The Improbability of Hyperspace

[burnt]

First, I agree completely that we have evolved to have brain states that are advantageous to our survival. After all, if we didn’t, we wouldn’t be here. I don’t necessarily agree that DMT alters perceptions “to the point where the picture gets less accurate”. Just the opposite could be true:

We are not capable of sensing many phenomena that are constantly present around us, such as radio waves. The fact that we aren’t sensing something that is present shows that our normal mode of perception gives a less accurate picture of our environment. If you could suddenly sense all frequencies of radio waves, you’d have a more accurate picture of your environment, but not necessarily a more useful one.

Likewise, if DMT allows us to somehow “sense” things that are always present yet not ordinarily perceived, then the alterations to perception it causes gives us a more accurate picture, not less accurate.

I can certainly accept this. Its certainly possible. The question is how can you tell the difference?

I often think of things like geometric shapes as being over stimulation of visual perception machinery. Like on LSD often you will notice one pattern on a wall for example and then that pattern will off a sudden be the entire wall. Its as if the part of your brain seeing that initial pattern overloaded the rest of your consciousness with the pattern and you see it everywhere. Stuff like this I think explains a lot of psychedelic visuals. It can be testable too once we know more about neural pathways involved in this kind of perception.

So its not like you are seeing "the wrong picture" but your just emphasizing too much of one aspect of external reality. Consciousness does work like this. There are many tricks to dominate a persons attention on for example a photo and show a different photo and people don't notice the difference although there is a key difference. Stuff like this is what I'm driving at.

Finally, I’m not sure you understand the “black box and marbles” analogy. The black box represents the unknown. The marbles in the box represent characteristics of reality that actually exist, which are presently (and possibly forever) unknown. Occasionally we reach into the box and take out a marble, so that after a while, we have a sizeable pile of marbles outside of the box. The marbles outside of the box represent characteristics of reality that we know.

I think your right. I think I was thinking about this differently then you explaining it. Either way.

 

[joedirt]

Burnt: Certainly been there and don't want to discount other possibilities but why does it need to be more? It could be more. I just happen to not want to jump to conclusions until more evidence is presented. I've jumped to conclusions in the past and it could have ended up not so nice. Seen it end up not so nice for others too.

We know psychedelics can delude. This is obvious to anyone whose had a certain kind of paranoid style bad trip.

From a purely materialistic science point of view there is no reason to invoke anything other than neurochemistry. There is absolutely zero physical evidence that I'm aware off that would allow scientist to take a measurement in this regard. Without measurements current scientific methods fail because there is no data. I full well understand why we scientists stick to what we can measure...it's what separates us form the false mystics, and wondering fake guru's of the world...thank God!

...but surely you can agree that science has as of yet done a pathetic job of answering the really big questions....and I'd postulate that I think it will remain unable to answer these questions if it's not willing to embrace a new framework for perceiving the universe. Einstein did a great job at redefining the rules...and you know what? They are freaking mystical as far as I'm concerned. Hard constant on the speed of light? Mass increases to infinity as you approach the speed of light? Time travel? Black Holes, etc, etc... Personally I don't think that speculation about astral bodies, or life after death, or deep sleep lights, or white light's of consciousness are any more wishy washy than theories of relativity. Just like Einstein had to develop a new framework before anyone took his ideas seriously I also believe a new framework needs to be developed in order for scientists to entertain the topic of hyperspace, astral bodies, life after death, etc, etc...

Most people alive today accept Einsteins theories of relativity as fact. Why? Because other people have told them it's correct, but they haven't done anything to verify it for themselves....in fact I'd say they are no better than Christians blinding believing the bible is divinely inspired while flat out refusing to read historical accounts of it's creation. Furthermore most if it is only verifiable from a mathematical positions....but indeed a lot of it is bearing out in experiments these days. The man was seriously smart...

In the other camp we have yogis and mystics that have long claimed methods of directly perceiving God/Nirvana/Truth. There is no way to prove what they say, but they lay out methods that are supposed to provide direct contact. Several people alive today, and even a couple on this board, have made significant gains in having these experiences without drugs...but what are drugs? Just more physical matter...that ultimately came from some singularity at the beginning of the universe...let's just call them solidified energy...because that is all anything really is.

< Taking my science hat off>
Now for a long time I'd probably agree that the mystics were just making shit up...I am a scientists and not a monk after all However after having had the immersion experience there is no way I can just brush aside all of the history around these experiences. It's seems very reasonable to me that early man could have found mushrooms like McKenna said, and we have shamans in the jungle that obviously found psychedelics....it's also not inconceivable to me that humans figured out how to do it without drugs.... I take the stance that psychedelics can't show you anything that your brain isn't capable of showing itself. After all the DMT molecule is only binding to receptors already in our brains.... So I'm in the camp of once again allowing for the possibility that the mystics and yogis are correct. A lot of scientists just brush yoga meditation and other mystical stuff off as hokey pokey. I'm not one of them...and others are starting to verify some of it, but we are still at the limits our technology. If we hooked an Buddhist monk up to an EEG and he induced Samadhi and tells us he in direct communion with God...the only thing we'd like observe is at best an interesting brain state since that's all on EEG can tell us....and I'd be will to wager a bet that it would like suspiciously like deep sleep with a lot of Slow Delta waves....it's just a guess thought.

