Why Three?

[CatGoddess]

Hmm. ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED.

In all seriousness, though, it's been bugging me recently. Why are people/societies so into the number three? While not recommended past high school, the three-argument structure is the essay "formula" for a reason. For example: My neighbor is mean. He kicks cats, slashes tires, and always takes the last cookie. If I'd given only two reasons, it would've seemed insubstantial. Four would seem cumbersome. But why's three the "magic" number?

I play League of Legends. People dodge spells. Typically, they try to vary their pattern on the third time (i.e. dodged left twice in a row, often dodge right the third time).

It's the Holy Trinity, not the Holy Quintet.

I get building things with triangles for structural security because triangles don't deform, but why have multiple cultures gone for pyramids (Egypt, Mayans, Indus Valley) and not... cubes? Or spheres?

In mythology across cultures, there's a division into underworld, middle world, and heavens.

"Rule of Three" in storytelling, e.g. three bears, three pigs, three musketeers. "Stop, Drop, Roll", "Life, Liberty, Happiness".

This is subjective, but I think the triangle looks more elegant than most polygons. Maybe that's just me, but if it holds true for (most?) other people, why?

 

[Rolling Cattle]

Just to throw a few ideas out there:

Maybe the reasons behind all these examples aren't connected.

Maybe there are as much or more examples where things are singular, or in pairs.

Or maybe you're right, There's a thing going on with threes. Maybe there's a reason why I flip a USB 3 times before it finally fits.

 

[Cognisant]

I think a duality is inherently polarizing, our awareness of something is defined by its properties but the recognition of something by its properties is a deductive process so when we're presented with two of something we automatically define those things (be they objects, people or concepts) relative to the other so that we can tell them apart.

If you don't know what a cat is and I show you two cats you'll assume that these two cats represent the extremes on a spectrum that covers all of cat-kind, this is a potentially false albeit natural assumption. Whereas if I show you three cats and all three cats have unique traits you'll assume that these three cats exist on a cat spectrum and don't represent the extremes of that spectrum, which again is a potentially false albeit natural assumption.

Now it's hard to say whether these natural assumptions exist because we use them to communicate or we use them to communicate the scope of variation because they exist, indeed the way natural selection works the trait and the way we use it may have become prominent concurrently.

You're new to my bullshit so let me know if I need to explain myself.

 

[Rook]

might be instinctual.as children there is u, ur parents plus world. u, mother father. that is why a sibling is so strange to firstborn: it was three and then 4.

books trilogy. movie trilogy. three coulors... dont know the stats, but i bet u now average company logo has three coulors. base colors be three. politics be three: right, left vs.reality.

male minds are triangular, legs to penis(urinating, sex), brain to hands, arms to brain, legs to hands(driving), dick to hands, eyes to the world.


mind body world
third world cuntrry... ever hear some1 mention 2nd world cuntery?
no... only 1st and 3rd.

also effici3nt 2 think in 3s. goal action result

most millitary tactics and strategies are 3s. Chess, I like chess, the game of kings has the opening, midgame, endgame.

Chess pieces: Peasants, Merchants, Royalty. Prolitariat, Bourgioese, Aristocracy. Workers, Corrupted, Puppetmasters.

 

[T.L-N.]

Hmm. ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED.

In all seriousness, though, it's been bugging me recently. Why are people/societies so into the number three? While not recommended past high school, the three-argument structure is the essay "formula" for a reason. For example: My neighbor is mean. He kicks cats, slashes tires, and always takes the last cookie. If I'd given only two reasons, it would've seemed insubstantial. Four would seem cumbersome. But why's three the "magic" number?

I play League of Legends. People dodge spells. Typically, they try to vary their pattern on the third time (i.e. dodged left twice in a row, often dodge right the third time).

It's the Holy Trinity, not the Holy Quintet.

I get building things with triangles for structural security because triangles don't deform, but why have multiple cultures gone for pyramids (Egypt, Mayans, Indus Valley) and not... cubes? Or spheres?

In mythology across cultures, there's a division into underworld, middle world, and heavens.

"Rule of Three" in storytelling, e.g. three bears, three pigs, three musketeers. "Stop, Drop, Roll", "Life, Liberty, Happiness".

This is subjective, but I think the triangle looks more elegant than most polygons. Maybe that's just me, but if it holds true for (most?) other people, why?

Too simple. With some omitions for brevity, Let’s take roughly the same order you took. In essays (or whatever evidenciary accounting) you use three because one might be tue, one might be a misunderstanding, but three or more is a pattern. In regards to people’s actions I personally would attribute subconscious recognition. As for religious manifestations they stand in for the same organizational system governing any society, company or group. Take the three elements of most modern governments, businesses or nonprofit organizations, More simply “checks and balances”. As far as buildings it’s even more simple . A dome is by far the strongest but most difficult way to build and a square is the easiest to build and most efficient in regards to space, so if you take the middle you get a pyramid. In mythology and religion the locations aren’t places as much as states of being your simply neutral, happy, or having a shit day..

 

[CatGoddess]

@Cognisant It took me two tries (I was half asleep), but I get what you're saying. Doing people things can be hard for me because I don't understand people, because the brain's complicated and psychology has a lot of gaps. But, alright, natural assumptions, for whatever reason.

@Rook Hmm. 2nd world cuntery? I don't think I like any kind of cuntery. Did I join the wrong forum? XD

Uh, male mind: what about the female mind? Do you think it also operates in threes? 2 breasts/1 vagina in the middle, 3 holes, 3 trimesters, etc. (if this sounds at all creepy, I am female, so maybe that makes it less creepy?)

I don't know why, but I try to plug in my phone to charge and it takes 3 times. It baffles me.


