Tres Juicy

All I am saying is that we cannot model the entire universe in all its details, because we (and our theoretical model) live within the system boundaries... and building the model would change the model.

 

That leaves only 2 choices: either change the system boundaries, or change the level of detail.

Of course...

To solve the problem all you have to do is leave out the model (change the level of detail).

So we could well live in a model, just one that does not contain a model of itself

At the 1st iteration, you have the universe, and you model it.

But then you must add the model to your model, so you have the universe + 1 model in the model.

But then you must add the model again, because that wasn't in the model yet, so you get the universe + 2 models in the model.

But then you must add the model again, because that wasn't in the model yet, so you get the universe + 3 models in the model.

But then you must add the model again, because that wasn't in the model yet, so you get the universe + 4 models in the model.

But then you must add the model again, because that wasn't in the model yet, so you get the universe + 5 models in the model.

etc.

 

Usually, at this point an IT expert steps in to tell me that my model is unnecessarily clumsy and slow, and that I can model the same thing with 100x less processor time.

 

Whatever

Of course, if the people in the model are unaware that they're in a model there is no need to reproduce it at all. I certainly dont think "You Must" add the model

For example, if I model my house and it occupants (and give them the same consiousness as they have already) and I include a model of the model, suddenly the occupants are aware of at least the possibilty of a larger model.

If I leave it out there is no problem and the model people go about their lives none-the-wiser, which is surely the point of such a detailed model?

why build a perfect simulation and then ruin it with an infinite loop of simulations within it?

Hi all,

I've just been reading some posts on here about perpetual motion and magnetism (I know...).

and the thought occured to me: why can magnets not be considered an outside source of power?

like a water wheel uses water to turn the wheel, why can magnetism not be used the same way? (a constant downward force on one side of the wheel)

if the magnet provides the power (seperate from the system) surely this doesn't break the rule? or does it? if it does, why?

It may look like a stupid question, but its hurting my brain...

Thanks,

Alan

"In other words, "our so-called physical reality" is a manifestation of an underlying (non-physical) reality."

There is a particular school of thought that would suggest that the universe we observe is a 3d representation of a 2d universe somewhere else, there is also some evidence of this I think.

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

Google it, its interesting reading.

Since those people without language can still think (the most obvious and numerous examples being young children) it is clear that you don't necessarily think "in" a language.

Also, if thought only happens "in" language, how come we use diagrams (and gestures etc.) to explain things?

So the whole premise of this thread is questionable.

Clearly some languages will express some concepts better than others- but it's hard to see that generalising much or there would be no translation.

"Since those people without language can still think (the most obvious and numerous examples being young children) it is clear that you don't necessarily think "in" a language"

I'm not suggesting that people without language cannot think (that would be silly), I'm wondering what thought would be like without language and whether language is the enabler of HIGHER thought (not all thought)

"Also, if thought only happens "in" language, how come we use diagrams (and gestures etc.) to explain things?"

Diagrams and gestures are part of language (some would say a language in their own right).

"So the whole premise of this thread is questionable."

You seem to have missed the point somewhat... There clearly is some connection between language and thought, my question is about how deep that connection goes and whether it has a bearing on the way we think. NLP is practised by many people as a way to modify thought processes and attitudes using language (to my limited knowledge of NLP).

"Clearly some languages will express some concepts better than others- but it's hard to see that generalising much or there would be no translation."

Some languages don't translate very well at all, the are some Japanese words that we need to give long and rambling expanations of and still dont quite convey the true meaning, they just dont work in English...

I knew a Swiss lady once who spoke five languages. I asked her which one she "thought" in, and she said it varied based on what she was thinking about. Math was easier to think about in German, French for more abstract thought and English for social interactions.

Which makes me wonder...

As your example above

If language is the "tool" of thought, then are some languages more appropriate for certain cognitive tasks than others?

Does the way that language is structured have an effect on the formation of thought?

Hi all,

I wasn't sure where to put this question but I think this is the right place now.

When I think about something I use language, I "hear" the words in my head.

How do you think without language? for instance if you were born deaf (or raised by wolves or whatever...) what would your thoughts be like?

would there be a more abstract process of thought going on, or would you sort of "create" your own personal language of sorts to enable higher thought?

Also, if thats the case does that make language the enabler of higher thought?

Any feedback welcome

Thanks,

Alan

What happens when two identical bar magnets are welded in a head-on position with their like poles??

Something like S-N---N-S

 

Does the combination act as a single magnet or something like have a double strength north and two south poles at the other end?

Please ignore the loss in magnetic properties due to heating.

However you stick 2 magnets together they will eventually align to become 1 magnet (losing some of their strength along the way).

Where the poles would end up I have no idea...

Hi all,

I wasn't sure where to put this question but I think this is the right place.

When I think about something I use language, I "hear" the words in my head.

How do you think without language? for instance if you were born deaf (or raised by wolves or whatever...) what would your thoughts be like?

would there be a more abstract process of thought going on, or would you sort of "create" your own personal language of sorts to enable higher thought?

Any feedback welcome

Thanks,

Alan

It might be worth mentioning that processes where dS<0 do not require time to commence "backwards".

 

Some casually refer to entropy as the "arrow of time" and perhaps it is in some sense, for the entire universe anyway.

 

I believe this might be a dangerous analogy though as it can get you into trouble under some circumstances.

I'm not suggesting that time can flow backwards, quite the opposite in fact. The past is what has been created upon collapse of the superposition, it is what it is. The only way to "go back in time" is to remember it.

Similary it is impossible to travel into the future (any faster than we already are), because the future becomes the present as soon as it is observed.

My question relates to the nature of time, we measure time in movement but time is not movement.

What is it?? It fascinates me...

I just wanted some feedback from you guys as to what/how you believe it to work

How can someone measure the future in the present? Surely then it is no longer the future?

 

And if time is flowing, what is it flowing relative to?

Thats what I'm getting at, the act of observation collapses the wave in to a single state (Moving from "what could happen" to "what is happening" to "what has happened"). If there was some way to observe the future without collapsing the wave it would be very much like observing a superposition, everything possible happening all at once until it collapses into a definite single event.

As for the question of "flow", The future does not exist but the past does. We have evidence of its existence (everything around us is evidence of previous activity of some sort). So that leads me to speculate that since the future is merely potential and the past is "real" the universe is created in the present.

I hope that makes sense and I welcome any feedback you guys might bring to the conversation.

Thanks,

Alan

Is this time???

Past (low entropy) -----X (the present)------ All possible futures (high entropy)

Where time is a wave and the present (point of observation) is where the wave (superposition of all possible futures) collapses.

So in effect the universe is created NOW and flows into the past because the future only exists as a superposition (observing it in the present causes it to collapse into a single state) the present is a static point which time flows through pouring into the past.

Also, when observing any superposition, you are effectively looking into the future (all possible futures of that object)

Just an idea I had, any feedback? feel free to shoot me down with science...