In one case a person could learn all the math and physics needed to begin a career in theoretical physics. In the other camp you have people that claim they can have direct experience. I think that in order to understand these kinds of phenomena science and mysticism are going to have to at least hold hands for a little while and stop all the disdain they have for each other!

Consider these questions:

"What is this reality?"
"Where did it come from?"
"What was the singularity we all came from?"
"What was before the singularity?"
"Does any part of us survive death?"

Try to answer those questions and don't invoke statements like there is no time, because Science is completely dependent upon time.... Science is so far from answering those kinds of questions that I feel comfortable saying that I don't think our current method of exploring science is even remotely equipped to begin dealing with such things....and 'tis is why I enjoy speculating in the area. It's so far beyond us that the best hope we have is speculating...

The most important question to me is "What am I". When I repeated that question in a very controlled manner under mushrooms I literally had a peak life experience....direct perception. It wasn't just seeing a light. I was completely immersed in it for well over an hour. I was it. There was no me yet there was an awareness of me.... I've never come close to that state using psychedelics without meditation... You see now I just stepped into the category of mystic....and that puts me, a man of science, in a very precarious position. however, I see no need to defend a scientific explanation of it, which is simply brain chemistry, when I'm willing to accept that and then move to higher questions which science isn't equipped to answer. But at the same time you don't see me trying to write papers to publish my "results/experience" in reputable science journals either...


One of the reasons I believe in God, Nirvana, the source energy, or what ever you want to call it is because I'm a scientists. As we tear apart the universe we are literally finding that there is very little there. I wasn't aware of bucky balls undergoing tunneling...last time I'd checked we were still doing it with Na atoms. I'm blown away by this. Totally fascinated. When I look at a tree, my arm, a woman's face, the dirt on the ground I have to stand back in complete and total awe at how very little we really understand...and we understand A HELL OF A LOT more than ancient people did.

I know I've really deviated form the original topic so I'll get back to it. I don't think current scientific methods will be adequate to explain whether hyperspace is real or not.

Science is likely to determine that 2 people in the same location don't see the same thing and therefore it is a hallucination. But what if the brain is a receiver of sorts and we are just changing the channel with these compounds, and what if the channel we change to is dependent upon the drug, the dose, and the persons state of mind. What if you and I sat side by side and did DMT. We both report totally different experiences...how can we prove that our brains didn't arrive at different channels?

I mean physicists are starting to argue for many parallel universes, but unless we find a way to first prove that they do exists and then find away to induce brains states in different people to put them in the same realm...well you see were I'm going with this.

What if we actually have to rely on the direct experience of others? That's not such a hard leap. Social sciences have made a lot of progress and that's exactly what they do. At least as scientists we could begin to think about the structure activity relationship of these experiences and use that to help design the 'perfect' alternate reality probing drug... But even when we do all of our tools will still be in this dimension even though our brains could be resonating in a different dimension....

Believe me I'm a scientist first, but the real questions that interest me in life are not probable with current scientific methods...

ImPrism:
Your body is full of energy. When you dont get your energy from food your body will start to
chew away on muscles and body fat.
The reason people have the feeling of "amazing amounts of energy" doesn't have to be actual energy and
if you think about, no energy have been consumed so it's more likely to be
some psychological effect.
If you were to take a fat line of amphetamine when you are very tired all of a sudden you feel like
you could run a marathon. All you are doing is fooling your brain into thinking it has all that
energy which otherwise comes in the form of carbohydrates.

Yes I certainly agree with you. After your body uses it's stores of glucose first and then it begins using glucagon stores and then finally fat stores. That still does not explain were the excess energy comes from. Your amphetamine example is not really applicable in the case of fasting since in a fast we aren't taking in anything but water.

BTW I'm using the word energy very loosely here as I'm well aware of the laws of thermodynamics.

I'm not talking about a normal level of energy. I'm talking about waking up feeling like you can tackle the world. I think that during a fast your body uses the energy it has to maintain and repair the most essential components...the brain and nervous system. The high on life feeling may very well come from having you nerutransmitters concentrations reset. Going back to you amphetamine example I could argue that perhaps your body is more effectively producing phenethylamines like dopamine,norepinephrine, and adrenalin. That works for me. But how to you explain it after 30, 60, 90 day's of nothing but water. How many calories does a person burn in 30, 60, 90 day's. You might get me to believe a really fat person could do it, but most of the people that are active fasters are actually very skinny.

Please note. I'm not saying that we for sure tap into the source energy, but since the Buddhist have texts describing the clear light of deep sleep I say it's a possibility...see all the arguments above.

Please don't think I'm in any shape form or fashion abandoning science. Hardly! You might say that science is just having a hard time keeping up with my raw fascination about the universe.

 

[gibran2]

...I often think of things like geometric shapes as being over stimulation of visual perception machinery. Like on LSD often you will notice one pattern on a wall for example and then that pattern will off a sudden be the entire wall. Its as if the part of your brain seeing that initial pattern overloaded the rest of your consciousness with the pattern and you see it everywhere. Stuff like this I think explains a lot of psychedelic visuals. It can be testable too once we know more about neural pathways involved in this kind of perception.
...

Yes – some visuals, particularly visuals of geometric patterns and designs, seem to give us a peek at the inner workings of our visual processing mechanisms. And if psychedelic-induced visuals were limited to colorful patterns and designs, it would be easy to “dismiss” all psychedelic phenomena as glitches or systematic disturbances of our visual processing mechanisms.