@T.L-N.
I understood those things, with the exception of the building one. That's interesting and I hadn't thought of it. But I was wondering about the underlying reason why; the things I mentioned were just supporting examples so that nobody would go "what you mean h00mans like three, you tripping".

I guess nobody really knows why that affinity exists, which is unsatisfying, but oh well.

Related question: *Most* people find tall, slender people more attractive. I realized that I definitely find tall, thin polygons to be more visually appealing and "elegant" than stout, wide ones (i.e. vertical rectangle vs. horizontal one or square, tall isosceles triangle vs. equilateral). Is this a known phenomenon? Is there an explanation for it?

 

[T.L-N.]

I guess you missed my point or maybe I wasn’t clear. None of those things are related and most just come from pure laziness. The real question is why is it that three is the best number for the job not why people are all caught up the it per-se.

 

[computerhxr]

All numbers serve to represent patterns. Large numbers like 472957301 just don't happen as often as smaller numbers like 0-9.

3's make particularly interesting patterns. All energy breaks down to 3 fundamental parts, and everything is made up of energy.

Since 3's are so fundamental to nature, through evolution, they show up in psychology and behavior.

Also, 1 + 2 = 3. The sum totals the value. 3 is the first number where this is true.

Triangles are impressive as well. There are so many things that I wouldn't even know where to start.

Polygons are used to make any shape, other than a perfect circle. So the number 4, which makes a square, is really the product of two triangles.

Then there are the Pythagoreans who leverage these fundamental laws of nature.

 

[CatGoddess]

@T.L-N. Is three the best number for the job, though? I mean, most governments have a three-branch system, but why is that better than a four or five branch system?

I'm inclined to agree with this: "Since 3's are so fundamental to nature, through evolution, they show up in psychology and behavior."

Perhaps it's worth noting that we live in a three-dimensional world (I mean, I don't dispute the existence of "higher" dimensions, but "time" is kind of a construct and we don't tend to naturally think of anything beyond the first three) so thinking in threes could stem from that.

Although, that makes me wonder why three is a "special" number in nature. Like, triangles being strong, 3 pairs of different quarks (i.e. top and bottom go together)...

 

[computerhxr]

Ψ is the symbol used for psychology. 3 pronged trident thingy.

I agree with @CatGoddess about government. I think of governments and corporations as living bodies. The U.S. Government is a guide for how you should operate your home, business, and temple.

 

[Pizzabeak]

It's also used in (quantum) physics as the wave function (psi), and the planetary symbol for 8th planet Neptune . It's a Greek letter, don't think it has much significance beyond that whether for psychology or not.

 

[computerhxr]

It's also used in (quantum) physics as the wave function (psi), and the planetary symbol for 8th planet Neptune . It's a Greek letter, don't think it has much significance beyond that whether for psychology or not.

Neptune is a water deity. The trident is held by the god of the sea.

My previous post about all energy breaking down into 3 fundamental parts; I was talking about the nature of waves.

"There are three measurable properties of wave motion: amplitude, wavelength, and frequency."

Quantum Physics is an ocean, or flat earth, with waves.

These are all bound by the same laws of physics, which make up our psychology.

 

[Pizzabeak]

There's also intensity. Newton thought light consisted of "corpuscles", today interpreted to mean photons or quanta of energy. A wave's energy isn't so much its wavelength but hf, h just being an inherent property of waves and radiation. The "three" thing doesn't really exist, and is a make believe pattern you have in your head. It's more so a result of the way language is set up, English nonetheless. I wouldn't be surprised if other tongues had it set up a different way, not to mention ones from different cultures or just ancestors and other ancient beings.

Lastly, time not being real, is something someone else said or demonstrated, probably a scientist or philosopher, and modern people today just repeat it to sound smart or hipster-like. Just because you repeat something like an argument, doesn't mean you actually know it or what you're talking about, if you didn't experience it yourself. You can take all the knowledge you know so far and basically toss it out the window. We still feel the effects of time, so it's basically real. E=mc^2, so everything is one, and it's all relative to begin with.

Life as we don't know it could do something else, specifically, we only use a base 10 numerical system because we have ten fingers. Our math isn't a universal standard, it's something we developed to try and fit reality (shaped like a square) inside a circle box. It works up until a point, when it doesn't, then new ways of looking at the world have to be developed. We still have components like pi, natural log, or Fibonacci sequences, so I'm not saying it isn't impressive or hard work, but that's the reality. If time isn't real you may has well say the sun or yourself isn't, it's all just an illusion.

They say the third time is the charm, Earth is the third rock from the sun, at that point, I'd look into numerology or gematria but beware - those kinds of concepts start to border pseudoscience or technobabble, so no one will take you serious if you start talking like that in accordance with reality, they'll say there's no science to it.

 

[computerhxr]

"Every form of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, oscillates in a periodic fashion with peaks and valleys, and displaying a characteristic amplitude, wavelength, and frequency that defines the direction, energy, and intensity of the radiation."

"The energy of a wave is proportional to the square of its amplitude. Therefore the intensity of a wave is also proportional to the square of its amplitude."

You can reduce everything down to EM waves, which can be reduced to 3 properties. 3 properties make 6 and 9.

"If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe." – Nikola Tesla.

Basically, you can use math to come up with an infinite number of mutations, but they always break down to 3.

Then you have duality, singularity, null, and void.

 

[Niclmaki]

Eh... there are more things not 3 than things that are. It’s not special. If you’re looking for something hard enough, you’ll find it.

That being said, my favourite number is 333. Not that anyone asked.

 

[Pizzabeak]

"Every form of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, oscillates in a periodic fashion with peaks and valleys, and displaying a characteristic amplitude, wavelength, and frequency that defines the direction, energy, and intensity of the radiation."

