Eric Weinstein and distant horizon of knowledge

[Mimsey Borogrove]

The below pod cast starts off with a lot of fucking around but then...

They launch into the premise of his new pod cast Portals, which are akin to Dorothy's awakening in OZ. Portals that open a door into understanding.

He veers off onto Gaudi's La Sangrada Church in Barcelona as an example of a sort of portal:

Ever on the quest for portals, he then heads off into the never, never land of octonians - a form of math described thusly:

The Peculiar Math That Could Underlie the Laws of Nature
New findings are fueling an old suspicion that fundamental particles and forces spring from strange eight-part numbers called “octonions.”

As numbers go, the familiar real numbers — those found on the number line, like 1, π and -83.777 — just get things started. Real numbers can be paired up in a particular way to form “complex numbers,” first studied in 16th-century Italy, that behave like coordinates on a 2-D plane. Adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing is like translating and rotating positions around the plane. Complex numbers, suitably paired, form 4-D “quaternions,” discovered in 1843 by the Irish mathematician William Rowan Hamilton, who on the spot ecstatically chiseled the formula into Dublin’s Broome Bridge. John Graves, a lawyer friend of Hamilton’s, subsequently showed that pairs of quaternions make octonions: numbers that define coordinates in an abstract 8-D space.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-octonion-math-that-could-underpin-physics-20180720/

But wait! There's more! Boy howdy - then he launches into the C elegans - yet another portal into knowledge - a simple round worm that they have completely mapped out - cells, neurons and their connections - an animal that does everything we do - eat, have sex, move about, reproduce etc. and yet we do not know how this neural circuit makes it all happen:

I am an hour and a half in and - holy shit!

Mimsey

 

[lotus]

These maths of life are fascinating!
I spent a year in the golden mean research to help with my work.

All life and beauty are based on this sacred geometry.

I'll watch your video tomorrow
Thanks for sharing

 

[RogerB]

I am an hour and a half in and - holy shit!
Mimsey

Well, Mims . . . what did the Holy Shit reveal?!?

Key points if your will . . . I left my Divining Rod overseas on my travels a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Dulloldfart]

I watched 8 minutes. The thing about podcasts that go on for 3 hours is that there's no imperative to cut the crap and get to the meat of the thing, so all I saw was waffle. His guest was fine but Rogan is hard to look at -- he looks really "massy" in Scn terms (I'm not referring to the tats).

So that's that.

Paul

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Oh don't give up so easily cut ahead to about 45 min and watch - they get into the value of the octonian math - in the article / link I posted it explains how it may be the underlying structure of quantum mechanics - and may give a mathematical explanation of reality. None of this "reality is what you believe" crap. It gets really interesting as he explains this stuff.

Paul - I have watched 10 - 15 different pod casts by Joe - he has a lot of spiritual interests. He is actually a good interviewer, he wants to get his guests to really delve into their subject. I am surprised you categorized him so.

Roger - I gave a bit of the readers digest version above - these things are great when you are doing something mindless. I don't know what you expect me to do. Like the discussion of mapping of the roundworm's neural structure and it's importance to understanding how we function - do you want a watered down version? A big Mac compared to a choice cut of steak?

Has the bullet pointing of news so infected our lives that nothing is worth delving into? Are we the ADD generation?

Think about this Roger - Hubbard was all about defining the basis of reality, what with all his axioms, the factors etc, as I believe your Knowledgism is as well. Are they not two sides of the same coin? Would you be interested in yet another viewpoint? Well, here it is.

Mimsey

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

If you really want to cut to the chase - to the nitty gritty, start listening to the video at 1:11:30 A term he is going to use is this:
Hopf fibration or the Hopf bundle

In the mathematical field of differential topology, the Hopf fibration (also known as the Hopf bundle or Hopf map) describes a 3-sphere (a hypersphere in four-dimensional space) in terms of circles and an ordinary sphere. Discovered by Heinz Hopf in 1931, Wiki

What he launches off into is a discussion of Portals, the structure of the universe, octonians (see image below) and into the importance of mystery, the ethics of introducing politics and social behavior in to the laboratory of pure physics and science. etc.

