arnold3000

One person told me that modern physics support solipsism.

I do not believe it. 

Does modern physics support solipsism? 
Does modern physics have any evidence that solipsism is true?

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Мы не знаем полностью, поскольку в настоящее время невозможно поддерживать функционирование и здоровье мозга после того, как он полностью отделен от тела, в котором он вырос. Неважно, кладете ли вы его в чан или в пакет Cheetos, все это гипотетически.

Однако имейте в виду (не каламбур), что мозг на самом деле не заботится о реальном взаимодействии атомов (как вы его называете), которое происходит, когда происходит прикосновение между телом и чем-то в мире. Все, что волнует мозг, - это то, какие нервные сигналы поступают в его различные части, насколько они интенсивны, длительность сигналов и в каком порядке они приходят.

Затем вся эта информация объединяется, чтобы сформировать «повествование», описывающее событие в нашем сознании… ту часть, которую мы обычно считаем «я»… «я» за глазами. 

Итак, что-то давит на нашу кожу. Это изменение давления вызывает активацию определенных рецепторов, и эти рецепторы запускают каскад к рецепторам вокруг них (нервная клетка 1 активирует нервную клетку 2, а нервная клетка 2 затем активирует нервную клетку 3, клетка 3 активирует клетку 4, и так далее. путь вверх по позвоночнику, пока сигнал, наконец, не поступит в наш мозг ... затем некоторые новые сигналы каскадом распространяются по всему мозгу, подобно тому, как рябь проходит по пруду после того, как бросили камень).

Но это все ... единственное, что мозг «видит», - это то, что в определенной нервной клетке или наборе клеток произошло определенное изменение напряжения. Только позже, когда эти входящие сигналы были собраны воедино, мозг приходит к выводу, что произошедшее было прикосновением ... затем он сравнивает их с предыдущим опытом прикосновения, чтобы определить, что конкретно нас коснулось и т. Д.

Следуя той же логике, вы теоретически могли бы послать сигнал своему мозгу в чан отдельно. Пока этот сигнал, посылаемый в ваш отрезанный мозг, имитирует сигналы, посылаемые в мозг от тела, мы, вероятно, можем предположить, что он будет восприниматься как прикосновение не иначе, чем прикосновения воспринимаются сегодня. 

Понятно, что вам нужно настроить сигналы, как музыкальные инструменты в симфонии, чтобы добиться нужного «звука», и здесь есть множество предположений (например, тот факт, что мы каким-то образом успешно удерживаем функционирующий мозг в чане), но это мое мнение. Надеюсь, это даст вам пищу для размышлений. 

Thank you

I heard that relapse can happen if you don't practice, right?

When a person touches another person, do the atoms of the hand come into contact with the atoms of the skin of another person, or will there be a thin layer of air around all the objects that will impede the contact between the atoms of the hand and the atoms of the skin of another person? Or will almost all of the air be pushed out and there will be direct contact? thank

31 minutes ago, Strange said:

The first article appears to be about this paper: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-48448-001 (which doesn't say anything like the headline of the artcile)

The second is about this guy: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ritch+Savin-Williams but I can't see anything obviously relevant. He may be quoting figures from someone else's research (I don't get the impression he is an experimental psychologist). I guess you could read some of his many books if you want to know more.

So I don't think there is enough information to reach any sort of conclusion about the credibility of those articles. But, as with most tabloid reporting of science, I would not take them too seriously. In fact, I would probably ignore them until some proper information is available.

We don't know they are. You are reading too much into inaccurate tabloid articles.

could it be said that heterosexual people have no sexual attraction to other men but there is some other attraction and the pupils expand from this?

1 hour ago, Dagl1 said:

Morals are greatly influenced by societal norms, western societies still have stigma surrounding homosexual acts/relationships (especially for men), therefore men may be into something, and at the same time feel morally disgusted, and therefore possibly tell themselves they don't really like whatever they are into. Or the moral disgust is stronger than the amount they like something (liking isn't a binary thing, you can like something more or less as well).

but straight people say that they are not excited by the male body and since childhood they have been attracted only to the female body. If they are not attracted to the male body, then how can they be beaten mostly with straight or bisexual people?

15 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

What studies show that all people are bisexual, also see my previous points... 
Being excited by other guys having sex and being bisexual don't have to be the same thing, but if you do define homo/bi-sexual (from a male perspective) as any excitement when watching other guys having sex. Then maybe the definition bisexual doesn't mean the same as 'being attracted to (also) the same gender'. Next to that, plenty of reason have been given (social stigma>moral disgust, people lying, people not knowing themselves well enough). If you don't find these reasons convincing, could you maybe tell us why you doubt those reasons? 

 

how can there be moral disgust, if everyone like it ?

20 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

Maybe some lie, maybe some don't really understand their own feelings, maybe being attracted to the same gender and getting excited by watching other men and having sex are not the same?

Just because someone feels excited watching something, doesn't mean they are instantly INTO that thing, in the real world. There is a large difference between reacting to seeing something, and doing it yourself. Although there probably is a subgroup of people that may not know they are homosexual/bisexual, or they feel moral disgust due to stigma/upbringing and therefore say they aren't sexually attracted? So many reasons.

the question is if if studies show that all people are bisexual, why then do many people say that they are not attracted to the same gender?

4 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

I think a lot of men lie due to social pressures. Even today saying your attracted to the same sex will result in a lot of negative responses. 

Maybe it's not so much men's porn, but more a natural response to seeing sex, a primeval desire within us. 

we can say that orientation is a choice and all people are bisexual, but what about the red-violet scale, the Kinsey scale, and the fact that sexuality is not a choice and is influenced by factors such as geniuses, hormones, and social factors?

20 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

Find them sexually attractive, but not necessarily want to have sex with them. I feel that way about some of the women I know (one of my Cousins if I'm being honest, but that's another thread).

I don't see why it people couldn't feel the same about the same sex.

 

 

many people said they were not attracted to the same gender, but studies show that heterosexual men are excited by watching other men porn, how can I understand?

14 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

Wouldn't surprise me at all. Not sure about full on sexual attraction but definitely an appreciation for the other sex, if that makes sense.

I think if there was no stigma attached, a lot of people who describe themselves as heterosexual would be more open to bisexual relationships. Think of the Greeks or Romans. Homosexuality hasn't always been frowned upon. Seems like it comes and goes depending on the type of society we live in. 

what is mean:"Not Sure about full on sexual attraction but definitely an appreciation for the other sex, if that makes sense"?

That is, they will not have any sexual attraction to the same sex?

11 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Is it easier to understand if you think about 100 people of the same gender, and how many of the others each person feels attracted to? Person 1 might be attracted to 4 of the others, Person 2 doesn't like any of them, Person 3 is attracted to half the group, and so on, along a spectrum of attraction. 

Normally, there would be fewer people at the extremes. The number of people in that group of 100 who have 0% attraction to the others, and the number who are attracted by 100% of the others should both be small. 

you want to say that 80 percent of heterosexuals in the world have sexual feelings for the same sex but just hide them?

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Similar threads merged. One per topic, please.

 

Excuse me

but if all people are bisexual, why talk about the spectrum. Why, then, about 80 percent of people say that they are heterosexual and do not prey on any feelings for the same gender?

Is it true that no one is totaly straight?

What it is mean?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2018/03/14/no-one-actually-100-per-cent-straight-new-study-discovers-7386358/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.unilad.co.uk/life/straight-people-dont-exist-finds-new-study/amp/

Recent studies show that the eyes dilate when people watch male and female porn in all men and women, regardless of their orientation, which indicates sexual arousal.
It turns out all the bisexuals.
But how are studies that say that sexual orientation is not a choice;
Many factors influence sexual orientation, such as: genes, hormones, culture.
Sexual orientation is very stable and is unlikely to change.
Statistics say 90% of the heterosexual population.
How can this be understood?

What factors affect sexual fluidity?

Just now, Mordred said:

If by real you mean measurable then yes. Physics doesn't have a definement for real we leave that to metaphysics.

that is, it is an experimental fact ?

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

What the QFT defines as the electron in terms of the Operators involved under spinor and vector quantities will transfer. The values of the field will change locality

Sorry for the stupid question. Can this be called a real transfer?

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Well, they “behave” identically; it is just the mathematical description is different. 

In quantum field theory, electrons can physically move from one material to another?

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Yes that is a simplified way of describing it.

that is, the field quanta can behave like the classical ones ?

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 Your really not getting it, the term particle is a misnomer under QFT. This is specifically what the Hobson paper talks about. Hence its very title in the paper. There are no Particles, there is only fields.. Under QFT the coulomb force is described as the flow of polarization vectors

I do not say electrons are particles. Electrons - entities (field quanta). I want to understand that all objects consist of atoms. Atoms consist of quarks and electrons, when the two materials are in contact, electrons (field quanta) move from one material to another?

32 minutes ago, Mordred said:

It might help if you think of the Triboelectric effect as a exchange of charge not an exchange of electrons, There is a distinction, for example in a wire the flow of electrons is slow but the flow of charge is at c. The flow of charge is described by polarizations here is a basic classical article on how electrostatics work when the electric field is treated as a VECTOR Field. Noted in article.

http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~korytov/phy2049/old_notes/all_chapters.pdf

I also hope the Hobson paper taught you to not think of particles as a material ie corpuscular little bullets.... Solid is an illusion this is a needed shift in thinking to understand modern treatments of particles. The term particle is maintained for historical reasons but often leads to the incorrect images of what is described as a particle. This is one of the issues the Hobson paper addresses.

In the classical theory of tribo, electricity is described by the exchange of electrons, for example when rubbing the balloon to the hair. How does it work in quantum field theory? This is also the exchange of electrons. And according to the quantum field theory, electrons are the essence?

16 hours ago, Mordred said:

More accurately in QFT interactions can involve both pointlike and wavelike characteristics and under QFT treatment in essence the particle and the field is one and the same ie the particle is an excited localized state of the field itself. However the above is accurate but its better to recognize the distinction between QM and QFT in QM the particle is the priori but in QFT the field is of greater significance whereas the particle is a state caused by the field

If the particles in quantum field theory are stable excitations in a field, they can exist for an unlimited time? And once again I will ask, when in the quantum field theory there is an electrical discharge, do the electrons really go from one material to another?

15 hours ago, Mordred said:

All particles are treated as an excited state of an underlying field in QFT treatments hence they are field quanta. This includes the electron. In point of detail you can literally read entire QFT textbooks and not once come across the term particle. Wave packet is suitable. QFT has a rather different view of a particle, one of the better definitions I've run across is a single-quantum asymptotic free Fock state of a quantum field.

The trick is the probability of locating an electron or rather the quantized fock state that we identify as an electron is smeared over all of the field, the highest probability of finding that state is the field excitation. This is what Hobson is referring to in his "There are no particles there is only fields" article.

This will help out a bit on Fock spaces and the single and multiparticle states

https://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bds10/tp3/secqu.pdf

You are a good teacher.
I would like to clarify if I understood correctly: electrons are wave packets in quantum field theory. The processes in which electrons are exchanged occur in the same way as in classical theory. The difference lies in the fact that in the classical theory materials are exchanged by the points of particles, and in the quantum field theory materials are exchanged wave packets