Jump to content

FreeWill

Senior Members
  • Posts

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by FreeWill

  1. It is absolut selfish...some level of selfishness is necessary but this idea is not aligned with reality. 

    I reject the idea of solophism.

    Isn't it a mental state to believe in something like that? 

    On 6/11/2019 at 12:52 AM, Michael McMahon said:

    Solipsism Syndrome is "a psychological state in which a person feels that reality is not external to his or her mind". 

    It is external 9.9999......9% and internal 0.00....01% which internal is actually part of the overall = 1.0...0! 

    We are almost NOTHING without reality itself.

    You just have to realize it. 

    You are what you know.

    A human can not know everything.

     

  2. The same thought appeared to me as well.

    It seems to me as Energy impacted by Mass rather than mass impanct spacetime itself.

    I think the path of any observed physical entity (length of the distance covered) is impacted by mass.

    Because of mass, the path of anything is longer and its velocity slower than it would be without the impact of the mass of the Universe. 

    The expansion of Space and Time has an absolutely straight line.

    Anything in it has a path of a para(hyper)bol.

    Providing fundamentally Energy and a place to BE.

    Itsel CAN NOT BE IMPACETED!

     

     

  3. 9 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Energy is not well defined. Would you add up the energy as you see it? Or as someone at the source of those photons measured it? Or ...?

    I would add up the currently observable values of Energy and Matter up ( with the exchange rate counted if that would be possible)

    13 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Nothing impacted the photon (or we wouldn't see it).

    Then why the red shift?

  4. 15 minutes ago, Strange said:

    I don't think it is possible to quantify the total energy of the universe because energy is dependent on the frame of reference

    Isn't space(time) is the fundamental frame of reference?

    I understand and agree that yet we can not say how big space(time) could be exactly.

    15 minutes ago, Strange said:

    energy is dependent on the frame of reference so you can't just add up the total energy in the universe.

    If I would know the frame of reference could I add Energy up?

    15 minutes ago, Strange said:

    that energy has not gone anywhere, it is just because we are observing it in a different frame of reference from where they were emitted.

    It is the same space(time) continuum it can not go anywhere!

    True a lot of mass and energy impacted the photon on the path to Us and the circumstances of recognition is different as well but spacetime is the same (the photon could arrive to Us)

  5. 5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

    Also, we don't know that "reality" began at that time.

    I am 999.99..9% sure that reality did not begin with the time we know. I expect that the Universe is way bigger than we can yet observe or imagine. Energy and matter are from somewhere. I think they are a consequence of a process which I expect to be the expansion of the initial inertial frame: SpaceTime. (Could we say that the resistance of spacetime is 0?) 

    3 minutes ago, Strange said:

    The universe was then, and is still, uniformly full of matter.

    Currently, the Universe is not uniformly full of matter. Interstellar/intergalactic space vs Back whole/center of a galaxy.

  6.  
     
     
    5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

    The BB was NOT an explosion from a center point. 

     

    Difficult to determine. What is against it? What was the BB then?

    Not an explosion, rather a singular event from a point. (evolution of empty space-time with a certain rate for example).

    Note please, that calling the event the Big Bang suggest an explosion (radical radial expansion). 

     

  7. 6 minutes ago, koti said:

    Okay, so you have an issue with using the word delusion in the context o faith, I can understand your concern. I would like to know what word would you rather use to describe the worshipers who donated their money to this guy:

     

    Dolusioned, manipulated and exploited 

    It is a perfect example, bit disgusted to watch...

  8. 35 minutes ago, Strange said:

    However, the universe having a centre (or a boundary, which is probably the same thing) would be inconsistent with our current models

    What are the signs of inconsistencies with the current models, of a system which has center and boundaries? I think actually everything has a physical center, if we can recognize and determine its boundaries. 

    35 minutes ago, Strange said:

    There is no reason evidence of a "start" and certainly no evidence that it started as 1D (a line? really?)

    My bad, thanks for the correction!

    What is the dimension of a point?

     

  9. 8 minutes ago, Strange said:

    There is no centre of the universe.

    Yet we can not say this as a fact.

    I would expect a symmetric development though if the start is 1D.

    8 minutes ago, Strange said:

    And your answer seems to be tautological: "what is the direction of time?" "forward in time" (although I don't think a better answer is possible).

    True. Swansont expressed it already.

    Do you think time is linear?

  10. On 3/12/2019 at 11:18 AM, Razee01 said:

    I don't know how it sounds, what is the direction of time? Is it towards the center of the universe, the big bang or opposite?

    Thanks.

    Time is positively forward pointing since the first moment from the center of the universe

    Center of the universe: 1D point (empty space-time, a plank unit) at the first moment of reality

    On 3/12/2019 at 11:45 AM, swansont said:

    Unlike motion in space, where you can move in the + or - direction on a set of axes, your motion in the time dimension is only in the + direction.

    Does this mean that Time is a linear, forward pointing vector? 

  11. 1 hour ago, Gees said:

    If AI can gather information through sensors and hold that information internally, and also process that information, it appears that it is aware of that information and therefore sentient. Yes? Is that what you are saying?

    Almost.

    + responding, based on the gathered, processed and eventually validated data. (Maybe that is what you are missing?)

  12. On 3/3/2010 at 5:48 PM, jryan said:

     

    But you aren't simulating a perfect actual universe down to the behavior of individual subatomic particles. When you do that let me know.

    What is is good that it seems to be possible even we can not absolutely execute it yet.

    On 3/3/2010 at 5:54 PM, mooeypoo said:

    The universe is far from perfect, unless you define perfect as "whatever the behavior of the universe is

    It seems to me as an absolutely balanced system from the subatomic structure until the general structure of the universe.

