Notes from an "alternate universe". Introduction to a new way of thinking.

You will see it born this year.

Think of it as a 10-year anniversary gift!

Hmm, that doesn't really fit my schedule. Think of another gift.

A gift is a gift. If you accept or decline it is up to you

You sure are in a grumpy mood!

Hello!

I hadn't realized that this post (when you originally posted it a few days back) was supposed to have been about me, or my ID. Otherwise I would have responded to it then.

To clarify, those are not my posts. I wouldn't have time for such drivel.

Regards.

The same way I know how to tie shoelaces.

Of course, the concept of shoelaces does not propogate throughout all possibilities. But if you are in one possibility for a while, wouldn't you know how to operate within it?

I am not actually from an alternate universe. That's why the phrase is in quotes. I am from this universe. But there's much more to this universe than what we see.

Money is a representation. It always has been. The bankers are managing their representations quite well. They'e turning abstract and notional monies into less-abstract representations. That's not something new. It's just done in different ways over time.



God did not coin that phrase ;) It's quite old.



How "metaphysical" would you say the experience of science is?

How divorced is it from perspective and cognition?



There is a time for everything. Witchcraft has been around for thousands of years. I am in no hurry.



Yes. That's correct. But every one does this constanter.




There's the rub!

"Why" does C happen?




One awesome thing about the universe is that there is a time and a place for everything.

Thanks.

Greetings!

Here is the original quote, above, for clarification. It's been a while.

<<I don't actually think there's something wrong with being attached to material things. I see it as pretty much the same thing as anything non-physical. To me it's just interesting when people forget about the connection between the physical and non-physical.

The physical isn't really "physical" at all, is it? Perhaps one reality is as valid as another.>>

Oxygen. Breath to some. Death to others.

Who's to judge?

It could be a wonderful thing that we can choose to do things that would harm us physically. It is the same volitive nature of what we call our minds that provides us with what we see.

Interesting.

Hello!

How sure of you of this 'fact' (that you are in the physical)?

There is no control. It's a human cognitive invention.

It's just a kind of shift from one perspective to another. All possibilities (and perspectives) exist.



Do you find it interesting that you would resist your perception?

I don't mean *specific* perceptions. This versus that, etc. I mean your perspective.

In other words, You.

What is something before you assign it a name and put it in a category?

What is the essence?



Not exactly.

"You" are much more than you appear to be. Looking at your hand it should be obvious that there is much more than it seems. It goes beyond what you can possibly sense.

There is no game or avatar, or creation. Words don't get on this bus.



My answers are fairly dependent upon the presumptions of your questions. I wouldn't say I have any answers, per se.

There is never a time when teaching does not occur. More accurately, it could be said that there is a time when we're paying close attention and a time when we're not. When we are, we say that we're being 'taught' a lesson or something of the kind.

Your statement, "And if I figure out how to cleanse myself of all the things inside me that I dont want to manifest in the world..." probably expresses the world you express.

You "don't want" so that is what your probability is likely composed of. "Don't want" is pretty much the same as wanting. Change the "don't want" into "irrelevant" and it won't be a part of your direct experience.

Thanks.

Hello!

The opposing could well be said. We're upon the darkest hour at this time. The nexus of probabilities allows for ease of different modes of travel.

What do you think the 'time travel' method is?

Could it be a wrist-worn watch, or chrono-capsule of chords, a wavey wormhole, or something as simple as a password provided to a person's possible perspective?

Thanks :)

Greetings!

What if one could access a fully-detailed perspective the way one now does access a website (and that person's perspective on things, a very incomplete part of their perspective)?

Where will the development of the internet take you? To someone else? To somewhere else?

What if you can do this now, independent of the hardware? What would one need?

What is software with out the hardware?

That is the key.

Thanks.

You and I have different concepts of love and entertainment.

What makes you think his take is original?

?

Perhaps you've become uninspired to respond because you are enlightened to the fact that originality is not an attribute of OP's take on "what life, the universe, and everything is".

Greetings!

If I may, a thought experiment.

Imagine that each probability that exists is a pathway.

There are many different types of pathways such as hallways, walkways and corridors, alleyways, midways, streets and avenues, broadways, highways, etc.

So, we have different "sizes" of probabilities. Some probabilities are more related to other probabilities so thus become "larger" as more things travel on them. A road can become a highway as more cars travel on it, for example.

Further, each probability can connect with any other probability. Any two or more pathways can connect, forming a "nexus of probabilities".

The more probabilities that connect, the larger the nexus is and the easier it is to travel. (Because the more probabilities that interact with it, the more relative it is to the probability you are experiencing. This enables you to not only walk down the street and have different things happen but also to travel in spacetime (as long as where you are going is relative to where you are most experienced).)

There are representations of this in outer space that you sometimes call 'black holes' and sometimes call other things. These 'black holes' exist everywhere to some degree. The larger the black hole, so to speak, the more relative it is to that which meets it.

You can see less relative representations of these nexi in physical places like street corners. Some corners (and the areas surrounding them) will be good for business or social exchanges, for example. Usually, the greater this metaphysical nexus is the greater the physical pathway becomes. Thus, we have cities, families, ideas, encounters, etc., all illustrating their shrinking or growing metaphysical nexus.

You can think of the center of a galaxy as a combining of probabilities both literally and figuratively. But these 'black holes' can also be found in your body and time/space, and everywhere else.

It's simply the force of attraction/repulsion (the element Chaon in ecsys).

Here's the interesting part. When probabilities comprising a nexus are being added at a substantial rate (and, thus, becoming 'too big' for itself) the probabilities will usually clump together and taper off the nexus. At this point it will continue to 'add to' a smaller nexus.

Our worlds began to diverge just before your industrial revolution (and what would have been the time of our industrial revolution).

A few hundred years ago there were many probabilities comprising this nexus. The feedback and feedforward of the concepts and activities surrounding the industrial revolution eventually enabled the polyfurcation of these probabilities.

Thus, there are now *many* worlds just like your own that are at their own stages of development, all having substantially diverged from yours nearly 300 hundred years ago.

Most likely there will soon be a scientific breakthrough in your world that will enable development of "warp drive" based not on traversing physical space but utilizing these ever-present nexus points to combine the "here" with the "there".

It is no different than experiencing a smell by using memory to recall a smell from 10 years ago rather than recreating the same smell in the present. Not using memory (a "black hole") will eventually sound as ridiculous to you as using rocket fuel to reach the moon. You already connect to non-physical worlds on a smaller scale (such as with intuition, or even sight/sound). You just don't realize how real these experiences are yet.

When we use a computer, for example, it is not that we are interacting with a separate physical object to perform tasks. The physical object is simply a (non-physical) representation of a miniature solar system of concepts. The computer is no more real that the word or even the thought of it. You've developed these representations in order to do something you could not otherwise do.

We can use our minds to add 1+1, or we can use a calculator.

Eventually (probably) you will be able to connect to a massive network using your mind instead of computer hardware. The "physical" representations you use now to perform these non-physical tasks is just so that the concepts and tools can be formed internally.

It is similar to you, as a baby, trying to verbalize words using your vocal cords in order to be able to *think* in a new way and do things you could not previously do.

So when you're looking at a physical object you're looking at a 'black hole'. Other things have combined together in a nexus of probabilities. In one probability the chair is a lake, in the other the lake is a chair. You can "get to the lake from the chair", so to speak.

When this world realizes that physical distance (and distance in time) is not absolute then we will begin to do things that science fiction hasn't even come up with yet. Things that I cannot even begin to explain.

This is most likely to occur after the current period, when it is realized the 'changes' most of us have envisioned would occur (for example, with 2012) are representations of non-physical changes. Like a dream.

It all begins with Representation.

Thanks.

For one thing, I just love that he posts very few, but thought provoking posts in his own topics, unlike you who posts a ton of unoriginal critical posts in someone else’s topics.

Hello!

Seeing as interest has waned in this particular forum, I want to thank everyone for engaging before I leave again (a bit longer this time).

I will probably return somewhere between August 26-September 4, 2010, as that is the next biggest nexus of probability here.

The current nexus is changing somewhat, so it will be much easier to return to whence I came now than, say, next week.

If anyone is interested in HD photos, video, and other multimedia from the world I live in, please express your interest and it will be provided.

This is only the beginning.

Good night, everyone :)

n15102009010120100802201005032010
o98696043785340225008024068600434

Coool, that is right in the range of my birthday. Please consider this an expression of my interest in HD photos, video and other multimedia from the world you, chaol, reference in the comment to which I am replying.

No specific requests on the content, howwwever, the more unique the better, from me.

If possible send to the email on my account

Good travels!

User ID number is based on your internet connection. It can change frequently

What's your point, sis?

What was your point?

Now see here tuuur, if there was ever a site where any kind of loon could be enabled to show up and leave spellings on the whiteboard for anyone else to read this is the one. I have invested a decent portion of my neurological capacity into this information, and have even included the possibility of integration for the purposes of my investigation. I have read and reread and re-read and re-re-read and interacted and inter-acted to acquire an impression of the situation so as to be maximally harmonious to the most beneficent result.

On the subject of originality, that is not my purpose here, so what's your point, bratan?

And as for critical, thanks for the compliment. Though if you meant that I am here to deride anyone, that is certainly untrue.

Finally, I've been dropping hints for you to check your concepts, because if you ascribe originality to OP you are worshipping him, when it's possible that what you really meant is that you find his word choices to be unique.

THANKS

Now see here tuuur, if there was ever a site where any kind of loon could be enabled to show up and leave spellings on the whiteboard for anyone else to read this is the one. I have invested a decent portion of my neurological capacity into this information, and have even included the possibility of integration for the purposes of my investigation. I have read and reread and re-read and re-re-read and interacted and inter-acted to acquire an impression of the situation so as to be maximally harmonious to the most beneficent result.

On the subject of originality, that is not my purpose here, so what's your point, bratan?

And as for critical, thanks for the compliment. Though if you meant that I am here to deride anyone, that is certainly untrue.

Finally, I've been dropping hints for you to check your concepts, because if you ascribe originality to OP you are worshipping him, when it's possible that what you really meant is that you find his word choices to be unique.

THANKS

The amount of responses to your shitload of neurological drivel might be a clue for you on how your input here is valued. It might be the best way to deal with you as well.

Please make your own topic, write your own book, post it to the internet, lay down your own ideas there instead of hijacking some other topic.

I am certainly capable to fend for myself. I do not need you to tell me if I am worshipping someone or not.

Thanks. But no, thanks.

To be honest, you probably shouldn't care about Ecsys. It's kinda strange and requires a bit of thought to make sense of it. If you're like most people you're content with the way you've been doing and thinking about things. Of course, there's nothing wrong with being normal.

But if you think there's something more to life that you didn't get before then allow us to explain something that might be of interest to you.

Ecsys could allow you to make something possible by providing a 'map' of how to get there from where you are. It could also show us how everything is created and evolves, from the human body to planets to relationships to emotions to the mess in your top drawer. More advanced uses are also possible. But it is not a "magic wand" that makes anything appear out of thin air. It has a basis deep within how we interact with the world around us.

Scientists have proven that humans are born with a "math instinct". It is this instinct that enables us to make sense of and perform calculations. (Strange, but even dogs have been shown to perform calculus. Although to a dog it's just instinct.) We propose that humans are also born with a "perception instinct" that is even more deeply-rooted. It is this instinct that enables our minds us to filter out more than 99% of the information reaching us. We do this automatically, without conscious thought of how we do it. Using Ecsys is like doing a quick calculation, bringing into conscious awareness what we do instinctively. Imagine being able to perceive and understand a little more of what your mind filters out.

Ecsys can be immediately and effectively utilized in many different ways. It is also highly scalable, meaning that its basic principles can be applied in a kindergarten classroom as well as in a physics laboratory using concepts that most of us have already learned.

Once upon a time, computers were the exclusive domain of researchers and trained specialists. Thanks to the development of easy-to-use symbolic representations of complex operations such as windows and icons, now just about anyone can make use of them. There is no reason we cannot use cognitive tools like Ecsys to discover the 99% of reality that we ignore.

Scientists have, in a way, been busy making more complicated devices to try to understand the universe, making its true nature even less accessible to those of us in it. This doesn't make sense to us. We believe that everything is, at its core, quite basic and can be easily understood. That's where Ecsys comes in.

How Do I Know that Ecsys Isn't Some Crackpot Science?

Ecsys actually is "crackpot science" in the definition of any proper scientific community. Ecsys doesn't speak their language, and that's fine. A person who has never heard someone speaking Greek may think it is gibberish, but that doesn't make it so. On the other hand, anyone can come up with an interesting system and claim it is the answer. More times than not that answer falls far short of its promises.
Yet, most systems that we work with today will not withstand the test of time. That is to say, much of modern science will be "crackpot science" in 100 years. History has repeatedly shown us time and time again that the accepted "facts" can be quite inaccurate. Even Newton’s theory of gravitation has had to be changed a few times. In the past 20 years alone scores of scientific hypotheses have received attention, funding, and research that have turned out to be nothing but crap.

And sometimes the "weird ideas" turn out to be true. (Most of those weird ideas will just be forgotten, of course.) We actually only understand a very small part of the universe. This fact alone should tell us that many of our common assumptions are mistaken.

There is still much that scientists know they do not know, such as: what consciousness is, how life on Earth arose and what determines species diversity (or even what a species is), how memories work, what 90 percent or more of the universe is made of, what gravity is, the structure of water, how planets form, if there is life elsewhere, why we sleep, and lots more. (Source: Science Magazine) It was even recently discovered that a human cell has an electric field. And this field is 5x more intense (per meter) than a lightning bolt. Remember, there are tens, if not hundreds, of trillions of cells in a single human body. There's so much we haven't discovered about ourselves.

Interestingly enough, Ecsys offers compelling answers to all of these questions. It does it not by making slow, complex calculations based on sometimes questionable foundations but by the simple premise that there are just four kinds of things in the universe, each of which will always exhibit certain traits and characteristics and interact with other elements in a certain way.
Again, Ecsys is not science. But it can be applied to scientific things (and political, economic, social, etc., things). However, what makes something important isn't how scientific it is but how useful it is.

According to Stephen Hawking in his book, A Brief History of Time, "...a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."

Many "theories" in science are not really theories at all, but more hypotheses. For example, the "Big bang" model rests on gravity resulting from matter, something which has not been verified. The observed rate of expansion of the universe is significantly larger than the calculated rate. (Oops!) But instead of calling it an 'error' scientists have simply increased the amount of "dark matter" in the universe by an astronomical amount (enough to conveniently compensate for the error). A complicated(i.e., "beautiful") mathematical model does not make for verification. Neither does the invention of fictional parameters to agree with experimental observations make for a theory. I'm reminded of sociological experiments that show how much "beautiful people" can get away with. The evidence for the "Big Bang Theory" came in the form of something called Mather’s Blackbody Spectrum, which has recently proven to be completely wrong (but not before two guys won the Nobel prize in physics for it).

The darling of the physics world for the last 20 years is String Theory, a field of science built on the idea that elementary particles are not objects but are the vibrations of string-like entities. This theory has yet to be confirmed yet billions of dollars and countless hours have been devoted to its study. In the physics departments of our very best universities, 20 out of the 22 tenured professors are proponents of string theory. How a beautiful and complicated math can be mistaken for a simple explanation of everything is beyond reason. Peter Woit, a mathematician at Columbia University says, "The problem is that superstring theory is not really a theory, but rather a set of hopes that a theory exists. " (You mean... like a hypothesis?) Physicists support and promote string theory because it seems like the most promising candidate for a scientific Theory of Everything. (We agree with that, wouldn't you know.) However, it would seem that the nature of the universe is more like a fractal, facilitating simplicity, than a broken mirror with 600 dimensions.

Between 2 theories that are not even theories, have not verified any predictions (i.e., have no evidence), make the simplicity of the universe to be unnecessarily complex and inaccessible to all but a handful of humans, and a model of the universe that can be used by anyone today, offers compelling explanations to fundamental question in every field, and can actually be proven now, which one is the crackpot science? If you guessed "Ecsys" you are correct! And that's an unfortunate state of current scientific affairs.
However, the amazing thing is that science itself is built on non-scientific bases. (Meaning, you can't test the scientific method itself because it is, ironically, not scientific. Math is the only science that does not need to be based on reality. All other sciences should have, at their core, sound assumptions.) The foundations of the scientific method rest upon assumptions independent from experience. Science would fail its own test.

"Since philosophy is at least implicitly at the core of every decision we make or position we take, it is obvious that correct philosophy is a necessity for scientific inquiry to take place. Indeed, there are certain philosophical assumptions made at the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions are the basis of naturalism, the philosophy on which science is grounded.." [from Evolution and Philosophy]

These basic assumptions fool scientists into thinking that the nature of something can be observed independent of the observation (i.e., as it really is). Although we've learned a few things from "Schroedinger's Cat" and other experiments in quantum physics the folly in science today is in giving up on testing these core assumptions and, thus, the true nature of any scientific results. Instead, we have religiously focused on the very limited reality that our brains create for us.

As we've read in the previous section, we are not consciously aware of more than 99% of the information that comes to us through our senses. This fact alone should make any scientist question the false assumption that "humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately". And, like generations before us, we create our own sense of rationality that is appropriate to our assumptions. If we begin with the core assumption of Earth being at the center of our solar system, for example, we can find evidence to support any related hypothesis (because our sense of reason will connect the two together in proportion to how much we believe it is true). Of course scientists today know better about Earth, but at the time this "fact" was the height of science. Since then our understanding of the world has evolved but our sense of reason has simply changed. We still hold core assumptions close to our hearts today that will amuse 12 billion humans in 100 years.

Ecsys proposes that reality is absolutely subjective and consistent with our perception, we do not have the capacity to perceive something the way it truly is (i.e., we can evolve our perceptual capacity but not observe beyond it), and that we can better understand the nature of something to the point that we see the implicit order in what was previously observed to be chaotic (i.e., we can expand our observation of rationality and have not finished discovering new logic). Although traditional science has been immeasurably useful, it ultimately fails because of these 3 basic assumptions. Ecsys is a new kind of science.

Why Should I Listen to a High-School Dropout?
Although the author of Ecsys completed only a few weeks of high school (in a place far, far away), he continued to try to understand the world about him. However, it's probably not wise to consider anyone that decided to drop out of high school as an authority on much of anything, considering the chances of she or he being good at something important to society. Taken by itself, anything that remotely looks like a "theory of everything" by anyone is most likely to be wrong, PhD or not.

But it only takes one person to make a significant difference in the world. Thomas Edison, John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, Albert Einstein, and many other important figures in history (including 10 Nobel prize winners) were all high-school dropouts. Both Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln had less than 2 years of formal education, while George Washington and Andrew Jackson both had none at all. What distinguishes these people is not their education and their deadness but their passion for self-learning and understanding the world around them.

This, of course, means little. It's probably safe to assume that most people who drop out of a formal schooling program before university don't have their wits about them. While completion of high school or university does not guarantee success in life neither does incompletion guarantee failure. However, it does make social failure more likely to occur. Yet, it is also possible that an intelligent person without much formal education will see the world differently from those that have been indoctrinated into a structured learning environment and have a greater impact than someone else who sees the world normally. The great thinkers listed in the previous paragraph would have probably led very different lives had they completed their formal education. Being self-taught obviously gave them some advantage over other colleagues.

Ecsys promotes a more democratic view of intelligence rather than the standard model that says some people are smart while others are stupid or average. We may be inclined to call someone that gets excellent grades in school or excels at technical things "intelligent", but given the task of farming, for example, they could seem pretty dull in the head. It is said that Albert Einstein didn't know how to tie his shoe and, for all of his mathematical genius, didn't know how many cups are in a pint (perhaps he didn't care to drink cups of beer?). Ecsys predicts that a person's consciousness cannot focus on everything at once.

Sorry... Not spamming - Very interesting.

Was Chaol the founder?

Is Ecsys a 'Theory of Everything'?

By popular definition a "Theory of Everything" is a theory that unifies gravity, elementary particles, the laws of motion, and the laws that govern forces. Ecsys extends the definition of a true Theory of Everything to actually include everything, and can also be applied to classical and quantum physics. A theory that only unifies the fundamental forces in physics is not a true Theory of Everything but a "Theory of Everything in Physics". Granted, unifying everything into one simple model may seem impossible to do but why not try? To date, there is no record of any scientist making such an attempt. It would almost be counter-intuitive (and un-scientific) to unify economics, politics, biology, psychology, and everything else into one model.

Nature takes a few fundamental ideas and propagates the entire universe. Ironically enough, there is nothing complex that isn't simple at its core. I propose that this simplicity comes not from physical creation but because the fundamental nature of perception is simple.

Are there real "laws" in the physical universe? Or is there a fundamental process of perception that we indirectly observe and call "laws"?

A "theory of everything" is a theory of everything that we directly or indirectly perceive. We do not draw conclusions based on what is not observable (perception-in-experience) or inconceivable (perception-in-imagination). This leads us to, inevitably, model of consciousness and perception.

Ecsys would make for a testable "Hypothesis of Possibly Everything" (HOPE) but a theory it is not.

“A theory is more impressive the greater is the simplicity of its premise,
the more different are the kinds of things it relates and the more extended its range of applicability…”
-Albert Einstein

26th August is when you said too be back

I would still like to know more about this subject.

What would you like to know?

Hello!

Seeing as interest has waned in this particular forum, I want to thank everyone for engaging before I leave again (a bit longer this time).

I will probably return somewhere between August 26-September 4, 2010, as that is the next biggest nexus of probability here.

The current nexus is changing somewhat, so it will be much easier to return to whence I came now than, say, next week.

[...]

Wonderful!

I'm preparing it now.

My goal is to make it as simple and accessible as possible (unlike most of my posts in this thread) to appeal to the largest population. At the same time, it can be used for more complex purposes.

Me, too!

But it isn't an instructional guide in the usual sense.

It's probably more of a (re)program guide that offers new representations in order that perspective may change.

The vehicle that it is packaged in I think will be most effective at providing an example to those parts of the human brain that still fear an uncertain future.

It may seem a bit strange (perhaps even novel) at first but to those who seek, it is all there.

Thanks!

Interesting concept and theory. Even if it doesn't pan, it is an imaginative idea that might work as a great story. Everyone thinks differently and in my opinion this how some of the best books start out.

Indeed!

A book might B.E. interesting enough.