Tres Juicy

"Just because you can't apply the implied meanings, doesn't mean my words are meaningless"

What?!

Damn...was I beaten to that one?

It still works

LOL

 

But don't worry... this is SFN, and someone will disagree with us any minute now. Discussions generally don't reach consensus so easily at all. There is no question so moot that it gets no discussion.

It is a difficult question to answer and the consensus we've reached is somewhat ambiguous...

It will be interesting to get everyones opinion

Damn, i'll have to work for another 900 years at least.

Thats a good point, retirement would be a long way off

Maybe we'd spend the first 200 years at school...

Well, I observe that I have free will. I just decided to write this post, rather than do my work. I debated it for a moment, and made this decision. If free will is an illusion, then the illusion is complete and flawless. And therefore it is real to me, as an observer of myself. That's science, isn't it? You make an observation, to test a hypothesis. As long as the hypothesis holds, we say that's our best description of reality... There is always doubt (a good scientist is never certain), but in popular language, we call it real.

 

The hypothesis is that we have free will. I continuously test it, day in and day out, and I have no reason to drop this hypothesis and replace it for another.

 

So, based on all available observations, there is no reason to doubt that free will exists. The only thing we don't know is how we come to a decision when we're faced with a choice. And the determinist will say that it's just physics that leads to those choices. And I agree with that. At the molecular level, it's physics doing all the work. But at the macroscopic level, those are my thoughts. There are a lot of particles interacting with each other, and the combination of all those particles reacting, interacting... that's me.

 

If a thought is just the interactions of some molecules in my brain, so be it. It's both those interactions, and a thought. A steel bar is a bunch of atomic cores and electrons in a huge vacuum... and it's a very real and solid bar at the same time.

 

Which side of what fence? My point is that there is no fence.

"Which side of what fence? My point is that there is no fence."

Annoyingly, I have to agree - even though that leaves my question not only unanswered but rendered moot to a degree.

Again, one has to wonder if we wouldn't start thinking more long-range if we knew we'd be around to see the consequences of short-sighted decisions based solely on convenience. Would we be able to struggle less to establish a living over 1000 years and have time to do something about observed corruption and injustice?

 

I think the scenario would be different if only the privileged had access to such longevity. But if everyone could live 1000 years, free from senility and worries over health, I think our priorities would definitely change, and hopefully for the better.

Similarly, imagine if the human lifecycle was very short (like a week). We'd probably be very short-sighted and selfish creatures.

I think the beauty of it is that something can be completely deterministic, but still be free will.

 

We haven't figured out what "consciousness" is anyway, and until then, we cannot fully describe any potential conflict between the two. At the moment, there is no conflict between the two, and I got a feeling that there never will be.

 

I think that choice itself is deterministic. That means that the decisions we make are fully determined by the laws of physics acting on the particles that make up our bodies. But then again, we ARE those particles, so it's us as well as just a bunch of particles. We make the choices, and at the same time, we will never violate any laws of physics.

While I agree with most of what you're saying, you have slightly avoided the question with your fancy joined-up thinking...

"I think the beauty of it is that something can be completely deterministic, but still be free will."

How? Surely that's just the illusion of free will?

"I think that choice itself is deterministic. That means that the decisions we make are fully determined by the laws of physics acting on the particles that make up our bodies."

So, you're going with determinism?

"But then again, we ARE those particles, so it's us as well as just a bunch of particles. We make the choices..."

Wait.. Free will then?

Surely it can't be both (a weird superposition "free-determinism")

Which side of the fence do you come down on Captain "confuse the hell out me" Panic?

Hi all,

I was thinking about this the other day and have just read the below article

http://www.newscient...in-control.html

"One argument goes as follows: the universe, including the bits of it that make up your brain, is entirely deterministic. The state it is in right now determines the state it will be a millisecond, a month or a million years from now. Therefore free will cannot exist."

New Scientist

________________________

I'd like to believe I have free will, but the logical conclusion for me is that determinism makes more sense.

What are your thoughts?

Edit: I changed my vote about 4 times and then added "undecided" as a category

im not sure if this has ever been though about before, but i was doing some thinking about where everything came from, and i was wondering

what if there was a law saying that there can not be nothing, so upon the being of nothing, the universe will create something out of nothing to fill that space.

Im not sure if it makes sense i just know that people have never been able to have a space truly filled with nothing, and i just though that seemed relevant.

To my knowledge we have never actually found "nothing" even in the best vacuum we can create

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Virtual particles also kind of lend themselves to this

They don't accelerate photons in the LHC. I think you might be getting confussed with protons. Which are massive and do not travel at the speed of light.

I see, that would make more sense...

Hi all,

This has always bothered me:

Photons travel at the speed of light.

Why do we need to accelerate them in the LHC? Other, slower particles yes but not photons

Surely they're going as fast as possible already?

Also, why dont I get collisions occuring when I point two lasers at each other?

Think what you could do in 1000 years...

If the planet holds out that long

Will nobody check their pockets?!

Well, the LHC guys are under pressure, to come up with something. After all, they were provided with the LHC at great public expense. Naturally, the public want to know whether this expense, has led to some kind of result.

 

And the result the public want, is the detection of the Higgs Boson. Because this has been fed to the public, by newspapers and TV, as what the LHC is for.

 

Obviously, then, the guys can't tell the public: "No, we haven't found it." This might lead to the retort :"Then why are you wasting our money - shut it down!"

 

So announcements are made, such as tantalising glimpses of it may have been found. But further researches are needed, so wait till 2014.

This placates the taxpayers, and keeps the LHC going.

Just look in your pockets, there's bound to be one in there somewhere

You're suggesting we should be devil worshippers?

Would this work if I leave a huge bucket of water floating in a vacuum in space and say I included a bunch of other elements like carbon and nitrogen (and anything essential for life) into the bucket then

if I came back in 500 billion years, would there be life in the bucket?

You'd have a very old frozen bucket

Maybe on a larger scale something like this could work - but its highly doubtful in a bucket

I had one in my pocket the whole time...

That's not quite what I mean. I am referring to something similar to "parallel universes". The point of it is they are there but they are not as they have not and will not happen. But if the choice you made to read this has put us in a different parallel universe, so to speak.

Well, that's a bit different.

I don't know

A few questions and examples of things you've said:

"In mathematical terms, infinitely valueless would be represented as [0] (absolute zero) or perhaps zero to the i (imaginary zero). There are various ways to describe infinitely valueless."

What is imaginary zero?

"I've already explained this and discussed it with dozens of my associates."

Who are these associates?

"If you were sincerely interested in this theory, you would actually discuss it. Instead, you have my semantically break down everything little thing I say"

That's science, science does not just accept what it's told, it asks questions and tries to get to the meaning of things. Since your explanations are vague and at times meaningless (see below for examples), expect to be asked questions.

"Let me break it down for you. When I try to come up with quantitative predictions, I end up imagining everything that happens in the universe, between the quantum mechanics and the general relativity of anything and everything. One day, I realized this is what many scientists are working on today, in physics, quantum physics, astrophysics, mathematics, and philosophically as well. You're right. I can say or hypothesize that the reason the particles of your body are able to associate and remain in the same universe together at the same time and also to stay that way, is because the imparticles they're made up of are intrinsically intertwined and can't allow them to be separated in regards to general relativity or quantum mechanics. On the other hand, I can't measure this prediction. That's why it is hypothetical, like String Theory, but nonetheless it has theoretical meaning and is reasonable and logical."

Imagining is the operative word here

"Thus, to "observe" the imparticle is to imagine a unit that is without space, and also between time."

A lot of imagining

"Reflectively, they exist between time as well…. <SNIP> To say that they exist "outside" time would be misleading, because something that exists "outside" of the dimensions of the universe, does not really exist here."

So, whats the difference? Outside time/between time, if time does not have any hold over them whats the difference??

"Just because you can't apply the implied meanings, doesn't mean my words are meaningless"

This makes no sense and as an explanation of your meaning it falls down

"Normal people understand them when I have discussions almost every week. Now, either they are telepathically understanding what I'm saying, or else my words have scientific meaning to them."

