Another interesting thing to say about both Einstein and Newton is that both came up with imagination, with theories that explain only dynamics, based on an understanding of what you might call particles.
QP and string theory do the opposite. They use imagination to conjure particles, based on observed dynamics.
In this sense, you could say Newton and Einstein are not atomists, in the Democritan sense. To them, particles are just an excuse, a stable arrangement to measure dynamics.
So QPicists and string theorists are atomists. To them, dynamics are just an excuse, a stable arrangement to measure particles.
The importance on one hand is fundamentally based on utility, on the other on security.
Yaldabaoth? Agnostic…?
Quite a powerful image you’ve shared there… of wrenching heart and testing times…
…a talented band… one of my favourite songs… I have a few.
Yes, there is a myth - I am not saying it is held by PIR, just hopping into the conversation here - that intuition is over here and scientific analysis and rationaliy is over there. The latter is better and in no way dependent or connected to the former. Nope. Scientists must use intuition, not on in coming up with better hypotheses and lines research, but every step in their process includes intuitive processes - have I looked at my protocols enough to rule out other factors, have I chosen my sample free of prejudice, are my terms (sematically) appropriate to the research, have I double checked enough, do I have a nagging feeling I have an unchecked assumption here and so on. IOW yes, they come up with ideas and potential models and lines of research and hypotheses with imaginatino (read: intuition) but even when they get down to the brass tacks of scientific procedure, protocol construction, testing, evaluation of results, presentation of results, intuition undergirds all sorts of decision making processes. Without inuition nearly every rational process is damagingly if not catastrophically autistic.
Um? I don’t know, but I do do all these things, most days.
Being in a state of bliss may be the answer, as, much of that rings true for me… I’m very calm and chill, but we all have our moments, right? ; )
Many get their feel-goods from being aggy, but I think that that is counter-productive to bliss satiation, as antagonism is anti-bliss and would therefore inhibit endorphin production. Aggy types literally steal your high from you, by antagonistic means, and are known as toxic types… my eldest sister is so, so I have to keep her on a strict level of rapport.
Well… I’m no expert, but this Smithsonian Magazine article says “Young synesthetes losing their colors over time would fit with a popular theory about synesthesia, which says that it comes from an overly connected brain. “All very young children have hyper-connected brains,” Simner says; the neurons branch out indiscriminately between different areas. As we grow, the unneeded connections are pruned away, a process that continues throughout childhood. “It may be that synesthetes escape the pruning, so to speak,” Simner says. All kids might start out with some degree of synesthesia, which fades away with normal development”.
Wendy… perhaps you are a child of god, as opposed to a child, and so remain neurally-unpruned and therefore remain neurally-connected, like bae bae.
Lol come on Mags, I am neither talking about nor attempting to allude to taking drugs or drug-like experiences, even a little.
'Saying is simpler here. What can cause such a thing as you described experiencing? “I don’t care” is an answer that certainly makes sense to me, and that I reserve for many of my own most treasured experiences, but “endorphins” seems like neither one nor the other, neither “I don’t care” nor “well this.”
I think it might be a little rude to accuse our friend of disingenuousness or superstition right off the bat, and I am just trying to ask a question that puts into perspective the fact that a thing like synesthesia is not as simple as “because!”
I cannot speak for the guy, but only myself, and what I’ve discussed with others who have had similar experiences… it’s an interesting phenomenon, regardless.
Can’t say I’ve ever had it, even after doing copious amounts of acid, but I find it extremely interesting and it makes some kind of weird sense to me. And yet, what does cause it? I think, whether one has any interest in answering it or not, that it is a good question.
Even Secretary of State Esper can’t back Trump up on his latest lie about an imminent threat justifying assassinating Soleimani.
I always assume that ‘seeing’, in this context, is a figure of speech. It seems obvious that they are referring to observation, and as a creature with a very strong bias toward sight, my first instinct is to take ‘observation’ to be a synonym for ‘seeing’, but due to the physical limitations at that scale, I’m required to re-educate myself to take that word to mean something else entirely.
I suppose you can understand this branch as a refusal to admit that we can’t measure these things, but you can also see it as the wonderful way in which humans approach incomprehensible phenomena, which is to let our wild creativity and imagination expand the limits of our mind into areas beyond our technical ability, so that when the technology gets there, those things don’t seem so crazy anymore, we’re ready for them.
Of course, the question is, does QP really make us ready for them? String theory MAYBE. Maybe, and let us remember that ST is basically a radical reaction to QP.
To really prepare ground, discipline in thought, in imagination, is important. Einstein was nothing if not ruthlessly disciplined in his imagination. Not to speak of Newton, who spread his mind over subjects as rich as alchemy, and yet gave some of the driest, straight-forwardest contributions to science ever contributed. The Greeks’ jaws would have dropped.
It is one thing to let the imagination wander. It is another to obfuscate knowable realities in order to allow a certain kind of imagination to take hold. It takes an agenda, and usually marks the difference between a wandering imagination and a sly trick.
I understand what you say about sight and observation. I am not saying we have any words to directly address the measurements that get us closer to determine what we may be looking at at the sub-electronic scale. But there is a certain, push, a certain emphasis placed on the literal meaning of sight in quantum physics, that belies a disingenuousness and even deceitfulness.
In short, they claimed to have determined more things than it is so far possible to determine. We are not even at the point of determining what it is we might possibly be trying to determine.
It sticks in one’s side.
Often they confuse practical definitions with actual reality, just to further the mysticism. Like light being particle or wave, or both. And that experiment in which it is a particle if you look, and a wave if you don’t. We actually know far more about light than this suggests. The wave - particle question is one of practicality of how to measure light, not any kind of information of what light actually is. Too much sweat went into the study of electromagnetism for me to allow that to stand. It is very fucked up, and took every ounce of Einstein’s strength, to be able to imagine what light actually is given everything we know about matter and energy.
They suggest, and how innocently they suggest it is up for debate, but I have my inklings, that a kind of magic happens by virtue of the observation (really measurement of very specific things, often obfuscated by insincerely calling it ‘sight’) wherein it literally is only particles in one case, and waves in the other.
Stop it. Einstein never treated us like retards.
We can’t even say they are wrong. Because we don’t know. We can only say they are making stuff up for no discernable reason.
QP is a struggling with measurement instruments and methods, not theories about physics. My question is: why is this shameful?
Just to be sure that no Russian interference is occurring, I’m going to re-post this sporadically throughout this thread:
MАГA
lol
It’s funny how whenever synesthesia is mentioned, 2 or 3 people will come forward saying that they present it.
As if the population distribution of that condition was more than 4%.
Lol… perhaps your demeanour is not ethereal enough, for… like I said, it seems to be about a state of mind that we find ourselves in.
Indeed… some of the best questions may go unanswered, but I tried my best, and I think I’m right. ; )
Right. Maybe my dharmic soul, or whatever, isn’t done tripping out at images themselves enough to go, like, deconstructing the senses.
By God I saw some incredible shit on acid though.