|
Applications of the String Theory (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by King_Mack
you looking for something introductory...or a bit more advanced? |
well abit of both,But I guess I'll start with the basics!!
ooh and whats this dark energy that guys are talking about?? |
|
|
| King_Mack |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
ooh and whats this dark energy that guys are talking about?? |
Dark energy is basically a mysterious force that no one understands, which is causing the universe to fly apart faster and faster. Everybody's clueless about it, but they are certain it exists. Why? Because of the universe expanding...and at an accelerating rate at that!
Dark energy entered the astronomical scene in 1998, after two groups of astronomers made a survey of exploding stars, or supernovas, in a number of distant galaxies. These researchers found that the supernovas were dimmer than they should have been, and that meant they were farther away than they should have been. The only way for that to happen, the astronomers realized, was if the expansion of the universe had sped up at some time in the past.
You can think of dark energy is being anti-gravity. Gravity having a pull effect,whereas dark energy pushes. It doesnt necessarily act opposing to gravity because it does exactly what General relativity(Einstein's theory) says it should do, if it has negative pressure.
The supernova evidence suggests that the acceleration kicked in about 5 billion years ago. At that time, galaxies were far enough apart that their gravity (which weakens with distance) was overwhelmed by the relatively gentle but constant repulsive force of dark energy. Since then, dark energy's continuing push has been causing the cosmic expansion to speed up, and it seems likely now that this expansion will continue indefinitely. Dark energy also ties into dark matter. Again, dark matter is something we know just about NOTHING of. The reason why we care so much about it is, simply the universe is composed of basically the majority;dark energy and dark matter. Here's a breakdown of what our universe is composed of..
heavy elements-0.03%
ghostly neutrinos--0.3%
stars-0.5%
Free hydrogen and helium-4%
dark matter-30%
dark energy-65%
so you can see, that both these dark aspects of our universe is 95% its makeup! So you can imagine, explaining to someone that we are still clueless about the makeup of 95% of what's out there. This, can be an astonishing discovery for us, and I strongly believe a very important discovery in order to further space exploration.
Any more questions? :)
I'll see if I can find yo some links that you requested, though I'll be a tad busy this weekend, perhaps after. |
|
|
| DJRocco |
| quote: | Originally posted by Wurm
-there's too much math-phobia, and a general level of anti-intellectualism out there that stifles it too often. |
<-------- i love science and all but i love things that i can touch and feel while enjoying the math part of it: Mech. Engieneering. |
|
|
| DJRocco |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. Z
With the string theory we could change these rules, make nucleii stable when they normally would not be. Then we really would be able to make neat things. Like, effiscient nuclear rections, more user friendly fission, and even construct new types of matter. |
uh...i don't think u should construct new matter with the type of powers we have in this day an age. I think it would be cool to have a plane that can travel at the speed of sound and drop a pen sized bomb to blow up an entire nation but i don't think that's what u mean.:eyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. Z
If we could construct matter that acts like a black hole, we might be able to abuse it for its time properties, like send messages into the past or future. But I'm not sure about the past, I think you can only move into the future while in a black hole... but anyway, it opens up a whole new field, a whole new study, fascination, opportunity for improvement and a whole new mind boggling concept. |
uh i don't think that's a good idea....i would want to live around that time; the future might be really ugly or really beautiful and the info is just gonna make ppl freak out. Now: if every single person on earth is mature enough to handle the truth, by all means go for it! We must understand that science is not politics. Every thing that the scientests discover and the engieneers build is always critsized for its "cost" or "why...? what does it do and how does it do it better? was it reallly worth the couple million?"
What i don't understand is government are willing to pay millions for welfare bums who are perfectly able to work and supply thousands of bombs to blow up some arabic but not invest that kinda money for the name of science. WHEN THEY DO invest it, it's usually military wise. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by King_Mack
Dark energy is basically a mysterious force that no one understands, which is causing the universe to fly apart faster and faster. Everybody's clueless about it, but they are certain it exists. Why? Because of the universe expanding...and at an accelerating rate at that!