It is truly fascinating.

Mimsey

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-octonion-math-that-could-underpin-physics-20180720/

 

[Voodoo]

Rogan is hard to look at -- he looks really "massy" in Scn terms (I'm not referring to the tats).

Yeah, Rogan seems completely oblivious to his appearance, plus the guy has a terrible potty mouth, which is a deal breaker for me.

He's very intelligent and runs a good show, but he blows it every time he casually drops an F bomb. I don't know if he thinks that's hip or what, but I find it to be a turn-off.

 

[RogerB]

Oh Dear . . . . Mr. Rogan trying to be entertaining.

Honestly, Mimsey, I don't have the time to send on very second rate entertainers trying to be clever . . . though his guest was elegant. And on the point of the correct pronunciation of the German ". . . ein" as in Einstein, et al . . . be bloody good if they had studied a little German, or even gone to a source to get the correct pronunciation.

In German, the ". . . ien" and ". . . ein" are pronounced differently and in accordance with the strict German rules.

As, I've often written, I am into the ability to perform and demonstrate competence and the actuality of the existence of things. I get very turned off by the "think, think" and by totally theoretical artists.

Example: the Prof who does the USC online Physics Course titled: "The Mechanical Universe and Beyond."

It is a good elementary course on the basics of physics . . . but he does blow it when he asserts in BIG tones that: "the physical universe runs on mathematics."

My physics buddies scoff at that, as I do. Mathematics are simply a means and method of measurement and quantification.

Getting tangled up in math as though it is the cause of anything or source of anything, is real delusion in my view . . . but that is where the "theoretical physicists" are at.

Math can't prove anything outside of itself: though it can accurately quantify and measure what is being addressed.

In simple terms, the area of research my gang and I are involved in is that of the nature of and the relationship between us (we human beings) and the physical universe and the forces each exhibit and exchange.

That is, there is energy cum forces exhibited by each and exchanged.

That is what the guys I relate with are investigating and exchanging info on.

This ain't theory: it is demonstrable, measurable and quantifiable.

The trick is for us to demonstrate our causal relationship . . . and some of the top brass science boys are succeeding in that.

It is just like, with politics and economics, the press is bent! What is being demonstrated doesn't get much coverage. But, you can check out what is going on in the realm of "Consciousness" research: Harvard, Cambridge, and in particular Dean Radin at the Institute of Noetic Sciences:

Dean Radin is a parapsychology researcher. He has been Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, in Petaluma, California, USA, since 2001, served on dissertation committees at Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center, and former President of the Parapsychological Association. Wikipedia

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

I don't get it - the OP was about the guest, not the interviewer, yet for some reason that seems to be lost in the above comments. Bitching about Joe and not the content Eric is presenting.

Did everybody fail miserably on Op Pro by Dup? Flunked the obnosis drill? Can't do the duplication drill - "1, 2, 3, What did I say?"

If this were a BS subject, why then does this particular pod cast have 2,049,147 views?

Sigh.

I guess it's me. When I was studying Scientology - I loved the axioms, the four conditions, the factors, logics, pre logics, the concept of co-existence as theta, all of his mumbo jumbo in the nature and structure of the universe. That made a world more sense than the Christian theology of heaven and hell, the all powerful God allowing his son to be crucified - the vengeful god of the old testament toasting whole cities. Where was his vengeance when his son died? Crickets.

I wrongly assumed, or so it seems, that others had the same or similar interests, and they would continue to have them post Scientology. That those others lived on ESMB. I'm certain some do, perhaps many do, but gosh.

Where is the urge to learn something new? I post these things to present other concepts, and yes, some are hair brained, but some, like the above are not. Well, I tried.

Oh well.

Mimsey

 

[PirateAndBum]

Yeah, Rogan seems completely oblivious to his appearance, plus the guy has a terrible potty mouth, which is a deal breaker for me.

