do you believe universe is a fractal and there is no beginning nor end.
>>17559566
>>17559566
I believe matter is finite, but space is infinite.>>17559605
No.
Yes. Research more on montalk.com. or look into david ickes theroies on tge nature of reality most of his other works are shit imo
I believe it is a logical progression of truth that's expressed in this reality through forms and ideas. I think truth begins with nothingness and makes a progression to perfection by reason of this logic.
God is the natural end of this logic. He's chosen to create us who are not, to demonstrate that which is. We're shadows to his light. Reality is his dream.
>>17559566
Of course. the universe builds upon itself in reoccurring patterns. This isn't even /x/
>>17559667
you are ignorant and don't belong here
>>17559893
I love fractals and I love the idea of the universe but they aren't the same thing at all. I appreciate them better as separate things.
>>17559946
so the universe isn't chock full of reoccurring patterns?
>>17559969
No, it's not. Neither neurons not the universe actually has the structure shown in that pic. Both are artistic conceptions, and it's no surprise that our artistic renderings tend to look similar to each other. If anything it says human creativity is limited.
Not entirely sure about the cell "birth" (mitosis, not a real birth) or star death, but they're both easily artistic renderings too.
The nebula is legit, but remember that most nebula don't actually look like that. Mostly it's just a big cloud of gas that looks more or less the same as pouring one fluid into a another. (Like milk into tea.) There's something to be said for fractals insofar as fluid dynamics is concerned, but the fact that fluids are all fluids is in no way a statement about the structure or composition of the universe.
Fractal-like structures tend to occur more in the natural environment, in plants and animal shells.
I'm not saying fractals don't "exist," just that all the fractals you'd associate with the universe or cosmology in general aren't real.
>>17560052
That is the Crab Nebula. There are countless images of it. It's beautiful and looks spongy or like space moss. The kind of patterns you see there are amazing. It just shows that a lot of the patterns we consider to be incredibly complex and unique to us can be seen all around the universe in many ways.
Besides this is a star being born, there's no reason to doubt that this is what it really looks like. Not unless you are saying, "this isn't what it looks like because our eyes can't see radio waves". You would have to be convincing yourself that electromagnetic waves other than light doesn't exist because you don't see them with your naked eye.
Pic related. the nebula in visible light. People who bitch about images including radio and xrays are pretty ridiculous. That's what it looks like. This is a star being born. There is an intense amount of energy going on there. If we can see different dimensions of light and notice that a supernova can look more intricate than it does in visible light, that just means we're seeing it more clearly.
>>17560052
INB4
> muh sacred geometry.
> you wouldn't understand bexause you haven't done dmt and aren't enlightened.
> ur a shill
> what are you doing on /x/?
> u need to open ur mind.
And 100 other bullshit arguments, fuck this board. If anything decent was ever posted it would be so drowned in shit no one would ever notice.
>>17560223
so what does it say about you that you browse a board you hate and make cynical posts in threads that aren't even paranormal?
>>17560206
>space moss
Honestly that says to me that it's not similar to the webbing in the iris, it's similar to moss. Maybe the webbing in the iris looks like moss too but that means nothing at all in terms of fractal dimensions.
A fractal repeats itself in a *specific* way. Two things looking similar does not a fractal make. I've always loved fractals precisely because of their self-similar properties, but the universe isn't that. I like the idea of the universe for different reasons.
>>17560223
What the universe is isn't made beautiful by it being a fractal. You don't need DMT for this.
>>17560052
Not any of these anons, but... I'm willing to play devil's advocate.
Let's talk about the plants, and the animal shells. They're allegedly made up of either tissues or structures, which are made up out of molecules; made of atoms, made of subatomic particles, said to be made up out of quarks. At that scale, everything is more or less configurations of quarks that allegedly tend to end up in exactly similar configurations to give rise to larger particles[... clusters of galaxies]. To be honest, that covers a distance that I cannot meaningfully comprehend. I almost cannot comprehend my own size when conceptualizing the scope of incredibly miniscule Qubits...
Qubits. That, is a very different way to look at matter- by changing the context to that of abstract values such as... numbers. In almost the same way that you can change the context by classing things as "Plants" and "Light Frequency that cannot be seen by the Humam eye".
The "Problem Of The Many" can go both ways, I guess. Either-or.
Furthermore, I have no actual clue as to what series of theories, or rather hypotheses, are actually at play when we talk about spacetime/whatever you want to call it. For all we know, Inflation theory is 100% valid... gravitational singularities seem to exist, things seem to be moving far apart from one another, discoveries have been made with respect to the movement of galaxies and supposed dark matter... things may expand in places where all else has contracted or ceased to be, such that an exactly similar system is bound to occur at least "half" of the time that an "Eternally Inflating Universe" "exists" (true vacuums and false vacuums ahoy). Or, maybe the fact that Pi seems to be so irrational is evidence that we just part of a self-satisfying sentence that generates itself procedurally... in pure math.