Dark energy entered the astronomical scene in 1998, after two groups of astronomers made a survey of exploding stars, or supernovas, in a number of distant galaxies. These researchers found that the supernovas were dimmer than they should have been, and that meant they were farther away than they should have been. The only way for that to happen, the astronomers realized, was if the expansion of the universe had sped up at some time in the past.
You can think of dark energy is being anti-gravity. Gravity having a pull effect,whereas dark energy pushes. It doesnt necessarily act opposing to gravity because it does exactly what General relativity(Einstein's theory) says it should do, if it has negative pressure.
The supernova evidence suggests that the acceleration kicked in about 5 billion years ago. At that time, galaxies were far enough apart that their gravity (which weakens with distance) was overwhelmed by the relatively gentle but constant repulsive force of dark energy. Since then, dark energy's continuing push has been causing the cosmic expansion to speed up, and it seems likely now that this expansion will continue indefinitely. Dark energy also ties into dark matter. Again, dark matter is something we know just about NOTHING of. The reason why we care so much about it is, simply the universe is composed of basically the majority;dark energy and dark matter. Here's a breakdown of what our universe is composed of..
heavy elements-0.03%
ghostly neutrinos--0.3%
stars-0.5%
Free hydrogen and helium-4%
dark matter-30%
dark energy-65%
so you can see, that both these dark aspects of our universe is 95% its makeup! So you can imagine, explaining to someone that we are still clueless about the makeup of 95% of what's out there. This, can be an astonishing discovery for us, and I strongly believe a very important discovery in order to further space exploration.
Any more questions? :)
I'll see if I can find yo some links that you requested, though I'll be a tad busy this weekend, perhaps after. |
woow thanks very much for the info,now I have a better understanding of the dark energy.
SO ya if you can post some links when you have time I would really appriciate M8,there is alot more that I would love to know about all this!!:) |
|
|
| Dr. Z |
Here's what I have to say.
| quote: |
But for a human to travel through one is more than suicide. A human body can be stretched down to molecular sizes. Heck, I think humans would vomit after rotating in the event horizon at such a speed hehe. Only way I can see black hole entering possible, is if humans were somehow converted to another state, perhaps converted to some sort of energy form..and then shot into a black hole heh. BUT, that would mean something to allow you to convert back on the otherside that would work flawless. Im not saying its impossible, butitll be a good time before we get anywhere with it. But, I think we should learn more about dark energy first, if we harness such a thing, the outcomes would have no bounds.
|
Hehe, I was never talking about entering a black hole. Actually, a black hole is not even a 'hole' that you CAN enter. Its just a ginormous planet, that pulls everything towards it, even electromagnetic (light). There is practically no way that we can come close to a black hole to study it. Even the radiation that roams around it would obliterate us. BUT :)
One interesting discovery, that I've seen is, that if you have a planet you can treat it as a point mass source at its centre. And if you dig inside the planet to go deeper, gravity actually becomes a linear dependance with distance, not a square. This is because there is some planet above you thats pulling you, and some under you thats also pulling you. BUT, if the planet were a spherical shell, like a basketball, then anything inside the planet would float with no net gravity pull in any direction. If you do the integral of the gravity, you'll notice that all the forces cancel in a spherical shell.
So what I was thinking was, that if we build a 'pod' out of the densest material possible, "ie a black hole matter", and any person inside it would actually foat, while this pod can come close to a black hole and not be absorbed. :eyes:
I thought thats kinda interesting.
| quote: |
Dr. Z, whats your saying about worm holes? |
Well wormholes at first were invented by science fiction. There are no discoveries of wormholes or theoretical predictions of any. But, I don't think they will never exist. I think with all the things possible with space&time, something will eventually be discovered. The only problem is, controlling the bending of space&time. The bending of space&time is usually the outcome of an event. So we cannot control the outcome, we can only control the event. Its like those leaping frogs that you see at amusement parks. You whack the little leaver with a hammer and the plastic frog flies off and you hope it lands into a bucket. Well the only thing you can control is the whacking, but where the frog flies is the outcome, so we cannot do much.
