edit: yea thats exactly what im talking about, and yes the picture changes everytime, but its always very similar to the original, the same thing happens as you zoom into the mandlebrot set. You will zoom into the picture until you see a shape that is similar to the original but not exactly the same, sometimes while zooming into the mandlebrot set, in ceartian places a whole new shape will appear, a spiral or something that looks like a lightning bolt, and that shape will repeat over and over again as well, but eventually the original shape always shows up again.
I never seem to read up on this thread when I’ve got endless time to focus… Nevertheless, I love love love what I am reading I’m so happy to find out mine’s not the only mind (seemingly) that regularly, hypnotically, almost neurotically even, goes to these tiered topics of life, patterns, and the meaning behind everything!! I’ll try to be brief, though.. Hermalosa, ohhh I fear, fear death. I really do. I’m very afraid it’s the end, and that truly is my biggest fear. I hope that it’s not the end, and I *feel* that it’s not, but the part of me that wants science and logic and proof still roots me in fear I’ve got such dreams and plans for myself, though, that I need “death” to not be the end LOL, silly. Tokapelli, I apologize I’m getting sort of off topic again, but tonight’s reading reminded me of a pseudo theory I had several years ago, and I thought I’d share. It was called “The Theory of the Path Through the Snow.” In short, after observing a path of footprints through deep snow outside a building at my school, I wondered if we are actually like the path—the path’s evolution was driven by some separate entity (i.e. us), and the driving force wasn’t even something planned or necessarily coherent (i.e. it was a combination of shortest distance from the door to peoples’ cars parked on the road and each person’s willingness to trudge through a certain depth of snow, or merely already-trampled snow). For me, it put “us” potentially more into perspective. Who says we’re definitely evolving with some purpose? (I’m not saying anyone here said that, don’t misunderstand.. but it seems a commonish perception, somehow.) Anyway, new favorite thread :D Happy or merry Christmas (or holiday, or season) to all, have a fun countdown to 2012, all of you who do!!!
xox
I just wish “real scientists” would stop assuming that fractal geometry only applies to matter. I really think it applies to energy and conciousness as well and so far I havnt found any real scientists that have looked into that.
given that we don’t yet understand what consciousness is, it’s not surprising that fractals haven’t figured in the research much.
however, once this kind of research gets some results, scientists will be able to make some more interesting studies into consciousness - http://www.humanbrainproject.eu/
i’m personally fascinated by the possibility of thought patterns working in a fractal way, but you also must keep in mind that fractals are just special mathematical functions, and so you shouldn’t assume that everything works according to fractals - there are many other interesting and similar mathematical functions.
well i do believe that everything in existence, tangible or not, is based on fractal geometry. The universe is made up of micro cosms and macro cosms, you can learn everything there is to know about the universe by observing a river, or a tree, because everything is connected and entangled, everything is following the same “cosmic rules”. The Tao says you can learn everything there is to know without even walking out your front door. To me fractal geometry seems like gods blueprint, the underlying theme that connects everything. So they have found that all matter is based on fractal geometry, well what is matter? Matter is simply condensed energy, so how could matter be based on fractal geometry if energy is not?
and by the way, “real Science” (whatever thats supposed to mean) has had a long history of being completely and utterly wrong. In fact, you could say that most religious and mystical ideas have been correct all along and real science is finally starting to catch up. “Real” scientists used to say the world was flat, that the earth is the center of the universe etc., there are countless examples of these mistakes even in recent history. Somehow that doesnt seem very credible to me, i think I would rather trust my personal experiences and first hand observations of nature.
well i do believe that everything in existence, tangible or not, is based on fractal geometry.
what makes you believe that?
Tokapelli - 24 January 2012 09:32 PM
The universe is made up of micro cosms and macro cosms, you can learn everything there is to know about the universe by observing a river, or a tree, because everything is connected and entangled, everything is following the same “cosmic rules”.
you’re making a big assumption here - that the universe is the same everywhere. that isn’t as conclusive as it would seem. in any case, the universe was very different soon after it began, and rules that apply here and now didn’t apply then and there. we are still struggling to understand what happened right after the big bang, never mind what happened before
on top of that, understanding what happens at the sub-molecular level doesn’t tell you anything whatsoever about what happens at the macro-galactic level. one of the main problems in physics is trying to understand how quantum mechanics fits in to the ‘bigger picture’ of relativity. at the moment, they haven’t been reconciled to a satisfactory level.
