True Facts about Time & infinite parallel worlds.

infinitethoughts said:
Am I smug? Sure I am. No law against that..
You are in danger of developing an obsession that because there is no law against something it is, therefore, a good thing. You might wish to examine the logic of this in a quiet moment.

infinitethoughts said:
Good luck trying to get me to start using all the classically trained terminology.
If you use the terminology correctly; if you use logic; if you use well structured arguments; if you employ the scientific method; if you do all of these things, your ideas, speculations, hypotheses, will all be accorded much more attention and respect by intelligent, knowledgeable individuals.
However, if you prefer to attract the uneducated, the superstitous, the confused, then by all means continue your abuse of language.

infinitethoughts said:
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.
..........But that doesn't mean they can't post here !
Say what you want to. Just note my warning above.

infinitethoughts said:
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.
If I see inconsistencies in the posting methods, the inability to present a structured argument, the misapplication of the scientific method, all on a science forum, then I'll be damned if I'm not gonna say something.
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
Oh, dear. for someone who claims to be smart you display surprising ignorance. It is the responsibility of the writer to communicate his or her ideas clearly. Their failure will be judged by the reader, not themselves.
If I fail to get an explanation across to someone it is my failure not theirs. [I assume here that they are of normal intelligence.] So, if I say your message is unclear, rest assured it is unclear.
All the statements to the contrary by yourself will not make it so.

Clear?
 
"Clear?"

No, pretty damn foggy.
But anyway.......... I'm done wasting my time argueing with you. (Colosal waste of time, BTW)

I'm going back to the topic of this post.

(Mental note to Self.
Self, do not respond to Mr. Opheliate, it's not on topic.)
 
infinitethoughts said:
You are a deciding machine. That's what you do. That is all that you can do. Is decide. 24 hours a day.

Now. If you break your cultural conditioning, you'll be able to move more and more freely in the I.P.U's. Miracles will then become more common place. Your life will never be the same.
1. Provide one shred of evidence to support this contention.
2. Tell us how long it is since you read anything by Brian Aldiss.
 
Ophiolite said:
1. Provide one shred of evidence to support this contention.
2. Tell us how long it is since you read anything by Brian Aldiss.

As I mentioned before, this is a theoretical idea posted for the express purpose of stimulating discussion. (You pointed out not to use the word theory, so I'll complying with your request and using the word Idea.)

Since it's a theoretical idea, I didn't know I was supposed to provide evidence?

Aldiss, never heard of the guy.
 
infinitethoughts:

I realize now, in this present present moment, that I, in a previous present moment made a statement that was perfectly ambiguous. As if anything I do is perfect. Anyway, my apology.

I said that if my awareness does not travel thru time, I cannot get out of the present moment. Unintentionally obfuscative was my intended but not plainly stated reference to the world line of Minkowski spacetime and the need therein to move the awareness from one Minkowski moment to another to gain experientialness of more than one Minkowski moment. I was refering to only one specific Minkowski moment as "the present moment" with the implication that when the awareness moves to another Minkowski moment, the first "present moment" is left behind to maintain its permanent place in the past on the world line.

From the RELATIVE experientialness of my awareness, I can consider any moment to be MY OWN "present moment". In the context of my past post, I was speaking of a situation wherein my nonmoving awareness would be stuck on continuously seeing only one frozen snapshot of the universe.

My dispute against the Minkowski geometry is that it is totally deterministic whereas I believe in a free nondeterministic universe. Factual support for my opinion would include the great success the logical elements of Quantum Physics enjoy in the claim of the ubiquitousosity of uncertaintyicity.

You are perhaps speaking of the idea of the "Many Worlds Theory" of QP, a kissin' cousin of the "Sum Over Histories" theory. In relating your idea to those theories, EVERY POSSIBLE Minkowski moment is already existing and our awareness moves from one of a vast number of possible moments to another of a vast number of possible moments. It takes some mental readjustment to consider the apparently enourmous amount of mass and energy that would be stored in the "ready and waiting" moments. I find this to dissuade me. I also admit that the sum over histories concept is proven successful.

Since I was born blessed with an IQ high enough to understand brand new words, and to make them myself on special occaisions, in conjunction with a Poetic License provided by God, I have only rare trouble with expressive anomalies and in fact enjoy them.

NON ILLIGETIMI CARBORUNDUM.
 
Last edited:
CANGAS said:
obfuscative
experientialness
ubiquitousosity
uncertaintyicity.

Since I was born blessed with an IQ high enough to understand brand new words, and to make them myself on special occaisions, in conjunction with a Poetic License provided by God, I have only rare trouble with expressive anomalies and in fact enjoy them.
Did you think I was going to bite on such trivial bait? Well, of course I was. A snack before dinner is always welcome.

I am delighted you have a high IQ (I should be surprised, based solely on statistical data, if it were as high as mine, but then who cares? I don't.) Perhaps when you next feel the urge to indulge your creative whims you could spare a thought for those who are not as smart as you and I, or who are reading in a foreign language. It might be seen as a friendly gesture.

I wonder, for the amusement of the watchers, if you could render your little sign off phrase in correct Latin? Yes? No?
 
CANGAS,
I believe in a free nondeterministic universe. Factual support for my opinion would include the great success the logical elements of Quantum Physics enjoy in the claim of the ubiquitousosity of uncertaintyicity.
Nondeterministic, yes, but how does quantum uncertainty leave room for freedom? Your 'will' is as much a slave to randomness as it would be to deterministic processes, were they fundamental.
 