The dark energy, and dark matter business is a mysterious one indeed. When scientists studied the universe they saw that energy and matter was not evenly seperated in the universe. Its as if there was matter and energy missing in the universe to make it as natural as possible. So dark matter and energy are two substances invented by scientists to fill these gaps. Whether they actually exist, people don't know. We have to look to find it. But there is no practical way to find it, because people don't know what it is!
What I think it is, is that its just matter and energy like the rest of the universe, but its the matter and energy that we cannot percieve. Think of x-rays. We cannot see x-rays, and without science we wouldn't even know they exist. So to detect x-rays we had to build something that will see things that we cannot percieve. But you also could not use an infra red sensor to scan it, it had to be a x-ray sensor to detect it. So I think its the same with this, we just need to find a way to 'communicate' with it.
| quote: |
uh...i don't think u should construct new matter with the type of powers we have in this day an age. I think it would be cool to have a plane that can travel at the speed of sound and drop a pen sized bomb to blow up an entire nation but i don't think that's what u mean. |
Nuclear reactions are used daily all over the world. Nuclear powerplants are making energy for homes to millions. Nuclear engines are powering submarines, and ships. Nuclear experiments are done in the lab, daily. In hospitals, MRIs (NMR: nuclear magnetic resonance) are done regulary, to look inside people's brains. When people hear the word nuclear, they generaly think nuclear weapons. Thats because of the whole media hype. I like to ignore the idiocricy and look at the brighter future. A future that will benefit us all.
The time travel~
Personaly, I think time travel should never be used. Its chaotic, it could make the universe unstable and who knows what else. But lets look at the facts. Time travel was declared impossible years ago, but now that we know things about black holes and the general relativity, we get new ideas. But even if some kind of space&time bend is possible, its so unpredictable and random, thats its not even worth investigating. |
|
|
| Alccode |
| quote: | Originally posted by Wurm
I'm just skeptical because these kind of promises were made 60 years ago when nuclear energy was on the horizon. "It'll be too cheap to even meter", "A tool for the benefit of all mankind." Even nuclear bombs were hailed as opportunities for canal-digging and mining.
The human condition, the way we relate to one another, our ability to tolerate one another's differences, the settling of age-old vendettas must be resolved before we can tap into our true potential. Otherwise any technological advancement will inevitably be put to destructive uses. Just look at the gadgets being used in Iraq, the ugly head of the missile defence shield hell even the invention of dynamite (by Alfred Nobel, the Peace Prize guy.)
I once prayed at the altar of science, convinced that it was the only true endeaviour worth pursuing. Until we get past what it is to be a human being on the earth, possibly in an indifferent universe, possibly in a created one, then science is a backdrop for human relations, whether they be on the macro scale (ethnic, national) or on the micro scale (friendships, loves, hates.)
|
*standing ovation*!!!!
Bravo, well said! Humanity is too ed up - any technological advance will ALWAYS be turned to evil... it's quite inevitable.
I would first worry about whether human life will even SURVIVE the next 5 years before worrying about intangibles like string theory.
But, turning aside from paranoia, I would say that string theory is quite interesting in itself, although it suffers from a defect that is largely the fault of science.
Actually, string theory doesn't suffer, science does. The problem is that science has been immersed in too much materialism. Today people take materialistic science for granted, and take it for "real", without realizing that it's just another trend, riding on huge assumptions.
Basically, saying that all of the world can be reduced to mathematical theories, observable/measurable phenomena and the such is quite ridiculous. I can guarantee you that people in the future will laugh at our puny scientific materialism just as how we laugh at how people used to believe that the earth is flat.
