dimreepr

It's like deciding to be a vegan, despite cheese...

On 11/26/2025 at 10:51 PM, toucana said:

Or are you perhaps using the expression ‘quantum clock’ as a metonym for all objective scientific methods of measuring and quantifying time  - in which case why not say so ?

I would refer you to the Sleep Foundation article I quoted from earlier which says:

"In most adults and adolescents, this master clock operates on a cycle that’s slightly longer than 24 hours. In order to maintain alignment with the 24-hour rotation of the planet, the master clock must adjust by about 12 to 18 minutes every day. For this reason, it times circadian rhythms according to environmental cues known as “zeitgebers,” German for “timekeepers.”

Biological clocks and zeitgeber cues are both involved - there is no either/or here - both are relevant.

Relevant to what?

You seem to be missing the point of this thread, time is just an abstract number in terms of the fuel needed for the circadian rhythm to run smoothly.

19 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

Maybe wondering/believing in solipsism can either be illness, cowardice, but also something else?

in my case i don't believe in free will at all, i don't think it's to escape responsibilities, it's just it seems obvious to me that 100% of the present is influenced by the past, not by some instant thoughts coming only from yourself

Solipsism is where you start your philosophical journey, you being you is self evident.

free will is a few steps up the ladder and you have to have stepped on each of those rungs to understand it well enough to take Pascal's wager seriously.

6 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

Lol that makes me think about maybe that's the situation of some god

@Eise I struggle to understand your message, it seems to me you give arguments that solipsism can't/is not true

I don't see any thought that could convince me that it is not

Since (if i understand correctly) the brain has the ability to make you live in a world that don't exist, like when you dream, i think solipsism could be true

... or it could be the "simulation hypothesis" being in progress

But when you wake up in the "real reality", maybe some other people like you are/were in the same state

Maybe we are in a game

Maybe we intentionally forget the reality when we enter to be able to fully enjoy the game...

Btw maybe we are all real but our real "body" is somewhere else

......... but last time i thought about it and since we are born in this fake reality, that could mean we never existed in the real one

.... SOOO maybe the only real person is in the real reality, and all the new humans in this fake one are just hmmmmmmm idk xD

But i like the idea that unless you don't know 100% of all there is to know, if you just know 99.9%, then maybe the last 0.1% remaining is the info that all you think is real is in fact not

I often dream of an impossible destination, that's when I know it's a dream...

Solipsism is just an excuse to deny reality...

18 hours ago, toucana said:

What exactly is a  ‘quantum clock’ in this context, and which part of the humen anatomy do you think it resides in ?

I’’m wondering if you even realise that quantum clocks have to be laser cooled to near absolute zero in order to function ? Which part of the brain or human nervous system do you think functions at just above 0° Kelvin ?

At risk of another neg, are you being deliberately obtuse?

Do you not realise that I'm drawing a distinction between time as we percieve it, and time that's imposed on us?

One is healthier for the bank balance, of one's boss, and the other is healthier for one...

13 hours ago, TheVat said:

Well, who doesn't enjoy watching the battleships as they glide into their docks?

Whatever floats ones boat... 😉

21 hours ago, toucana said:

I think you should do a little more research into Circadian Rhythms before being quite so dismissive about the role of 'time-keeping' in human biology.

I'm not being dismissive of our biological clock, I'm suggesting it doesn't quiet match our quantum clock...

On 11/25/2025 at 9:53 AM, toucana said:

There are certain strong physiological cues that predispose humans to take in nutrition at particular times of day. ‘Breakfast’ for example is so named because we quite literally need to break a fasting period of some 8 to 10 hours spent asleep (that’s etymology for you).

Two points:

You can't have it both way's, it's either time or culture that drive our need to eat; hunger seems to be a healthier approach.

Breakfast has become a marketing exercise by the guy's that need to sell all the sugar (they don't need to grow), that's etymology for you... 😉

Just my personal evidence, but when I'm actually hungery, it's not a chocolate bar that I crave, it's a cooked horse...

