Circuitry and Reality

So, I have been learning about electricity and circuitry. The interesting thing about that is that power is everywhere and it really gets me wondering how, if, and why bio-electric systems function as a series/parallel circuit.

In fact, I am wondering if memories/experiences and social influence all function like a circuit.
For instance, adding something in parallel to a resistor (person, emotion, belief, etc) changes the voltage across that resistor and the current travelling through the entire circuit. How can we best connect to optimize the circuit, and what kinds of circuits are we forming with one another, and why or to what purpose?

Then, of course, we would have to think about circuit clusters and the principles of entropy and anti-entropy that occur within our universe and how these things influence a living system.

This, naturally, has me thinking about energy fluctuations and adaptations within a system and systems that are or can be influenced by outside forces and the natural recycling that, again, occurs within our reality. Things evolve and change, though impulse takes force and time.

This also has me thinking about the effects of things like gravity (which flow out forever getting weaker and weaker the farther away one is from the source of gravity) and the idea of a holographic universe in which, on the absolute lowest level, we are all a part of the same thing at the same time in every possible way.

Hm, anyway. Just thoughts that I have been having.

Something to let out concerning the dynamics of ethereal physics and things like bio-mechanics.

Transhumanism and all that.

Love, Peace, and the Force be with us. Purrhaps more on this as time goes on.

Load balancing within the circuit perhaps. While its nice to visualize little electrons moving like particles around, a circuit might be better seen as an architecture of a field of energy with sources and drains... sounds a bit like plumbing with the concept equating energy to a water level LOL, or maybe not <shrug>
:S

We don't know the how of gravity yet do we? With its instant action at a distance leading to the whole fabric of spacetime concept.... perhaps its the same type of thing... like a liquid which we cannot perceive because our point of view is too 'matter as fact'

Wow, I have literally been pondering the same thing the past few days. I'm going to study electrical engineering at the Community College to bide time until I can afford to go back to University. I enjoy your theory there, I wish I had a better understanding already to contribute in that regard.

Did you know Tesla did not believe in electrons? He theorized that some sort of ether emitted an electronic frequency that affects literally everything on Earth. I know one should not think like this, but maybe he would have been a Jedi. That theory could easily be interpreted as the Force.

In theory, once could use that brainwave and interpret memory as a different frequency from somewhere in the Universe. We sometimes have false memories, memories of other people; some of those are believed to be past lives. We already know the source, the Force, but it intrigues me to find the channel. Thank you for sharing

Electric power is not in fact everywhere. Being a product of current intensity and voltage it is only in places where there is a current. There are complicated circuits where not every place has both and it is sufficient for one to be zero for power to be zero also.

I have no idea how or if that can translate directly to people. If it could, I'm not sure what exactly that would help explain better. On the surface it sounds at best like an attempt to give simple answers to complicated questions to not have to bother with actually studying matters of psychology and social interactions. Simple is elegant and admirable only to the point where everything is still accounted for. We should be careful to not over-simplify.

I went on to google what a circuit cluster is and didn't get any results. Likewise, the term "anti-entropy principle" is something I cannot find anywhere, so please define each after whether you wish to discuss them, respectively.

A term I am familiar with however is impulse, which is the time integral of force which in turn is the time derivative of momentum, rendering impulse to be the difference in momentum irrespective of either the time interval or the force it took. Do you mind elaborating, please, what this has to do with either the rest of the paragraph or the rest of the post for that matter? Indeed, I could pose this question after a lot of sentences in there because the connections, while I am willing to grant exist in your head, are, at least to me, completely obscured. To better understand what you are saying it would help if you brought some of them down in text for the rest of us to read...

Here is an example: In the next paragraph you first share a crude but not strictly inaccurate picture of gravity, and then you move on to the holographic universe. Where is the link? Also, "absolute lowest level" of what exactly? Altitude above the center of gravity? Literary sophistication? A skyscraper? A role-playing game? Absent a medium, "lowest level" doesn't refer to anything, or does it?

Adder, gravity does not actually act instantaneously. A change in the gravitational field occurs after as long as it takes light to travel the distance from the changing source of gravity to the point in question. On small scales that is so quick that one might as well assume that it is instantaneous, but if the system you observe is even as small as our solar system, already you have to take the distances into account for reasonably accurate predictions.

Finally, Dega:
Nicola Tesla was not a great contributor to the advancement of physics, being stuck in a pre-atomic paradigm that was well falsified within his lifetime. If he had been a great contributor, he would still have been so far back in time in the early last century that we have learned a lot since then either way. His antiquated ideas about the nature of atoms and energy may be well convenient to put a Jedi hat on, but I think it highly unhelpful to deny reality just because there is an opportunity to claim a memorable name. I don't think that this is what it takes to be a Jedi nor should it be. As for false memories, we have a pretty good understanding indeed of how they come about, but don't claim to know things you cannot show. Replace "The Force" with "magic" in that sentence and the explanatory power will remain unchanged. This goes back to the simple answers to complicated questions thing. If you don't know, don't pretend like you do. If you are too lazy to find out, don't pretend like you already have.

Gisteron wrote: Adder, gravity does not actually act instantaneously. A change in the gravitational field occurs after as long as it takes light to travel the distance from the changing source of gravity to the point in question. On small scales that is so quick that one might as well assume that it is instantaneous, but if the system you observe is even as small as our solar system, already you have to take the distances into account for reasonably accurate predictions.

Oh I c
:lol: :whistle:

PowderCat wrote: why bio-electric systems function as a series/parallel circuit.

Yeah so that's a normal question. It's like this: your brain is a circuit and it uses functions. You should check out synergetics, a field founded by Buckminster Fuller. Humans still haven't figured this field out but the small pieces we do understand are very interesting and relevant.