I mean, think about it. The notion that the ONLY things that exist are ones that are measurable - i.e., if you can't observe it, then it doesn't exist - is the most absurd and ridiculous thing anyone can say, if you sit down and think it over. And what do you mean by "measurable"? That which can be detected by "scientific instruments"? To think, that manmade devices can crack the puzzle of reality, is a laughable idea.
There is so much more to reality than can be "measured" by science. So I always take "Grand Unification" theories like string theory with a grain of salt, because they can never actually bring an understanding for the entire miracle that is existence.
EDIT: This is NOT a bash of string theory. It is a bash of the modern (err, I mean Western) way of thinking. |
|
|
| Dr. Z |
Sorry dude, but I'ma have to comment on everything that you said.
| quote: | Originally posted by Alccode
Bravo, well said! Humanity is too ed up - any technological advance will ALWAYS be turned to evil... it's quite inevitable.
|
Correction, some humans are ed up, and some science will be turned into harmful usage. Also, evil does not exist. As you should have learned, its a term defined by religion. Technological advance is inevitable. Its gotten us this far, and it will take us further. Without science, you'd probably be aruging with me of who owns the bananas on that other tree.
| quote: |
I would first worry about whether human life will even SURVIVE the next 5 years before worrying about intangibles like string theory. |
The reason human life is in some danger is because science took a wrong turn. But all of that can be fixed, and it can only be fixed with more science to come. How do you expect to remove all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Throw all our books in the garbage? We have to research to find out... and if something like the string theory will give us better energy usages, then we can find ways to prevent pollution.
| quote: |
Actually, string theory doesn't suffer, science does. The problem is that science has been immersed in too much materialism. Today people take materialistic science for granted, and take it for "real", without realizing that it's just another trend, riding on huge assumptions.
|
Not all science is based on assumptions, actually, all of the science that is put in practical use is not based on any assumptions at all. Its based on physical laws. Like the law of gravity. The only assumptions in science are the ones dealing with theories, that are not implemeted in practical use. Like the string theory, of the VB theory in chemistry. So all this materialistic science can be taken for 'granted'. If you refuse to believe in it, then you fail to see the logic behind it.
| quote: |
Basically, saying that all of the world can be reduced to mathematical theories, observable/measurable phenomena and the such is quite ridiculous. I can guarantee you that people in the future will laugh at our puny scientific materialism just as how we laugh at how people used to believe that the earth is flat.
|
It is likely that some of our theories will be laughed at in the future, but the reason that most will not be laughed at is because we are discovering their true nature. The people thought the world was flat, but thats only because thats what they saw. There were no scientific conclusions behind it. People discovered the world was round by doing scientific experiments.
| quote: |
I mean, think about it. The notion that the ONLY things that exist are ones that are measurable - i.e., if you can't observe it, then it doesn't exist - is the most absurd and ridiculous thing anyone can say, if you sit down and think it over. And what do you mean by "measurable"? That which can be detected by "scientific instruments"? To think, that manmade devices can crack the puzzle of reality, is a laughable idea.
|
The human conciousness is pretty confusing as it is. Defining what exists is extremely hard. I could just say that this is all a dream and I'm in some pod in a movie called the matrix.
This way, we define certain things that exist. And it seems pretty good, because everything can be broken down to some scientific property. If you think otherwise, I would like to ask you of something that does not fit in this criteria. |
|
|
| Alccode |
(NOTE: this is kind of getting a little philosophical, so I regret to say that many will find this uninteresting and pointless... ah, well)
Dr. Z, great post! You made some excellent comments. I will post some of my own in turn below.
| quote: |
Sorry dude, but I'ma have to comment on everything that you said.
|
No need to apologize...discussion is good! :D
| quote: |
Correction, some humans are ed up, and some science will be turned into harmful usage. Also, evil does not exist. |
<-- Bravo!!
| quote: |
As you should have learned, its a term defined by religion. Technological advance is inevitable.
