how to know whether you and you 1 second ago are essentially one and the same?

Dywyddyr, you ask me, "Now please point out what in that video even approaches science".
Maybe I have not been clear before, but I never wrote that her essay is "scientific" or supported with valid mathematics. I wrote that her.. basically put, IDEA, is orginal and intelligent. This is what I honestly believe with my, "some familiarity with and expertise/ experience in science" . Mariani is proposing from a "scientifically virgin mind" point of view, a valid hypothesis explaining the reasons why and how the "potential energy for our universe existed before it became manifest in our reality", MANIFESTS itself (N.B. I used the present tense). She explains that there has never been a beginning not will be an end as all is "born" WITHIN the concept of infinity. Therefore she explains how according to her, the physical world must as a consequence infinitely "implode" from the potential energy field of Infinity (each implosion resulting in a "present tense moment" that passes as she calles it at "infinite velocity", and has been doing so since ever, since it started an "infinity ago". She states that there cannot be ONE beginning or spark such as the big bang, as that would determine that there has been A single starting event in time and space, which does not make sense when talking about infinity.
This arguement is still major speculation for even the brightest and knowledgeable minds, so I do not see why it cannot be approached by also by her (or anybody else).

Dywyddyr, you wrote that in fact you skimmed through her essay until feeling disgusted when faced with some "nonesense", incorrect information. However, unlike you I read it attentively from the beginning to the end, in a couple of sleepless nights, with the eye of a teacher correcting the essay of a very creative elementary student. Though lots did make me smile, I was still impressed with her effort in trying to explain with her limited scientific knowledge/tools her IDEA, but most of all, I was impressed with the idea altoghether.
Anyway, if you could self-inflict a bit more harm to yourself and try to be open to original "mud-pies", I suggest that you read it all. It is interesting the idea that infinity's potential energy field is in fact dark matter, against which physical matter determine resistance zones by imploding from it... Infinity imploding onto itself- she has no math behind it, but the concept is cool.

I also wish to say that Write4U is correct. His replies opportunely indicate that there are differences between the qantities and qualities of zero, varying even within different fields of study (which that alone should suggest to Dywyddr that the value of zero is not only the one he described), bringing forth the true fact that "zero" is still a debatable digit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh okay.
Then why bother to even raise the subject in the Physics and Maths forum?

How can it be "intelligent" when it's not only demonstrably wrong but also, equally demonstrably, nonsense?

It's not valid.
It's wrong.
And nonsensical.

One more time: is it necessary to eat the entirety of an undercooked meal to realise that it's undercooked?
If it's undercooked what good is it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fac quod vis- ad impossibilia nemo tenetur.
Accidere ex una scintilla incendia passim. Ab aeterno.

do what you want. nobody is forced to do what he is not able to do.
sometimes a single spark unchains itself into a fire. Since eternity and for ever.

"Then why bother to even raise the subject in the Physics and Maths forum?"- don't we like to use physics and math to see if and idea can actually work?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And yet, as soon as I point out that it's scientifically invalid you invoke "Well it's not meant to be science".
Either it was presented as science (or at the very least scientific scrutiny) in which case my comments stand, or it wasn't - in which case you're being disingenuous.

 

Here's my nickels worth:

Secret:#1

The question requires a definition of particle/system identity, and time, and a relation between the two concepts.
Case 1 involving "fundamental" particles, id is defined by physical properties such as mass, charge, spin, etc, which are determined by observation. You observe/probe a particle A at time t1, and later at time t2, and compare properties for each t. If they are identical, you conclude two instances of the same particle, if different, then one instance each of two different particles. Since experimental evidence favors all instances of a specific particle being identical, the notion of the first A being the second A cannot be determined, and is in reality irrelevant. Any electron will bind to a proton the same way, given the same initial conditions, thus providing consistent chemistry.

The assumption above of "a physical meaning" for time is based on the objectification of time, and time as a causal factor. Examining the application of time, a time standard (clock) generates a uniform sequence of events (ticks). An event of interest is correlated to the closest tick, producing an historical record of that eoi. NOTE, the time of the eoi is after its perception, therefore it cannot be a causal factor! Analysis of a light clock easily shows the "time" to be a finite amount of light motion within the clock, i.e.a distance. Regulating a clock to run faster or slower does not provide more or less time for the owner. The clock provides a beat in the same manner as a metronome supplies a beat for the musician, but the same amount of music is played, whether fast or slow.
Even though math expressions are described as functions of "time", we know that a falling object is accelerated by gravity, not time. Time is a convenient parameter, the same as earth as a common "ground" for electricity. It allows comparisons of similar or different phenomena.
As to the permanence of the identity in time for case 1, there is none.
To eliminate the possibility of an ABA transformation in the interval between t1 and t2, we would need to know the details of a single transformation.
Applying the same reasoning to compositions of particles, mineral and plant, their identity results from examining their properties.

