cladking

I guess you missed this statement; "But while all of space exists all at once, maybe only the current moment exists." Mebbe I can say it another way you'll remember; you can travel in any direction in space but in time only "now" actually exists. Cause and effect simply means that previous "nows" once existed. Now, rather than trying to see the perspective, you'll say I'm engaging in semantics. Sometimes the future can be predicted.

What I said was, "I can accept the possibility that time is eternal without being infinite" in response to someone else's point. You seem to be reading what you expect me to say.

"Rehtorical trick/ semantics"? This is just another of your continuing semantical arguments. I'm making declaratory statements about the nature of reality. These statements in aggregate do not contradict known science and comprise a different way to see things. It is a perspective that doesn't require or employ scientific models. One does science to learn about nature. Until the observation is made or the experiment is run nobody knows how it might be useful. I'm sure I don't know. But while all of space exists all at once, maybe only the current moment exists.

You call it semantics but then fail to note that nothing I'm suggesting contradicts theory. I'm merely talking about a different perspective. Every perspective has advantages and disadvantages relative others. If you want to cross a busy highway you can't assume there is no faster moving vehicle hidden by an approaching tractor-trailer or you may not make it all the way across. I can accept the possibility that time is eternal without being infinite.

You look at a bridge and you see tensile strenghts, vectors, and the modulus of elasticity. A cop sees the extent of his territory and a politician his new yacht. A civil engineer sees traffic patterns and a painter sees a job. A piest sees ways to bring people together and a taxpayer sees either the time it saves or just another boondoggle. Obviously everyone has a unique perspective and even identical twins don't occupy the same space.

This is just the way the modern mind works. We each know everything because we each see what we believe. Our beliefs are always reinforced and we eventually become those beliefs. There is no escape. Scientists see the world in terms of models derived from experiment. They don't see things outside of these models most of the time. They simply don't see the world like an accountant, lawyer, or priest sees the world. They don't even see the same thing an engineer sees. Why do you continually dismiss this simple observation? The discussion can't move beyond this until you consider it. It's impossible to see another perspective until you recognize you already have a perspective.

If you're seriously suggesting yesterday didn't happen onm the moon then one of us is in the wrong discussion. Perhaps the number of processes and "laws" that apply to reality are infinite or unknowable. We have no reason at all to presume that experimental science can come to undersatand all these phenomena. Here we are stuck on the unified field theory for nearly a century. Perhaps our tool (experimental science) isn't up to the task of understanding how these forces are related. I don't know. Yes, exactly. Very good. It is already known to be smaller than any human can imagine. These numbers in mere moments become stupendously large even when considering the tiniest little detail. Nature is constantly performing these impossibly complex computations. Every single one is applied exactly correctly. Of course everyone is doing this all the time. This is why we each see something different and we each see what we expect. This is the reality of human existence that we can't see because of the way we think. It is the reality that obscures the reality as seen from other perspectives. We preferentially see what we know. When everything you see mirrrors what you know you overestimate your knowledge. If you know God will smite evil doers on earth before he punishes them eternally then you know exactly why murderers et al come to an untimely and ghastly end. What you believe determines what you see. A botanist sees a tree and an anthropologist sees the soil on which it grows. A zoologists sees the monkeys and insects dependent on the tree but none seem to see the forest. The murderer sees a shady spot to dig a grave. This is the reality. It requires effort to see another perspective. Perspective is everything and if you see only one perspective yopu might be missing all the important information.

Obvious, eh? Perhaps "apparent" is a better word. It is believed this current moment occurs everywhere simultaneously. I am suggesting we each have a slightly different clock which is between us. Jupiter is hours away. Yes, in principle but this would require we learn every single "law" of nature which might be impossible. The odds of any given molecule occupying a specific spot in a million years are simply "infinitely" small. Yet clouds are sailing over right this minute and most of those molecules were on earth even a million years ago. How can anyone take a rudimentary knowledge of water molecules and some of the natural forces and propose that our knowledge is deep and broad and act as though they know everything? How is it possible that everyone sees the world in terms of what he knows when he knows nothing? When you describe reality you'll describe it in terms oif the models you know whether those models were derived from experiment or scripture. When you calculate something or decide on what is right you'll use these models. You'll see things in terms of them and become your models/ beliefs over a lifetime. People don't understand the nature of these models either. For now suffice to say they are language dependent virtually to the same degree they depend on experiment or scripture. The only reason modern language works at allis that we try to understand one another. When we assign a meaning to a spoken word we are trying to assign a meaning such that it makes sense in context. If you refuse to try to see the sense in what I'm saying it's impossible for me to convey this perspective. Can you even accept such a simple concept that perspective determines what you see? hear? understand? Perspective! No side of the cone is flat. One side is a dome.

Well, I could say that except that it's for reasons of logic and consistency with two sciences that I believe that my perspective might be more consistent with reality. I don't "insist" there's no such thing as infinity so much as I simply point out that there is no apparent referent for the concept in the real world. I don't know. Perhaps things are merely separated by time. Yes, presuming it's infinite and space exists. It can never be quantified until we understand every single force and process in all of reality. We may have done little more than scratch the surface to date. But no one seems to know what I'm talking about when I speak about the difficulty of predicting the shape of the second cloud that sails over a given point in on a sunny morning in 1,000,000 years. I believe there is an alternative and it merely involves taking a different perspective.

Of course I have no evidence the universe is not infinite any more than I have evidence it is. I don'tknow. If I believed in space then I might believe the universe is infinite from that perspective. But I don't believe in "space". The existence of space is not axiomatic in my understanding. Cause and effect are axiomatic as are time and reality. But no matter your axioms and definitions there is nothing we can point to and say that is a manifestation of "infinity". We can show how such things break down in the real world. If you try to divide something into ever smaller parts you'll eventually reach a point where your tools aren't up to the job. But like most of these discussions this one isn't about axioms and scientific knowledge. I'm simply not talking about things that can be reduced to explanation by models. I am talking about perspective and the simple fact that people are overlooking reality in their zeal to achieve scientific understanding. At the very least they are looking at reality from a perspective that can't see some things that should be obvious. We aren't even noticing the incredible complexity of nature and instead see our scientific knowledge.

I don't know for a fact that some kids can hear high speed molecules but this is the opinion of experts in the past and is completely logical. I do know it has never been disproven. What supporting evidence do you have that all mathematical constructs exist in the real world? Without this assumption you have no evidence and no logic. I have the observable reality and logic. I know this doesn't prove I'm right but it suggests there's more than one perspective to view what we know and doesn't exclude the possibility I'm right. If there are an infinity of worlds then there should be an infinity of pyramids on earths. I suppose that means there should even be an earth with a hole where Lincoln should be. But it must be true. There is not only the simple fact that mathematics says it's true but anyone observing a chaotic system can intuit it. It is a description of how the real world actually works. We can't see the harmonic systems are composes of chaotic element that destabilize them in the long term but there's simply no doubt that nothing can last forever.

No. It's the way chaos theory was described back when it was discovered around 1957. I suppose you consider this "woo" however. Everything in existence causes earthquakes. All things are dependent on things that came before. I can imagine many ways a hurricane can cause an earthquake. ...It might take a while though. This should be common knowledge among anyone who considers himself a scientist but, then, it may not be and you get a pass on it due to your age. Just look up "brownian movement" and don't expect me to do all your work. Did I mention infinity doesn't even exist. It is so poorly conceptualized by people that they have the absurd notion that there are an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps. Even if infinity did exist this is simple and utter nonsense. Reality conforms neither to our wishes nor our knowledge. It doesn't conform to math but if a butterfly flaps it wings in China there will be storm somewhere caused by it. This is reality. Even though concepts of infinity tend to the absurd the apparent complexity of reality makes most of these concepts puny in comparison. Numbers like 10 ^ 100,000 are like tiny fractions in this world. In this world, the real world, predicting which tree will be hit by lightning caused by the butterfly is mere child's play in comparision to the really tough predictions. Actually modern science can be seen as the effort of man to compute this complexity. Each time we learn a new natural phenomenon we can better estimate just how complex something is. Eventually we can put a number on it though i might require a new logarithmic scientific notation. These numbers are going to get impossibly large if we ever know much about nature.

A butterfly flaps its wings in China causing a hurricane eight days later. The hurricane causes an earthquake after 100 years. The earthquake results in a perturbation of earth's orbit after a million years. The perturbation causes the destruction of the earth/ moon after 10 million years which leads to a collision of galaxies eventually and then a wholly different universe to be created in the next big bang. But why did the butterfly flaps its wings at all? It might be some errant nerve signal caused by the most insignificant collision of particles days earlier. Some youngsters can hear high speed molecules in their ears. Such a molecule (brownian movement) might start a scientist on life long journey. It could even start a religious scholar on such a journey. The world is an impossibly complex place and infinity has nothing to do with it.

I do understand that human behavior and belief is quite complex and really no less so than that of nature and animals. I also realize that human behavior is a product of will rather than merely happenstance and it's quite easy to see the hand of another power in it and in the behavior of nature itself. This merely isn't my point. My point is that every event of even the tiniest scale has a virtually infinite number of outcomes and each of these outcomes would govern everything in reality given sufficient time. They affect everything in reality even in the briefest possible time. Nothing can be pre-ordained even in a deterministic universe and we know that the universe is no clock-work.

No. I doubt it's even as many things as the possible trajectories of a particle. Most of the things we "know" about people and ourselves aren't even true so not relevant to my point. Reality is far more complex than even "infinity" for all practical purposes and it's doubtful anything can exist in infinite number. It is merely a mathematical concept that seems to be misapplied in most instances. All mathematical concepts in each instance are misapplied to the real world to a greater or lesser extent. Reality is not mathematical, it is logical.

I don't understand the question. Are you asking if I believe that people introduce a lot of new complexity? If so then I'd have to say "no". People are no more complex than any other life form though of course we often do things on a far grander scale and some understanding of the consequences. Individually people can be easy to predict in the short term but collectively we are very hard to predict especially in the longer term.

Government and business are the worst offenders and this will become increasingly obvious until we are controlled and monitored continuously.

I think a lot of problem with science is that it's presented to the public as a belief system in many cases. This is largely the result of the failure of the educational system. As a belief system it does not provide the solace and comfort of a religion and it denies the existence of an original cause making it difficult to comprehend. Largely these are metaphysical and education of metaphysics problems. People are told things are "settled science" that are obviously not and are presented a view of reality that is inconsistent with their experience. I'm not sure supplanting a belief in "God" with a believe in "science" is necessarily a good thing and it is no doubt a bad thing for some individuals. If you want the crazy ideas to disappear then fix education but this will need to include fixing the way science is taught especially in the lower grades.

I don't see how pi having a set but probably unknowable value is proof of infinity. Let's get back to the collisions of atoms. You believe there are an infinite number of possible results and trajectories from such a collision but the reality is this collision occurs in the real world where it is affected by every other thing in the universe through gravity and electromagetic forces. This implies there are only specific angles and trajectories possible; an exceedingly large number but not "infinity". Pi is a specific number and may simply be like one of those specific possible trajectories.

If you postulate that there exist ape-like gremlins that can access the wings of a plane at 20,000' to cause damage they do not suddenly spring into existence. If someone believes in these gremlins and breaks out a window to shoot at what he sees it isn't the result of gremlins but the belief in gremlins. This becomes an effect of language and not reality itself. Some things that can't be found aren't really lost and can only be seen when you're seareching for something else. The world is an "infinitely" complex place with a very fine line between what we believe is real and what actually is. But there is no fine line between the real and the not real. Everything exists and nothing does not exist. Things that do not exist can have no effect in the real world and even the tiniest events in the real world reverberate through time. Math does not exist but it follows the same natural logic that governs how things exist and change in time. This is hardly impossible. But so far centuries of progress and experimental results simply show there are ever more orders of magnitude in the possibilities of the outcome of events. Perhaps like "pi" we'll just find we'll never get to the end.

