couch monster
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2000
- Messages
- 59
WTF???
Philosophical Question about time and space(READ THIS) it is why acid is bad...
- Thread starter KeWlHaNdLuKe
- Start date
sunjoy
Bluelighter
Reading this post has made me understand one thing-- My brain is just not capable of understanding certain concepts. This is really disheartening. I thought that if you sit down and think about something long enough and really really try to understand it, you will. But I was wrong. My mind has been challenged and I failed. There really is a difference between the intelligent members of society and the rest of us. I love to think, and think about thinking, and I've had thoughts similair to (some) of these since I can remember having thoughts, but I just can't follow the majority of this thread, and I certainly can't express my thoughts the way you all have here. It makes me really sad. There is such thing as IQ. But, good for the rest of you smart ones. I guess I have to get on with the rest of my life now, after this crushing realization that all humans were not created equal, and get on with the business of writing down what I *do* know. Thanks all.
Guru Daddy
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 21, 1999
- Messages
- 322
Whoa, sunjoy, are you kidding? Don't equate ignorance with lack of intelligence. These folks are obviously highly intelligent, they are also highly educated in specific areas of study. If we could all understand everything intuitively we wouldn't need education at all. I can't remember exactly what words he used but the gist of a comment from Albert Einstein was that imagination is more important than intelligence. Ideally I think we're looking for a combination of the two. I think humankind's great leaps forward have tended to come from asking "what if?" as opposed to "what is?" I read this thread, skipped some stuff when I got lost, and thought so what? It's fun to watch minds at play, even if I don't know all the rules of the game. Enjoy their strengths as you recognize your own unique gifts. It's not a contest, we're all on the same team.
Love and Peace,
Guru Daddy
Love and Peace,
Guru Daddy
applesbliss
Bluelighter
I got lost in all those words.
I can no longer focus
Apples
------------------
BLueLiGH!T |is| The EcStaSy |of| Internet
I can no longer focus
Apples
------------------
BLueLiGH!T |is| The EcStaSy |of| Internet
tigger
Bluelighter
Hey!
I need to take issue with a couple of points here...
#1 I am not aware of any theory that stipulates that matter can be infinately divided.
#2 When working in a subjective model, looking at time as a one dimentional entity is impossible. It's no different than trying to view ONLY the depth of an object. In theoretical models, our 4 subjective dimentions can be separated and dealt with separatly, but not in an applied field.
#3 There is a problem with you theory when you state that in an environment where matter exists in infinate variety based on an increasing or decreasing exponential equation, that you have a box. In this model, that box would be inside an infinate number of other boxes, thus eliminating the possibility of a tree structure.
#4 In your model, each partical, regardless of size behaves the same way as it's larger and smaller siblings, regardless of the difference in scale. This points to a behavioral ratio. In reality this is not the case. That is why we have both Quantum Mechanics and Reletivity... For those of you who do not know, while Reletiviy and QM work perfectly in they're respective environments, they conflict with each other. This means that we can observe reactions in area of Physics that are governed by Reletivity that conflict with the expected reaction of the pricipals of QM. Funky, huh???
Two of my favorite books on the topic are:
Hyperspace: Michio Kaku
The 1st and 2nd Advanced Essays on 26th Dimentional String Theory: Glenn Schwarts
------------------
PLUR
Tig
*****************************************************************
Binkies are way functional, they're kewl, and they're cute!
THEY ARE *NOT* LAME!!! grrrrr... = P
I need to take issue with a couple of points here...
#1 I am not aware of any theory that stipulates that matter can be infinately divided.
#2 When working in a subjective model, looking at time as a one dimentional entity is impossible. It's no different than trying to view ONLY the depth of an object. In theoretical models, our 4 subjective dimentions can be separated and dealt with separatly, but not in an applied field.
#3 There is a problem with you theory when you state that in an environment where matter exists in infinate variety based on an increasing or decreasing exponential equation, that you have a box. In this model, that box would be inside an infinate number of other boxes, thus eliminating the possibility of a tree structure.
