posted by RRRGroup at
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
On one hand, the monkey priests with tunnel vision riding their tricycles off a cliff won't be able to make an unpredictable tool out of quantum predictability (at the ass end of wave action) as our own particulate matter is blown away by the unpredictable Big Bad Wolves they created and still argue over.I think that's a good thing, well,isn't it? Who needs Frankenstein when we have Dr Strangelove?
By Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, June 19, 2012
With the Big Bang "theory" all but dead and now quantum in flux, I think, Bruce, that the whole physics edifice is about to disintegrate.Physicists had a good run but their time is over, thankfully.They have been as goofy as or goofier than ufologists.RR
By RRRGroup, at Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Are we heading back to the "solid state" universe? The problem with current physics are those damn constants in the equation. Sometimes pounding a round peg into a square hole seems to "fit" but looks like hell.
By Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Your title should be "The Standard Model is (seriously) flawed". There's a lot of wishful thinking in the title you did use. Quantum physics isn't going away. It's an evolving world view just like all the rest of human thought.
By purrlgurrl, at Tuesday, June 19, 2012
No, PG, all of physics is premised wrongly.The Big Bang is a joke, obviously.Quantum mechanics are an even bigger joke.The Standard Model is hardly a "standard."Quantum "reality" lies between the reality we know and the REAL reality.But quantum physicists have got caught up in that mid-swamp, just as ufologists have got caught up in the superficial elements of the UFO phenomena.Down deep, ufologists (like Jerry Clark and Kevin Randle) know they have squandered their intelligence and lives on the UFO side-bar, just as theoretical physicists (Penrose, Smolin, et al.) are starting to realize that their pursuit of physical reality has been foolish because Quantum isn't it.Things are more profound than Quantum or Roswell indicate.RR
Or they're not profound at all and Existential philosophy has it right. Nothing means anything. Things just exist for no reason.
PG:Existentialism is a little more complex than that.But your comment does remind me that Seinfeld told Constanza that nothing can be something.Even if "things exist for no reason," that's profound in itself.Quantum. Roswell, UFOs are particles of a greater reality, which maybe Bruce Duensing will elaborate upon....and now would be the time for him to do so.RR
I think what we are perhaps referring to are images as references that ultimately have no meaning in of themselves except by relationship, whether it is a UFO or a quark, or a bicycle rack, and we supply a conceptual organizing principle not only to simply to navigate images but to create them as well in process. Images, within the process of conceptual imagination leads to endless variants of distinctions and differentiations of a potential image as two sides of a three sided mirror. Cells of something that is incommensurable to it's individuated similarities in relationship. Beyond images is the raw fabric, material that is becoming rather than defined, named or set like a cloth. We supply in an existential sense, a recombinant factor as much as a goldfish or a earthworm does in transforming, storing and exchanging this energy of information. I think it's much like an intangible genome that builds on information that equals energy much like memory that once created cannot be destroyed, only reformulated. All of which creates images that depending on the gravitation as to where they land can be a pineapple or a human being, or a UFO. So, nothing individuated has meaning in of itself, but only in relationships that are in essence, contingent, becoming. Nothing is simply an image, a concept, a hormonal emotional trip hammer that is imagination at play, imaging, or imaging the fabric as nothing, which is simply a referent. To say you are nothing is sort of a self comforting end run around reality, IMHO.
By Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, June 20, 2012
"I think, Bruce that the whole physics edifice is about to disintegrate".Really?Ray Palmer once uttered words like these. So have others from time to time.You should moderate your remarks. Next thing you'll be telling us is that today's schoolkids are being taught all the wrong things in physics. And after physics, what's next?Thank goodness, at least mathematics is safe (so I believe)!
By cda, at Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Mathematics, CDA, are a schizophrenic concoction, practiced by the insane who operate in their own contrived world, which has nothing to do with reality -- nothing at all!Newton's physics apply. Bohr's and the quantum guys' physics do not.Quantum is a "reality" for the truly mentally ill...RR
By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 20, 2012
An interesting discussion for certain. I sense an immense level of struggle and frustration contained herein, I should fit right in. Ah, the competitive condition human. Now *there's* a constant to ponder. These are what I can only hope you might find to be relevant personal observations further underlining my convoluted ego. Existentialism: The who is more important than the why, or, the universe revolves around me as I am mother nucleus and all else is only as relevant as I state it to be. Mathematics: Ultimately math represents the truest path of the illusory condition human. It is the definition of definition of definition. The ultimate tail to be chased. Mathematics is seemingly as futile as a minute in the face of eternity, still in yet, both time and space are the horse with no name without it. A sad reminder of the condition human's entrainment that we call reality. Quantum: (as Rich refers to it) Is really just a myriad of signified exposes based upon the nation that size really does matter. Smaller is better. Which in essence states, the harder and more magnificent we peer into reality's smallest essence, the more apt we are to come away with a major headache. Kidding aside, it's given us a very powerful glimpse into what was a serious wrong turn in mankind's ego driven scientific direction. A certainty that everything we know is wrong, but that's just exactly how it is nonetheless. UFOs: This is the ultimate question/consideration. I wonder how many of those that participate here have had first hand encounters and/or sightings of UFOs. Caretakers? Adjunct programs within an entrained matrix like reality? Extra or ultra temporal machinery containing denizens of a larger or overlapping/intersecting environment unknown? Demons? Gods? Paranatural macro organisms? None of the above? Too fascinating for words, but we all keep trying to put them in such a context nonetheless. Wait a minute. Isn't that what mathematics is? A contextual segmentation of the definition of definitions unlimited. The mind boggles at this semi circular competitive nature we are entrained within to experience. Surely there must be more. We are driven on, but is not the futility of our pathway of pursuit underlined before it begins? Possibly the act of pursuit itself is most purposeful. Because what are these UFOs if not but a trigger to wonder and grow?
