


Great to see our minds being opened through discussion.
Check ya later!

 

[TimePantry]

nen888: You're absolutely correct that string theory has a solid mathematical foundation. It is the ongoing result of a great deal of earnest work by many well-respected theoreticians, and I would never dispute their efforts or their sincerity. It's just that mathematics is a tool that can be manipulated (or innocently used) to support erroneous conclusions in addition to, or mixed in with, truth. And truth itself is a frequently changing --and very possibly localized-- phenomenon. Time will tell. Heh, that's why I hang out ... in the TimePantry. Plus, the food is awesome.


synchroneyes: Thanks for your support; I feel I should quote Buckaroo Bonzai here, but I can't think of a good one. That is a very thought-provoking point about perception being relativistic. My instinct is that it would have to be. And I don't think we can fully perceive our system, we have only the data from our POV. (Well, and the view from hyperspace.)


nen888, since you asked, I'll talk a bit about a recent thought I had in spice mode:

As you know, there was at one time a question regarding whether light was a particle or a wave. Think about it -- a "wave" is a thing attributed to liquids, usually liquid water. Yet a water wave is itself made up of particles! Is there any such thing as a wave that *isn't* made up of particles? So, perhaps is isn't really useful to think of them as two separate things. When the particles in a liquid are making waves, they are exhibiting a particular behavior peculiar to waves, yet they are still particles. But while they are being waves, are they still discrete individual bits of hydrogen and oxygen? How many electrons do two atoms have to exchange before they are not quite two separate things anymore? (Ah, the Ship of Theseus! Big fun!)