He's very intelligent and runs a good show, but he blows it every time he casually drops an F bomb. I don't know if he thinks that's hip or what, but I find it to be a turn-off.

lol, you must not be a real ex Scilon if F-bomb dropping bothers you! Swearing was rampant in the holy churches of Ron.

I love Rogan's interviews (at least the many that I have watched.)

 

[PirateAndBum]

I don't get it - the OP was about the guest, not the interviewer, yet for some reason that seems to be lost in the above comments. Bitching about Joe and not the content Eric is presenting.

Did everybody fail miserably on Op Pro by Dup? Flunked the obnosis drill? Can't do the duplication drill - "1, 2, 3, What did I say?"

If this were a BS subject, why then does this particular pod cast have 2,049,147 views?

Sigh.

I guess it's me. When I was studying Scientology - I loved the axioms, the four conditions, the factors, logics, pre logics, the concept of co-existence as theta, all of his mumbo jumbo in the nature and structure of the universe. That made a world more sense than the Christian theology of heaven and hell, the all powerful God allowing his son to be crucified - the vengeful god of the old testament toasting whole cities. Where was his vengeance when his son died? Crickets.

I wrongly assumed, or so it seems, that others had the same or similar interests, and they would continue to have them post Scientology. That those others lived on ESMB. I'm certain some do, perhaps many do, but gosh.

Where is the urge to learn something new? I post these things to present other concepts, and yes, some are hair brained, but some, like the above are not. Well, I tried.

Oh well.

Mimsey

Don't despair Mims, I found it fascinating. Thanks for posting it!

 

[RogerB]

Well, Mimse, you did right and good to post as you did . . . it is just that I personally have already digested too much of the theoretical, think, think stuff . . . this as noted . . . my comments on Rogan are merely by the by.

Also, Weinstein, like many who are into "the mysteries" of life, has his orders of importance back to front.

Too many are tackling the problem from the perspective of that the physical universe is somehow the source of and can explain the presence of "consciousness" (the human spirit) . . . whereas, the work I am involved in has the reverse view.

Spiritual existence preceded and is the source of the physical.

Math, correctly, can be used to measure and quantify the forces involved. But nothing more.

 

[Dulloldfart]

I don't get it - the OP was about the guest, not the interviewer, yet for some reason that seems to be lost in the above comments. Bitching about Joe and not the content Eric is presenting.

For me, this was a case of the medium obscuring the message. I found Rogan so unpleasant to look at I wasn't willing to sit through the thing until it got going properly. I can confront all sorts of awful things -- I deliberately did a desensitization trip on 4chan /b/ for a while -- but there's a difference between being able to confront something and choosing to put attention on it. I have found Rogan tolerable in the past, but in that video he just looked debauched, whatever interesting topics he might discuss.

In addition, I am very much a Miles Mathis fan. His scientific papers -- to the extent I can understand them -- make a whole lot of sense, especially regarding the Charge Field (not the Scn meaning of charge). The abstruse mathematics in modern physics doesn't explain anything about the physical universe.

Paul

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

I see that point about math being a measure and quantifier, but I don't agree 100%

I think there are relationships found in nature that exactly parallel the math. Like fractals and many other principles. Here we have a chicken and egg proposition. Why does nature follow those mathematical and physics formulas?

"Furey began seriously pursuing this possibility in grad school, when she learned that quaternions capture the way particles translate and rotate in 4-D space-time. She wondered about particles’ internal properties, like their charge. “I realized that the eight degrees of freedom of the octonions could correspond to one generation of particles: one neutrino, one electron, three up quarks and three down quarks,” she said — a bit of numerology that had raised eyebrows before. The coincidences have since proliferated. “If this research project were a murder mystery,” she said, “I would say that we are still in the process of collecting clues.”
Snip