By Jeff Davis, at Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Jeff...My pique with Mathematics -- a favorite subject of mine (I have a lot of books about it) -- is that it is the ultimate in abstract symbolism.This is also what irks me about psychology, my training....dreams are symbolic, everything is symbolized.I want the real thing!To hell with symbols, math or otherwise.UFOs may be symbols too, dammit.(I'm not a big fan of abstract painting either.)That's just me.I want the "truth" given to me, provided, as it is....without all the fudging.Scientists are to much into their priesthood.RR
Until Godel came along and utilized math to disprove math as a reliable constant for prediction, the universe was thought to be a perfect jeweled watch, like a ballet of perfection itself with precise gears and the dial being a measuring stick. The plague we have here is twofold which is uncertainty, and more importantly, how mature we are to deal with uncertainty. A bigger issue is thinking outside the box, because even outside of the box, you are comparing it to a box. This is the longstanding issue when thinking about UFO phenomenon. Things are statistically more probable to be much stranger than what we can imagine either in or outside the box. No one is going to solve these dilemmas for us, although there are hundreds of poseurs.
By Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, June 21, 2012
Rich, imo anyhow, you bring up a very interesting consideration. Symbols and their inherent context within our consciousness. Dream symbolism is very fascinating stuff, but what really blows my mind is remote viewing symbolism. It's application in practice would tend to give an expanse in theory to consciousness and inherent symbolism. For instance, if one follows Jung's archetypical dream expressions and communications with respect to symbolism, we take away an understanding that ultimately it's the personal human condition that allows us to model the stage of what meaning can be derived from said symbolism. In other words it's an adjunct product of self awareness as a point of reference. Whereas with remote viewing, symbolism is a descriptive tool with respect to completely independent realms that are thoroughly apart from the pre context of our personal identities. I see this as making perfect quantum (absurd) sense, and yet I don't claim to understand it's functionality in the least apart from described surface level methodology. It makes sense to me because it outlines and would seem to encompass the absurd notion that offspring are at times born with a complete and utterly comprehensive knowledge of a diverse plethora of subject matter that they, or their parents, had no prior learned understanding of whatsoever. Still in yet, is this akashic overlay inherent to the human condition, or is this field/environment of information beyond it with regard for our waking mind's temporal fixations and identity? I vote for the latter. The utterly griping consideration is the logical implication that the two can and do coincide in a random, but knowledge specific natural merger, seemingly at times, inseparably. So you see, this prodigious offspring may represent a temporal bias of the "the real deal" minus the fudge barrier of inherent consciousness symbolism, whereas remote viewing might be an embryonic pretext to the "real deal's" navigation apart from our physical temporal self.
By Jeff Davis, at Thursday, June 21, 2012
Jeff...This is Bruce Duensing territory. I hope he weighs in, as he has been doing.RR
By RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 21, 2012
JeffIf you are not familiar with the work of the late Dr Ian Stevenson, who founded the University of Virginia's Institute of Perceptual Studies, I highly recommend looking into it. The cases you refer to statistically occur in where such concepts are accepted, so on one hand you have a lock and key sort of situation, and the key could be any number of possible relationships in terms of the transference of what essentially is individuated memory. What is interesting are the cases where death occurred by mutilation of the body, and these children are born with matching abnormalities that remarkably mimic where such bodily damage occurred, resulting in the death of ( if you will) the previous host of such memory.The question is, can memory as a phenomenon, a very local memory as an adaptation and self organized packet of information continue on in what has been called a information plenum, without the existence of individual who if you will, wrote the book? Where is the paper? Who is the reader? At this point, there are so many unanswered questions as to dwarf rationality. All of this seems to hint at an intangible form of genetics working behind the scenes of language and images and imagination. An expression that gives rise to the gravitation that leads to form depending on where it lands. We simply do not know what lies behind the stagecraft of prosaic reality.
By Bruce Duensing, at Friday, June 22, 2012
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile