Hey /x/, Have you ever noticed how when you look at a camera

File: stjacket (6).jpg (18KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x300px

>I think I may be onto something here guys.

OP thinks everything is made out of salt and/or glass.

>>17160015
Scientist call those "atoms"

>>17160015
>I can see coloured pixels all the time, most prominently when I close my eyes or in the dark

Reality-is-a-simulation theories aside, does anyone know what this is?

>I think I may be onto something here guys.
kek
fractals and shit son
nature and everything follows some kind of pattern

>>17160015
I think your on something too

>>17160028
No, a shirt is made out of cotton and stuff, but if you go down far enough, it would be pixels.

>>17160040
I believe in atoms, I just think they might be pixels.

>>17160048
It is probably the way you percieve pixels. Ever notice how when you open your eyes, your vision is always fucked up? it's because your eyes focus diffeently, whoch is why you see the pixels, backlit by the light of the son.

>>17160058
>fractals
>pixels

>>17160015
>I think I may be onto something here guys.
Sage.

>>17160098
I suppose. My optometrist said he'd never heard of anything like it. Imagine what it's like to be me: everything I look at is surrounded by fucking coloured pixels. I don't know what darkness is like, because it's always coloured. Please help.

File: 1443755475875.jpg (41KB, 374x374px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 374x374px

What?

File: pixel.jpg (45KB, 670x408px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 670x408px

>>17160329

>>17160329
did you do a lot of acid in your youth?

OP I am amazed, not shitting you or sarcazam. Its interesting, but I guess that there is stupid explonation.

>>17160582
I did a lot of 25i a few years ago, but this has been around for as long as I can remember. The "acid" made it worse when I was doing it, but it's back to how it was before I ever tried drugs: ever-present and distracting.

Why hasn't Spirit Science covered this!?!?

>>17160015
Oy vey! The goyim know! :^(

>another thread that doesn't belong on /x/
delete it, thx

bismuth forms "squares" because of crystal lattice structure. It only forms the rainbow crystals when properly melted and frozen in its pure form.

Pixels are made from tiny little squares of materials that can be made to glow electronically and are not monocrystals.

>>17160098
How can you BELIEVE in atoms?
Not a matter of belief. They be real

>>17161153
Spirit Science is the Blue Pill version of spiritualism.

>>17161589
If you really want a mind blower. The atoms in your body will never "touch" any other atom. When you touch something, the electrons around the atoms in your hand are repelled by the negative charge in the atoms of the object you are touching. Also there's no such thing as colour. Too long to explain but it's all white light being refracted. Look up the colour spectrum on wiki. Also light take time to travel. Ever heard it takes 8 minutes for light to reach the earth from the sun? Lights takes time to travel no matter how small the distance. Everything you see is the light being reflected off the object you are looking at. It takes time to get to your eyes. A very small amount of time but never less, measurable. So everything you've ever seen is slightly in the past. So you've never seen anything in the present. You are always looking into the past

>>17160098
You are retarded. They are called voxels you cock sucking nigger.

>>17161589
Have you seen an atom? You believe in them because you have been taught to believe in them.

>>17161656
Have you ever seen a million dollars cash? You beleive it exists because you have been taught to.
Honestly man, what you say is retarded. I bet you believe in ghosts but not atoms. But it doesn't matter. Because you don't need to BELEIVE in them for them to exist. Please, turn your computer off, destroy your phone and never watch TV again. Because all those things are based in our general understanding of elementary particles.

>>17161674
I didn't say i do not believe in atoms, and i don't believe in ghosts. Sperg out somewhere else.

>>17161674
and yes, I have seen a million in cash, multiple times, used to work in a bank vault.

>>17160015
Yeah, that episode of Steven Universe where the Bismuth crystal comes into play is gonna be SUPER rad.

>>17160015
Pixels are utilized because a round or triangular unit would be a nightmare to deal with. A pixel has four sides facing every direction equally.

Salts don't form "pixels", but they form crystalline structures because of their bonds.

