NationStates Jolt Archive

I need help. A few months ago, as part of a random speculative idea on what the ultimate explanation for life, humanity and religion would be, I invented an idea. This idea was Systemity, and it holds that all matters that can't be explained as physical phenomenon can be explained in terms of the interaction between physical bodies.

I threw this into a religious context, claiming that it explains why Humans have a conscious awareness at a more developed level than animals, how animals themselves can have a spirit and how pack behaviour exerts such a strong effect on individual organisms.

I also claimed that it explained how God exists, how prayer can be answered, how religious tendencies in humans arise, how Creationism and Evolutionism are one and the same in its context and how people's experience with the divine both seems and is so incredibly real to that individual.

I then, almost jokingly, noted that Buddha, Jesus and the prophets were Systemists too, and gave scriptural evidence in Jesus's case to support this interpretation ("Whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me"; Jesus's refusal to let others tell of his identity as the son of God; his acceptance of Samaritanism, and the Answer to the question of his Authority, in particular).

Now, I am starting to believe in my own fabrication. I'm turning into a Kook, seeing repercussions of this philosophy/theology everywhere I look. I genuinely believe mankind would be profoundly impacted for the better if the ideas spread and overran religiosity and overt atheism.

Please, convince me I've made a mistake. You're welcome to ask for more details on certain areas if it makes refutation easier. I just need to believe that the truth can't possibly be understood like that. I don't want to think I have found the answer; people who do and who are as secure in it as I feel I'm slowly becoming are the most dangerous people alive...

If you explained it all a little more thoroughly I might be able to help - you didn't really make it clear how all the interaction thingies work.

Now, I am starting to believe in my own fabrication. I'm turning into a Kook, seeing repercussions of this philosophy/theology everywhere I look. I genuinely believe mankind would be profoundly impacted for the better if the ideas spread and overran religiosity and overt atheism.

Please, convince me I've made a mistake. You're welcome to ask for more details on certain areas if it makes refutation easier. I just need to believe that the truth can't possibly be understood like that. I don't want to think I have found the answer; people who do and who are as secure in it as I feel I'm slowly becoming are the most dangerous people alive...

Unless you're right. Ever think about that?

Have you considered that you maybe the second coming of christ but God hasn't told you yet? He's very busy y'know..

What the heck; I'll take a stab.

I need help. A few months ago, as part of a random speculative idea on what the ultimate explanation for life, humanity and religion would be, I invented an idea. This idea was Systemity, and it holds that all matters that can't be explained as physical phenomenon can be explained in terms of the interaction between physical bodies.

A reaction between physical bodies is still a physical phenomenon. Gravity, for example, is a reaction between physical bodies. While gravity is not itself a physical body (although there has been some conjecture about gravitons, I'm not a physicist myself and won't attempt to explain the idea), it is still a physical principle. Magnetism, light, and many other forces and manifestations of elctromagnetic energy fall into this same category (although, technically, they are all effects created by the movement and/or configuration of electrons, which are more-or-less physical bodies).

I threw this into a religious context, claiming that it explains why Humans have a conscious awareness at a more developed level than animals, how animals themselves can have a spirit and how pack behaviour exerts such a strong effect on individual organisms.

Nothing mysterious about this. It's a product of brain activity, which is largely preconditioned by things like hormones and neurotransmitters. If by "spirit" you mean "electrical energy in the brain," no problem. If you mean something else, then you would need to find some proof of its existence. We know with certainty that when the brain stops working, these sorts of phenomena cease, and when centers in the brain associated with that activity are destroyed, the behavior goes away.

I also claimed that it explained how God exists, how prayer can be answered, how religious tendencies in humans arise, how Creationism and Evolutionism are one and the same in its context and how people's experience with the divine both seems and is so incredibly real to that individual.

Experience with the divine seems real because the brain processes it as real unless something tells it not to in many cases. As far as prayer being answered, you'd need first to show somehow that prayers are indeed answered with some degree of statistical certainty. The few studies I've seen on this don't show any degree of correlation. As far as Creationism and Evolution being the same "in context," that simply doesn't parse at all. In what context?

Now, I am starting to believe in my own fabrication. I'm turning into a Kook, seeing repercussions of this philosophy/theology everywhere I look. I genuinely believe mankind would be profoundly impacted for the better if the ideas spread and overran religiosity and overt atheism.

That does sound like you're in danger of turning into a kook. I believe the technical term for it is a "messianic complex," though I stipulate that I'm not a psychologist and am not qualified to make any diagnosis, particularly via Internet.

Please, convince me I've made a mistake. You're welcome to ask for more details on certain areas if it makes refutation easier. I just need to believe that the truth can't possibly be understood like that. I don't want to think I have found the answer; people who do and who are as secure in it as I feel I'm slowly becoming are the most dangerous people alive...