#4 In your model, each partical, regardless of size behaves the same way as it's larger and smaller siblings, regardless of the difference in scale. This points to a behavioral ratio. In reality this is not the case. That is why we have both Quantum Mechanics and Reletivity... For those of you who do not know, while Reletiviy and QM work perfectly in they're respective environments, they conflict with each other. This means that we can observe reactions in area of Physics that are governed by Reletivity that conflict with the expected reaction of the pricipals of QM. Funky, huh???
Two of my favorite books on the topic are:
Hyperspace: Michio Kaku
The 1st and 2nd Advanced Essays on 26th Dimentional String Theory: Glenn Schwarts
------------------
PLUR
Tig
*****************************************************************
Binkies are way functional, they're kewl, and they're cute!
THEY ARE *NOT* LAME!!! grrrrr... = P
tigger
Bluelighter
Hey!
I need to take issue with a couple of points here...
#1 I am not aware of any theory that stipulates that matter can be infinately divided.
#2 When working in a subjective model, looking at time as a one dimentional entity is impossible. It's no different than trying to view ONLY the depth of an object. In theoretical models, our 4 subjective dimentions can be separated and dealt with separatly, but not in an applied field.
#3 There is a problem with you theory when you state that in an environment where matter exists in infinate variety based on an increasing or decreasing exponential equation, that you have a box. In this model, that box would be inside an infinate number of other boxes, thus eliminating the possibility of a tree structure.
#4 In your model, each partical, regardless of size behaves the same way as it's larger and smaller siblings, regardless of the difference in scale. This points to a behavioral ratio. In reality this is not the case. That is why we have both Quantum Mechanics and Reletivity... For those of you who do not know, while Reletiviy and QM work perfectly in they're respective environments, they conflict with each other. This means that we can observe reactions in area of Physics that are governed by Reletivity that conflict with the expected reaction of the pricipals of QM. Funky, huh???
Two of my favorite books on the topic are:
Hyperspace: Michio Kaku
The 1st and 2nd Advanced Essays on 26th Dimentional String Theory: Glenn Schwarts
------------------
PLUR
Tig
*****************************************************************
Binkies are way functional, they're kewl, and they're cute!
THEY ARE *NOT* LAME!!! grrrrr... = P
I need to take issue with a couple of points here...
#1 I am not aware of any theory that stipulates that matter can be infinately divided.
#2 When working in a subjective model, looking at time as a one dimentional entity is impossible. It's no different than trying to view ONLY the depth of an object. In theoretical models, our 4 subjective dimentions can be separated and dealt with separatly, but not in an applied field.
#3 There is a problem with you theory when you state that in an environment where matter exists in infinate variety based on an increasing or decreasing exponential equation, that you have a box. In this model, that box would be inside an infinate number of other boxes, thus eliminating the possibility of a tree structure.
#4 In your model, each partical, regardless of size behaves the same way as it's larger and smaller siblings, regardless of the difference in scale. This points to a behavioral ratio. In reality this is not the case. That is why we have both Quantum Mechanics and Reletivity... For those of you who do not know, while Reletiviy and QM work perfectly in they're respective environments, they conflict with each other. This means that we can observe reactions in area of Physics that are governed by Reletivity that conflict with the expected reaction of the pricipals of QM. Funky, huh???
Two of my favorite books on the topic are:
Hyperspace: Michio Kaku
The 1st and 2nd Advanced Essays on 26th Dimentional String Theory: Glenn Schwarts
------------------
PLUR
Tig
*****************************************************************
Binkies are way functional, they're kewl, and they're cute!
THEY ARE *NOT* LAME!!! grrrrr... = P
krazyE
Bluelighter
ok, philosophically speaking...
my head hurts, i rather not think about those things and live a simple life.
but props to yall for having such deep minds.
sometimes i wish my brain was like that too, but it hasnt fully recovered from getting stabbed when i was still in my mom's belly.
------------------
I don't like cocaine, I just like the smell of it.
my head hurts, i rather not think about those things and live a simple life.
but props to yall for having such deep minds.
sometimes i wish my brain was like that too, but it hasnt fully recovered from getting stabbed when i was still in my mom's belly.
------------------
I don't like cocaine, I just like the smell of it.
liquidocean
Bluelighter
bump.
this is how we used to do it.
this is how we used to do it.
XxBeccaRollrxX
Bluelighter
*deep breath* wow. First of all, let me say how thrilled I am to have just read through all of that. I know this reply is going to take me waaaaay too long to actually finish, but I am hoping someone, at least one person, reads it.
A little disclaimer first: I'm a high school student. I am not in an AP math course so I have not yet taken Calculus ... or philosophy. however, I am incredibly interested in topics like these, so all information that I know and will regurgitate I have acquired myself. So I don't know as much as I want to know...and probably never will. but I love trying. So here we go.
first and most importantly, "the wise man doesn't know how much he knows until he knows how much he doesn't know."
That said, infinities were discussed in repetitition here. What hasn't been mentioned, and may (I hope) provide some clairty is that you can compare them. Georg Cantor, considered by some to be the founder of the "arithmetics of infinity," started questioning whether or not the number of all numbers is larger or smaller than the number of all points on a line. Anyway, skipping the intro and history of the topic, you get to the theory of how we compare infinities. Try to follow me in what I am attempting to explain (not as well as George Gamow did... which is how I learned this one - "One Two Three... Infinity by George Gamow) If we can pair the objects, or numbers, of two infinite groups so that each object, or number, of one infinite collection pairs with each object of another infinite collection, and no objects in either group are left alone, then the two infinities are equal. But if such an arrangement is impossible and in one of the collections some unpaired objects are left, then it is said that the infinity of objects in this collection is larger, or stronger than the infinity of objects in the other collection. So that while something may go on forever, all infinites may not be equal. This is the most reasonable, and as a matter of fact, the only possible way of comparing infinite quantities. But, in application of this theory, some surprises might occur.
To explain this, an example would be comparing the infinity of all even numbers to the infinity of all odd numbers. Of course you would feel that the infinity of all even numbers is equivalent to the infinity of all odd numbers, and since a one to one correspondence of these numbers can be arranged, your intuition is right. i.e.:
1 2, 3 4, 5 6, 6 7, 7 8, etc. etc.
There is an even number to correspond with each odd number and vice versa, hence both infinities are equal. Seems practical, right? Well, here's where things get a little confusing. Which do you think is larger: the number of ALL numbers both even and odd, or the number of all EVEN numbers only? Of course all numbers, right? wrong! There is, in fact, a one-to-one correspondence of all numbers on one side, and even numbers only on the other:
1 2, 2 4, 3 6, 4 8, 5 10 6 12 etc. etc.
According to the rule of comparing infinities, we have to say that these infinities are equal! This sounds paradoxical, of course, since even numbers represent only a part of all numbers, but we have to remember that we are operating with infinite numbers, we must be prepared to encounter different properties.
And here's where things get relevant!
According to the above, we can infer and prove that in a world of infinity a part may be equal to the whole! So... *whew* in reference to what you, Caleb, were saying... we could all be living in a circle...which would make it infinite -- and it could be the size of what we know as a marble. It is all possible. And this theory, for me, at least, just confirmed how many more possibilities there are out there. Made me think more at least...
And, again, in theory, an infinity might not be infinite at all, it may just be beyond our comprehension. You know, there are theories today that say we live in an 11 dimensional world, but we are so incapable of thinking outside our 3 (or 4, rather)dimensional perceptive minds, that we will never be able to fathom the 11 dimensions. It's similar to how a cat only sees in 3 dimensions. When they look into the mirror they stare blankly, or don't even bother to stare because they see nothing. This is not because cat's can't recognize themselves, but instead this is because a mirror's reflections are only 2 dimensional. The cat cannot fathom his reflection. Anyway, that's my piece on that
About time...while some claim that time has been proven to be nonexistent, I agree with most of you and think time is only one's perception. Einstein had a theory, which I'm sure you all are familiar with, as I forget it completely... about space traveling and time. How, theoretically, it would be possible for one half of a pair of identical twins travel into space and return to earth exactly one year later having not aged at all and reuniting with his twin, finding that he is exactly one year older. It went something like that I think. Anyway, I think you get my point of view.