Glass breaks "straight" because it is also crystalline and the bonds break based on the nature of impact

>>17161612
Most of what you said isn't wrong, but the last part suffers from one small issue
>implying time

>>17161690
Well, you've seen a million in cash.
The existence of atoms must be a matter of beleif then

>>17161687
You said "I beleive in atoms" which is just as retarded as saying you don't

>>17161788
He was basically saying like what if what we know as atoms, could actually be pixels. He didn't say he believed they didn't exist.

File: 1445804221740.jpg (44KB, 329x399px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 329x399px

>>17161723
>Steven Universe
>SUPER rad

>>17161562
But tech has made good use of crystalline structure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid-crystal_display
http://www.geek.com/chips/the-chip-industry-runs-on-spruce-pines-high-quality-quartz-861442/

File: IMG_20151222_125554_085.jpg (10KB, 165x185px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 165x185px

>>17160098
Now man, what's a pixel ?

A square or rectangle, that makes up things.
It's funny how the human mind prefer squares and four-sided spaces. To us it makes sense and it's reasuring. Look at basic architecture. Look at everything around you, and tell me we're not fucking four-sided maniacs.

Now reconsider your point. Why again are you considering and even finding elements showing that you see in little squares ? Are you sure you just aren't looking for pixels in the first place because it's comforting ?

>>17162668
No he said "I beleive in atoms" which I have already stated is retarded. Not a matter of belief

Bismuth is my nigga

>>17162954
if you think it's so retarded why are you even bothering to argue about it

File: e8629a70654f6b4fc53a2f1bff0cc47b90a1ed9ebdc7c504c2dc0e0d01ff4bef[1].jpg (58KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x338px

>>17160015

>>17162954
Yes it is. Atoms are described by atomic theory, they are a useful explanation for a series of phenomena. Furthermore, everything outside of yourself is taken on a basis of belief. Belief in the scientific method that confirms the atomic theory, belief in the instruments used to show atomic theory is right, belief that you're seeing the right results and these are correctly processed by your brain.
I'm not saying it's an unreasonable belief at all, it's more reasonable than whatever retarded shit OP is arguing, but it's still a matter of belief.

>>17163205
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/this-microscope-can-see-down-to-individual-atoms

We've actually been able to do it for about 30 years. IBM laboratorys was the first. Bill gates made an atomic engraver that could engrave the Microsoft logo on individual atoms. Please look into things before spouting your "beliefs". Beliefs are toxic. Beleifs are blind faith. Beliefs are for the weak and afraid

File: tumblr_njdvaodBY51un2z4no5_1280.png (818KB, 770x756px) Image search: [Google]

818KB, 770x756px

>>17163494
Well, to begin with you can't really "see" an atom, photons have a wavelength too big for them to be reflected and whatnot. Also, you can't "engrave" something on an individual atom, you can make something really tiny as in a few atoms big, but you can't "engrave" something on an atom.

And still, that doesn't address my point at all Mr Fedora. You're still trusting the electron microscope that detects atoms and constructs an image of them, you're still trusting that the reactions are due to there being something, you're still trusting that the information that you can observe and is presented to you, and you are still trusting that this information is universal. These aren't stupid assumptions, they're good because they're useful and it's really useful to believe in the scientific method as unlike whatever crazy shit OP is saying they help us accomplish goals. But essentially all is belief, see brain in a vat, Boltzmann brain, etc.
There are no objective metaphysical truths, someone as fedora as you shouldn't be as philosophically shadow about his fedora. Please look into not being so flat before spouting your "truths".

>>17160048
Probably just some of the receptors in your eye firing off randomly for some reason. I get it too, its called visual white noise. Quite possible it happens all the time for everyone and the brain usually just filters it out, like when you stop hearing a clock ticking.

>>17163550
So photons are reflected, your eyes detect them, so the object is real. An electron is reflected, an electron microscope detects it, but you have to believe that it can detect it to believe the object is real? No theory can be proven definitively. But some have mountains of evidence and phycical application that make them all but definitively proven. Why is water always 2/1 hydrogen, oxygen? If these particles didn't exist, we'd find all sorts of divisions. I'm too tired to argue whether atoms are real or not. It's quite ridiculous. Take your tinfoil off and likeI said, if you don't "beleive". Turn off your computer, destroy your phone and never watch a TV again.