From what you've said, I don't see any particular truth here. It seems so far that what you're describing probably arises more from playing fast-and-loose with language than from any new insight.

I need help. A few months ago, as part of a random speculative idea on what the ultimate explanation for life, humanity and religion would be, I invented an idea. This idea was Systemity, and it holds that all matters that can't be explained as physical phenomenon can be explained in terms of the interaction between physical bodies.

I threw this into a religious context, claiming that it explains why Humans have a conscious awareness at a more developed level than animals, how animals themselves can have a spirit and how pack behaviour exerts such a strong effect on individual organisms.

I also claimed that it explained how God exists, how prayer can be answered, how religious tendencies in humans arise, how Creationism and Evolutionism are one and the same in its context and how people's experience with the divine both seems and is so incredibly real to that individual.

I then, almost jokingly, noted that Buddha, Jesus and the prophets were Systemists too, and gave scriptural evidence in Jesus's case to support this interpretation ("Whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me"; Jesus's refusal to let others tell of his identity as the son of God; his acceptance of Samaritanism, and the Answer to the question of his Authority, in particular).

Now, I am starting to believe in my own fabrication. I'm turning into a Kook, seeing repercussions of this philosophy/theology everywhere I look. I genuinely believe mankind would be profoundly impacted for the better if the ideas spread and overran religiosity and overt atheism.

Please, convince me I've made a mistake. You're welcome to ask for more details on certain areas if it makes refutation easier. I just need to believe that the truth can't possibly be understood like that. I don't want to think I have found the answer; people who do and who are as secure in it as I feel I'm slowly becoming are the most dangerous people alive...

I bet that's how Scientology started.

If you explained it all a little more thoroughly I might be able to help - you didn't really make it clear how all the interaction thingies work.
Mmkay. You'll be able to tell I'm a philosopher though. ^^;

Gravitation: Particles disrupt our space-time fabric and thus influence each other from a distance. Hawking is far better at explaining the concept than I am, since I'm still studying General Relativity, personally.

If we consider our existence as a brane plane, we can consider another brane plane existing in parallel to our own but which is influenced by gravitation waves by matter in our plane. This is an idea used to explain the concept of Dark matter; what is perceived as dark matter in our universe could be a result of the gravitation of a body in a brane plane parallel to ours.

This gravitation is clearly accumulative, since larger masses distort space-time more than smaller ones. Now, we make the supposition that gravitation in this brane plane can affect other particles in this plane both directly and in a sort of weak feedback system from other planes that are themselves experiencing this gravitation and weak feedback. In other words, a body experiences an extra amount of force due to gravitation that can be interpreted as an Energy that increases exponentially with the size of the body.

What we have here is extra Energy being passed between two objects. This could, metaphorically, be perceived as information (or rather as an influence that requires a change of behaviour).

Now, Emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) is an interesting field that deals with possible outcomes of this kind of information exchange. Notably, with regards to natural process and evolutionary adaptation.

The Systemity idea studies this kind of compound-body/information interaction. Does that seem refutable so far?

*snip* Please, convince me I've made a mistake. You're welcome to ask for more details on certain areas if it makes refutation easier. I just need to believe that the truth can't possibly be understood like that. I don't want to think I have found the answer; people who do and who are as secure in it as I feel I'm slowly becoming are the most dangerous people alive...
Why does it have to be the truth? Why can't it just be truth for you?

Why does it have to be the truth? Why can't it just be truth for you?
The thing is, if it's true, it's a complete mind-shift. Everything can be explained through simple constructs? There is nothing inexplicable? Either it's the truth or it's delusional, and while my sanity on such an issue is steadily dwindling, I still reckon it's more likely to be the latter. But it's a delusion that nobody has yet reasonably contradicted me on (beyond "Jesus is our saviour" or "God doesn't exist, moron").

I bet that's how Scientology started.
I have no intention of abusing religious tendencies for personal profit. >_>

Have you considered that you maybe the second coming of christ but God hasn't told you yet? He's very busy y'know..
Nah, I'm not so bad yet as to consider myself Jesus! Besides, the ideas aren't exactly Christian or Judaic in nature.

That does sound like you're in danger of turning into a kook. I believe the technical term for it is a "messianic complex," though I stipulate that I'm not a psychologist and am not qualified to make any diagnosis, particularly via Internet.
Surely it's only a messianic complex if I want it to take over the alternatives? I said the world would be a better place; not that I would at all suggest actually going out and overrunning Religion.

As for your other points, not every interaction of particles can be considered physical in the way that we consider 4-dimensional space-time. I'd recommend a brief flick through The Universe in a Nutshell for an introduction to some of the concepts. And you're partly getting my point on Divine perception; it's being processed as being a real occurrance, even if it's not a physical one.