|
First off, I commend you on your conception of "evil", which is absolutely right and I'm very happy you see it that way. I agree with the technological advance comment - indeed, I would say that it's meant to be: we as humans are really inquisitive and ambitious by nature. Now as to whether that is a good or bad thing (in regards to the safety and preservation of life on the planet) is kind of a moot point, I agree. When I said it would be better to worry about whether we will survive in the next 5 years, I was trying to force things into perspective rather than to sound paranoid. Although our bodies are a marvel of nature, we are really delicate beings. Ripping up the ozone, for example, has devastating consequences. It will be unfortunate if, one day, we will be forced to wear special suits to go outside simply because we cannot survive on our own anymore.
| quote: |
Its gotten us this far, and it will take us further. Without science, you'd probably be aruging with me of who owns the bananas on that other tree.
|
Just like the concept of "evil", the concept of "technological advancement" is just a definition made by humans. It has no objective validity (just like the concept of evil). What I mean is that, for you (I mean in general), being more advanced is a good thing, whereas for someone else, advancement is bad. Who is to argue that arguing over bananas isn't a good thing? I, for one, would rather argue about bananas than worry about perishing in a deadly blaze of radiation.
What I'm trying to get at here is that we should come to realize that we are all living in a subjective, human-made society. A matrix, if you will. (to quote you from below) :toothless
| quote: |
The reason human life is in some danger is because science took a wrong turn. But all of that can be fixed, and it can only be fixed with more science to come. How do you expect to remove all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Throw all our books in the garbage? We have to research to find out... and if something like the string theory will give us better energy usages, then we can find ways to prevent pollution.
|
Wonderful, this is the main part of your post I guess, in defence of string theory. Like I said in my earlier post, I am not against string theory in itself, but against modern man and science.
I agree that we need science now more than ever. But the reason we need science is because of science itself! We as humans got ourself into a huge mess here, and the only way we can dig ourselves out is if we use the same tools that got us here. However, I wonder if we're only digging our hole even deeper...
| quote: |
Not all science is based on assumptions, actually, all of the science that is put in practical use is not based on any assumptions at all. Its based on physical laws. Like the law of gravity. The only assumptions in science are the ones dealing with theories, that are not implemeted in practical use. Like the string theory, of the VB theory in chemistry. So all this materialistic science can be taken for 'granted'. If you refuse to believe in it, then you fail to see the logic behind it.
|
That is well and good. However, as you know, logic is merely just another definition. If I was to, say, change the definition of the negation operator (in formal logic), then the entire system of logic would change. Yeah, this is a little irrelevant when dealing with natural phenomena etc., but if you think about it it really isn't.
What I mean is that we are living in our own definitions. For example, western/modern society takes the concept of causality for granted. I'm not arguing with that in itself. If you push me, I'm probably going to move or fall over. Likewise, the fact that I exist here-now is because, in part, my parents met once upon a time etc.
But, and here's the catch, what about the opposite of causality? What if not only was I caused to exist because of my parents, but I was also caused to exist because my existence now was "pulling" me, was causing my potential to actualize? A flower blooms, but who is to say that the fully bloomed flower (as a potentiality) is not also beckoning to the underdeveloped flower, causing it to come into existence??
This isn't mystical rambling, but a different way of thinking. This is what I meant by the assumptions made by science. Because we can't "see" the future, and cannot "measure" it, does it mean that what I said in the above paragraph is baloney?? Of course you can dismiss it offhand and scoff, "Bah, what nonsense," but have you really thought about it? Doesn't the concept of the one-sidedness of time just seem unbalanced?
Anyway, potentiality is a big topic in quantum theory (more on this below), so yeah, science is somewhat catching up in that specific regard. But I only used it as an example.
| quote: |
It is likely that some of our theories will be laughed at in the future, but the reason that most will not be laughed at is because we are discovering their true nature. The people thought the world was flat, but thats only because thats what they saw. There were no scientific conclusions behind it. People discovered the world was round by doing scientific experiments.
|
I'm sure that there were some sort of scientific conclusions behind the idea of the flatness of the world, even though I don't know it.
