^ You can make all of that make sense by simply shifting your epistemological position to the only ones which truly make sense i.e. phenomenology &/or perspectivism.

To rephrase that in less impenetrable terms:
"Materialism" (or in your case I assume "Scientific Materialism") that is to say 'matter is primary', from a philosophers POV is a deeply flawed assumption. Flawed because there appears to be not one experience in human history that did not occur entirely within the mind.
When one see's say a Dog, one only ever experiences the images and sensations occurring within ones mind. You don't see the photons hitting your retina, only the way your mind as interpreted the data.

However the opposite position "Idealism" (mind is primary) is also fundamentally flawed in the exact opposite way. If our minds are the only "real" things then where exactly are they? And how do we even derive logic and reason if there is not something outside of ourselves which it describes? etc. etc.

Philosophers like Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre' got around this by defining a new category, "phenomena". We know for certain that "phenomena" exist in some sense because we experience them, the categories of mind and matter then become secondary properties, both only existing as definitions we apply retrospectively to experiences. i.e. stuff happens and then our brains kick in and say "that happened because of X because in the past X has preceded similar experiences" or "that thing looks like other examples of Y so is probably Y".

The problem then is that this appears to come no closer to telling us what is objectively happening in the universe, it's more like linguistic/logical housekeeping. The phenomenologists and existentialists did a superb job of clearing away all of the old invalid baggage about how we try to describe things, but they did little or nothing to solve the problem of Kants "nouminal world" (i.e. the "real" stuff that we are experiencing by simulation in our minds).

Its stumped philosophers for centuries as we don't appear to have any way to ever get at this "nouminal" or "real" world we naturally assume must exist in some way. But....

I reckon ultimately one of the first western philosophers in history nailed the way out 3000 or so years ago. Pythagoras said "all is number" and due to the work of Euler, Riemann and Fourier in particular I think we can now make it stick. (yeh its turning into an essay sorry )

Without wishing to go deep into a subject you could spend half your life on; Fourier transforms are involved in signal processing. It is a mathematical means by which spatio-temporal signals (e.g. the vibration of a string or the movement of a record needle) can be converted with no meaningful loss of information into frequency (analog) or binary (digital) forms and back again.

Mathematically speaking there is no reason to regard the "signal" as any less "real" whether it is in frequency form or spatio-temporal form. It is the same "signal", it can be converted 100% either direction.

So then here's the biggie: Is there any reason why we could not regard instrumental mathematical numbers and operations (i.e. the stuff we write down and practice as "mathematics") and the phenomena in the universe they appear to describe. I.e. when we use man made mathematical equations to describe and model the behavior of "phenomena" we experience like say Physicists do, could we suggest that we are using a form of Fourier transform? And moreover that this indicates an Ontological (existing objectively outside of yourself) aspect to the mathematical "signals".

Or to put it another way, is mathematics itself really real?

The Reimann sphere and Eulers formula provide a mathematical basis to describe the entirety of known existence in purely mathematical terms, but they indicate that pure ontological mathematics itself is more primary than anything we ever experience. It suggests infact that we ourselves are ultimately reducible to Ontological mathematical phenomena (what Leibniz called "Monads").

What we think of as "reality" could then perhaps be regarded as non dimensional (enfolded) mathematics interacting in such a way as to create the experience of a dimensional (unfolded) universe of extension (such as ours).

(R = distance between two points)
Enfolded universe: R=0
Unfolded universe: R>0

Neither is more "real", they are simply different perspectives from which Ontological mathematics can observe itself.

"Reality": R>=0

I've explained parts of that poorly sorry. Its an immense subject and can be tackedled from many different (often completely incompatible) paradigms. I hope at the very lest I have perhaps demonstrated that the Holographic universe theory could have legs if we combine the advances of scientific exploration (i.e. study of matter) with those of Philosophy and neuroscience (i.e. study of mind & reason itself). The latest big theory doing the rounds with neuroscience is that the mind/consciousness is a fractal phenomenon, which plays into what I've been discussing here more than you might think.

Then again maybe you just wrote me off as a crackpot within the first few lines "lawl" etc..

Simple as fear. It is not only a wonderful experience it is also very terrifying. Psychedelics, if that is even what it is, have been ostracized by society, for whatever reason, politics, philosophy, culture, people making OSs due to their inspiration since the 60s. DMT was known about back then, but not widely known about, back then it was super rare. Getting the main ingredients would have been a pain and required going to South America.