"The energy of a wave is proportional to the square of its amplitude. Therefore the intensity of a wave is also proportional to the square of its amplitude."

You can reduce everything down to EM waves, which can be reduced to 3 properties. 3 properties make 6 and 9.

"If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe." – Nikola Tesla.

Basically, you can use math to come up with an infinite number of mutations, but they always break down to 3.

Then you have duality, singularity, null, and void.

That field can be said to comprise the wave exclusively in and of itself, there aren't really any other extra potential energies or locations it could have in the grand scheme of things. It largely moves in a straight line although can radiate omnidirectionally. The crests and troughs are a result of the electric and magnetic fields interacting, so it splits on both planes and just surges energy. The other, non-thermal EM radiation is synchrotron radiation. Its intensity decreases with frequency increase, as it is independent of temperature. That's just how the geometry is. Frequency isn't so much synonymous with intensity, it's just how close or far apart the waves are from each other, so low frequency waves have more energy contained than high frequency waves, since they're more spread apart. The energy's less dense. Flux is the apparent brightness of an object (usually a star), that decreases with distance squared because the light spreads out. So it's an inverse-square law, similar to gravitation.

Not everything is EM waves or reduced to it just because the absorption/emission dynamic. You're really just registering photons on your retinal cells. Although, there are still objects independent of light, its just that's what we see or perceive. You can be reasonably certain, though, that objects, such as in a room, are stable and coherent, not necessarily blobs of probability with generally uncertain form.

Electrons only emit photons once they go back to their ground state from an excited state. Everyday objects are made out of atoms, basically protons and neutrons (and electrons), the electrons absorbing and emitting photons, the objects themselves aren't necessarily light at the core, instead being matter. The amount of electrons determines the form a piece of matter takes, and they don't orbit a simple ellipse like the solar system model. Instead, they take the form of a cloud with probability, still confined to particular energy states. It isn't completely infinite or random, and our current understanding of the laws of science are based on inherent limitations in our measurements, and yet, they're still accurate despite that.

Amplitude isn't necessarily the same characteristic, it's more an aspect. There aren't just three things to it (like Kepler's Three Laws). It's more so important in other subjects, rather than physics or optics. The intensity of a light beam gets brighter the more photons it's comprised of. So it's more so the frequency than amplitude. The Stefan-Boltzmann law states the total energy of a (black) body radiated from its surface is proportional to its temperature^4, so there are really only "two" things that can define a wave.

"Enlightenment" might come from non-duality.

 

[T.L-N.]

@T.L-N. Is three the best number for the job, though? I mean, most governments have a three-branch system, but why is that better than a four or five branch system?

I'm inclined to agree with this: "Since 3's are so fundamental to nature, through evolution, they show up in psychology and behavior."

Perhaps it's worth noting that we live in a three-dimensional world (I mean, I don't dispute the existence of "higher" dimensions, but "time" is kind of a construct and we don't tend to naturally think of anything beyond the first three) so thinking in threes could stem from that.

Although, that makes me wonder why three is a "special" number in nature. Like, triangles being strong, 3 pairs of different quarks (i.e. top and bottom go together)...

@computerhxr @CatGoddess @Niclmaki
Ok, let us say we live in an infinitely dimensional universe, But only see or perceive 3D. The argument could be made that we do if you consider that you can’t see all of a object, say a table. So, why? Because it’s the best for the job anything more is to much unsusable data. As for governments an even number will always end in a stalemate and the more competition (in this made up debate) more less actual citizens get any real say, oddly enough. Take our political parties for instance. If we had five major parties but them a two-man-majority was in party (A.) then how could any other party beat them in an election? It won’t end in civil war every time. Sure more thing are not threes than not but should they be?

 

[CatGoddess]

Lastly, time not being real, is something someone else said or demonstrated, probably a scientist or philosopher, and modern people today just repeat it to sound smart or hipster-like.

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt. It was just a preemptive counter (since forums can go slowly) to someone mentioning that our standard model of the universe is 4d, not 3d. It is, but that's the intellectual model for it. I'd say that people (I mean, I can't say for sure, because I only know what I experience and what I guess based on people's actions.) tend to think just in terms of the 3 space-dimensions unless they make a conscious effort to think about time. I know I do. Animals have a decent grasp of space, time not so much, etc.

Time is "less real" than distance, mass, etc. because it's just a way to understand change. It's only perceivable because of the others; without change in more "fundamental" aspects of the world, there would be no "point" in having time. They're all constructs, but some are less constructed than others. Which was my explanation for why thinking in 3 dimensions is more natural than 4.

But only see or perceive 3D. The argument could be made that we do if you consider that you can’t see all of a object, say a table. So, why? Because it’s the best for the job anything more is to much unsusable data.

Maybe it is, but you don't know it is. Who knows what sort of information might lie beyond 3D? The "fourth dimension" already hints at that because it's extremely useful to understand that things are changing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure other animals just live in the "now"? Like, a bird will only prepare for the winter if "now" is the prepare-for-winter time and it's getting prepare-for-winter biological urges. Whereas, right after a winter a human might decide to buy a fancy sweater because it'll cost less and they anticipate the need for a sweater in the future. Thus saving money, which is very useful.

So maybe it'd be even more useful to get some sort of info from a hypothetical 5th, 6th, etc. (nobody knows for sure if they exist or not) I'd be more inclined to say that we can only perceive 3 because perceiving more than space isn't a gradient (which is what evolution "works with"); it's a yes/no thing, a did we/didn't we introduce a new variable. So since it was never possible for anyone to *immediately* develop a way of perceiving 5th, 6th, etc., (thus introducing that ability into the gene pool) it was never possible to develop it at all because it's not something that can happen gradually.

