The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 279576 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1525 on: 19/11/2015 14:32:24 »
Actually those questions have a lot to do with the question if time is a discrete phenomena or a flow. A flow is not discrete, it can't be without losing that flow. When we think of time we mostly see it as a flow, taking us with it. But I think it's discrete myself. You can also relate it to lights duality if you like.
=

In the end it's a question of from where you stand looking at it. You can define it 'universally' in which case a flow will fit rather well, or locally in which case we find 'photons'. Einstein defined it 'universally', at least from where I see it. We've explored his way for a hundred years, aside with quantum mechanics which becomes the other approach. But they should lead us to a same conclusion, well, hopefully :)
« Last Edit: 19/11/2015 14:43:21 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1526 on: 29/12/2015 16:23:48 »
I know :) I keep going on on 'ethics'. But that's my new field of self study. I keep wondering what it is. Is it so that we're a brainy lump of matter, blessed with instincts, expressed by 'intelligence'? What the f** is 'ethics', something done by 'God'? Then again, what is 'physics'? Commandments? Rules and 'laws'? Why is one more important than the other? Or does those two go together? With more understanding, more ethics? I don't know, sometimes I feel like it's all a test of some sort, that we're failing.

Have a read.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/-sp-why-cant-worlds-greatest-minds-solve-mystery-consciousness
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1527 on: 29/12/2015 16:28:27 »
The point with ethics, looked at my way, can be expressed such as.

It's the difference between you standing with your hat in you hand, humbly thanking those that descend to your level, giving you the opportunity to keep on. And the one in where we all are equal. Think about it. And it doesn't really need any 'personal Jesus' to work, it just needs you.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1528 on: 29/12/2015 16:38:55 »
A bully will be recognizable by splitting people into 'winners' and 'losers'. That's not ethics.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1529 on: 29/12/2015 16:56:43 »
From the idea of it being you that create 'ethics', then the next step is to ask yourself whom it should encompass. Only people? I would say we need all of it, all life.  We have one 'perfect' spaceship, it's called Earth.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1530 on: 29/12/2015 17:08:06 »
Maybe we need mass. All mass? Do we change the Earth by mining? By drilling :) Yeah, we do, don't we? We change the properties of the spaceship we're traveling on, or possibly 'in'. Because we're actually 'inside' this spaceship. So what the f* is 'ethics'? And where does it end? Physics is our monkeys unbridled curiosity, testing hypothesis's. Ethics is our own invention.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1531 on: 29/12/2015 17:17:21 »
Then again, what if we somewhere in the future, reach a society in where ethics has 'rules' and 'laws'. Just as clear and logical to us as those of physics? What will that make it? A human invention? Would you call physics a human invention too?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1532 on: 29/12/2015 17:45:59 »
You could also see it as if ethics was a way to protect. Protect life, and your descendants. It sets limits for ones behavior, as do physics. Not any different in that aspect. But it's a slippery thing to define.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1533 on: 29/12/2015 17:52:52 »
Assume it is a way to protect, yourself, and everything else existing. Why then do we avoid it? Because the limits are there to be broken? This world of 'infinite riches' as they said in the Victorian era? Self interests? What about looking further ahead, a thousand years. It's the difference between 'adapting' and 'planning'. So far we've been rather successful adapting, but what about long range planning?  Do you think 'adapting' will take care of it? And if we're not able to plan into the future? Is there some other way that can help us?

Ethics.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1534 on: 30/12/2015 15:41:05 »
You need to understand :)
I'm f**ng old
And sort of disillusioned.

I would dearly prefer not to be.
Just as I would prefer to refer to global warming as just another quirk of 'Nature'.

But you know what. I try to look stuff 'in the face'. I know, that sounds like I'm boasting, but I don't want to be that one. I would have preferred to find a girl, settle down, and live forever :) Instead I have this.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1535 on: 30/12/2015 15:43:39 »
Which brings me to a very talented guy, with some thoughts that amazed me.
Garrett Lisi
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1536 on: 30/12/2015 17:29:49 »
I have my horse(s) :)
'c' is equivalent to your 'clock', aka 'the local arrow'.
Then I define it as 'universal'.

Now, if you don't like that, I say you also will have to disallow 'constants' as well as all local measurements. And it did take me some time to reason this one out. In the end I consider it logic, nothing more.

