Welcome to Fractal Forums

Good point, but what the animals do is not art, since is not the result of conscious activity, instead, when a man mimics the natural sounds, like Huun Huur Tu do, this is true art.
     The same about dance, what the animals do is not their art, is the kind of art  wich is naturally intrinsic in this universe, without it, man would be unable to understand nor create art, but it belongs to the world not to the animals themselves.
      Man is the single creature able to créate, animals repeat their behaviour at infinity, beautiful as their dances are, these are always the same and can´t change, right now I hear the swallows, they circle in a bunch around my home as they do each summer day of each year and their chants sounds exactly the same, in fact I need to hear them, is part of my soundtrack, and I need that they don´t change.

I must strongly disagree!

On what grounds do you base the assertion that "what the animals do is not art, since is not the result of conscious activity"?

That sounds very much like an opinion and not any sort of thing which is even subject to empirical testing.

While I respect the opinion, I can't agree.  Animals do indeed do conscious things and have consciousness.  Have you ever owned a dog?  A cat?

They do Art all the time, and they do it for the same reasons we do - for Fun!

Just because it's different than what we do does not make it any less Art than our own human efforts.

I have a Mockingbird in my back yard who not only sings close to 100 variations quite different, but as I've listened to him first hours and days and weeks, he develops new calls
I do not equate it with art, but it is very different from the statements made here.
If you take what Andy Warhol said about the topic, "Art is whatever you can get away with"
And this does not mean it has to be conscious either...which can separate human art from animal, plant or mineral art.....but I don't see how unconsciously made art has any distinction from what any other animal, plant or mineral can do. If you look at the repeated and cyclic grooves of sand left by the tides, which can be both fractal, srt nouveau like and sensuous, can it not be art? Does a photograph of it make it art? I'd belive only an appreciation of anything can raise it to the level of art

    Let me try another viewpoint,
     The social structure of ants,shows a great amount of intelligence , but no single ant shows any sign of having her own intelligence, since all their behaviour is aimed to the survival of the species, to the point where  they can sacrifice their lives.
      So , there´s intelligence behind the ants, as there is intelligence behind any other species.
      But animals have just two brains while man has three, and this is all, animals don´t have the kind of brain able to create.
      To explain this point, man has a motor brain, an emotional, brain, and an intellectual brain, wich animals lack.
      Really Art is what is behind their behaviour, but they don´t do it, they are it, they just live, the fact that this life is part of a giant artwork, don´t  make them conscious of it.
      We all are part of a gigantic artwork, that´s why we can appreciate and create Art, if the Universe were a bunch of rocks floating in an empty space, what sense  had Art?
       God is the main Artist, as we have been told, an the man, as a fractal of God, can also be an Artist.

      

I agree that there is art in animal behaviour and forms, but no animal is responsible of their own shape, as is not responsible of their behaviour
this all comes with the pack.
     If Art were whatever you can get away with", pyramids and cathedrals aren´t art
     Because the Vatican and the such, are not things "you can get away with", an enormous amount of work, people, talent, Art, and money was neccesary.

Poo-Poo and Hubba-Hubba!

To say nothing of Piffle!!

First, man has one brain, not 3.  No matter how many people's or animal's heads I split open I have never seen more than one.  Such statements require more proof than just saying so.  The only animals which appear to have multiple brains are squid - and those brains, despite being widely distributed throughout the body of the animal, are still physically connected - so many consider it still one brain.

To claim an understanding of what other creatures do and do not appreciate is quite simply impossible.  It's just your perceptions  (as my views are just my perceptions!).  So if we both perceive different things - who is to say which of us is right??  Certainly neither of us!

And what is this god thing you speak of?

Not the fairy tale guy with a beard who lives in the sky?

Next you'll be telling me the easter bunny is an Artist because he paints all those eggs so nicely!

Please - if you want to discuss the proposition that animals lack Art because we can't prove they do, then leave magical cloud dwellers which are even less subject to testing out of it as supporting evidence.  To many of us such concepts are meaningless and have no place in a rational discussion.

God stuff is fine for personal beliefs and meditations and such - but bringing it into a logical debate is just wrong.


Again, you seem to think you have some sort of way of seeing into things much farther than ordinary people.  You cannot possibly know if an animal is responsible for their behaviour or if it all comes with the pack.