6 hours ago, toucana said:

There is much discussion as to how and why people shifted over to a monophasic pattern of sleep from the early 19th century onwards. Industrial shift working, artificial illumination at home which encouraged people to stay up later by shifting the circadian sleep cues, and the invention of the alarm clock in 1787 have all been cited.

Why?

What's your point?

As far as I can tell, you've literally taken the title (of this topic) too literally, with all your naval gazing...

Who knew what a bleak expectation that would be?

3 hours ago, toucana said:

It all comes back to time-keeping, and how we as human beings synchronise and regulate our internal metabolic body clocks with the mechanical clocks and social systems of time management that we all need to live within.

Time-keeping is only for the worker's and the time and motion expert's.

A rigid approach that seems to exclude half the population, good for the early bird a complete fail for the owl.

2 hours ago, toucana said:

The pendulum clock was invented in 1657 by the Dutch mathematician Christiaan Huygens who thought his revolutionary new mechanism could be used to be build an accurate marine chronometer. He quickly found out otherwise when it was tested by his younger brother Lodewijk during a sea voyage to Spain in 1660.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Huygens

The rolling motion of a ship in heavy seas disturbed the pendulum, and rendered the chronometer no more accurate than conventional clocks of the period that could lose up to 15 minutes per day.

Who knew eating would evolve into such a precious etymology...

31 minutes ago, jalaldn said:

During those four hours and 10minuts, what happens to the sunlight that normally falls on Io?

It's not 'really' there, if you can see this post... ☠️

On 11/21/2025 at 4:18 PM, StringJunky said:

Collectively, the more freedom there is, the more chaotic the population movements/social behaviour will be. It decreases efficiency for everyone. How can moving towards a stochastic picture, aka 'freedom', be more beneficial to anyone? Only the worst of human nature can thrive in that Darwinian environment.

This is essentially answered in the 'bibles', true freedom is there for the meek to inherit; this, I believe, is what confused Nietsche.

His ubermenche was better than the meek...

A slave is, at least, free to think; A rich man can't think past his need for money...

11 hours ago, Gees said:

Studiot;

Again it looks like you are talking more about science than philosophy. My interpretation is that philosophy tries to discover what is real and true, but science tries to do something with the information--manipulate it. Yes?

Gee

This is where science and philosophy diverge; politics evolved into ethics, and then we're asked, whom to kill for the best?

19 hours ago, studiot said:

Having said that and thinking further about feed forward, we have the possibility of another mechanism.

Time delay.

That's kinda my first post, the traffic jam scenario. I think time delay is a uniquely human/animal trait, as in the processing of reality via external inputs.

20 hours ago, studiot said:

The effect fro instance on transmission line loudspeakers is dramatic whrn you get that just right.

I often wondered if you'd get an audible feedback, in an anechoic chamber and no initial sound input?

9 hours ago, Gees said:

dimreepr;

What are you talking about? And what do you think that someone is imagining?

I didn't know what a "quantum reality" is, so I looked it up, but still don't understand your association.

Gee

It may not be appropriate in this discussion, as I'm still unsure of @studiot question.

But I get the impression that it's basically mathematical, as in Zenos paradox perhaps.

The association with quantum reality is more of a metaphor. 

It's just a matter of time, is a misleading rabbit hole to follow...

7 hours ago, Gees said:

When I first read your post, I thought it was about science because of the "feedback and feedforward" terminology, but you asked about philosophy. I am not a trained philosopher, so there is a great deal that I do not know, and not being a science person, I was not sure what you were asking regarding feedback/feedforward.

Are you actually asking how philosophy addresses time and how some kinds of time displacement can affect logic and cause and effect? If so, I would say that there are philosophers who seem to think that physical reality is illusion, or not real, and therefore not always bound by the physical rules. Although I don't totally agree with that, I can see why some might think so. My thought is that physical reality is foundational and real, but I also see a layer of motion that physical reality evolves from, so the base foundation is actually motion and is also real. This reminds me of the mind's conscious/unconscious relationship and could explain the problems with logic.

I study consciousness and noted that the similarities between the rational mind vs the unconscious aspect of mind -- and the similarities between physical reality vs base motion are very comparable. Both physical reality and the rational mind evolve from forces (motion/emotion). A lot of people seem to think that this means that one or the other is not real, that it is illusion, but I don't think so. I think that both are just as real, and that physical reality and thought are interpretations of motion/emotion.