Tokapelli - 24 January 2012 09:32 PM
The Tao says you can learn everything there is to know without even walking out your front door. To me fractal geometry seems like gods blueprint, the underlying theme that connects everything. So they have found that all matter is based on fractal geometry, well what is matter? Matter is simply condensed energy, so how could matter be based on fractal geometry if energy is not?
matter isn’t simply condensed energy, unfortunately. matter is an interaction between energy and sub-atomic forces, and to be honest i am nowhere near intelligent or knowledgeable to understand what it really is. this article looks at it from the point of view of quantum fluctuations - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html - if you can make sense of it, then power to you.
Tokapelli - 24 January 2012 09:32 PM
and by the way, “real Science” (whatever thats supposed to mean) has had a long history of being completely and utterly wrong. In fact, you could say that most religious and mystical ideas have been correct all along and real science is finally starting to catch up. “Real” scientists used to say the world was flat, that the earth is the center of the universe etc., there are countless examples of these mistakes even in recent history. Somehow that doesnt seem very credible to me, i think I would rather trust my personal experiences and first hand observations of nature.
where do i begin… first of all, ‘real science’ has only existed for about 400-500 years at best. even before that, people knew that the world is round. the fact that people believed the world is flat is an urban myth (you can look that up).
so yeah, you’re not wrong in saying that historically science has been wrong about many things. however, all of those things have been testable and falsifiable. when science makes a claim about the nature of the universe, it does not claim that that is the ultimate reality. science can only give us an approximation of the world around us, given our limited cognitive abilities. there is no reason to believe that we will ever fully understand the universe, and science would never make such a claim, because it has the humility of being aware of its limitations.
you also have valid reasons for mistrusting science given those historical errors. fair enough. but to then claim that you yourself can unlock the secrets of the universe through your own personal experience, while discounting the millions (or billions) of man-hours that have been spent examining the world using the scientific method and scientific instruments that a mere human doesn’t possess (or do you discount the existence of infra-red and radio waves because you can’t experience them?) is, in my mind, bordering on arrogance. i’m not saying this in order to insult you, i’m only saying this because i think we can all do with a bit of humility. i think it’s unrealistic for a normal human being to expect to be able to understand the universe without dedicating a major part of one’s life to that end. and even then, that understanding would be fleeting because the universe is simply much too complex.
i also don’t want you to think that there is no value in experiencing the world directly through the inner space of one’s mind - i think it is something that all humans should do - but the real value in that lies in the process of self-discovery, rather than universal discovery. i know it’s tempting to believe that the universe exists in your mind, especially because from an experiential point of view that is completely true, but you should not forget that your mind itself sits within the universe. now there’s a fascinating reality-loop for you!
-personal expereince, observing nature, and many lessons from the plant teachers.
“you’re making a big assumption here - that the universe is the same everywhere. that isn’t as conclusive as it would seem. in any case, the universe was very different soon after it began, and rules that apply here and now didn’t apply then and there. we are still struggling to understand what happened right after the big bang, never mind what happened before ”
-Maybe im soft in the head but that doesnt make any sense to me. What makes you think that? As far as I know there is far more evidence to suggest that laws of physics are more or less constant and universal. Maybe you could eloborate on that a bit.
“on top of that, understanding what happens at the sub-molecular level doesn’t tell you anything whatsoever about what happens at the macro-galactic level. one of the main problems in physics is trying to understand how quantum mechanics fits in to the ‘bigger picture’ of relativity. at the moment, they haven’t been reconciled to a satisfactory level.”
- Again, I totally disagree and I think most current scientific theories support what im saying here. Micorcosms are everywhere! The cell fundamentaly works the same way as a body, which works basically the same way as a planet, etc. Everything follows the same rules because everything is made out of the same stuff, energy.
“matter isn’t simply condensed energy, unfortunately. matter is an interaction between energy and sub-atomic forces, and to be honest i am nowhere near intelligent or knowledgeable to understand what it really is.”
- The interaction with those forces is what condenses the energy. E=MC2 (i think thats “real” science but im still not sure of your definition of “real” science, or even the word “real” for that matter.)