Gisteron wrote: Also, "absolute lowest level" of what exactly? Altitude above the center of gravity? Literary sophistication? A skyscraper? A role-playing game? Absent a medium, "lowest level" doesn't refer to anything, or does it?

Lowest level mathematically.
When you do the math for splitting an atom again and then in half again and then in half again, etc, you eventually reach a point in which the part that you split in half ceases to exist in any one point but exists in all points at all times (or so I have heard). This theory actually has driven several mathematicians into ending their own life.

And no, I am not clarifying yet. I have left this vague intentionally.
Those that are truly interested and listening call feel out many things.
Besides, I sort of run my own experiments when I talk. How interesting that you have shown up and that you are in the manner that you are in. Thank you for participating.

At any rate, thank you Whyte Horse, and everyone else, for that matter (ha, physics jokes).
I truly appreciate it. You can bet that at some point, Whyte Horse, that I shall look into that.

What is fascinating to me is that there are physicists out there that share my view that consciousness must be some form of matter. After all, everything is really just everything else, only at a different frequency, right? :#
Consciousness can be felt. Awareness is some sort of key principal. Not sure about rigidity yet or how that factors in, but I'm sure that we are all familiar with low pressure, low "temperature" consciousness systems that seem hard and leech energy. Lots of resistance in the circuit? At any rate, blah cat meow swish. May the Force be with us.

I will post more in this thread quite soon.
I look forward to any replies and I will think about clarifying, my new friends.

I have felt my mindscapes literally reach out and touch the areas around me, usually not at my own beckoning but when I have been actively drawing near to, for lack of a better word, Source, or the Force.

I have shared structures with other thought-scapes and have exchanged information on a deep, deep level, almost like volcanic matter bubbling to the surface to be exposed.

Having been learning about physics, etc, I am really beginning to just scratch the surface on these experiences, so, in keeping true with them, and in keeping true with not relegating these experiences by way of the literal mind, I must keep my words abstract, like a treasure map, as it may be, or like a friendly puzzle, just like the scriptures of old.

At any rate, physics, psychology, chemistry, biology: these are all the observable phenomenon that we experience every day, much like the branches of a tree or the leaves of a flowering plant. As within, however, so without, and as above, so below, right? So how many of the unseen things are really at the root of these processes and what they present to us in our experiences? How many of these branches are actually part of the same bough and how many boughs must we trace back to find the trunk, or even the roots of what we know as reality? Within the unseen lay the explanations for things that we witness here, wherever here may be.

MTFBWU

Yeah, this is the kind of thing people come up with after they learn about science rather than studying the actual thing...

There is no such thing as a "lowest level mathematically", because a level is always and without exception of something, and math is not a medium, let alone a real one. Likewise, I don't know what you mean by either splitting the atom in half nor doing the math for that. What is half an atom? Does it mean one that has half the proton count, or half the nucleon count? Do you mean it has half the mass or half the charge or half the size? You make it sound like as if the atom was a cake you could simply cut in two halves, when the very word itself literally means uncuttable, indivisible (albeit an outdated meaning, inapplicable to the thing the label refers to). So what is half an atom anyway? And what math are you referring to?
I could even go a step further. Let's say there was an infinitely divisible thing and you kept splitting it in two and every half in two again, ad indinitum. The number of parts would exponentially grow, approaching (though never reaching) infinity, and the size of every part would likewise exponentially fall, approaching (though never reaching) zero. There is no reason to assume that the sum of the parts would occupy any more space than the entire thing. You can break a glass and leave it shattered in the frame. If we are arguing mathematically, if the cake doesn't take up more space after being cut in two, and neither half is occupying more after being cut in two again, then it won't occupy any more after being cut in two trillion pieces or indeed infinite. Infinity does not mean all and all does not mean infinity. Would you kindly provide a list of mathematicians who killed themselves over this "theory", please?

Now after that we have a little personal paragraph, so I might as well do one of my own. I'm glad you appreciate my contribution. I wish the feeling was mutual. The socratic method does not consist of being intentionally either wrong or incomprehensible at all times but of leading the listener through suggestion rather than revelation. Being vague for its own sake is unhelpful in communication, and if you aren't trying to communicate, one cannot help but wonder why you write at all. Being vague to leave the listener to fill in the gaps may on the other hand help said listener understand better, but only if there is a thing to be understood and if the plateaus provided between the gaps are themselves helping for that filling in. Arguably the forum post format, as opposed to real time communication, may not be ideal for this kind of exchange...

I may be familiar with those low-pressure low temperature consciousness systems, but I don't know if I am because I have no idea what you mean. I'll come back to this later.
A fundamental misunderstanding philosophers have about the nature of science is that allegedly science is in search of truth. It isn't. Science seeks to build models of reality that partially or fully account for the hitherto gathered data and can successfully predict future data as well. Understanding consciousness as a state of matter, so far did neither of the two, which is part of the reason it hasn't been widely accepted yet. What individual physicists believe is of course up to them, and they are free to and have published their ideas for peer review and here we are today, moving onward, one step at a time, thanks to thinkers, no thanks to dreamers. On a side note, I doubt that what they share is your view exactly, seeing how they actually studied the subject at hand and try to argue from within it whereas you try to be too vague to have to face any argument. Just as with levels, frequencies are also always of something. It's part of the reason the aether has been hypothesized for so long until there was no more need for it to account for anything.

Pootwattle's stringent treatment of the relationship between the (re)formation of post-Hegelian criticism and the delegitimization of the parent-child dynamic demands a break with the organization of 'the book' as we know it.

- The Virtual Critic

Putting this type of philosophy into circuit based context I'd definitely stick with the parallel approach. If things were in series, pulling out one piece would shut it all down. Hmmm, maybe series would make sense too from that angle...