TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Fear of hell
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 »

lol, i guess zild and i have created a sort of quantum double post

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec that's not what i was saying. what i am saying is, the idea of '1' and the idea of '2' are just as real as an apple or an orange, whether you believe that ideas are located in the electrical-chemical processes of a brain or a superimplicate order of vibrational energy in a holographic universe or that god invented math. 1 always goes before 2 if you are counting up.

...but the concept of '1' and '2' are human constructs designed to help us cope with our environment. How can you possibly argue that ideas have more credence than sheer physicality, and everything that exists at a sub-atomic level?

Strachan was right, nothing is actually 'the same'; probably not even atoms themselves. Therefore, there is no such thing as 'order'.

i wrote something incredibly long and I realized it wasn't making sense.

You guys (and women?) ever think that our previous universe's inhabitants were overambitious in their attempt to conquer its mysteries? Perhaps building a device or incredibly massive tool, hidden underneath a cover of mountains in a beautiful section near Geneva which opened a black hole which consumed their galaxy? However, because of the INCREDIBLE abundance of oxygen fuel located on Earth, this black hole grew faster than any black hole ever seen, swallowing galaxy after galaxy. It grows to want more helium, more hydrogen, more more more, more power. Until, it exhausts everything to swallow. The horizons begin to swallow each other, much like a man eating his own face. It collapses into a singularity, until its density has reached the maximum (the entire universe compacted to the size of a US nickel) and boom, a big bang.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild basically the act of observation collapses the wavefunction

Yeah, basically when 2 slits are fired through it acted like a wavefunction, and this function was cancelled when observed as you said.

I was wondering, how is the act of just observing something able to cancel out the wave function... Or is this nothing significant at all.

quote:

Originally posted by SuspicionVandit i wrote something incredibly long and I realized it wasn't making sense.

this is how its done, ********!!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Damerchi Yeah, basically when 2 slits are fired through it acted like a wavefunction, and this function was cancelled when observed as you said. I was wondering, how is the act of just observing something able to cancel out the wave function... Or is this nothing significant at all.

because the mathematics deals with this as a probability, but when you take a measurement you get a discrete value not a probabality

might read up on uncertainty

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN this is how its done, ********!!

Well I re-edited it. I don't know where I was going with the original post. It started out with a quote from Krytpon and went on to giving names to atomic structures so that they could build their own telescopes and look at things across the street. So yeah, I think that was for the best.

The slit experiment is a demonstration of wave-particle duality. When you have just one slit open, you get a pattern that looks like an individual photon striking a screen, but when both slits are open you get an "interference pattern," kind of a "blur" that wouldn't make sense if you thought of light as discrete particles rather than waves.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated ...but the concept of '1' and '2' are human constructs designed to help us cope with our environment.

You just offended lots of mathematical Platonists.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated ...but the concept of '1' and '2' are human constructs designed to help us cope with our environment. How can you possibly argue that ideas have more credence than sheer physicality, and everything that exists at a sub-atomic level?

i didn't, i said they have the same credence.


also, you assume that the ultimate reality is 'sheer physicality'.

and i believe everything exists at a non-atomic level, and that like the double slit experiment, the act of observing this non-atomic level allows the atoms and sub atoms to appear.


and what does it matter if it is a human construct? how is that any less real?



that's similar to saying that humans and their creations aren't a part of nature. i can't stand when people say that

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN this is how its done, ********!!

On what do you base your assumption of sanity?

quote:

Originally posted by astroboy On what do you base your assumption of sanity?

i believe i was referring to coherence

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec also, you assume that the ultimate reality is 'sheer physicality'. and i believe everything exists at a non-atomic level, and that like the double slit experiment, the act of observing this non-atomic level allows the atoms and sub atoms to appear. and what does it matter if it is a human construct? how is that any less real? that's similar to saying that humans and their creations aren't a part of nature. i can't stand when people say that

What is reality if not physical? A gas, gravity, time, atoms and any kind of particle are all physical things.

What exactly is a "non-atomic" level?

A human construct is but a part of our imagination. If humans did not exist, then the very idea of '1' and '2' would not exist, though atoms and the universe still would.

Also, humans are not part of nature. Though I think it is ridiculous to argue that we are any different to plants or animals in actuality, "nature" is concept humans invented to differentiate ourselves from that which isn't "us", or a direct result of "us". People don't read nature magazines because they want to see pictures and learn about the city, and "getting back to nature" always involves getting as far away from human creations as much possible. Nature is the very concept of "us and them".