But for me at least, DMT experiences are so much more. The patterns and designs occupy maybe the first 5 seconds of a breakthrough experience. After that I am immersed in and transformed by a world that is unlike anything I had ever experienced prior to psychedelics. There is order, there is stability, there is coherence, there is unimaginable complexity, and it is all very alien. I don’t feel like I’m visiting another planet in our universe – I feel like I’m visiting another universe altogether. Given the title of this thread, I’m not going to speculate about what it all means, but whatever is going on, I don’t think it can be easily explained as “just” DMT over-stimulating my neurons.

 

[Virola78]

If, for example, we have an irrational number 3.999999999... that continues to infinity, does it not get infinitely larger? Or is there a distinction between "infinitely larger" and "larger, infinitely?" Clearly, 4 is larger than the irrational number above, but the latter is infinitely large, by growing infinitely, no?:evil: If not, which is the larger of the two, the irrational 3.99999... or the rational 4?

Like 1 / 3 = 0.333333333…… ?? Seems to me the irrational number does not exist on its own. It exist only when it describes a contrast. If there is no contrast the numbers ceases to exist. Like it has no value on its own. In example with the arrow the mathematics are also describing the relation between two numbers, two distances. When the arrow hits the target there is no more two distances to compare, no more contrast to describe. Mathematics is abstract. Mathematics describes a realition.

One fine point that I’m not sure I communicated – although the unknown is vast and the possibilities may literally be infinite, that doesn’t mean that anything is possible. For example, the Mandelbrot set has infinite detail, yet the detail is all “Mandelbrot-like”. No matter how deeply you zoom into the infinite detail of the set, you’ll never see a likeness of your grandma’s face. (Unless your grandma’s face looks like a Mandelbrot fractal.)

Hmmm. How can you be so sure of that? My grandma’s face looks exactly like the Julia set. Yea she is pretty. But of course my question was not about my grandma : ) If the map is not the territory (my consciousness does not represent the ding an sich), then how can i be so sure the laws that seem to govern nature (well, they govern science at least) are not in fact the rules that govern my consciousness. Because if that is true, and i think it is since it is all i see, then i cant be so sure about any impossibilities. I can be sure of my limits only, as presented by perception. Perhaps it would be a mistake to think we are out of the black box. As the black box is consciousness. So why do you think not anything is possible? What am i missing in this picture? (*jumping* Is mathematics not describing our way of thinking, comparing, surviving?)

Your example with the marbles is nice. It does help to put things in or out of boxes : )

 

[justine]

If, for example, we have an irrational number 3.999999999... that continues to infinity, does it not get infinitely larger? Or is there a distinction between "infinitely larger" and "larger, infinitely?" Clearly, 4 is larger than the irrational number above, but the latter is infinitely large, by growing infinitely, no? If not, which is the larger of the two, the irrational 3.99999... or the rational 4?

x=3.9999999....
10x=39.99999999....
9x=36
x=36/9
x=4

So, 3,9999.... = 4

The famous example of the arrow conundrum (pencil and floor in modern times) comes to mind (two of zeno's paradoxes blended, as told to me by my father, who inadvertently mixed them up). If an arrow is shot at a target, at some point, it covers half the distance to the target. And at another point in time, half the new distance. And a fraction of a second longer, half that. If it continues halving the distance, which mathematics demands it does, it will NEVER hit the target. But anyone who has shot an arrow knows that arrows do hit targets (and anyone who has been the target of an arrow is probably just as unsure and equally as lost as me ).

This was solved by series

And likewise a number approaching 0, infinitely, grows infinitely smaller from the other side of the line (-0.11111111...). But how can something grow infinitely smaller? Infinitely larger is an easier concept to grasp than infinitely smaller, for the mighty 0 seems like a clear stopping point, and dividing and subdividing infinitely just seems improbable at the very least.

I'm not sure what you do not understand but maybe this example will help you :
1/n->0 when n->infinity

 

[jbark]

If, for example, we have an irrational number 3.999999999... that continues to infinity, does it not get infinitely larger? Or is there a distinction between "infinitely larger" and "larger, infinitely?" Clearly, 4 is larger than the irrational number above, but the latter is infinitely large, by growing infinitely, no? If not, which is the larger of the two, the irrational 3.99999... or the rational 4?

x=3.9999999....
10x=39.99999999....
9x=36
x=36/9
x=4

So, 3,9999.... = 4

The famous example of the arrow conundrum (pencil and floor in modern times) comes to mind (two of zeno's paradoxes blended, as told to me by my father, who inadvertently mixed them up). If an arrow is shot at a target, at some point, it covers half the distance to the target. And at another point in time, half the new distance. And a fraction of a second longer, half that. If it continues halving the distance, which mathematics demands it does, it will NEVER hit the target. But anyone who has shot an arrow knows that arrows do hit targets (and anyone who has been the target of an arrow is probably just as unsure and equally as lost as me ).

This was solved by series

And likewise a number approaching 0, infinitely, grows infinitely smaller from the other side of the line (-0.11111111...). But how can something grow infinitely smaller? Infinitely larger is an easier concept to grasp than infinitely smaller, for the mighty 0 seems like a clear stopping point, and dividing and subdividing infinitely just seems improbable at the very least.

I'm not sure what you do not understand but maybe this example will help you :
1/n->0 when n->infinity

9x = 36? Been long time since I studied math, but this seems like a jump...