But to make my point clearer, consider the concept of the "humors" which was prevalent in medieval anatomy. That was a totally scientific (back then) view of the human body. Yet today, it seems ridiculous (which it is).
| quote: |
The human conciousness is pretty confusing as it is.
|
Ah, my favourite topic. :)
| quote: |
Defining what exists is extremely hard. I could just say that this is all a dream and I'm in some pod in a movie called the matrix.
|
(you'd be surprised...)
| quote: |
This way, we define certain things that exist. And it seems pretty good, because everything can be broken down to some scientific property. If you think otherwise, I would like to ask you of something that does not fit in this criteria. |
Easy: consciousness itself. That is one of the most elusive things for us, and yet it is so close to our beings. (Actually it's our very nature!)
In the entirety of the cognitive science course I have been taking this year, my professors have emphasized time and again that consciousness, in the psychological and cognitive fields, is one of those concepts that we know almost nothing about. Sure, there are some theories, but there are a lot of holes in all of them. The fact is that we, as humans, do not need consciousness. We can totally survive without it.
Here is proof which you can experience for yourself (now there's something) - but you must be able to recall your dreams well in order to do this. If you want to work on dream recall, I can PM you about that if you're interested.
Now, I don't want to get heavily into dreams (which is off topic), but I will just say that if you analyze your dreams after they occur, you will be amazed that you act totally as you would in your waking life. Your personality is totally intact in every way. And as you are entirely unconscious during the experience, this shows that consciousness is not necessary for daily life. Of course, this is just another theory, and there might be some caveats, but the basic premise holds I would say.
The point is that consciousness, from a biological and "scientific" viewpoint, is as good as useless. So why do we have it? This is something which science cannot answer.
Here is another example that doesn't fit into your criterion (of science), and is perhaps a bit easier to digest: quantum mechanics and the concept of the Observer. (Though this is just the concept of consciousness revisited) If I didn't want to get into dreams before, I definitely don't want to get into quantum mechanics, but I will just point out that traditional science is in the dark when it comes to the observer. How is it that quantum entanglement can occur? How can one particle know the state of another, even if they are so far apart that any "message" would go faster than the speed of light? (which is a huge, strict, strict, strict impossibility in any way, shape, or form - sorry, trekkies :toothless) Furthermore, how can the uncertainty of a state (of particles) "collapse" when it is observed? Why is it that this collapse (forgot the technical term, but it's very cool) only occurs when a consciousness - an observer - comes into contact with it?
I recommend you check out The Physics of Consciousness by Evan Walker, if you haven't heard of it already (I think you may have). I don't agree with many of his points, and I don't agree with his conclusion, but it is a great book for one to come to grips with the fact that there is more to reality than can be "measured."
Quantum theory is beyond amazing, and it is only due to sheer ignorance of the masses that people haven't realized just how jaw-dropping it is, and what huge consequences it entails. Materialism and our current mode of thinking will definitely change as people come to realize the awesome discoveries that are being made in this field. (that is just to cite quantum theory.. of course, string theory has awesome consequences too - but first thing's first... in order for people to get string theory they have to go through quantum theory first :toothless )
I guess we can definitely agree on that - change is the hallmark of existence, and nothing will remain static. :D
Dr. Z, I really enjoyed typing this up and I hope that I have caused you (or anyone else) to think... not necessarily to "change your mind", which is not what I'm trying to do, but at least to point you in a different direction. |
|
|
| Dr. Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alccode
No need to apologize...discussion is good! :D
|
Agreed. You have made me think. And I've learned something new. But I just want to add some things to our discussion.
| quote: |
Just like the concept of "evil", the concept of "technological advancement" is just a definition made by humans. It has no objective validity (just like the concept of evil). What I mean is that, for you (I mean in general), being more advanced is a good thing, whereas for someone else, advancement is bad. Who is to argue that arguing over bananas isn't a good thing? I, for one, would rather argue about bananas than worry about perishing in a deadly blaze of radiation.
|
Although technological advancement is a relative term (a definition), we did not define technological advancement ourselves. Its our instinctual nature to be curious. To learn as much as we possibly can. This has caused us to advance with little control. For this it is inevitable, no matter the "goodness/badness".