I personally see a giant termite mound as on a par with the vatican or any cathedral you can mention.  DEFINITELY Art!!

It's not like cathedrals are not buildings with no other purpose beyond Art.

I think it's best to focus solely on what defines Art for humans and leave animals, gods, and aliens out of it.  None of those are subject to any sort of rigorous analysis, so must remain in the realm of pure speculation - and as such have no place in any definition of anything beyond the metaphysical realms from which they came and to which they will be forever bound.

Well, art we see in nature is God´s inspiration, it´s true Art, but animals don´t do it, God do it.
Then, we are here, and the Creation is here, and this creation follows artistic rules, no matter what anyone wants.
So, artists are the only human beings qualified to talk about art, and I talk about true artists.
   And among those true artists, there´s no one that thinks  God does not exists, the same about true scientists.

I find your incessant use of the word "true" renders any discussion impossible.

Personally, I am both an Artist and a Scientist  (Artism is a hobby but I'm good enough to get 3D Work and other graphics side jobs,  and I'm a Chemist at my day job)  (So I am both an Artist and a Scientist, but apparently not truly, since I maintain that god does not exist).

And with that, I am afraid I must bow out of this sub-conversation. 

AS you seem to have a problem with God´s existence, let me state this, This Universe has levels.
And this means there is above and below.
From any viewpoint, we aren´t the end of nothing, above our heads a full Universe dwells as well as under our feets, and this all is One. God.
Take a romanescu, it´s so clear ! The whole thing is the Unit, the One, God, but is built trough countless iterations of himself, wich can´t exist out of the Unit, and this Unit can exist only trough those countless iterations.
 Well, name it as you want, but this Unit, this One, exists and we live inside it, and we live below at least related to the existing above, so men of all cultures have recognized this One and named it with a lot of names.

¿Can you draw a recognizable portrait from life?   Can you build a correct perspective ?, if yes, we can talk, these are the lowest levels to start an art discussion.
By the way, I mean "true" when I talk about well recognized artists and scientists such as Leonardo, or Newton, can you name some great artist or scientist being atheist?

I can do Art but am self taught and get a few terms wrong, but know what I am doing.

You want famous scientists who are atheists?

3 come immediately to mind - Neils Bohr  (atomic structure and quantum theory "God"), Richard Feynman  (Nobel Prize winning Physicist) and Stephen Hawking  (some punk kid in a wheel chair who revolutionized our understanding of time and is considered one of the greatest theoretical physicists ever).

I think Peter Higgs too, but am not certain - he predicted the now famous Higgs Boson  (ironically called "The God Particle" ).

Artists...  I don't know but if you tried to research it instead of blanketly stating that none exist, I'm positive you'd find many.  Do John Lennon and Frank Zappa count?  They are both definitely Artists in my view, and both were Atheists.

But one does not require such impressive credentials to have their opinions taken seriously  (are you a famous artist?)  (a world renowned scientist?).

Why should I, or anybody at all, have to prove anything before you will talk to them and stop making grand sweeping statements about ALL "True" Scientists and ALL "True" Artists only being those who agree with you?

That is no starting point for a discussion or debate.

It puts me off even wanting to try because I am a moderator here and should not be as rude as such statements justify! 

(http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m278/sockratease/atheist_zps4222ec93.jpg) (http://s106.photobucket.com/user/sockratease/media/atheist_zps4222ec93.jpg.html)

Very well stated...since art, as many things, is an independent variable, there is no sense in arguing over it...it is obviously different things to different people....and fortunately or unfortunately, everyone simply has to accept that. In the time of the Renaissance, you perhaps could ask such a question. But  modernity, knowledge and experimentation had left that definition in the dust a long time ago.

 Well, we have different viewpoints and that´s all. take it easy, in fact I will keep my viewpoint about your "scientists" to keep the calm.
 By the way, I didn´t mean anything about aliens, but I apologize , was my fault, by non -human activities i mean, spoiling our waters, violation of human rights, and the like.
 But if you could draw,  as an "artist"  and  as a "scientist", you´ll talk really different because of the knowledge acquired in the process .
  I try to understand your viewpoint , if there´s no God, nor Creation at all, and we live in an accidental universe, disconnected from anything, I´m unable to uderstand what´s the reason for art, nor what are its origins nor its function, since we all agree, nature shows art all around.
  But this viewpoint forgets the greatest idea of them all; there is Order in this Universe, and this is enough to destroy all fantaisies, because  the order is the result of laws, and laws can´t be accidental by it´s own nature.
   And this idea was the core and the nerve af all Art and Science and Religion , I can´t see what offers your viewpoint instead, I´m very curious.
   Where do you think inspiration comes from?
   What do you think is the aim of science?
   Can exist any art nor science nor religion without laws?

