Language seems to be this, especially alphabet, symbols.

    "If you have a powerful enough language, you can take control of reality. This is what magical languages, like in the late Renaissance, were about. The only thing which comes close to that today is code for computers. Essentially, these are languages which, when executed, something happens. They are languages of efficacy. They carry, not meaning, but motivation to activity. This Kabbalistic question is very interesting; someone showed me, recently, a sculptural object, which, when illuminated from various angles by a source of light behind it would cast, one after another, each of the Hebrew letters on a screen. In other words, this was a higher-dimensional object which had the entire Hebrew alphabet somehow embedded in it. When I mentioned this to Ralph Abraham, he said, 'Well, all you have to do is digitize and quantify that object, and we’ll be able to compute from that three-dimensional object to a 5-, 6-, 7-, 8-, or 9-dimensional object, which would cast all letters of all alphabets into matter.' So one way of thinking of the 'transcendental object at the end of time' is as this kind of Ur-letter or Ur-word in hyperspace, from which, as it sheds the radiance of its syntactical numenosity into lower and lower dimensions, realities as literary functions of being constellate themselves."

There was a Standford professor that studied this extensively and while I don't bu 100% into it, he makes a pretty compelling argument. The 3d molds that he created when held at specific angles and viewed, they certainly resemble letters of the Hebrew Alphabet. In turn, the way he holds them in both hands (arms extended out or twisting) represents specific meaning! In theory this should work with other languages as well but the bottom line, going back to the idea that our language itself is a trickle down effect from the outer workings beyond our current dimension.

All of this should be read with a very open mind however, nonetheless, the original video, the various "sacred" geometries (why are they even sacred to begin with?), inspire thinking that what if languages and symbols representing ideas are simply projections?

> more mechanical than magical.

This. As we learn more and more and our understanding expands, I don't see why not.

(I'm really pleased that we can have this thread on HN)

I'm curious, where is this quote from?

Completely agree. I think this could also explain the fundamental randomness we perceive at the quantum level. We're simply not seeing/unable to see the full picture.

Yep, most every serious Physicist today agrees, it's more likely we're not "seeing" everything. Slit experiment, Entanglement, etc. prove we're missing lots of the picture. All the particles popping in and out of existence...seems like really they're just 'passing thru' and we only see them a fraction of the time, because most of the time they're in some 'realm' we've only thus far managed to label as "Wave Probability"

What if our brains ommited that extra information to survive? Or just a relevant amount?

or the even more interesting question is: what if the human consciousness is hyperdimensional (the spiritual theory that the universe itself is conscious and capable of perception) but that through quantum trickery we simply perceive "others" and "me, us, them"?

If entanglement or Einstein's "spooky magic" is possible at the building layers of reality then why do we balk at the idea of this not being possible in other levels of dimension?

Are we like the many "Random Novelty Generators" that is needed for the whole thing to work where each layer of complexity created (in our case our collective human experience consisting of many individual ones) a platform for which additional novelty is generated?

Very interesting ideas to "toy" with. Samsara, karma, reincarnation, Einstein's theory that "God doesn't play dice" all seem strangely possible as our understanding of reality advances. It is weirdly mechanical in its raw form but borderline "pure **ing magic".

(I would also point out how the Western thought rejects all forms of non-objective, impossible-to-prove-therefore-nil ideas in pursuit of its theory that all we see is all we get. We attack all ideas that remotely challenge the religion that has become Science. Seems to be built upon shaky grounds as we seem to slowly approach a convergence of religion, spiritualism, quantum theory especially at a very high elite academic level. Ironically the only people in the scientific community I can have these conversations is also quantum physicists, and some molecular biologists.)

Very nice discussions today I am very satisfied with HN as normally this kind of talk gets the boot and hostile reactions from co-workers.

I agree with what you said. Even the concept of "God" seems like it's been 're-framed' by science lately (in a good way) with many scientists having to admit that a simulation theory is as good as any other theory for our origins, and if we're being simulated then by definition the thing doing the simulating is a "god", by most definitions despite whether it is concerned with human feelings or what we call morality.

HN is definitely a great place to find others who are intellectually curious about these topics. It's a shame that most people (in society at large) would rather discuss sports or entertainment, than the actual interesting scientific or philosophical things that matter more.

That's simple. Science says "probe it, or GFTO". Thus, religion and pseudoscience is out today, and for good. We are not children believing on monsters under the bed anymore.

No, the information in the additional variables would be like a hidden variable theory, but the hidden variables make predictions that disagree with the experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory

There are a few physics theories that use additional dimensions, but they are use quantum mechanics.

Interesting. Can you confirm my ELI5 understanding of it? Is it that we could potentially claim that QM is not really random, we simply do not have all the data (like predicting a dice roll without accounting for the roughness of the surface). But then, experimental evidence contradicts this claim. Correct?

Yes. More details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem