can the very fabric of reality itself be visualized or manifested

>>17970957
when you get to a level of abstraction such as that the entirety of creation appears in front of you it will manifest as a sentient blob of chrome liquid.

File: 5570683856_1602ee97c6_z.jpg (152KB, 454x640px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 454x640px

>>17970957
>Can reality be manifested in a physical way?
Yes

Dude it is. Your eyes just aren't equipt to see on the atomic scale. This is one of those rare instances of a dumb question

>>17970957
just came to this board and I see this... Are you all stoners talking shit or something?

When something is broken down to code, such as binary code, or any other type of code you're using, it won't be a complete encryption of the thing, no matter how well you code it
As an example, think about forced perspective

not to forget that you'd need something to actually read the code itself

also, how would the fabric of reality be portrayed in any way other than its true form?

>>17971030
some of us are stoners, some of us are just talking shit, some of us are pseudo intellectuals and some of us are literally delusional.
But most are a share of at least two of those, while a select few are none, they usually leave though

Well, yeah. That's fairly obvious. I couldn't think of something more obvious. I'm trying, but I can't.

Maybe you're not asking the right question here.

I assume we're looking at it since reality is everything l in existence. Wouldn't the fabric of reality be matter itself?

File: Chimayo-Scenic-Tour-NM-1024x768.jpg (233KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1024x768px

>>17970957
Yes. But you won't be seeing it if you look for "codes" or "numbers"

>>17970957
Have you just seen the matrix or something?
Look up string theory if you are really interested, and you will find that all phenomena can be explained by representing matter as vibrations on the most fundamental level.

Whether this is the actual truth cannot be determined by Heisenberg uncertainty, etc.

>>17970957
>as a code or as numbers?
Uhh, no. Not at all. If anything, you need intuition to visualize the fabric properly. It is NOT made up of information the way strict materialists believe.

>>17970957
No. You cannot fully describe a system from within that system. We would need some way to get out to observe it completely. Or we need some yet underdeveloped or undiscovered ability to become well understood, like clairvoyance.

File: 0000000000000.png (111KB, 541x307px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 541x307px

>>17970957

The only person with reliable credibility that I know of that could answer this question was a guy who wanted to understand the nature of reality. Basically grasp who "everything" fit together. I won't go into what framework he used to acquire this knowledge (like magick, remote viewing, astral projection...) because I wouldn't want the conversation to derail into a discussion about the validity of such frameworks, but suffice to say that the guy went catatonic (no drugs where involved) for the rest of his life.

I suppose we can deduce from that fact, that the nature of reality is essentially incomprehensible for us, probably because our mind is not capable of abstracting the kind of structures and relationships necessary to grasp how "everything" fits together. I think it's apparent that a state of mind capable of comprehending is somehow incompatible with material existence as we know it.

My guess is if we're to understand it or perceive it at all, it will be when we die.

File: k.png (18KB, 150x237px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 150x237px

>>17972050
You forgot those of us who are actually enlightened!

>>17970957
See pic related.

File: 1465563587437.png (93KB, 467x496px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 467x496px

you are that manifest fabric of reality

>>17974516
i never said everyone fall in under those four groups i mentioned
but if you really were enlightened, i doubt you would be hanging out on a site like this, instead of experiencing the world, so i think you personally would fall in under "delusional" with probably a bit of "pseudo intellectual" too

>>17974549
Or maybe he was being cheeky and you need to get over yourself a bit mate.

>>17974619
maybe you're right
but then again, i do fall in under the "talk shit" and "pseudo intellectuals" groups, so what can ya do?

>>17972934
>all phenomena can be explained by representing matter as vibrations on the most fundamental level

"Vibrations" of what, exactly? Also any recommended reading for a beginner?

>>17975086
In string theory, 11 dimensional vibrations of subatomic "strings" (also very high dimensional).

String theory seems to be a bit abandoned at the moment though. Not much experimentation going on.

>>17970957

When I was tripping I saw this symbolic text on the wall with some form of theories written all over. Highly complex, couldnt understand shit, but there was syntax to it and the theories or better formulas were definitely maths/physics. The language looked like nothing from this earth, 2d and 3d at the same time

>>17975300
Forgot to add. My friends have seen similar things and called it the "language of the universe". desu its probably just hallucinations, but its weirdly realistic and u definitely have a sense of looking at something beyond your understanding.

>>17970957

No numbers no language.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vwObck9twes

Lucy says that language and numbers are not real .

>>17975340
Well if anything time is a human concept because time just means movement relative to another object.

>>17975406

There are human conditions

Living is a human condition
Time is made in the mind of God
and it happen to human inteligence
Just happens
The limit of the limits is zero , this means that are tings that are beyond human compresion, becose human compresion goes as far as his simbols go.

No cuestion?
No answer!

File: or.png (254KB, 700x855px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 700x855px

>>17970957
you value vision too much, as well as touch, smell and hearing. the very fabric of reality is logic. logic is not material like a piece of paper with symbols that represent numbers or some screen filled with computer code, logic is transformation that obeys rules.

>>17975430
Living is not a human condition, to think so is to view the universe from a human centric perspective which defies your whole post.

>>17970957
Yes, but only at high energy levels. Essentially you dump a fuck ton of energy into a very small space(make sure to avoid the kugelblitz!), and then look at the paths or degrees of freedom of the resulting radiation.

This will give you all the information about the relativistic geodesic you are working with.

You can then use the measurements you make from this to visualize the structure of the 'fabric of reality' as you put it.