>>17163550
And yeh I was wrong. It's a molecular engraver that can carve 1 atom thick lines. I'm tired and i saw that 10 years ago. I'm not putting that much effort into a ridiculous argument and not much thought either. That article was the first on my google search and I haven't even read it. That's how much effort I put into it. There's a reason philosiphy is not considered a science because "yeh man, it could be real, but then again it might all be nothing!!!" Deep, deep stuff (eyes rolling)

>>17164230
>Of course we have seen atoms, here's proof
>Disproved
>Oops, that proof was completely wrong, actually I never even read it, but I still insist I am right and will roll my eyes smugly

>>17160329
This is normal. They're called phosphenes. Everyone sees them, especially when they push down on their eyes or stare at bright lights that are pulsating or having a strobe effect.

Not everyone sees them as geometric patterns, but I have ever since I was a kid. These are NOT as vivid or distinct as Close-eyed visuals/hallucinations, which typically are a lot more detailed and aren't just pure geometric patterns for me, and are almost always due to mushrooms or extremely high marijuana doses.

>>17164136
>So photons are reflected, your eyes detect them, so the object is real
This is an assumption, you believe that what your eyes detect is real

> An electron is reflected, an electron microscope detects it
This is a bigger assumption


> Take your tinfoil off and likeI said, if you don't "beleive".
I do believe, I'm just stating it is a belief, Mr Fedora

>>17165153
Not a beleif when the acceptance of the material is based on phycical proof and repeatable experimental results pointing to evidence. As I said. Philosophise all you want. Who knows I might just be a simulation? (Rolling eyes again)

>>17164426
Please, sit down child. I was talking about the engraver

>>17160015
No. You're not into anything. That's just how the particles align themselves due to their natural attraction to one another. In most cases what we perceive as a perfect edge or angle is actually off by a measurable amount. A good example would be bullet proof glass, when shattered it can form into seemingly perfect cubes or rectangles when in all reality and under the examination of a decent microscope you'll notice how dissorganized and shitty the whole thing looks.

>>17165787
According to Wikipedia "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."
Can you empirically prove a scientifically deducted theory is universal? Can you empirically prove your perception of reality is in fact reality itself?

You can roll your eyes all you want because le atheist genius with no reading skills, but you can't redefine what belief means.

>>17160015
Your brain is a computer taking input from the outside world and interpreting it. Also if life were a simulation it would go directly to your brain, the physical limit of pixels would unnecessary. Also things still have patterns regardless if they're made pixels or not. But its not like anyone here couldn't come up with that themselves, right?

>>17160669
dats a hellofa drug :DDDD

hey op u ever notice thats not paranormal

go to fucking \r\photography or \r\stupidpfaggotssuckingcock or something

>>17160015
>I think I may be onto something here guys.
You've discovered crystal cubic cleavage. It's a real thing, and geologists have known about it for centuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_crystal_system

As for glass, it doesn't always break straight. Depending on the type of glass, it can break into any number of shapes.

>>17165831
>According to Wikipedia "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."

So you can ignore empirical evidence if you want but yes, modern science has empirical evidence.

>>17165831
Ignoring empirical evidence is called being a retard

>>17165957
Your reading skills are still pretty bad. You didn't answer either of my questions.
>So you can ignore empirical evidence if you want but yes, modern science has empirical evidence.
Scientific has empirical evidence within the framework of the scientific method, it can't prove any metaphysical truths. If we believe that the scientific method is true, which we do because it's useful to believe in it. If we accept the scientific method as true we can't deny atomic theory or the theory of evolution or the theory of gravitation. But this is all hinged on the scientific method being true, which hinges on the existence of universal verifiable truths, which itself cannot be proven because we don't know how the universe operated before us or how it operates beyond our range of observation or how it will operate 5 billion years, we can only guess these things through, you guessed it, the scientific method.
I don't know how it's so hard for someone over 15 to digest metaphysics.