Your calling the idea that we know almost nothing as being "pessimistic" very much makes my point. I'd estimate our total knowledge at about the tiniest fraction of 1% of everything there is to know. Most people estimate our knowledge much closer to 100%. I'd consider any estimate over .05% as being far out of touch with reality; so far out of touch I suspect we must be talking about completely different things. It's not logical to suggest infinity exists because it's in our models. This is like saying Timbukthree exists because it's on some map. While models reflect reality they can only reflect that reality that appears in experiment. We can never know that the reflection is an accurate reflection because perspective influences interpretation and model creation. Surgeons in the 1850's knew time was of the essence in saving lives after traumatic injury so didn't take the time to wash their hands and equipment and their patients died even though their model was quite accurate. Isn't stating that there is a continuum of such states tantamount to suggesting there are (is) an infinite number? I think your question merely highlights just how little we actually know. I think the question of the existence of reality here and in Studiot's post demonstrate just how far divorced scientific thought has become from reality. I mentioned earlier how a variable pot doesn't really have an infinite number of resistances. I think this might apply as well to the states of electrons or how two particles collide. It would hardly be surprising if there are quantum states for everything and hence a limited though exceedingly large number of outcomes for any event at all. Chaos theory goes on to tell us no event is too small to not affect things in the large scale in the long term. This is what I mean by the statistical "impossibility" of reality itself. Somewhere billions of years ago a silicone ion had to collide with a hydrogen atom just so in order for life to form on earth. An individual sperm had to win a a race against millions of others for any of us to be born. What are the odds? Reality/ nature/ the universe is what we are trying to understand. We have chosen "science" tounderstand it and our metaphysaics simply excludes the existence of reality because the inventors of modern experimental science realized that each individual has his own perception of reality. This has left us rootless and out of touch but more importantly it leaves us at the mercy of mathematics. It leaves us at the mercy of the models we build from experimental results. Rather than seeking reality directly we see it through the prism of science which dismantles it into its parts which we also see as models. We don't put this "light" back together because most of us are specialists and because most of us need to have it in pieces under the microscope to study it. This is a metaphysical failing but like all such failings it can be largely eliminated simply by recognizing its existence and taking a few common sense steps to mitigate it. Experimental science fails when it gets outside of its metaphysics but this is a separate, and potentially more serious, issue. You're going toneed to explain this to me. I'm sure if you're right then I'm wrong.

I had said, The problem is this truth blinds us to the nature of the model and, more importantly, to the extent of our ignorance. I think this might provide a clue to the nature of the disagreement in this thread. People are seeing reality as the sum total of their knowledge and the models they use. As such the existence of infinity is patently obvious to them. What isn't obvious is that reality far transcends our knowledge and our ability to model it. What isn't obvious is that our models are woefully incomplete to understand the totality of reality. If all we see are our models then reality is an open book to us. We can find an equation for everything and every equation has/ is its own reality. Of course no infinity has been measured but this seems a minor point if you know some equations demand its existence. One half is point five. There's half a four in two. The first of two apples is half the apples. "Half" is real and the way anyone chooses to say it is irrelevant. It is a matter of taste, formatting, or semantics. A thousand meters is a klick and one doesn't measure parsecs in nanometers (not in the world I live).

Yes. This is a metaphysical truism. The problem is this truth blinds us to the nature of the model and, more importantly, to the extent of our ignorance. Formatting for reality is as inconsequential as semantics. But the fact remains that constants, measurements, and variables can only be executed to a certain degree of accuracy and equations are not always applied properly. Even in the lab there is still "slop". How this is expressed is a matter of the means and context used to make the point which is largely semantics which I refuse to discuss.

No! Models are our estimation of reality based on logic and the effect of nature on experiment. There is no need for any model to approximate reality itself. I actually said 99.999+%. This is merely reflecting the fact that as a general rule units are chosen in the lab that are accurate to three decimal points. If you choose to measure electron orbits in parsecs then this will break down a little. It's merely an example of a hypothetical model much like reality at the beginning of the big bang or the "event horizon". Nobody expects to measure "infinity" but my understanding is that many people believe it actually exists in reality.

Once you realize that "intelligence" is not only unmeasurable but essentially nonexistent it shouldn't be too difficult to locate their "consciousness". Plants must communicate between their various parts and most, if not all, communicate with others of their species and between species. Find their consciousness and you've found their "intelligence". Where are you looking? I'd guess that to the limited degree they have consciousness they would experience it at the base of the "trunk".