Caleb... you brought up an interesting point in having faith in the intelligence of the masses. I have to contribute, I'm sorry. I think it was said in Men and Black (trite, I know), but "a man is smart. people are stupid" something like that. Anyway, I agree. I believe that every single person on this planet (and then some?) has something to offer, something I can learn from. But when we are herded together, we're morons. I sometimes seriously lack faith in humanity because of this. My pessimistic side assures me that we will, soon enough, destroy ourselves. It sucks to think the glass is half empty....but anyway....
hmm.. god.. now here's a touchy subject. I know you already clarified, but I don't think anything besides an actual confrontation with the supposed being could prove the existence of god. To me, I don't need to know how everything started... how that first quark was created... I don't need a reason to feel insignificant. I don't need a god to supply me with a universal role in life.. or give me a soul... because of this, I cannot agree with any "proof" of an omnipotent being. I don't need a god to make me feel less small.. and I don't need to know all the answers.. or create something to answer them. (I am not meaning to offend anyone) However, as long as I am rambling.. I see the need for a belief in god. Religion (should) provide a system of ethics and morals that helps one to lead life. My own personal code of ethics and morality are not established by the belief in something higher than myself. I made them myself. based on the faith in myself that deep inside me, I know what's right and wrong, that I can make these decisions for myself, and that I am ready to be accountable for the repercussions of all my actions.
About chaos... so what if the entire universe is chaotic? Do you guys remember American Beauty? Well, do you remember that one video clip .. with the floating plastic bag. That was, in it's entirety - wind - pushing around trash, in no organized manner, in fact, chaotic, with no patterns, constants, or plan... just wind pushing trash. And yet, it was so beautiful. So maybe I take comfort in the belief in a chaotic world.. it's hope there's beauty out there
Anyway, thanks guys for reading (or scrolling through) my novel there. I didn't mean to go on.. and on... and on
And on a side note: Everyone is intelligent. Everyone is unique. And I love this stuff... don't ever stop thinking... and when you guys are ever in Philly... stop by cause there's nothing like finding people you can actually converse with.
[This message has been edited by Ro L L er G i r L (edited 09 April 2000).]
A little disclaimer first: I'm a high school student. I am not in an AP math course so I have not yet taken Calculus ... or philosophy. however, I am incredibly interested in topics like these, so all information that I know and will regurgitate I have acquired myself. So I don't know as much as I want to know...and probably never will. but I love trying. So here we go.
first and most importantly, "the wise man doesn't know how much he knows until he knows how much he doesn't know."
That said, infinities were discussed in repetitition here. What hasn't been mentioned, and may (I hope) provide some clairty is that you can compare them. Georg Cantor, considered by some to be the founder of the "arithmetics of infinity," started questioning whether or not the number of all numbers is larger or smaller than the number of all points on a line. Anyway, skipping the intro and history of the topic, you get to the theory of how we compare infinities. Try to follow me in what I am attempting to explain (not as well as George Gamow did... which is how I learned this one - "One Two Three... Infinity by George Gamow) If we can pair the objects, or numbers, of two infinite groups so that each object, or number, of one infinite collection pairs with each object of another infinite collection, and no objects in either group are left alone, then the two infinities are equal. But if such an arrangement is impossible and in one of the collections some unpaired objects are left, then it is said that the infinity of objects in this collection is larger, or stronger than the infinity of objects in the other collection. So that while something may go on forever, all infinites may not be equal. This is the most reasonable, and as a matter of fact, the only possible way of comparing infinite quantities. But, in application of this theory, some surprises might occur.
