the universe

[Matt Grunau]

I realize this.

What I mean is, it's quite unlikely that everything is fake, and the entire universe is only in my mind, and my mind is the only thing that is real; however, I don't see how you could possibly disprove this argument, because the mind is all we know.

The answer is simple. I am god, and you are all products of my thoughts.

You're welcome.

For all we know the ability to ponder... and wonder... may be a physical manifestation of an evolving mind... like a tree that bears fruit... but there'd be no way to prove that your dynamic abilities aren't more or less programmed through a combination of genetics and environment... meaning to say that how could you prove that your mind isn't a biological computer... a "real" version of the boy from AI... and as you sit there thinking that your mind is the only thing real you don't realize you've been standing there in front of that statue of mother? (the universe)

Seems to me that our minds are exactly that, biological computers. We have processing, storage, data recall, interbrain communication between sections, as well as regions specific for purpose, all things found in a self contained system. Personally, I'de like to know how we store information, what the "terrabyte X 1Billion" capacity is, and how it is catagorized. Would that make training your brain for better learning and thinking? Hell, it's been proven that just the language you think in affects how you think, because of such simple things as different syntax, sentence structure, and amounts of things like synonyms and antonyms. Very cool stuff.

As for freedom of thought, I don't believe we really have any, just conceptual evolution. We are still bound by observing and therefore extrapolating from observation/experience. For instance, we can not conceptualize something for which we have absolutely no experience or knowledge of. That's why science and scientific study is of an evolving nature, growing on the discoveries of those before us. We now have the luxury of hundreds of years of scientific thought, scientific fact, and rock solid theory to give us a head start in whatever field we are interested in.

on a different issue, I'de also like to point out Einstein never said matter could not be destroyed. He said that matter or energy could neither be created nor destroyed, only converted. So the whole positron/electron issue is moot, not even taking into consideration that creating a positron is still very hard to do, and storing them for any real length of time is even harder.


EDIT: Speaking of the universe and odd questions, here's something that has been bothering me since my late teens:

Light consists of photons. Light travels at the speed of light (duh). Photons are particles. So here's where it gets odd:

If photons are particles, and since they are travelling at the speed of light, and since we know Einstein theorized that as an object approaches the speed of light, it's mass increases, wouldn't that mean that photons are of infinite mass? Yet they are not. Also, what happens when you slow down a particle of light? Would it not lose mass? Yet it doesn't, as we know it takes approximately one million years for photons to get from the core of the sun to its surface, and then only eight minutes to get to the Earth. That is definately slowed down, which would effectively mean for that time it doesn't exist. Isn't then the very existance of a Photon dependant on its speed, if it achieves its mass (and therefore its existance) from its speed? If that's the case, does it not exist inside of a sun? And if it takes eight minutes to get here from the sun, how old is the particle, from its "own" perspective. Einstein also theorized time dilation, where time slows down as you increase speed, ie, if you travel the speed of light away from the earth for one minute and return in one minute, you will be two minutes older but everything on Earth would be 50 years older (or some such). Well then, how do we accurately figure the age of a photon, since to us it only takes eight minutes to get here, which means to it, it must be only a few tens of thousands of a second old?

My head hurts.

 

[Mark Harris]

Light consists of photons. Light travels at the speed of light (duh). Photons are particles. So here's where it gets odd:

If photons are particles, and since they are travelling at the speed of light, and since we know Einstein theorized that as an object approaches the speed of light, it's mass increases, wouldn't that mean that photons are of infinite mass?

Photons are considered to have no mass. It is a LOT more complicated than that, but that is the upshot.

 

[Matt Grunau]

Photons are considered to have no mass. It is a LOT more complicated than that, but that is the upshot.

I read that after I wrote my post. So something is something consisting of nothing in a state which should make it infinite something.

Damn science. :thumbsup:

 

[MattinSTL]

Seems to me that our minds are exactly that, biological computers. We have processing, storage, data recall, interbrain communication between sections, as well as regions specific for purpose, all things found in a self contained system. Personally, I'de like to know how we store information, what the "terrabyte X 1Billion" capacity is, and how it is catagorized. Would that make training your brain for better learning and thinking? Hell, it's been proven that just the language you think in affects how you think, because of such simple things as different syntax, sentence structure, and amounts of things like synonyms and antonyms. Very cool stuff.

As for freedom of thought, I don't believe we really have any, just conceptual evolution. We are still bound by observing and therefore extrapolating from observation/experience. For instance, we can not conceptualize something for which we have absolutely no experience or knowledge of. That's why science and scientific study is of an evolving nature, growing on the discoveries of those before us. We now have the luxury of hundreds of years of scientific thought, scientific fact, and rock solid theory to give us a head start in whatever field we are interested in.

I have to follow up my previous post and say that yes, we are saying the same thing... I'm not "wondering" if our minds are biological computers, but rather I'm stating that they are... and I'm saying that perception... of ALL things... be it faith, understanding, intuition, self-awareness... is, in fact, a product of electro-chemical reactions.

I was trying to address that previous argument in which one thinks that because he only knows his own mind... while he perceives the rest of the universe... that the only provable existence is his own mind and not the universe.

My point is that since your mind IS a biological computer... for all you know you are perceiving your own mind through it's electro-chemical reactions... in another words... if you want to have the "the universe can't be proven outside of my own perception of it, but my mind is real because I'm aware of it"... then perhaps you should apply the same logic in realizing that maybe your brain is a real part of the universe and your perception is simply along for the ride.

So to argue the non-existence of the universe vs. the certainty of the mind... well... you're perception could very well be a by-product... like fruit on a tree.

The fact is, that if we are in the latest oscillation of the universe and a big bang from "nothingness"... and if every action has an equal and opposite reaction... and chaos theory held true... then I may have typed this very sentence a million times before over the past trillion eons as the universe pulses away... doing the same thing over and over again... and my "freedom of thought" keeps happening exactly on cue... time after time.

My attempt to put this into simple analogies may have failed, but I can't put my name to a post that appears as if I have to wonder about whether or not our minds are biological computers. I'm not that slow. :cheesy:

 

[ugafan]

The answer is simple. I am god, and you are all products of my thoughts.

You're welcome.

if you don't mind, i would like to be rich. please think about it.

We are still bound by observing and therefore extrapolating from observation/experience.

what about a priori knowledge?

For instance, we can not conceptualize something for which we have absolutely no experience or knowledge of. That's why science and scientific study is of an evolving nature, growing on the discoveries of those before us.

if no one is able to conceptualize that which does not exist, how are inventions possible? if everything is built on previous discoveries, how does one explain the first discovery? :beer:

 

[Mark Harris]

I read that after I wrote my post. So something is something consisting of nothing in a state which should make it infinite something.

Damn science. :thumbsup:

I think it went something like this:

Einstein: Holy Crap, my math doesn't work! Oh wait, I know...how about I invent this little guy called a photon...math still doesn't work...oh wait, what if he doesn't have any mass? Yeah, that's it. Riiiiight. Mmmm, hmm, riiiight...

 

[Matt Grunau]

My attempt to put this into simple analogies may have failed, but I can't put my name to a post that appears as if I have to wonder about whether or not our minds are biological computers. I'm not that slow. :cheesy:

I misunderstood what you wrote, and didn't sully understand what you were addressing. I know your not slow. rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

if you don't mind, i would like to be rich. please think about it.

I'll see what I can do. Check your off seas account in a couple of hours. If you don't have one, I really can't help, since most banks have limits of around 100k per account.

what about a priori knowledge?

There is no such thing as prior knowledge. All knowledge is aquired. Only instinct is really prior anything, but that is much more behavioral pre-programming than intellect, and you find in the animal kingdom as intelligence grows, instinct declines. As instinct declines, social organization with instruction and teaching at its core is more pronounced.

if no one is able to conceptualize that which does not exist, how are inventions possible? if everything is built on previous discoveries, how does one explain the first discovery? :beer:

Name one invention that has been created which did not start off from more humble roots, is not an improvement based on a preexisting design, or does not fulfill a specific need. All inventions have a basis of both experimentation (which is info gained by trial and error, ie, experience),creativity and accident. The telephone, telegraph, computer chip, electricity, astronomy, musical instruments, apple peeler, nerf guns, carbonated soda, carbon fiber, nuclear fission, antibiotics, lasers, internal combustion, metallurgy, optics, flight, George Foreman Grill, stoneworking, axes, scuba tanks, explosives, textiles, writing, flint spear arrowheads, ballistics, tennis rackets, swimming pools, corn, rubber, and on and on. All came from something around before them and from materials developed based on materials already in use.

Including beer. :beer:

First discover is only available because of resorces to get the info. Without telescopes, no astronomy, no microscopes, and therefore advances no in medicine. Without lenses based on the principles of optics and the ability to create them, no telescope. Without obersvation of light through glass, water, and experimenting with both, no lenses.

 

[Derrick_SA]

Well technically yes, all we can be sure of is the presence of our own mind. But then the question comes... why everything else? Our mind is incapable of fathoming some of the things in this universe, and so it is unlikely that all of reality is a creation of our own mind. Logically something else must exist to give the mind some reality to reference.

Well I'm not gonna turn this religious, but a lot of us know the answer to the question "why everything else"...

and all the theories show, with plausable content I might add, that we don't have the faintest idea yet how all this came to be. Here is why I think it is.

We try and make sense of it all, bound by three dimensions: space, time and matter. For all we know there could be a 1000 dimensions.

I think that time has not always existed, but at some point came into existence.

just a thought.

- Derrick

 

[ugafan]

There is no such thing as prior knowledge.

haha, i should have used quotation marks. i'm talking about knowing something "a priori" and "a posteriori".

 

[ilauzirika]

wow I didn't think this thread would have such importance.
I love reading peoople discussing about topics that want be fully prove, it's great, you learn so much.

It's a pity I can't discuss about it, I so bad at science....

 

[MattinSTL]

I'd argue that some things come to existence w/o prior knowledge... there are happy accidents in nature and video editing... and there are freak accidents everywhere. Experiments based on one set of hypothesis may spur off in a new direction midway through... Columbus wasn't looking for America... and yet here we are, eating M&M's that have better paint-jobs then my first car.

 

[Matt Grunau]

haha, i should have used quotation marks. i'm talking about knowing something "a priori" and "a posteriori".

God. First I goofed with Mattinstl, now this one. I think I'll have a lolly and put my dunce cap on.

 

[Tom Marshall]

God.

It's not good to talk about yourself in the 3rd person, Matt...

 

[Drew Ott]

I think I should clear something up in case somebody misunderstood me.

I don't believe or follow the concept of solipsism.

 

[Gord.T]

Been trying to think of something profound to say. I feel stupid.
But this is what I got.

I also think the inner universe is infinite. It's just harder to explore.
They keep finding things smaller than atoms and smaller things than that and on it goes. Even strings are made of something right?

Carry on.

//oops, aren't strings fluctuating energy? I'd better get outta here.

 

[Anhar_Miah]

Yes, but that line of logic fails because::

The Greeks postulated wether if matter could be cut in half,

they then postulated that if the remaining half could be cut in half again,

they then asked if this could go on for infinity,

they concluded correctly that if this "regressed" for ever then, we would not actually have anything (later described as Zeno's Paradox, and the turtle variants).

They then proclaimed that in order for matter to actually exist, at *some* point there had to be BY logical reasoning, that it could no longer be sub divided, and hence they named it the atom from the root word "atmos" meaning "Indivisable"

So yes, we are finding smaller parts but by logical reasoning some finite matter has to exist.

 

[ugafan]

I think I should clear something up in case somebody misunderstood me.

I don't believe or follow the concept of solipsism.

you mentioned that last night. but apparently it's too late as you have already led others astray with this heretical epistemological position. you should be ashamed, drew.

haha. just kidding. :2vrolijk_08:

 

[taormina]

They can postulate all they want, but there is a measurement so small it cannot further be divided; it's called Planck Length. It is a unit of measure - 1.6 x 10 to the -35th meters. One cannot divide this number into a smaller physical unit of measure - the object ceases to have location.

And if it stands to reason that the universe is finite on the small end, it is also finite on the large end (i.e. it does not go on for "infinity" miles)

Yes, but that line of logic fails because::

The Greeks postulated wether if matter could be cut in half,

they then postulated that if the remaining half could be cut in half again,

they then asked if this could go on for infinity,

they concluded correctly that if this "regressed" for ever then, we would not actually have anything (later described as Zeno's Paradox, and the turtle variants).

They then proclaimed that in order for matter to actually exist, at *some* point there had to be BY logical reasoning, that it could no longer be sub divided, and hence they named it the atom from the root word "atmos" meaning "Indivisable"

So yes, we are finding smaller parts but by logical reasoning some finite matter has to exist.

 

[SeanEmer]

And if it stands to reason that the universe is finite on the small end, it is also finite on the large end (i.e. it does not go on for "infinity" miles)

I don't necessarily see the reason in that. If the universe is finite on the small end because of the problem of matter losing location at a small size, then that wouldn't be a problem on the large end, because location is not lost on the large end of the scale - only on the small end.

Could you explain what you mean a bit more clearly? I might be missing your logic.

 

[Matt Grunau]

They can postulate all they want, but there is a measurement so small it cannot further be divided; it's called Planck Length. It is a unit of measure - 1.6 x 10 to the -35th meters. One cannot divide this number into a smaller physical unit of measure - the object ceases to have location.

And if it stands to reason that the universe is finite on the small end, it is also finite on the large end (i.e. it does not go on for "infinity" miles)

That is really neat. I'de not hear of that before.

Though I agree with Sean, I can see the small end, but that does not mean there need be a limit on the big end.

It's not good to talk about yourself in the 3rd person, Matt...

Thanks Tommy. For bringing that to my attention you have my thanks and respect, and it is truly my honor to bestow upon you the rank of Sir Thomas, Duke, Protector, and Custodial Engineer of the Realm of the Portion of the State of California of the County and Greater Metroplex of Los Angeles, with all the rights, duties, and privlages therein, with specific reference to Backflipping Siberian Dwarf Hampster colonies.

Amen.