I'd move to close this thread as its simply being driven by a provocateur...
its aimless, pointless, and without merit

I don't think it warrants any moderation actions beyond splitting it off from the topic it strayed so far from, but I do appreciate your concern.

Hope nobody minds...

I don't know about Sockratease but I have no issue with that - "God" as the "sum of all things" works for me - but if that's true you've got to also accept that the fundamental nature of this "God" isn't in any way related to the separate untouchable infallible *invented* non-existent Deities that organised religions believe in.

I have no issue with god, or people believing in it's existence.

I DO have a problem with invoking it for a definition of something so totally unrelated to religion and as a definition which all people are expected to agree with as being valid.

I also have issues with people who demand evidence of something then choose to dismiss that evidence when presented with it, even under the guise of "keeping the peace" - Doubly so after being so arrogant about their certainty that such things cannot possibly exist.

Attitudes like that are my main problem with religion and god.

A storyteller sees the world as the biggest story ever
Just as a singer hears it as a song
Painters see the clouds as divine artwork
While the programmer see some matrix
Engineers look at the universe as mechanism
Drivers would say God is behind the wheel
Farmers use to see him as The Lord
Kings and priest think of God as the Biggest Authority
Philosophers and theologists call him All That Is
I haven't really made up my mind,
to really define who or what I am,
maybe just a
nobody.

Three engineering students were gathered together discussing the possible designers of the human body.

One said, It was a mechanical engineer. Just look at all the joints.

Another said, No, it was an electrical engineer. The nervous system has many thousands of  electrical connections.

The last said, Actually it was a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?

God is the biggest self-reference joke, without being consious about it.  :fiery:

  I talk from a geometric viewpoint.

     I will try to explain me, I don´t ask for impressive credentials, I want to point out the capital importance of drawing for mankind.
     without it, we had not a civilization, that´s all.
     Because  almost all perceptions reach us trough the eye.
     Then, drawing is the human tool that help us to discriminate, to understand, remember how scientific expeditions always supplied great amounts of drawings taken from life. and these were true treasures, pure gold for some.
      drawing, scientifically, originates Geometry, and trough it, Architecture, Optics, Astronomy, and all sciences.
      This Universe is an artwork, and art is the way to approach it, I´m sorry for those who lose it´s temper  so easily, but art is too a big thing .
      Art knows how to deal with octaves and vibrations, and octaves and vibrations are the core of this world.
      Vibrations are the basis of this Kosmos, and tonal scales are the tools mankind has always used to deal with, both, in music and in painting, tonal scales are the true tools of artists.
        What I want is to show to any person that has tried to draw, is that this is  really important, this is the basis of humankind as we understand it, our lifestyles are due to human ability to draw, our discoveries, our dreams, have been drawn in a moment or another before taking shape.
         I´m not talking about "artistic" things, but about "TRUE" things.
          By the way, nobody is in need to feel any offense , I say what I see, and try not to get personal.

Well, three names  against thousands does not seems a great evidence to me, I´m sorry.
The fact you can´t connect Art with God is not a reason to dismiss anything, maybe others can, in fact, many many other have done it along millenniums and then you should dismiss as non artistic the whole artistic production of all our history.
Finally, I ´m not talkin religion, but Art, too bad if God is the Greatest of Artists, these aren´t my words, but the words of countless humans before me.( Einstein stated that "God makes Geometry" , I seem to recall he also stated " I can´t understand it if I can´t draw it")

But I asked you some real questions that I really hope you answer.

Then talking about the  origin of inspiration in an art discussion is something pointless for you?
I don´t like your mood, maybe better look for more serious people.

For Einstein, "God" is what the rest of us called "nature".  Here's what he thought about what the rest of us call "God".
Ryan

IMHO I have the answer to it all.
If a termite stack is not art because it was built by animals following their inherited instincts.
And if bird singing is not art either, just inherited instincts.