    Yet we do not understand wherefrom Energy and Matter is originating so obviously it is difficult to recognize the exact functions the system is acting upon. 

    Relativity just needs a fine tuning (apply it within mathematics?) to become absolute reality.

  13. 4 hours ago, Eric H said:

    Before the creation of the universe began, imagine God looking out over the vast empty void of space and thinking, I have the power to create anything I like, what is the greatest thing I can create?

    God could create all the stars and planets and be a builder. God could create vegetation and be a gardener. He could create animals and be a farmer. God could create children in his own image and be a father. Could God create anything greater than children in his own image?

    It is an evolution my friend from Nothing to Everything (as far as I understood). Such an omnipotent entity you describe at the beginning of Time is impossible.

    The Will of Existence, the second smallest value after Nothing, the Basic Information creating and setting the functions of reality, the first information from the laws on Nature...maybe.

    Note that 1D(a point of information about space and time) at t0, will be everything in proportion to nothing, even it is just the sense on nothing: empty Space(Time)= basic information. 0

    Note that every upcoming moment or point of space and time would have the informational connection with that first value at t0.

    God for me at t0=0 (basic information)

    God for me today is: every Energy, matter, and information in space(time). 1. Nature. 

     

     

     

  14. 4 hours ago, Gees said:

    Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively -- according to Wiki. Subjectivity is an inner perspective and experience of information

    I think it is not so clear as according to wiki:

    In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations

    Sensation is an animal's, including humans', detection of external or internal stimulation. (e.g., eyes detecting light waves, ears detecting sound waves).

    I think gathered information is based on reality even the individual has subjective perception. 

    An AI can have billions of IoT devices providing data, while can register and analyze billions of peoples perception of a scenario which gives the possibility to a factual recognition of a scenario.

    4 hours ago, Gees said:

    Objectivity is an outward perspective and experience of information.

    I do not really understand what you wanna say with this, but here is a thought about objectivity.  

    Wiki:

    Subjectivity:

    • Some information, idea, situation, or physical thing considered true only from the perspective of a subject or subjects.

    Objectivity in science is an attempt to uncover truths about the natural world by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs.

    Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. 

    AI can have every information to analyze about a scenario, including the perception of the AI, as well as the involved human individual sensations and perceptions, which means since the source of the same information is multiple, objectivity can be an option.   

     

  15. 3 hours ago, DrP said:

    Whether I believe that I did or that I did not doesn't change the fact of what actually happened

    This is the beauty of it. Reality: the past and the present.

    To experience and learn the past and the present, gives trust in Nature, while gives a firm belief that there is Future and one day we can have every question answered. 

    We already answered so many of them.

    I think, I can firmly believe, that our scientific understanding will continue to develop, and at the end of the road we will have the possibility to answer Every question (including the ones religious people interested at).

     

  16.  
     
     
    2
    On 4/29/2018 at 2:39 PM, DrmDoc said:

    To the believers here who, oddly, chose to post to predominately science discussion forums, what is faith and why do you have it?  Perhaps you've discussed this topic variously before and, if so, I entreat your brief indulgence further.  My perusal of discussions here suggested to me that some of you do not seem to have a clear perspective of what distinguishes faith from science.  Most often arguments against science are used as justification for faith; however, those arguments do not appear to define a basis for your religious faith.  As I perceive, faith is a shield believers use against life's doubts, insecurities, and traumas.  Some of you may view science as an attack on that shield.  However, none of this provides your understanding of faith or what compel your belief.  What have you observed, experienced, or accomplished that supports your faith?  Is that support tangible? 

     

  17. Delusion 

    8 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

    Anything outside faith in the religious sense would be off topic, but I see no reason to be that strict except you use any allowed leeway as an excuse to obfuscate the issue. 

    I think this is not true if we consider your opening post and the title of the thread. 

  18. 20 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

    Where have I presented my opinion as truth? Please point it out and I will either prove you wrong or delete it.. 

    We can not discuss the topic.

    Your opinion is ok, your reasoning must be true without evidence and there is no space to discuss because you kill any other opinion with a straw men. (You do not understand the word)...

     

  19. 24 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

    To have faith, IMO, is to have confidence, trust, or belief without any real or reproducible basis in material evidence or experience.

    This sounds more like delusion to me. 

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/delusion

    delusion: belief in something that is not true

    delusion (American English): something a person believes and wants to be true, when it is actually not true

  20. 3 hours ago, Gees said:

    I believe that "objective sentience" is an oxymoron.

    Why would it be an oxymoron?

    I know you think sentience requires subjective unconsciousness,  but I think just because You think like that, objective sentience of AI's or humans is not prohibited or unachievable. 

  21. 1 hour ago, koti said:

    @FreeWill, There is no point in discussing if you don't know the meaning of the words you use and/or use the words in different meaning than they actually have.

    This I could say it to you. Honestly, I do not understand why you try to participate when you have almost nothing to say. Finally, we could have a discussion about the topic rather than scoffing with the meaning of words which you are clearly not aware of yourself. 

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/faith

    Faith: great trust or confidence in something or someone

    Faith in American English: a high degree of trust or confidence in something or someone

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trust

    Trust: to believe that someone is good and honest and will not harm you, or that something is safe and reliable:

    Trust: the belief that you can trust someone or something

     

    I think I know the meaning of the words and looks like it is supported to use them to explain one another. (i.e synonymic) 

    I do not see that by the Cambridge Dictionaries definition, faith cannot exist if there is evidence. 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.