I could elaborate on the delusion for a while. For instance, how minute changes in energy states cause changes in chemical behaviour. I really don't have any sort of scientific backing on that one, since my knowledge of Chemistry is rather limited.

What it basically boils down to is this; things interact with each other. Things exchange information with each other. This exchanging of information changes how the things would originally behave. Thus, we get Systemic behaviour, a la Complex Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system) theory.

Human consciousness is itself an example of systemic behaviour. However, it is a highly developed and evolved form of it, and as such is capable of being aware of its status as thus. There's a little more to it than just electrical signals; namely, the order and structure that underly them, the body with which stimuli are provided that produce very specific effects and the life-support network that keeps the whole thing running.

In fact, human Society is another example. How, you ask? Society affects you as a unit without needing the use of anything outside of itself. A society can be said to have Character; it embodies the lives and opinions of all those who reside within it, even if none within that society actually explicitly hold those beliefs.

I've given better explanations for this part before (since I'm rather tired right now) but where does this systemic behaviour end? If everything is affecting every other thing such that it seems to be creating governing "Selves" like Humans and Communities, is there a top to the pyramid? The answer is that if the pattern does genuinely propagate, it must have an end, and that if it does, it is all-inclusive.

What does this system do? Well, it effectively acts as a communication medium between its internal parts. It might even have conscious control over such communication, though that isn't a necessary part of the idea.

An all-inclusive universal governing force? Surely not. Give me evidence.

Religious individuals have themselves as much (if not more) evidence for Systemity as they do for their own faith. Why? Personal Encounter; they have perceived this force. As all humans are able to do. As inherently complex systems, we can conceivably "visualise" things of similar complexity to ourselves. While considerably more complex than us, mankind can consider this force in one sense that is close to home; as a huge version of itself. God in Man's image, so to speak. This simplification is not necessarily an incorrect one; in fact, as some religious people have pointed out, it's the only way in which they could possibly understand the being they call God.

Similarly, Prayer. Ever noticed how the only prayers that seem to work are those that depend on fulfilment by other people? Well, that would make sense; communicating information between other living beings is what God does. Someone sends out a generic distress call, other people receive it, and if they're particularly listening, respond through action.

I need to grab some sleep; I'll explain the creationism/evolution thing in the morning. Keep the refutations coming...

Start a cult, it worked for the real Jesus...

Start a cult, it worked for the real Jesus...
Of course....he got crucified...

Of course....he got crucified...
We don't do that anymore though, you just end up in a former soviet jail halfway across the world for 'questioning'

Of course....he got crucified...
He was a pansy, long haired hippy, pinko, liberal though...

Interesting, though I think the theory that there is no objective truth and we're just instinctual beings trying to attain power over eachother to be more interesting. Well, keep up the thinking. I have had some odd ideas, too, but I've found that philosophizing allows me to refine them and reëvaluate their validity.

Start a cult, it worked for the real Jesus...
Jesus didn't start the Cult; his mates did. Or some guy who changed his name did.

Interesting, though I think the theory that there is no objective truth and we're just instinctual beings trying to attain power over eachother to be more interesting. Well, keep up the thinking. I have had some odd ideas, too, but I've found that philosophizing allows me to refine them and reëvaluate their validity.
Surely there must be some degree of objective truth. You can admit that your own existence is an objective truth in whatever sense existence occurs; if it wasn't, you wouldn't have a self with which to be subjective. But there are corollaries from that. For instance, I can safely say that whatever chemical processes drive my thoughts are telling me that some things connected to me that I have a degree of control over are interacting in such a way as to make other parts of my mind perceive a change in what seem to be characters on what appears to be a screen. To you, I am either experiencing this or I don't exist. Either this is objective - this is definitely occurring - or your subjective self is observing a subjective observation, in which case, my own subjective observation is as objective as any observation your subjective self makes. In turn, this demands objectivity, since your own existence appears to you as objective fact.

*Will return after lectures*

Jesus didn't start the Cult; his mates did. Or some guy who changed his name did.


OKay, so can we start a cult for you?

From what I've read so far you're thinking here is pretty much the same as mine has been for quite a while. We might differ in some details, but overall it's the same. I hate to say it this way but it's basically 'The Force' of Star Wars fame.

The movement of matter and energy, affects the movement of all other matter and energy to some degree. Everything that happens is just a movement of matter or energy, or a change in state between the two. Therefore, in theory anything could be accomplished if you could properly control this movement of matter and energy (miracles, anyone). If you weere to concentrate enough on a certain outcome(change the flow of electrical energy in your brain) might you be able to influence the flow of matter and energy of the system to make it happen (the power of prayer).

The real shift in world view comes when you realize what this means if its true. Everything in the universe has energy. God, is simply the personification of the effects of this movement of energy. If God is energy and everything has energy, then everything is God. That means, you are God, and I am God, and my cat is God, and the tree in front of my house is God.

If this is true, how can you fight a war against God? After all no matter who your enemy is they are God too. How do you justify the destruction of so much wilderness? Those trees are God too. You shouldn't just abuse them. This is basically Native American philosophy. 'Take what you need, but use what you take.' To waste paper, which comes from trees, is to waste God. To poison a river with chemicals, is to poison God, and to kill a thousand little Gods (fish, etc.). Basically, this makes Western Society the devil (that which inspires men to go against God). Not from a Muslim Fundamentalist point of view (that's equally Devilish, just in a different way), but more of an Buddist, Hindu, Native American, Traditional African Religion kind of way. The belief that to hurt one another or to hurt the Earth is to hurt oneself.

Don't think for a second you're wrong. Niether of us may be the Messiah, but there's nothing wrong with thinking of oneself as a humble prophet. Just make sure you stay humble. If you don't, that's when they break out the crucifix and nails.

From what I've read so far you're thinking here is pretty much the same as mine has been for quite a while. We might differ in some details, but overall it's the same. I hate to say it this way but it's basically 'The Force' of Star Wars fame.
Ultimately, there is at least one key difference with "The Force". The power I'm thinking of is not just that; it is also an entity in itself. God isn't just a personification; it could actually be a "Person", in some sense, just as a bunch of brain matter and some biological structure creates a Human "Person". God is a being both dependent on and transcendant to physical energy. Rather than being the energy itself, he is the system that the energy generates. "The Force", in the sense of being exchangable energy packets between matter, creates and is created and driven by God, rather than actually being him.

We are both one with and separate to God as a consequence of being made up of our own subset of energies.

With regards to use of this Force, I'm somewhat skeptical that humans could really have such an inherent degree of control over this energy so as to cause specific physical effects like directly repairing wounds or calling down thunder and whatnot. Doing so would for one require an instinctual knowledge over what amount of mass here performs what amount of energy change in a specific body some distance away. If this were the only problem, it could possibly be overcome.

The question is whether or not a local change can cause a local change only within one other specific system. While the gravitation energy surplus idea holds true for a General emergent effect on bodies nearby, it may not for affecting bodies individually. Is there any explanation that might permit specific effects?

OKay, so can we start a cult for you?
0_o

Erm... If you really want to... But waiting until after I'm dead so I can't possibly question your interpretation would probably be a good idea.

"Explain to me why I'm wrong"

It has been suggested that communication via quanta without reference to time is possible, which would explain things like human "psychic" abilities, pre-cognitive dreams, the apparent ability of some animals to know things they have no other way of knowing, the apparent ability of some humans to communicate with each other at extreme distances without any mechanical aid, etc.

It has also been suggested that consciousness is an attempt by the universe to become self-aware.

Your idea seems to be somewhat similar to these concepts, but would be difficult in the extreme to prove, I think.

You're wrong because you ignore the crucial role played in all of this by Chuck Norris.

I need help. A few months ago, as part of a random speculative idea on what the ultimate explanation for life, humanity and religion would be, I invented an idea. This idea was Systemity, and it holds that all matters that can't be explained as physical phenomenon can be explained in terms of the interaction between physical bodies.

I dont see whats revolutionary about this at all. "Physical phenomena" includes all "interaction between physical bodies". I dont see how your idea even makes sense, let alone has truth.

Ultimately, there is at least one key difference with "The Force". The power I'm thinking of is not just that; it is also an entity in itself. God isn't just a personification; it could actually be a "Person", in some sense, just as a bunch of brain matter and some biological structure creates a Human "Person". God is a being both dependent on and transcendant to physical energy. Rather than being the energy itself, he is the system that the energy generates. "The Force", in the sense of being exchangable energy packets between matter, creates and is created and driven by God, rather than actually being him.

We are both one with and separate to God as a consequence of being made up of our own subset of energies.

Oh, well then we must part ways as quickly as we came together. Everything I believe can be explained solely within the bounds of modern science. While I cannot explicitly disprove the existence of a trancendant God, I can only assume there is not one until I see some sort of direct evidence to the contrary.

Also, while I might agree that our energy is for the most part trapped within the shell of our bodies and could therefore be considered seperate from the system. It could, be released (astral projection) and is eventually (death) back into the system. By the way, consider that our thoughts are just energy patterns in our brains. If they are realeased and parts of several are repackaged into another person that would explain past lives.

Like I said, I've been playing around with a similiar theory for years now. I'm sure I've got a much more comprehensive conceptualization than you've worked-up in the last month or so. I find this discussion to be fascinating though. Just let's be a little less free with the scientific terminology. I'm damned smart, but it's kind of difficult to discuss things when I'm only vaguely familiar with the terms. Alternatively, give me Wikipedia links so I can get up to speed as we go.

You're wrong because you ignore the crucial role played in all of this by Chuck Norris.
You forgot Vin Diesel! :D

Chuck Norris pwns Vin Diesel. :p

You're wrong because you ignore the crucial role played in all of this by Chuck Norris.
Well Obviously round-house kicks are a unique and novel method of spiritually communicating with other people.

I dont see whats revolutionary about this at all. "Physical phenomena" includes all "interaction between physical bodies". I dont see how your idea even makes sense, let alone has truth.
I'm referring to a physical phenomena as something that happens within 4-dimensional spacetime. Things that are objectively perceivable and explainable as "Physical". Non-physical phenomena include things like Eut has suggested; the idea of a body's ability to communicate with things above and beyond its 4-dimensional capabilities (like emergent structures). Interactions between physical bodies includes the effects these bodies have on each other that aren't directly related to their state within these 4 dimensions. Such as, for instance, p-branes/1-d strings extending into other dimensions. I suppose they're physical too, and they do cause an effect on 4-dimensional spacetime, but they're not easily observable, and hence might not be treated in the same way by your average observer when he considers what is "Physical" and what is not.

So okay. Observable phenomena can always be explained as interactions between bodies, but these interactions may occur on more levels than just our own space and time. Sound better?

Well Obviously round-house kicks are a unique and novel method of spiritually communicating with other people.


I'm referring to a physical phenomena as something that happens within 4-dimensional spacetime. Things that are objectively perceivable and explainable as "Physical". Non-physical phenomena include things like Eut has suggested; the idea of a body's ability to communicate with things above and beyond its 4-dimensional capabilities (like emergent structures). Interactions between physical bodies includes the effects these bodies have on each other that aren't directly related to their state within these 4 dimensions. Such as, for instance, p-branes/1-d strings extending into other dimensions. I suppose they're physical too, and they do cause an effect on 4-dimensional spacetime, but they're not easily observable, and hence might not be treated in the same way by your average observer when he considers what is "Physical" and what is not.

So okay. Observable phenomena can always be explained as interactions between bodies, but these interactions may occur on more levels than just our own space and time. Sound better?


You're talking about M-theory physics, I think. So far, branes are only a mathematical construct, though. There's no objective indication of their existence. If I recall correctly, they're mostly a way of explaining the weakness of gravity.

Assuming how physical object interact with something that is "separated" from them by a mathematical construct seems like a stretch. Not even most physicists who fully understand these things accept branes (or M-theory in general) so far. Nobody has been able to demonstrate their existence yet.

You started this thread by asking to be proven wrong. At this point, I'd have to say that if your ideas are as you've written them, nobody can do that because there's no argument for the idea yet, just suppositions about logical constructs. It would be incumbent upon you to actually put together some assertion before you can ask that it be disproven.

I need help. A few months ago, as part of a random speculative idea on what the ultimate explanation for life, humanity and religion would be, I invented an idea. This idea was Systemity, and it holds that all matters that can't be explained as physical phenomenon can be explained in terms of the interaction between physical bodies.

I threw this into a religious context, claiming that it explains why Humans have a conscious awareness at a more developed level than animals, how animals themselves can have a spirit and how pack behaviour exerts such a strong effect on individual organisms.

I also claimed that it explained how God exists, how prayer can be answered, how religious tendencies in humans arise, how Creationism and Evolutionism are one and the same in its context and how people's experience with the divine both seems and is so incredibly real to that individual.

I then, almost jokingly, noted that Buddha, Jesus and the prophets were Systemists too, and gave scriptural evidence in Jesus's case to support this interpretation ("Whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me"; Jesus's refusal to let others tell of his identity as the son of God; his acceptance of Samaritanism, and the Answer to the question of his Authority, in particular).

Now, I am starting to believe in my own fabrication. I'm turning into a Kook, seeing repercussions of this philosophy/theology everywhere I look. I genuinely believe mankind would be profoundly impacted for the better if the ideas spread and overran religiosity and overt atheism.

Please, convince me I've made a mistake. You're welcome to ask for more details on certain areas if it makes refutation easier. I just need to believe that the truth can't possibly be understood like that. I don't want to think I have found the answer; people who do and who are as secure in it as I feel I'm slowly becoming are the most dangerous people alive...COUGH "eejit" COUGH

What you have written could be written by anyone. It can appear to make sense but under close examination is just flim flam

COUGH "eejit" COUGH

What you have written could be written by anyone. It can appear to make sense but under close examination is just flim flam
That's my point. I can't see it. Examine it and Tell me!

That's my point. I can't see it. Examine it and Tell me!
No, that would only encourage you to feel what you have written is relevant in some way.

At this point, I'd have to say that if your ideas are as you've written them, nobody can do that because there's no argument for the idea yet, just suppositions about logical constructs.
Aha! That'll do it, I think. I've set it up as a logical construct based on other logical constructs as opposed to direct empirical evidence.

