I think he means you could have sent me a "Private Message" instead of posting in the physics community.
I get the sense you are pretty new to the internet or at least online communities, discussion groups, etc.?
Probably not the place, here in the physics group, to be discussing the likes of Castaneda's works.
And I think the term is "universal filaments."
Don't be fooled, though: numbers seem to be the creation of people and do not seem present in nature.
That said, there appears to be number-like entities in nature, but they seem as pseudo-objects without shape or definitive form: numbers appear to be real insofar as they seem omnipresent, yet exist nowhere, and take the shape they need to in order to be identified as such. They seem, in a sense, as place holders or positions in a structure. How an observer views a given structure decides which objects will become which numbers: it seems a relational means of both manifestation and identification.
Although, I'd hazard that any entity with any sort of consciousness can probably at least count: One (self), Other (not self).
But, yes, "strings" and "universal filaments": seems to be some sort of overlap there; although, there is no math to Castaneda's theoretical entities, and, I dare say, there is no sorcery to the theoretical entities of physics.
Now, if you want to talk about mathemagicks, on the other hand, well, we can create all sorts of interesting theoretical entities!
Not really appropriate subject matter for this community though, I'd reckon.
I get the sense you are pretty new to the internet or at least online communities, discussion groups, etc.?
Probably not the place, here in the physics group, to be discussing the likes of Castaneda's works.
And I think the term is "universal filaments."
Don't be fooled, though: numbers seem to be the creation of people and do not seem present in nature.
That said, there appears to be number-like entities in nature, but they seem as pseudo-objects without shape or definitive form: numbers appear to be real insofar as they seem omnipresent, yet exist nowhere, and take the shape they need to in order to be identified as such. They seem, in a sense, as place holders or positions in a structure. How an observer views a given structure decides which objects will become which numbers: it seems a relational means of both manifestation and identification.
Although, I'd hazard that any entity with any sort of consciousness can probably at least count: One (self), Other (not self).
But, yes, "strings" and "universal filaments": seems to be some sort of overlap there; although, there is no math to Castaneda's theoretical entities, and, I dare say, there is no sorcery to the theoretical entities of physics.
Now, if you want to talk about mathemagicks, on the other hand, well, we can create all sorts of interesting theoretical entities!
Not really appropriate subject matter for this community though, I'd reckon.
Reply
Leave a comment