I don't blame it.
:)
| quote: |
I agree that we need science now more than ever. But the reason we need science is because of science itself! We as humans got ourself into a huge mess here, and the only way we can dig ourselves out is if we use the same tools that got us here. However, I wonder if we're only digging our hole even deeper...
|
True ^
| quote: |
That is well and good. However, as you know, logic is merely just another definition. If I was to, say, change the definition of the negation operator (in formal logic), then the entire system of logic would change. Yeah, this is a little irrelevant when dealing with natural phenomena etc., but if you think about it it really isn't.
|
Logical axioms are defined. But when you follow the axioms in a logical manner, then derivations with these axioms are considered laws. For an example, 1+1 is defined to be 2. There is no logic behind this. Actually this even makes no mathemcatical sense. Its a mere definition. Because of this, we can say that 1+1 = 2, no matter what. Its a law that 1+1 = 2 because thats how we have defined it. 2+2 is 4. Another law, derived from the axioms of math.
For this reason, our logic is a very powerful tool. Something that we can use to filter out subjective thought.
| quote: |
...
The point is that consciousness, from a biological and "scientific" viewpoint, is as good as useless. So why do we have it? This is something which science cannot answer.
|
I think we have to look from the evolutionary point of view. You have to admit that without conciousness, our intelligence would be very limited. Alot of the logical evaluations that we do are in our concious mind. We can accept conciousness as an evolutionary process. Something that we gained a long time ago that made us prevail over all the other animals.
Now, looking at the matialistic components of the conciousness. We know that our brain functions by forming a net of neurons with different tasks and other functions. This net of neurons is able to responds to stimuli, which is what gives us our conciousness. How it actually works, we have no clue. So our conciousness is not entirely unknown. We know we can manipulate it to an extent with chemicals. And science still plays a role.
| quote: |
Here is another example that doesn't fit into your criterion (of science),...
|
I see your points, but you have to remember that we cannot say anything against science if we cannot explain a phenomenon with our current theories. The reason a theory is called a theory is because it is a law in progress. A theory does not explain everything, it only explains something. The above examples do not contrast any of the theories, but they cannot be explained with any of the current theories. For this we have to build a new one. The unknowns like these are usually labeled, as undiscovered.
I think it will only be a matter of time until we come to an understanding of the things that boggle us right now, and science, as adaptive as it is, will guide us there. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Dr. Z |
Can you explain to me the PH theory?
As in why some people get thick curly hairs growing on their head (known as PH)?
I've not been a victim, but I've known people who have suffered big time. It's almost like pubic hair growing on their head.
(BTW - PH = pubic head) |
|
|
| Alccode |
I think I have reached a sort of balance in my viewpoint that agrees with yours, Dr. Z. :D Read on! :)
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. Z
Although technological advancement is a relative term (a definition), we did not define technological advancement ourselves. Its our instinctual nature to be curious. To learn as much as we possibly can. This has caused us to advance with little control. For this it is inevitable, no matter the "goodness/badness".
I don't blame it.
:)
|
Yes, after all, it is quite miraculous isn't it? Even the (trivial?) process of sitting at a computer and communicating with someone else over great distances instantaneously, would have been magic a century ago! Yet the entire process is so complicated. And to think that computers are all built from a few digital logic gates! :D
| quote: |
Logical axioms are defined. But when you follow the axioms in a logical manner, then derivations with these axioms are considered laws. For an example, 1+1 is defined to be 2. There is no logic behind this. Actually this even makes no mathemcatical sense. Its a mere definition. Because of this, we can say that 1+1 = 2, no matter what. Its a law that 1+1 = 2 because thats how we have defined it. 2+2 is 4. Another law, derived from the axioms of math.
