|
Anyone who has studied (even ever so briefly) the theory of relativity notices the following problem. Suppose we have regular, three-dimensional space, which is defined by the speed of light (because that's how we perceive it). If we had three eyes we might grow a different brain, like a bat's brain, and perceive it differently.
The problem in a nutshell is that the theory of relativity implies a speed limit for the rate of information transfer that is equivalent to the speed of light. Nothing, not even information can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum (and light doesn't elongate as the theoretical dimensions of vacuum in the universe expand). Then we ought to ask, what happens when there are three objects: A, B, and C; and they are traveling in "opposite directions" like the vertices of a cube (however arbitrary this may be). The net change of distance between these objects may be quite a bit faster than the speed of light; for instance if each object is traveling away from the origin (or a vertex of the cube) at, for instance, .9LS (lightspeed).
If the absolute upper bound of the rate of information transfer in the universe is in fact the speed of light then the universe is necessarily discontinuous, as we can see from the fact that object A and object B, traveling in opposite directions are traveling away from each other at 1.8SL, and thus cannot meaningfully exist in the same universe.
What if the objects are cognitive objects like humans? It seems almost inconceivable that there are not faster than light objects that establish continuity between points in the universe at the present time. The idea that most of the universe is essentially falling off the grid because of a cosmic speed limit seems absurd.
My hypothesis is that to some extent black holes address this concern. They function as "conspansive" vertices like fabric lining that help preserve continuity in the universe so that information can be processed in a relatively regular fashion. The fact that consciousnesses exist seems to require faster-than-light continuity that can only be observed at the lightspeed level because of loops (and these are black holes).
The reality is that a woman's entire life is colored by the birthgiving process. There is every reason to believe that the reason many women believe time is an illusion is because we define time according to the speed of light, but the speed of light is only one speed limit. There is no reason to believe that the speed of light is the actual speed limit any more than there is to believe that the speed of sound is the speed limit. Realistically there is no reason to believe the human nervous system is any more developed than that of an amoeba, or that our most advanced mode of detection is any better than that of a single-celled organism.
Consequently it is highly probable that the cognitive function does indeed perceive faster-than-light objects, but it doesn't perceive them in the conventional fashion (unless some sort of synthesia is induced by psychedelics, pain, fasting, meditation, etc.). In all likelihood the explanation for woman's interpretation of temporal causality is linked to the birthgiving process and the heightened awareness produced by pain and sensory deprivation. It's probable that because many quantum phenomenon are observed according to observation, that pain, emotions, etc. are in fact integral to the "production" of complexity, yielding observable and meaningful scientific data from subjective phenomena.
Thus, certain ultimate forms of pain are self-configuring and self-generating modes of interacting with informational reality and ordering material reality. While this doesn't necessarily imply that one can create something out of nothing, it implies the possibility of creating something out of nothing depending on how we define something - energy, information, and mass may each be constrained by conservation principles but there is also synergy exhibited by (for instance) Cantor's diagnolization argument.
I think one of the most interesting and practical applications of this argument is something I've been discussing with ninazerg on Twitter. The idea that much of the female's life is defined by the act of giving birth correlates highly with the idea that "material reality" is an amalgam of space and time, and that we perceive it the way we do because we predicate time according to the speed of light. It's quite reasonable to conclude that the structures we interpret as material reality are only what they are because the human experience (100 years) is defined by visual phenomena to the extent that it is.
But if the structure of material reality were interpreted differently, as it quite reasonably might be in other regions of the universe where cosmological economics is expressed by different parameter values. Then realistically, for instance, the bullying (one may or may not perceive) from young girls may be an expression of a violation of causality as we define it. Because, as we observe, events do not, in many respects, conserve the idea of independence, it is reasonable to assert that phases of the human life are economic statements.
Cosmology and economics may hold the answer to many sociological and psychological problems. Deviations from cosmological predictability are as nina observes, the most difficult phenomena to detect.
Suppose young girls bully as a form of extropy because of the high personal value generated by the entropic cycle of menstruation that begins a few years later. In a sense temporal entropy may "incovert" so that what is entropic (self-bullying) in one domain, for instance, the menstrual cycle is extropic in another domain (youthful bullying). On the other hand, the same events as interpreted according to one temporal progression, may yield an entirely different interpretation when interpreted in reverse. A shift from extropy to entropy in one progression of the timeline redefines itself as a shift from entropy to extropy by creating a corresponding shift in a different variable. This other variable is time itself which always progresses by loops, but the menstrual cycle represents a very large loop, like a lasso.