“where do i begin… first of all, ‘real science’ has only existed for about 400-500 years at best. even before that, people knew that the world is round. the fact that people believed the world is flat is an urban myth (you can look that up).”
-Science has existed ever since the first caveman decided to pick up a stick. He had a hypothesis, he thought “Maybe if i pick up this stick and smack that leopard on the head with it, ill do more damage than i would with my fist.”
then he did an experiment, he smacked the leopard on the head and low and behold the first club was invented. Now I dont think that caveman said, “wow, i guess thats science!” But the word science is just a label, and from what i can tell you really let those pesky labels get in the way of your understanding of whats going on around you.
“so yeah, you’re not wrong in saying that historically science has been wrong about many things. however, all of those things have been testable and falsifiable. when science makes a claim about the nature of the universe, it does not claim that that is the ultimate reality. science can only give us an approximation of the world around us, given our limited cognitive abilities. there is no reason to believe that we will ever fully understand the universe, and science would never make such a claim, because it has the humility of being aware of its limitations.”
- As do I. I have said many times in this thread even that the evolution of concisouness is unlimited, it is infinite. For every question answered a thousand more arise. I have never been big headed enough to claim full understanding of the universe.
“you also have valid reasons for mistrusting science given those historical errors. fair enough. but to then claim that you yourself can unlock the secrets of the universe through your own personal experience, while discounting the millions (or billions) of man-hours that have been spent examining the world using the scientific method and scientific instruments that a mere human doesn’t possess (or do you discount the existence of infra-red and radio waves because you can’t experience them?) is, in my mind, bordering on arrogance. i’m not saying this in order to insult you, i’m only saying this because i think we can all do with a bit of humility. i think it’s unrealistic for a normal human being to expect to be able to understand the universe without dedicating a major part of one’s life to that end. and even then, that understanding would be fleeting because the universe is simply much too complex.”
-I dont mistrust science at all. So far I havnt found any current scientific theories that go against anytying I beleive. I just recognize that they only have part of the story, and to get the rest of the story you have to search your mind. So what have i said that discounts billions of man hours that have been spent examining the world? And to suggest that I would discount the existence of infared and radio waves because i cant see or feel them really shows how much you misunderstand what im trying to say. I believe that everything you can see, feel, hear and touch only accounts for a very small fraction of reality, everything else is energy that isnt restricted to physical form. And what makes you think that I havnt dedicated a major part of my life to understanding this existence? I would say i probalby spend more time thinking about this than anything else. You are making alot of assumptions about me, you sound smarter when you just stick to the facts.
“i also don’t want you to think that there is no value in experiencing the world directly through the inner space of one’s mind - i think it is something that all humans should do - but the real value in that lies in the process of self-discovery, rather than universal discovery.”
-they are one in the same in my book, the appearance of being seperate from the universe is an illusion. I believe that everything is basically one concisousness expereincing itself subjectively. So, being that we are part of the universe, self discovery is universal discovery.
“i know it’s tempting to believe that the universe exists in your mind, especially because from an experiential point of view that is completely true, but you should not forget that your mind itself sits within the universe. now there’s a fascinating reality-loop for you.”
Theres another assumption, I dont believe the universe exists in my mind.
-Maybe im soft in the head but that doesnt make any sense to me. What makes you think that? As far as I know there is far more evidence to suggest that laws of physics are more or less constant and universal. Maybe you could eloborate on that a bit.
there is no reason why we should be so confident that the laws of physics are constant throughout the universe.
as another example, the laws of physics break down in black holes. they simply don’t apply to a singularity (which isn’t that different to the big bang, don’t forget).
Tokapelli - 25 January 2012 03:43 AM
- Again, I totally disagree and I think most current scientific theories support what im saying here. Micorcosms are everywhere! The cell fundamentaly works the same way as a body, which works basically the same way as a planet, etc. Everything follows the same rules because everything is made out of the same stuff, energy.
now maybe i’m the one who’s soft in the head, because i can’t see how the human body works the same way as a planet. care to elaborate?
Tokapelli - 25 January 2012 03:43 AM
- The interaction with those forces is what condenses the energy. E=MC2 (i think thats “real” science but im still not sure of your definition of “real” science, or even the word “real” for that matter.)
i’ve already described what i consider to be ‘real’ science - it has to be testable and falsifiable (although the latter isn’t as crucial as the former).