Anything with a human element requires more consideration.
An individual is defined by their personality, not by their biological composition. Bob is still Bob after losing a leg in an accident.
An organization retains its identity, if defined by its purpose, despite having a different set of members. In contrast to inanimate particles, with predetermined attributes, personalities can change, subtly or significantly. Bob, whose goal was to compete in track competitions, may now have a negative outlook on life. Human personality, individually or collectively, can change as a result of experience or free will choices.
These characteristics could also be applied to some animals.

 

@phyti,

IMO, we have a semantic problem with the term "the same".

Bob with two legs is Bob as known by all who meet and know Bob. When Bob loses a leg, he would still be Bob, but not physically the same Bob the second before he lost his leg. Moreover, as you observed, Bob might change personality due to the loss of his leg. Then people who knew Bob with two legs might well say "After losing his leg Bob is just not the same Bob we knew".

Thus Bob remains Bob, but has become a different Bob from his previous self. He is no longer "the same". He has changed, both physically and psychologically.

------------------------------------------

But if I may be so bold as to "grope around" in real physics. I am speaking of the so-called "quantum jump" of an electron in orbit around a nucleus, which would imply that the same electron has shifted orbits. I have always wondered if that is not a misnomer. Is the electron in the new orbit the same electron as the original electron in the old orbit?

Is it possible that, during a "quantum event" the original electron ceases to exist altogether, but that its released energy is causal to the manifestation of a new electron (not the same electron) in the new orbit?

I am in deep water here and admit this is purely speculative. Contemplating the function of QM is so fascinating. To me, the concept of quanta involves an existing particle (quantum packet) which in the next instant becomes a new, previously non-existent particle (quantum packet), etc.
Is it possible for a quanta of energy to change properties during a quantum event?

 

And yet, as soon as I point out that it's scientifically invalid you invoke "Well it's not meant to be science".
Either it was presented as science (or at the very least scientific scrutiny) in which case my comments stand, or it wasn't - in which case you're being disingenuous.


(A short premise- I had posted a similar reply a couple of days ago, but I noticed today that for some reason it didn’t go through. I have thus re-written it and I hope you will find it sufficiently exhaustive):

Dywyddyr, why are you calling me disingeneous when it is exactly the other way around- you are being hypocritical and inconsistently polemic?
Please do not scramble my words to change their meaning. I wrote: “Maybe I have not been clear before, but I never wrote that her essay is "scientific" or supported with valid mathematics.”, specifically writing “scientific” in quotations, read below to understand why I did so.

I think here I need to go back a bit remind what science is:

“Idea” in ancient Greek means “to see” with the mind. Plato, put the home of ideas in a distinct dimension- in a super all-conscious “server” in the Hyper Uranus (over/above the sky), from which all consciousness can glean information (INtuition) and also, by which all consciousness are driven (INstincts).

Plato in fact states that the object of research is only partially known by man, because even though he had contemplated over it (known it) before his own birth, he has in his physical life “forgotten” it in the depths of his soul. The aim of his research is therefore to know again what is already present inside of him. Learning is thus a process of remembering (anàmnesis)- of getting in touch with the nature that is inside of us and around us too. What better truth than this can be, if you think, Dywyddyr, that there is infinity in ever single smallest particle that forms our body? Wonder: what are they all doing in Geneva at the CERN? Which better place to look for truth than in ourselves?

And this girl didn’t even realize the depth of her insight and how exact she came in the understanding that what she feels inside stands on the theory of knowledge of no one less than Socrates, maestro of Plato. Plato who knew things about cosmology and physics without anybody ever understanding how… insights/ideas/observations that were finally proven through science centuries later. Mariani I remember somewhere said, “if you want to know how the universe is born, look at how the present is born”…. I like that. Guya Mariani has an idea.

The theory of ideas of Socrates and Plato, is the study of knowledge. The idea is the real object of knowledge, not just an outcome of an elaboration of the world. (I suggest you go read about it).

However, an idea, or knowledge is different from BELIEF (or as you put it, wishful thinking), knowledge is “JUSTIFIED belief”, when the idea answers to WHY, primarily, even before than to HOW. (I am referring to “why” referred to the being. (I suggest you research the Parmenides of Elea too, whose ideas directly influenced and collimate with Einstein’s theory on Relativity).
Because though I (and maybe you too) concentrate my work on explaining how things work- to exploit them, apply them, etc.- the most important question is always WHY.
Science cannot stand without philosophical introspection (or simple questioning)- it is limited, being only the study of the structure and behaviour of nature through observation and experimentation. Its intention is to support or disprove an idea. We use physics to explain abstract intuition or “jusified beliefs”.

