Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SamBridge

  1. I was reading an opinion piece on de-extinction1 and it started me thinking about the ethics of wildlife conservation and, in particular, the de-extinction of species.

    Not to sound like a conspiracy theorists, but "wildlife" is essentially scam. There's barely a forest on this Earth that hasn't been touched by humans over hundreds or even thousands of years, and you can tell this by soil composition changes that corresponds to tribal locations in soil samples as well as changes in the species composition in differen areas based on different cultures own records of types of trees they planted and their practices of preserving their environment while still modifying it. When you see black-and white videos of "wildlife," there's hundreds of natives just on the other side of the camera.

    So, it shows inducing a larger change isn't more or less ethical than really any other change that we're use to seeing, so bringing back a few species won't be the end of the world. The environment will go on, life will adapt to whatever with or without us. What is "good" or "bad" for the environment depends entirely on the arbitrary assertion of which species one deems worth ensuring the survival of, because there will always be some species that survive.

  2. I'm still not seeing that difference I was asking for, it's not enough detail, to general. Anyway, you'd be right to say classical computers cannot truly be random, but we just aren't dealing with classical computers so it cannot be perfectly accurate model, we're dealing with something more complicated and variable, something that might not even have entirely tangible components.


    Can you clarify on this? I'll admit that I am a fanatic on this front, but I don't fantasize without logic and experience.

    You broke into spouting random stuff that didn't actually cohere to established facts.



    Since I have some time to kill, I'm going to review the first few pages of this thread.

    You didn't do that already? A lot of debate could have been avoided if you did.

  4. yep...


    here is a website that may spark your interest. yes, this topic has come up time and time again.


    have fun...

    I can't have fun because I already have the answer. Nothingness has no dimensional, directional or scalar quantity and therefore cannot physically exist. If an apple has no size, no probability of being anywhere, no force, then it doesn't actually exist and I find that I'm actually holding my hand around a region of air and the apple was all in my imagination.

  5. it is a fun topic to debate no?

    let me create another paradox.

    what happens if pinochio says my nose grows now.

    one has to take a step back and look at the big picture.

    go ahead and have fun.

    No one has to do anything, Pinocchio isn't even real and thus didn't say anything about your nose growing.



    you will have solved world hunger, not realized it, and still not come up with an answer to nothing that satisfies everyone.

    It doesn't matter what emotional attachment people have to it, forgoing reasoning is not the way to find an answer.



    while it is imparative that one can argue a point, it is even more important to use higher reasoning to decide whether or not it is worth your time.


    Being worth time is an arbitrary emotional measure and has nothing to do with the logic of the situation. If you don't want to spend time using logical reasoning to find an answer, no one's forcing you to.



    yet i cannot shake the feeling that quantum mechanics is our best bet at answering the PARADOX.

    It's not a paradox and QM doesn't address it. I think your nose might have grown a bit.

  6. turn that literal engine!

    You know science is not metaphysics right?



    you should have read my earlier responses.

    You should have read about QM before saying its some philosophy.



    this is a lingual problem.

    No it's a physical problem where we can physically confirm we have not measured the existence of nothingness. Even if nothingness somehow exists there's no way to measure it.

  7. Full of high sounding ideas, but if you want to know the truth, just read up on a bit of history. Life in the old Soviet Union, East Germany, Cambodia, pick one.

    The problem with that is communists could say the same things about capitalist societies. If you know history, you know what Europe did to other countries and you know how many governments the US corrupted, so there's really no good answer to like or hate any particular form of government.


    If so, how did this begin and why do they hate communism (or communists)?

    It comes from many places. European colonists were generally the first to make such assertions on a government level, viewing other less powerful cultures as primitive (despite the fact that Europe's power came directly from these "primitive cultures"), and since many of these cultures were community based, the Europeans associated communism with primitive lifestyle and thus viewed communism as primitive, and this was 100-500 years ago. Rationally speaking though, this was not true as there have been many successful regions of the world where people share resources in community based societies to survive and economically complex communal systems that pre-date Europe's rise to power, and when capitalism was imposed upon their lifestyles, ecosystems and economies became damaged and caused famine and environmental degradation on large scales.


    Eventually, community based societies got tired of being pushed around and became strong enough to kick out the influence of European colonizers which was around the early to mid 20th century all over the world. The European capitalist societies had treated them very badly, and as a result, there were some (but not all) new nation-states that became polarized towards extreme communism once they won their independence. The US being capitalist and more similar to Europe viewed new nation-states governments as a threat and propaganda was started against communism by the US and Europe to gain the support of the public as the two sides became more polarized. Occasionally the US got involved in wars with communism parties such as with Korea and Vietnam and was sometime asked by Europe with help with keeping colonies under control which the colonies were not fond of. There was also the Cold War during the mid-late 20th century which was against the Soviet Union and the United States, and the USSR (soviet union) was also very communist which fueled even more polarization. Now, there's more of a threat from China economically to the US, and China use to be communist but actually isn't that communist anymore.

  8. The reason for the vote is philosophical. By denying the individual the fruits of his/her labour you are denying incentive.

    But there's just as many people who have passion about something and could use the government's help with it as they would otherwise lack resources. Like for instance, there's plenty of content scientists and artists in both capitalist and communist nations, showing that the desire to peruse a passion is irregardless of what power is in place. Both types of systems can be taken advantage of or be successful as they have both had problems with corruption yet both rose to great heights. There's really no reason to attack any consensual form of government, people should be governed however they want to be, and it's this type of irresponsible and arrogant labeling of people's lives and their preferences as good or bad that led to the tragedies of the colonial period and of the environment.


    at the smallest scales that we can measure, nothing physically exists.

    If that were true we wouldn't be measuring anything on a smaller scale.


    i would call upon the strangeness of quantum mechanics to try to find a reasonable solution.

    QM provides no such solution.


    perhaps nothing is something yet is nothing at the same time. can we measure this phenomenon?





    when it all boils down, it is proof that our perceptions are a result of insanity.

    I can't think of any credible psychologist that would agree with such a thing.

  10. The commonly recognized three spatial "dimensions" are imaginary constructs convenient for a particular geometry (the geometry of three planes intersecting at equal angles). One can form consistent geometries with 4, 5, 6, and 7 spatial "dimensions" as well. The term "dimension" in some models may not refer exclusively to spatial constructs. Qualities of objects may be called dimensions. For example, the color of one's hair (especially if it is green or hot pink) may be an expression of identity.

    Yeah, but, I bet you can't name a single accredited model in physics that uses someone's hair as a dimension.

  11. It's ironic that humanity's impact on the Earth is being debated when British colonial geographers in the early 20th century in Southern Asia already measured changes in the region's climate due solely to human-induced deforestation. The Dutch and French measured these changes as well and that's why conservation laws were adopted. Not the mention the fact that pristine forests that haven't been touched by humans don't even exist anymore, just about every forest on the face of the Earth has undergone drastic changes in species and soil composition due to humans chopping down and planting trees and other flora and moving animals around in those regions over thousands of years, and even the large expanses of Savannahs in Africa were created by nomadic portraitists practicing swidden agriculture to create grazing fields for their domesticated cattle. The reduction of Mangroves induces more flooding and polluting, and the damning of rivers that fed the Aral sea caused the entire lake to disappear which has made temperatures in the region vary by more extreme amounts and left huge salt deposits. If you look at history, it's really obvious humanity can affect the Earth.

  12. As far as I know, the expansion of the universe only has a correlation to distance. If something 13 billion years away is receding at 80% the speed of light, the "Big Rip" implies that the hubble volume would shrink and after a million years, something that's only 13 billion years away would then recede at 90% the speed of light instead, whereas normal space expansion would say that it doesn't matter how much time passes, something 13 billion light years away is always going to appear to be receding at 80% the speed of light. So why wouldn't the expansion have a constant acceleration in proportion to distance and simply lead to a big chill? Why does anyone think there's a big rip?

