Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Fork, Aug 8, 2013.
Apparently the actual event happens before the perceived event. This means that mind is one.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The conclusion does not follow from the premise, nor is that question proper for this forum (alternative theories maybe).
The question of perception is irrelevant to the fact of something happening. The fact that the lightning flashes a microsecond after hitting something on the hill is no more consequential than the rumble you hear seconds later, nor of the fire engines that pass you at the next light, screaming as they rush to the scene. The fact of the event is equally evident even if your spouse happened to be in the subway and knew nothing about a storm, only to learn of it from your text: "Our house is gone. We are ruined."
A little reality goes a long way toward dispelling some of the ways we perceive the world - - or should I say: the way we perceive our place in the cosmos.
I disagree strongly. Mind is one because it exists in a realm all its own.
Agreed. There is a fascinating world beyond ourselves.
That's all good, but how does it follow from the premise? Also, how does that statement belong in Physics & Math?
All good. That may be happening in the back yard, or in a mud hut in Timbuktu. I can think of ways to relate nature to science & math (or even the probability of waking up in Timbuktu) but . . . what is your direction here? My Math/Science compass is stuck at π radians. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It follows because we perceive one thing (light which propagates at a finite speed) as different from another (actual events). This means that mind is one, and reality is another.
I would say these are the right forums to discuss this topic. It was Einstein who used thought experiments to solve Physics' deepest problem and gave birth to a new theory of reality. The latter which C.M. Langan says contains two key nouns, "theory" and "reality".
My direction is strictly science, but math is welcomed here. I'll read it and try to understand the math but I'm not making any guarantees. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Propagation speed of light is contained in the mind via perception and no more than one perspective. Therefore mind is one.
What physics or math are you invoking in that statement? We can go there, I just can't see where you're headed. Are you sure you don't want to take this the general discussion forum? Even geology is pretty quiet. You hit one of the busier streets in Scitown.
That's entirely subjective and hypothetical. I still don't know what "one" means here; you are applying it in a way that has no bearing on math.
Yes an Einstein has papers full of the other nouns needed to cover his discoveries, as well as all of the other parts of speech.
But unless you mean to take us to the physics of perception - which is more a subject of biology, all of this physics is over about as soon as it started.
That's fine I'm just looking for what science you mean. I still haven't figured that out.
If you checked what I wrote before you'll see that I meant that mind is one and reality is another. And that mind cannot perceive more than one perspective at a time apart from reality, which is the other. That is why it is one. And a real, genuine thing.
I think what the OP is trying to say is that if you are sitting at the midpoint of a train, and the light from a lightening strike from one end of the train hits you, and then a duration of time later the light from another lightening strike from the opposite end of the train hits you, that it could be that the lightening strikes occurred at the opposite ends of the train simultaneously, even though the light from those strikes hit you at different times and you remained at the midpoint of the train. Good call, OP!
...and yes, I can back it up with math!
Not unless you toss the constancy of lightspeed out the door, you can't.
Guess what? If you're looking at something in front of you, it takes much, much longer just for your brain to figure out that it's looking at something. Everything we perceive is indeed something that's already happened like you say, that's basic cause and effect at work. As far as the mind goes, reality means nothing if your senses can't detect it, so I don't see what you're trying to conclude here. Why can't mind be 1.3?
No, I'm right. Tell me what the speed of light is as measured by an observer on the train.
You're wrong! The velocity of the train in space is v=(ct-l)/t, all the while the speed of light is c.
Edit: I see you analyzed my link and understood what was being measured. (rolls eyes) It took you all of what... 4 minutes max to check it??? The least you could do is understand what is being said in the link, but instead you blew it off and didn't even bother to try to understand! I see how you operate.
I looked at your link. The math is simple, you just chose messy numbers. I said your calculations only work if you forget that the speed of light is the same for the observer on the train as it is for the observer on the ground. Now it's your turn to disprove me by taking your numbers and showing that the observer on the train still sees this. What speed does the train observer measure for the lightning flashes?
I choose seconds and meters, do you have a problem with that? The observer on the train, knowing his velocity in space, performs the CORRECT calculation to arrive at the correct speed of light, c, which is then in agreement with the platform observer. Only in Einstein's BS does confusion pursue, as Einstein was incapable of determining the velocity of the train in space. He ASSUMES the train to be a zero velocity, which is laughable!!! So I say again...YOU'RE WRONG!
I have no problem with your use of metric, in fact I highly recommend it for general use. What I don't feel necessary to make an argument is that you pick numbers with big loads of digits in them. In fact, mathematically you should ideally be able to make symbolic arguments that apply to all possible cases at the same time. But feel free to use whatever numbers make you happy if you want to do a case by case inspection.
That's just silly. If you wake up on a train and there are no bumps or accelerations, how are you supposed to know how fast you're moving through space? Oh I know, go ask the conductor, right?
Let's just say he's passed out drunk at the lever, and he puked all over the cockpit display so you can't read the meters. What you can do is go stand at the middle of the train and wait for the "simultaneous" lightning flashes, and measure the speeds of the light waves coming at you from each direction. If your numbers are correct, he will measure a faster speed for the lightning flash coming from the front of the train, whereas in reality it's the same going either way.
So, objects in mirrors are closer than they appear - light travels faster than sound - heck, light travels faster through clear air than solid granite - sound travels better through a stethoscope than clear air.
Even if the speed of light was infinite, the added time for our biology to process any sensory stimuli to our cognitive conscious, means that any of our perceptions of real events is, in all fairness, of past events.
How does following any of that get you to conclude that: "This means that mind is one." ?
Also,"... the mind is one" what ?
Hey, and if the mind is one - why do we perceive two hemispheres/lobes in the brain?
Or wait...is the mind separate from the brain...is the mind separate from the conscious...is there indeed any separation between the biological and the mental?
If so, which one is the one you mean? And why is that one mind mean? Couldn't that one mind be nice?
Apparently the actual event happens before the perceived event. Ergo, isn't it nice that mind is one.
Well the loads of digits are because the accuracy suffers without them, seeing how the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. I don't pretend that small amounts of distance and time can be erased and thought of as zero like you do. That's ridiculous! Reduce visibility and then claim it to be zero? What a joke!
What's even more silly is that if you wake up on a train, and you don't know how fast you are going, that you just say, "oh what the hell, if I don't know how fast I'm going then I'll just assume I'm not traveling at all, zero velocity." What a f'n joke!!!! Are you serious??? Maybe you should have a look at this and try to understand how one goes about MEASURING how fast they are traveling in space???
Separate names with a comma.