When the WHY makes sense, then the HOW can be proven.

Now this: physical science is the means through which we try to explain our observations/prove our hypothesis or “justified beliefs”, but..
how can one calculate what is incalculable? how can one give physical explanation to something that is not physical? ONLY through LOGIC and philosophy. Human logic is not physical, it is an abstract circuit, a mental scheme of thought elaboration that follows (or is guided by) a Universal Order.
Now let me ask you Dywyddyr: Do you want to separate physical from non-physical when discussing the passage of the physical perception (us in the present moment) through time, in infinity?

Please note how fittingly, Mariani quite timidly and somehow sweetly specified how her equation is “more like a philosophical equation rather than a scientific one”, pondering that she believed that philosophy cannot be separated from science, since the physical world is born by the intangible potential (or concept as she called it) of infinity. Quite frankly I agree. With her equation, she tried to give a numerical form to the basis/root nature of her idea, that then determined each following section of her essay.
She’s a girl with little or no science tuition, that is obvious, but with a lot of INtuition, fantasy, and a great idea. (and guts)

It is evident that we disagree on what is science. Probably because I think with my own mind, apart from accepting books’ definitions, so I still believe that “mud pies” can be a a significant source of inspiration.
I hope that now your scholastic rigidity won’t make you feel scandalized by what I wrote, nor reject/resist to the fact that Lorenzo De Medici and Leonardo Da Vinci are just a couple of the many “inessential, negligible” minds of Humanity who conceived, invented, created, “wishfully thought” accordingly to the theory of ideas (excuse the owed irony). Again, FIRST COMES THE IDEA; then comes the man with its science to prove it, or make it work. Please allow me to conclude by pasting here this sentence from Wikipedia for you:

“Plato's resurgence further inspired some of the greatest advances in logic since Aristotle, primarily through Gottlob Frege and his followers Kurt Gödel, Alonzo Church, and Alfred Tarski. Albert Einstein suggested that the scientist who takes philosophy seriously would have to avoid systematization and take on many different roles, and possibly appear as a Platonist or Pythagorean, in that such a one would have "the viewpoint of logical simplicity as an indispensable and effective tool of his research."

 

Yes, I am being speculative here, I believe that a quanta of energy can change properties during a quanta event, but the observation point of this change also plays a role: the change is perceived/determined also by the difference of place in time that has been created between the object observed and the observer.

 

For the reason stated: either you brought up that video in a science thread to be subjected to scientific criticism or there was no point mentioning it all.

Yeah?
Please quote my "hypocrisy" or "inconsistent polemic".

One more time: if you dodn't want, or expect, it to be looked at in a scientific manner then you shouldn't have introduced it into a scientific thread.

No need.

"Idea" is not "science".

What Plato stated is largely irrelevant.

Except that her "insight" has zero scientific validity, and therefore any depth is scientifically useless.

Citation needed.

I.e. philosophy or epistemology: not science.

Which of her "ideas" are justified?
And, more to the point, knowledge is justified TRUE belief.
Can she, or you, show any of those ideas to be true?

Science doesn't do why.

What do you mean by "non-physical"?

In other words: NOT something that should have been brought up in a scientific discussion.
"Philosophical equation"?
You ARE aware that (even) philosophy requires supporting argument, aren't you?

That's her belief.

Not science.

Her equation is demonstrably wrong.

And again: an idea, or intuition, that is WRONG (you did get that part didn't you?) isn't worth much.

Oh, here we go... the long-expected attack [sup]1[/sup].

Followed by another.

This is edging you - very positively - into the crank camp.

1 I always find it highly amusing that anyone who doesn't agree with the cranks gets dismissed as "not capable of thinking for themselves" and "indoctrinated into the established paradigm". Maybe because slinging insults of this type is far easier than showing that there is any viable basis to the work presented. I suppose that, in a way, it's a tacit admission that they can't do so.

 

Dywyddyr,
I never intended "slinging insults" to anybody, may that be clear.
Thank you for taking care and in dedicating your time in replying to me, though you firmly believed that it is all worthless nonesense. I truly appreciated your professional indications and honest point of view!! it was good discussing over this idea that for some reason, against all the odds you presented, I still like!

 

Right.
The direct insinuation that I don't (or can't) think for myself wasn't meant as an insult.

 

Write4U:

That's the reason to define Bob as a personality, and not a biological composition. The personality is a complex system of behavior, which allows variation in emotions, in response to a variable environment. In general a personality results from the totality of their experiences, and dies the same person as born, with allowance for maturing. An exception would be a psychotic disorder, or disease like Alzheimer's.
There are cases of 'mistaken identity' based on physical appearance, which could be resolved by examining the personality profile, as with a lie detector.