Maybe 3D isn't "best", it's just all that we can have.

I'm not saying that 3 is something fundamental to the world, but I'm also not saying that it's not. Are three dimensionality, 3 colors receptors, 3 subatomic parts of an atom, 3 quark pairs, 3 types of leptons (other three are just the first three but as neutrinos), stability of a triangle, etc. related? I don't know.

I just have ideas about the Rule of Three in societies/cultures, not conclusions:

-3 is fundamental, so humans have evolved to think about stuff in terms of three
-Someone started doing it; other people picked up on it and it became repeated to the point that it was the trend
-People saw the different instances of 3 occurring naturally and decided that there was something special about the number, regardless of whether there is or isn't

This thread is probably getting too long considering its subject.

 

[computerhxr]

Dialectic. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.

The Universe is a dialectical paradox, continually synthesising new reality.

A dialectic is made up of a singular thesis, a duality of opposites, and a trinity from the synthesis of the two.

Take the Democratic and Republican parties for example, they are a dialectic of opposites. The synthesis of the two form a third invisible party that forms the Spirit of government.

Really, you can reduce everything down into a simple evolutionary system.

The Big Bang, where nothing became something. The singularity of somethingness is a duality of nothingness. That creates a Trinity; the Left, the Right, and the All. Something, nothing, and the encapsulation the two.

It all balances out to Zero. Zero, Null, and Void are similar but different concepts.

In computing, everything is ultimately binary, and the synthesis moves down the chain. Quantum Computing is more like moving back to analog waveform, vs. its digital representation. It is fucking beautiful.

And this is all fundamental to the nature of reality. We follow these rules, we are following in God's image.

Honestly though, just go Flat Earthing and life is great. Mostly it's all just a bunch if made up BS anyways.

 

[Pizzabeak]

It's also used in (quantum) physics as the wave function (psi), and the planetary symbol for 8th planet Neptune . It's a Greek letter, don't think it has much significance beyond that whether for psychology or not.

Neptune is a water deity. The trident is held by the god of the sea.

My previous post about all energy breaking down into 3 fundamental parts; I was talking about the nature of waves.

"There are three measurable properties of wave motion: amplitude, wavelength, and frequency."

Quantum Physics is an ocean, or flat earth, with waves.

These are all bound by the same laws of physics, which make up our psychology.

I'm unsure if I understand your flat Earth comment, it sounded metaphorical. Well, I always say, the only way the Earth could be flat is if it were viewed from some other dimension, probably a higher one, and leave it at that. I'm not a flat Earther, and haven't read Lord of the Rings yet, but arguing with them or trying to teach them some science, is like posting an obscure elf meme without having read LotR and watching people get mad because they don't understand and can't comprehend why you'd do such a thing. Although, I wouldn't so fast go off the rail and call them an idiot.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I think it's because when there's 3 elements to a structure, it's perceived in the human brain as a solid structure. E.g. if you want to put up a tent, 3 sticks is the minimum you need in order for it to not collapse. So it's the simplest structure which is "solid".

the question then, I guess, is why you need exactly 3 sticks. I assume this is due to the geometry of the universe: you need at least 3 sticks to restrict the top of the tent along all 3 spatial dimensions and thus prevent it from falling.

which would mean that it's actually due to the no. of spatial dimensions of the universe

 

[computerhxr]

I'm unsure if I understand your flat Earth comment, it sounded metaphorical. Well, I always say, the only way the Earth could be flat is if it were viewed from some other dimension, probably a higher one, and leave it at that. I'm not a flat Earther, and haven't read Lord of the Rings yet, but arguing with them or trying to teach them some science, is like posting an obscure elf meme without having read LotR and watching people get mad because they don't understand and can't comprehend why you'd do such a thing. Although, I wouldn't so fast go off the rail and call them an idiot.

I am a Flat Earther. It's really advanced and not really worth trying to explain.

Metaphorically speaking, I'm saying to go out and ground yourself. Leave your phone behind and go on a hike. I call it Flat Earthing. Because your mind is in space, or some mathematical dimension to see the world as round.

I mean, obviously from space, the planet appears to be round. Using triangulation, you can deduce that Earth is round. Peering through your phone portal, and Googling everything, Earth is round.

Just go out and observe nature for yourself. Earth is Flat, people are kind, the world is great. Don't just take 'sciences' word as truth. That is very unscientific.

Figuring out Flat Earth in the literal sense is something you have to discover for yourself. It is brilliant when you see it.

 

[Pizzabeak]

I'm unsure if I understand your flat Earth comment, it sounded metaphorical. Well, I always say, the only way the Earth could be flat is if it were viewed from some other dimension, probably a higher one, and leave it at that. I'm not a flat Earther, and haven't read Lord of the Rings yet, but arguing with them or trying to teach them some science, is like posting an obscure elf meme without having read LotR and watching people get mad because they don't understand and can't comprehend why you'd do such a thing. Although, I wouldn't so fast go off the rail and call them an idiot.

I am a Flat Earther. It's really advanced and not really worth trying to explain.

Metaphorically speaking, I'm saying to go out and ground yourself. Leave your phone behind and go on a hike. I call it Flat Earthing. Because your mind is in space, or some mathematical dimension to see the world as round.

I mean, obviously from space, the planet appears to be round. Using triangulation, you can deduce that Earth is round. Peering through your phone portal, and Googling everything, Earth is round.

Just go out and observe nature for yourself. Earth is Flat, people are kind, the world is great. Don't just take 'sciences' word as truth. That is very unscientific.

Figuring out Flat Earth in the literal sense is something you have to discover for yourself. It is brilliant when you see it.