What would it show? It's just another aspect of the model that ultimately tries to tie the supernatural in with the natural when the explanations "They're making it up", "They're delusional" or "They've been duped" seem much more simple.

The only possible physical applications I can think of involve a minute additional exponentially increasing term in high-energy gravitation theory. If supergravity occurs in 11-dimensions through the interaction of branes, then we should theoretically see a slowly-increasing term for gravititation included as spacetime is curved additionally through the consideration of the effect of energy changes in these branes.

So yeah; modelling != factual explanation.

Phew, thanks for that. I feel considerably less messianic now. ^^

Still, it's a nice model to consider.

Aha! That'll do it, I think. I've set it up as a logical construct based on other logical constructs as opposed to direct empirical evidence.

What would it show? It's just another aspect of the model that ultimately tries to tie the supernatural in with the natural when the explanations "They're making it up", "They're delusional" or "They've been duped" seem much more simple.

The only possible physical applications I can think of involve a minute additional exponentially increasing term in high-energy gravitation theory. If supergravity occurs in 11-dimensions through the interaction of branes, then we should theoretically see a slowly-increasing term for gravititation included as spacetime is curved additionally through the consideration of the effect of energy changes in these branes.

So yeah; modelling != factual explanation.

Phew, thanks for that. I feel considerably less messianic now. ^^

Still, it's a nice model to consider.


No problem. I'd hazard to say that your experiment wouldn't be much of a basis for a whole religion, but finding empirical evidence for a major aspect of M-theory would make you a good contender for a Nobel prize in physics!

No, that would only encourage you to feel what you have written is relevant in some way.
You know, it's people like you that make otherwise normal people into fanatically devout religious believers. "You're not even worth refuting". Seriously, people see this kind of attitude and rightly perceive it as direct, irrational hostility. Hence why they believe even stronger.

I hope you're happy with yourself.

Unless, of course, you're being deliberately ironic. In which case, bravo! :D

No problem. I'd hazard to say that your experiment wouldn't be much of a basis for a whole religion...
Why not? It worked for Darwin. =P

Joking, joking. ^^;
... but finding empirical evidence for a major aspect of M-theory would make you a good contender for a Nobel prize in physics!
Hmm... Time to start looking then! I'll get back to you in... 2020? >_>

.._/) Zombie Bunneh: "Branes.... branes...."
(X.x)
(> #)>

.._/) Zombie Bunneh: "Branes.... branes...."
(X.x)
(> #)>
Nuu! Teh bunneh is eating meh spatial realiteh!

*Watches as bunny eats a black hole through spacetime*

0__0;;

You know, it's people like you that make otherwise normal people into fanatically devout religious believers. "You're not even worth refuting". Seriously, people see this kind of attitude and rightly perceive it as direct, irrational hostility. Hence why they believe even stronger.

I hope you're happy with yourself.

Unless, of course, you're being deliberately ironic. In which case, bravo! :D
There is irony afoot, you asked for a response and were not happy with what you received. How can I make "otherwise normal people into fanatically devout religious believers" simply by having a point of view?

So I am now an "irrational hostile", I like that (in an ironic fashion)
:fluffle:

I tend to think that there's a secondary problem in this assertion:

If everything is affecting every other thing such that it seems to be creating governing "Selves" like Humans and Communities, is there a top to the pyramid? The answer is that if the pattern does genuinely propagate, it must have an end, and that if it does, it is all-inclusive.

My question is what happens if you introduce the notion of infinity into the mix. Could the pattern you speak of be like a Mandelbrot set? With no real beginning and no end? It propogates simply because it always has propogated, with no initial cause needed.

There is irony afoot, you asked for a response and were not happy with what you received. How can I make "otherwise normal people into fanatically devout religious believers" simply by having a point of view?

So I am now an "irrational hostile", I like that (in an ironic fashion)
:fluffle:
Well, the point of view isn't the issue. It would be the way you basically said "You're wrong, I know it, and I'm not going to tell you why." People are going to assume you would be merely antagonistic without backing, because there'd be no reason to respond so viciously without having due reason. Unless of course it's deliberate Irony. But in these days and times, some people hold things like that to heart, and it's genuinely hard to tell. >_>

And yeah, I thought that was a cool phrase too. Irrational Hostility. We should use it more often. ^^

I tend to think that there's a secondary problem in this assertion:

My question is what happens if you introduce the notion of infinity into the mix. Could the pattern you speak of be like a Mandelbrot set? With no real beginning and no end? It propogates simply because it always has propogated, with no initial cause needed.
Technically it's possible, but if the universe is expanding, it must have finite dimensions, and there must therefore be a finite maximum number of possible interactions within it. Existence in 3-d Space isn't infinately large, just absolutely enormous; the number of interparticular interactions thus being not just astronomical but probably as close to infinite as you can get while still being finite. Then again, with things flashing in and out of existence all the time due to thermodynamics and being able to use energy from the surrounding environment, there could well be an infinite number of particular interactions in the sense that there's no possible way they could all be counted.

It would probably be easier to say that what we have, rather than infinity, is roughly (the number of particles in existence)Factorial number of interactions. In other words, think of the largest integer you can, then multiply it by every integer below that number, and you're along the right track, if several gazillion orders of magnitude out.

The same could arguably apply to 11-d spacetime, but we have no way exactly of telling whether an infinite exists in those dimensions.

But what if it did? True, the notion of the top of the pyramid breaks down, but the notion of very large-scale systems would still exist. Higher systems than these would simply involve these subsystems, and so on.

Well, the point of view isn't the issue. It would be the way you basically said "You're wrong, I know it, and I'm not going to tell you why." People are going to assume you would be merely antagonistic without backing, because there'd be no reason to respond so viciously without having due reason. Unless of course it's deliberate Irony. But in these days and times, some people hold things like that to heart, and it's genuinely hard to tell. >_>

And yeah, I thought that was a cool phrase too. Irrational Hostility. We should use it more often. ^^
In truth, the point of view is indeed the subjective issue. If I said you're wrong, whilst I was frantically wieldling a large scythe in front of you and with a crazy, disturbing gleam in my eye, then I could indeed be accused of being just a tiny bit antagonistic.

As is is, I do try to be rational, which is why I elected not to provide you with the undeserved privilege of gaining some benefit from the depth of knowledge and awareness that I possess.

On the other hand, you could just open Schrodinger's box and see what the cat's up to.

you are wrong because you are applying barely understandable theoretical physics to something it has no realtion to

its akin (although on a whole nother intellectual level) to me relating everthing in life to poker

are you right? i wouldnt bet on it.

Mmkay. You'll be able to tell I'm a philosopher though. ^^;

Gravitation: Particles disrupt our space-time fabric and thus influence each other from a distance. Hawking is far better at explaining the concept than I am, since I'm still studying General Relativity, personally.

If we consider our existence as a brane plane, we can consider another brane plane existing in parallel to our own but which is influenced by gravitation waves by matter in our plane. This is an idea used to explain the concept of Dark matter; what is perceived as dark matter in our universe could be a result of the gravitation of a body in a brane plane parallel to ours.

This gravitation is clearly accumulative, since larger masses distort space-time more than smaller ones. Now, we make the supposition that gravitation in this brane plane can affect other particles in this plane both directly and in a sort of weak feedback system from other planes that are themselves experiencing this gravitation and weak feedback. In other words, a body experiences an extra amount of force due to gravitation that can be interpreted as an Energy that increases exponentially with the size of the body.

What we have here is extra Energy being passed between two objects. This could, metaphorically, be perceived as information (or rather as an influence that requires a change of behaviour).

Now, Emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) is an interesting field that deals with possible outcomes of this kind of information exchange. Notably, with regards to natural process and evolutionary adaptation.

The Systemity idea studies this kind of compound-body/information interaction. Does that seem refutable so far?

The only real problem I see, is Occam's Ghost, standing nearby with a Chainsaw of multipliers....

Why do you need compounded planes?

Surely, all that is affected/effective COULD be in comprehensible, mundane known 'reality'? Why 'borrow' unneccessary complications?


For the rest of it - you seem to be thinking along similar lines to something I have thought for some time... or else, I'm utterly misunderstanding you.

(Our perception is the result of physical stimuli, of one kind or another. Religious perception is the result of one TYPE of physical stimulus (for example, the chemical-to-electric metamorphosis of memory), being confused for another type of physical stimulus (for example, an active 'sense' of a real thing).

you are wrong because you are applying barely understandable theoretical physics to something it has no realtion to

its akin (although on a whole nother intellectual level) to me relating everthing in life to poker
My personal way of looking at things is to look for connections. I hear people say God, I think "What could they mean?", so I look at what underlies it. What common element underlies it is a "spiritual" connection. I think about what that means, and I realise that what it means is they have some sort of perception of it relative to what makes them who they are. I follow what theoretical physics and chemistry I know and try to divine what it is that makes them who they are. I find an inductive pattern that includes what makes up a person as a solution. I deduce that this perceived likeness is another solution of this inductive pattern, making the assumption that since it apparently acts as a connection between people, it is higher in the heirarchy.

To me, anyway, there is at least some sort of relationship between the metaphysical and the physical. But finding connections between things is what I do, whether in coding common reusable functions or object classes, in analysing world politics and international relations, in writing narrative stories and reading crime novels, in playing/conducting (and occasionally composing) multi-part musical pieces or even in simple group social interactions. It just seems like a natural thing for me to do.

The only real problem I see, is Occam's Ghost, standing nearby with a Chainsaw of multipliers....

Why do you need compounded planes?

Surely, all that is affected/effective COULD be in comprehensible, mundane known 'reality'? Why 'borrow' unneccessary complications?
I'm really starting to dislike that Occam. Largely because he has a good point. >_<;

Anyway, the first thing is Dark matter; unknown sources of gravitational effects. For lack of a better explanation, compounded planes would sufficiently model a gravitational force without a respective perceivable mass in that plane.

Next, black holes. I haven't covered this in much detail in GR yet beyond the simple "Suppose that something's escape velocity is greater than c", so a thorough explanation for these may well exist already. But if something has a very large mass that in turn applies a strong gravitational effect on other masses in a compounded plane system, we can see where we could end up with a resonance effect for gravitation.

The other thing is considering the Gravitational constant. Is it? Suggestions of late note that Big G is prone to some variation in experimentation. This discrepency could be accounted for if we suggest that the measured gravitation force caused at a point could depend on the two objects' inertia in a relationship ever-so-slightly different than linear.

For the rest of it - you seem to be thinking along similar lines to something I have thought for some time... or else, I'm utterly misunderstanding you.

(Our perception is the result of physical stimuli, of one kind or another. Religious perception is the result of one TYPE of physical stimulus (for example, the chemical-to-electric metamorphosis of memory), being confused for another type of physical stimulus (for example, an active 'sense' of a real thing).)
No, I think it's similar. The modelling I attempted to apply was one where this stimulus was a kind of influence that a person isn't so much confusing as much misunderstanding. The chemical influence in this case is energy discrepencies caused by other massive bodies. This energy discrepency is in turn related to massive composition, and hence can very complex effects be created by biological systems (since their structure is made from all sorts of interacting molecular compounds).

The individual subconsciously quite rightly recognises this kind of effect as something similar to how he/she him/herself is made up, but instead attributes it as something more physical, since that's how their rationale can deal with it. In the case of the whole perception, which can be said to be a massive correlation of the energy packets created by various different biological systems as well as their physical surroundings, the individual again is thinking in the same general sort of area, but follows the logical pattern and attributes it to some form of Grand Man. This interpretation is then taken literally, and personality or physical traits are assigned to it. Hence, Religious God.

The thing is, God as an idea isn't conceptually mistaken in that context. This form of governance by energy could well be considered a biological system itself, and hence subject to the same kind of laws as the individual. Sure, most modern interpretations (Actually, scratch that; most current Western interpretations) take the whole personification thing too far, but it might have arisen from a reasonable initial supposition.

My personal way of looking at things is to look for connections. I hear people say God, I think "What could they mean?", so I look at what underlies it. What common element underlies it is a "spiritual" connection. I think about what that means, and I realise that what it means is they have some sort of perception of it relative to what makes them who they are. I follow what theoretical physics and chemistry I know and try to divine what it is that makes them who they are. I find an inductive pattern that includes what makes up a person as a solution. I deduce that this perceived likeness is another solution of this inductive pattern, making the assumption that since it apparently acts as a connection between people, it is higher in the heirarchy.

To me, anyway, there is at least some sort of relationship between the metaphysical and the physical. But finding connections between things is what I do, whether in coding common reusable functions or object classes, in analysing world politics and international relations, in writing narrative stories and reading crime novels, in playing/conducting (and occasionally composing) multi-part musical pieces or even in simple group social interactions. It just seems like a natural thing for me to do.
yeah but if you arent IN theoretical physics there isnt much chance you really understand it. you just pick up some concepts and run with them

not that thats a bad thing.

i mean really, 11 dimensions of brane planes blah blah blah is kinda well past the "we all give off energy that affects the reality that surrounds us and our interconnected energies create and sustain the supernatural world"

id go with "you gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em" myself.

yeah but if you arent IN theoretical physics there isnt much chance you really understand it. you just pick up some concepts and run with them

not that thats a bad thing.

i mean really, 11 dimensions of brane planes blah blah blah is kinda well past the "we all give off energy that affects the reality that surrounds us and our interconnected energies create and sustain the supernatural world"

id go with "you gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em" myself.
Legs! You play poker? :D

Chuck Norris pwns Vin Diesel. :p
Do a thread on that. I'll post in it! :D

Legs! You play poker? :D
doesnt everyone?

poker is the perfect metaphor for life, its a combination of skill and luck.

doesnt everyone?

poker is the perfect metaphor for life, its a combination of skill and luck.
What stakes? ;)

What stakes? ;)
oh im not a real gambler, i play cheap tournaments (under $100) and 2/4 or 4/8 at the casino. online i play mostly for free since i cant seem to win real money online. which drives me nutz since online play is so loose i should be able to clean up.

did i mention ive become a texas holdem fan? im such a "go with the crowd" type!