Then the pyramids and cathedrals and perturbation on 32 core computers is not art either, because we are also only following our inherited instincts of being curios and try new solutions.
The consciousness and free will are just illusions, we are just rule following robots like ants or bacteria, just a bit more complex. And no rule based robots can stand above it self and see through its own rule based behavior.
We are simply having too greats thought about our selfs as humans.

You say three names  against thousands does not seems a great evidence to you?

Well, given the Absolute nature of your Certainty that Absolutely NOBODY can be a True Scientist without god, then ONE is more than enough to 100% debunk your baseless assertion and render it Proven Wrong.

That's the problem with such grand sweeping statements.  It only takes One Exception to prove it wrong.

I gave you 3 off the top of my head, with zero research.

Can you Truly name Thousands? 

I suspect not. 

Just as I can not name all of the Millions of True Scientists who are Atheist.

But if you need more, a quick internet search found this list - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_%28science_and_technology%29

Is that enough?

And by the way, that list confirmed my tentative example of Peter Higgs.

I can not carry on a discussion with anybody who makes up a new definition of god  (to use as part of a new definition of Art)  and then takes the new definition and applies it to people's quotes who never intended it to be taken in that context. 

So until we can agree upon what we are talking about, there is no point in discussing anything with you.

And insisting that ability to draw is a pre-requisite to understanding Art, you never met the Curator of The Philadelphia Museum Of Art.  She can't draw or paint, but has a Doctorate in Art History and is more qualified than either of us to discuss Art.

You say you asked some questions for which you want answers?  One thing at a time.  Let's see if you can first admit that god is NOT a Necessity to understand and be allowed to discuss Art  (or to be a True Artist / Scientist) before we even think about any of your other questions.

It may help you and one or two others, but it is by no means a requirement.

My God
My God disregards any human qualification
He whisper the Thruth to me at night
Since we have a good and close relation
And together we are always right

He is the reason for all that is and will be
His thoughts cause the universe to move
Including science, art, you and me
Even if everyone would disapprove

No matter what evidence you bring
My God will always pull me straight
Whatever confusing words you sing
He removes all doubt, restores the faith

So you will understand and see
There is no option to disagree
Until you admit your fraud
And commit to God!
My God

If it weren't for the last verse, that poem could be a great and respectable way of expressing faith.

As it is, it tries to force belief on others and therefore is ...  not.

(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/8246641152/h69BA9B9F/)

Some provoking facts to the religios:
- if god knows everything he also already know his own future descisions. Then he does not have a free will.
- if god doesn't know everything, sometimes he will make wrong descisions, he will make mistakes.
- that god created everything doesn't answer any of our questions, it only rises new ones.
- the world is way more wonderful and fantastic because it was made of a random unconscious coincident, rather than if it was created by some superior being. (But that is of course only my opinion)

If I may delve into the anthropological...

Humans have wonderful pattern matching brains that perceive the action of intelligence even where none exists.
I have been alone in the forest and heard the wind through the trees speak my name.
Just the over active pattern recognition circuits of my brain I realised immediately.
A less educated person might easily have considered this as the voice of God, more primitive of the spirits of the forest.

It is through this over active pattern matching that we have created Spirits Gods and Religion.

This same pattern matching is why we enjoy art.

We seek the patterns we enjoy.
Many people enjoy the comfort that a deity provides (grandma isn't dead but with Jesus now).
I enjoy the comfort of knowledge.
The universe is a cold uncaring random scattering of distortions in spacetime.
This subset of distortions has some concept of the whole set for the finite time I exist.
And while I'm here I may have added some beauty to the universe.

I am a set of distortions in spacetime thats understands I am an infinitesimally small part of a larger set.
I am the universe that is conscious and self aware.

I suspect the universe is the n-dimensional fractal boundary between zero and infinity.

God as a supernatural *external* Deity is a a fictional character as real as the tooth fairy or Herman Munster.
If there is something we should define as "God" it is that "God" is the sum of all things and most likely a multi-dimensional fractal which is repeated at all scales from zero to infinity *everywhere* in existence - i.e. this God is within us and without us, present everywhere, all-knowing and all-powerful *but* is not something separate and is only sentient via existences within existence such as ourselves.

