Quantum Thought

[Resonator]

In the wonderful world of science, you need proof of what you claim to make people believe you. Without going any further than science than that, we know this as undeniable fact because you can see it everywhere by just being yourself about what you know around scientists. I could speculate as to the means of these ends but there are many and no general description. Pride, however, seems fitting.

So when a guy like me, who's only ever had the Media to inform him apart from his/her education, comes up with a theory based on what that media has randomly allowed the individual access to, how is it any less of a theory if it came from education? Nature itself educates that person, and what he or she SHOULD know about their claims is evident from the very context of the claims itself. The claim was based on a question that the individual was trying to answer, questionable because yet again, the grand committee of science blamed another outlet of information that is naturally flawed.

Please note that instead of realizing this, the trend seems to be that anger is quick to make a presence for inferiority to the undisciplined mind.

So on to Quantum Thought. Just to be clear, I'm using the word "Quantum" as undefinable and "Thought" as...Well, thought. If you look at the universe from a beginning point, look at it as the first in a long line of dominoes, sprawled across the flow of time. They go in different directions, branch off from the main course, but inevitably (Using this train of thought) all ends can be defined by the beginning points. Naturally, things declare balance over each other and it's my belief that the universe in the beginning is unbalanced, and at the end of time all those dominoes have fallen, all those unanswered questions answered, and all of those unbalanced things balanced out.

And thus, at the middle of time, the true balance point, there must be an equal number of things (Use "things" as a general term) both balanced, and left to be balanced. For the latter, I don't think it matters as to whether or not a particular thing must exist, given any point in time really, in the universe for it to need to be balanced. Everything that will exist can be swiftly calculated by the formula provided by nature. X variables + Y rules of interaction = Z prototypical anomaly.

However, I feel this is alot to throw out at once but I do hope there is some serious responses here (As opposed to other websites). Please note that, like I said, all I can know is based on what has been accessible around me outside post secondary education, but that I feel has not truly limited my intelligence to question what I see.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

The difference between an individual's theory and a scientific theory is not only based on educational experience. Any individual can form a mental compilation of possibly arbitrary or only tangentially related experiences and presume there to be a correlation or even causal relationship between them. From here, he can attempt to legitimize the theory to anyone who will listen simply be reciting the puzzle pieces in a convenient order.

In science however, the presumption of a relationship isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis. After the hypothesis is stated, an experiment will be designed and then criticized by a panel of "experts," or people who have sufficient background in that field or related fields to provide further insight with regard to strengths or flaws in the hypothesis and proposed experimental method. This process helps to neutralize any sampling or interpretation bias that may have gone unrecognized by simply one theorist.

Within the experiment itself, multiple independent variables are tested, including a control group, which will help to reduce the probability of overestimating the statistical significance of a correlation between any specific variables.

Following the experiment, a report is filed and a peer review takes place in which more "experts" critique the experiment, pointing out any holes in the data, or flaws in the design of the experiment or biases in the conclusions of the researcher.

If there are no major objections among the "experts," the experimental data will be used to either accept or reject the hypothesis and it is at this point that it is recognized as a "theory," called such because the progressive nature of science implies that nothing can be definitively proven; only supported by enough evidence that attempts to challenge the theory are unsuccessful, either by producing statistically less significant results, or by failing to provide data to the contrary.

Finally, because science is progressive, it is accepted that any theory can be challenged at any time by any competing data. Consequently, while no theory can ever be conclusively proven, enough contrary data can disprove it, and new theories with more consistent data can replace them, ensuring that the biases of human perception are likely to be minimized over time.

 

[Blowtus]

Theories are generally only regarded as scientific if they perform some manner of useful explanatory work - aside from what I think are all the other problems with what you are saying, what do you think this theory achieves? Can any of our observations be accounted for by it, does it make any predictions we can utilise?

 

[Resonator]

Can any of our observations be accounted for by it, does it make any predictions we can utilise?

