Philosophy Now Forum

What I am about to say should come as nothing new. It is no suprise.
What I want you to do is understand, it is as I do.

You have heard of quantum physics, you understand it. But I am not sure if you understand it like this.

I want to convey the depth and feeling of understanding...

Consider this. You have a series of flashing images, each maintains a baseline of the same y axis.
But the scale of the images changes very fast, sometimes squashed, above the baseline, sometimes below the baseline. Sometimes large sometimes fat. And it does this every 1/24th of a second.
To your eyes, it appears blurred, moving like a sine wave. Even though it is random, it appears like a sine wave coming towards you, waving at a consistent pace according to your perceiving.

Now speed it up to 1/300 it would appear like a solid state its maximum size on both bounds appearing to define the object. It would appear as double its maximum size your eye would blur it together and the silhouette would remain, flickering every now and then, but 99 percent of the time you would percieve it to be a solid object at double it's maximum size, it's minimum size or zero size would never be percieved. It appear to be double it's size, &both states, positive and negative, at the same time.

This universe produces rules it is not defined by rules. This statement sounds like something you have heard before, but I am not sure you understand it as I do, there is something deeper to it.

The nature of things...Assume there is a designer for the sake of conceptualization. This designer would have a very hard time producing a universe using rigid mathematical laws. There would be glitches, errors, inconsistences, it would not flow, it would be a pain. But if the designer just created things which functioned in a random way, and gave them lots of energy to fluctuate in a fast rate, why fast is relative anyway. Who would even percieve it as slow? Well the rules would start to form on their own, there would be no gaps, headaches, rigid inconsistencies formed by Newtonian mathematics, the universe would form consistent rules and begin to create itself and a feeling of depth, complexity and form on it's own...binding itself to the great beyond...

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:What I am about to say should come as nothing new. It is no suprise.
What I want you to do is understand, it is as I do.

You have heard of quantum physics, you understand it. But I am not sure if you understand it like this.

I want to convey the depth and feeling of understanding...

Consider this. You have a series of flashing images, each maintains a baseline of the same y axis.
But the scale of the images changes very fast, sometimes squashed, above the baseline, sometimes below the baseline. Sometimes large sometimes fat. And it does this every 1/24th of a second.
To your eyes, it appears blurred, moving like a sine wave. Even though it is random, it appears like a sine wave coming towards you, waving at a consistent pace according to your perceiving.

Now speed it up to 1/300 it would appear like a solid state its maximum size on both bounds appearing to define the object. It would appear as double its maximum size your eye would blur it together and the silhouette would remain, flickering every now and then, but 99 percent of the time you would percieve it to be a solid object at double it's maximum size, it's minimum size or zero size would never be percieved. It appear to be double it's size, &both states, positive and negative, at the same time.

This universe produces rules it is not defined by rules. This statement sounds like something you have heard before, but I am not sure you understand it as I do, there is something deeper to it.

The nature of things...Assume there is a designer for the sake of conceptualization. This designer would have a very hard time producing a universe using rigid mathematical laws. There would be glitches, errors, inconsistences, it would not flow, it would be a pain. But if the designer just created things which functioned in a random way, and gave them lots of energy to fluctuate in a fast rate, why fast is relative anyway. Who would even percieve it as slow? Well the rules would start to form on their own, there would be no gaps, headaches, rigid inconsistencies formed by Newtonian mathematics, the universe would form consistent rules and begin to create itself and a feeling of depth, complexity and form on it's own...binding itself to the great beyond...

'The Universe' doesn't do either. The 'rules' are a human concept we use to make sense of it.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: 'The Universe' doesn't do either. The 'rules' are a human concept we use to make sense of it.

Well yes, "rules" are more or less guidelines, which are more or less patterns, which are more or less abstractions.

The Universe did produce the concept of Rule though, the word Rule you wrote just now, which is an abstraction in your mind, a series of runes, making connections to old memories...

