Ask An Atlanteologist

[Bootstoots]

Spoiler :

It's also an arrangement of the systems the fields deal with from more to less complex, in inverse order of their rank in that scale. You have to sacrifice "purity" to understand most complex real-world systems. Trying to picture everything that is going on in a eukaryotic cell, much less a brain, blows my mind.

Not that this has much to do with Atlanteology; that field is in a parallel universe of its own.

 

[timtofly]

Umm... that would be a normal Acid–base reaction, if there are free neutrons around is because we are working with U-235, but i cant see how they could in any way be involved in the chemical reaction. They may interact with other Uranium nucleus breaking then and generating others elements but that would be a nuclear reaction, no chemical.

OK, lets say then that chemistry must know to some point of neutrons since they are a component of the nucleus and it is the nucleus composition that determines the electronic configuration of the atom, and there are some cases where nuclear reactions and other neutron interactions with matter are of interest for chemistry, but neutrons for themselves are not a matter of study for chemistry.

Would it be wrong to say that if we could press two neutrons together the periodic table would be radically different and so would chemistry?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yoo-hoo, EltonJ! I just watched the last video ("Symbols of an Alien Sky") and there was not one syllable in that whole pile of nonsense about Atlantis, nor was there any science whatsoever!

You promised me evidence to support your theories if I watched these videos, and I met you halfway; I watched every one of them, sacrificing several hours of my life that could have been spent far more productively.

The least you could do would be to tell me what I was supposed to get out of them, not to mention answering the other posters' questions as well.

Let's start with a very simple question: What made the craters on Mars: electrical "zaps" from Venus and/or Saturn, or meteor impacts?

 

[Bootstoots]

Do most Atlanteologists believe in most or all the beliefs not related to Atlantis that you've expressed in this thread, or is there a wide range of opinion on those subjects? And what are your favorite sources of information on the various things you believe in?

 

[Borachio]

Yoo-hoo, EltonJ! I just watched the last video ("Symbols of an Alien Sky") and there was not one syllable in that whole pile of nonsense about Atlantis, nor was there any science whatsoever!

Well done, Mrs D'Ur!

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Would it be wrong to say that if we could press two neutrons together the periodic table would be radically different and so would chemistry?

Not really. Even if that were possible, i mean to join two neutrons together, the periodic table would be the same since it is based on the atomic number, which is the number of protons. Number of neutrons is irrelevant for the periodic table beyond explaing the mass number, which would change but the periodic table would continue being the same, same groups, same periods, same chemical properties.

Well, maybe not exactly irrelevant, since number of neutrons are needed for the stability of the nucleus and a world with neutrons melting together may lead to a periodic table with gaps or who knows what weird things, maybe a whole different universe with diffetent physical laws and of course different chemistry, but that is only sci-fi.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Spoiler :

That is it, pretty much.

True nature of mathematics is something that blows my mind. Is it really a science? How can something that exist only in our mind, which can be developed without observing or studying the universe outside our mind, explain how the whole universe works?

 

[Kyriakos]

That is it, pretty much.

True nature of mathematics is something that blows my mind. Is it really a science? How can something that exist only in our mind, which can be developed without observing or studying the universe outside our mind, explain how the whole universe works?

Cause it explains from the POV the system was composed from, ie the human one It doesn't explain how the external objects/phenomena are themselves, cause it defines them in a human manner. For all we know the table we have our PC on is in 'reality' some tentacled fractal form, if a 'real POV' actually can be said to even exist (which is very debatable; i think for it to exist it would require a god/cosmos entity which has that POV as part of it in a very crucial way).

'Man is the meter of things; of those which are that they are, of those which are not that they are not'

 

[Thorgalaeg]

So are you saying that mathematics work to explain the universe because the universe is only a product of our mind?

 

[Kyriakos]

^In my view all human systems are inherently (usually not consciously to the thinker) also -or maybe even mostly- about self-examining the system itself.. I just made a thread about it btw

 

[H4run]

Yoo-hoo, EltonJ! I just watched the last video ("Symbols of an Alien Sky") and there was not one syllable in that whole pile of nonsense about Atlantis, nor was there any science whatsoever!

You promised me evidence to support your theories if I watched these videos, and I met you halfway; I watched every one of them, sacrificing several hours of my life that could have been spent far more productively.

The least you could do would be to tell me what I was supposed to get out of them, not to mention answering the other posters' questions as well.

Let's start with a very simple question: What made the craters on Mars: electrical "zaps" from Venus and/or Saturn, or meteor impacts?

taking all those documentary after the first one and half hour is not a good idea, but I thought you do it as some sort of kindness and appreciation to EltonJ, I hope he will value it and come back here.

 

[warpus]

How can something that exist only in our mind, which can be developed without observing or studying the universe outside our mind, explain how the whole universe works?

Every mathematical system is based on several axioms that in some way correspond to reality.

