the force by way of an emerging new understanding of physics.

04 Jun 2018 09:37 #322295 by Woodlander
I would love to discuss emergence theory in how it might relate to the Force. Here is some basic information.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Carlos.Martinez3, Arisaig

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

04 Jun 2018 21:59 - 04 Jun 2018 22:56 #322333 by Adder
Crystal glassware is just glass with lead in it most usually, so its not actually crystalline. Glass is a solid fluid (lol!) AFAIK.... but that is aside to her point.

Is it an operationalization to meronomy using geometry, and they posit an 'architecture of existance' based on it?

Reminds me of tetryonics.

I like to include that sort of thing in a 'cognitivism' approach to being, to look for performance advantages, a combinatoric approach, like bell numbers and primes etc to explore 'processing' paradigms in contemplation, see 'partitions of a set' and 'lamination (topology)...... but don't go as far as trying to explain 'everything' (just the appearance of everything!). It is fun to explore new concepts in existing science though for me, since I'm not a physicist nor mathematician of any flavour.

Edit; for me, I work with sets of 3 values which I map upwards through the platonic solids. Three pillars, five trials, seven forms of the Jedi, and all that :D

Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
Last edit: 04 Jun 2018 22:56 by Adder.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

05 Jun 2018 04:59 #322348 by Carlos.Martinez3
Did these people find the Force ? Thank you so much for this. There are a lot of questions me and the wife had watching this. I’m sure we will continue to ask more questions as time progresses ...

Contact The Clergy
Pastor of Temple of the Jedi Order
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Block
Build, not tear down.
Nosce te ipsum / Cerca trova
The following user(s) said Thank You: Woodlander

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

05 Jun 2018 12:38 #322364 by Athena_Undomiel
So the quantum researcher have identified and 8D crystal. (Got it, there it is) so they are going to transpose that image (quasicrystal) into a 3D image, that will "allow us to see the building block of reality". Ok, so let's say that this, golden ration 1:0.618 is accurate, has anyone seen DaVinci's paintings based on this golden ratio? The faces and proportions of these figures in the painting are distorted, and do not in fact look like actual people, because nothing has absolute symmetry. Even if, we obtain a 3D image of this 8D crystal, because it's a quasicrystal, it will be a warped and distorted image of whatever -it-is. So my question is, why the focus on "what is reality" why can't we dedicate this time to medicine? To feeding people? Yes it's fascinating and the ideas are wonderful but to what end? What do we gain from these observations and theories? Until we can see in 8D and function in that reality what is the point of identifying things on that plane? Just wondering.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

05 Jun 2018 12:52 - 05 Jun 2018 12:55 #322365 by Athena_Undomiel
See the faces in this image? Look at the child in the bottom left, the faces become odd and distorted. Even though they are supposed to be "perfect" to our eyes, in this dimension, it stays I'm the quasicrystal "quasi-" state as it was.
Last edit: 05 Jun 2018 12:55 by Athena_Undomiel.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

05 Jun 2018 13:20 #322366 by Arisaig
Took the past day to meditate on this new knowledge (never heard of the 8D crystal as little more than a theory), and here are my thoughts.

It's interesting, the idea that there is a smallest unit of measurement for the universe, a "pixel" of sorts. And then they have their other things that they discussed, such as consciousness, and how consciousnesses viewing reality effects it.

My thoughts on how it relates to the Force are as such: its all part of the Force anyways. ;) The same way I view science and faith, science being the discovery of the complex life and rules created by a divine intelligent entity, these new rules and discoveries can simply be science discovering new aspects of the Force and how it surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the universe together.

But, in the end, such small things, unknown to humanity for all of human history and, even now, is still in its early stages of the scientific process (as three dimensional beings with eyes that only create the illusion of three dimensions in our mind) there is currently no way for us to ever see such a crystal. Hence the double reflection to create the three dimensional quasicrystal (mere glimpse of something outside human comprehension). And as such, does it really affect us?

As Jedi, we must learn to be here, now, to focus on the need in front of our nose (hehehe, Yoda quotes ftw). To glance longingly at the horizon, or more fittingly in this case towards the fundamental building blocks of reality that have always, unknowingly, been there, can distract from such needs.

It is fun to think about, however, and it was an interesting article. Gave me something to puzzle over during my walks yesterday. :)

Sword of the Jedi
Knight of the Temple of the Jedi Order
The Fulcrum Knight of the Order of Onyx
Jedi Battlemaster

~ IP I AP I DQS I Knight I Personal ~
Training Master: Zenchi
Apprentice: Open for Application
The following user(s) said Thank You: Athena_Undomiel

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

05 Jun 2018 15:17 #322373 by Gisteron
Actually, glass by its very definition is not a crystal. It's not a particular material either, to be fair, it is more of a packing pattern. As the packing fraction of a fluid increases, it can begin to crystallize locally. A glass is formed when ever the periodic structure is not retained over larger scales. That's why some would say that glass is liquid. If by solid we only mean crystalline objects, then sure, glasses are not solids. But by that standard only very few things are.

Anyway, most of the things asserted in that video are not backed up even by the research they published themselves. That is understandable, frankly, given how vague (not to say vapid, "not even wrong", as Pauli would have put it) the statements themselves are. What few references are made, like to "matrix theory" (it's called linear algebra, see below) are framed loosely, and not necessarily to an extent necessary to make the matter accessible to lay people, imho. I shan't waste much of my time going through every single sound byte I can demolish on scientific or otherwise factual grounds, because I try to talk to people who talk back, not to those who don't. If there is a particular point anyone wishes me to address, I can do my best.

Now about this "matrix theory":
Linear algebra is what they refer to when they say "matrix theory". It's not a weird or obscure type of mathematics. You learn it literally in first semester if you go that path in higher education, or often times even without any, but in school. Unlike classical physics, which barely considers the vector space properties of the sets of functions they use to describe relations between quantities, quantum physics understands observables almost exclusively as endomorphisms (internal linear maps) on that vector space. To view operators as quadratic "matrices" like the ones one would learn about in linear algebra is a fair enough way to get a feeling of the kind of object they are (almost nothing else asserted in that black and white bit is accurate, though). However, the vector space where we would find the functions of concern do of course not have finite dimension. It is not possible to represent a genuine operator as a concrete matrix with a finite amount of entries, or eigenvalues, for that matter. Functional analysis is the field of mathematics that extends linear algebra to vector spaces of non-finite dimension, like the L² particularly or Hilbert spaces more generally. The importance of either functional analysis or linear algebra was underestimated at the dawn of QM and even today many physicists do not have to take dedicated classes in them (though they do, of course, learn how to deal with these things, just not all of the proofs that make up the theory behind it). To paint it as if Heisenberg wouldn't be spinning in his grave as discretization of spacetime is being attributed to him, is probably rather quite unfair, to put it generously.

The following user(s) said Thank You: Carlos.Martinez3

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.