Now that the ingredients are not difficult to get, thanks to the digital information system, more and more people are seeing what this thing is. And many of them that take enough come back with stories right out of a Phillip K Dick novel, or information that seems so New Agey, frequencies, cymatics, fractals, entities, etc, it is too weird or difficult for people to even want to look at this as something more than a really crazy drug and look into what it is doing to the brain. This has been done to small extents in providing details into which serotonin receptors DMT is affecting. What is clear is that one would have to take HUGE amounts of mushrooms to get to what this state is, if it is even possible. This takes a person there in two seconds then ten minutes, you are back. How is it possible?

By all means, I would LOVE for this to be studied by science ; then the Singularity would be right around the corner, mann...JK.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'vihart, math, doodle, squiggle, fractal, fractals' to 'vihart, math, doodle, squiggle, fractal, fractals, vi hart' - edited by messenger

Too bad the fractal nature of ice and water doesn't give us any appreciation of scale here. Wish there was a dime or a quarter next to the iceberg to give us some relative scale. This, gentlefriends, is why stereo vision is so important.

Words are far removed from reality. You don't give me enough for me to know how much of my thinking you understand. You have to take all that I wrote as a whole to get somewhat close to what I am thinking. Picking out a word or sentence that I wrote tells me that you have no interest in understanding me but I don't know that for sure because you aren't giving me anything to go on to let me understand what you are thinking.

I am saying that if quantum theory is correct then evolution has to be correct as well.

"The big bang proves humans" seems to be a wholly different kind of statement that means one event in time proves another event in time.

I am saying that quantum physics and evolution are in essence describing the same process, the same truth, the same idea. People use slightly different words in these two areas but in essence: the interactions shape the whole and the whole shapes the interactions. Nothing is fixed, everything is constantly moving and changing so you cannot simply create a flower by itself nor an atom by itself. Atoms exist (in the sense we think of existence) because of quantum effects interacting and the flower exists because of all the interactions at its scales of time and size.

Calling part of what I wrote about fractals a separate argument seems to indicate exactly what the problem is. It isn't about agreeing or disagreeing or separate arguments. It is about using abstractions (words, sentences) to dance around a big idea in order to communicate that big idea. No one abstraction can describe the whole. at best we can circle around the edges and make the connections which will be a different process for you than for me.

Also I find it weird to be compared to intelligent design. I have never read anything nor seen any videos about intelligent design where their evidence supported their conclusions. It seems that they always present really good reasons why, for example, an eye has to have evolved over time from simple light-sensitive cells to current more complex structures but they present those reasons as evidence that evolution didn't happen but the eye was created whole as we know it now. Same thing with the flagellum thing. Everything they say about those structures tells me they have to have evolved from simpler structures in an ever evolving environment but the conclusion that they say they support is the opposite. In other words, I hope you don't think of me as dumb.

Philosophically speaking I am open to the idea that to an eternal mind the time from the big bang to today is like a flash. What to us would be a thought of an elephant that appears and disappears in a flash in our minds might be similar to the universe as we know it in the mind of the All. Even so, quantum physics and evolution is how that thought process would appear to us.
>> ^lampishthing:

As I said, quantum mechanics provides the mechanism for evolution.
I only object to your use of "proof". I will whole-heartedly agree with "Quantum physics supports evolution", I will not agree with "Quantum physics proves evolution." The argument about the beauty of the fractal nature of interactions progressing scale is akin to an argument used for intelligent design. Argument from beauty
>> ^swedishfriend:
>> ^lampishthing:
Um, no. Quantum mechanics is necessary for mechanisms involved in, say, genetics but to say that quantum physics proves evolution is like saying that the big bang proves humans.>> ^swedishfriend:
Quantum physics also proves evolution.


Quantum effects show that all is probability unless there is interaction. This leads at larger scales to the process we call evolution. No one living cell or organism can be created and exist by itself but rather has to evolve from simpler matter along with the other simpler matter in is environment. Everything relies on everything else would be a basic way of thinking about it. Everything grows out of everything. Experiments of quantum effects at larger scales have shown that what we call reality comes into being by interaction with all else that exists. In the same way living organisms cannot be created out of the blue without all other organisms and matter around it but rather has to grow and be shaped through time and interactions with the nature around it.
If you can hold large enough ideas and interactions in your mind I think you will see that evidence for quantum effects supports the idea of evolution and evidence of evolution supports the idea of quantum effects.
Nature is one thing, the functions of life and evolution fractally rise up out of atomic and quantum effects. If you truly understand fractals, evolution, and quantum effects it is easy to understand them as a whole.

