Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Six great enigmas
This topic is locked

Pages: 17 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Leonard
Leonard
359 posts

Re: nah...
Aug 22, 2005, 14:45
ack... Another victim of the woolworth pick n mix new age consumerist theology.

However...

http://www.camscottleisure.co.uk/entertainers_photographs/jimmy_cricket_large.jpg

'come here... theres more'
mojojojo
mojojojo
1940 posts

Re: nah...
Aug 22, 2005, 16:18
Thou shalt have no idol but me

wait, there's more

Thou shall not steal

no, wait, c'mere theres' more

Thou shalt etcetcetc

x
Vybik Jon
Vybik Jon
7717 posts

Re: nah...
Aug 22, 2005, 17:59
"what am i meant to do with that now?"

The choice is yours, but only one.
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: In praise of the obvious
Aug 23, 2005, 12:21
Mike,
Pi, which last time I heard had been computed to six billion digits and still counting, underlies Stonehenge, the Millenium Dome, the Pyramids, raindrops, daisies and beer mugs....
'Tis a funny old world, and that's about all that can be said.
Leonard
Leonard
359 posts

Re: In praise of the obvious
Aug 23, 2005, 12:45
Yes. Maths. Its there. It's in everything. All you have to do is look. It's not mysterious. So ? The fact that you can use maths to spot ratios in a 'sacred' site means, well, fuck all really. Our units of measure may be wholly different to the ones used to make the site (if any at all, as symmetry doesnt exactly need an amazing grasp of math) but we can find positive correlations. er.. so ? You don't say, I am jacks total lack of surprise. Do you have any grasp of math ?

Pi may be an incredibly interesting number (probably moreso than you realise. It's an irrational and transcendental number) but its discovery isn't in and of itself gobsmacking. Any reasonably intelligent group of people, (capable of drawing a circle, a marker, a stick and a length of string, not exactly tricky), with a penchance for measuring stuff is going to find it.

Pi's transcendance (lindemann proof 1882) actually means that one of the geometric problems of antiquity, 'circle squaring' is impossible. The circle cannot be squared in euclidean space but it can be in Gauss-Bolyai-Lobachevsky Space. So... even if they knew Pi it wouldn't have solved the problem, so it's hardly surprising that there isnt in fact incredible accuracy in said sites but darned god approximations. all of which, I'd like to add, can be a result of a systematic building process using simple tools (such as crop circles) and without much knowledge of pure math.

I'm an inforamtion theorist, I do a lot of this kinda shit.

Get yourself a copy of
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0486242978/qid%3D1124796293/026-0136402-3991622
Lots of good stuff on Squaring the circle in there. at least then you'll 'know' what the real issues are in the geometry of ancient sites.
Leonard
Leonard
359 posts

Re: In praise of the obvious
Aug 23, 2005, 12:50
damn typos

'good approximations' and 'information theorist' and probably a whole heap of t'others.
Leonard
Leonard
359 posts

Re: In praise of the obvious
Aug 23, 2005, 12:55
point is, well, one point for example, for people who know math, is; could the people who built these sites do stuff like extract a cube root. Well, who the hell cares, it wouldnt have stopped the sites being built as well as they were anyway.
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: In praise of the obvious
Aug 24, 2005, 07:52
"I was refering to Phi, not Pi."

But it's all the same observation Mike.
Personally, I've only ever come across three explanations for a maths drenched universe - nature, creator and lizards - in that order of preference. Which order would YOU put them in? :)
Vybik Jon
Vybik Jon
7717 posts

Re: In praise of the obvious
Aug 24, 2005, 12:01
"Can you explain that to me?"

You scallywag.
Leonard
Leonard
359 posts

Re: In praise of the obvious
Aug 24, 2005, 14:14
So.. the more 'evolved' can see more as they're DNA is further down the line ? so, do you advocate eugenics to go along with your swastika obsession ? Thing is, as I tried to explain to you earlier on, evolution is not survival of the fittest, it's just survival. If a species can survive with a mutation that takes away an advantage it has long enough to breed, then that mutation will be continuosly passed on. Also, the idea of DNA being directly related to intelligence or spiritual understanding (not the same thing, depends on your point of perception) while being an almost rational theory is actually an abstraction too far mate. Hey, maybe teenagers buy this shit more readily because they're more gullible than the grown ups who hear this crap. Maybe, as we get older, we develop and refine an instinctive bullshit filter that can detect such things are nonsense without having to fully understand the underlying principa. This instinct develops from being around a few more years through the way experiences interact with our subconcious. I'm not saying this is true, I'm just showing you an example of how easy it is to develop a counter sophistry to your own.

However. Much more important to that, and what truly undermines all of your arguments thus far here, and in TMA, is your desperate clinging to regimes of signs. Symbols are man made constructs to express things that cannot be readily expressed without recourse to a symbol. (try reading some metaphysics, like Deleuze for instance). The symbols themselves are not 'it'. As said, it is easy to develop an alternative and equally valid system of geometry to the one we use. Geometry, maths, geomancy even, these are all regimes of signs and at their root, their application, and results interpretation thereof, are subjective. Subjective analysis can never result in a 100% proof that can exist outside of the regime of signs it's been created with. Systems create the same 'no win' situation as they are built with these regimes. So you can rant and wave about phi, and about the swastika, but bottom line they are only abstractions, attempts to explain the unseen. All they create is a closed proof within a limited space defined by your own abstraction, all they encompass is the dataset you've proscribed for them. They're unassailable, naive, but unassailable. That doesn't mean that they're right or the truth though. Any half arsed information theorist or metaphysicist would tell you that. Also there is always a line of flight from any semiotic, an exception that doesnt fit. Always. It may take time to find it, but it's always going to turn up. Exceptions are more likely to be an indication of a god, but even they're a given that will occur, and not actually a proof. Because no regime can abstract the whole of existence, as said, even math is at the end of the day a subjective tool.

so.. in order to get anywhere in terms of understanding wtf is going on requires chucking out every symbolic language and hitting the thing at source with no preconceptions or constructs at all. Ok, I'm oversimplifying, Imagine creation as an abstract machine that is all function and no form, now try and describe it. Thats where the said regimes of signs come in, and each regime will trip up, as once form is allocated to function a limit is placed on interpretation and future abstraction of that function. As the true limit of the function cannot be known, and may even be limitless, what you've done is take yourself further away from truly modelling the abstract machine, as is, and further developed your own closed system of interpretation. Which is alright for shits and giggles, and you can entertain people at parties with it, but its probably completely fucking wrong. I, for instance, have developed the elegant abstraction model that can theoretically model a system of any complexity. But the application and querying of the model is weighted by the point of perception and instance of it you look at, and the interpretation will always remain subjective.
Pages: 17 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] This topic is locked

U-Know! Forum Index