• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

hardest question

Cthulhu said:
1. Are you sure?
2. I agree :)
Click to expand...

There are places such as neighboring planets where there is no life but the planet undergoes changes, those changes occur not because of time, but can only occur for a segment of time.

If you are jesting that God is an animated life form that created time, I would not agree on the basis of my belief that God is a form of consciousness, who created our material existence to experience physical interaction through our lives. The material denotes time, our perception of time is not real time.
 
DOB said:
where did everything come from? everything comes from something,by this you go forever witch indicates infinity witch seems to us imposible

other way is that at some point something came out of nothing,witch is atleast as crazy as infinity


my theory is that outside our universe theres place without time,it dont have begining or end,not becose its infinite,but becose its lacking time,your opinion?

and dont say god or whatever derp magic,I mean some logical theory
Click to expand...

Why and to whom does infinity seem impossible?
Maybe there should be another choice besides finite and infinite? Maybe something can simultaneously be both.
And none of this indicate that something need come from nothing...only from something else. The problem of something existing outside of the universe is I don't think it would ever be likely for evidence of that universe or whatever to exist in our own.
 
TrYpTiCaL said:
Maybe there should be another choice besides finite and infinite? Maybe something can simultaneously be both.
Click to expand...

Well not properly finite, countable infinity can be enumerated in the form of 1,2,3... and is essentially equal to the set of natural numbers (i.e. the positive integers like 1,2,3) vs uncountable infinity which can not be enumerated in that way, like the set of real numbers (1.1, 1.11, 1.111...) But then something like the complex numbers becomes odd, since for every real number (already an uncountable set) there exists an uncountable infinite set of complex numbers (1.1+i1, 1.1+i1.1, (1.1+i1.11...) Of course, this is all mathematical abstraction and has no impact on the finite nature of the physical universe.
 
It's possible, sure, nothing about the idea of an extraterrestrial molecular biologist impinges on the laws of physics or the laws of logic. But its highly improbable and there is a lot evidence to support evolutionary theory which suggests that we happened about via a stochastic from bacteria over the course of 3+ billion years.
 
my try: from nothing

it may not sound very convincing, but if you have a more plausible theory, you're welcome to post it here


we humans are intelligent beings?
Click to expand...
rather, we don't know other more intelligent species

to take the example of neil degrasse tyson:
humans are different from chimps by only 1% of genetic material
now imagine another species that would be different from us by 1%, but in the same direction that humans are headed compared to chimps
we'd be ridiculously primitive to it
 
rangrz said:
My point was that we do indeed see a lot of self similar things in the meso scale, but they end at some point on the small end (The classical limit) and arguably on the big/cosmological scale (weak field limit) and at those points seemingly fractal patterns in nature disappear and a strange new set of things become apparent.
Click to expand...

Point taken - I can't say too much on this subject because I lack sophisticated knowledge of the science. I will concede that the fractal model has its limitations (like any model). I think my original response was a reaction to the deep philosophical nature of the question "where does everything come from," which I believe has an analogue in subjective experience (where does our experience come from?).
 
panic in paradise said:
If you are jesting that God is an animated life form that created time, I would not agree on the basis of my belief that God is a form of consciousness, who created our material existence to experience physical interaction through our lives. The material denotes time, our perception of time is not real time.
Click to expand...

Is there such a thing as "real time"? I believe time depends on patterns of movement/change. Examples include: the earth's rotation around its axis, the earth's revolution around the sun, the movement of a clock dial around the clock's center, the emission of energy within an atomic clock. These are all physical measurements, which we use because we depend upon synchronization with the physical universe for our survival. But there are also measurements of time based on psychological processes, such as the initiation of a task and its completion, changes in emotion, the progression of ideas, etc. None of these, IMO, are "real time." They are all processes of change occuring in some predictable manner, which we use as reference points for our own movement through reality and label "time" as a means of synchronizing across people and communities.

There is a common conception of time that I perceive as false, which is: time is a stream moving at a constant pace in one direction, and to which we all are subject equally and the same. The movement toward such things as atomic clocks is partly owing to a desire for the closest representation of this ideal, platonic "time" that is fixed and impermanent. My belief is that really, such things as atomic clocks are just our attempts to synchronize with more primal aspects of the universe like atomic vibrations, which themselves are influenced by other factors (and, ultimately, an attempt to measure time on a quantum level will be affected by the measurement itself).