To explain this, an example would be comparing the infinity of all even numbers to the infinity of all odd numbers. Of course you would feel that the infinity of all even numbers is equivalent to the infinity of all odd numbers, and since a one to one correspondence of these numbers can be arranged, your intuition is right. i.e.:
1 2, 3 4, 5 6, 6 7, 7 8, etc. etc.
There is an even number to correspond with each odd number and vice versa, hence both infinities are equal. Seems practical, right? Well, here's where things get a little confusing. Which do you think is larger: the number of ALL numbers both even and odd, or the number of all EVEN numbers only? Of course all numbers, right? wrong! There is, in fact, a one-to-one correspondence of all numbers on one side, and even numbers only on the other:
1 2, 2 4, 3 6, 4 8, 5 10 6 12 etc. etc.
According to the rule of comparing infinities, we have to say that these infinities are equal! This sounds paradoxical, of course, since even numbers represent only a part of all numbers, but we have to remember that we are operating with infinite numbers, we must be prepared to encounter different properties.
And here's where things get relevant!
And, again, in theory, an infinity might not be infinite at all, it may just be beyond our comprehension. You know, there are theories today that say we live in an 11 dimensional world, but we are so incapable of thinking outside our 3 (or 4, rather)dimensional perceptive minds, that we will never be able to fathom the 11 dimensions. It's similar to how a cat only sees in 3 dimensions. When they look into the mirror they stare blankly, or don't even bother to stare because they see nothing. This is not because cat's can't recognize themselves, but instead this is because a mirror's reflections are only 2 dimensional. The cat cannot fathom his reflection. Anyway, that's my piece on that
About time...while some claim that time has been proven to be nonexistent, I agree with most of you and think time is only one's perception. Einstein had a theory, which I'm sure you all are familiar with, as I forget it completely... about space traveling and time. How, theoretically, it would be possible for one half of a pair of identical twins travel into space and return to earth exactly one year later having not aged at all and reuniting with his twin, finding that he is exactly one year older. It went something like that I think. Anyway, I think you get my point of view.
Caleb... you brought up an interesting point in having faith in the intelligence of the masses. I have to contribute, I'm sorry. I think it was said in Men and Black (trite, I know), but "a man is smart. people are stupid" something like that. Anyway, I agree. I believe that every single person on this planet (and then some?) has something to offer, something I can learn from. But when we are herded together, we're morons. I sometimes seriously lack faith in humanity because of this. My pessimistic side assures me that we will, soon enough, destroy ourselves. It sucks to think the glass is half empty....but anyway....
hmm.. god.. now here's a touchy subject. I know you already clarified, but I don't think anything besides an actual confrontation with the supposed being could prove the existence of god. To me, I don't need to know how everything started... how that first quark was created... I don't need a reason to feel insignificant. I don't need a god to supply me with a universal role in life.. or give me a soul... because of this, I cannot agree with any "proof" of an omnipotent being. I don't need a god to make me feel less small.. and I don't need to know all the answers.. or create something to answer them. (I am not meaning to offend anyone) However, as long as I am rambling.. I see the need for a belief in god. Religion (should) provide a system of ethics and morals that helps one to lead life. My own personal code of ethics and morality are not established by the belief in something higher than myself. I made them myself. based on the faith in myself that deep inside me, I know what's right and wrong, that I can make these decisions for myself, and that I am ready to be accountable for the repercussions of all my actions.
About chaos... so what if the entire universe is chaotic? Do you guys remember American Beauty? Well, do you remember that one video clip .. with the floating plastic bag. That was, in it's entirety - wind - pushing around trash, in no organized manner, in fact, chaotic, with no patterns, constants, or plan... just wind pushing trash. And yet, it was so beautiful. So maybe I take comfort in the belief in a chaotic world.. it's hope there's beauty out there
Anyway, thanks guys for reading (or scrolling through) my novel there. I didn't mean to go on.. and on... and on
[This message has been edited by Ro L L er G i r L (edited 09 April 2000).]
vietvet
Bluelighter
I think that concept is a little to pragmatic in those terms but you seem to have a good understanding of the "Man in the Cave Allegory"...Far Out...PEACE..plur
------------------
if you aint programming yourself.......someone else [email protected]
------------------
if you aint programming yourself.......someone else [email protected]
Boppity
Bluelighter
Well...seeing as how time does not exist, it's only a man-made concept, I guess it really doesn't matter.