>>17165976
Maybe all solipsists are

>>17166030
Pardon the 90 grammar errors, I don't write so good at 3am

>>17166030
You are a philosopher.retard. Not arguing with a philosiphor retard. Next time a car is coming towards you stop and wonder whether what your eyes are seeing is real, please. Scientific method is based on logic, reason, observation and experiment. I don't believe in anything! I accept logic and reason

>>17166031
I knew what you meant. For an abstract thinker you can be very literal

>>17166091
If a car is coming toward me I react because I believe that it is real and I'm not suffering from a hallucination. But that's belief. Logic and reason are also beliefs, reason and logic just human thought, the Earth doesn't reason to rotate around the sun and atoms don't reason to react with each other, reason exists only within the human mind and you accept its validity because it helps you. You can call it "accepting", but that's just another word for belief. I can't believe it's so hard for you to understand this.

File: b4343be21b009eeecbfd96c583f378ba.jpg (96KB, 640x550px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 640x550px

>>17160015

>>17166106
If you didn't believe the car would hit you, which makes it real. Whether you believe or not, the car will hit you. That is absolute

>>17166192
You're either still missing the point or misunderstanding language. You posit the situation that a car is approaching me, but that implies itself that the car's existence is empirically provable, that it is a truth in of itself that there is a steel rubber and silicon object moving toward a living bundle of carbon hydrogen oxygen and nitrogen. I believe that this is the case if I perceive a car coming toward me but there is no omniscient narrator in real life, I only know that I perceive a car approaching and because of previous experience or knowledge and the belief that what I have experienced before will apply to me now I move out of the way. Should I not move out of the way, i would believe at that moment I may be injured, but this might also be a dream, a simulation, or a hallucination and I cannot prove empirically that it isn't, there is no absolute proof what I experience now is real. That means that outside of the scientific method and human reasoning it is as valid to think that there is a car and it will collide with me as it is to think that there isn't one and it will instead change into a pterodactyl and fly into the World Trade Center.

>>17166236
No, I understand perfectly. But I reject the notion of questioning the cars existence in the first place. Metaphysics is retarded. Philosiphy has merit, but only to further the experiment and observation of reality. I live in the real world. The one where I can prove the car is real by not moving. There's no arguing with you because there are no absolutes in your world and that makes it easier for you to deal with reality. Get off the fence. Accept evidence. Let go of belief

>>17166278
>But I reject the notion of questioning the cars existence in the first place. Metaphysics is retarded. Philosiphy has merit, but only to further the experiment and observation of reality.
I agree up to here, I think metaphysics is a snake eating its own tail, I'm just stating that belief in reality IS crucial to existence, so when someone like OP gets out of your human reasoning "I use the word accept because it sounds better than believe" bubble you berate belief itself when belief is at the core of human reasoning itself, and failure to recognize that is just shallow thought typical of the fedoras who still argue with creationists about shit.

>>17166293
Beleif is a personal perspective and is ruining collective reasoning. You can't just believe what you want. Beliefs can be wrong. We are being thrown back to the dark ages by people like you who indulge these lunatics. The existence of the atom is NOT a matter of belief. You live in a world with all these modern comforts provided by scientific method then question its merit? Thank god primitive man was not so meta and when smashing two rocks together wondered "wait, are these rocks real?" When meta physics or philosiphy create or provide any sort of material value it may then be considered a science. But in 4000 years or so it's created nothing but confusion. Turn your computer off, destroy your phone and never watch a TV again. Have the guts to stand by your "beliefs". Live by them. I dare you

>>17166322
>collective reasoning
what is this, science by facebook? if everyone else believes it, then you will too, to fit in?
top fedora, faggot

>>17166322
>Beleif is a personal perspective and is ruining collective reasoning.
Oh, here comes angry atheist argument

>You can't just believe what you want.
Says who? Will you answer reason like some muh Enlightenment fucktard?

>We are being thrown back to the dark ages by people like you who indulge these lunatics
I'm indulging no one


>The existence of the atom is NOT a matter of belief
Restating your point isn't an argument.