In this way, pregnancy is the ultimate form of bullying, creating a major loop encompassing multiple life times, and perhaps even restructuring how the events of one's own past are to be interpreted.
Thus it is common for Eastern psychologists to talk in what is apparently mumbo-jumbo. Your current menstrual cycle is causing you to bully as a child; or your current pregnancy caused your first boyfriend to leave you. And so on. There is no reason that consciousness should be defined only by the human brain. Imagine seeing things from an ent's perspective. One particle going this way or that way may constitute an acceptable level of randomness that a certain structure is not violated - for instance a certain level of randomness is acceptable in the process of consciousness in the human brain. But on the level of the survival of a species or the evolution of a new species - and this itself could be a being of some sort (perhaps a bird's eye view that a woman might experience in the process of birthgiving) - what constitutes an acceptable level of randomness that can be reasonably condensed into a causal chain is quite different.
We have no problem with the idea that one or two neurons out of place won't interfere with the process of cognition. Any heavy drinker has long since come to accept this fact. But causality as we experience it may be as inconsequential or unconstrained as those misplaced neurons when we zoom out and examine things from the ent's perspective. This shift in perspective essentially involves respecting the existence of memetic beings (cultures, species, etc.) in the same way we respect DNA beings. A wider perspective encompasses a more broad view of time and causality, and allows us to move beyond certain "patriarchal" prejudices.
  
|
"If there is anything about the current understanding of the Universe I don't like, it is probably wrong, because my personal observations based on misunderstandings of theoretical physics are much more reliable than anything else. Also random weird switches to statements about women."
- YokoKano
|
Is the high thread closed or something?
|
I couldn't bring myself to read after the first 3 alinea's. I'd restudy relativity if I were you.
|
You need to add velocities relativistically. If in point A, B and C they all measure the speed of the same light beam to be C, it can't be that the speed difference between them is 1.8c.
A, B and C could be sending light beams in between them. A can send a light beam to B and for A it moves with c. B sees the light beam arrive from A and sees it move with c. C sees the light beam go from A to B with c.
If this is a given, you can calculate how fast A thinks B is moving.
There is discontinuity in the universe but this is because of the expansion of space, not because of speeds inside space-time.
|
OMG. I tried understanding the point of this post. I really did...
The best I could come up with is the OP is a misogynist, and is willing to make up fake conclusions based upon a complete ignorance of basic science. The OP then posts these absurd ideas wrapped up in jargon so incomprehensible that it's meant to confuse readers into thinking there's a kernel of truth.
|
Jocks are bullied by their teachers. Nerds are bullied by jocks. If you're completely unsympathetic with the plight of women, then go ahead and ignore me. Be prepared to face the consequences of reprisal you're responsible for when instead of using your masculine intellect to ensure the longevity of the species, you evince this sort of psuedo-intellectual womanish flippancy. Your behavior only proves my point. Youthful self-bullying of young nerds by females who are reflecting their intellectual development leads to vagina envy in later life (probably because youthful bullying coalesces during the menstrual period into more aggressive female behavior).
The practical consequences is vagina-envy is a serious worry among nerds who end up being discarded as their essential genetic contributions are assimilated by females. While I am not against homosexuality in its various forms, I am not sure that all nerds are willing to accept the consequences of slack responses placing the nerd group at greater statistical risk of being transformed into gays. Of course every agent is free to choose his own course, but if vagina-envy is not taken seriously, there is little doubt that it increases your risk of being bullied as a homosexual.
|
On April 30 2015 04:10 YokoKano wrote:
Jocks are bullied by their teachers. Nerds are bullied by jocks. If you're completely unsympathetic with the plight of women, then go ahead and ignore me. Be prepared to face the consequences of reprisal you're responsible for when instead of using your masculine intellect to ensure the longevity of the species, you evince this sort of psuedo-intellectual womanish flippancy. Your behavior only proves my point. Youthful self-bullying of young nerds by females who are reflecting their intellectual development leads to vagina envy in later life (probably because youthful bullying coalesces during the menstrual period into more aggressive female behavior).
