True Facts about Time & infinite parallel worlds.

Physics Monkey said:
I am curious to know on what you base this assertion. It seems to me this assertion is based on a fundamental underestimation of the unimaginably enormous complexity that can arise from only a few building blocks. Skepticism is certainly healthy, but no one can seriously deny the possibility that a few building blocks could account for everything we see. Furthermore, there is a considerable and growing body of evidence that one can indeed reproduce even something as complicated as a human using only the basic interactions and without introducing additional notions.


Yeah but can you get that experiment to have feelings?

Thats actually an interesting discussion in itself. Can you create a machine/or what not, that gets pissed off?
 
Light said:
“ Originally Posted by Light
"experiential-ness"

What is that word supposed to mean? ”



Ok, then it's nothing. Meaningless - since there is no such word. I don't think it even came close to what you were trying to express. I'll not be concerned with it.

BTW.

I wasn't aware of any law saying that you can't introduce new words into the english language?
 
Just found this on the web.

"All possible states exist at every instant, so the passage of time may be in the eye of the beholder--an idea explored in Greg Egan's 1994 science-fiction novel Permutation City and developed by physicist David Deutsch of the University of Oxford, independent physicist Julian Barbour, and others."

This is from an article written back in 03' in Scientific American.
Parallel Universes By Max Tegmark - April 14, 2003
http://www.elfis.net/phorum/read.php?f=3&i=22&t=22

The possible reality of all possible states existing at the same time is what really boggles my mind. That throws out all previous conceptions of time as we know it.
 
infinitethoughts said:
BTW.

I wasn't aware of any law saying that you can't introduce new words into the english language?
Me either. But you could have done better.
 
infinitethoughts said:
Yeah but can you get that experiment to have feelings?

Thats actually an interesting discussion in itself. Can you create a machine/or what not, that gets pissed off?

That's exactly my point, it seems you can get just that. Even little colonies of robots designed from only the most rudimentary input output systems and the simplest cross wirings can display a remarkable array of "emotions" and "behaviors" that are quite cool to behold. How much more is an electrical network with the complexity of the human brain capable of? Furthermore, modern neurological research is beginning to tell us a remarkable amount about the specific chemical and electrical pathways that are active during certain emotional responses. But perhaps the most telling realizations have come from the study of the most tragic cases: individuals with permanent brain damage. In many such cases, some emotions can shut off completely or run totally out of control. All this and much more suggests the conclusion that emotions are based in very real physical processes.
 
Physics Monkey:

Since I am not a Special or General Relativity groupie, I do not share your knee-jerk worshipful attitude that anything the R's say is so.

I approach life and science with a totally ( at least, as much as any fallible human can ) pragmatic attitude. If it is verified by observation of reality, I think that I can believe it. I do not think it is wise to remove myself one or more layers from reality and live in a world of mathematical ( or other ) halucination.

Bedrock logic is that any sequence of events is a TRIP THROUGH TIME. Any claim otherwise is halucination, whether it resembles some mathematical model or not.
 
CANGAS,

I didn't realize I had a "knee-jerk worshipful attitude" towards the theory of relativity. I certainly understand and am proficient with the theory, but I have never insisted that it is absolutely correct. The key here is that the theory of relativity is extremely well supported by observation, and I feel that physicists are well justified in studying and asserting the theory. What I can't understand is why you have such a problem with the theory when you claim to care about observation. In terms of describing observations in its domain of applicability, the theory of relativity has no peer.
 
Last edited:
Physics Monkey said:
That's exactly my point, it seems you can get just that. Even little colonies of robots designed from only the most rudimentary input output systems and the simplest cross wirings can display a remarkable array of "emotions" and "behaviors" that are quite cool to behold. How much more is an electrical network with the complexity of the human brain capable of? Furthermore, modern neurological research is beginning to tell us a remarkable amount about the specific chemical and electrical pathways that are active during certain emotional responses. But perhaps the most telling realizations have come from the study of the most tragic cases: individuals with permanent brain damage. In many such cases, some emotions can shut off completely or run totally out of control. All this and much more suggests the conclusion that emotions are based in very real physical processes.

Well ultimately for me, Physics monkey, it flies in the face of my logic, to think that chemical and electrical processes can produce emotions. But you never know, this is a strange universe we live in.
 
CANGAS said:
Bedrock logic is that any sequence of events is a TRIP THROUGH TIME. Any claim otherwise is halucination, whether it resembles some mathematical model or not.

Logic is not all that it's cracked up to be, cause if you don't have all the pieces of the puzzle it will lead you astray.

Take the logical worldview in the middle ages. Logic at that time dictated that the earth was flat. Some of the pieces were missing. The pieces were filled in and an entirely new logic was formed. Another one is the ancients thinking the sun revolved around the earth........

Same thing with todays conventional view on Time. Some of the pieces are still missing.

So is it, any sequence of events is a TRIP THROUGH TIME or is it any sequence of events is awareness navigating thru infinite parallel universes. ?
 
Awareness navigating thru a series of things is NOT TRAVELING THRU TIME?

If my awareness is not traveling thru time then I will never get out of the present moment.
 
infinitethoughts said:
Yeah but can you get that experiment to have feelings?

Isn't part of the question - what are feelings? In humans, are they just glands releasing chemicals which fire up certain parts of the brain? Or do they reflect something deeper? :p
 
CANGAS said:
Awareness navigating thru a series of things is NOT TRAVELING THRU TIME?

If my awareness is not traveling thru time then I will never get out of the present moment.

What if the present moment is all that exists?

Consider that the words "past" and "future" are entities that only exist in the mental sphere. They only exist in the world of linquistic communications.

They do not exist in what we can experience experiencially. Nowhere right now do you experience these concepts labeled "past" or the "future".

