Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
The ink drop and the glycerin 
Author Message
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11946
Reply with quote
Post The ink drop and the glycerin
Something tells me this is big. It's big like 9/11. It's big like the Holocaust Hoax. It's big because it changes the way you see the world. It's big because it changes you.

Realizing 9/11 was an inside job rocked my world. I began to see how powerful the mind control wielded by the organized sociopaths really is. The Holocaust Hoax confirmed it. We are living in a Matrix. A Matrix of deception. A Matrix of misunderstanding. A Matrix of abysmal ignorance.

I want out of this Matrix. I want to be free of it. So I read. I research. I investigate. I question. I no longer dismiss. I try to learn.

Howard Bloom suggests that the key is to look at the most common things, the things right under our noses that we all tend to take for granted, with a fresh set of eyes, as if we are seeing them for the first time with a mind free of assumptions. Einstein did this and gave us a new way to see the world. And Einstein stood on the shoulders of giants. But they weren't even giants. They were midgets. They were quanta, just like me and you.

David Bohm did this, too. He looked at an experiment done by others -- other giants, or midgets, or quanta. It changed the way he saw the world. As soon as I read about the experiment, in Howard Bloom's The God Problem, it changed the way I saw the world, too. Why hadn't I ever heard about this experiment? Is it more information that is being "controlled"?

Is the experiment even real? Do I need to replicate it myself to even believe it? Can I even believe it? I believed the 9/11 story for several years before I had reason to question it, and thankfully I did question it, because the official story wasn't true. I believed the Holocaust story for 50 years before I questioned it, and thankfully I questioned it too, because it wasn't true either. I'm beginning to disbelieve in believing.

What is this experiment? A drop of black ink in glycerin between two glass cylinders. One cylinder can be rotated while the other is fixed. Rotate the cylinder slowly and the ink smears out in the glycerin continually until it disappears, diluted into the glycerin to the point of transparency. Now, rotate the cylinder in the opposite direction, and as if by magic, the ink smear reappears and reforms the ink drop! At least, that's the way it was described in Howard Bloom's book.

Oh, I want to believe this experiment is real! It could mean that there is no chaos in the universe. Chaos would be just another human illusion. The "law" of entropy would vanish. Randomness would have to be rethought. Religion too. The illusion of God would become evident. So would the feebleness of our so-called "mighty" brains.



Laminar Flow 2

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Oct 17, 2015 5:14 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11946
Reply with quote
Post Re: The ink drop and the glycerin
Quote:
Big whirls have little whirls that feed on their velocity,
and little whirls have lesser whirls and so on to viscosity. -- Lewis Fry Richardson, pioneer of fractal mathematics

I read that quote in Howard Bloom's book The God Problem, page 476, this very morning. It would have meant nothing to me under more ignorant circumstances, but with the ink drop experiment in mind, it is a revelation.

Why does the reversible ink drop experiment have such important meaning? Or better yet, what is that meaning?

Like any good experiment, this one produces a question that leads to surprising revelations. The question is "why would that be?" Why is the smearing process reversible?

In a nutshell, the viscosity of the glycerin allows the illusion of randomness to be revealed.

During my long career as a self-employed computer programmer, I coded and tested Random Number Generators (RNGs). I was trying to build a better mouse trap -- an RNG that was smaller, faster, more efficient, and most importantly more random. Random means the absence of any identifiable patterns. My testing methodology consisted of transforming the generated random numbers into visual data and then looking for patterns using my own biological computer, the brain. Human brains are quite accomplished when it comes to detecting patterns. In fact, all brains are. You might say it is their single most defining characteristic. Now why would that be? Why would patterns be so important to identify for every living thing? Could it be that patterns are the fingerprint of our universe?

Here's a key point. RNGs are not random. They are officially called pseudo-random number generators. "Pseudo" because they fake randomness. They are entirely mechanistic, which means they are reversible. Like the reversible ink drop experiment, they can be played back to their starting point! That's why I was interested in a better RNG. I also studied secret codes, and the best encryption method I could imagine would use a password of pseudo-random numbers as long as the message to be encoded, so that every character in the message would have a "random" number used to transform it. The process could be reversed for decoding the message, and best of all, the code would be unbreakable without the specific RNG used to encode it.

So the ink drop experiment is behaving like a reversible secret code cipher. What does this tell us about the universe? Is the universe completely mechanistic, like an RNG? Is randomness an illusory concept? Is the mind-boggling complexity of the universe the result of a set of simple inherent rules, rules that make the concept of a rule-creator like God unnecessary? Would this resolve the distressing question of who created God if God created the universe? Is God just an illusory concept too?

If you want to see another example of the illusion of randomness, or of the complexity that can result from very simple "rules", study the Mandelbrot set. It too transforms numbers into visual data so that we may see the awesome complexity and creativity that results from simplicity folded repetitively onto itself. So who created the rules that drive the Mandelbrot set, or that drive the universe? Could it be that rules, like randomness, are also an illusion? Could rules simply be the inherent characteristics of brains, or of living things, or of matter/energy (E=mc^2), or of the universe?

As my college buddy from Newport Beach was fond of saying whenever he was astonished, "Fuckin-A!"

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:12 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11946
Reply with quote
Post Re: The ink drop and the glycerin
Here is Howard Bloom again from The God Problem, page 502.

Quote:
You are a scientist. You look around you. What do you see? Utter chaos. Incomprehensible jumble. What conclusion do you come to? You come to the conclusion that there is no way that your universe can be based on simple rules. There is no way it can be based on deep structures. There is no way it can be built upon mere axioms. And you conclude that there is very little hope of understanding it. You'd say that you live in a cosmos of "irreducible complexity", to use the arch intelligent design advocate Micheal Behe's phrase. A cosmos of "complete disorder" and "apparent randomness", to quote Wolfram Research's Hector Zenil. But you'd be wrong. You do live in a cosmos built upon simple rules. But the creative power of that cosmos has produced an apparent randomness that's pulling the wool over your eyes. Simple rules can produce wonders of order. And they are so good at producing complexity that they can even generate what looks like the ultimate form of disorder, a storm of nonsense -- chaos.

Michael Behe, intelligent design supporter, fell for the illusion. Religion, the first implementation of science, fell for the illusion too. Who wouldn't? It's a Matrix. It looks real. It feels, tastes, and smells real. But it is based on rules, rules so simple and subtle that after uncountable iterations they give the appearance of both complexity and lawlessness, when in fact they are still at the very foundation of what we see as reality.




Matrix - Neo vs. Morpheus Full 1080p HD
Kung Fu sparring 4:21 duration


When you turn the cylinder and smear the ink drop, you believe in randomness, in chaos. And when you turn the cylinder back, your illusions are shattered. What you thought was randomness and disorder is not, even though you would have sworn it on your mother's life.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:23 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11946
Reply with quote
Post Re: The ink drop and the glycerin
Here's an example of the dynamic creativity that can arise from simple rules that are iterated back onto themselves repeatedly. This is one of the major points Howard Bloom makes in The God Problem.

Here we are using the rules that govern a pendulum. Who would have guessed such variety was hidden in the movement of seemingly boring pendulums? Is it any surprise that the universe is many orders of magnitude more creative?



Pendulum Waves

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:19 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 4 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.