Tokapelli - 25 January 2012 03:44 AM
-I dont mistrust science at all. So far I havnt found any current scientific theories that go against anytying I beleive. I just recognize that they only have part of the story, and to get the rest of the story you have to search your mind. So what have i said that discounts billions of man hours that have been spent examining the world?
maybe i misunderstood, but this:
Tokapelli - 25 January 2012 03:44 AM
and by the way, “real Science” (whatever thats supposed to mean) has had a long history of being completely and utterly wrong. In fact, you could say that most religious and mystical ideas have been correct all along and real science is finally starting to catch up. “Real” scientists used to say the world was flat, that the earth is the center of the universe etc., there are countless examples of these mistakes even in recent history. Somehow that doesnt seem very credible to me, i think I would rather trust my personal experiences and first hand observations of nature.
sounds to me like you don’t trust ‘real’ science.
Tokapelli - 25 January 2012 03:44 AM
-they are one in the same in my book, the appearance of being seperate from the universe is an illusion. I believe that everything is basically one concisousness expereincing itself subjectively. So, being that we are part of the universe, self discovery is universal discovery.
i consider that to be a logical fallacy. self discovery is not universal discovery.
i love bill hicks as much as the next guy, but to me there’s a difference between poetry and science. let me know what you find out about quarks next time you meditate. or star formation.
Tokapelli - 25 January 2012 03:44 AM
Theres another assumption, I dont believe the universe exists in my mind.
fair enough, but you come across as believing that the universe is the same as your mind.
I came across this article today and caught a vague scent of possible fractality from the individual conscious to the group identity “conscious”, particularly in the “Investigating Social Networks” section.. http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/25/origins-of-cooperation-found-in-social-networks/?hpt=hp_bn1
All disagreements aside, I’m still really intrigued by this topic (fractals in consciousness) and continue to think about it almost daily! Keep the debate going
- Again, I totally disagree and I think most current scientific theories support what im saying here. Micorcosms are everywhere! The cell fundamentaly works the same way as a body, which works basically the same way as a planet, etc. Everything follows the same rules because everything is made out of the same stuff, energy.
now maybe i’m the one who’s soft in the head, because i can’t see how the human body works the same way as a planet. care to elaborate?
sorry, just wanted to jump in here.. one example I can think of is the continual renewal of the surface layer, although the mechanisms are obviously very different—upheaval and erosion processes on the surface of the earth could be paralleled to the natural sloughing off of skin cells that expose the ever-regenerating dermal layers underneath. (i’m not addressing the more major earth surface changes that have occurred over many millenia) maybe tokapelli is speaking of “working the same way” in spirit, more than in actual mechanics?
Flavius: I could see how what I said could sound confusing and contradicting. All Im saying is that science doesnt have the complete story and it never will. So I do my best to fill in the blanks with my mind based on contemplation, lessons from the plant teachers, ovserving nature etc. I think these methods are just as important as the accepted scientific methods. Whats happening here is my ego is making a futile attempt to form a complete picture in my mind of what all this crazy nonsense surrounding me really is. I am fully aware that this will never happen, as i said before with every question answred a thousand more arise. I am trying to take something infinitely complex and put it in a box so that its easy for my ego to understand. Impossible, I know. But its still really fun to try.
Now as far the microcosms go, and how the way a human being or at least its brain could very well operate like the entire planet or even the entire universe operates, we discussed this earlier in the thread.
Tokapelli - 29 September 2011 04:05 AM
^ thats an interesting observation. ive seen the web of galazy cluster pictures your talking about while watching a speech from Paul Stamets, he was talking about how similar the mycelium networks are to the galaxy clusters, and the neurons in our brain.