  13. So to my understanding there's a model out there that says the arrow of time is somehow related to the universe's expansion which can coincide with the ever increase in entropy which apparently has its own arrow of time. Furthermore, it is stated on wikipedia that if the universe were to contract, it would be indicative of traveling backwards in time. So there's a few things.

    What's the exact name of this model?

    If I could take a cubic meter of space and somehow stop expansion inside of it, and I dropped a ball inside it, would the ball just "freeze" inside the cube because it can't experience the passing of time and thus not change position over time from velocity?

    At the event horizon of black holes, time mathematically appears to stop from our limit calculations, so is space not expanding near the event horizon of a black hole?


  14. I'm saying that information is identified faster than the speed of light.

    Information cannot propagate to where it already exists, which is why no information transfer happens faster than light in a correlation.


    Statistics shows that in order to come across this same exact pattern that we call earth, we would have to travel approximately 11 trillion light years to get there, but if you "die" and come back to life 11 trillion light years away, if you woke up and nothing has changed or happened, then you traveled 11 trillion light years in a single moment.

    Not sure about the specifics on that sort of mind transfer but it could just be a pure coincidence, like a clone. Why wouldn't aliens have died and reported coming back to life here anyway?


    Forgive me for not making good quotations, but, are you a fanatic? What's your expertise? Mine is computational mind. Philosophy and Computational linguistics more particularly though.

    I was pointing out that you seem to have a spontaneous breakdown in cohesive reasoning while avoiding my points which greatly contrasts to the manner you spoke in before. I was implying you were acting as a sort of "fanatic."


    The universe may cause me to want something, but the real question is who am I?.

    Apparently as people seem to measure themselves having the capacity to do so, that's for you to decide.

  15. CMT is not about "electrical patterns".

    But it is about putting all observed results into terms of observable synaptic patterns, it's almost synonymous.


    Pattern recognition is quantum IMO, it happens instantaneously across every possible instance of any particular pattern.

    A "correlation" is by nature always true, but classically a person or computer never receives new information faster than light.


    What you are thinking right now is also being thought by you, who is approximately 11 trillion light years away

    No idea where you got the evidence for that.


    Say hello to everyone in the universe right now and see what you think. It could be a very enlightening experience,

    Yeah, I don't think that's happened at any point in time.


    Nothing but points of interest exist.

    So where'd the universe come from when there was no known possible "point of interest" around? I like to think the moon is there even when I'm not looking at it.


    You can't touch anything either by the way.

    You're right, because people measure the physical force of electromagnetic repulsion.


    and you'd have to be pretty genius to make me think otherwise.

    At this point I'm surprised to say I'd have to be more like a fanatic than a genius of anything.


    I'm not about to sprout wings and fly south.

    Because that particular event is highly unlikely.


    It doesn't stop me from wanting to be a better person,

    Why want when the universe will do it for y...oh, you can't predict the universe will do it for you, you don't know what it's going to do, guess you'll have to decide for yourself if you're trying to be a good person.

  16. I'm not sure what you're saying. Knowledge and length are essential, free will is just a fantasy.

    I don't get why people are holding on to the belief in freedom so dearly, especially if they claim to be scientists. I thought this issue was settled back in 2009.

    Because it doesn't make sense to say you don't have any type of free will when you have the choice to decide if you have free-will or not. CMT is based on everything being observable in terms of deterministic electrical patterns, and aside from the problems I already pointed out, something like a dimension that is supposedly "used" to measure things isn't a physical object you can touch, and neither are equations themselves. Even in a deterministic universe, one could have "the potential to desire" something outside of what is happening, but have no control over outcomes that are observed by other frames. Nothing about one of the most complex aspects of our fundamental existence is "settled." Every generation likes to look back at history and say they're ahead and have everything figure out, but if anyone was ever really ahead, we wouldn't have so many fundamental changes.

  17. When I first started working on AI, I only put the first unit to emerge in the output as opposed to adding all of the units with equal likelihood. The reason I did that is because it was way more grammatical that way. Length is absolutely essential because you need to stop the recognition of patterns when the length of the point of interest + the next point of interest is equal to 0. Time is just a label for a particular object, and that object is best suited as a tuple. A tuple contains all possible objects within it, and by making time a tuple, the program is WAY more efficient than using a dictionary, or even worse, a string.