So it is metaphorical then, as said or implied earlier. Earth isn't literally round, it's an ellipse, or egg shaped. According to "optical illusions", just because you can see the horizon, doesn't mean that's all there is. You don't have to turn into an ESFP but you can practice looking ahead straight or not peering at the ground while walking. It wouldn't so much be a good idea to have your head in the clouds while driving either. That is to say, every now and then at least, focus on detail (stop and smell the roses) instead of being in your head. I think the assumption is, after years of seeing, that there's nothing out there that can be offered. You won't likely find a $100 bill on the ground while taking a casual stroll. I think it's a process or change, that, or online dating doesn't work - the state the world currently is in, whatever it may be, is probably changing what people are interested in for some reason, all of a sudden, yet I doubt it makes anything any easier at all. If life is like a wave with crests and troughs, it is only a matter of time before your mood or mindset somehow gets ruined again, somehow, and puts your mind back somewhere else.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Dialectic. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.

The Universe is a dialectical paradox, continually synthesising new reality.

A dialectic is made up of a singular thesis, a duality of opposites, and a trinity from the synthesis of the two.

Take the Democratic and Republican parties for example, they are a dialectic of opposites. The synthesis of the two form a third invisible party that forms the Spirit of government.

Really, you can reduce everything down into a simple evolutionary system.

The Big Bang, where nothing became something. The singularity of somethingness is a duality of nothingness. That creates a Trinity; the Left, the Right, and the All. Something, nothing, and the encapsulation the two.

It all balances out to Zero. Zero, Null, and Void are similar but different concepts.

In computing, everything is ultimately binary, and the synthesis moves down the chain. Quantum Computing is more like moving back to analog waveform, vs. its digital representation. It is fucking beautiful.

And this is all fundamental to the nature of reality. We follow these rules, we are following in God's image.

Honestly though, just go Flat Earthing and life is great. Mostly it's all just a bunch if made up BS anyways.

 

[CatGoddess]

I legit have no idea what computerhxr and pizzabeak are talking about... I mean, I get the words and some of the individual sentences, but the overall point of what you two are saying or discussing with each other? *shrug*

Also, @Pizzabeak I'm pretty sure he is talking about a literal flat earth.

 

[computerhxr]

Yea, I'm speaking about literal and metaphorical Flat Earth.

My general point is that the laws of nature reduce down to 3's. Every force is balanced by an equal and opposite force (duality). Inherently, the synthesis of opposites produce a third. Therefore singularity can't exist without duality, and duality can't exist without trinity. Beyond that is an ongoing evolution of the same core principles.

These laws are core to every fiber of our being. All behavior is guided by the laws of physics, which is bound by a few simple rules.

Flat Earth is far more complex than what I am trying to convey in as simple of terms possible. 3's are more useful and significant than any other number from our perspective of the universe. It is more than random, coincidence, programmed, or probabilistic.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

what is complex about flat earth?

 

[CatGoddess]

@computerhxr I would also like to know this.

Thanks for the replies, everyone. I get a bit weirdly hung up on stuff that doesn't seem to bother most people. I took a basic physics course some time ago, for instance, and when the teacher said that subatomic particles' motion can't be modeled without statistics most of the class was just like "all right". I... was not. It's kind of a significant thing.

I don't consider the Rule of Three to be *super significant*, but I do think I got a good bit more worked up over the why of it than is typical...

 

[jawdropper]

Have u even heard that the coordinates for the pyramids in Egypt are same as speed of light number.
A bit. Too much coincidence. MayVE.

 

[computerhxr]

what is complex about flat earth?

Well, people don't seem to get it. If it isn't complex, then why do so many people struggle with it?

Even most Flat Earthers don't seem to understand. It is difficult to know for sure. Most of them sound like they did too many drugs and have paranoid delusions. The rest just seem like they are in crisis, struggling to make sense of their religious indoctrination. You have to understand Flat Earth to make sense of everything.

At its core though, it is a narrative of how neither side can see things from each other's perspectives.

There is a lot to it, more than just understanding the literal reality of Flat Earth. Like, they have some brilliant thoughts that make scientists sound like a bunch of idiots. You just have to speak their language. The same goes in reverse, they sound like a bunch of idiots from a rational scientific perspective.

It's like when you hear scientists assert that the Sun and the Moon are the same size from Earth's perspective is just a coincidence. Like, during a solar eclipse. Are they being intentionally deceiving, or are they really that dumb? Maybe they're too smart? Maybe it's me?

I don't know and I don't take it seriously anymore. Everyone has an opinion, and is free to believe what they want. Personally, I prefer to be the central node so that I can see things without getting too much into the details or politics.

If it isn't complex, then one of you could explain it to me? And not the "take a picture at the edge" nonsense. Earth is flat, figure it out. Maybe it isn't?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

so you're saying it's a matter of perspective? There's an easy way to resolve that: if you were assigned the task of, say, building a navigation system for ships or airplanes, or building and deploying satellites, or building long-range cruise missiles, etc, would you do this assuming the world is flat or spherical?

one can talk and theorize on wacky shit all day long – the question is what people do when they have "skin in the game"

 

[onesteptwostep]

The three thing is actually simple, it's rhythmic lol

 

[redbaron]

Hmm. ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED.

In all seriousness, though, it's been bugging me recently. Why are people/societies so into the number three? While not recommended past high school, the three-argument structure is the essay "formula" for a reason. For example: My neighbor is mean. He kicks cats, slashes tires, and always takes the last cookie. If I'd given only two reasons, it would've seemed insubstantial. Four would seem cumbersome. But why's three the "magic" number?

I play League of Legends. People dodge spells. Typically, they try to vary their pattern on the third time (i.e. dodged left twice in a row, often dodge right the third time).