Series is an elegant mathematical workaround, but does not really address the philosophical question at hand, IMO.

I UNDERSTAND the concept of infinity, and of a number approaching 0 (i.e. 1/n->0 when n->infinity), but my query, as those above, is more ontological than arithmetic in nature. However, I may very well be displaying the vast expanses of my ignorance here, so feel free to correct my misconceptions and call me out on any inconsistencies. I am no mathematician, just a humble guy with a rudimentary understanding about and boundless curiosity for numbers.

JBArk

 

[joedirt]

x=3.9999999....
10x=39.99999999....
9x=36
x=36/9
x=4

This was solved by series

Huh? 9x = 35.9999999.... not 36.

 

[burnt]

I like where this is going.

Joedirt:

..but surely you can agree that science has as of yet done a pathetic job of answering the really big questions....and I'd postulate that I think it will remain unable to answer these questions if it's not willing to embrace a new framework for perceiving the universe. Einstein did a great job at redefining the rules...and you know what? They are freaking mystical as far as I'm concerned. Hard constant on the speed of light? Mass increases to infinity as you approach the speed of light? Time travel? Black Holes, etc, etc... Personally I don't think that speculation about astral bodies, or life after death, or deep sleep lights, or white light's of consciousness are any more wishy washy than theories of relativity. Just like Einstein had to develop a new framework before anyone took his ideas seriously I also believe a new framework needs to be developed in order for scientists to entertain the topic of hyperspace, astral bodies, life after death, etc, etc...

Most people alive today accept Einsteins theories of relativity as fact. Why? Because other people have told them it's correct, but they haven't done anything to verify it for themselves....in fact I'd say they are no better than Christians blinding believing the bible is divinely inspired while flat out refusing to read historical accounts of it's creation. Furthermore most if it is only verifiable from a mathematical positions....but indeed a lot of it is bearing out in experiments these days. The man was seriously smart...

For most people its impractical to experimentally test relativity. But many very accurate experiments have been performed and the mathematics is verified as a result of this. Some things obviously could be tested to make it even more solid. Like accelerate a human to near the speed of light. Get near a black hole. But yea most of this is completely beyond the means of any current technology and any conceivable technology any time soon.

Regardless though. All that got Einstein started on relativity was some simple thought experiments and he just took them all the way and came up with mathematics for it all. If people are going to propose that astral projection is more then a simple illusion then I'm saying come up with mechanisms, come up with sound coherent theories. When Einstein came up with his shit people were skeptical because it was so crazy but it was also a solid theory so people even believed it before the experimental data was in. I want something that solid with regards to psychedelics. Its demanding I know but thats where we gotta take this. Take it all the way and see what we can come up with. But don't take short cuts and jump to conclusions but follow it through.

Sorry im rambling a bit I'm stoned 8)

In the other camp we have yogis and mystics that have long claimed methods of directly perceiving God/Nirvana/Truth. There is no way to prove what they say, but they lay out methods that are supposed to provide direct contact. Several people alive today, and even a couple on this board, have made significant gains in having these experiences without drugs...but what are drugs? Just more physical matter...that ultimately came from some singularity at the beginning of the universe...let's just call them solidified energy...because that is all anything really is.

They have no way of knowing what they are seeing is god. But I'm fairly sure that you can experience similar things on psychedelics and using various techniques meditation yoga etc. I've had such experiences many times its one of the best parts about psychedelics. I just don't jump to conclusions about what it means anymore.

. A lot of scientists just brush yoga meditation and other mystical stuff off as hokey pokey. I'm not one of them...and others are starting to verify some of it, but we are still at the limits our technology. If we hooked an Buddhist monk up to an EEG and he induced Samadhi and tells us he in direct communion with God...the only thing we'd like observe is at best an interesting brain state since that's all on EEG can tell us....and I'd be will to wager a bet that it would like suspiciously like deep sleep with a lot of Slow Delta waves....it's just a guess thought. Smile

Its well known now that meditative brain states have a specific character to them when imaged with MRI or whatever other technique. But of course they would every experience does.

In one case a person could learn all the math and physics needed to begin a career in theoretical physics. In the other camp you have people that claim they can have direct experience. I think that in order to understand these kinds of phenomena science and mysticism are going to have to at least hold hands for a little while and stop all the disdain they have for each other! Smile

Yes but in what practical ways would this work? What specific suggestions would you recommend? I'd like to test more things shamans claim for example about healing and ayahuasca. But getting a medicine man to show you his tricks is unlikely. I think they have a lot of tricks they don't like to share. There is arrogance on both sides.

Consider these questions:

"What is this reality?"
"Where did it come from?"
"What was the singularity we all came from?"
"What was before the singularity?"
"Does any part of us survive death?"

Try to answer those questions and don't invoke statements like there is no time, because Science is completely dependent upon time.... Science is so far from answering those kinds of questions that I feel comfortable saying that I don't think our current method of exploring science is even remotely equipped to begin dealing with such things....and 'tis is why I enjoy speculating in the area. It's so far beyond us that the best hope we have is speculating... Smile

This reality is everything. It came from nothing. The singularity didn't exist. Before the big bang there was nothing or everything. Our matter survives death. :lol:

The most important question to me is "What am I". When I repeated that question in a very controlled manner under mushrooms I literally had a peak life experience....direct perception. It wasn't just seeing a light. I was completely immersed in it for well over an hour. I was it. There was no me yet there was an awareness of me.... I've never come close to that state using psychedelics without meditation... You see now I just stepped into the category of mystic....and that puts me, a man of science, in a very precarious position. however, I see no need to defend a scientific explanation of it, which is simply brain chemistry, when I'm willing to accept that and then move to higher questions which science isn't equipped to answer. But at the same time you don't see me trying to write papers to publish my "results/experience" in reputable science journals either...