So, where is "real time"?
 
Cthulhu said:
Point taken - I can't say too much on this subject because I lack sophisticated knowledge of the science. I will concede that the fractal model has its limitations (like any model). I think my original response was a reaction to the deep philosophical nature of the question "where does everything come from," which I believe has an analogue in subjective experience (where does our experience come from?).
Click to expand...

I would say that at the meso scale (Roughly like big molecules up to planets or even stars, cutting off at compact stellar remains) can be handwavely/pedagogically viewed in a semi-fractal way of emergence from collections of smaller bits making bigger bits kind of deal. I think our experiences do reduce to the physical brain and what ever input it has. I am strongly against a "ghost in the machine" type model for it's arbitrary nature and introduction of more complexity with no gain of predictive or explanatory power.

There is a common conception of time that I perceive as false, which is: time is a stream moving at a constant pace in one direction, and to which we all are subject equally and the same.
Click to expand...
Einstein soundly refuted that notion...time is not invariant in different reference frames. It's a consequence of the preservation of the speed of light in all inertial frames that time (and length) must appear different to different observers. The atomic clock was mechanism of confirming this implication of the theory. I'd hardly say it was constructed to create a universal invariant time! In quantum field theories, it's not infrequent to treat anti-particles as being just the regular particle that is moving in the opposite temporal direction, to give it "opposite" causal effects of the equal magnitude. So yes, at least mathematically, we consider time as two directions. Physically, it's verified that time is reference frame dependent.
 
^ I appreciate an informed point of view from a physics perspective, thanks!
 
Cthulhu said:
So, where is "real time"?
Click to expand...

... real time, 'tis in the heart.

just kidding
~


besides what rangrz noted: time, physically, is verified as a reference frame dependent. i would in the spirit of hoarse-shoes & hand-grenades purpose *Real Time* as either:

- that which occurs instantaneously.

- that which can be measured occurring without interruption or change from its start to finish; the only example of that i can imagine is, in comparison to the rest of existence, how long it takes for light to travel from one end of the universe to the other; assuming there is such a thing as one end and the other of our universe.

- the acknowledgement(assuming there could be) of how long time existed, where time did exist.


8(
 
The great thing about psychedelics is not that they answer these questions, but that they prompt these questions to be asked.
 
webbykevin said:
The great thing about psychedelics is not that they answer these questions, but that they prompt these questions to be asked.
Click to expand...

That is in fact something I'll agree upon. It's also, to spill over from another thread, the value of philosophy. But I think that one should be sober (or at least not on psychedelics) while answering them, and that one should use experiment and the scientific method, not philosophic discourse from the armchair, to find the answers.

For our subjective perception of the rate of time passing, it's going to be more fruitful to see what psychologists have learned than physicists. But what physicists have learned is useful to the answer in so far as it shows how time works in the objective sense, and tells us that we need to look at psychology for explanations about why we perceive it differently/tells us that it is our minds, not time itself, which is causing us to perceive it that way.
 
rangrz said:
That is in fact something I'll agree upon. It's also, to spill over from another thread, the value of philosophy. But I think that one should be sober (or at least not on psychedelics) while answering them, and that one should use experiment and the scientific method, not philosophic discourse from the armchair, to find the answers.

For our subjective perception of the rate of time passing, it's going to be more fruitful to see what psychologists have learned than physicists. But what physicists have learned is useful to the answer in so far as it shows how time works in the objective sense, and tells us that we need to look at psychology for explanations about why we perceive it differently/tells us that it is our minds, not time itself, which is causing us to perceive it that way.
Click to expand...

Great input.
 
rangrz said:
and that one should use experiment and the scientific method, not philosophic discourse from the armchair, to find the answers.
Click to expand...
Just like Heisenberg the great physicst couldn't tell how a storage battery works on his doctoral defense.

Don't you think there is plenty of armchairing going on in the physics-department as well? When was the last time you went to CERN to "see" particle physics with your own eyes?
 
I'm trusting the people at CERN are reporting their observations honestly. I don't need to see it all personally, but someone has to see it, vs pontificate on it a prori.

I've seen experiments with my own eyes at smaller facilities, and they agree with what everyone else reports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top