For this reason, our logic is a very powerful tool. Something that we can use to filter out subjective thought.
|
Wow, you got me there. I totally see what you mean. Agreed. (Because if we don't have a common framework to view the world around us, how can we hope to achieve anything? Just because my frame - err, "logic" - is differently shaped from the next guy's, doesn't mean that I see a fake picture. Just a different part of the picture. But it's the same picture. :) )
| quote: |
I think we have to look from the evolutionary point of view. You have to admit that without conciousness, our intelligence would be very limited. Alot of the logical evaluations that we do are in our concious mind. We can accept conciousness as an evolutionary process. Something that we gained a long time ago that made us prevail over all the other animals.
|
An interesting question - are humans the only animals that possess consciousness? I would like to argue against it. Apes and other primates, namely chimpanzees, have been extensively studied in psychology and the cognitive sciences, and I think that the major differences between us are "just" in terms of brain complexity and design. I'm no expert on the matter, but in the end I think that chimps are just as conscious as we are.
Though that does not mean that they can introspect as well as we do (if at all), nor can they solve problems as well as we do, nor (certainly!) can they communicate as well as we do. Language is the hallmark of the human species, and is unparalleled by anything like it in nature. Nothing comes even close. :)
But you are still absolutely right - we as humans have immense advantages over other animals, which has allowed us to expand so much today, and produce such crazy and wonderful things. :) Like trance. :D
| quote: |
Now, looking at the matialistic components of the conciousness. We know that our brain functions by forming a net of neurons with different tasks and other functions. This net of neurons is able to responds to stimuli, which is what gives us our conciousness. How it actually works, we have no clue. So our conciousness is not entirely unknown. We know we can manipulate it to an extent with chemicals. And science still plays a role.
|
Perhaps, (though this is just my opinion) chemicals alter thought processes rather than consciousness. I mean, when under the influence of certain mind-altering substances, it seems to me that the basic consciousness, the "canvas" on which thoughts are painted, remains the same, even though the thoughts themselves are extremely different than when "normal". It's not like I'm experiencing a different reality. It's just that the tools by which I experience it, namely the senses and thoughts, are altered.
| quote: |
I see your points, but you have to remember that we cannot say anything against science if we cannot explain a phenomenon with our current theories. The reason a theory is called a theory is because it is a law in progress. A theory does not explain everything, it only explains something. The above examples do not contrast any of the theories, but they cannot be explained with any of the current theories. For this we have to build a new one. The unknowns like these are usually labeled, as undiscovered.
|
I was actually going to repost and play devil's advocate to my earlier post, but you posted sooner than I expected. :D When I look back, my examples don't negate science but rather show that science has not explained some things... Maybe next time I should say that, for example with the quantum theory/observer example, that science cannot explain that specific phenomenon in the traditional, "old" terms. Rather, the mind will adapt and think in new ways so that this phenomenon can be understood. Most things today would have been considered beyond belief a long time ago (I mean, flying machines??? sheesh... :toothless), and yet today we take them for granted. Not so much because we're "better" than our predecessors (which is wrong), but rather that we have changed our thinking. And they had changed their thinking from their predecessors. And it goes on.
| quote: |
I think it will only be a matter of time until we come to an understanding of the things that boggle us right now, and science, as adaptive as it is, will guide us there. |
Not only guide us to an understanding of these mysteries, but let's hope that it guides our feelings and judgements so that we can get rid of some of the ridiculous prejudices and destructive tendencies that are so widespread today. :D
(But then again... who's to say that war is bad, when it might be just part of the natural human thought processes?? dum..dum..DUMMM....lol) |
|
|
|
|