The conscious rational aspect of mind is much like physical reality in that it works with logic, cause and effect, works specifically within, uses digital thought, recognizes time, and is directed by us -- much like houses in physical reality are built by us. Or I could say that we can control it. The unconscious aspect of mind is nothing like that and is ruled by emotion. It is not rational, is not logical, works externally between things, is analogue, often changes and often ignores time; and therefore, ignores cause and effect. It is mostly emotion rather than thought, and is reactive rather than directed. We have little control over the unconscious and often do not even know that it reacted until we see the results -- as it is with instincts.

Gee

It seems to me the question is about probabilities and how it relates to the real world, correct me if I'm wrong @studiot, so it's both

It's like that cat in a box question, it's absurd to try and imagine a quantum reality that translates to our reality.

43 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

Coupled with the above 2 quotes I'm curious.

Could this delay between seeing & understanding then represent a very brief wavelength information communication between 2 humans.

Is it an indicator of a knowledge/information communication via the wavelength in the pattern - wavelength - pattern process.

Could it be thought of as visualised pattern (boundary condition) - wavelength (information transfer) - pattern recognition/understanding by our brain (boundary condition)

Is the delay between seeing & understanding, observational evidence? of the time this wavelength exists.

All be it extremely brief. 0-10m/s or 0-40m/s, whatever this brief time frame is before our brains understand it.

The brain takes observational evidence from the past and superimpose it on the potential present, in order to 'lift a finger'...

2 hours ago, toucana said:

The concept of “Three square meals” had another provenance dating from slightly before the industrial revolution, and derives from the serving time of meals onboard British naval warships in the later 18th and early 19th century. This in turn relates to the system of watch-keeping used in the British navy to this very day.

The crew of a ship are divided into two 'watches' called 'port' and 'starboard' who alternate on duty according to a pattern of seven watches. Five of the watches are of 4 hours duration, the other two from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., and 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. are of 2 hours duration and are known as 'dog watches'. The purpose of 'dog-watches' is to force an uneven number of watches in a day to ensure the men are never on duty at the same time from day to day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchkeeping

The time within a watch is marked by chiming the ship's bell every half-hour with a rising number of strokes up to '8 bells'  to mark the end of of a four hour  watch, or  '4 bells to mark the end of a 'dog'.

Middle Watch  -       00.00  - 04.00

Morning Watch        04.00 - 08.00

Forenoon Watch      08.00 - 12.00

Afternoon Watch     12.00 - 16.00

First Dog                 16.00 - 18.00

Second Dog            18.00 - 20.00

First Watch              20.00 - 24.00

In British warships around the time of Lord Nelson, breakfast was served at around 7.00 am (at “six bells” in the morning watch) and consisted of oatmeal porridge and ship’s biscuit.  Dinner was served around 11.30 am to midday (“seven bells” in the forenoon watch) and was the main meal of the day consisting of boiled salt beef, peas and  biscuit. Supper was served around 4 pm or 6pm catering for the men in the shorter ”dog watches”, and usually consisted of biscuits and cheese.

Sailors ate from square wooden trenchers with raised edges known as a “fiddle”. These tray like trenchers gave rise to the term “a square meal”, and the raised edges of the tray acted as a form of portion control. Having food piled higher than this edge was known as “being on the fiddle” - a punishable breach of naval discipline and rationing control.

https://collection.thedockyard.co.uk/objects/9066/square-plate

The British navy in the time of Nelson was famous for its strict watch-keeping, and a rota of meal times which ensured that  sailors were well-fed with “three square meals” per day.

Indeed, an artificial concept that humans can live with, that doesn't mean that it's the healthiest way to live.

22 hours ago, Sensei said:

Philosophy, not to mention that it is abstract, has never been able to do the things you are talking about..

What things do you think I'm talking about?

22 hours ago, Sensei said:

This shows that you don't understand this saying at all.. the water molecules have moved, so it won't be the same river, but a different one, with different contents..