I call this state pure awareness. No memories attached nothing attached just awareness. I guess I just don't see anything mystical or supernatural about this. I know your not suggesting supernatural because how could something be beyond natural? Either way my point is that its only called mystical because that was what people have traditionally called these experiences. Its beautiful. Its rewarding. Its amazing. It can change your life. I love it. But why come up with a whole bunch of ritual bullshit to go with it? If ritual helps you get there great. But just because I've had this experience I'm not going to make a religion out of it. Often too often I find people start doing that without even realizing their doing it.



Concerning your final statements about figuring out what the deal is with hyperspace. I think we can learn a lot more even with current technology. But really what is initially requires is a free scientific atmosphere. Scientists and lay people alike need to be able to discuss this stuff openly. Until that happens its just going to be beating around the edge and only if its related to medicine. Its not even just the fact that its illegal although thats the first MAJOR barrier. Many people think its unethical to give drugs to people even if they say they volunteer freely, many peoples religious beliefs would be seriously threatened by this kind of research, and many people just don't give a fuck enough to fund it. All that needs to change for this to get somewhere and get funded.

 

[burnt]

Yes – some visuals, particularly visuals of geometric patterns and designs, seem to give us a peek at the inner workings of our visual processing mechanisms. And if psychedelic-induced visuals were limited to colorful patterns and designs, it would be easy to “dismiss” all psychedelic phenomena as glitches or systematic disturbances of our visual processing mechanisms.

But for me at least, DMT experiences are so much more. The patterns and designs occupy maybe the first 5 seconds of a breakthrough experience. After that I am immersed in and transformed by a world that is unlike anything I had ever experienced prior to psychedelics. There is order, there is stability, there is coherence, there is unimaginable complexity, and it is all very alien. I don’t feel like I’m visiting another planet in our universe – I feel like I’m visiting another universe altogether. Given the title of this thread, I’m not going to speculate about what it all means, but whatever is going on, I don’t think it can be easily explained as “just” DMT over-stimulating my neurons.

What more could it be? Lets just think of some possibilities doesn't matter if they are wrong or right.

1- All in the brain
2- alternate universe / dimensions
3- unknown aspect of our universe
4- consciousness is ingrained in the universe then it appears

Anything else I'm just shooting things out here.

 

[jbark]

x=3.9999999....
10x=39.99999999....
9x=36
x=36/9
x=4

This was solved by series

Huh? 9x = 35.9999999.... not 36.

I will do some research into series, but I imagine that since 9x is unresolvable, series steps in and fills in the blank so that 9x does, for all intents and purposes, equal 36. This is why I said it struck me as an elegant mathematical solution, but didn't really address my point.

Anyone?

JBArk

 

[justine]

If, for example, we have an irrational number 3.999999999... that continues to infinity, does it not get infinitely larger? Or is there a distinction between "infinitely larger" and "larger, infinitely?" Clearly, 4 is larger than the irrational number above, but the latter is infinitely large, by growing infinitely, no? If not, which is the larger of the two, the irrational 3.99999... or the rational 4?

x=3.9999999....
10x=39.99999999....
9x=36
x=36/9
x=4

So, 3,9999.... = 4

The famous example of the arrow conundrum (pencil and floor in modern times) comes to mind (two of zeno's paradoxes blended, as told to me by my father, who inadvertently mixed them up). If an arrow is shot at a target, at some point, it covers half the distance to the target. And at another point in time, half the new distance. And a fraction of a second longer, half that. If it continues halving the distance, which mathematics demands it does, it will NEVER hit the target. But anyone who has shot an arrow knows that arrows do hit targets (and anyone who has been the target of an arrow is probably just as unsure and equally as lost as me ).

This was solved by series

And likewise a number approaching 0, infinitely, grows infinitely smaller from the other side of the line (-0.11111111...). But how can something grow infinitely smaller? Infinitely larger is an easier concept to grasp than infinitely smaller, for the mighty 0 seems like a clear stopping point, and dividing and subdividing infinitely just seems improbable at the very least.

I'm not sure what you do not understand but maybe this example will help you :
1/n->0 when n->infinity

9x = 36? Been long time since I studied math, but this seems like a jump...

Series is an elegant mathematical workaround, but does not really address the philosophical question at hand, IMO.

I UNDERSTAND the concept of infinity, and of a number approaching 0 (i.e. 1/n->0 when n->infinity), but my query, as those above, is more ontological than arithmetic in nature. However, I may very well be displaying the vast expanses of my ignorance here, so feel free to correct my misconceptions and call me out on any inconsistencies. I am no mathematician, just a humble guy with a rudimentary understanding about and boundless curiosity for numbers.

JBArk

Well, 39.999999... - 3.999999999... = 36

Series definitely address the problem because even if the distance covered by the arrow becomes infinitely small the time elapsed to cover this distance also becomes infinitely small.

By the way, 3.9999... isn't irrational, it's an integer (since it's equal to 4).