"This is the main question she’s after now. The mathematical physicists Michel Dubois-Violette, Ivan Todorov and Svetla Drenska are also trying to model the three particle generations using a structure that incorporates octonions called the exceptional Jordan algebra. After years of working solo, Furey is beginning to collaborate with researchers who take different approaches, but she prefers to stick with the product of the four division algebras,
R⊗C⊗H⊗O, acting on itself. It’s complicated enough and provides flexibility in the many ways it can be chopped up. Furey’s goal is to find the model that, in hindsight, feels inevitable and that includes mass, the Higgs mechanism, gravity and space-time.
Already, there’s a sense of space-time in the math. She finds that all multiplicative chains of elements of R⊗C⊗H⊗O can be generated by 10 matrices called “generators.” Nine of the generators act like spatial dimensions, and the 10th, which has the opposite sign, behaves like time. String theory also predicts 10 space-time dimensions — and the octonions are involved there as well. Whether or how Furey’s work connects to string theory remains to be puzzled out."

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-octonion-math-that-could-underpin-physics-20180720/

This is my opinion:
Co-existing Theta ( or whatever term you want for the spiritual side of us) or God, or Gods etc. could have created the universe using math as it's basis, and what we see is a manifestation of that math in a real, you can touch it, sense. In other words - math and physics could ultimately prove to be the same thing.

This parallels the Holographic universe concept - our brains are in a sense receiver's of this holographic universe. It further parallels Sheldrake's work on morphic fields, as it does Robert Monroe's writings about the truly alien nature of the architect of this universe - were such a being capable of creating in a 8 dimensional fashion - it would be perforce, truly alien to our way of thinking & understanding.

I don't know if you ever met Bob Sewell - he introduced MSH to Hubbard. He had the opinion that our universe was binary - that, for instance hydrogen was an example of a manifestation of that concept. There's a whole 'nother take on it.

Check this video out - it's only 2 + min long. The first of a 14 lecture series.

Mimsey

 

[RogerB]

Good write-up, Mimsey!

Even if, in my view, it goes off on an inapplicable tangent . . . which, of course is my grumble with the way and manner in which math is being misapplied vis-à-vis the physical universe.

The simplicity that is observable, in my view, is that a causal agent brought the physical universe into being . . . forces and/or quanta of energy was involved which can and should be measured and quantified by the use of math.

The too clever boys and girls in academia have gotten things "arse about face."

The fact that the quanta of force/energy involved in either the creating or continuance of the physical universe is measurable does not mean the means of its measurement are in any way involved in either the physical universe's causation or its continuance.

Many far more clever fellows than me have stated clearly the above positions . . .

Here cited is from Paul's links above . . . here: http://milesmathis.com/death.html

Death by Mathematics​

by Miles Mathis​

​

The state of learning now is like Scylla of the old fable,
who had the head and face of a virgin,
but a womb hung round by barking monsters,
from which she could not be delivered.—Francis Bacon​

​

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments,
and they wander off through equation after equation and
eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."— Nikola Tesla​

​

First published July 22, 2007​

In the 20th century, physics underwent a transformation. No one would deny that. But normally the transformation is credited to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. And normally the transformation is seen as a great advance. In this paper I will argue the opposite. The transformation was due more to a transformation in mathematics, and that transformation has been almost wholly deleterious.​

​

This transformation due to mathematics began in the 19th century, but it did not engulf physics until the 20th century. In the 19th century the stage was set: we had several abstract mathematical fields that reached "fruition", including a math based on action variables and principles, a math based on curved space, a math based on matrices, a math based on tensors, a math based on i, and a math based on infinities.​

​

As I have shown, 19th century mathematics inherited many unsolved problems from the past, including problems from Euclid and Newton. It made no progress in solving these problems because it did not recognize them as problems. It had already given up on foundational questions as "metaphysics", and it preferred instead to create more and more abstract systems. The more abstract the mathematical system became, the more successful it could be in avoiding foundational questions.​

