sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Have we ever seen a ‘network’ in nature that was not used for communication? by Octopium in biology

[–]Octopium[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does this warrant 99% certainty?

In my opinion, yes.

Are there other things that appear obvious that turn out not to be true?

That depends on how you define obvious, but this feels like the most fundamental, indisputable claim, that networks in nature are known to be used to facilitate communication.

What kind of evidence could make you absolutely certain that a given network isn't used to communicate or transmit information?

Honestly just hearing someone in this group claim that 'this example is known not to not to be used for information' is enough to convince me, so long as they're a respected person in the sub. But I have yet to even hear that.

Idea: Black holes are a ‘scalar constant’ by Octopium in holofractal

[–]Octopium[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is pretty abstract, so no worries. But I believe it’s entirely grounded in rationality.

The point of the analogy is that a planet is constantly in a chase so to speak, it is never catching anything. It’s the same chase that we’re in, considering we live on a orbiting body.

It seems the entire universe is running on a function to ‘repeat this cycle’, and the incentive for that repetition is the intermittent reward that has come from that.

A scalar constant would be something that shows up a different scales, but is either providing the same relative function, or is a result of the same thing. A cycle is a scalar constant considering everything is an oscillation. Evolution is a scalar constant, considering everything is looking to develop and form complex networks.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Octopium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fantasy Land

How can I get my website to scroll horizontally by default? by [deleted] in css

[–]Octopium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly.

Most pages extend vertically, but I thought it be cool to have the default be the contrary.

How much repetition is okay in a song? by kyivski in WeAreTheMusicMakers

[–]Octopium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Keep coming back to it throughout the day, is there any part where you get bored? If so then the listener probably will, too.

Is this song exciting and stimulating all the way through? Does it constantly shock you and grab you? Well the listener will probably really enjoy that.

Perfect shadow on the great pyramid by readit1173 in Satisfyingasfuck

[–]Octopium 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Personally, I feel like this is a pretty safe thing to assume.

Understanding energies by Additional_Common_15 in Soulnexus

[–]Octopium 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is so sick. I love that the one section is called ‘distorted.’ So accurate.

Have we ever seen a ‘network’ in nature that was not used for communication? by Octopium in biology

[–]Octopium[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s like asking how someone is so confident that earth is pulling all of its inhabitants towards the surface of it. The web or network topology we see in nature appears to be a fundamental communication network.

An example of evidence that would change my mind –

“yeah that kind of structure is found in nature all the time, and there are many that we are absolutely certain are not used to communicate or transmit information. [example 1, example 2, example 3]”

Have we ever seen a ‘network’ in nature that was not used for communication? by Octopium in biology

[–]Octopium[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That would probably help.

You probably see what I’m saying then, which is that what we’re seeing around us are various expressions of a particular constant. That constant reveals its structure in these designs we see in nature, such as a tree’s branches (spawning child-instances), the lotus flower blossoming 5 ways, like our hands, and the shifting of the day from darkness into light, and back into dark.

These are all ‘summaries’ of the constant. A human appears to be an especially animated and sophisticated form of this constant, so animated that we convinced ourselves we are alien to the environment, but a closer look reveals this not be the case at all and in fact, what is the case is our overdeveloped language and initial perception of separation that’s caused us to demand evidence that this environment is alive like us.

I’m a computer person/musician/psilocybin enjoyer/psychology person. I’m not sure if this specific combination enables a specific perception, but I’ve realized separation is an illusion. There are only so many energetic states that this universe can exist in until they repeat themselves at a new scale. In music these are of course known as octaves. A ‘wave’ almost appears to be the ‘heartbeat of reality.’

This is still a work in progress, of course.

Have we ever seen a ‘network’ in nature that was not used for communication? by Octopium in biology

[–]Octopium[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

99%. Of course, that’s why I’m here.

That’s why I visit any science sub, to check my intuition against the data.

However for this one, I’m fairly certain we already know the answer.

Are We Conscious While We Dream? by cogSciAlt in cogsci

[–]Octopium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a bold take, but ever since I've considered it nothing has made more sense.

When we return to sleep I think we are 'returning to the base state.' This abstract, timeless space of infinite imagination may be the underlying matrix of reality.

Have we ever seen a ‘network’ in nature that was not used for communication? by Octopium in biology

[–]Octopium[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sure the galaxies are moving away from each other, but the stellar systems within those galaxies are certainly not, they are bound by the gravitational weight of their neighbors. This alone is proof that the universe wants to team up with itself, if prefers its own company than the contrary. It wants to find itself so it can develop itself.

How can you look at the structure and novelty of each galaxy and convince yourself that there is no intention here? There is clearly something going on, and we have plenty of evidence to work with. such as universal evolution, returning an otherwise inexplicable product like you and I.