    You need to take dispositions into account as well so the program can specialize it's output so it's not only context sensitive, but it has an attitude as well. That's the main reason for my logic that time is a tuple. I'm not working on the output aspect of AI yet though, and I think that it won't be necessary for the purposes of this business. I do a lot of machine learning though.


    Yeah length is essential, but the dimensions that we use to define it aren't tangible. Couldn't a similar phenomena happen with the mind even if there wasn't the physical availability of something like free-will? Couldn't it just be an inherent property that physical matter emulates the patterns of as matter appears to with other mathematically defined movements?

  18. I don't see any way that it could exist in a physical sense though.

    Well, hard determinism doesn't exist in a physical sense either And as per one of the forum's own staff, "a dimension isn't an object" that you can pick up or measure directly, but that doesn't mean time and length don't exist? The same type of property could be true with components of mind, so it's probably in the middle such that a mind can have some type of choice but will always have something affecting it.

  19. Actually I'm pretty sure general and special relativity are some of the most accurately tested theories to date. Muons always last longer by the amount predicted by time dilation, it predicts the accurate locations of orbits around heavily distorted regions of space and how long it takes near-light objects to reach different destinations, how clocks slow down in different gravitational fields, ect.




    There was research saying you can go faster than Light.


    If this is true that would break the rule that "Nothing can go past the speed of light".

    And that's why I like to say you can't trust a .com site, they always exaggerate stories for the purposes of commercial gain to increased traffic and there's just about no regulation of their speculation. At the very least you should be using wikipedia.org.


    Time doesn't have to be a physical thing (actor or reactor) in order to be a real phenomenon.

    Well, that depends on how you define "physical." We can't observe a dimension itself, but it still has physical relevance as existing the universe and it can be affected by physically measurable forces like gravity and rotation. If it didn't physically exist, how would you define its existence?

  21. I quoted you saying this:


    That's what I want a citation for.


    You need to work on your sentence structure, which is quite confusing.

    My sentence structure doesn't matter anyway if you aren't even bothering to be specific. If you purposely disregarded the 3 additional research papers I provided then I have no idea what you're asking for.


    I don't like when I don't understand something. You posted about relativity and hyperbolic rotation, my question is about hyperbolic rotation and relativity.


    What I understand step by step

    (0,0) are coordinates of Space and Time, (x,t) where t coordinates are on the vertical.



    OK that looks like a Minkowski spacetime diagram



    Let's say O.K. it is about a change of coordinates system where the grid has been squeezed in one direction and stretched on the other by the same amount.



    That's the part I wonder about.

    If I understand correctly. It means the values on the x axis have been multiplied by a number N and the values on the T axis have been divided by the same N number, where the N number is the "hyperbolic metric"

    IOW the values xt= constant

    Which I see as not evident in litterature.

    In litterature I see x/t= constant for Speed Of Light.

    Based on what I know, in a Lorentz "boost" you only have inertial frames moving at constant velocities and their direction of motion is parallel to a spacial axis. If someone is moving at a constant velocity in an inertial frame in a straight line, there's no increasing rotation, so the factor of contraction and dilation stays the same between events that they measure of objects along their direction of motion, so that's why the boost is linear, but the full transformation isn't. My guess is that's why you get conflicting results, one refers to a coordinate system actually changing degrees of rotation between frames, and in another instance it's just talking about a boost.



  22. I am sorry if I didn't follow exactly your route.

    I was interested in your link about hyperbolic rotation. (bottom line of your post #6.) Hyperbolic rotation redirects to squeeze mapping in Wikipedia.


    I didn't understand the relation between hyperbolic rotation and Lorentz transform.

    hence my question in post @20.


    My guess is that you are actually dealing with the "Lorentz Boost" which is a linear transformation that doesn't involve a rotation. The difference is that a rotation involves all dimensions in spacetime and the boost only deals with the effects in one direction of motion, it's essentially a restricted transformation.

  • 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.