Of course. Some would dare to dream that all knowing IS possible somehow, but regardless of that, every interaction provides a new formula to calculate with, if you could imagine some HUGE whiteboard covered in logical equations. If I may, actually, imagine the world interacting through the viewpoint of an equation. You, the equation, flow along this neat and steady stream to an individual (This stream doesn't exist, it represents a streamlined event), and throughout the whole time you pass through the human (I would only imagine the explanations for a measurement of time in Diametrics but as a non-scientologist I can't really speculate) you're getting processed. Once the processing is done, the interaction takes place, and a new streamlined equation is created (Your son, quite literally if you are an equation) to flow through another person to create a new prototypical anomaly.

This whole paragraph above is pretty much a different way to talk about the things I'm talking about. I like the power of thought, so I try to use imagery and examples to see things not necessarily in the way they should be seen but so that in understanding what I say, the vision is perfectly explanatory. It also, of course, describes a human interaction in a creative way, in one universe, with one beginning (Ours, to be exemplary). So let's continue with a quote from BlackMetalWhiteGuy:

Any individual can form a mental compilation of possibly arbitrary or only tangentially related experiences and presume there to be a correlation or even causal relationship between them. From here, he can attempt to legitimize the theory to anyone who will listen simply be reciting the puzzle pieces in a convenient order.

Well it's only convenient to a point, and speaking of that statement is pretty much what I was getting at. Many people like myself who simply lack knowledge enough to form a real theory. And I do use the word theory to represent what you could call a "Hypothesis" only because of...What, exactly? I know it's simple stuff but when you don't use the terminology for simple fact of simplicity (And ignorance, in this case) it's slightly understandable, however wrong the Hypothesis is.

NOW you've got something to be angry for that I could respect. That I was ignorant of remembering to use correct terminology. If you hate ignorance in any form that much, I respect it.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

Your use of the word theory isn't wrong in the context of a casual discussion. I only point out the distinction in this case because of your inquiry as to the difference between the two.

 

[Blowtus]

This thread is like all my worst nightmares of pseudoscience gobbledygook come at once...

Resonator - to take one line at relative random, can you explain in more or better words what you are intending with "You, the equation, flow along this neat and steady stream to an individual"?

You seem to frequently grant some sense of absolute existence to what are merely tools of understanding - an equation is nothing besides what we utilise the term for, it does not have a life of it's own.

 

[Resonator]

But that's what I'm saying exactly, Blowtus. I actually was just thinking about this today, and I came to a conclusion that there are different levels of existence. In a 3D physical world, we exist as a supercomputer, converting things we can sense around us (Touch, smell, see, etc.) into informtation to be processed. But physical objects are just variables, in this method of understanding, and I was considering putting a theoretical definition of all 7 dimensions, which in itself is just a number but it's a number I choose to work with for now.

Moving on. In my imaginings I tried to picture a world that is comprised of equations, the functions that make nature work. Picturing it as though these streams DID exist, transferring a kind of input that we cannot see through our supercomputer brain to be processed, we become like a magnet, attracting the stream to us purely because we exist. If you can picture the streams as energy with polarity (I feel obligated to mention I've never had an advanced understanding of this concept but I work with what I learned in school, the basics), then you will always have opposites attracting, and likes repelling. What I imagine this dimension to be is a linear flow overlaying physical existence, with multiple sets of polar opposites interacting with polarized (Physical) variables attracting, repelling, and manipulating the trajectory of those streams, in an almost unpredictable way (Given we know nothing of this kind of system to my knowledge).

Again, imagination has been a big part in describing this to you. It makes sense to be, but it doesn't always seem the case for others (No typo).

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

In my imaginings I tried to picture a world that is comprised of equations, the functions that make nature work. Picturing it as though these streams DID exist, transferring a kind of input that we cannot see through our supercomputer brain to be processed, we become like a magnet, attracting the stream to us purely because we exist.

Are you the Architect?

If you can picture the streams as energy with polarity (I feel obligated to mention I've never had an advanced understanding of this concept but I work with what I learned in school, the basics), then you will always have opposites attracting, and likes repelling.

What about chemistry's "like dissolves like" slogan for hydrophobic and hydrophilic chemicals?

 

[Resonator]

Wow. Consider yourself overestimated, I plainly said that education has not played a factor in any way with what I say because my education has never been formal other than high school.

But, just out of curiosity, what are those chemicals?

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

Wow. Consider yourself overestimated, I plainly said that education has not played a factor in any way with what I say because my education has never been formal other than high school.

But, just out of curiosity, what are those chemicals?

I hate to tell you this, but I learned about that in high school Chemistry.

Hydrophilic means water soluble, while hydrophobic means not water soluble. This is why you can't clean up grease with just water, you need an asymetrical chemical that is hydrophilic on one side and hydrophobic on the other, ie. dish detergent.

 

[Resonator]

Well I suppose I missed out on bases and acids class, so sorry. But I want to throw something out here to see what kind of response I get:

1st dimension - Provides a linear guide on physical and metaphysical forces to operate, and objects to exist under.
2nd dimension - Allows a radial guide (As in radiation, 360 degrees) for physical and metaphysical forces to operate, and objects to exist under.
3rd dimension - Allows a geometrical guide for physical and metaphysical forces to operate, and objects to exist under.
4th dimension - Allows magnetic polarity to guide physical and metaphysical forces to operate, and have objects to exist under.
5th dimension - Allows linear pathways in space for physical and metaphysical forces to operate, and objects to exist in.
6th dimension - Allows a linear equation to pass through space for physical and metaphysical forces to operate, and objects to exist in.
7th dimension - Allows the flow of time for physical and metaphysical forces to operate, and objects to exist in.

It's all in the design. The 6th dimension I describe allows a function to exist on a trajectory, through space on a metaphysical plane, and just HAPPEN* to pass through a variable (i.e. an object in physical space) at any given time and manipulate the object with the function that passes through it, and this creating a new equation, which by law of nature must be balanced out. So let's say it has a certain polarity, as in 4th dimension physics, and will only move to the closest object in space with an exact opposite polarity, and thus when you know the preliminary design you can create virtually any design you want.

* = Haha, made you look...No, seriously enough I don't mean the stress on happen, but it realistically would be doing that.

 

[Liverslapper]

This forum lacks tits.

 

[Resonator]

That was an excellent response. You have fully satisfied one of 2 outcomes I desired, but perhaps you can satisfy both?

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

You want him to give you a blowjob as well?

 

[Resonator]

No, but the thought is nice, if only from cheap Asian hookers...

 

[Resonator]

I apologize for double posting but I wish actually to make a re-post of something I cooked up on a different forum (Also, the last couple of posts veered off this topic from it's course in the wrong direction, so...Here's to kicking shit in the nuts!):

Also, this is only 4D geometry. I can't imagine how screwy physics in a 4D universe would work (Our universe has 3 dimensions + time, not 4 dimensions).

If you think one way, it's just adding an axis in a linear progression. So for instance, we have matter, cool it exists in space. Energy forms such as radiation are directional, much like a one dimensional object, and in a two dimensional world that linear progression is enhanced by adding as many as can fit on any given two dimensional plane, which would allow a fluctuation or a correlation in any given linear progression.

In a third dimension is where any linear progression can have free movement on the third axis, and go anywhere in a three dimensional plane. A fourth would have to denote that all of these things in the previous dimensions (As a whole unit) flow together in that same linear fashion. A fifth dimension would indicate multiple time-like progressions ever expanding, if you could visualize it, it might look much like the radiation from a star (Sphere-like expansion). Going beyond that, there would have to be another progression, which would be multiple "Expanding spheres" (Infinite or not, there's probably some cave drawing out there to help take a guess).

I then go further to say that the next progression could only be layers of space containing these ever expanding universes. That would make 7. To make 8, I'll go so far as to say these layers follow a linear trend going upwards from something, some original event to it's complete opposite (Which doesn't mean they flow into each other, just that they are different along those lines). And multiples of those. And so on. You could follow any rule of progression to find out.

I wish to know the existence and context of any and all arguments