It's the Holy Trinity, not the Holy Quintet.

I get building things with triangles for structural security because triangles don't deform, but why have multiple cultures gone for pyramids (Egypt, Mayans, Indus Valley) and not... cubes? Or spheres?

In mythology across cultures, there's a division into underworld, middle world, and heavens.

"Rule of Three" in storytelling, e.g. three bears, three pigs, three musketeers. "Stop, Drop, Roll", "Life, Liberty, Happiness".

This is subjective, but I think the triangle looks more elegant than most polygons. Maybe that's just me, but if it holds true for (most?) other people, why?

seems like you have to ignore all the examples of times where things don't line up into threes to paint this as poetic. you can do things like this with almost any number and these ideas nearly always seem like the result of confirmation bias more-so than any meaningful concept

if you're reductionist about things you can almost always reduce them to basic components. or if you treat things as emergent you can similarly make them as complex as you want

they can seem meaningful in isolation, but when taken comparatively there's just as much significance around say, the number 12 or 2 as there is the number 3.

 

[redbaron]

what is complex about flat earth?

It's like when you hear scientists assert that the Sun and the Moon are the same size from Earth's perspective is just a coincidence. Like, during a solar eclipse. Are they being intentionally deceiving, or are they really that dumb? Maybe they're too smart? Maybe it's me?

the moon's distance from Earth isn't static and neither is the distance from the sun. their apparent 'same size' varies is never actually the same

the moon's apparent size would have once been much larger than the sun, and in the future it will be much smaller. not sure why significance needs to be assumed

 

[Pizzabeak]

@computerhxr I would also like to know this.

Thanks for the replies, everyone. I get a bit weirdly hung up on stuff that doesn't seem to bother most people. I took a basic physics course some time ago, for instance, and when the teacher said that subatomic particles' motion can't be modeled without statistics most of the class was just like "all right". I... was not. It's kind of a significant thing.

I don't consider the Rule of Three to be *super significant*, but I do think I got a good bit more worked up over the why of it than is typical...

Just because you got hung up on it when it didn't bother other people doesn't mean you're actually right or that you noticed something someone else didn't. That's kind of just how it's set up. You want to use modern technology and high speed cameras to capture individual gas molecules, which is tech that wasn't available back then. Maxwell's theory is based on statistical averages, which doesn't mean "they can't be modeled without statistics". It is still in the realm of what it is.
The position and velocities of the molecules are random, initially. The theory is to see if macro behavior can be predicted from the micro. And yet, one mole of gas contains 6x10^23 molecules (600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000), which is why most scientists can't predict their exact motion using Newton's laws, hence, why "statistical averages" were used. It's basically impossible to compute the motions of all those particles at the same time. According to Newton's classical mechanics temperature is movement, actually the average velocity squared. What you're able to do is calculate the probability that a random molecule you chose will have a particular velocity. It's easier to calculate information about the billions of molecules in a gas cloud.
Boltzmann updated the Second Law of Thermodynamics, saying, the disorder can be measured, and that it's the number of ways the system can be assembled from its collection of atoms. s=kLogW
That's how statistical mechanics became a part of (quantum) physics. Schrodinger didn't really know what his wave function (psi) was. Max Born looked at it, and introduced the quantum mechanical probability. Ψ is the probability amplitude for an electron, like its own intensity wave. It's the probability an electron n will scatter in the direction m. The absolute value of its square results in an actual, physical probability of the particle's presence. Born also said there are probabilities certain quantum states exist, by showing that the probability of the existence of a state is given by the square of the (normalized) amplitude of the wave function. It's just an explanation of wave/particle duality. I'm not sure your point.

It doesn't mean you're smarter than anyone else because you just say or believe the opposite of doctrines. You aren't "seeing what's missing" or finding fault in anything, let alone improving anything. You're just trying to be a rebel. You have no real knowledge of anything or the history of it, so you can't offer any insight. You are literally just saying the opposite. You may as well say the English alphabet sucks because the "p" is words like "psycho" is silent, then complain to the teacher that they should change it, and your name be attached to it so we all know it was you who did that valuable work.

 

[computerhxr]

what is complex about flat earth?

It's like when you hear scientists assert that the Sun and the Moon are the same size from Earth's perspective is just a coincidence. Like, during a solar eclipse. Are they being intentionally deceiving, or are they really that dumb? Maybe they're too smart? Maybe it's me?

the moon's distance from Earth isn't static and neither is the distance from the sun. their apparent 'same size' varies is never actually the same

the moon's apparent size would have once been much larger than the sun, and in the future it will be much smaller. not sure why significance needs to be assumed

Well, the Moon could have been twice the size, or half the size. The size of the moon was smaller in the past too.

It is not that significance needs to be assumed, it is that it shouldn't be assumed to have no significance.

The distance between Earth and the Moon may shift to maintain its proportion relative to the size of the Sun.

 

[Pizzabeak]

I don't think there's much future in particle physics either, as it's all been symmetrical so far, and there's probably just supersymmetry in that realm. It's no more the ultimate science than cosmology. Computer programming is only hot right now because of the frontiers, and the enterprise of it, there's still some money to be made in that field. It doesn't mean anyone else is smarter because their chosen profession. Most of it is even virtual particles, they're just the mediating mechanism between forces. There's no real reason why you'd want to track them. Like gravitons, I wouldn't so much say there are particles interacting to show how it happens, that's just for the math written down. Either way it's worth studying, for some science. If you really want the particles to be there so you could understand the action, congrats. People say there's more anti-matter than matter but no, there's more matter than anti-matter.

 

[Pizzabeak]

what is complex about flat earth?