But, what about gravity, equalizing 'time'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1537 on: 30/12/2015 17:38:37 »
Test the idea. It fits, locally, with my ideas. A 'field' locally measured. But Einsteins definition isn't 'local' in the sense of a quanta, it's a two mirror experiment, done from a uniformly 'moving' earth. Or from some similar mass, greater or less. Can you see the problem I meet?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1538 on: 31/12/2015 21:41:49 »
Let us try it. If gravity equals time, then a greater mass should 'bend' time more than a lesser, wouldn't you agree? Assuming this to be true you probably reach a conclusion in where different masses means different time locally, aka 'different clock rates'. And this would no longer be observer dependent. But clock rates are observer dependent, and will change depending on your motion, if it is 'relative' (uniform motion) or a accelerating doesn't matter in it as far as I can see. You can depending on motion and mass assign different clock rates to any agreed on other 'clock'. Simultaneity doesn't come into play for this one, the only thing we need to agree on is that the 'clock' we compare our local one against exist, for us all at the time of measurement.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1539 on: 31/12/2015 21:46:53 »
Einsteins solution of this is called GR, and treats a uniformly constantly accelerating rocket as indistinguishable from a planetary gravity (ignoring spin). In it our Earth actually accelerates, at a constant uniform Gravity. But it is still a fascinating thought.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1540 on: 31/12/2015 21:55:51 »
And then we come to the two mirror experiment defining 'c'. It's done over a distance, and it is expected to be true no matter if you make it on the moon, in a uniformly (non accelerating) spaceship or on Earth. There is a mystery in that if you think of it my way, that it always comes out as 'c', no compensation needed. When I equal 'c' to a 'clock' and define it such as your life span, locally measured, always will be the same, then I use local definitions, those experiments that we always do to be able to draw conclusions. From the local measurements we build a universal definition with laws and rules, and with the assumption of those experiments holding everywhere we reach constants.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1541 on: 31/12/2015 22:03:46 »
What would the origin of a field be? If you imagine it as gravity bending time, then a 'flat field' of gravity/time should be possible, shouldn't it? How will you reach it? By 'magnifying'? Sounds reasonable to me, and that should experimentally involve quantum mechanics. Locality as I think of it must have a origin, even though that origin is in every point of a geometry. That is no different from the definition of a Big Bang happening 'everywhere'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1542 on: 31/12/2015 22:13:40 »
Actually that one is pretty much supported by our definition of Lorentz equations being able to sort out those clock rates in a logical manner. What it gives us is coherent picture of a universe using one logic, observer-dependencies notwithstanding. But it doesn't answer why those clock rates differ when you compare it against your own. Neither does it answer why your life span won't change locally at a higher speed, or mass. And finally, it fails to define if there is a limit to a two mirror experiment.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1543 on: 31/12/2015 22:22:19 »
By that I'm referring to quantum mechanics. You could ask yourself if the distance I set in a two mirror experiment matters? Is there a limit quantum mechanically? Myself I expect there to be. And that sort of thinking also question what dimensions are.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1544 on: 31/12/2015 22:31:43 »
Let us see, we live in a infinite space, no limits to it, although it is in a accelerating expansion. By that I really mean that the universe should be 'infinite' already, although 'growing' as defined by us measuring. What limit that 'growth' in us are the 'forces' keeping us together, together with the way 'gravity' keeps our solar system and galaxy together. So we live in a infinity that grows. And looked at the other way then, quantum mechanically? Is there an end to magnifying something?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1545 on: 31/12/2015 22:49:40 »
We know there is one, don't we. Experimentally and quantum logically. We don't have 'perfect instruments' and there also is a logical limit where uncertainty comes in, as described in http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/08/q-will-we-ever-overcome-the-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle/
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1546 on: 01/01/2016 00:23:37 »
So there is a limit to 'c', and if I by that equalize 'c' to ones local clock, then that limit must touch the 'local arrow' too.  What about that 'flat field' I was imagining then? Is there a point where 'gravity' also dissolve, along with that arrow? Those questions are unmeasurable though. They assume that locality is a 'point' quantum mechanically, and therefore fails both from the aspect of needing perfect instruments, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, as well as from the aspect of the observers (experimenters) clock never stopping, meaning that 'time' does not end for the observer, it's all about what 'locality' should mean here. The proofs we find should then rather be indirect proofs. As possibly the idea of a quantum computer, able to do 'infinite parallel computations' simultaneously, and 'instantly' find you an answer.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1547 on: 01/01/2016 00:26:46 »
Assume it is so. What kind of 'dimension' does such a computer iterate in? Does it iterate at all? And how far is it from our macroscopic reality?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1548 on: 01/01/2016 00:28:59 »
I can at least answer the last. That 'dimension' is just as close to us everywhere, presuming it's about 'points', we're already there.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1549 on: 01/01/2016 00:45:06 »
So instead of a fifth dimension, this sort of logic walks the opposite way, wanting fewer :)
Now, does that make us into illusions? Not as far that I can see? I'm pretty sure we're all as real as can be. Reality is what one experience, and try to make sense of. And one might also be able to argue that reality is 'statistic', meaning that what we all agree on are more real than whatever some sole individual argue as real. What science do is to standardize the procedures for us being able to reach a agreement, using logic instead of peoples wishes.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1549 on: 01/01/2016 00:45:06 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length