You can also write 3.999... as 3 + Serie(n=1 to infinity)(9/(10^n))
And since
Serie(n=1 to infinity)(9/(10^n)) = 9*(1/(1-1/10)) - 9 = 9*(1/(9/10)) - 9 = 9*10/9 - 9 = 1

3 + Serie(n=1 to infinity)(9/(10^n)) = 4

 

[jbark]

Justine wrote:

Well, 39.999999... - 3.999999999... = 36

Series definitely address the problem because even if the distance covered by the arrow becomes infinitely small the time elapsed to cover this distance also becomes infinitely small.

By the way, 3.9999... isn't irrational, it's an integer (since it's equal to 4).

Thanks for the clarification!! But I still don't get how 3.9999... isn't irrational:

"In mathematics, an irrational number is any real number which cannot be expressed as a fraction a/b, where a and b are integers, with b non-zero, and is therefore not a rational number. Informally, this means that an irrational number cannot be represented as a simple fraction."

What integers expressed as a/b = 3.99999....?

I'll have to read more on series to follow you. Sorry for the mathematical ignorance. looks like I'm outta ma league... poor lit boy filmmaker!

Still I am fascinated by my original points, even if no one else is!! I guess that's the bliss in ignorance...:shock:

JBArk

 

[justine]

Justine wrote:

Well, 39.999999... - 3.999999999... = 36

Series definitely address the problem because even if the distance covered by the arrow becomes infinitely small the time elapsed to cover this distance also becomes infinitely small.

By the way, 3.9999... isn't irrational, it's an integer (since it's equal to 4).

Thanks for the clarification!! But I still don't get how 3.9999... isn't irrational:

"In mathematics, an irrational number is any real number which cannot be expressed as a fraction a/b, where a and b are integers, with b non-zero, and is therefore not a rational number. Informally, this means that an irrational number cannot be represented as a simple fraction."

What integers expressed as a/b = 3.99999....?

I'll have to read more on series to follow you. Sorry for the mathematical ignorance. looks like I'm outta ma league... poor lit boy filmmaker!

Still I am fascinated by my original points, even if no one else is!! I guess that's the bliss in ignorance...:shock:

JBArk

Well, 3.999... isn't an irrational number because 3.999... = 4 :lol:

This may enlighten you :

Repeating decimal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Zeno's paradoxes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[joedirt]

Excellent response. First off don't worry about being stoned...it happens to the best of us!

For certain relativity is bearing the fruits of the math. I mean we have satellites with atomic clocks that are indeed speeding up... We have also found pretty sold proof about black holes as far as I'm concerned. I think relativity is an awesome theory that is becoming a little more fact every single day. My point was that a new framework had to be developed to deliver it to the current scientists of the day. BTW Einstein is one of my favorite mystics....read some of his quotes.

Your comment about the yogis having no way to know there are seeing God is spot on with what I'm getting at. How do you know they have no way? IS it because they can't prove it to you? I'd say that if there is a God/energy/nirvana that is powerful enough to create this universe that a true direct perception of it would be all the proof the person having the experience would ever need. You've had clear light experience, but have you been to those places with meditation alone? Are we sure they are talking about the same thing...perhaps what we are seeing/feeling isn't quite there yet....I don't believe that last statement, but I like to ponder all the angles. I for one have not reached a clear light during meditation alone and you are right as a scientists I'm still stuck wondering is what I felt on mushrooms real. Is that because it wasn't real or because I'm trained to question ever experience until I have solid proof that I can show to others?

I'll agree that there is no way that we can use something from this world to prove that they are seeing God, but for you and me to stand here and say look you have no proof, your experience wasn't real...well that would be asinine? For all we know that state could be so overwhelmingly convincing. There isn't any proof of depression other than the patients words either. All the subjective depression scales are ultimately dependent upon the patients own words. I've never been clinically depressed and don't have any idea what it's like, but based on thousands of subjective reports out there I'm inclined to believe it's real....and with the abundance of prozac prescriptions out there aparantly the patient isn't really questioned in this regard!

This reality is everything. It came from nothing. The singularity didn't exist. Before the big bang there was nothing or everything. Our matter survives death. :lol:

You took the bait so you know what's coming next.

If it is everything and it came form nothing then what is it? If there was nothing before the big bang then there was no time. If there was no time then our science is irrelevant to the nature of reality....

I call this state pure awareness. No memories attached nothing attached just awareness. I guess I just don't see anything mystical or supernatural about this. I know your not suggesting supernatural because how could something be beyond natural? Either way my point is that its only called mystical because that was what people have traditionally called these experiences. Its beautiful. Its rewarding. Its amazing. It can change your life. I love it. But why come up with a whole bunch of ritual bullshit to go with it? If ritual helps you get there great. But just because I've had this experience I'm not going to make a religion out of it. Often too often I find people start doing that without even realizing their doing it.

I'm guessing the ritual bullshit was designed to help integrate the experience for early people much like native american indians did with their peyote rituals. I also think you are hinting at something quite interesting though. Our society isn't going to be willing to call this God.... In a sense God means beyond our explanations to a degree. If we can explain, and then induce under controlled conditions the true mystical experience then I think a lot of people will refuse to call it God... But that doesn't mean it is not the energy behind everything. As an example I'm sorta put off by God because to my ears it reminds of my southern Baptist upbringing...ironicaly calling it nirvana or the source energy isn't a big deal for me. Perception is everything. Today I'm ok calling it what ever we want to. Even though we may very well fully understand the chemical nature of DMT it's still mystical to me because it exists, and so do I, and so do you, and everything thing else we call matter. Or do we? I mean the more we rip apart the fabric of reality the more "nothing" we are finding.