So really... I don't know if attempting to reduce everything to nothing more than a likely scenario and not an actual reality is good for anyone. Nevermind?
>>17560341
We can agree to disagree, however, it would seem to me that you're taking the concept of fractals rather literally. The universe can still be a fractal without having mini stars orbiting stars with little stars inhabiting the planet, though that's an awesome analogy either way. It's just that patterns of matter and energy that are built in a certain way are going to behave in a very similar way to their "offspring". It's the very reason that analogies are an effective way for us to conceptualize and gain an understanding of things that are far larger than us. The microcosm allows us to understand the macrocosm.
You acknowledge that fractals are very prevalent in nature, but is not the universe just another part of nature?
>>17560386
Pure garbage. There was literally no thought process to follow for the entirely of that post. You should feel bad for writing it, you should feel bad for having such a dischronological mind, and you should feel bad for trying to shift back and forth between dualities of reasoning.
Get a life that doesn't involve erratic shitposting. I haven't seen garbage like this since the Clover bullshit.
>>17560424
>The microcosm allows us to understand the macrocosm.
It never does, that's what I'm saying. The idea that the two share any non-trivial similarity is a result of people assuming that there's a relationship there. There isn't one, it's just the artistic renditions that make it seem that way.
>is not the universe just another part of nature?
No, it's not. Nature is a force well beyond your understanding. Note that I've been careful to refer to the *idea* of the universe; the universe doesn't actually exist outside of human imagination. I love the idea, but I love it as the fantasy that it is.
>>17560488
>It never does
but... that's just outright fucking wrong. I'm outies.
>>17559566
Some of my mushroom thoughts from the other day may be of interest to you, anon.
1/2
>>17560508
2/2
will transcribe text if you can't read my handwriting and there's interest
>>17560447
I can't really take offense to that, because it's usually the response people dole out when they don't want to deal with whatever was given. I guess I struck a nerve by trying to put forth the fact that what you believe is just that- what you believe.
I mean, this is /x/.
It's just as easy to say that the artistic interpretation of light frequencies higher than ultraviolet invalidate said frequencies, because we can't see them with our eyes. Another individual might suggest that the artistic interpretation is invalidated, because ultraviolet light can be detected when it is emitted from a specific source.
Nebulas can, and apparently do, look like things that we apparently can't perceive. Does not being able to see infrared light invalidate the fact that Nebulas tend to emit infrared light?
>>17560525
i like you
>>17560504
Your loss.
>>17560525
I said fuck off. Nobody's going to fall for your selective perception bullshit and literally nothing you just said has any bearing or logical continuity to anything that's been said ITT.
>>17560572
Well, actually, you're one of the few who's falling for their own selective perception dookie... because the things I have been saying certainly have some bearing- and logical continuity- to anything that's been ITT.
For the correct usage, my two posts have
>literally been about the meta-content of the entirety of this thread
Literally. Are you not >>17560488, who said that "Nature is a force well beyond your understanding", and that "I've been careful to refer to the *idea* of the universe; the universe doesn't actually exist outside of human imagination"?
I think that's a belief, my friend. Like you said, it has to become a fantasy, otherwise it becomes a paradox (or begs the question, which is a bad thing to do).
If you're not >>17560488, then just look at the thread, and look at the caricature of a post my very first reply was. Then... actually read the legitimate flow of logical continuity that is >>17560525.
Or, don't. Seriously, the imaginary ball is in your court for now.
>>17560596
>I think that's a belief
And that has literally nothing to do with the thread, the contents of the thread, any meta-threads you might imagine, any meta-content that anyone is capable of imagining, or anything else that could have any relevance to this topic or my beliefs.
>>17560596
>the imaginary ball is in your court for now
I said fuck off, before the bones begin to grind shards of death into the core of your very being.
>>17560635
>I said fuck off, before the bones begin to grind shards of death into the core of your very being.
sdfsdffs
>>17560635
Hi.
I guess it's time for me to go to the bone zone, huh Sans?
>And that has literally nothing to do with the thread, the contents of the thread, any meta-threads you might imagine, any meta-content that anyone is capable of imagining, or anything else that could have any relevance to this topic or my beliefs
But it does, in virtue of the logic you just used. The OP asked what people believe (specifically if people believe the universe is a fractal). They also asked whether or not it had a cause or end. Do you know what almost everyone else, including you, did?
You told OP what you believed, what you reasoned was worth believing, and most of everyone gave their own fairly reasonable, if not valid, rationale. Granted, when you add all the noise together, you get a mess.
Which is was making fun of, in a lighthearted sense, while also throwing in some serious food for thought.
So.. really... you just want to "bring forth the bones that will grind shards of death into the core of (my) very being". Hot damn, that sounds hella kinky.