Ill try to find a picture of the galaxy clusters im talking about here, but Paul Stamets (i hope you would consider him a “real” scientist Flavius he has many patents and a lot of solid scientific research behind his ideas) was talking about this in one of his speeches. This is a perfect example of how neurons in your brain can be looked at as a microcosm to mycelium networks, and mycelium networks can be looked at as a microcosm to the galaxy clusters. Mycelium networks are fascinating, and it may sound like a radical or far fetched idea at first, but I think its very possible that they form a system of communication across the planet in the same way that neurons form a system of communication across our brain. Almost like the mushrooms and their mycelium networks act like a brain for the earth. Again I know it sounds far fetched and there probably isnt any solid verifiable scientific evidence to prove it yet, but that doesnt mean its impossible. I strongly beleive after watching some Paul Stamets videos that mushrooms are intelligent, they have been around for way longer than we have that is for sure, Paul Stamets thinks they were one of the first forms of life on earth, and that they were already fully evolved when they arrived (they havnt changed at all in milions of years). So to assume that just because they cant walk around and talk that we are more intelligent than they are is insane in my opionion. Anyway, this is just one example of a micro cosm that i could talk about for a long time, there are other examples as well. In fact there are infinite examples of this all around you, open your eyes! The way I see it things just dont happen in nature because thats the way it turned out, I think whats happening around us is like Gods way of constantly communicating with us and teaching us about the nature of existence. You can look at a tree or a river as simply a tree or a river, or you can look at them as cosmic teachers that hold within them the secrets of the universe. And they are eager to teach us, we just have to open our minds and listen.
from the site:
“American mycologist Paul Stamets, in his 2008 Ted Talk, Six Ways Mushrooms Can Save the World, argues that the structure of mycelium is a neuromicrological network with universal properties. In the image below, I’ve placed an electron micrograph of fungal mycelium next to an image of dark matter. Beneath that, a visualization of the network structure of the Internet by Hal Burch and Bill Cheswick, courtesy of Lumeta Corporation. Can you tell the difference?”
its saying the pics are too large to post but if you go to the link and scroll down towards the bottom of the article you can see the similarites between dark matter in space, mycelium networks and even a visual representation of the structure of the internet. It could just be a coincidence but I stopped beleiving in coincidences a long time ago.
then the article goes on to say
“Stamets, who calls mycelium “Earth’s Natural Internet,” puts it this way:
I believe the invention of the computer Internet is an inevitable consequence of a previously proven biologically successful model. The earth invented the computer internet for its own benefit, and we, now, being the top organism on this planet, [are] trying to allocate resources in order to protect the biosphere.
Going way out, dark matter conforms to the same mycelial archetype. I believe matter begets life, life becomes single cells, single cells become strings, strings become chains, chains network. And this is the paradigm that we see throughout the universe.”
- in other words, its all fractals man!
*edit, this is turning out to be a pretty cool article, im not going to past the whole thing in this thread but I thought I should just post this closing statement as well as it is very relevant to this debate..
“Mycelium, an intertwined network of cells permeating virtually all land masses of Earth, is not something to take lightly. It literally engulfs the soil beneath us in a sentient web, rising up beneath our footsteps, hungry for nutrients. There is something beautiful and horrifying, ancient and keenly technological about these organisms, a complexity it may take a psychedelically-informed, non-institutional mind to fully appreciate.”
Now as far the microcosms go, and how the way a human being or at least its brain could very well operate like the entire planet or even the entire universe operates, we discussed this earlier in the thread.
Tokapelli - 29 September 2011 04:05 AM
^ thats an interesting observation. ive seen the web of galazy cluster pictures your talking about while watching a speech from Paul Stamets, he was talking about how similar the mycelium networks are to the galaxy clusters, and the neurons in our brain.
Ill try to find a picture of the galaxy clusters im talking about here, but Paul Stamets (i hope you would consider him a “real” scientist Flavius he has many patents and a lot of solid scientific research behind his ideas) was talking about this in one of his speeches. This is a perfect example of how neurons in your brain can be looked at as a microcosm to mycelium networks, and mycelium networks can be looked at as a microcosm to the galaxy clusters. Mycelium networks are fascinating, and it may sound like a radical or far fetched idea at first, but I think its very possible that they form a system of communication across the planet in the same way that neurons form a system of communication across our brain. Almost like the mushrooms and their mycelium networks act like a brain for the earth. Again I know it sounds far fetched and there probably isnt any solid verifiable scientific evidence to prove it yet, but that doesnt mean its impossible. I strongly beleive after watching some Paul Stamets videos that mushrooms are intelligent, they have been around for way longer than we have that is for sure, Paul Stamets thinks they were one of the first forms of life on earth, and that they were already fully evolved when they arrived (they havnt changed at all in milions of years). So to assume that just because they cant walk around and talk that we are more intelligent than they are is insane in my opionion. Anyway, this is just one example of a micro cosm that i could talk about for a long time, there are other examples as well. In fact there are infinite examples of this all around you, open your eyes! The way I see it things just dont happen in nature because thats the way it turned out, I think whats happening around us is like Gods way of constantly communicating with us and teaching us about the nature of existence. You can look at a tree or a river as simply a tree or a river, or you can look at them as cosmic teachers that hold within them the secrets of the universe. And they are eager to teach us, we just have to open our minds and listen.