(That's not fully correct, because you could set up axioms that don't, if you wanted to)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

He may come back. He'll not provide any more evidence.

At least, if I start a thread with extraordinary claims, I'd make damn sure I'd put all my best arguments out there from the get go. We're at page 17 now, and to expect EltonJ has some sort of credible evidence up his sleeve is not very likely.

What will happen is that Valka hasn't got an open mind to appreciate the evidence that was presented to her, and the brainwashing from mainstream science prevents her from appreciating all that solid evidence. By believing this Mr. J can maintain he's one of the few brighter ones standing above the sheeple being duped.

This is about feeling special. Being part of the ones who get it. This isn't about science or evidence, or making any kind of sense for that matter. This is about being different. And there's nothing anyone can present to Mr. J that will make him give up that fuzzy feeling.

 

[H4run]

What will happen is that Valka hasn't got an open mind to appreciate the evidence that was presented to her, and the brainwashing from mainstream science prevents her from appreciating all that solid evidence. By believing this Mr. J can maintain he's one of the few brighter ones standing above the sheeple being duped.

Even he throw such fallacies to dismiss her argument is better than just running away after putting tons of hours length videos as arguments and run away when peoples goes through it.

Man this is so bad. I hope at least she has a good laugh when watching it.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Every mathematical system is based on several axioms that in some way correspond to reality.

(That's not fully correct, because you could set up axioms that don't, if you wanted to)

Which means what mathematics have some kind of existence for itself, since it does not need to be based on physical world, or only exists in our mind, which would be rather weird since physical world seems based on mathematics? OTOH mental world needs of physical world since our brain is physical... all these interrelations lead us to Penrose´s triangle:

And the three possible views of the universe:
1: the aristotelic materialistic view: there is only the physical world and math and mental world arise from it (mainstream)
2: the platonic view: mathematics is the only real thing everything else is an image of mathematics. (remember Plato cave?)
3: the mystic view. The whole universe, math and physical, is product of our mind. (Kyriakos´s view?)

The first one seems the most probable, but the more we know about the universe, the more strong becomes the second one, apparently at least. The third one is too metaphysical for me, but intriguing too.

Spoiler :

Link to video.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

He may come back. He'll not provide any more evidence.

At least, if I start a thread with extraordinary claims, I'd make damn sure I'd put all my best arguments out there from the get go. We're at page 17 now, and to expect EltonJ has some sort of credible evidence up his sleeve is not very likely.

What will happen is that Valka hasn't got an open mind to appreciate the evidence that was presented to her, and the brainwashing from mainstream science prevents her from appreciating all that solid evidence. By believing this Mr. J can maintain he's one of the few brighter ones standing above the sheeple being duped.

This is about feeling special. Being part of the ones who get it. This isn't about science or evidence, or making any kind of sense for that matter. This is about being different. And there's nothing anyone can present to Mr. J that will make him give up that fuzzy feeling.

I know I can't change his mind. But if I point out the illogic of his notions, maybe someday he will change his mind.

Even he throw such fallacies to dismiss her argument is better than just running away after putting tons of hours length videos as arguments and run away when peoples goes through it.

Man this is so bad. I hope at least she has a good laugh when watching it.

I didn't laugh, because it's just so pathetic that otherwise intelligent people can be suckered into believing this crap. And I'm not being holier-than-thou here; I used to be really into this stuff and astrology, Chariots of the Gods, and UFOs.

The difference is, I had a good anthropology course in high school in which the teacher showed us that movie and explained why it was all just made-up nonsense, and several years of lab science courses in biology, chemistry, and geography got me to understand the scientific method. The original Cosmos series provided a clear explanation of why astrology is pseudoscience. Courses in astronomy and a lot of independent study did the rest: I got cured.

And now I see pseudoscience being paraded around like it's the real thing, and that bothers me. Science is already being dumbed down, and stuff like this contributes to that. Without science and understanding of the scientific method, our world is in big trouble.

So no, I didn't laugh. I did do a lot of eye-rolling, though, and muttering "WTH?". And at one point I nearly fell asleep, since the narrator kept droning on about how Mars was between Earth and Venus, Venus was between Mars and Saturn, Jupiter was hiding behind Saturn, and electrical discharges made the craters on Mars and the Grand Canyon on Earth...

 

[Kyriakos]

Which means what mathematics have some kind of existence for itself, since it does not need to be based on physical world, or only exists in our mind, which would be rather weird since physical world seems based on mathematics? OTOH mental world needs of physical world since our brain is physical... all these interrelations lead us to Penrose´s triangle:

And the three possible views of the universe:
1: the aristotelic materialistic view: there is only the physical world and math and mental world arise from it (mainstream)
2: the platonic view: mathematics is the only real thing everything else is an image of mathematics. (remember Plato cave?)
3: the mystic view. The whole universe, math and physical, is product of our mind. (Kyriakos´s view?)