This shows that you don't understand my answer; for instance, do you think you're the same person even though all of the atoms that make up you today, are different from the atoms you were born with?

17 hours ago, CharonY said:

To be honest, I did not notice any typos. I frequently don't find my own to begin with. Regarding regularity, I don't think that this is universal in humans, either. In many cultures, it is heavily determined by seasonal activities. Those dependent on hunting, would often have meals after a catch, which can vary. And in a meeting with First Nations Elders, the typical meal times were described as one element of colonization, as traditional in some First Nation cultures, their mealtimes were more flexible and dependent on hunger. I strongly suspect that some of these patterns were dependent on how regular they have access to food. Seasonality was a bit thing too, as it determined what food was available and how long it would take to acquire it.

Nomadic cultures can have communal meals in correspondence with their traveling patterns, whereas groups with a more agricultural component might have more regular patterns. Depending on time and place there are various constraints, e.g. availability of natural light, how easy it was to make fire or other meal preparation methods and so on, that I find it hard to believe that regularity was very common or even easily achievable until a number of developments happened, such as settlements of a certain size, predictable availability of food, improved food preparation methods and so on.

There's certainly a hefty cultural, religious and, to some extent, scientific argument that suggests, periodic starvation/fasting, is good and healthy; in many different ways.

Food is one of the most insidious of addictions, especially when hunger has no part in the taste equation, who can't manage that "wafer thin mint"?

10 hours ago, OldChemE said:

My inclination is to think it is indeed a behavioral pattern. My own experience is admittedly an outlier, but I have always been very physically active and, until about my 30's fairly thin. In my 30's I began to gain significant weight, and decided to begin skipping breakfast. That got me back on track weight-wise. By my 60's I again began to qain, so I Also stopped eating lunch. I discovered having only an evening meal seemed to give me much more time for other things during the day, so I cultivated the habit. As of now, I have been on one (large) evening meal a day for almost 20 years. My health is excellent, my doctor raves about my excellent blood chemistry, and I find I really enjoy the freedom that comes from not needing to interrupt my activities during the day. So-- my vote is that it is behavioral.

I'm the same, only I prefer to wait until I'm hungry enough to enjoy the food, the longer I wait the better it tastes.

10 hours ago, iNow said:

I smell some Gish Galloping approaching

Yes, let's vote with our lack of interest, the apathy aproach to democracy...

In the words of the late great Douglas Adams "Apathetic bloody planet, I've no sympathy at all."...

1 hour ago, Science screw up said:

What supreme court ruling did trump ignore?

All of them...

On 11/10/2025 at 1:24 AM, npts2020 said:

IMO the biggest problem with LLM's is they are bad at context and even worse at nuance and things like sarcasm and pop culture references. When those things are mixed with scientific and political endeavors, the bots often latch on to the wrong part of the information. They are improving at a pretty amazing pace, tho, and I expect AI to within a (human) generation be telling humans what is reality or fiction rather than the other way around.

Computer's aren't, even nearly, complex enough to get to an algorithm that's good enough to mimic a simple brain like a bee.

For instance a bee can seem to (almost) solve the travelling salesman problem, but what would that same algorithm do about the threat from a hornet attack?

On 11/10/2025 at 9:46 AM, Sensei said:

I'm watching a video on YouTube with one of the most famous local physicists, and he said:

I disagree with the first part, of course, but with the rest, absolutely... ;)

The point of philosophy, especially in this context, is to ask and answer what is real.

It's like the same river that can't be crossed twice question, to which the answer is, the bridge hasn't moved and nor has the river...

19 hours ago, Linkey said:

Previously I had suggested a plan for Trump to stop the war in Ukraine. If you don't like my plan, here is one more: Trump would publicly suggest Putin to perform this referendum, and say that otherwise Trump would deliver Tomahawks to Ukraine. If Putin refuses to perform this referendum, he will have to explain the Russians his motives – a nuclear war is better than the referendum? Don’t you feel how strange does this look?

Trump just wants a deal, he's like a second hand car dealer that wants his name on the, dealer of the month, wall.

Putin knows that all he has to do is wait for the last day of the month, and Trump will practically give it away.