Why we don't want to define in terms of physical attributes unless there is no other choice.
If I save this response on my computer tonight, and open it tomorrow to copy to a flash drive, it won't be the same response, since the pixels will emit new light (yet the words are exactly the same).

As already mentioned, our cells replace themselves frequently, yet we don't have a problem identifying personalities.

The earth receives tons of material from space in a year, but it's still the earth (defined as the purpose it serves, and not as a ball of matter).

This would result in an unnecessary expanded family of particles differing only in energy content. Then would a space probe moving at .1c become a different probe when moving at .2c, and do you see where this is leading?
Energy states should not determine the identity of an object, since the object returns to its original ground state when the energy is removed. Physicists refer to higher energy states of a particle as excited states or resonances.
When Max Planck proposed the quantum of energy to explain black body radiation, it was a fundamental discrete entity common to all energy transactions.
A quantum (singular) of energy has one characteristic, frequency, which determines its energy. It is absorbed or emitted, but does not itself change (within the current knowledge). As an analogy, consider a person who becomes part of a team. They do not become someone else while a member.

Since my knowledge of QM is basic, I will not wade out any farther.

 

Hi!


You said it may not be assumed to be a GR question, but it is at the crux of physics itself, not just the Wheeler de-Witt equation, an equation which is obtained by making quantum restraints on the Hamiltonian, making it the quantum version of gravity which predicts complete 3 geometries are static.

 

what about the principle of synergy?

to Manifold: "But is there any way to prove that e.g. a particle 1 second ago is the same as a particle 1 second later?

I.e. What actually give time its physical meaning, what actually allow a system at different times to be connected so that it is actually the same system all along, and not something like one second ago, it is system A, and one second later it looks like system A but is actually system B?"

There is no self-preservation in a constantly varying environment. thus the self-replication of a particle's structure cannot maintain the same properties through time, as it is constantly affected by external interactions.
A system or particle, that remains the same in spite of a progressive modification of the surrounding structure, can happen only in situation of isolation, or in a closed system, in which there are no interactions at all with the environment. This model is obviously limited and incorrect and fails in any analysis of particles in open systems, in the way we all know.

 

It's a good question... shall I tipple us with some quantum vodka?

What if you watch attentively on a system, will it change over time?

If the universe has a unified wave function dictating everything, is there still change?

What if there is only change, but instead a miss-identification of an evolution of systems existing in a sub-system of Bradyon-fields?


What if I told you, the universe doesn't care if a second passes? What would your question be?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree with you, the problem is the interpretation of "same" to mean copy, or exact reproduction, which could only apply to something fundamental (not expressible as a composition of elements). It is unrealistic to expect that meaning even for these, such as photon, electron, etc. which can acquire different energy states. The original question is actually a contradiction of terms. You can't expect something to remain constant and yet change simultaneously (in terms of physical components). My examples are meant to emphasize the identity of something based on its purpose/function instead of physical composition. The solar system remains a specific astronomical object even though its components assume varying positions relative to the sun, and move at varying speeds.
A composite particle can retain its identity if it is only changing energy states, or it can transform into sub particles with different properties.
When an object is observed once, then again, and the times are not recorded. it's the comparison through memory that 'connects' the two events. It does not mean there is a physical link, or a nebulous "time" that causes any transition. Remembering the "movies", the mind connects the still pictures, and forms a dynamic scenario!

 

Yes Phti- constant values, to my personal view can be eventually applied only to the science of mechanics- where objects can act and are observed in a specific, determined energy field (which too of course should be isolated). However still, also energy fields are relative- like everything is- where measurements, velocity and therefore behaviour, even for technology, is subject to this relativity (see the lapse of time between our satellites and our watches on Earth). I believe the key to understand a common trend in behaviour of what surrounds us, in any science, is to study the effect of external, possible, RELATIVE interactions with any object, rather than concentrating only on the properties of the object itself... An infinite amount of work!! Ahahaaa. Anyway, coming down to Earth,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

good thing is that many objects directly interact with only a few other nearby objects (in our small energy field surrounding) that determine the results of their behaviour, so like it is easy to "isolate" and study the compounds that play the major role, so to come to practical solutions/inventions that we can benefit from.

To Manifold: your quantum vodka cocktail of questions was actually enough to get me drunk!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyway, you asked me one last question that I must answer- You asked: "What if I told you, the universe doesn't care if a second passes? What would your question be?" I will reply, but not with a question (Ancient Romans used to say "never reply with another question!!"): I say that no, the Universe CARES(!) that one second has passed, even about the tiniest fraction of a planck unit you can possibly imagine- it is ESSENTIAL to the Universe!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!