good post. paul stamets is a really interesting guy, i love listening to his talks.
yes, of course he is a ‘real’ scientist, but you also shouldn’t forget that he is very much specialised in mycology, not astronomy. it’s true that fungi have been around for a very long time without evolving, but so have bacteria and many other types of life. that in itself does not make them ‘inteliigent.’
however, there is a shitload of research that has been done recently on various forms of plants that shows that they do in fact communicate with each other. it’s really interesting stuff - a good start is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication#Plants_and_fungi
so fungi aren’t all that special, it just so happens that stamets has done a lot of research on them, and others haven’t done enough research on plants yet. i’m sure we will find such beauty when studying all kinds of life.
in terms of your comment about god creating the universe to teach us and to explore it, i’d rather leave out the god part. i totally agree that there is an infinite amount of things that we can learn from the universe, and we’d be absolutely stupid not to want to learn, but i see no reason why a god should have been responsible. i especially don’t subscribe to the attitude that things happen for a reason, or that the universe was created for a reason, or even worse, that the universe was created for US. first of all, we have no reason to believe that we’re the only intelligent beings in the universe - if we aren’t alone, then it’s arrogant to say the universe was created for us (even if it’s just to learn from, rather than exploit). second of all, it’s human nature (and it always has been) to try to assign meaning to everything we encounter - be it some meteorological event that we can’t explain, and attributing it to god wanting to punish us, or seeing a shape in a tissue that vaguely looks like ‘jesus.’
now, going back to the fractal discussion, i went and did some research inspired by your ‘universal fractal’ hypothesis, and found an interesting article suggesting that fractals may be the key to understanding quantum mechanics (before i was arguing that fractals have nothing to do with things on such a small scale).
it’s just speculative mathematics at the moment, however it sounds like it could be an interesting approach.
what this does show, however, is that fractals are more than ‘pretty pictures’ - they are genuine mathematical models that can be applied wherever mathematics can be applied - they just happen to look appealing to humans when represented visually.
you can’t explain EVERYTHING with fractals, however they are extremely useful when describing natural phenomena.
who knows, maybe the mathematics of the future will use something much more advanced than fractals - or rather, maybe we will learn a lot more about fractals than we currently know.
I’m so happy to find out mine’s not the only mind (seemingly) that regularly, hypnotically, almost neurotically even, goes to these tiered topics of life, patterns, and the meaning behind everything!! I’ll try to be brief, though.. Hermalosa, ohhh I fear, fear death. I really do. I’m very afraid it’s the end, and that truly is my biggest fear. I hope that it’s not the end, and I *feel* that it’s not, but the part of me that wants science and logic and proof still roots me in fear 
LOL, silly. Tokapelli, I apologize I’m getting sort of off topic again, but tonight’s reading reminded me of a pseudo theory I had several years ago, and I thought I’d share. It was called “The Theory of the Path Through the Snow.” In short, after observing a path of footprints through deep snow outside a building at my school, I wondered if we are actually like the path—the path’s evolution was driven by some separate entity (i.e. us), and the driving force wasn’t even something planned or necessarily coherent (i.e. it was a combination of shortest distance from the door to peoples’ cars parked on the road and each person’s willingness to trudge through a certain depth of snow, or merely already-trampled snow). For me, it put “us” potentially more into perspective. Who says we’re definitely evolving with some purpose? (I’m not saying anyone here said that, don’t misunderstand.. but it seems a commonish perception, somehow.) Anyway, new favorite thread :D Happy or merry Christmas (or holiday, or season) to all, have a fun countdown to 2012, all of you who do!!!
