Non-existence is impossible?

[CoffeeDrinker]

^Actually you're partially right. You're correct in that the idea isn't revolutionary lol, but it isn't anything to do with wormholes other than the fact that they are both structures that spacetime can take.
Blackholes do actually act like lenses in some ways. Wormholes would too, I'd imagine, but blackholes have been proven to exist whereas stable wormholes that you could actually pass any matter though aren't known to be the creation of any known natural process.

Notice how there are celestial bodies that are reflected and projected across apparently vast distances of spacetime. Crazy stuff huh?
Related reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

Also you can see the objects falling into black holes forever because you can't actually witness the moment that they cross the barrier where light no longer can escape, you just see them perpetually circle the drain, as it were, and the light is verifiable, but in the point of view of the object that passed into the black hole the process happens and it joins the singularity. For all we know that is...

 

[hiphophippy]

^Actually you're partially right. You're correct in that the idea isn't revolutionary lol, but it isn't anything to do with wormholes other than the fact that they are both structures that spacetime can take.
Blackholes do actually act like lenses in some ways. Wormholes would too, I'd imagine, but blackholes have been proven to exist whereas stable wormholes that you could actually pass any matter though aren't known to be the creation of any known natural process.

Notice how there are celestial bodies that are reflected and projected across apparently vast distances of spacetime. Crazy stuff huh?
Related reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

Also you can see the objects falling into black holes forever because you can't actually witness the moment that they cross the barrier where light no longer can escape, you just see them perpetually circle the drain, as it were, and the light is verifiable, but in the point of view of the object that passed into the black hole the process happens and it joins the singularity. For all we know that is...

This is esentialy what I meant what I think when someone says project

But i suppose if you had two super massive objects orbiting each other light passing through them would be stretched

if they were rotating perpendicular to the image that would be some trippy shit to watch.

But it would be pretty fucking hard to get two super massive objects to orbit each other without colliding.

 

[sazed]

^Actually you're partially right. You're correct in that the idea isn't revolutionary lol, but it isn't anything to do with wormholes other than the fact that they are both structures that spacetime can take.
Blackholes do actually act like lenses in some ways. Wormholes would too, I'd imagine, but blackholes have been proven to exist whereas stable wormholes that you could actually pass any matter though aren't known to be the creation of any known natural process.[/IMG]

Notice how there are celestial bodies that are reflected and projected across apparently vast distances of spacetime. Crazy stuff huh?
Related reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

Also you can see the objects falling into black holes forever because you can't actually witness the moment that they cross the barrier where light no longer can escape, you just see them perpetually circle the drain, as it were, and the light is verifiable, but in the point of view of the object that passed into the black hole the process happens and it joins the singularity. For all we know that is...

Yes, you understand, the source would be many light years away from the black hole whereas with a wormhole, you are talking about something basically entering the wormhole passing through a singularity, what I am talking about has nothing at all to do with something getting close to the black hole. I have some experience with rotating anode x-ray generators such as used for EXAFS and crystallography. The complete thought that I had was that if you used a coherent source, such as a very powerful carbon dioxide laser, you could use a black hole as a collimator so that the signal would reach much, much further than would be possible otherwise.

In my sober state, I realize that the speed of light being limited causes a problem in that light takes a long time to reach us. For example Alpha Centauri 4.24 light years away, therefore the position that we see the star is actually from 4.24 years ago and not the present time. If you were going to aim at it, you would have to calculate its trajectory, including the fact that it is moving away from us and that will delay how long it actually takes to hit it. Yes, I know that Alpha Centauri is not a black hole, but it's very difficult to pinpoint the existence of a black hole let alone its precise location, so I think it's easier to explain the problems in terms of a star. In terms of hitting something beyond Alpha Centauri, you would have to take into account that the target is also moving and further away, so the signal would take even longer to reach it. A bigger problem is that we have had no way to reliably test the assumptions that we have made about measuring how distant things are from Earth, so we do not have a good measure of the accuracy of e.g. the 6 key cosmological constants, things could be a lot closer or a lot further away than we think, the accuracy of our aim would have a very broad margin of error.