Just to add that the usual definition of "Art" necessarily involves an "Artitst" - that artist being *human* not *god* or a bacteria or a dog.

Having said that I do believe that (since I don't believe in a normal Deity) natural things can be *artistic* - they do not become art *until a sentient being* decides they are.

I agree with this sentiment, for the most part.

Sort of...

I have often heard people invoke the sum of all things as a pseudo god, but I thought we already had a word for that - The Universe.

To me, the word "God" carries a totally different connotation than the phrase "The Universe"   :blindfold:

Take any reference to any God from any monotheistic source and substitute "The Universe" for the word "God" and watch how things don't really change so much as one might think.   :elvis:

Has anybody ever read "The Book Of Tao" by Lao Tszu a thousand or so years ago?

My favorite quote from it :

There is something that has existed since long before the birth of the Cosmos, and will continue to exist long after it's demise.

I do not know it's name.

If I must name it, I shall call it Tao

That's almost a god type thing, and about as close as I'll get to the concept.

But you forgot to mention the two most important things about the god/creation/sum of everything:
- it is made of natural causes and has no consciousness. 
- is has no purpose or reason
Because that is what makes it so amazing and beautiful - there is no predefined purpose. It's all up to us to make purposes.

That seems true and it's supported by the quantic experiment with the electron, if im not wrong, but you have to answer first if everything is prewritten or not. And how free is our will. And I don't like the concept of life being prewritten but can we talk about real time trips, if it's not?

I believe that if sometime someone could make a real time trip, he would affect complicatedly his life outcome (so the specific's universe's future too), travelling to meet his future self after a t0, but this hypothesis cannot be right reversed. (I)
To decide to travel from today to meet your past self is like jumping on another possibility universe.(II)

In the (I) case, you stay in the same universe, and both today and future self know about this trip. The today guy decided it, the future guy decided it when he was young :P so he can remember it .
In the (II) case the past guy should live in a universe with a future guy in it. And the future guy has the knowledge to time travel. So there is possibility to explain his past self. But the trip should start once. And to start it you should have the knowledge once. And that is not now. You don't know how to travel right now, right? Only a future self could do something like that.

So that means that either you jumps to another possibility universe, or when you travel back you don't meet your self, so (II) is wrong.

Imagine someone travelling to the past and telling to himself the way to time travel. :P He would live on infinity in a loop if he wanted

So, if these are true, the only universes that can exist, are the ones that someone did time travel to meet himself, after gaining the knowledge to do it. And that seems right to me.

So your can meet only you future self, or else you would already know that you will travel back to meet you. Because you already met you. But can't happen because we are always on a t0 on which we decide to travel back, without already having experienced something like that.

Please tell me if I'm wrong scientifically, these are just thoughts based on the hypothesis of the time travels existence..

If we accept time as an understandable finite dimension, wouldn't that mean that our life spans and/or universe, are finite curvatures of time, or sth like this?

If that's right, could it mean that, trying to adapt the sence of this dimension, we should look at our lifes as predestined or possibly predictable objects on an xyzw axis?

Please infor me if you know what is scientifically believed.

Hi Mahmut!
Just thoughts here, too ;)

What you are describing is a variation of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox), so you are right.
But time-travel would need information travelling faster than light, and this is not possible as far as we know.

I don't really understand the connection between this and what kalle said.
I believe that it is determined what can possibly happen in the universe, I guess its similar to a http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz-Attraktor - but what actually happens depends on your conscious decisions.
and conscious learning of what happened in the past is key.
because you can use what you learned about the past to predict the future and combine things that have never been combined. (hard to frame that in our language, it's not really suited to talk about things like this..)

it's like the zoom into the m-set.
the m-set exists,the patterns are simply there.
But you need conscious decisions to reveal the patterns. You need to decide "i zoom here" and use our modern technology to calculate/render the result. and that takes energy.
So the consciousness focusses the energy needed to actually form/calculate/reveal the patterns.

The M-Set always was there and always will be, it has no time, it exists in the mathematical realm of probability.
But it has never before been calculated and thus transferred into the 'real' world.