As I said, quantum mechanics provides the mechanism for evolution.

I only object to your use of "proof". I will whole-heartedly agree with "Quantum physics supports evolution", I will not agree with "Quantum physics proves evolution." The argument about the beauty of the fractal nature of interactions progressing scale is akin to an argument used for intelligent design. Argument from beauty
>> ^swedishfriend:

>> ^lampishthing:
Um, no. Quantum mechanics is necessary for mechanisms involved in, say, genetics but to say that quantum physics proves evolution is like saying that the big bang proves humans.>> ^swedishfriend:
Quantum physics also proves evolution.


Quantum effects show that all is probability unless there is interaction. This leads at larger scales to the process we call evolution. No one living cell or organism can be created and exist by itself but rather has to evolve from simpler matter along with the other simpler matter in is environment. Everything relies on everything else would be a basic way of thinking about it. Everything grows out of everything. Experiments of quantum effects at larger scales have shown that what we call reality comes into being by interaction with all else that exists. In the same way living organisms cannot be created out of the blue without all other organisms and matter around it but rather has to grow and be shaped through time and interactions with the nature around it.
If you can hold large enough ideas and interactions in your mind I think you will see that evidence for quantum effects supports the idea of evolution and evidence of evolution supports the idea of quantum effects.
Nature is one thing, the functions of life and evolution fractally rise up out of atomic and quantum effects. If you truly understand fractals, evolution, and quantum effects it is easy to understand them as a whole.

>> ^lampishthing:

Um, no. Quantum mechanics is necessary for mechanisms involved in, say, genetics but to say that quantum physics proves evolution is like saying that the big bang proves humans.>> ^swedishfriend:
Quantum physics also proves evolution.



Quantum effects show that all is probability unless there is interaction. This leads at larger scales to the process we call evolution. No one living cell or organism can be created and exist by itself but rather has to evolve from simpler matter along with the other simpler matter in is environment. Everything relies on everything else would be a basic way of thinking about it. Everything grows out of everything. Experiments of quantum effects at larger scales have shown that what we call reality comes into being by interaction with all else that exists. In the same way living organisms cannot be created out of the blue without all other organisms and matter around it but rather has to grow and be shaped through time and interactions with the nature around it.

If you can hold large enough ideas and interactions in your mind I think you will see that evidence for quantum effects supports the idea of evolution and evidence of evolution supports the idea of quantum effects.

Nature is one thing, the functions of life and evolution fractally rise up out of atomic and quantum effects. If you truly understand fractals, evolution, and quantum effects it is easy to understand them as a whole.

>> ^deathcow:

Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?


This question by any good physicist or scientist can always be reduced down to something akin to this:

Why are numbers sequential?

What if the answer is as simple as the very structure of the mathematics you DO know; which CAN mean that the question of the ultimate origin of the Universe may never be answered or if it is, it will lead into an endless fractal of dimensions.

Eagleheart™ is better anyway.

Chris Monsanto...he had a tough life as a U.S. Marshall too. Plus he shoots his targets every-time--never misses, can get shot and walk it off, and if he uses martial arts the sun, moon, and stars align to form a cosmic radiation column that sears his suspect's carbon and other elements into cool fractals on the ground. They sell for a lot too.

Fuck Chuck Norris--I'm pretty sure this message is approved by Conan O'Brien.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by jonny.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Boise_Lib. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

It's a dupe, but this embed should be used instead of the playlist.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Fractals-The-Colors-Of-Infinity

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Fractals-The-Colors-Of-Infinity

>> ^westy:

what's interesting with this is that the drawing is a 2D description / recording of the secular rotation of specific disk radii.
I wonder if you used specific multiple joints and arms and disks you could have the end result be a face or some recognisable specific drawing.
in some ways this seems like you could store allot of data in a physically smaller space , it seems analogousness to fractal math with the arms acting as an execution / multiplier on the initial maths of the disks , though it gets to a point of repetition reasonably fast so maybe its just a magnification. Maybe fractals are simply a magnification and get to a point a of repetition its just the case that that point is so large we don't see it ( though the way I understand it fractals are infinite)


Most compression works on the type of concept you mention; trying to fine or make a rough formula to represent a string of data instead of the data itself.