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated What is reality if not physical? A gas, gravity, time, atoms and any kind of particle are all physical things. What exactly is a "non-atomic" level? A human construct is but a part of our imagination. If humans did not exist, then the very idea of '1' and '2' would not exist, though atoms and the universe still would. Also, humans are not part of nature. Though I think it is ridiculous to argue that we are any different to plants or animals in actuality, "nature" is concept humans invented to differentiate ourselves from that which isn't "us", or a direct result of "us". People don't read nature magazines because they want to see pictures and learn about the city, and "getting back to nature" always involves getting as far away from human creations as much possible. Nature is the very concept of "us and them".

i'll explain but i'm not going to continue with this because it's clear your view is set.

reality is the void from which the physical emerges. if you want to think of this in materialist terms, answer the question 'what made the big bang' or 'where was the big bang located before it created location'

a non-atomic level is a higher order of reality equivalent to the uncollapsed wavefunction of quantum mechanics. the atomic level is like the collapsed, particle nature of the quantum.

i think you don't quite grasp the reality of imagination. even if you are a strict materialist, you have to admit that thoughts exist as some configuration or cloud of electrical activity in the brain. I don't see how that's any less real than an apple or a book...

if you argue that the idea is an abstraction then there must at least be some more basic informational code (similar to binary on a computer), and there still must be some ordered code structure in the human brain, indeed in all human brains that allows us to think in a way that we can all understand. just look at four apples. they look similar. there is an inherent pattern in their composition. of course there may be compositional differences at one level. that doesn't mean that a larger pattern doesn't exist. it doesn't even mean that a smaller pattern doesn't exist - it just is harder to visualize.

and anyways, an apple or a book is also an abstraction. an apple is also a cloud of electrons. we only call it an apple because it looks like something separate from the air around it to us, according to our specific sensory organs.


regarding 'nature', i really don't understand what you're talking about. your shit stinks as much as a rabbit's. 'us and them' is a silly and convenient thought.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec i'll explain but i'm not going to continue with this because it's clear your view is set. reality is the void from which the physical emerges. if you want to think of this in materialist terms, answer the question 'what made the big bang' or 'where was the big bang located before it created location' a non-atomic level is a higher order of reality equivalent to the wavefunction of quantum mechanics. the atomic level is like the particle nature of the quantum. i think you don't quite grasp the reality of imagination. even if you are a strict materialist, you have to admit that thoughts exist as some configuration or cloud of electrical activity in the brain. I don't see how that's any less real than an apple or a book... if you argue that the idea is an abstraction of some more basic informational code (similar to binary on a computer), then you still have to realize that there is some ordered code structure in the human brain, indeed in all human brains that allows us to think in a way that we can all understand. and anyways, an apple or a book is also an abstraction. an apple is also a cloud of electrons. we only call it an apple because it looks like something separate from the air around it to us. regarding 'nature', i really don't understand what you're talking about. your shit stinks as much as a rabbit's. 'us and them' is a silly and convenient thought.

Why do you keep babbling about "materialist" and "spiritualist"? Why does someone have to be one or the other, and why do you assume I'm one?

I do not believe in the big bang.

"Reality is the void from which the physical emerges." What is reality then? What is reality if not physical? Perhaps there is a higher reality around us that we cannot comprehend, but that must be physical too, because anything that exists is physical, unless of course you are saying that true reality does not exist?

"i think you don't quite grasp the reality of imagination. even if you are a strict materialist, you have to admit that thoughts exist as some configuration or cloud of electrical activity in the brain. I don't see how that's any less real than an apple or a book..."

But that's the thing that you don't understand. Although imagination itself is just as real as an apple or a book in that it is still a physical thing consisting of neurons and electric pulses, the concepts or ideas created by imagination are still just that. They do not exist OUTSIDE of imagination. Without humans and their imagination, there is no such thing as "1" or "2", because these notions were created by by humans. On the other hand, an atom would still exist, even if we were not around.

"regarding 'nature', i really don't understand what you're talking about. your shit stinks as much as a rabbit's. 'us and them' is a silly and convenient thought."

Are you retarded? I clearly stated: I think it is ridiculous to argue that we are any different to plants or animals in actuality,. The idea of nature is just like the idea of colours. Really, it does not matter what colour something is. An object's colour has very little bearing on the world around it, but as humans we create concepts and ideas to compartmentalise the world around us and make it more palatable. Thus we have the concepts of "black" and "white". In the same way, although humans are explicitly part of nature and fundamentally no different to plants or animals, people refer to these things as "nature" in order to categorise and better reference them. Again, the idea of "nature" is only a human construct.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated I do not believe in the big bang.