What constitutes "normal people" or "scientific meaning" to you?

"For god's sake, they are making up dimensions only for the sake of accommodating String Theory. I simply have a different approach. It is not so far fetched, you just have to gain perspective."

On the other hand you're saying there are 9 dimensions to accomodate this idea, what makes your 9 dimensions any more plausible than those of string theory?

"Many, many people of different angles have payed loads of attention to my theory. They've discussed it, turned it inside out and backwards, and gone through logical experiments with it on their own and with third parties."

Please share with us these experiments as this would be a great help to us

"They exist without space and between time, and it is in this facet of the universe that they convulse and BUILD into massive particles. They are hyper-quantum for a reason. I'm not just vomiting out words, I am making sense. That's why I used String Theory as a contrast, to point out that obviously this theory is legitimate."

How does string theory legitimize this idea? Why is it so obvious?

"Imparticles naturally exist without time and without space, but in being intrinsically entangled, they are miraculously forced into order."

I am inclined to question any "theory" which use words like "miracle" and "miraculous"

"I have reasoned that like photons are the quanta of light, so are imparticles the quanta of quantum, or essentially they are the quanta of itself"

This is nonsense again

"I found invisible particles that exist interchangeably, simultaneously, composing all that exists at the same time…"

How? Do you have a access to the LHC at Cern? or are you guessing?

"… but they eventually convinced me (of their existence) logically."

Again, how?

"Stop right there guy. Building does require a process. I call it convulsion. But as I clearly described, a process that involves no energy, and has no reference to any quality of MASS, cannot and does not "require time" (theoretically). How would it? Why would it? Furthermore, I've already found and explained all the dimensions that allow them to exist entirely and go through their convulsion process, which freely allows them to be built into massive particles and energy particles. Naturally, these dimensions are consecutive and they do build on each other perfectly."

Please explain this

"At any rate, whatever the mechanics are, regardless if they're superstrings or not, these mechanics are not self-explained and imparticles are the very thing which explain them ultimately."

Please support this statement with some evidence. You can't say "imparticles explain everything" and expect science to go "oh, brilliant, we don't need to examine this claim any further".

"Simultaneity, in part--the sixth dimension. That describes how our singular now are instantly singular. But the dimension describing how yours and mine now are singular is Singularity, which Simultaneity is built onto. Perhaps that doesn't fully answer your question..."

No, this is nosense again and does not answer anything

Please answer these points as best you can

Thanks,

Al

And since those disciplines only pose questions, and never determine final answers, one will not find resolution in that direction either.

 

Science may not answer the question "What is time ?" beyond that it is "what clocks measure", but somehow it manages to work the concept of time into powerful predictive models and muddles right along.

 

Given the subtleties of general relativity, time is rather mysterious, and time in scientific models is actually not a single consistent concept. In general relativity what clocks measure is proper time, and nothing else. But the time of special relativity, hence of quantum field theories, is only consistent with proper time in the complete absence of gravity. Neglecting gravity is often a very good approximation, but it is never exact. Hence from a purely philosophical perspective science adopts a rather pragmatic stance with regard to time that is dependent on the specific issues at hand -- perhaps unsatisfying philosophically, but very effective scientifically.

 

If anyone has a definition of time that will fit all situations precisely, and can demonstrate how that fits into predictive models, then I suggest immediate publication -- and preparation for a trip to Stockholm.

"If anyone has a definition of time that will fit all situations precisely, and can demonstrate how that fits into predictive models, then I suggest immediate publication -- and preparation for a trip to Stockholm."

Post it in speculations first though

I'm still confused, with questions like "Is flatness subjective?; what defines euclidean space and could any of those properties be modified?"

 

But I think that a big part of the confusion is that since pi is irrational it can appear to be just an arbitrary sequence of apparently random digits.

It can be calculated by fairly simple infinite series that corresponds to some geometric interpretation...

Such as:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi]

 

 

This is a series of very simple rational numbers.