On the flip side of this, I think it vastly reduces the possibility of intelligent beings outside Earth even being able to contact us. People talk about radio signals traveling out from Earth and being detected by intelligent beings elsewhere, but the problem is that the signal moves away from us in a sphere so the power decreases exponentially, I think as r^3. So, relative to the strength of the signals that we have sent out, I think the distance at which these signals could even be detected above the noise would be not far at all relatively speaking. The strongest "signal" that we have probably sent out would be the detonation of a thermonuclear device. I think Starfish Prime, which involved the detonation of a W49 thermonuclear warhead at 400 km altitude with a yield of 1.4 megatons, would probably have the best chance of being detected. From the magnitude of electromagnetic pulse from that relative to the weakest signal that we can detect, you could estimate the furthest away from Earth that a signal could possibly be detected, and conversely, the radius in which we would be most likely to detect intelligence trying to contact us, unless they could create a much, much stronger signal. I'm thinking it would probably make the most sense to concentrate on detecting a signal from within our own galaxy and that once you do the math, it may turn out to be ridiculous to look anywhere else.

 

[sazed]

In terms of signal strength, ultraviolet into x-ray and gamma rays have the most power, thus should travel the furthest. I'm not sure if we can even generate gamma rays except possibly in a thermonuclear explosion or maybe a powerful particle accelerator, except the latter tend to be underground. Radio waves are at the low end of the spectrum beyond red, therefore have much less energy and consequently would not travel as far before they become too weak to detect.

 

[uhapšen]

the past is perfect and does not exists because the events are unique, the present uniquely exists, and the future is random.

Thats good description of reality,only that future isnt random as everybody thinks since everything happens for a reason.

 

[sazed]

sorry if this is a dumb question, but why would you need a coherent source? wouldn't any do? i had to look up collimator and it appears that they're mostly used in telescopes, i.e. in cases where the incoming light isn't coherent, but can you get far improved results using a coherent source? gah i feel like i've missed something obvious, coherence is supposed to be my thing.

either way, thats a really cool idea.

i came to the same conclusion about our chances of contacting extraterrestrial life. theres still hope in undiscovered physics though.

ssssssss & uhapsen- if the past isn't real, how is it causal? if the event of light being emitted from the sun 8 minutes ago isn't real, how is the light hitting us now? as the rate at which time passes depends on our reference frame, how is there one unique present for everywhere?

If you take a flashlight and a laser of the same power, which light travels further? Coherent light diffuses less and is all polarized in the same orientation. It would be affected less by interstellar dust.

Reality is a vector. Time is like a vector passing through the plane of the now. Now exists everywhere simultaneously. The past and future do not exist, but that does not mean that they are not real. If the past is not real we would not have knowledge unless it is somehow magically implanted in our minds in the now, there would be no causality. I do not remember the future. Because the speed of light is finite, everything that we perceive occurred in the past. A nanosecond is 30 cm or 11.8 in. If I stub my toe, it takes at least 6 nanoseconds for me to feel it, probably longer because nerves do not travel in a straight line and it is a chemically propagated wave that probably travels at much less than the speed of light. We can neither perceive nor interact directly with the now.