All things exist simultaneously. Our pasts, presents and futures are all happening at once. If I had to try and "define time", I would say it's cyclical and not linear, but again, this too is pointless since it just doesn't exist.
Love,
Jim
All things exist simultaneously. Our pasts, presents and futures are all happening at once. If I had to try and "define time", I would say it's cyclical and not linear, but again, this too is pointless since it just doesn't exist.
Love,
Jim
mr. E
Bluelighter
urg. my brain. shtuff like that confuses me whenever i think about it, and the existance of life and how there's just life and all that. i dunno, i don't know if we're meant to be able to comprehend that all the time in human form. heh. but very very interesting =)
peace!
------------------
I can't believe I ate the whole thing.
peace!
------------------
I can't believe I ate the whole thing.
A few things... if you guys read this monthes discover magazine, by the year 2003 they'll have proven that Space is not infinate! Also it is possible to create matter... well I'm not gonna go into a huge post explaining all this good stuff but hey it makes ya think
taylor
Bluelighter
i'll meet you all at the restaurant at the end of the universe and we'll watch the universe expand together when the waiters open the shutters.
"Bartender, martini please?"
"Bartender, martini please?"
Big_Red
Bluelighter
And people say drugs are bad. good post!!
-angie-
"I don't like the drugs, but the drugs like me."
-angie-
"I don't like the drugs, but the drugs like me."
Big_Red
Bluelighter
::BUMP:: ::BUMP::
-angie-
"I don't like the drugs, but the drugs like me."
-angie-
"I don't like the drugs, but the drugs like me."
taylor
Bluelighter
Eddie, that was from a series of books by Douglas Adams. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. One of the Books is called The Restaurant at the end of the Universe. They're not serious like the above comments, but more on the satirical side. I hear Jay Roach, the guy who directed the Austin Powers movies is working on a feature film for the first book.
anything else?
anything else?
First off, I'd like to say that it's a relief to see that I'm not the only one who thinks about stuff like that, especially when tripping. One of the big things for me was (Like Housekid5 said) what would be beyond the end of the universe. Although I would tend to focus more on the nature of nothing. I'm still working on that one, all I know is that it is more (or rather less) than an absence of matter.
Kewl, your thoughts about the infinite divisibility of matter brought to mind the search for a magnetic monopole: a particle that has either a positive or negative magnetic attraction (but not both). Sadly I've fallen behind on my subatomic physics, anybody know any more about that?
To whoever brought up superstring theory, I've done a bit of dabbling in Cosmology and the nature of the universe (imginary time! ouch), and I've only heard of superstring theory. Have you got any suggestions on some reading on the subject?
Once again Kewl, great post! It's good to think every now and again
Dave
Kewl, your thoughts about the infinite divisibility of matter brought to mind the search for a magnetic monopole: a particle that has either a positive or negative magnetic attraction (but not both). Sadly I've fallen behind on my subatomic physics, anybody know any more about that?
To whoever brought up superstring theory, I've done a bit of dabbling in Cosmology and the nature of the universe (imginary time! ouch), and I've only heard of superstring theory. Have you got any suggestions on some reading on the subject?
Once again Kewl, great post! It's good to think every now and again
Dave
EEEmazingPete
Bluelighter
ohh dont get ME started on cosmology, gen-relativity, quantum mech .... ahh quantum gravity
man that stuf just fascinates me to death ! Looks like I am not the only 1
along with acient civilzations
hmm drug users make the best philosophers and in some cases aslo scientists dont they ?
pete
along with acient civilzations
hmm drug users make the best philosophers and in some cases aslo scientists dont they ?
pete