Why?

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Why?

I've never read an article which has satisfactorily explained the science and reasoning behind it. There was a time when I had a subscription to New Scientist and they ran big bang stories every second week too.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Why do you keep babbling about "materialist" and "spiritualist"? Why does someone have to be one or the other, and why do you assume I'm one

I don't believe you have to be one or the other - I certainly am not. And I never assumed you were.. that's why I said 'whether you are this or that'.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated I do not believe in the big bang. What is reality then? What is reality if not physical? Perhaps there is a higher reality around us that we cannot comprehend, but that must be physical too, because anything that exists is physical, unless of course you are saying that true reality does not exist?

i don't think it is physical. it's the answer to the question 'where was the big bang located, before it created location'. it is quite a conundrum obviously. i think we need to be clearer on the terms 'real' and 'physical'. i am using the word 'physical' to denote 'material', and i think that the physical world is illusory (by illusory i don't mean that it doesn't exist, but rather that it veils reality) and basically a collapsing of the universal wavefunction. when i say 'real' i am referring to the wavefunction itself, from which all physical worlds may unfold. a wave is not a physical thing like a particle.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated But that's the thing that you don't understand. Although imagination itself is just as real as an apple or a book in that it is still a physical thing consisting of neurons and electric pulses, the concepts or ideas created by imagination are still just that. They do not exist OUTSIDE of imagination. Without humans and their imagination, there is no such thing as "1" or "2", because these things are but things made up by humans. On the other hand, an atom would still exist, even if we were not around.

that's exactly what i said. Actually the current thought in physics is that the atom would MAY OR MAY NOT exist if we were not around, as in the double slit experiment. Think of the physical world as we know it as a collective, infinitely compounded double slit experiment.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Are you retarded? I clearly stated: I think it is ridiculous to argue that we are any different to plants or animals in actuality,. The idea of nature is just like the idea of colours. Really, it does not matter what colour something is. An object's colour has very little bearing on the world around it, but as humans we create concepts and ideas to compartmentalise the world around us and make it more palatable. Thus we have the concepts of "black" and "white". In the same way, although humans are explicitly part of nature and fundamentally no different to plants or animals, people refer to these things as "nature" in order to categorise and better reference them. Again, the idea of "nature" is only a human construct.

in answer to your question, no, i am not retarded. lol

what you clearly stated was

"Also, humans are not part of nature."

however, that was the only clear part of what you wrote - i couldn't make out exactly where you stood on the issue.

my point is that we're grown up enough as a species to realize that it's pointless to categorize humans as something different than nature. the 'us and them' attitude has harmed the environment in many ways. this attitude is the root of racism and sexism as well.

i don't see the practical use in differentiating between man and nature at this point...

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated I've never read an article which has satisfactorily explained the science and reasoning behind it. There was a time when I had a subscription to New Scientist and they ran big bang stories every second week too.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you "don't believe in the Big Bang," though. Do you mean you don't believe the universe has been expanding from a very hot, small, dense initial state since about fourteen billion years ago?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i believe i was referring to coherence

I think in his case the two go hand in hand, and it seems for him that ship sailed long ago

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Skez I almost lost it and yelled "what the fuck are you talking about you fucking Jew?" and slammed the door on them.

That makes no sense, whatsoever.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated I've never read an article which has satisfactorily explained the science and reasoning behind it. There was a time when I had a subscription to New Scientist and they ran big bang stories every second week too.

What about microwave background radiation, cosmic red shift, or the abundance of primordial elements (i.e. hydrogen)? Cosmic red shift alone implies an expanding universe.

Damn this thread fucking sucks. 'My only fear of death is reincarnation'

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I'm not sure what you mean when you say you "don't believe in the Big Bang," though. Do you mean you don't believe the universe has been expanding from a very hot, small, dense initial state since about fourteen billion years ago?

Nope. I believe it's expanding; I've been suitably convinced of that. I'm not 100% convinced on the fact that it started from a small, dense point that exploded though. However, to me, this seems to be the best theory we have at the moment and it's the one that seems most plausible. Until something else comes along I'll settle for the big bang.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Nope. I believe it's expanding; I've been suitably convinced of that. I'm not 100% convinced on the fact that it started from a small, dense point that exploded though. However, to me, this seems to be the best theory we have at the moment and it's the one that seems most plausible. Until something else comes along I'll settle for the big bang.

Isn't that how science treats any theory? "The best we have at the moment" until some evidence turns up to prove it wrong?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.