The problem the world is running into is, is mistaking the map for the territory.

But then there is change going on. What is it?
Like I said in the beginning, I propose that this change is awareness navigating thru the mulitiverses.

Now one could argue, yes but this is what we call time. And I will agree. My beef is the present definition we have does not take into account the idea of awareness navigating the mulitverses.

With this added definition it expands a humans worldview of existance.
 
Last edited:
Zephyr said:
Isn't part of the question - what are feelings? In humans, are they just glands releasing chemicals which fire up certain parts of the brain? Or do they reflect something deeper? :p

I'd say something deeper. Consider how many physicists believe that reality is composed of up to 29 dimensions. The 3 dimensions we see I think are just the tip of the iceberg.
 
Just as an aside, there are not necessarily all that many physicists who think the universe has lots of extra dimensions. This is mostly because there is no experimental evidence for such extra dimensions. Also, the current number is 10 or 11 or maybe 6, people can't agree.
 
infinitethoughts said:
I wasn't aware of any law saying that you can't introduce new words into the english language?
Point 1: Words are a form of communication. They are meant to promote understanding.
Point 2: When a new word is introduced it should offer an improvement in communication.
Point 3: Therefore, the meaning of this new word should either be self evident from the context, or it should be clearly defined.
Point 4: You chose to do neither.
Point 5: When you were asked for clarification, you refused to provide it.
Point 6: This mirrors your abuse of the phrase 'true facts' in your opening post.
Point 7: Either you have some significant problems in communication, or you prefer to confuse and obfuscate.
Point 8: If it is the former, you may wish to work on your writing skills. If it is the latter: congratulations; you are succeeding.
 
Ophiolite said:
Point 1: Words are a form of communication. They are meant to promote understanding.
Point 2: When a new word is introduced it should offer an improvement in communication.
Point 3: Therefore, the meaning of this new word should either be self evident from the context, or it should be clearly defined.
Point 4: You chose to do neither.
Point 5: When you were asked for clarification, you refused to provide it.
Point 6: This mirrors your abuse of the phrase 'true facts' in your opening post.
Point 7: Either you have some significant problems in communication, or you prefer to confuse and obfuscate.
Point 8: If it is the former, you may wish to work on your writing skills. If it is the latter: congratulations; you are succeeding.

"experiential-ness"

1) If you can't figure out what the word means, you need help with your brain cells.

2) I've already explained the "true facts" part in an earlier post, pay attention.

At the quantum level, "facts" no longer are hard and solid, etc. It was a play on words designed to stimulate thought.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52146&page=1&pp=20

The heading for this section is Frontier physics, Theories which INCLUDES cutting edge Ideas. Which is what my posts are.

All your posts seem to me to be in the opposite direction of what this section is.

That said, do me a favor and get off my back so I can keep this thread on topic.

Thanks.
 
Physics Monkey said:
Just as an aside, there are not necessarily all that many physicists who think the universe has lots of extra dimensions. This is mostly because there is no experimental evidence for such extra dimensions. Also, the current number is 10 or 11 or maybe 6, people can't agree.

Right.

Personally for me, there being more then 3 dimensions answers a lot of questions about the strangeness at the quantum levels.

Someone wrote a piece long time ago about a hypothetical place called Flatland. In this reality everything was 2 dimensional. Because it was 2 dimensional, everything was flat. The author then hypothothized what would happen if a 3rd dimensional figure came along and interacted with this reality. To the inhabitants it would be beyond their comprehension.

I mean hell look at the damn Alain Aspect discoveries. Instantaneous communication between electrons, and distance is not a factor ??!!

We are the inhabitants of "Flatland" when it comes to dealing with the utter and complete bizarreness that the ongoing discoveries in quantum physics is dealing us.

Our 3 dimensions cannot answer the questions QP is bringing up.
 
Listen up you smug irritant, it is the responsibility of scientists and those with a scientific bent to be as clear and concise in their expositions as possible. The gratuitous introduction of undefined neologisms does not promote understanding.

I will get off your back when you begin to adhere to good scientific method by using terminology in an appropriate manner. Until then you may expect me to stay very much on your back, attacking every vacuous statement, every vague assertion, every undefined term and every ill thought out argument.

If you do not like this you have three options:
1) Register multiple complaints with the moderators.
2) Stop being vague and unscientific
3) Disappear.

I recommend option 2, but the choice is yours.
 
Ophiolite said:
Listen up you smug irritant, it is the responsibility of scientists and those with a scientific bent to be as clear and concise in their expositions as possible. The gratuitous introduction of undefined neologisms does not promote understanding.

I will get off your back when you begin to adhere to good scientific method by using terminology in an appropriate manner. Until then you may expect me to stay very much on your back, attacking every vacuous statement, every vague assertion, every undefined term and every ill thought out argument.

If you do not like this you have three options:
1) Register multiple complaints with the moderators.
2) Stop being vague and unscientific
3) Disappear.

I recommend option 2, but the choice is yours.

Am I smug? Sure I am. No law against that. (Yet)
Lol.

Am I an irritant. Apparently.

The part about using good scientific terminology in an appropiate manner?

I not edicatud as a scientist. <-----Joke.
Good luck trying to get me to start using all the classically trained terminology.

What I am is smart. If I see inconsistencies in the directions of present ideas, I'll be damned if I'm not gonna say something.

My advice Ophiolite, lighten up and realize not everybody posting here will use your preferred method, probably cause they did not follow that particular schooling.

But that doesn't mean they can't post here !

Oh and if you think I'm being vague in my post, you have no idea what you're talking about. My posts succeed in making their points. Maybe you are stuck in the classical scientific viewpoint and cannot see the points.
 
Back
Top