A fractal way of making sense of our experiences. Please contribute!

[jehovajah]

So somebody start with what empiricism is and how we can revise it to reflect fractal notions, please.

Joseph Locke may be a good start, i dunno.

Maybe Benoit may be a better start.

Of course i have some ideas, but this ain' t my blog!  

[jehovajah]

This is a fundamental breakthrough, and the sort of thing i think of when meditating on fractal empiricism.

Any thought s or comments on it?

Fractal woman said something fractal about Buddhist philosophy and world view here. Any comments on that?

[jehovajah]

Ok, then.

Is there any scientific basis to Astrology, given the collapse of the Newtonian view of God in the machine?

I think recent thinking is heading that way despite a desperate steer away from such thinking!

[jehovajah]

Al righty!

Do we now have an empirical and fractal basis for autogenesis, or do we have empirical fractal proof of the existence of a supreme God?

Come on! somebody take a bite!

[visual.bermarte]

an ontology for geometry > http://www.astro.umd.edu/~eshaya/astro-onto/ontologies/geometry.html

[jehovajah]

an ontology for geometry > http://www.astro.umd.edu/~eshaya/astro-onto/ontologies/geometry.html

Since this is for everyone, can you give a rough idea of what empiricism is, what ontology is and how they relate to our everyday concerns?

Why would we want an ontology of geometry as empiricists?

As fractal empiricists is this ontology adequate to the fractal view?

[visual.bermarte]

Hi, just a quick answer..
I'm not an ontologist myself..it was just an idea.
Ontology is something used in philosophy and computer-science..could be more or less formal..it's just a simple (?) way to give shape to knowledge using a system of axioms..
from google>(computer science) a rigorous and exhaustive organization of some knowledge domain that is usually hierarchical and contains all the relevant entities and their relations.
Is it useful? can't tell..not so much maybe..would be adequate? it's possible.
Is there a problem with empiricism? don't think so
..
empiricism:the application of empirical methods in any art or science..
from wiki:
A pursuit of knowledge purely through experience, especially by means of observation and sometimes by experimentation; A doctrine which holds that the only or, at least, the most reliable source of human knowledge is experience, especially perception by means of the physical senses. ...

[jehovajah]

Thank you so much visual for starting the thread off on the right track! Respect!

I was going to write, as a provoker:

Science is commonly stated to be empirical and not related to or in need of a god. But how can this be, when it relies on the agencies of gods and godesses the chief ones being Natura, the goddess of nature and Logos the god of reason. How can prof Dawkins maintain his position as an atheist in the light of that observation?

I was then going to remind that I hope that we could move toward a fractal concept of empiricism, whatever that means, rather than a defence for and against prof Dawkins!

I believe without hyprbole that we have the greatest practitioners of "fractal magic" in the world, right here in this forum. So who better to opine on fractal empiricism?

I hope now that we might take some time to really understand, compare contrast and define what empiricism and ontology means in simple everyday language and ways of speech.

The reason I am not taking a leading role in defining is I habitually tend to confuse with my language!

So, over to you whoever you are who wants to contribute. I value everyones insight, particularly those who have not been spoilt by too much " education" !

[jehovajah]

So do ghosts happen? Do the dead speak to us through Sally Morgan?
Is Dark energy a cop out?

[Sockratease]

So do ghosts happen? Do the dead speak to us through Sally Morgan?
Is Dark energy a cop out?

Yes, No, and Maybe.

In that order.   

[Tabasco Raremaster]

Ok, then.

Is there any scientific basis to Astrology, given the collapse of the Newtonian view of God in the machine?

I think recent thinking is heading that way despite a desperate steer away from such thinking!

Pythagoras once said or wrote ; God is the devine math artist.

The Latin term; Deus Ex Machina (the god out of the machine) already existed way before Newton was born.

Why searching for the proof of the creators existence ?
                                                                           Better use that time to enjoy it`s creation.

 

[jehovajah]

So do ghosts happen? Do the dead speak to us through Sally Morgan?
Is Dark energy a cop out?

Yes, No, and Maybe.

In that order.   

Is that an empirical yes? If so would you care to elaborate on that?

Similarly is that an empirical no? How can you negate the assertion empirically?

Hmmm , maybe. i will reserve question until you comment further.

[jehovajah]

Ok, then.

Is there any scientific basis to Astrology, given the collapse of the Newtonian view of God in the machine?

I think recent thinking is heading that way despite a desperate steer away from such thinking!

Pythagoras once said or wrote ; God is the devine math artist.

The Latin term; Deus Ex Machina (the god out of the machine) already existed way before Newton was born.

Why searching for the proof of the creators existence ?
                                                                           Better use that time to enjoy it`s creation.

 

My mum told me god exists and jesus saved her. Why should i believe Pythagoras and not my dear old mum( now deceased)?

Which latin wit coined "Deus Ex Machina (the god out of the machine)", and why should i accept his/her description over Newton's? Newton by the way believed in God but accepted in part a philosophy due to Descartes. Why should i accept Descartes description?

[David Makin]

OK, I'll bite - but first I state that I am only an armchair philosopher and only vaguely aware of terms such as ontology, empiricism etc.

My own beliefs that differ from what appears to be the standard "norms" (scientific and theological both) are:

1. "God" is not an observer, external to existence, nor Creator of said existence but rather the totality of Existence.
2. Existence is Fractal.
3. Based on 1&2 God is everywhere and both within and without everything.
4. Time is not the 4th dimension, in fact it's not a dimension at all, it's merely a consequence of change of state.
5. I believe mass should be considered as the *real* 4th dimension - but if (for instance) there were only 4 (as in say quaternions) then mass would be the *first* dimension (i.e. the *real* axis in quaternions).
6. A reason for 5: Clearly spatial energy and mass are interchangeable therefore mass *has* to be a dimension i.e. nuclear reaction is simply rotation of mass into space.
7. Question - is "Mass" relative position or relative "speed" along the mass dimension ? I'd say relative speed.

Plus an alternative to the big bang (needs a little visualisation):

Rather than a big bang resulting initially in expanding "plasma" consider an infinite of "plasma" that then coalesces into clumps, said clumps continue to coalesce *and* shrink, in such a way that some become linked (by gravitational forces) (galaxies) but overall they continue to coalesce (shrink) so that the relative distances between them *based on their own shrinking scale* become larger and larger *though the whole remains infinite*.

Possibilities if Existence is fractal - Astrology could be valid, zero-content homeopathy could be valid, zero-point energy would certainly be valid....

[David Makin]

I should add that I sincerely believe the only undeniable "true fact" is "I think therefore I am", beyond that everything is speculation.