The practical consequences is vagina-envy is a serious worry among nerds who end up being discarded as their essential genetic contributions are assimilated by females. While I am not against homosexuality in its various forms, I am not sure that all nerds are willing to accept the consequences of slack responses placing the nerd group at greater statistical risk of being transformed into gays. Of course every agent is free to choose his own course, but if vagina-envy is not taken seriously, there is little doubt that it increases your risk of being bullied as a homosexual.
So, you're not a bot? Weird, I thought for sure you were a spambot because of the non-sensical ordering of your words.
What you're saying is that if people point out logical inconsistencies in your thoughts, or gaps in your understanding of basic science, then the human race is doomed to be bullied by girls? The victims will then grow up to have vagina-envy?
Is that really your message?
|
On April 30 2015 04:09 kingjames01 wrote:
OMG. I tried understanding the point of this post. I really did...
The best I could come up with is the OP is a misogynist, and is willing to make up fake conclusions based upon a complete ignorance of basic science. The OP then posts these absurd ideas wrapped up in jargon so incomprehensible that it's meant to confuse readers into thinking there's a kernel of truth.
Dude relax. Don't go throwing around words like misogynist.
|
On April 30 2015 04:30 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:09 kingjames01 wrote:
OMG. I tried understanding the point of this post. I really did...
The best I could come up with is the OP is a misogynist, and is willing to make up fake conclusions based upon a complete ignorance of basic science. The OP then posts these absurd ideas wrapped up in jargon so incomprehensible that it's meant to confuse readers into thinking there's a kernel of truth.
Dude relax. Don't go throwing around words like misogynist.
That is the point of the OP though, isn't it? The message is that unless we listen to the OP, the world is doomed to bullied by women because they give birth to children and have periods.
|
YokoKano is the biggest mystery of this website. I respect him immensely and even tried to contact him but he never replied to my pm 
|
I'm sure he is either really fried when writing or trolling, or a combination of both.
|
On April 30 2015 04:44 SoSexy wrote:YokoKano is the biggest mystery of this website. I respect him immensely and even tried to contact him but he never replied to my pm
What do you respect him for? I have seen several people who have been demanding respect to this guy, but I have honestly zero idea how does he deserve it. Is he known from BW or some other game? I really hope people don't respect him for his writing, it's a piling heap of nonsense (at least anything physcis related is total jibberish, that I can tell, on the more social aspects I don't have so much of an opinion).
|
On April 30 2015 05:31 Kazahk wrote:
I'm sure he is either really fried when writing or trolling, or a combination of both.
Yep. With all the cool physics blogs lately I was hoping for a post with a bit more...accurate knowledge of the subject.
|
On April 30 2015 04:16 kingjames01 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:10 YokoKano wrote:
Jocks are bullied by their teachers. Nerds are bullied by jocks. If you're completely unsympathetic with the plight of women, then go ahead and ignore me. Be prepared to face the consequences of reprisal you're responsible for when instead of using your masculine intellect to ensure the longevity of the species, you evince this sort of psuedo-intellectual womanish flippancy. Your behavior only proves my point. Youthful self-bullying of young nerds by females who are reflecting their intellectual development leads to vagina envy in later life (probably because youthful bullying coalesces during the menstrual period into more aggressive female behavior).
The practical consequences is vagina-envy is a serious worry among nerds who end up being discarded as their essential genetic contributions are assimilated by females. While I am not against homosexuality in its various forms, I am not sure that all nerds are willing to accept the consequences of slack responses placing the nerd group at greater statistical risk of being transformed into gays. Of course every agent is free to choose his own course, but if vagina-envy is not taken seriously, there is little doubt that it increases your risk of being bullied as a homosexual. So, you're not a bot? Weird, I thought for sure you were a spambot because of the non-sensical ordering of your words. What you're saying is that if people point out logical inconsistencies in your thoughts, or gaps in your understanding of basic science, then the human race is doomed to be bullied by girls? The victims will then grow up to have vagina-envy? Is that really your message?