Concerning your final statements about figuring out what the deal is with hyperspace. I think we can learn a lot more even with current technology. But really what is initially requires is a free scientific atmosphere. Scientists and lay people alike need to be able to discuss this stuff openly. Until that happens its just going to be beating around the edge and only if its related to medicine.

Absolutely. I'm actively trying to find a good angle on this research to get myself back to academia. But I still think the really big questions are either beyond our current scientific method or we are hundreds, perhaps thousands of years away from the necessary technology. Hey, it's just as reasonable for me to say aliens could come form other planets as to say they could come from other dimensions. To a scientist looking at the scale of the universe from the confines of our current technology it would appear as though both are completely impossible, but I'm pretty sure the universe isn't a play ground to humans alone. yes I want to believe....

 

[gibran2]

..."In mathematics, an irrational number is any real number which cannot be expressed as a fraction a/b, where a and b are integers, with b non-zero, and is therefore not a rational number. Informally, this means that an irrational number cannot be represented as a simple fraction."

What integers expressed as a/b = 3.99999....?

I'll have to read more on series to follow you. Sorry for the mathematical ignorance. looks like I'm outta ma league... poor lit boy filmmaker!

Still I am fascinated by my original points, even if no one else is!! I guess that's the bliss in ignorance...:shock:

JBArk

Repeating digits are not irrational, for example 1/7 = 0.142857 142857 142857 …

pi is irrational, the square root of 2 is irrational, etc.

1/9 = 0.1111…
2/9 = 0.2222…
3/9 = 0.3333…
…
8/9 = 0.8888…
9/9 = 0.9999… = 1

It’s magic!

 

[justine]

And by the way, if you like the concept of infinity you will love this :

Aleph number - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Basically, some infinite sets are "bigger" (have a bigger cardinal) than others.

 

[burnt]

Your comment about the yogis having no way to know there are seeing God is spot on with what I'm getting at. How do you know they have no way? IS it because they can't prove it to you? I'd say that if there is a God/energy/nirvana that is powerful enough to create this universe that a true direct perception of it would be all the proof the person having the experience would ever need. You've had clear light experience, but have you been to those places with meditation alone? Are we sure they are talking about the same thing...perhaps what we are seeing/feeling isn't quite there yet....I don't believe that last statement, but I like to ponder all the angles. Smile I for one have not reached a clear light during meditation alone and you are right as a scientists I'm still stuck wondering is what I felt on mushrooms real. Is that because it wasn't real or because I'm trained to question ever experience until I have solid proof that I can show to others?

I think we are talking about the same kind of experience. I don't reach it by meditating though. I personally don't meditate and I have no real interest in it at this time. Ego death, merging with universe, pure awareness, and all these sensations seem like they should happen from taking drugs that alter perceptions though.

However there are experiences that you have to ask "was that real". So we've moved beyond the geometric shapes as Gibran pointed out above its the stuff beyond that which is most interesting. For me an experience I must question is the following: communication with a dead relative. How can I have that experience and not question its validity? It could have been me imagining it while on drugs to cope or it could have been a real genuine communication with a dead person. I lean more towards the coping but I would like to be able to at least to attempt to answer these questions.

If it is everything and it came form nothing then what is it? If there was nothing before the big bang then there was no time. If there was no time then our science is irrelevant to the nature of reality.... Smile

Nothing is unstable?

I'm guessing the ritual bullshit was designed to help integrate the experience for early people much like native american indians did with their peyote rituals. I also think you are hinting at something quite interesting though. Our society isn't going to be willing to call this God.... In a sense God means beyond our explanations to a degree. If we can explain, and then induce under controlled conditions the true mystical experience then I think a lot of people will refuse to call it God... But that doesn't mean it is not the energy behind everything. As an example I'm sorta put off by God because to my ears it reminds of my southern Baptist upbringing...ironicaly calling it nirvana or the source energy isn't a big deal for me. Perception is everything. Today I'm ok calling it what ever we want to. Even though we may very well fully understand the chemical nature of DMT it's still mystical to me because it exists, and so do I, and so do you, and everything thing else we call matter. Or do we? I mean the more we rip apart the fabric of reality the more "nothing" we are finding.

Ritual is not the best word because some rituals make a lot of sense. To me going to a big music festival and eating mushrooms is a ritual just like a group of native americans eating peyote and playing music is a ritual. But yea I meant more religion's with all the rules and BS.

Absolutely. I'm actively trying to find a good angle on this research to get myself back to academia. But I still think the really big questions are either beyond our current scientific method or we are hundreds, perhaps thousands of years away from the necessary technology. Hey, it's just as reasonable for me to say aliens could come form other planets as to say they could come from other dimensions. To a scientist looking at the scale of the universe from the confines of our current technology it would appear as though both are completely impossible, but I'm pretty sure the universe isn't a play ground to humans alone. yes I want to believe.... Smile

Haha

Alright yea now I'm too stoned I'll have to get back to ya'll :twisted:

 

[gibran2]

What more could it be? Lets just think of some possibilities doesn't matter if they are wrong or right.