>You live in a world with all these modern comforts provided by scientific method then question its merit?
I don't question the scientific method's merit, if you had any reading comprehension whatsoever you'd have read the 7 times I wrote before, the scientific method is great because it's useful, but you don't have to believe in objective reality to work within the scientific method. I also believe to work outside of it is a pretty poor way of making models for how stuff happens, and never argued against it despite your eagerness to argue about that because nothing else we've used has been as reliable.

You keep reading what you wanna read from my posts, I'm not saying the scientific method is worthless or human reasoning is shit, I'm just saying reasoning too is taken by belief, and that arguing for an objective reality is a pretty poor and shallow way of defending the scientific method.

>>17166356
You are so conflicted there is no arguing with you because you don't even know what you think. Choose a side. The only middle ground is for the coward

>>17166356
You stated the necessity of beleif in the scientific method for it to be valid. If that's not meta I don't know what is.

>>17166356
I'm not saying the scientific method is worthless or human reasoning is shit, I'm just saying reasoning too is taken by belief,

It's called evidence. It negates beleif

File: polygon-count-diminishing-returns-consoles.jpg (73KB, 625x313px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 625x313px

Pixels are how you display things on a screen you fucking moron. Models in simulations are made out of polygons, not pixels.

>>17166384
You haven't rebutted anything, there's no middle ground, stop speaking ambiguously.

>>17166416
No, I stated that you have to work within the scientific method and believe in it or you won't have such an easy time making models of the behavior of matter. This doesn't mean the models are objective truths.

>>17166442
>It's called evidence. It negates beleif
Stop speaking in empty platitudes and make an argument

>>17166471
>No, I stated that you have to work within the scientific method and believe in it or you won't have such an easy time making models of the behavior of matter. This doesn't mean the models are objective truths.

And you call me ambiguous. The argument is over. You are wrong. Beleif is useless. Evidence is king

>>17166511
>And you call me ambiguous. The argument is over. You are wrong. Beleif is useless. Evidence is king
Repeating I'm wrong doesn't make you right. I don't think you're very well suited for arguing, and I think your shortsightedness and staunchness are as bad as the staunchness of a fundamentalist. This is going nowhere

>>17166547
I agree this is going nowhere. Enjoyable for a while but frustrating in the end. We came to an impass a while back. We disagree. Let's leave it at that

>>17161612

I've watched vsauce too :^)

Ever heard of the farmer hypothesis? Imagine that you are a turkey on a farm, every day you are fed breakfast by the farmer. As a scientist turkey you now have evidence that every day the farmer feeds you breakfast. You decide to convert this evidence into belief that it is a law of reality that the farmer will bring you breakfast. Then thanksgiving morning comes around and the farmer slaughters and eats you. Evidence can be misleading and science is not infallible. Please note that this does not make it a useless venture.

>>17167096
Pavlov's Turkey (with a crueler ending)

>>17160048
Ever done LSD? I'm curious.

>>17163614
>>17160329
Yep. Visual snow. I have it too. My night vision blows. Its less noticeable in light but Its still there. I've done ALOT of entheogens and the visual snow tends to come out stronger for 6 months to a year then fades back to its normal level for me. I haven't found anything that fixes it. Then again I still get tracers if I wave my hand in front of my face or move my eyes looking at some lights. I've just come to accept the fact that its gonna be around and deal with it. I'm just curious as to what causes it.

>>17167096
That makes no sense. Since the farmer will vary, either being a few minutes early or late, wearing different clothes, or growing older if you last long enough, you would be able to observe that he and by proxy the feed is not a law.

Gravity where I am doesn't change. The intensity of sunlight doesn't change. To have them change you have to alter the conditions. You don't make laws out of shit like "it never rains in Arizona" because it does and when it does science doesn't get tossed out the window.

Besides, even humoring that very flawed example, that presupposes SOME proof of god. There is not a single quantifiable speck of proof in any way of any god that's ever been worshipped. None. At least the turkey is fed. Hell, even wind can be felt and verified by 2 independent observers. God has no such backing.