$10,000 question: Is reality digital or analog?
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
It is a add for a book.
No nerve "firings" (discharges) do not take place across the synapse. The discharge (firing) of a nerve is when there is a sudden influx of Na+ ions across the axon wall. Prior to that influx the axon interior is at -70mV and the in rush of positive ions takes it to a slightly positive voltage.
If you had falsely said that electric currents are discrete because the charged protons traveling down the wire are discrete, I would have said: I think you mean electrons traveling down the wire. Normally one thanks for simple corrections, instead of trying to defend their error.
If you are going to speak explain something you need to use the correct terms. Someone correct your terms is not being pedantic.
veggiepatch
Registered Senior Member
At -70mV, it is called the resting potential but when ions flow across the cell membrane, the neuron gets excited and the action potential of +40mV is reached which causes the terminal buttons of the neuron to release neurotransmitters into the synaptic cleft.
The whole thing takes about two milliseconds.
The whole thing takes about two milliseconds.
Jeeze, it's not an ad for a book wtf?
Yes, you are being pedantic when we are talking about commonly known terms that clearly others understand. Here's the definition for your edification:
pe·dan·tic
/pəˈdæntɪk/ Show Spelled[puh-dan-tik] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
ostentatious in one's learning.
2.
overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.
Now you still did not answer the question, you keep blabbing about irrelevant detail.
All it takes is a yes or no Billy.
and it's a go/no-go right, either it reaches that potential and fires or it doesn't.
This is the 2005 book with 468 pages being advertised at your link. Can't you get anything right?
If anyone wants to check, here is your post 57 link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=dS...ge&q=synapse firing analog or digital&f=false
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the 2005 book with 468 pages being advertised at your link. Can't you get anything right?
If anyone wants to check, here is your post 57 link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=dS...ge&q=synapse firing analog or digital&f=false
It's not an advertisement, it's an online google book, can't YOU get anything right.
And I'm still waiting on your answer Billy. Yes or No.
Quiet simple, but you still want to flim-flam.
"online" wtf? Go to your link and see you can buy it from Barnes & Noble for $31.57
WTF man. :shrug: I'm done with you, but still want a yes or no answer to the question. HTH did you ever get to be a moderator with the attitude and lack of understand you exhibit.
Ah, but is that truly the case. An actual hypothetical I came up with while pondering the threads actual question involves that if our reality is emulated, then time itself only appears to flow one direction because of inadequacies within design. These inadequecies might not be purely inherent but only exist until we are technologically astute to understand how to utilise certain methods effectively.
I linked these inadequacies down to two-dimensional storage media and how any multidimensional analyse is "Flat packed" for data integrity/storage. (I might have misconstrude what Fermilab is looking at in regards to it's holometer, however my assumptions themselves might share a similarity in reasoning to our "fake 3D" universe.)
I actually hypothesised further that an amendment to two-dimensional storage media would actually allow for Time to move bidirectionally, at least in regards to computation (While also increasing data integrity). Obviously I can't go into too much detail wouldn't want a bunch of mulleted individuals working out how to become Time hackers.
Good question. In order to create a simulation model of reality from 'nothing' or a zero energy state then one must use the digital methodology. The idea of analogue is just our current inability to actually complete a succinct fractal model of creation/bigbang/expansion/reality imo. I used to like the idea of an anologue reality, but that was just a 'romantic notion' of someone young and idealsitic. The smallest scale possible has to be digital imo, otherwise you will never have a starting place in order to model from. Try it yourself and you'll see.
but I have no idea as to why?!!!?
You're getting confused with the concept of entropy or the "number of ways". It's the ordered structure before the big bang which has low entropy (i.e. all the matter particles are very ordered and similar to one another) and the subsequent aftershock of the big bang which has high entropy (i.e. all the matter particles are now in very dissimilar orientations and structures). Therefore the idea of "both", laughably initially put forward by phlog, is a bit of a ludicrous suggestion. No offence intended of course. Just saying.
As posted previously by me, the classical reality of our senses is based on quantum level phenomena.
The uncertaintly principle & other features of the Quantum Level strongly indicate a digital reality, not a continous analog reality.
Unless you are willing to ignore Quantum Theory, you should vote for reality being digital.
Of course any digital data which is fine grained enough will appear to be continous & analogue.
I think more people would vote vote for digital (discrete) over analogue (continuous) if the question were posed as discrete or continous rather than as digital or analogue.
The uncertaintly principle & other features of the Quantum Level strongly indicate a digital reality, not a continous analog reality.
Unless you are willing to ignore Quantum Theory, you should vote for reality being digital.
Of course any digital data which is fine grained enough will appear to be continous & analogue.
I think more people would vote vote for digital (discrete) over analogue (continuous) if the question were posed as discrete or continous rather than as digital or analogue.
I agree with you Gremmie, it doesn't make sense to consider both to be true at the same time. But there is another way of thinking about it. Analogue structures could have been created initially and then after the big bang they break up and combine into the digital structures of today:
- Analogue matter/energy was created in the first place
- This analogue structure was spirals of spirals and grew to enormous size
- A right hand spinning structure and a mirror right hand structure formed opposite
- At a critical size vibration energy breaks structures connection with creation stream
- Both structures travel around wraparound universe
- Both structures collide almost 100% head-on
- Analogue structures become broken into digital structures
- Opposite spinning double ring helices are formed a.k.a neutrons
- Same direction spinning ring helices are formed a.k.a protons & anti-protons
- Protons, anti-protons & neutrons emit helices which act as gravity force
- Gravity and long-lived particles shape our world
Wait a second, it has to be digital.
One example is the three main states of matter. Analog cannot be a discrete signal, from what I know it is mainly just yes or no.
matter is not just solid or liquid, it can be solid, liquid, and a gas.
Even moreso is the fact that it relies upon heat and pressure.
There are many examples where systems require many variables to dictate the final product, that implies that the product is digital.
One example is the three main states of matter. Analog cannot be a discrete signal, from what I know it is mainly just yes or no.
matter is not just solid or liquid, it can be solid, liquid, and a gas.
Even moreso is the fact that it relies upon heat and pressure.
There are many examples where systems require many variables to dictate the final product, that implies that the product is digital.
I think the brain operates bio-digital. Without consciousness there is nothing, so yeah, digital.
It's a superb competition. The voting has been done but correspondence is still continuing. The best essay for me was from David Tong, High Energy Particle Physics Group, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge. Here's his essay Physics and the Integers by David Tong
Xmo1
Registered Senior Member
Reality is analog, or more properly in the analog; analog meaning 'in the flow of things.' The information you observe is translated as you will. Locality is important too. You and the things you do create local events. So you may define your observations as digital or analog, or both.
Last edited: