I see you have many vague concepts about the world, all of which are not grounded in reality.
Your opinion, but I'll bite. Which of my 'concepts about the world' in particular are vague and not 'grounded in reality'? Bear in mind that this thread is a hypothesis, not a conclusion.
But even though I know all this, it doesn't mean I can't enjoy it.
Why enjoy it at all? Just survive and reproduce. No, really. Exactly why should you enjoy it?
The combination of ignorance and curiosity leads to a strange worldview yes, and you can live with such a worldview. Luckily structured research has brought progress. Now we can understand large parts of nature and reject the naive ACME fiction. The only reason many people still embrace ACME-like world views is that they don't like the outcome of the research and for some reason feel rational thinking is 'cold', while it really doesn't need to be.
I agree with you mostly, but I don't see how that makes ACME and OMM two ontologically separate things. I just see a pendulum swing. OMM is superior to ACME, unquestionably, but it doesn't mean that they aren't part of an essentially indivisible whole.
As I said, shamanism and thing like it are caused by the combination of ignorance and curiosity and the will to know the workings of nature.
I would say that ignorance isn't the cause of the ACME worldview, it's just one detrimental aspect of it. The cause of ACME is human consciousness. Obviously. Every indigenous spiritual culture is based around the exact same themes. It's anthropology. Without careful observation and understanding of material processes, ACME is what you get out of the box. Ancestral spirits, rhythmic trance, entheogenic pharmacology, ritual, ceremonial burial, oracles, medicine men, healing, petroglyphs, sacred animals, etc etc. The presumption that man was primarily concerned with understanding nature is weak I think. For most of the span of Homo Sapiens, I would guess that their curiosity was mainly about their own desires and relations and that while survival was important and difficult, it didn't require a great deal of scientific knowledge. Which is something to consider...if OMM is the exclusive foundation of the cosmos, why was it so easy to do without it until just recently?
Astrology and alchemy were substitutes for science as they pretended to know things about nature. People, including some very great minds, were attracted by mysticism of these pseudo-sciences and also felt the effect of indoctrination. Science started within ignorance and pseudo-sciences, which blocked the development of real science for rather long. I am very happy that some of the greatest minds slowly broke through and got us with the scientific methods as we see them today.
Yes and no. To me, it's like saying 'childhood was a substitute for adolescence as they pretended to know about high school.' and 'adolescence started with playing and pretending with toys but our grown up cars and beer have completely rendered toys obsolete - we are fully mature high school students and our romantic dramas are very serious and absolutely real.'
I know you disagree, but you're wrong. Hah
Obvious nonsense. OMM is no belief, but a structured approach to the universe without preconceptions.
That's why I said 'True Disbelief'. Symmetry, not equality.
That presumes such things as dice, rolling, time, self-grouping, combination patterns. From a singularity you get nothing but a singularity unless you factor in metaphysical factors such as sequence, persistence, pattern, and novelty.
Are you now referring (singularity) that we don't know what the preconditions were that let the BB explode? Well, we don't. So the forces of nature in the singularity that exploded into the BB apparently is different from the black holes we know of. This doesn't mean we need 'metaphysical factors'.
Okay, pre-physical rather than metaphysical. How different? Not much.
No it's not. Brown, White, Pink, Grey have no wavelength.
They are our interpretation of the joint processing of a group of photons with different wavelenghts. There is nothing subjective about it, every human can objectively determine a color to be Brown, White, Pink or Grey. Photoshop can do the same, objective, trick.
You're not getting it. Some people don't, can't, or won't. When you say 'they are our interpretation', you make my point. They are not wavelengths. Wavelengths are colorless. They stimulate cells on the retina, those cells send a neurological signal down the optic nerve to the visual cortex. Still no color at all. Electrons, yes. Biochemistry, sure. Zero light. The color is only, as we agree, 'our interpretation'. It is an interpretation composed of nothing but consciousness. What you see as color (and by extension, form, feeling, taste, sound) is a simulation of a homo-centric world, produced by neurology but consisting entirely of orderly relations of literally metaphysical phenomena.
No the photons stimulate areas in the eye that give electrical signals to the brain. It are these signals that are interpreted.
Exactly. Not wavelengths, concise bioelectric spasms. There's no visible light penetrating the brain at all so it is physically impossible for light and color to by identical.
No, a dream about a blue ocean is simply remembering the electrical stimulant the color blue gave you. Dreaming or fantasizing allows you to repeat the firing of the same neural pathway the real thing did. There is nothing really blue in your dream or mind.
So you are saying blue is not blue if you dream it? When people say they dreamed of a green grassy hill, they are incorrect?
I know what you are saying completely. It still doesn't make blue a wavelength. The experience of color is subjective. Otherwise we could discover something that was a new color. When we make infrared goggles we would just extend our optical capabilities to see the infrared in it's native color, redder than red. Instead we have to step it down to a visible color. The color isn't in our eyes, or our brain, it's in our living, conscious, human awareness.
