Exactly. The eyes "drift apart," which is how the image presents itself. If you cross your eyes the image is reversed. That is, it pops away from you instead of out at you.

Wow I've never done that. It hurts to cross my eyes.

"Why order from Chaos?"

1. They have the best Won Ton soup in town.
2. They deliver within a ten-mile radius.
3. Cheapest prices in town.
4. Order two happy meals for one, and you get one more for the price of two more.
5. Their delivery boys are sizzling HOT. And the order taking girl is Sweet and Sour. The cook is piping hot. The owner is Yellow-hot.

Personal forces are natural, too. I think. They are found in nature.

I remember I had huge big conceptual problems with "nature" and "natural" in grade three when they taught us about it in school.

The new theory that I am considering is that there is no disorder. This is my post from another thread:

Different degrees of Order

In the 1960's Bohm began to take a closer look at order. Classical science generally divides things into two categories: those that possess order in the arrangement of their parts and those whose parts are disordered, or random, in arrangement.

Snowflakes, computers, and living things are all ordered. The pattern a handful of spilled coffee beans makes on the floor, the debris left by an explosion, and a series of numbers generated by a roulette wheel are all disordered.

As Bohm delved more deeply into the matter he realized there were also different degrees of order. Some things were much more ordered than other things, and this implied that there was, perhaps, no end to the hierarchies of order that existed in the universe.

From this it occurred to Bohm that maybe things that we perceive as disordered aren't disordered at all. Perhaps their order is of such an "indefinitely high degree" that they only appear to us as random (interestingly, mathematicians are unable to prove randomness, and although some sequences of numbers are categorized as random, these are only educated guesses.)

((BTW this is the same idea I have expressed for things having "degrees of consciousness."))

Rightfully so. Even mathematicians cannot define randomness in a meaningful way. So we don't don't even have a meaningful definition of disorder anyway.

So whether we order our pizza from Chan's Chaos or Duncan's Disorder we'll still get a pizza that looks just as orderly as one that we might order from Tidy's Take-out.

Stop making me hungry, you two!

Well I got to the same place, but by a somewhat different route. I’ve always thought of order as being relative. But I never took it any farther than “relative to a viewpoint”.

The example in the "other" thread was taking a structure of legos and smashing it. The claim was that the original structure was "ordered" and the smashed structure was "disordered". But then if you smash it some more, doesn’t it become "more disordered".

But that’s from the viewpoint of the observer.

I just never heard it stated quite the way Bohm did it – from the perspective of a quantum physicist.

Good stuff Jeannie.

Therefore, the chaos that is my house, is not chaos at all, it is just an "indefinitely high degree" of order.

Wow. That changes everything.

I love it!!

So what does this new revelation of "indefinitely high degree" of order change?

Well, here is the logic: If this is TRUE:

THEN:

Every tiny speck of what we think of as "disorder" does have specific causes, and the "butterfly effect" is also true. These causes cannot be known.

It also means that we must take full responsibility for our personal reality in the sense of the "causation" that arises from what we think and do and how we react to the explicate order of things.

Also, since the holographic nature of the universe indicates that we are all 'connected' via the deeper levels of reality that David Bohm calls the implicate order, (which means enfolded) order, our own level of existence (The explicate, or unfolded order) is affected by everything else and it seems to arise (unfold) from the deeper levels of our own existence or observation point.

Simply put, if I stumble over a piece of clutter in my house I am responsible. If I pull out in front of a semi and my car stalls and I get killed, I am responsible. (which I almost did yesterday.)

Where I am, what I do and think, is part of the "indefinitely high degree" of order that arises from me personally in my personal reality.

My personal realization is that I have more control over my reality than I previously thought.

Not to toot my own horn here but...

Toot Toot!


I have been saying, since almost my first day on this forum: "You create your own reality". (One may replace "create" with "unfold" if one wishes. )

So have I. Haven't you noticed?

Of course I have. That's the point of most fundamental agreement between our personal philosophies. We came to that agreement way back when.

So let's play a duet...

You want to take the melody or the haramony?

Toot Toot!

... just like there's a method to every chaos!!!

Chaos is order, from the random event comes all possible scenarios
, it seems like a logical progression of an order in the event itself.
If all possibilites are in the chaos then order is in it by its existance in itself...

Well, that's basically like saying that every rock contains the finished sculpture of every artist's imagination.

But are those finished scultures really there? Or do they merely exist as potentiality in the minds of the artitsts?

I was thinking about this not very long ago. Imagine a digtial camera. You may even own one. That camera produces a digital 'number', that number is indeed finite. It's not an infinte number. But how many different pictures can that camera take?

Now that's an interesting question!

Is there anything that camera can't take a picture of?

That camera should be able to take a picture of anything that you can 'see'. It never comes up on the display and says, "Sorry I can't produce a number to match that picture.

If you point it at something and click, you'll get a picture of whatever you pointed it at.

Now isn't that a bit odd?

In a sense, that camera basically must be able to take infinitely many different pictures with no reason to be unable to take any particular picture. However, it can only produce a finite number of numbers!

Something is really fishy about that doncha thing?

That's when the camera wears out.

It sounds a lot fishier than it is. The camera assigns number values to colors and pixels. For each picture the numbers are recorded for what color is in what pixel and stores it. The camera has only as many numbers as it has colors and pixels.

I'm sure it can't take pictures of anything outside the visible light spectrum, because why would it?

I think you guys are missing the point here about the camera.



I'm not talking about how many pictures it can take in total count. I'm talking about how many different pictures it can take in theory.

For every picture that it takes it must produce a number. And that number is finite. It has to be a finite number. When you transfer any picture from that camera into your computer what you are truly doing is downloading a finite number. And as LaMuerte points out, that number is indeed limited by the number of pixles the camera uses. But understanding how the techology of digital cameras work, doesn't change anything. The only fact that needs to be considered is that the camera necessary must produce a finite number. Or to put this another way, it must produce a permutation of a finite number of pixles which is indeed a finite number.

To illustrate this consider that we only have 2 pixles in a very simple black and white camera (i.e. each pixel is either on or off.

In that extremely limited "camera" we could only produce FOUR pictures based on the following pixel configurations:

00
01
10
11

That's all that camera can produce because it's working with only 2 bits. It's a cheap 2-bit camera.

So it can only produce four "pictures". (they wouldn't be very much to look at). It's just two pixels each one being either on or off.

Of course this grows exponentially. If we have a 4-bit camera we could take 16 pictures. With a 8-bit camera we could take 256 pictures and so on.

Of course real digital camaras use lots of bits. My digital camera had 4 million bits. So it can produce a huge amount of pictures (for more than 4 million). In fact it would be 2 to the power of 4 million. That's a huge number, but it's still a finite number and not infinity.

However, in theory, this picture should be able to take a picture of anything in the universe (within the confines of what a light-sensitive camera can do like LaMuerte points out).

In other words, if you can SEE it with your eyes, this camera should be able to take a picture of it.

But what does that mean? That means that this camera must produce a finite number to represent that picture. And it's only capable of producing a finite number of finite numbers!

That's the key to the problem right there.

Now getting back to asking what can this camera take a picture of?

Well, in theory it should be able to take a picture of anything you can see with your eyes (from any angle, and over time as the object changes)

That last part is best understood as follows: I can take a picture of your face and it's a very nice picture I can easily recognize who you are from that picture. Plus if you smile, I can see that. If you make a pouty face I can see that in the picture, if you stick your tonge out at me I can see that. I can back off and take your full body shot. You can wear different clothes and I can take a picture of all the different outfits that you can wear and see it in the picture.

In theory I could take infinitely many picture of a single subject!

This camera nees to produce a number that corresponds to that picture! But it can only produce a finite number of finite numbers!

Yet it never complains and says, "Sorry I can't produce the number to match the picture you want to take!" It'll take a picture of anything you want. (assuming there's proper lighting) It even has a flash to help with that in the dark!

So I should be able to take infinitely many pictures of each and every individual with this camera and it should never complain that it can't produce the number associated with that picture!

Also, I can imagine having sex with some sexy movie star. Well, if I did such a thing, this camera (in theory) should be able to take pictures of the whole sexy affair.

What does that mean?

That means that this camera must be able to produce those numbers as well. In theory if I knew what those numbers were I should be able to load them into my computer as 'pictures' and see myself having sex with beautiful movie stars.

In other words, every conceivable picture that I can even imagine must have a number associated with it that this camera can produce!

And it doesn't even stop there!

In theory if I took this camera with me back in time, I should be able to take pictures of Jesus and Mary Magdalene (assuming they actually existed) and Alexander the Great, and Leonardo Divinci, and every human who ever lived. I should also be able to go back further in time and take pictures of dinosaurs from every possible angle doing every little thing they do.

In theory this little digital camera should be able to produce all of those pictures without a problem.

What does that mean? That means that there must be numbers for them that could be 'typed in' to this camera to produce them.

It also means that this camera should be able to produce a close-up photo of every face of every animal and human that has ever lived.

Yet this camera can only produce a finite number of finite numbers!

It's there something paradoxical about that?

No matter what you point this camera at, it will take the picture and never complain that it can't produce the number required to take that picture.

Yet it can only produce a finite number of finite numbers. Therefore mathematically speaking it should only be able to produce a finite number of different pictures. But in theory there's no reason why there should be any limit on how many different pictures it can take. It never complains that it can't produce a picture!

I find that quite intriguing and hard to digest.

That's my whole point.

It's working with a finite number, yet there's no reason to believe that there exists a picture that it can't take (assuming correctly lighting).

Doesn't that seem odd to you?