Last edited:
The notion is that, in some ill defined way, when we make a choice we direct the randomness of quantum events, as though on a macro scale we could make the dice roll a six. Notice that CANGAS's starting point is "I believe in a free nondeterministic universe", which he concedes is an opinion.
From that starting point one is obligated to find support for free will and a mechanism by which it can operate. Quantum uncertainty seems to be not only the best game in town, but the only game in town.
 
The notion is not even ill-defined, but non-defined. I would like to know what mechanism makes the 1400 or so cubic centimetres of our brains so special, given our demonstrable inability to influence random processes outside of it (as you pointed out with your dice example).
 
Ophiolite:

Many decades of Minkowski moments have gone under the Rosen bridge since I studied Latin. My phrase was not my sign off. It was an encouragement to the thread starter, and it was focused exactly upon you. The phrase therefore is incorrect in referring to a multiplicity of assailants, inasmuch as you are physically only one person, I guess.

NON ILLEGETIMO CARBORUNDO is my best guess at how my 50 year old Latin would translate "Don't let the bastard get you down.".
 
Darn, I looked up 'CARBORUNDO' and my dictionary told it it meant 'silicon' :( I was hoping for a quote on the possibilities of artificial intelligence or something...
 
Zephyr:

I can see that your Latin dictionary obviously has a misprint because my 50 year old memory of high school Latin couldn't possibly be wrong.

Artificial intelligence? I'm having enough trouble keeping my biological intelligence running.

Actually, speculations about artificial intelligence often involve quantum computing which involves superposition and many worlds theory. And, there are speculations that biological computers may be quantum computers; we might all be using our brains to evaluate enourmous amounts of superposed states for even the simplest task, such as trying to translate 50 year old Latin and write insults to people we iritate.

ITRY TORITE OLDLATIN INSULTUM.
 
Last edited:
CANGAS

NON ILLIGETIMI CARBORUNDUM.

He does admit to being a motheaten grumpy old scoundrel
LOL.

I agree with your statement that we live in a
a free nondeterministic universe.
And yes, the sheer amount of "space" needed for the Many Worlds proposition is very daunting as you say. It seems the next step would be, if someone does put validity in the MWI, to find out where and what the hell all these states are, and "where" they are located. (With the Theroy of Relativity, the "where" takes on strange complications, tho.)

As a side note, there are physicist who put forth the proposition that the spacetime continuum is an illusion.
(Rudolf von Bitter Rucker, Geometry, Relativity and the Fourth Dimension, based on lectures he gave, is one of them.)

As bizarre as that sounds, I try to look at any idea put forth and look at its arguments.

My goal is to theorize and discuss all implications that QP gives us, no matter where it goes.
 
Maybe that's the problem ... it was an English dictionary :p Although the Shorter Oxford does have some of the more common Latin phrases.

I've heard the idea of minds being quantum computers, but then why can't we factorise numbers as quickly as quantum computers are supposed to be able to? And how is it we can be beaten at chess by ordinary deterministic computers? The quantum idea makes me think that we should be more intelligent than we are.
 
Laika said:
CANGAS,

Nondeterministic, yes, but how does quantum uncertainty leave room for freedom? Your 'will' is as much a slave to randomness as it would be to deterministic processes, were they fundamental.

My take on this is IF there were only 3 dimensions I would be forced to agree with you.

But based on what Quantum Physics is unfolding, it forces one to accept that there are other dimensions and the quantum strangeness we are seeing are the effects of these other dimensions in this one.

I propose the heretical idea, that consciousness is one of those "forces" that exist in other dimensions and we see the effects on this one. I propose the second heretical idea that if consciousness is from a "deeper" dimension, ultimately it "supersedes" so to speak, the quantum randomness factor, being that consciousness is from a "higher/larger"(?) dimension.

Consider that if everything is solely based on this dimension, you would be able to measure feelings and emotions. (They are real, but cannot be measured.)
 
Last edited:
infinitethoughts,

One should be careful here about identifying extra dimensions with things like consciousness and so forth. In speculative theories like string theory where such extra dimensions are postulated, they have nothing to do with any kind of complicated process like consciousness. They are simply extra spatial dimensions not unlike the ones we are familiar with the exception that they must be curled up to avoid detection. Also, such dimensions don't go towards resolving any of the "quantum weirdness" that I think you are talking about, or at least I don't know of anyone who thinks they do. It is obvious that I cannot rule it out, but I just thought you might like to be aware that extra dimensions are not usually thought of as resolving any of these issues.
 
Physics Monkey said:
infinitethoughts,

One should be careful here about identifying extra dimensions with things like consciousness and so forth. In speculative theories like string theory where such extra dimensions are postulated, they have nothing to do with any kind of complicated process like consciousness. They are simply extra spatial dimensions not unlike the ones we are familiar with the exception that they must be curled up to avoid detection. Also, such dimensions don't go towards resolving any of the "quantum weirdness" that I think you are talking about, or at least I don't know of anyone who thinks they do. It is obvious that I cannot rule it out, but I just thought you might like to be aware that extra dimensions are not usually thought of as resolving any of these issues.

I don't think one should be careful.
The particular theory you brought up, is just one of a number of theories. There's always room for more :)

You've pointing out that has far as you know, no one in mainstream physics is thinking these I ideas, and I appreciate you pointing that out.

But as I've said before my posts are designed as speculative and "pushing the envelope", shall we say, and if I implied that this is the general ideas of present day physics then I did not express myself correctly.
 
Sloppy thinking is sloppy thinking, whether it inside or outside and envelope. This should be moved to pseudoscience.
 
Ophiolite said:
Sloppy thinking is sloppy thinking, whether it inside or outside and envelope. This should be moved to pseudoscience.

Not getting the posts, is not getting the posts, whether you are inside or outside the loop.
 
Back
Top