Even if you say there is red out there
(which I prefer actually...cosmic order and all), what we get is an abstract analog of it which needs to be artificially reproduced in here
There is a set of physical processes, namely an interplay between space/time, matter/energy and forces, that together display a certain behavior. Then there is the human construct of order. We overlay the universe with our human desire for order in order to study 'objects' in isolation. We do so to look at the universe and group specific combinations of space/time,matter/energy and forces.
Frustrating. Why can't you see that forces are order? Where would a desire for the universe to overlay itself with order come from and why would it be human, of all things?
If we see a patch of space/time, in which a large amount of matter clumped together because of gravity we could for instance call it a 'planet'. The fact that we lately redefined 'planet' so that Pluto, a former planet, now is regrouped and branded as a dwarf planet doesn't change one tiny bit about what Pluto really is. It only changes our human need to order the universe.
You're thinking of order in a really narrow, linguistic, categorical sense. I'm talking about the invention of the shapes. Spheres. Nucleated cells. Whorls. The property of spheres where by if you are tiny and standing on the surface, they seem flat. That's what I mean by order. General relativity. That kind of order.
You don't have to believe anything and you don't contradict my 'OMM' view of baseball. We agree to a set of rules, because it simplifies comparison and competition. We like baseball, because it stimulates our evolutionary need to practice hand-eye coordination, competition, strengthening, etc, for hunting, combat, survival. Wii baseball only resembles baseball by applying the same rules to a set of pixels. It takes our physical needs, but the rest stays the same. You don't need your ACME stuff to understand it.
It's not my ACME stuff, it's the stuff the human race was given by it's neurology. I like OMM too, but I only use it where it works, on objective, material processes. What you are saying about baseball's function though, has nothing to do with it's form. It's a game which pivots on human participation. It has a diamond and a pitcher. The bat makes a satisfying percussive sound when it hits the ball. This is what makes baseball baseball, not that it eeeever so tenuously alters survival probabilities.
Besides, by the time baseball was invented human evolution had already passed the point where natural selection was even relevant. If it's such a strong stimulation for our vestigial hunting and fighting skills, why do increasing numbers favor no physical activity at all? Why aren't new sports coming out at the same clip as new computer games?
Well, we did evolve like that. There are several mammals that play. Apparently it improves survival rates.
You can say that about anything. Hey, time travel might improve survival rates too, how many mammals evolved that trick?
OMM doesn't flatten anything. It just better understands the deeper mechanics behind brain functioning and consciousness, etc. I am sorry for you that you lose your 'magical feelings' in this way about thinking.
Trust me, I know every feature of the OMM as well as you do. I'm sorry that you aren't capable of entertaining any possible variation in your worldview, even hypothetically, even as a joke. It just confirms everything I've said about the OMM. Rigorous. Rigid. Rigor Mortis.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
I believe you, but I don't know how to help.
Yes, order is something we perceive. As I said, the universe only exists of space/time, matter/energy and forces. When we find a collection of matter in a piece of space/time that is clumped together and if we see clear boundaries to that matter, we like calling it an object and see it as a separate entity.
The OMM ignores the fact that collections of anything with boundaries are order. The interactions of matter and energy are order. What about General Relativity? How is that not an observation of physical order?
Its like when you see a cloud. You can see all kinds of patterns.
Patterns? What are those. EXACTLY. Please define what a pattern is so that I could create one from scratch. Not an example, but describe it like you are inventing it. What is a pattern made of?
It might seem like a house, or a boat, because we similar properties between the shape of the cloud and our mental models of those objects. But what we really see in the end is just a bunch of water molecules that clump together. And whatever pattern we might want to apply to that cloud, it doesn't change anything about the cloud itself.
I see what you're saying, but no. We know that what we really see is only an ephemeral, metaphysical 'image' phenomenon generated by a comparison of filtered 'data' from the visual cortex further conditioned by a massive array of cortical networks of morphological-iconic associative neural texts.
That is what a cloud is to us, unless and until we make a careful meteorological study involving countless collaborative observations to extract cognitive correlations to enhance our associative network with linguistic and empirical texts to reveal deeper levels of objective organization. The idea of 'the cloud itself' is meaningless outside of human observations, but it's philosophically useful - nuomenon.
In the end the universe is what it is and nothing more. Math, patterns and the English language are eventually only human constructs to describe what we see in the universe.
In the end the universe is everything that it can possibly be except for what it isn't. Math and the English language are semiotic expressions no less real than a solar flare or a block of ice. They are subjective meta-patterns which encode and encapsulate endogenous lower level neurological texts which may or may not be isomorphic to the countless patterns, topologies, discrete continuum, organisms, sensations, perceptions, and image cognitions which we intuit to fill the Cosmos.