Same with your own zoom path into life.. ;)
I believe that every human being (in fact every thing that exists) is the last, actual stage in the now, the current iteration in a looooong line of computation of a formula, endlessly bifurcating, that started out small, but grew more and more complex.


to me, "god" is just another word for the universal fractal that everything is, being a result of the 12 elementary particles interacting through the 4 forces in a recursive "calculation" over time. just like z->z²+c, but with a much more complex base-formula.
and when a formula is recursive, fed back into itself, the result is fractal (or nothing, or fixed - and we are clearly not leaving in a fixed world, or in nothing. so the universe must be fractal)
I believe that the barrier of light speed is the actual speed of the universes "quantum-processor", calculating the fractal formula.
so this is why no information can travel faster..


erm.... I didn't intend to go this far.. but your thoughts made me write down in a few sentences what I have researched and thought up in the last 18 months since my interest in fractals grew exponentially ;)

Hi Chillheimer and thank you for your quick and juicy reply. :D
Great, I will check it now. But  what about the loved/ related photons. Don't they prove the existence of, quicker than light, speeds that pass through universe?
You're right, I wrote a second post while you were writing this which may be more relative. I started thinking and writing and I lost my point at the first post  :embarrass:
I will check that too. I agree that what actually happens is result of living creatures consious decisions. But can't concious decisions be predetermined by little things like our dna and the xyz enviroment we experience based on decisions that were again comlicatedly predetermined by many little factors? Like butterfly effect.. it is too complicated but can be explained if we had the way of calculating it.
I agree totally and well written.
So the universe is between 0 and 1 kindof :P right?

thank you, I started searching this week and that's bad for my exams.. :P

I read now in good greek source, that today teleport is possible (like decoding to quantic beats, give the light information details, recoding the object in a new spot, and the first object in first spot disappears). They teleported an atom but it is really difficult to do it with humans because we have so much information.

yes, quantum teleportation is possible (check youtube/wikipedia for anton zeilinger - freaky guy, very interesting)
there is a big BUT, that very often is left out, and makes people dream about teleporting to distant galaxies instantly:

you can teleport, but you need a connection between the 2 places. the fastest possible connection we can do is by light. which is what zeilinger did in his teleportation over 143km from la palma to teneriffa.
but as you see, we still need the laser beam. so to teleport to a galaxy would take millions of years, depending on the distance in lightyears, as the laserlight needs that time to travel.


you mean quantum entanglement?
the "problem" here is, that there is no transport of information.
take this analogy:
you have 2 boxes. in box A you put a left shoe, and in the box B the matching right shoe.
now you transport box B one lightyear away.

one observer who only knows there are 2 boxes, with 2 matching shoes of a pair. opens box A.
He sees that there is a left shoe in.
And can conclude that in the other box, there must be the matching right shoe. He seems to have gained information for far away in an instant, not having to wait one year.
but the information never travelled (except, when the box was moved one lightyear away).
so there is no speed faster than light involved.

Regarding the butterfly-effect: Yeah, if we had the power to calculate - but there is a natural barrier that you can't pass. If you want an accurate prediction of the weather over 20 days, you would need a grid of measurement-stations every 5mm on the whole planet!
imagine what you would need to predict the weather over a year - we would probably be below the planck-scale. and you would need a computer more powerfull than douglas adams earth ;) or even the entire universe itself. I believe that this all is hidden in einsteins E=mc² - that you need infinite energy (or computation power) to calculate that determination. and the limit is the amount of energy in the universe. so there can not be 100% determinism.

and how much more complicated is the human brain, or that little wind that blew my hat of and made me run after it onto the street, getting hit by the car, that my future wife drove, so we met...
and scale that up to all the interaction of all humans in history, the evolution that lead us to where we are..
you would need an entire universe and just as much time as has passed in our real universe, only to simulate what is at the moment unfolding before our eyes.
I wonder, what would be the point? ;)
i think the now is determined. the future becomes a fuzzy fog of probability, that consciousness can influence.

as you mention you are studying: these are my personal views and what I've come up with myself, mixing proven science into my own world view. so it is not scientific, not good for studying.
it is just what I think. (but I'm very sure ;)

I would say that we can perceive the fractal dimension between 3 and 4, were not living only in space and not only in time but in a fractal mixture.
We're surfing the fractal edge between space and time.

But that doesn't mean that 2d or 5d doesn't exist, just that it is not what our senses and brains are finetuned to, and were we are home.

thank you for the answers you made it clear for me. of course these are philosophical discussions and theories and not prooved scientific facts. Only imagination based on facts and the patterns we know. But I believe that's the best way to drive your researches and experiments. Einstein said imagination is maybe more usefull than logic.
It's good to determine reality both from inside and outside, science - philosophy/cosmology. Unofortunately for me, religion has taken the seat from philosophy/cosmology for many years. I believe esoterism, faith in your self, meditation, searching for the absolute/one/truth/self is good but not as a religion nor have meta-physical value. Maybe something unrevealed scientificaly but not even that nowadays. Science is the tool, the binocular.

Just a quick question to check. Could you define the begin and end points of these curves? I mean not some vague range or area, but point.

You'd have to jump into things like development of embryos:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/HumanEmbryogenesis.svg/767px-HumanEmbryogenesis.svg.png)

And if you already consider this life, then what about the act of fertilization? Those cells are parts of living being already, so you could argue that life just always continues. We don't even know how it started, let alone how it will (if it will) end.

As far as consciousness, free will and related stuff. Thats about as real as the color purple, the A minor chords and things like fun, meaning, systems, health, coziness, the red line in a story, a focus point, etc. Things like this have no weight, no surface, no proof. You could argue their existance (what is this, anyway) in the world, but then you have to make a distinction between the "real" world and the "imaginariy" world. This seems to be nonsense to me, as our imaginations are caused by the interaction of our enviroment with our brain. These both are real, so it's within the scope of the real world. For me, God is as real as dragons, mermaids, blue, anger, feelings and other non-physical (touchable/observable) things.

Oh, and all is one. One big deterministic connected whole, in which everything exists. And since anything (for example a computer or some brain) is within this whole, it would be impossible to store the state of the bigger whole in that subset. When everything is connected, any small change will eventually influence everything else. Therefore you would need to measure and store the state of all subparts, to make a prediction about the next move. Of course, it would be impossible to store the state of the whole in a subset of that same whole. This makes it even impossible to know the current state. And therefore, the illusion of free will is as good as real free will.

No, I cannot define any points in reality. Only vaguely. But i can put sth on real x/y/z axis and count it to some detail. have a clue on its 3d.
true, human life itself is a cooperation of many organisms. I believe organism is like the unit of life extend measurment, but I believe life is one. and all organisms cooperaate for a bigger organism which cooperates with others for a bigger...etc (fractaly like our beautiful animals and plants and galaxies and bacterias)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/organism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/organism)
I don't believe in God as most religions mean it, but I disagree about the fact that imaginary things have no existance. When we imagine/think something neurons in our brains are created, and other changes happen. There is information through electricity. Chemistry. It can affect you and your environment and change your behaviour specifically. A 3d model as an idea  can be created and depicted digitaly, so it can transfer its meaning, like words, to other consiousness'. If you accept digital products as real measurable things, you have to accept ideal stuff too as reality. they can be translated in binary, on hard disks/ cds, the can be 3dprinted/listened/depicted/sensed even smelled and everyone can sense them and understand their characteristics. It's not the only thing we can measure but can't see straight ahead. Maybe the final experience of each person is different, like in colours, but we all recognize the same thing. I believe thoughts and imagination microexist as long as they have results. There are also theories that the information is all in our head, others say that every info is all over the environment but we can access them (relatad photons) and that brain is like a micrographic model of universe (like pc of brain :P), and I believe so. Quantics say that what you observe, changes universe at least microphysically, and we know is thinking is before creating (your future). I believe there is no me and you, at least here in reality, but it's all one, and all together one, and all together one etc.. and we could access it fully but we don't know how. Like the matrix spoon kid said: "There is no spoon" Ideas are like the prototype info of future reality, or real things/ situations, like dna to animals, and they micro exist, but we have to decode them.
hehe maybe god is this whole 100% deterministic 100% self concious hyperorganism we call universe :P that it self is the measurment of it self 8O i go to sleep

Wow, you just put the right words on thoughts I also have had!
Excellent! Thanks a lot!

I'm not alone! This feels good..   :embarrass:
Thx for helping me get to this point where I finally can put words to it at all. Your program was a fundamental companion on that still continueing journey..


Isn't that sheer wonderful...  easy (and nice) to get sentimental on.. :,-)