0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I wrote a book on intention, purpose and choice in the universe. It simply recognizes WE are part of the equation and our technology is part of nature. It seems obvious, but dualism is deeply seated in our consciousness. However, our intention has nothing to do with the results that are obtained in particle physics. In any proper scientific experiment, the whole point is that our human intentions DO NOT interfer with the results.
The idea of ever increasing numbers of alternative universes is very unsatisfactory. It's along the lines of the "Turtles all the way down" explanation used by flat Earth believers. It, literally, opens more doors than it closes so it doesn't help my brain one little bit.
However, our intention has nothing to do with the results that are obtained in particle physics.
And this may be off the topic, but you ever feel that chance and probability only exist to us because we experience time as a constant moving forward? I'm very tired, so apologies if this sounds a bit stupid.
It depends upon whether you believe that the future already exists, and we're just passing through it, or whether the future is created and the 'now' we occupy is on the leading edge of it.
Quote from: stevewillie on 14/09/2008 23:03:42 However, our intention has nothing to do with the results that are obtained in particle physics.This is a dodgey area. I think it has been more or less accepted that our choice / decision between options is carried out a fraction of a second before we are aware of it. How or even whether we actually make a decision is probably governed by the same sort of random processes that we observe (in simpler form) in fundamental particle experiments.Our decisions are obviously not all 50 50 but based on a complicated set of weightings but, in the end "shall I go for the red shirt or the green shirt?" results in an arbitrary / random choice which we rationalise and reinforce after the event. This positive feedback mechanism is there to stabilise the system - rather like a Schmidt Trigger is / was used in electronic control systems.Now why did I write that? Creepy ain't it?
QuoteIt depends upon whether you believe that the future already exists, and we're just passing through it, or whether the future is created and the 'now' we occupy is on the leading edge of it.Whether or not the future 'exists' in some way 'before' we get to it, doesn't stop it being random. A random sequence of numbers on a page in front of you are still random although you can see the first and last one in the sequence. The definition of a truly random process is one for which the autocorrelation function is a delta function- i.e. the only time the sequence matches itself at all is when it is laid over itself 'in phase'. (Mathematicians - please don't jump on me for that one.)I think it is fascinating how our brains try to make sense of it all by having conversations like the present one. It's a sort of 'bootstrap' situation. Could we ever suss it out completely? I don't think so. It wouldn't be good for us in any case.
QuoteIt depends upon whether you believe that the future already exists, and we're just passing through it, or whether the future is created and the 'now' we occupy is on the leading edge of it.Whether or not the future 'exists' in some way 'before' we get to it, doesn't stop it being random.
Interestingly, Pythagoras uses squares 'internally' but still produces a one-dimensional answer.
What actually makes the most sense is to align the co-ordinate system with the tangent and then it's clear that you are only moving in one direction.
I still think that you haven't really thought through what dimensions are all about.
Although the course, represented by the string, moves through three dimensions it only has length but no width or height.
I hear (read) what you are saying but, irrespective of the coordinate system you use, there are more options for where you can move to than exist on one dimension. You cannot give another person instructions about how to get from point A to point B without using three dimensions. If you just tell them to fly 20m, they can end up anywhere inside a sphere of 20m radius. That is why we have to use 'dimensions' and coordinates and why you can't ignore them.On the other hand, you can only tell someone that you will meet them in 6hours' time. Both your clocks will be going at the same rate - in one dimension.I have a feeling that I have lost your thread. What are you actually trying to say that goes against my two statements above?
The Catholic Church adopted the theory of Big Bang as a good proof of God existing.Now we have unity between Religion and Science.
Quote from: socratus on 15/10/2008 11:35:00The Catholic Church adopted the theory of Big Bang as a good proof of God existing.Now we have unity between Religion and Science. Socratus,Your belief in a higher power, in some ways, must be a great support to you (it isn't one I can share though). One thing I would ask though is don't confuse belief with scientific evidence - even if the church chooses to muddy the waters when they make such claims about 'proof'.Maybe when mankind has found a way to find common ground between all the differing religions, we can move onto science & religion...
Nevertheless though, regardless of how many spatial dimensions you plot in, as long as there's only a single time axis, the course will always be a line.
QuoteNevertheless though, regardless of how many spatial dimensions you plot in, as long as there's only a single time axis, the course will always be a line.That's not a valid conclusion at all. You could only insist that is the case in an infinitesimal time scale. If you are going in a curve you are definitely exploring two cartesian dimensions at the very least.I still think that, when you refer to a dimension, you mean something different from what I understand it to mean. The graphs you refer to simply show how one variable changes with another. They don't refer to how someone would 'experience' a journey. The slopes and curvatures tell you about displacements, velocities and accelerations so they give you an idea of what the journey would have been like - that's all.Two independent travellers would only bump into each other if ALL the coordinates were the same, at some point in the four dimensional graph - i.e. the lines / curves intersect somewhere /somewhen. You and I have probably walked past Piccadilly Tube station but on different days - so we didn't see each other.(I even wore a carnation, specially, so you would recognise me!) I certainly didn't travel in a straight line to get there and neither did you.
Har Har.I think I misunderstood your last post. Yes your path is a line - just not a straight one - and the line can involve variations in three spatial dimensions and a steady rate of progress in the t dimension / axis.The three spatial dimensions are necessary in order that you, I and everyone does not turn up at the same place all the time.
Yes; we're smeared out along the time axis by acceleration etc..
We should focus upon the known, rather than that what can be inferred from clearly limited information
Truthfulness, as to the existence of other parallel universes is unknowable, as judged from scientific deduction. The possibility of other universes is the product of intellectual speculation, not concrete fact.
We should focus upon the known, rather than that what can be inferred from clearly limited information; which is subject to new knowledge.
In fact, all of our knowledge about the known universe is subject to changing opinions.
Theories, grounded upon established science is[are] fine, as far as that[they] goes[go], yet to suggest that such theories correspond to verifiable facts[,] or reality departs from any notion of valid science.
This discussion should be framed in the context of speculative science, no less, no more.
This discussion qualifies as philosophy; a point of view, grounded in a broad scientific understanding, but not concrete science.
This distinction must be made clear, if we hope to differentiate between that which is knowable, in any realistic sense, and that which is not.
Knowledge about the properties of the universe are, as all science, provisional, therefore theories as to other universes are, at best speculative, and operate within the domain of philosophical and scientific speculation.
I do not question the validity of this effort. What I do question is the framing, or lack of, regarding such issues.
The so-call[ed] rules you reference are far from complete, or well-defined.
Surely, you are not suggesting we should focus; utilize, as the bases of our theories or reasonable and logical speculations, information from pure speculation and imagination.