Reason is a construct superimposed by the mind to enable us to interact with reality. German existentialism like Heidegger says that there is a reality, but our ability to perceive it is limited. French existentialism says that reality is an amorphous matrix onto which we project ourselves. I lean more toward the former. I believe that there is a reality that exists independent of my perceived reasons, reality will continue to exist even if I am not here to perceive it. I believe this reality arose spontaneously not because some conscious entity caused it. There is a causality shaped by certain rules that we do not fully understand, but it has no purpose or reason to exist, it just exists, or we would not be here to experience, basically the weak anthropic principle. Further, I think "observe" was a poor choice of word used by the likes of Schrödinger that a better word would have been "measure"--I think it could just as easily be performed by a machine without intelligence, that knowledge is not required for reality to exist. Either the cat is alive or dead, whether we know it or not makes no difference, it's absurd to say that the cat is neither alive nor dead until we open the box. That's like saying the universe did not exist until the first conscious being evolved, then suddenly the past was fabricated out of nothing everywhere at once. Now you have all these airy-fairy people who think they can warp reality at a distance with their minds, no matter how much I might wish that were true does not make it so.

 

[Flickering]

Right!
There's existence for everyone that isn't dead...
but you after death, not likely

Well THIS is the exact thought that's been frying my brain... What is the I who dies and ceases to exist? Am I consciousness itself?

I am the one who experiences pain when pinched, or pleasure at a good meal - I don't experience the pain or pleasure of any other, I wouldn't even experience the sensations of a perfect copy of me, because all my perceptions are emergent. I have a brain and nervous system, so I feel, perceive and think. The materialist in me has it nice and simple: awareness is also emergent, and once that too is lost, this unique vantage point on existence will disappear forever. The idealist in me is a little more perplexed...

See, the idealist likewise notes that each of us experiences reality as us and not someone else. This consistent perception of self is a result of memory processes; in reality I am 'dying' in every single moment, to be replaced by a slightly different copy of me, because the past is non-existent (except as an idea) and that former version of myself no longer experiences. So, here's the headspin:

What happens if most or all of those memories get changed dramatically? Change my identity so I'm no longer Flickering, I have a different personality pattern, I perceive the world through different senses. (Indeed ALTERED senses - this is all especially interesting to consider for those who've done psychedelics, and I for one often think that the sober me has 'died' and the LSD-me has 'come alive' and will soon die again!) Naturally, with even a completely different set of memories, experience must continue - but whose is it? Mine? Of course not - 'I' am only a consistently transient concept of identity. So if I can cease to exist only to be re-invented every moment, in which I continue to exist, what happens when the vessel making this identity-memory complex possible collapses for good? What happens to consciousness?

Even if everything 'I' am fades to nothing, there are others still experiencing reality, and that experience is consciousness. What happens to it?

The idealist would like to posit Aldous Huxley's mescaline-induced hypothesis: that the body is not a creator of consciousness, as we implicitly assume, but is actually a suppressant of consciousness. I quote from The Doors of Perception:

According to such a theory, each one of us is potentially Mind at Large. But in so far as we are animals, our business is at all costs to survive. To make biological survival possible, Mind at Large has to be funneled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system. What comes out at the other end is a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which will help us to stay alive on the surface of this Particular planet. To formulate and express the contents of this reduced awareness, man has invented and endlessly elaborated those symbol-systems and implicit philosophies which we call languages. Every individual is at once the beneficiary and the victim of the linguistic tradition into which he has been born - the beneficiary inasmuch as language gives access to the accumulated records of other people's experience, the victim in so far as it confirms him in the belief that reduced awareness is the only awareness and as it bedevils his sense of reality, so that he is all too apt to take his concepts for data, his words for actual things. That which, in the language of religion, is called "this world" is the universe of reduced awareness, expressed, and, as it were, petrified by language. The various "other worlds," with which human beings erratically make contact are so many elements in the totality of the awareness belonging to Mind at Large. Most people, most of the time, know only what comes through the reducing valve and is consecrated as genuinely real by the local language. Certain persons, however, seem to be born with a kind of by-pass that circumvents the reducing valve. In others temporary by-passes may be acquired either spontaneously, or as the result of deliberate "spiritual exercises," or through hypnosis, or by means of drugs. Through these permanent or temporary by-passes there flows, not indeed the perception "of everything that is happening everywhere in the universe" (for the by-pass does not abolish the reducing valve, which still excludes the total content of Mind at Large), but something more than, and above ah something different from, the carefully selected utilitarian material which our narrowed, individual minds regard as a complete, or at least sufficient, picture of reality.

I hope someone will decipher and reply to what I've written, as this thought interests me greatly and I don't feel I've gotten it across to most readers yet. It's a difficult concept and my wording has been clumsy. I myself remain divided about what philosophical conclusion, if any, it points to. The idealist is comforted at the thought of life and experience continuing forever, even if it's removed from my identity and everything I value, while the materialist holds some pride in being able to face the reality that the universe effectively ends when I do. The seesaw teeters.

 

[sssssssssss]

Thats good description of reality,only that future isnt random as everybody thinks since everything happens for a reason

Everything that happens can be classified as a random variable. They can be predictable, but correlations between random variables can create new variables within themselves.

f the past isn't real, how is it causal? if the event of light being emitted from the sun 8 minutes ago isn't real, how is the light hitting us now? as the rate at which time passes depends on our reference frame, how is there one unique present for everywhere?

hmmm I'm not sure if I am really even capable of defining existence. I'm really confused now lol. If something is unique, then it must exist. If eternity was real and quantifiable, then for every point in eternity, there exists a position n within the sequence. But are our experiences meaningful in a way that they manifest within the universe?? Any given experience cannot be recreated and reaching that experience does not follow the foundations of science? It would break continuity in the ugliest ways. Does experiencing matter if you can create a model? Do we even exist to each other if we can't completely communicate a single experience? It seems like declaring existence is a pretty bold statement.

 

[sazed]

Well THIS is the exact thought that's been frying my brain... What is the I who dies and ceases to exist? Am I consciousness itself?

I am the one who experiences pain when pinched, or pleasure at a good meal - I don't experience the pain or pleasure of any other, I wouldn't even experience the sensations of a perfect copy of me, because all my perceptions are emergent. I have a brain and nervous system, so I feel, perceive and think. The materialist in me has it nice and simple: awareness is also emergent, and once that too is lost, this unique vantage point on existence will disappear forever. The idealist in me is a little more perplexed...

See, the idealist likewise notes that each of us experiences reality as us and not someone else. This consistent perception of self is a result of memory processes; in reality I am 'dying' in every single moment, to be replaced by a slightly different copy of me, because the past is non-existent (except as an idea) and that former version of myself no longer experiences. So, here's the headspin:

What happens if most or all of those memories get changed dramatically? Change my identity so I'm no longer Flickering, I have a different personality pattern, I perceive the world through different senses. (Indeed ALTERED senses - this is all especially interesting to consider for those who've done psychedelics, and I for one often think that the sober me has 'died' and the LSD-me has 'come alive' and will soon die again!) Naturally, with even a completely different set of memories, experience must continue - but whose is it? Mine? Of course not - 'I' am only a consistently transient concept of identity. So if I can cease to exist only to be re-invented every moment, in which I continue to exist, what happens when the vessel making this identity-memory complex possible collapses for good? What happens to consciousness?

Even if everything 'I' am fades to nothing, there are others still experiencing reality, and that experience is consciousness. What happens to it?

The idealist would like to posit Aldous Huxley's mescaline-induced hypothesis: that the body is not a creator of consciousness, as we implicitly assume, but is actually a suppressant of consciousness. I quote from The Doors of Perception:



I hope someone will decipher and reply to what I've written, as this thought interests me greatly and I don't feel I've gotten it across to most readers yet. It's a difficult concept and my wording has been clumsy. I myself remain divided about what philosophical conclusion, if any, it points to. The idealist is comforted at the thought of life and experience continuing forever, even if it's removed from my identity and everything I value, while the materialist holds some pride in being able to face the reality that the universe effectively ends when I do. The seesaw teeters.