From this, I would think that pi would not change by small amounts over time.

If you imagined that pi changed somewhere in say the billionth decimal place, over the past few million years, then what formula could be used to calculate that different value?

What small change in geometry could yield a different pi, but still allow it to be calculated with a simple series?

It obviously wouldn't be visible through calculation - only through measurement (why would you change the maths without observng a reason to?)

You don't have to link, I am aware that they make predictions. Higgs bosons are a completely theory.

 

Please point out my self-contradictions.

 

Atoms, subatomic particles, mass, particles of energy, appearing in a universe and interacting with each other singularly without every disassociating from any other particle under any circumstances. When this does not happen, my hypothesis will be proven wrong. Or, when someone uses logic to suggest that it is wrong, that would be reasonable as well.

"Atoms, subatomic particles, mass, particles of energy, appearing in a universe and interacting with each other singularly without every disassociating from any other particle under any circumstances. When this does not happen, my hypothesis will be proven wrong. Or, when someone uses logic to suggest that it is wrong, that would be reasonable as well."

This is not a prediction its another example of being vague...

Please what does this theory suggest/predict/do?

The idea is that it can exist without DISTINCT qualities (that word is there for a reason) and without energy. Yes, this does engender more dimensions to the universe. But that's nothing new as scientists have been suggesting there are more dimensions than 3 or 4 for many decades, and will continue to because there should be. Obviously, if you approach this with the preconceived notion that nothing could hypothetically exist without energy, then you aren't going to see the reasoning. If you can't be hypothetical, don't discuss hypothetical theory.

 

 

Not true. I defined it thoroughly.

 

Super strings are not remotely detectable, and Higgs Bosons haven't been detected yet. Regardless if they can be detected, as a scientific mind you cannot PRESUME that everything thing in and about the universe is detectable. That is naive.

I have given reasons. There are maths and reasoning. Do you think zero or infinity are not numbers? You can say I haven't reasoned anything, but I clearly have been attempting to provide reasons through logic. If you disagree with them or see that they fall short, as a rule of discussion you have to actually argue, and not make claims about what I say without backing them up. Did you read the thread? I may not be as clear or have all the phraseology and background knowledge of professional scientists in the slightest, but at least I can see reason and literal meaning in what people say. I could read all about what the scientists are doing to find the Higgs boson, and then I can turn around and say, "they have no reasons to say that, they worked it out without math or reasoning." But that would be a lie, because obviously I didn't understand what they had said, or I just disagreed with it with preconception.

 

 

That's neat o. They don't have a prediction for the mass of this particle, until they see how it works exactly.

 

 

 

"That's neat o. They don't have a prediction for the mass of this particle, until they see how it works exactly."

No, they don't, but they do make some predictions about the Higgs at what it does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

What predictions does your theory make? how have you arrived at these?

Thats all I'm asking, you have been quite vague and in places contradictory.

In order to arrive at a theory it needs to describe nature by making testable predictions.

I cannot see that this one does.

Please (in plain English) explain your predictions of "Imparticle Theory"

A series of prime numbers is not the only way an ETI could signal their existence. (BTW, why would they? It's like saying "Here we are, come and bother us.")

 

Many mathematical number sequences could do the same job, such as some kind of Morris Code.

(BTW, why would they? It's like saying "Here we are, come and bother us.")

Um.... Thats what we did...

Scientists believe that the laws of physics were created in the big bang. But I think the are universal as I don't believe there is an end to the universe. You can't just hit a wall because the question would be, what is behind it. It can't be a sphere because the universe wouldn't be expanding, it would be pulled in by gravity.

Try and picture in your head new laws of physics. Not something like opposites and switching them around but actually a new law of physics that doesn't exist. I believe the only outside dimension of the universe are decisions, natural events and so on. If you had seen the title of this but chose not to read it, from our view that would be a "parallel universe" but if it really happened and you chose not to read this it would be our universe through a different path.

It exists but it does not exist, this is why I think that this could be the one possible dimension that doesn't fit in with the laws of physics.

The belief is that the laws vary between causal patches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_patch