​

The clearest example of this is the field of applied mathematics based on action variables. For the last hundred years we have heard an ever-increasing level of praise of action variables, culminating in the propaganda of Feynman. But action variables are just an abstraction of Newtonian variables. By abstraction, I mean that they do not add clarity, they cloak disclarity. Newtonian variables were never very rigorously defined, but action variables are very good at hiding Newtonian variables. Action variables do not replace Newtonian variables, as some appear to think. Action variables contain Newtonian variables. Action variables restate Newtonian variables in what is considered to be a more efficient form. But action variables are utterly dependent on Newtonian variables. If it were discovered that Newtonian variables were false, action variables would be, too, by definition. The action concept developed directly out of Newtonian mechanics, and action assumes the absolute validity of Newtonian mechanics. Action does not transcend Newton in any conceivable way, it only compresses his method. Just as velocity is a compression of distance and time, the Lagrangian is a compression of kinetic and potential energy. Each compression is a mathematical abstraction, because the individual variables are no longer expressed singly. They often do not appear in the equations at all. They are included only a parts of greater variables. ​

Snipped . . . . .

It is a long but very lucidly written piece.

/

 

[Voodoo]

lol, you must not be a real ex Scilon if F-bomb dropping bothers you! Swearing was rampant in the holy churches of Ron.

I love Rogan's interviews (at least the many that I have watched.)

I never did like the normalized vulgarity in Scientology. Sure, I swore like a sailor around my buddies, but I was raised to believe that there are times and places where that sort of talk is inappropriate -- like church!

I like Rogan, but he's off-putting in some ways. The potty mouth is the worst aspect of his awful public face.

 

[strativarius]

Here cited is from Paul's links above . . . here: http://milesmathis.com/death.html

A wonderful piece of writing. I was entranced by his prose, his wit, his humour and his obvious grasp of the complex subject matter. Unfortunately I didn't have a fucking clue what he was talking about so it was a complete waste of my time reading it, but I did make an effort, and that's the main thing.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Strat, you are a prince among men. Mimsey

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Good write-up, Mimsey!

Even if, in my view, it goes off on an inapplicable tangent . . . which, of course is my grumble with the way and manner in which math is being misapplied vis-à-vis the physical universe.

The simplicity that is observable, in my view, is that a causal agent brought the physical universe into being . . . forces and/or quanta of energy was involved which can and should be measured and quantified by the use of math.

The too clever boys and girls in academia have gotten things "arse about face."

The fact that the quanta of force/energy involved in either the creating or continuance of the physical universe is measurable does not mean the means of its measurement are in any way involved in either the physical universe's causation or its continuance.

Many far more clever fellows than me have stated clearly the above positions . . .

Here cited is from Paul's links above . . . here: http://milesmathis.com/death.html

Death by Mathematics
by Miles Mathis​

​

The state of learning now is like Scylla of the old fable,
who had the head and face of a virgin,
but a womb hung round by barking monsters,
from which she could not be delivered.—Francis Bacon​

​

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments,
and they wander off through equation after equation and
eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."— Nikola Tesla​

​

First published July 22, 2007​

In the 20th century, physics underwent a transformation. No one would deny that. But normally the transformation is credited to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. And normally the transformation is seen as a great advance. In this paper I will argue the opposite. The transformation was due more to a transformation in mathematics, and that transformation has been almost wholly deleterious.​

​

This transformation due to mathematics began in the 19th century, but it did not engulf physics until the 20th century. In the 19th century the stage was set: we had several abstract mathematical fields that reached "fruition", including a math based on action variables and principles, a math based on curved space, a math based on matrices, a math based on tensors, a math based on i, and a math based on infinities.​

​

As I have shown, 19th century mathematics inherited many unsolved problems from the past, including problems from Euclid and Newton. It made no progress in solving these problems because it did not recognize them as problems. It had already given up on foundational questions as "metaphysics", and it preferred instead to create more and more abstract systems. The more abstract the mathematical system became, the more successful it could be in avoiding foundational questions.​