It's like when you hear scientists assert that the Sun and the Moon are the same size from Earth's perspective is just a coincidence. Like, during a solar eclipse. Are they being intentionally deceiving, or are they really that dumb? Maybe they're too smart? Maybe it's me?

the moon's distance from Earth isn't static and neither is the distance from the sun. their apparent 'same size' varies is never actually the same

the moon's apparent size would have once been much larger than the sun, and in the future it will be much smaller. not sure why significance needs to be assumed

Because it's a special time to be alive, then. Coincidence? Circadian rhythms, generally tied to the moon, are important for animals' survival and niches. Could be meaningless or meaningful, burden of proof is on you to prove it 100% certain bullshit, or not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not just snide remarks or attempts at irony for social credit.
They used to think the Earth was flat until evidence was provided otherwise. The confusion might be because of the geodesic, although again, Earth or any sphere would only be literally flat if viewed from a higher or lower dimension. There isn't much to it.

 

[computerhxr]

I think it is a good thing that people subscribe to the scientific doctrines. If they found of that Earth was a vehicle, and they were just passengers, then who do you think is in the drivers seat? Can't steer a ship if you don't acknowledge or understand how it works.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I think it is a good thing that people subscribe to the scientific doctrines. If they found of that Earth was a vehicle, and they were just passengers, then who do you think is in the drivers seat? Can't steer a ship if you don't acknowledged or understand how it works.

I'm the one who's driving earth and keeping it in orbit.

It's a fuckin boring job and pays very poorly

 

[Pizzabeak]

And I remember CherryCola talking about this years ago but the conversation didn't go far. Even so new info hadn't come out since then. This is nothing new. It seems like I'm only now posting about Maxwell-Boltzmann because I started studying it then, but I've been studying it since before CC mentioned it.

 

[computerhxr]

I think it is a good thing that people subscribe to the scientific doctrines. If they found of that Earth was a vehicle, and they were just passengers, then who do you think is in the drivers seat? Can't steer a ship if you don't acknowledged or understand how it works.

I'm the one who's driving earth and keeping it in orbit.

It's a fuckin boring job and pays very poorly

Are you drunk? You swerved off the path and set a heading towards the Sun. Now I know who to blame for global warming.

 

[CatGoddess]

@computerhxr

Well, people don't seem to get it. If it isn't complex, then why do so many people struggle with it?

Probably because evidence does not support a Flat Earth? People don't "get" that unicorns exist, that nargles live in their hair, or that aliens built the pyramids, but it's not because those are complex ideas. It's because they're just not true. You can't use the fact that few people believe in a Flat Earth as evidence in favor of Flat Earth.

The only Flat Earth I can get behind is this one:

I'm the one who's driving earth and keeping it in orbit.

Can I call shotgun?

 

[computerhxr]

@computerhxr

Well, people don't seem to get it. If it isn't complex, then why do so many people struggle with it?

Probably because evidence does not support a Flat Earth? People don't "get" that unicorns exist, that nargles live in their hair, or that aliens built the pyramids, but it's not because those are complex ideas. It's because they're just not true. You can't use the fact that few people believe in a Flat Earth as evidence in favor of Flat Earth.

The only Flat Earth I can get behind is this one:

I'm the one who's driving earth and keeping it in orbit.

Can I call shotgun?

Scientist: If there is no evidence that Aliens exist, then they don't exist.

But the universe is vast, and there is plenty of evidence of their existence.

Scientist: Nope, science is undeniable proof that my beliefs are valid, and yours are not.

But... Aliens...

Scientist: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

There are plenty of things in science that can not be observed, so they make intuitive leaps. Isn't that pseudoscience?

Scientist: In science, observation means that it can be measured.

Morpheus: You think that's air you are breathing?

You only accept evidence that fits your model of belief, and reject everything else.

Scientist: Take a picture at the edge and be careful that you don't fall off. lol

Meanwhile on Flat Earth... Scientists figure it out yet? No, they're still arguing over semantics.

Scientist: Who said that?

It is a product of evolutionary conditioning. You tapped into a collective substrate that transcends what you call reality, known as Flat Earth radio. It is hosted by Aliens, and there is a massive government plot to cover it up and discredit Flat Earthers.

Scientist: No, I just haven't slept in a while and my mind is playing tricks on me.

You know the government has lasers that they can blast microwaves at you with to implant thoughts into your mind.

Scientist: That is pretty far-fetched. Even if they did have the technology, the government would never do anything like that to its people.

And don't even get me started on vaccines...

Scientist: What? Who said anything about vaccines?

... Do you just buy in to everything that the government feeds you?

---

I think that I've made my point. You just don't get Flat Earth.

 

[redbaron]

what is complex about flat earth?

It's like when you hear scientists assert that the Sun and the Moon are the same size from Earth's perspective is just a coincidence. Like, during a solar eclipse. Are they being intentionally deceiving, or are they really that dumb? Maybe they're too smart? Maybe it's me?

the moon's distance from Earth isn't static and neither is the distance from the sun. their apparent 'same size' varies is never actually the same

the moon's apparent size would have once been much larger than the sun, and in the future it will be much smaller. not sure why significance needs to be assumed

Circadian rhythms, generally tied to the moon, are important for animals' survival and niches.

can you provide a source for circadian rhythms being tied to the moon?

and when you say 'tied to the moon', are you saying that the moon is the only factor, the main factor, or one of several factors affecting circadian rhythm?

 

[redbaron]

what is complex about flat earth?

