0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Its always a bit messy to have to deal with consciousness but quantum gravity, if that's such a thing "seems" to demands to understand clearly what it's, before, being able to mathematically represent it, if tapping into the answer without understanding how time and consciousness are related one would be forbidden to understand the "why" (it would be).
Think like this: If I understand everything I need to reach Vega in order to warn them about a supernova I've seen on earth, which they haven't seen yet.
Now what is a paradox for us? Where the math couldn't keep up. But if that's true, it's a redundant assumption. You couldn't travel because you didn't knew how at that moment. You "math" would only be the math for casualty which emerged "specifically" set for "you". If you knew how to reach Vega the way you wanted, you say that there would be no paradox. But isn't that equally redundant? What about the casualty that prevented you to do the way you wanted? "Was avoided!" See? You don't avoided the potential paradox, you avoided the casualty which lead to it. Not preventing the paradox, simple "there was the paradox and there wasn't all along". Your "not knowing" created casualty based on your own observation. Which lead to you explain not the universe embedded within math or geometry, but the causality you yourself caused because your math was still "predictable". One needs to understand this quantum aspect of "different time" or even "no time", in order to understand how to replicate that in the macro scale.Once you do, you'll understand "what casualty" was, pretty sure it's time to put the human consious observer as a properly of time, or there'll be a "new way" to describe casualty and "why" you can't do it, because you used casualty on your understanding, "bringing" the impossibility with you. From that point will be very difficult to return and fix. For me, intuitively "light" it's our single only misconception for it all.
Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 19/06/2022 15:26:51Its always a bit messy to have to deal with consciousness but quantum gravity, if that's such a thing "seems" to demands to understand clearly what it's, before, being able to mathematically represent it, if tapping into the answer without understanding how time and consciousness are related one would be forbidden to understand the "why" (it would be).Do you seriously think that makes any sense?Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 19/06/2022 15:26:51 Think like this: If I understand everything I need to reach Vega in order to warn them about a supernova I've seen on earth, which they haven't seen yet.If you see the supernova on earth and it doesn't negatively impact the earth, then the would be no need to warn Vega since it would obviously be farther from the supernova than the earth is.Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 19/06/2022 15:26:51 Now what is a paradox for us? Where the math couldn't keep up. But if that's true, it's a redundant assumption. You couldn't travel because you didn't knew how at that moment. You "math" would only be the math for casualty which emerged "specifically" set for "you". If you knew how to reach Vega the way you wanted, you say that there would be no paradox. But isn't that equally redundant? What about the casualty that prevented you to do the way you wanted? "Was avoided!" See? You don't avoided the potential paradox, you avoided the casualty which lead to it. Not preventing the paradox, simple "there was the paradox and there wasn't all along". Your "not knowing" created casualty based on your own observation. Which lead to you explain not the universe embedded within math or geometry, but the causality you yourself caused because your math was still "predictable". One needs to understand this quantum aspect of "different time" or even "no time", in order to understand how to replicate that in the macro scale.Once you do, you'll understand "what casualty" was, pretty sure it's time to put the human consious observer as a properly of time, or there'll be a "new way" to describe casualty and "why" you can't do it, because you used casualty on your understanding, "bringing" the impossibility with you. From that point will be very difficult to return and fix. For me, intuitively "light" it's our single only misconception for it all.Word salad.
Well yes and no, at some point we have to consider consciousness and observation, had already happened with the slit experiment and seems to become deeper with quantum mechanics. One can blame the "absurdity" that is our senses, and how "pitifully" are these walking talking chunks of meat.... Still, such "point of view" it's not differently blind as the ones of the church when Galileo proofed them wrong. Not regarding me as the subject, but suggesting 'that all of those pitifully, meaningless, confused, barely "barbaric things we "poor dirty humans call consciousness and being ", might play an actual role in all this system. We couldn't exist as a consious observer and entity, if the possibility of life wasn't in the table from the start. It's a goofy belief or questioning as to think something other than a God like being could solve it all. A God or AI it's only as competent as the human dressing the observation or the programer of the machine. It's useful to negate things, but only till a certain point, the point which our wrongs are sustained by our, otherwise, perfectly hidden "not knowing". Imagine a career over our systems and the difficulty to accept that they were fundamentally incorrect. If your interior is still hidden from the collective mind, would your face or mind, drop it at sight or subjective and the sense of loss would plot another way out ? Emotions must be a must when reaching the parts "we are stuck". I mean most of the most important findings or points of view came from people that even study the bible looking for some odd things that shouldn't be. While others discarded the human state as a whole to be one with math. If math only perfectly fits in because the casualty we calculate it's evoked by our own math, there's obviously a point where we will be calculating the casualty itself, based on errors, errors that occured from our own flaw observations. We would discard the human mind as a whole and bet all in machines because of math. The emotional responses for that would be: Depressive humans with that "unworthy" conditions, ready to surrender the task to machines, unchecked and uncontrollable at some point. Not that's not occuring as we speak. As I suggested the firewall for life might come from life itself, otherwise everything would conspire for it. If an intelligence becomes able to understand it all, they would be in position to do wherever they want to. As Einstein believed about black holes: Universe wouldn't let some things to take place. Others that by wherever means universe would somehow even provoke a deliberate action for not to let it to happen. Think of this: If 2022 years ago a let's suggest "mad man" wouldn't have lived and "inserted a emotional patch" for human society, we would not have being having this conversation at all. Such mad man had some odd "clear of thought" as many others before it, all of them directly or indirectly claiming they were "told so" by some misterious consciousness. Einstein happy thought literally ", embedded with emotion". Newtons with an apple while "feeling" the world around it. The ancient civilizations we can barely understand how they could potentially know some things them do. Life from clay, a perfect emotional description of a set of rules that it's today when not fulfiled a source of our major issues. Science would consider "alien life", as a possibility for they/we can accept an alien supreme race, which traveled from other stars, and reached a planet full of microorganisms that kill even us natives and "somehow " where able to interact with us. On the other hand, beings, absolutely conscious beings, born from and living within the very environment they study, sometimes, drunk by the redundancy of everything that's totally uncommon from the other planets, totally mock the concept that "universe knows" by having somewhat similar to a consciousness. And that our inteligente it's ridiculously stupid to think that it may be the source of all of our attributes and properties, digestion, heat, thinking, awareness, consciousness... Either way, possible or not, "why" would the universe to let a species unable of consciousness to naturally exist in the first place? If matematicaly productivity in order to ser e oneself was the goal, there wouldn't be need for feelings and emotions, nor a body, and the universe would be likely permeated by machines. Which "is the case", living machines. And we ourselves also create computers, aiming consious artificial intelligence.See the problem with being blunted by the harmony of mathematics, when, that math it's aiming to solve the causality emerged by its very creators? If universe it's not matematical only our own causality which is, we are inevitable stuck. Not wise to disconsidering options, specialty in times where one particle can communicate with another trough no time.1 and 0, binary can be considered a consious state of consciousness, that why mentioned as complex or simplistic such consciousness might be, or not.
Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 19/06/2022 17:08:27 Well yes and no, at some point we have to consider consciousness and observation, had already happened with the slit experiment and seems to become deeper with quantum mechanics. One can blame the "absurdity" that is our senses, and how "pitifully" are these walking talking chunks of meat.... Still, such "point of view" it's not differently blind as the ones of the church when Galileo proofed them wrong. Not regarding me as the subject, but suggesting 'that all of those pitifully, meaningless, confused, barely "barbaric things we "poor dirty humans call consciousness and being ", might play an actual role in all this system. We couldn't exist as a consious observer and entity, if the possibility of life wasn't in the table from the start. It's a goofy belief or questioning as to think something other than a God like being could solve it all. A God or AI it's only as competent as the human dressing the observation or the programer of the machine. It's useful to negate things, but only till a certain point, the point which our wrongs are sustained by our, otherwise, perfectly hidden "not knowing". Imagine a career over our systems and the difficulty to accept that they were fundamentally incorrect. If your interior is still hidden from the collective mind, would your face or mind, drop it at sight or subjective and the sense of loss would plot another way out ? Emotions must be a must when reaching the parts "we are stuck". I mean most of the most important findings or points of view came from people that even study the bible looking for some odd things that shouldn't be. While others discarded the human state as a whole to be one with math. If math only perfectly fits in because the casualty we calculate it's evoked by our own math, there's obviously a point where we will be calculating the casualty itself, based on errors, errors that occured from our own flaw observations. We would discard the human mind as a whole and bet all in machines because of math. The emotional responses for that would be: Depressive humans with that "unworthy" conditions, ready to surrender the task to machines, unchecked and uncontrollable at some point. Not that's not occuring as we speak. As I suggested the firewall for life might come from life itself, otherwise everything would conspire for it. If an intelligence becomes able to understand it all, they would be in position to do wherever they want to. As Einstein believed about black holes: Universe wouldn't let some things to take place. Others that by wherever means universe would somehow even provoke a deliberate action for not to let it to happen. Think of this: If 2022 years ago a let's suggest "mad man" wouldn't have lived and "inserted a emotional patch" for human society, we would not have being having this conversation at all. Such mad man had some odd "clear of thought" as many others before it, all of them directly or indirectly claiming they were "told so" by some misterious consciousness. Einstein happy thought literally ", embedded with emotion". Newtons with an apple while "feeling" the world around it. The ancient civilizations we can barely understand how they could potentially know some things them do. Life from clay, a perfect emotional description of a set of rules that it's today when not fulfiled a source of our major issues. Science would consider "alien life", as a possibility for they/we can accept an alien supreme race, which traveled from other stars, and reached a planet full of microorganisms that kill even us natives and "somehow " where able to interact with us. On the other hand, beings, absolutely conscious beings, born from and living within the very environment they study, sometimes, drunk by the redundancy of everything that's totally uncommon from the other planets, totally mock the concept that "universe knows" by having somewhat similar to a consciousness. And that our inteligente it's ridiculously stupid to think that it may be the source of all of our attributes and properties, digestion, heat, thinking, awareness, consciousness... Either way, possible or not, "why" would the universe to let a species unable of consciousness to naturally exist in the first place? If matematicaly productivity in order to ser e oneself was the goal, there wouldn't be need for feelings and emotions, nor a body, and the universe would be likely permeated by machines. Which "is the case", living machines. And we ourselves also create computers, aiming consious artificial intelligence.See the problem with being blunted by the harmony of mathematics, when, that math it's aiming to solve the causality emerged by its very creators? If universe it's not matematical only our own causality which is, we are inevitable stuck. Not wise to disconsidering options, specialty in times where one particle can communicate with another trough no time.1 and 0, binary can be considered a consious state of consciousness, that why mentioned as complex or simplistic such consciousness might be, or not.That is only a bunch of random, unconnected and unevidenced thoughts addressing nothing.