No, the universe did not produce the concept of rule.

The universe/reality works in a certain way...folks observe the workings (and the effects of the workings) and make statements (codifications) about those workings...these statements are casually known as 'rules'.

This is not rocket science...my eight year old understands this.

And, for the record, rocket science is not rocket science.

Time for a new folksy descriptor for 'hard' or 'difficult'.

henry quirk wrote:No, the universe did not produce the concept of rule.

The universe/reality works in a certain way...folks observe the workings (and the effects of the workings) and make statements (codifications) about those workings...these statements are casually known as 'rules'.

This is not rocket science...my eight year old understands this.

So you are saying humans and their concepts are outside of the universe? And that the universe did not cause humans into existence, nor their concepts?

"So you are saying humans and their concepts are outside of the universe?"

No, but being in the universe, part of the universe, doesn't make us conduits for the universe.

#

"And that the universe did not cause humans into existence, nor their concepts?"

The universe didn't 'cause' humans. Humans are a natural development within the universe.

henry quirk wrote:"So you are saying humans and their concepts are outside of the universe?"

No, but being in the universe, part of the universe, doesn't make us conduits for the universe.

#

"And that the universe did not cause humans into existence, nor their concepts?"

The universe didn't 'cause' humans. Humans are a natural development within the universe.

You're not making any sense.

Trying again: just cuz humans are part of the universe, and can describe the universe, doesn't make us the spokesmen for the universe...that is: the universe (an amoral, unconscious, process) is not channeling through humans...that is: the universe (as amoral, unconscious, process) is incapable of producing the concept of rule and our being in and part of the universe is not evidence that it did or can.

henry quirk wrote:Trying again: just cuz humans are part of the universe, and can describe the universe, doesn't make us the spokesmen for the universe...that is: the universe (an amoral, unconscious, process) is not channeling through humans...that is: the universe (as amoral, unconscious, process) is incapable of producing the concept of rule and our being in and part of the universe is not evidence that it did or can.

Humans have a concept of rule. Humans were produced by the universe. Humans are part of the universe. Therefore, the universe has a concept of rule.

Petty human rules were not what I was referring to by the topic title. I was referring to more or less patterns, guidelines, and systems of behavior and substance.
For example, rules like "if you do X action and movement" it causes you to glitch out the map" kind of rules in linear videogame systems, where as the universe has more substance and more layer, more essence, more flow of rules. These rules are seamlessly integrated into our consciousness, and as such, they don't feel seperated from essence.

henry quirk wrote:Trying again: just cuz humans are part of the universe, and can describe the universe, doesn't make us the spokesmen for the universe...that is: the universe (an amoral, unconscious, process) is not channeling through humans...that is: the universe (as amoral, unconscious, process) is incapable of producing the concept of rule and our being in and part of the universe is not evidence that it did or can.

Henry, are you having fun yet, I'm not going to waste my best advice on you cause I know you won't listen.

(quote Henry).

Trix,

Again: we'll have to agree to disagree.

*shrug*

#

Doc,

No, I'm not havin' any fun...

henry quirk wrote: #

Doc,

No, I'm not havin' any fun...

Then My advice may be of some value, "Don't feed the Troll". Trolls crave attention, any kind, it doesn't matter, and they offer nothing in return.

Aw, Doc, I know that.

"they offer nothing in return"

Well, when one is in the middle of a backdoor download trolls can be diverting (big file, slow connection, entertain me) so that's sumthin'.

Trix is good for about five minutes of distraction.

henry quirk wrote:Aw, Doc, I know that.

"they offer nothing in return"

Well, when one is in the middle of a backdoor download trolls can be diverting (big file, slow connection, entertain me) so that's sumthin'.

Trix is good for about five minutes of distraction.

You're too kind, and generous, I wouldn't give her that much, no matter how bored I am.

"Spider Solitaire" or "Free Cell" can be even better at occupying your time, and more entertaining.