​

The clearest example of this is the field of applied mathematics based on action variables. For the last hundred years we have heard an ever-increasing level of praise of action variables, culminating in the propaganda of Feynman. But action variables are just an abstraction of Newtonian variables. By abstraction, I mean that they do not add clarity, they cloak disclarity. Newtonian variables were never very rigorously defined, but action variables are very good at hiding Newtonian variables. Action variables do not replace Newtonian variables, as some appear to think. Action variables contain Newtonian variables. Action variables restate Newtonian variables in what is considered to be a more efficient form. But action variables are utterly dependent on Newtonian variables. If it were discovered that Newtonian variables were false, action variables would be, too, by definition. The action concept developed directly out of Newtonian mechanics, and action assumes the absolute validity of Newtonian mechanics. Action does not transcend Newton in any conceivable way, it only compresses his method. Just as velocity is a compression of distance and time, the Lagrangian is a compression of kinetic and potential energy. Each compression is a mathematical abstraction, because the individual variables are no longer expressed singly. They often do not appear in the equations at all. They are included only a parts of greater variables. ​

Snipped . . . . .

It is a long but very lucidly written piece.

/

While I understand the above argument - and it is increasingly a problem with the use of models over actual data, such as we see in the climate change debate - where the computer models overstate the effect of CO2 and global warming rather consistently - it seems to me your position is this:

The prime creator made some random something or other that had some random intrinsic rules thrown into the mix for kicks, and the universe descended from there, coalescing into the universe we inhabit.

I think that is bass ackward - I think the prime creator made the constituent particles of the universe based on very exact mathematical / physics principals, that he /she /it perhaps devised, to create the resulting universe, which principals our mathematics and physics will eventually define. We, in my opinion, are reverse engineering the universe to discover its underlying principals, which will be found to be very elegant, and not a bunch of random, thrown together shit.

What is the alternative? The universe is a massive chaos that fell together by the happenstance inter-relations of the intrinsic qualities of the particles? That is a very prevalent view of things.

But I don't buy into it. Looking at a colorful sunset may be looking at the hell fire of a spinning ball spewing all manner of radioactive trash in all directions but perhaps that was what was needed to make the sunset the beauty we see? Once again its a chicken? Egg? proposition.

Mimsey

 

[RogerB]

Mimsey wrote:

- it seems to me your position is this:
The prime creator made some random something or other that had some random intrinsic rules thrown into the mix for kicks, and the universe descended from there, coalescing into the universe we inhabit.

No, not at all . . . I am in accord with part of this you wrote:

I think the prime creator made the constituent particles of the universe based on very exact mathematical / physics principals, that he /she /it perhaps devised, to create the resulting universe, which principals our mathematics and physics will eventually define.

The observation made by those I am in touch with who have delved into the earliest changes we made to the pure spiritual existence we began with, is that there was no particular "mathematical principle" predicated . . . it was just an effort at solving an unwanted experience using the directing of spiritual Life-Force. Of course, that Life-Force had a quantity that might be measured, as its velocity too might be measured and quantified.

But all of the scientific address to these issues of quantification and measurement is after the fact of causation, not part of its planning. The current scenario is that "science" has backed itself into a corner due to misuse of phony math.

I personally have run the events at the beginning of our Time Trail, and observed this to be the case.

In any event . . . I've already spent too much time on trying to be explicit enough to get the simplicity of what I and those I am in touch with have observed.

The additional truth is, the Physical Universe is very late on the chain of changes and development of "existence." As Alan Walter notes in his "Gods in Disguise" there are something in the order of 20 "universes" of actual altered spiritual domains of existence preceding the Physical Universe that the Physical Universe was brought into being to solve. It is very "late on the chain." I have addressed a number (about 5 from memory) of these earlier spiritual domains of existence/universes with the applicable processes. I know what was involved in the cause of them.

The information is there for anyone who chooses to do the R/Ds to go learn about it. It really is that simple.

RogerB . . . "over and out."

/