The first one seems the most probable, but the more we know about the universe, the more strong becomes the second one, apparently at least. The third one is too metaphysical for me, but intriguing too.

Spoiler :

Link to video.

The third option is Idealism, and a very Eleatic (and Platonic, btw) concept. But i would not phrase it that way, cause it does not have (by itself) the 'mystical' connotation that the cosmos is "a product of our mind" (which can take many meanings indeed; solipsistic being one) but that inevitably any sentient being of our kind is not directly 'sensing' the cosmos, but forming (usually automatically) a flow of impressions of it through its sensory and mental abilities.

-If we only could see in 2d then we still would be able (given some parameters holding true, i suppose) to theorise on how one would see in 3d, but we would never actually be familiar with such a state which now is our common sensory state.

-If we did not have extendable digits or other crucially helpful in moving/relocating stuff, somatic parts, we probably would not be likely to have a finite-based counting system, and moreover primarily an integer-based one. But we also have a sense of 'infinity', which seems to be a very important mental aspect of human existence, cause (maybe) without it we would be unable for any sort of abstract thinking and therefore be far more bound to immediate sensory input and related abilities of our mind.

*

As noted before, wiki actually seems to have a decent article about Idealism, so you can check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Idealism (from root "Ideal" / "idea") is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. Epistemologically, idealism manifests as a skepticism about the possibility of knowing any mind-independent thing. In a sociological sense, idealism emphasizes how human ideas—especially beliefs and values—shape society.[1] As an ontological doctrine, idealism goes further, asserting that all entities are composed of mind or spirit.[2] Idealism thus rejects physicalist and dualist theories that fail to ascribe priority to the mind.

 

[Borachio]

Argh!!! Penrose's triangle!

How it makes my hackles rise for some reason!

I honestly don't know why, but I know I don't like it.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

The third option is Idealism, and a very Eleatic (and Platonic, btw) concept. But i would not phrase it that way, cause it does not have (by itself) the 'mystical' connotation that the cosmos is "a product of our mind" (which can take many meanings indeed; solipsistic being one) but that inevitably any sentient being of our kind is not directly 'sensing' the cosmos, but forming (usually automatically) a flow of impressions of it through its sensory and mental abilities.

-If we only could see in 2d then we still would be able (given some parameters holding true, i suppose) to theorise on how one would see in 3d, but we would never actually be familiar with such a state which now is our common sensory state.

-If we did not have extendable digits or other crucially helpful in moving/relocating stuff, somatic parts, we probably would not be likely to have a finite-based counting system, and moreover primarily an integer-based one. But we also have a sense of 'infinity', which seems to be a very important mental aspect of human existence, cause (maybe) without it we would be unable for any sort of abstract thinking and therefore be far more bound to immediate sensory input and related abilities of our mind.

*

As noted before, wiki actually seems to have a decent article about Idealism, so you can check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

But we can theorise about things which have nothing to do with our POV using maths, we can think with great precission on 16 dimensions universes and other things totally out of the world we are familiar with (may them exist in this universe or not) thanks to mathematics.

So, I have a hard time thinking on mathematics as being only a product of our mind. Same nature of maths is opposed to nature of mind. Our mind is weak and changeable, different minds think on or see the same thing in different ways... Maths however are unchangeable and objective, there are not several ways of seeing it, only a way. It is not about a number of authorized mathematicians agreeing about a determined idea, maths simply are there, take it or leave it. They are somehow even more "solid" than the very physical world.

Maths are not invented but discovered, they are there before some mathematician think about it. Lets think on the mandelbrot set for instance, it is a whole world which is there, and we only discover it when we look at it, the closer we explore it the more unsuspected details we find. In this sense the mandelbort set like any other mathematical object was there since always (since the big-bang? maybe before?).

It is difficult to think on mathematical ideas as real beings since we understand real as having a physical presence in time and space, but may be there a reality outside time and space, which like our whole universe are nothing but projections of the mathematical reality into the physical universe we perceive with our weak minds, like the details of the mandelbrot set?

 

[Kyriakos]

^But (as was noted by Warp) they rise out of axioms such as definition of an integer and basic arithmetic properties of integers, which in turn seem to be very linked to us having physical forms which make such notions intelligible and a working basis If we did not have integer-based counting, we would not have pi as a mystery dealing with forming a perimeter out of a diameter, but it likely would be another in an ocean of what now is termed as irrational numbers (but then might have been a likewise decent and specific basis for us to work stuff from in the same manner we now use '1' as a meter).

Pretty much (in my view, but also idealism as it is normally seen, ie not extreme or lesser than the norm) any number of extrapolations from the basic human-tied premise will still be human-tied, so 200 dimensions in a human theory would still be part of human math and not having to be universal.
While the cosmos is there (and highly likely as something external to us), we view the cosmos through our own unconscious and conscious impression, so ultimately we are looking at our own human mental world.