I was involved with Large Group Awareness Training (LGAT) about 20 years ago during which I tried to destroy my identity and invent a new identity and I can tell you that the identity is a lot more robust than you might think. The LGAT told people that we could ignore the past and invent a new self, but the reality is that is about as easy as levitation, it takes tremendous energy, the second that you stop inventing the new self, it collapses, that is not to say that there are no lasting effects--after all you have either sucked everybody you know into the LGAT or pissed off and alienated your friends, family, co-workers, significant other. It's not much different from any other addiction. There is something very narcissistic and egotistical about it.

If someone invites you to attend an introduction to an LGAT, tell them you can't attend because you're going to be at home masturbating, that it's already on the calendar and that you're behind on your quota for the month. Then they will tell you that the LGAT will give you a breakthrough in the area of masturbation, that you could stand for the possibility of masturbation and take your masturbation to a whole new level, transforming the lives of others. The LGAT doesn't have anything to do with masturbation, that's just the formula that they apply to everything like reading a script, I just thought "masturbation" would be funny as opposed to "a breakthrough in the area of family" or "a breakthrough with your job" for example it was the most absurd thing that I could think of at the moment.

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

there is only the ongoing ever present YES! that is the universe. it is a happening that always exists... and seems to do so ---right now

The Tao as it were

-BHC

 

[Quantum Perception]

Well in terms of not dying; One can think of that at the exact moment of death, ones sense of time starts to stretch so that a minute feels like eternity. And in that eternity there is created another dream which gradually becomes another life experience, which again goes through the same process of death-dream-new life experience??

As for non-existence. Its almost pointless to talk about because we always end up categorizing what we are talking about, which in turn refutes the very concept we are grasping at straws to define.
Well that was my two cents.

 

[hiphophippy]

What about black holes? Black holes can be formed when a star's reactions, which used to counteract the star's gravity, stops. Therefore, as the star's gravity is not counterbalanced, the star, in a way, can implode. If it doesn't well enough, it forms a white dwarf. If it does, it forms a neutron star, or, if the gravity is VERY high, it forms a black hole. My question here is, what EXACTLY happens to matter when it is sucked into a black hole? How can large volumes of mass be eventually compressed into the black hole?

As I understand it no matter ever reaches the singularity; which Is the center of the black hole? it just falls infinitely towards it.

 

[himynameispaul]

Non-existence is not the same as Nothing. For non-existence brings with it the notion of existence, and therefore the possibility of it becoming a determinate existence (determinate being) that is recognized by man. "Nothing" is pure indeterminateness (without space, time, dimensions), which is distinct from "Being", which is also a pure indeterminateness, for without such distinctions, we would not have a notion of Becoming. The entire notion of Becoming is based on the fact that Being vanishes into its opposite (Nothing) and vice-versa immediately (in a logical sense) creating our ability to describe experiences as "reality" or its "negation". For if there was stability in reality, there would be no "nothing", but change implies the opposite must be logically true.

One cannot imagine "being nothing", for even the fact of attempting to imagine betrays the task, since it is a determinate being (man) that thinks of being (existence); so when he speaks of "being nothing", he speaks of the negation of his view of reality that shapes his notion of what it is to be. Thats what psychedelics usually do (at least on 2c-e), showing a true negation of reality and in doing so, bringing forth becoming (Showing us that our notions of what it is to be is more dependent on factors that we do not take account of, like neurochemistry, epigenetics, the "non-being" of those who didn't consider it before) and through becoming, what one is (like what my screen name-sake said "Become who you are).

Non-existence is possible, and is even a trivial term to explain what you're trying to get at (since it already has "existence" as its potential, of course its possible".). The question is rather is "Nothing" possible? Heidegger once stated that the only way that "Something" can come out of "Nothing" is for "Nothing" itself to have always subsisted, being vanished into "Being", (our senses, our neurochemistry...a crude approximation, but it avoids me to go into abstractions), immediately, in a way that is only noticeable in a flash.

Quoted for truth.