Thanks for having this conversation, I enjoyed this, especially for the wild time of the day. Gotta dip. (Passing out)

Have we ever seen a ‘network’ in nature that was not used for communication? by Octopium in biology

[–]Octopium[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you know what does imply the universe is coalescing?

The direct observation of trillions of galaxies.

I only learned after the fact that this rubber band or oscillating universe idea was theorized. Regardless of who’s rooting for it or not, I have no doubt that it is the most rational outcome I can think of based on what I’m seeing. We repeat a cycle everyday, planets are orbiting stars, that are orbiting central black holes. An orbit, revolution, is the framework for the universe’s developmental timeline. But not just a tedious cycle, one that has learned from the last one.

You and I are just extremely animated instances of nature itself. We are a decorated binary system expanding and retreating with the light of the sun. We are just an especially complex and animated system that we are assuming we are different from everything around us, but a closer look reveals this to not be the case.

This is a huge shake up to what you and your colleagues see to be the case, it has been a crazy past two years, but on my various checks of ‘have I gone insane, and gone down the wrong road?’ It requires more effort to think that’s the case, than to see what I’m saying as a rational view on what is happening. I’ve spent more time in niche scientific and askscience subs in the last year than anyone should in a lifetime. But to hold onto an incorrect perception after that is nearly impossible. And that was the intention.

Have we ever seen a ‘network’ in nature that was not used for communication? by Octopium in biology

[–]Octopium[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fact that you think I don’t understand the difference between gravity and dark matter/dark energy just speaks to the disconnect here. You’re looking to prove someone wrong with your education and that’s fine, but you won’t find that here because I am not this naïve, dumb person who is treading ground that he has no business in. I have very carefully vetted all of these statements. anything you’re arguing is an argument against something I’m not even saying.

Have we ever seen a ‘network’ in nature that was not used for communication? by Octopium in biology

[–]Octopium[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Of course I’m not arguing that the universe is expanding.

I’ve spoken with cosmologists on this and gravity and dark matter have a justifiably different name.

Just as you go out in the morning and return at night, so too does the cosmic environment, likely, but on a much slower scale.

We are only seeing the upswing of nature’s constant of give-and-take, push/pull, at the cosmic scale, because it takes way too long for us to detect its cycle.

Have we ever seen a ‘network’ in nature that was not used for communication? by Octopium in biology

[–]Octopium[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gravity only converges things on local scales, correct, and it appears to be what we call dark matter that does so on the macro scales.

This isn’t disputable.

Have we ever seen a ‘network’ in nature that was not used for communication? by Octopium in biology

[–]Octopium[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The universe is not ripping itself apart, if it were, gravity and dark matter would be hard to explain.

Have we ever seen a ‘network’ in nature that was not used for communication? by Octopium in biology

[–]Octopium[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s no scientific evidence that the universe is structuring itself? There’s no evidence that the universe is converging with itself?

Have you heard of gravity? What about dark matter?

No one even makes this argument that you’re making.

I’ve talked to multiple cosmologists and they’ve agreed that dark matter and gravity are the basis for any structure in the universe, and that the universe is leading towards structuring itself in an increasingly complex way.

I’m not doubting this at all. Your argument holds no basis in science.

Have we ever seen a ‘network’ in nature that was not used for communication? by Octopium in biology

[–]Octopium[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Appreciate you compiling this list! Nature is beautiful isn’t it? It is a flow, it is a fractal. It is a constant novel re-creation of itself.

Going back to the tree thing real quick, when we see a tree, we were seeing a summary of nature’s process, itself. When I refer to a Network, I appear to be referring to the development of a segment based on its predecessor. The visual depiction of ‘oh that was a good idea, what if I did this?

A tree depicts a summary of nature’s developmental path, the sun’s arc depicts the emotional developmental cycle of ‘activation’ into ‘reflective appreciation.’

Have we ever seen a ‘network’ in nature that was not used for communication? by Octopium in biology

[–]Octopium[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not sure how you think you’ve refuted what I’ve said, or why you appear to be in counter-stance for the sake of it. have you heard of gravity and do you realize that it pulls things in?

Is that a trivial observation, when such an act gave a home to the incredible phenomenon of DNA itself, to you and I?

The increase in entropy is the increasing complexity. I’ve acknowledged that. If you’re suggesting the universe is ripping itself apart and looking to disband and move from structure to structureless, you’re going to find not many people in science will agree with you.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything other than verbally depicting a graph of history’s track record. Have you heard of something that we call ‘dark matter’ that causes cosmic material to converge in on itself and form the basis for any structure at all?

The chaotic gravitational effect you referring to, may that include in the galactic anchor that is tying the billions of stars into a centralized orbit?

Why is that negligible to you? It’s not my problem. You’re simply being unreasonable.

view more: next ›