It doesn't matter. You'll find yourself wrong about a lot of obvious stuff, and the fact that it's obvious doesn't make it any less wrong. Nothing good has ever happened to me as a consequence of walking the path of daggers. The universe is evolving toward a state of greater complexity, and one consequence is that you need to be willing to gamble. Being right 100% of the time is a lot like being right 105% of the time. There's no point to have such a stringent filter on the level of accuracy in your technique. You're not going to get better over night, and you're not going to get better by not producing content. If you never practice uploading anything, you're just going over the same nonsense over and over. If you're so bad that the universe won't even contribute to your uploads with what is a reasonable level of spell check then you ultimately end up gambling that some corporate entity will endorse your work for a fraction of what you would pay to do it yourself. At the end of the day scholars who don't write anything are a case in point of vagina-envy. The need for perfection is not free from economic constraint. The practical applications of my work in physics may constitute a non-sequitur in your syntax but anyone familiar with Starcraft knows that economics and tech paths are real and the western mindset of overspecialization is like trying to win a game off a robotics facility and observers. There's no reason not to apply the same techniques of architecture that work in language and expect them not to work scientifically with the same degree of rational fidelity. Science won't advance faster than economics permits.
|
|
|
On April 30 2015 05:31 Kazahk wrote:
I'm sure he is either really fried when writing or trolling, or a combination of both.
My bet is that this is a performance art project from nina.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2015 05:58 YokoKano wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:16 kingjames01 wrote:On April 30 2015 04:10 YokoKano wrote:
Jocks are bullied by their teachers. Nerds are bullied by jocks. If you're completely unsympathetic with the plight of women, then go ahead and ignore me. Be prepared to face the consequences of reprisal you're responsible for when instead of using your masculine intellect to ensure the longevity of the species, you evince this sort of psuedo-intellectual womanish flippancy. Your behavior only proves my point. Youthful self-bullying of young nerds by females who are reflecting their intellectual development leads to vagina envy in later life (probably because youthful bullying coalesces during the menstrual period into more aggressive female behavior).
The practical consequences is vagina-envy is a serious worry among nerds who end up being discarded as their essential genetic contributions are assimilated by females. While I am not against homosexuality in its various forms, I am not sure that all nerds are willing to accept the consequences of slack responses placing the nerd group at greater statistical risk of being transformed into gays. Of course every agent is free to choose his own course, but if vagina-envy is not taken seriously, there is little doubt that it increases your risk of being bullied as a homosexual. So, you're not a bot? Weird, I thought for sure you were a spambot because of the non-sensical ordering of your words. What you're saying is that if people point out logical inconsistencies in your thoughts, or gaps in your understanding of basic science, then the human race is doomed to be bullied by girls? The victims will then grow up to have vagina-envy? Is that really your message? It doesn't matter. You'll find yourself wrong about a lot of obvious stuff, and the fact that it's obvious doesn't make it any less wrong. Nothing good has ever happened to me as a consequence of walking the path of daggers. The universe is evolving toward a state of greater complexity, and one consequence is that you need to be willing to gamble. Being right 100% of the time is a lot like being right 105% of the time. There's no point to have such a stringent filter on the level of accuracy in your technique. You're not going to get better over night, and you're not going to get better by not producing content. If you never practice uploading anything, you're just going over the same nonsense over and over. If you're so bad that the universe won't even contribute to your uploads with what is a reasonable level of spell check then you ultimately end up gambling that some corporate entity will endorse your work for a fraction of what you would pay to do it yourself. At the end of the day scholars who don't write anything are a case in point of vagina-envy. The need for perfection is not free from economic constraint. The practical applications of my work in physics may constitute a non-sequitur in your syntax but anyone familiar with Starcraft knows that economics and tech paths are real and the western mindset of overspecialization is like trying to win a game off a robotics facility and observers. There's no reason not to apply the same techniques of architecture that work in language and expect them not to work scientifically with the same degree of rational fidelity. Science won't advance faster than economics permits.
"Vagina-envy" is massing Observers.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
this blog ... Well, can't say it didn't deliver at least haha. 5/5!
|
I'm looking back and forth between this ziti I'm having for dinner and you and you both are baked as hell.
5/5, would eat dinner to again.
|
I really hope you were high as fuck when writing this d:
|
|
|
On April 30 2015 01:44 YokoKano wrote:
when we zoom out and examine things from the ent's perspective
![[image loading]](http://bplusmovieblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-two-towers-943.png?w=590)
Am I doing it right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