1- All in the brain
2- alternate universe / dimensions
3- unknown aspect of our universe
4- consciousness is ingrained in the universe then it appears

Anything else I'm just shooting things out here.

Well, the premise of this thread is that any specific claim about the nature of existence is almost certainly wrong, so with that in mind I’ll repeat a few of my favorites:

1 – This reality is a dream, and the dreamer, upon awakening, will realize that his reality is a dream. And upon awakening the dreamer of the dreamer will realize that his reality is a dream. There is an infinite chain of dreamers.

2 – We are to higher beings as characters in a book are to us. We appear to exist, but in fact exist only in the mind of the “reader”.

3 – Reality is a simulation.

4 – All possible realities exist simultaneously, and psychedelics allow us brief glimpses of these concurrent realities.

5 – The brain is very clever at generating plausible explanations for whatever stimuli it receives, no matter how strange. Psychedelic experiences, no matter how convincing they may be, are products of the brain.

6 – The physical and the “immaterial” or spiritual are manifestations of the same thing (which is neither physical nor spiritual).

7 – The brain is a receiver, normally tuned into a frequency that best suits the body. Psychedelics change the frequency.

Any more?

 

[jbark]

So I feel very silly now, not knowing what an irrational number is. Damn, school was so long ago, and my interest in mathematics is now officially laymen/ignorant...

However, I still stand my ground on certain points, being the stubborn, difficult to teach, curmudgeonly hard headed idee-fixe that i am (at the risk of digging myself even deeper into that very ground:shock: ):

While mathematics can be used to calculate where and when the moving Achilles will overtake the Tortoise of Zeno's paradox, philosophers such as Brown and Moorcroft[4][5] claim that mathematics does not address the central point in Zeno's argument, and that solving the mathematical issues does not solve every issue the paradoxes raise.

Zeno's arguments are often misrepresented in the popular literature. That is, Zeno is often said to have argued that the sum of an infinite number of terms must itself be infinite–that both the distance and the time to be travelled are infinite. However, Zeno's problem was not with finding the sum of an infinite sequence, but rather with finishing an infinite number of tasks: how can one ever get from A to B, if an infinite number of events can be identified that need to precede the arrival at B, and one cannot reach even the beginning of a "last event"?[4][5][6][26]

Today there is still a debate on the question of whether or not Zeno's paradoxes have been resolved. In The History of Mathematics, Burton writes, "Although Zeno's argument confounded his contemporaries, a satisfactory explanation incorporates a now-familiar idea, the notion of a 'convergent infinite series.'"[27] Bertrand Russell offered a "solution" to the paradoxes based on modern physics[citation needed], but Brown concludes "Given the history of 'final resolutions', from Aristotle onwards, it's probably foolhardy to think we've reached the end. It may be that Zeno's arguments on motion, because of their simplicity and universality, will always serve as a kind of 'Rorschach image' onto which people can project their most fundamental phenomenological concerns (if they have any)."[4]

I feel partially vindicated, although I am sure that will only last until the fine mathematical minds here shoot me down like an ailing sequence In the meantime, I will hide behind this Rorshach image and choose blindly to see what I see within my very personal "phenomenological concerns"!!

JBArk the blushing pride

 

[jbark]

What more could it be? Lets just think of some possibilities doesn't matter if they are wrong or right.

1- All in the brain
2- alternate universe / dimensions
3- unknown aspect of our universe
4- consciousness is ingrained in the universe then it appears

Anything else I'm just shooting things out here.

Well, the premise of this thread is that any specific claim about the nature of existence is almost certainly wrong, so with that in mind I’ll repeat a few of my favorites:

1 – This reality is a dream, and the dreamer, upon awakening, will realize that his reality is a dream. And upon awakening the dreamer of the dreamer will realize that his reality is a dream. There is an infinite chain of dreamers.

2 – We are to higher beings as characters in a book are to us. We appear to exist, but in fact exist only in the mind of the “reader”.

3 – Reality is a simulation.

4 – All possible realities exist simultaneously, and psychedelics allow us brief glimpses of these concurrent realities.

5 – The brain is very clever at generating plausible explanations for whatever stimuli it receives, no matter how strange. Psychedelic experiences, no matter how convincing they may be, are products of the brain.

6 – The physical and the “immaterial” or spiritual are manifestations of the same thing (which is neither physical nor spiritual).

7 – The brain is a receiver, normally tuned into a frequency that best suits the body. Psychedelics change the frequency.

Any more?

You forgot the slot machine immersive video game - insert 25 cents, time is evoked, and you play JBArk for 80+ years (i hope, anyway:wink: ) Another 25 cents, and you're Gibran2...:d

But that might fall under #3, simulation.

In "God's debris" Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert!) postulates that we are the debris of a God who exploded himself to find out what it would be like to cease to exist (the only possible interesting option left to an omnipotent and omniscient god), and this explosion resulted in 2 types of debris: "god dust", or matter, right down to the tiniest particle, and - probability. It is through this debris that consciousness is created, and through this debris, God is rebuilding itself.

IOW, "we are the building blocks of God, in the early stages of reassembling" as a means of answering its own question: what is it to cease to be?

Purposely flawed, but a beautiful and fascinating little book that is available online for free and takes a little over an hour to read. Highly recommended.

As an aside, doesn't the above strike you as much like a DMT, or salvia trip? We destroy ourselves to feel non-existence, then reassemble to "answer" only that one question: what if I were not?

JBArk