It's like when you hear scientists assert that the Sun and the Moon are the same size from Earth's perspective is just a coincidence. Like, during a solar eclipse. Are they being intentionally deceiving, or are they really that dumb? Maybe they're too smart? Maybe it's me?

the moon's distance from Earth isn't static and neither is the distance from the sun. their apparent 'same size' varies is never actually the same

the moon's apparent size would have once been much larger than the sun, and in the future it will be much smaller. not sure why significance needs to be assumed

Well, the Moon could have been twice the size, or half the size. The size of the moon was smaller in the past too.

It is not that significance needs to be assumed, it is that it shouldn't be assumed to have no significance.

The distance between Earth and the Moon may shift to maintain its proportion relative to the size of the Sun.

do you have a source for the moon being smaller in the past?

can you demonstrate how the size of the moon would shift?

do you have any factors other than an apparent size similarity that demonstrate significance?

 

[Black Rose]

flat earth is the Christmas tree toroid field kundalini

And I am Santa/Anubis ruler of the underworld. Tartarus ninth realm of Hades. The frozen arctic.

 

[Pizzabeak]

@computerhxr

Well, people don't seem to get it. If it isn't complex, then why do so many people struggle with it?

Probably because evidence does not support a Flat Earth? People don't "get" that unicorns exist, that nargles live in their hair, or that aliens built the pyramids, but it's not because those are complex ideas. It's because they're just not true. You can't use the fact that few people believe in a Flat Earth as evidence in favor of Flat Earth.

The only Flat Earth I can get behind is this one:

I'm the one who's driving earth and keeping it in orbit.

Can I call shotgun?

Scientist: If there is no evidence that Aliens exist, then they don't exist.

But the universe is vast, and there is plenty of evidence of their existence.

Scientist: Nope, science is undeniable proof that my beliefs are valid, and yours are not.

But... Aliens...

Scientist: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

There are plenty of things in science that can not be observed, so they make intuitive leaps. Isn't that pseudoscience?

Scientist: In science, observation means that it can be measured.

Morpheus: You think that's air you are breathing?

You only accept evidence that fits your model of belief, and reject everything else.

Scientist: Take a picture at the edge and be careful that you don't fall off. lol

Meanwhile on Flat Earth... Scientists figure it out yet? No, they're still arguing over semantics.

Scientist: Who said that?

It is a product of evolutionary conditioning. You tapped into a collective substrate that transcends what you call reality, known as Flat Earth radio. It is hosted by Aliens, and there is a massive government plot to cover it up and discredit Flat Earthers.

Scientist: No, I just haven't slept in a while and my mind is playing tricks on me.

You know the government has lasers that they can blast microwaves at you with to implant thoughts into your mind.

Scientist: That is pretty far-fetched. Even if they did have the technology, the government would never do anything like that to its people.

And don't even get me started on vaccines...

Scientist: What? Who said anything about vaccines?

... Do you just buy in to everything that the government feeds you?

---

I think that I've made my point. You just don't get Flat Earth.

No, I get it perfectly, and it's everything I said already. There are three spatial dimensions we're privy to, so it has length, width, and volume. How come the moon or Venus aren't flat, as in literally? You're delusional about that. What about hollow earth theory?

 

[computerhxr]

do you have a source for the moon being smaller in the past?

Nope. I just made it up. I assume that over time it would accumulate space debris and grow in size. Billions of years, that would add up.

can you demonstrate how the size of the moon would shift?

Yes, the distance from Earth would expand or contract.

do you have any factors other than an apparent size similarity that demonstrate significance?

Earth, Moon, Sun, the 3 largest objects relative to our existence on this planet. They affect seasons, which affect behavior, which play a significant role to every living organism on this planet.

Like, really, things got the way they are due to the nature of physics. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Do you have an opinion of your own?

 

[computerhxr]

@computerhxr

Well, people don't seem to get it. If it isn't complex, then why do so many people struggle with it?

Probably because evidence does not support a Flat Earth? People don't "get" that unicorns exist, that nargles live in their hair, or that aliens built the pyramids, but it's not because those are complex ideas. It's because they're just not true. You can't use the fact that few people believe in a Flat Earth as evidence in favor of Flat Earth.

The only Flat Earth I can get behind is this one:

I'm the one who's driving earth and keeping it in orbit.

Can I call shotgun?

Scientist: If there is no evidence that Aliens exist, then they don't exist.

But the universe is vast, and there is plenty of evidence of their existence.

Scientist: Nope, science is undeniable proof that my beliefs are valid, and yours are not.

But... Aliens...

Scientist: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

There are plenty of things in science that can not be observed, so they make intuitive leaps. Isn't that pseudoscience?

Scientist: In science, observation means that it can be measured.

Morpheus: You think that's air you are breathing?

You only accept evidence that fits your model of belief, and reject everything else.

Scientist: Take a picture at the edge and be careful that you don't fall off. lol

Meanwhile on Flat Earth... Scientists figure it out yet? No, they're still arguing over semantics.

Scientist: Who said that?

It is a product of evolutionary conditioning. You tapped into a collective substrate that transcends what you call reality, known as Flat Earth radio. It is hosted by Aliens, and there is a massive government plot to cover it up and discredit Flat Earthers.

Scientist: No, I just haven't slept in a while and my mind is playing tricks on me.

You know the government has lasers that they can blast microwaves at you with to implant thoughts into your mind.

Scientist: That is pretty far-fetched. Even if they did have the technology, the government would never do anything like that to its people.

And don't even get me started on vaccines...

Scientist: What? Who said anything about vaccines?

... Do you just buy in to everything that the government feeds you?

---

I think that I've made my point. You just don't get Flat Earth.

No, I get it perfectly, and it's everything I said already. There are three spatial dimensions we're privy to, so it has length, width, and volume. How come the moon or Venus aren't flat, as in literally? You're delusional about that. What about hollow earth theory?

Um... You don't get it. You're blinded by reality.