What Exists? No, Really.

[watcher]

space may not have a specific geometry but nonetheless, xyz coordinates are mental construct. its being always out there arbitrarily is just an imagination.

[lawcat]

Imagination of lines it is, for we have to create some mental picture of it to describe it. But would you say that a three dimensional cube bound by coordinates is always there where it is, regardless of what goes on inside, or what goes through it as far as matter or antimatter, or what space consists of? The coordinates would always be there, even if all of space was empty.

[watcher]

Imagination of lines it is, for we have to create some mental picture of it to describe it. But would you say that a three dimensional cube bound by coordinates is always there where it is, regardless of what goes on inside, or what goes through it as far as matter or antimatter, or what space consists of? The coordinates would always be there, even if all of space was empty.

 

yes i think so. if the observed ordered universe must be comprehensible, there got to be a self referencing mechanism intrinsic to it.

[lawcat]

Now, if the large coordinate space is unaffected by time, in space-time, then infinitesimally small coordinate space is unaffected by time. We can reduce this coordinate space to very very small observational size. Without anything inside, the coordinate space is static.

Now what can we compare, this time-unaffected infinitesimally small coordinate space with?

Would you say we can compare it with infinitesimally small particle in space time?

[watcher]

Now, if the large coordinate space is unaffected by time, in space-time, then infinitesimally small coordinate space is unaffected by time. We can reduce this coordinate space to very very small observational size. Without anything inside, the coordinate space is static.

 

what is your basis that space is finitely divisible?

 

Now what can we compare, this time-unaffected infinitesimally small coordinate space with? Would you say we can compare it with infinitesimally small particle in space time?

let say yes we can....

[Boerseun]

"Reality is that which doesn't go away when you close your eyes."

 

- Pyrotex

[watcher]

"Reality is that which doesn't go away when you close your eyes."

 

- Pyrotex

 

what's left is nothing but inferred. so he must be talking about his reality thru his eyes. hehe,

[lawcat]

OK. Then, we have an infinitesimal coordinate system in which nothing occurs due to time; and, we have an infinitesimal particle of the same observational size.

For observational purposes, we can use neutrino, since neutrino almost has no mass, and our coordinate space has no mass.

Then, the only significant difference between the two observed objects is that neutrino changes coordinates, see parity in physics; in other words, it spins.

Since neutrino spins in space-time and coordinate-system object does not, and since the spin is uncertain, see Heisenberg's uncertainty of angular momentum, then it is effected by time component of space-time.

Since spin is circular motion, then we should revise our coordinate system to be polar (r, theta, phi).

Since spin is oscillatory motion, and since time effects spin, then time effects oscillation.

Since objects oscilate when subject to frequency, and since our object is subject to time, then time has a frequency component.

Since our object is fixed at center, and rotates at surface, then it has single degree of circular freedom (SDoF). Since SDoF oscilation occurs at natural frequency, then time which effects objects is nothing but object's natural circular frequency. See generally Planck's angular frequency.

 

Now, where does this frequency come from? Is it intrinsic or extrinsic?

If it is intrinsic as the mechanics say (depends on mass and intrinsic spring constant; w = konst./mass), see angular frequency, then the object rotates itself. If the object rotates itself, then it gives itself instruction to rotate. If the object gives itself instruction to rotate, then the object has consciousness; then, all particles have consciousness. Then, the universe is the sum of all consciousness, and we are dealing with God.

If the angular frequency is extrinsic, then it is resonant to the object and makes it rotate. Then, the frequency comes from elsewhere, such as the elesticity of space as the object interacts with it, or from the Big Bang (all this is relativity, and needs hidden variable, and must comport to some unknown force) or some other cause, including God.

[Pyrotex]

Hello dudes. Hello Boerseun. Snazzy new avatar -- shiny!

Subject: What exists -- no, really.

Lawcat & Watcher, some interesting speculation there, perhaps more of a quantum nature. Can we really get to an understanding of The Big "What Exists" (TBWX) by looking at the very small? Are we ready for that? All we know about the very small is that at the Plank distance and Plank time (10^-44 sec) what we consider the laws of physics totally cease to have any power to model, explain or predict. That doesn't necessarily mean that time and distance cease to exist, but OTOH, maybe they do. :)

 

I think we want this thread to stay on a higher plane, where mathematics and physics aren't required. At least, not yet. Perhaps at some point, or in a parallel thread, we should tackle TBWX from the quantum viewpoint as you are doing. For now, think of "yourself" (your self-aware intelligence) as being this program or process locked away in the vault of your brain and skull. The only data it has is what comes through the senses. There is this world out there, outside your skull, which you think you understand, but do you? "You think that's air you're breathing?" How do you know?

 

How close is the reality of "air" to what you think of when you say "air"?

[Doctordick]

I think we want this thread to stay on a higher plane, where mathematics and physics aren't required.

"Higher plane"??? I think you and I must have a rather different association with the word "higher" when applied to the question of rational thought! :lol: :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

[watcher]

Lawcat & Watcher, some interesting speculation there, perhaps more of a quantum nature. Can we really get to an understanding of The Big "What Exists" (TBWX) by looking at the very small?

 

i hope you really don't mean a direct perception of what exists. but by which you mean an understanding of what exists as a conceptual theory where future technology can be derived... yes we can.

 

Are we ready for that?

 

to say no is a confession of a self imposed limiting belief.

 

All we know about the very small is that at the Plank distance and Plank time (10^-44 sec) what we consider the laws of physics totally cease to have any power to model, explain or predict.That doesn't necessarily mean that time and distance cease to exist, but OTOH, maybe they do. :QuestionM

 

iow, it is our boundary. a barrier for us to explore no further what is beyond. and yet from whence all things come forth. including space and time. that is all the understanding that is required here. is the indivisible quantum of action (planck constant) the result of dynamic interaction of space, time and matter or the dynamics of space, time and matter is the result of this quantum of action?

 

if the former is the case, your indifference is justified, otherwise the latter's case, planck's scale and the limit of light speed are barriers that even time cannot go through, thus time don't exists beyond that.

 

For now, think of "yourself" (your self-aware intelligence) as being this program or process locked away in the vault of your brain and skull. The only data it has is what comes through the senses. There is this world out there, outside your skull, which you think you understand, but do you?

 

i understand. the world out there makes itself understandable thru our sense organs.

what kind of further understanding do you required but this process itself?

 

on second thought, if all the images we see out there are reconstructed inside our skull photon by photon, then why do we see them all out there? its all inside our skull all right .. but if you would drop your belief about this "self aware intel" as confined inside the skull. then you might want to ask where exactly is this skull? i mean, if all the images where supposed to be inside our skull and yet we see them as outside our skull. perhaps this container "skull" of intelligence is as big as the whole universe. if this is too counter intuitive for you then just explain to me how a immaterial thing like intelligence can have a "fixed" position in space as inside the skull?. iow, can you exactly locate and pinpoint this awareness inside your brain. other that you feel it is there? if not then your reliance to feeling/perception makes your statement just an article of you faith and further investigation is need to get rid of an otherwise potentially false beliefs. you can say this awareness is localized to you. but this can mean a lot of things....

 

"You think that's air you're breathing?" How do you know?

How close is the reality of "air" to what you think of when you say "air"?

 

where do you reference your reality? where or on what do we rely to tell us what is real and what is not?

[Pyrotex]

"Higher plane"??? I think you and I must have a rather different association with the word "higher" when applied to the question of rational thought! ...

Awww, Dick. Now you done gone and hurt my widdle feelings.

It's just that I wanted to keep the thread on a more "abstract" plane. Call it, the "Pollack Factor", if you like.

 

All my aware-life, I've pondered how one could describe thought in mathematical terms. Boole made a stab at it, but I can't say it lends any insights into how we think, how we construct a simulacrum of Reality in our brains. Still searching. You got any ideas?

[Thunderbird]

If you touch one thing with deep awareness, you touch everything.

If we are not fully ourselves, truly in the present moment, we miss everything.

 

 

When a child presents himself to you with his smile, if you are not really there - thinking about the future or the past, or preoccupied with other problems - then the child is not really there for you. The technique of being alive is to go back to yourself in order for the child to appear like a marvellous reality. Then you can see him smile and you can embrace him in your arms.

 

 

 

[sigurdV]

What happened to this now dead thread? There are things in here that merits attention, so I make this entry to remind me to come back...

[pamela]

What happened to this now dead thread? There are things in here that merits attention, so I make this entry to remind me to come back...

the last post in this thread was from thunderbird a dear friend of mine who passed away not long after it was written.That may have some bearing on why it did not continue. What aspect of the topic would you like to address?

[sigurdV]

the last post in this thread was from thunderbird a dear friend of mine who passed away not long after it was written.That may have some bearing on why it did not continue. What aspect of the topic would you like to address?

Well... I was impressed by the attempt to define "semantons"... I think it can be a fruitful approach. (Gives one something to search for.)I hadnt the time to read the thread carefully, but I think i will (having time and patience) return to it.

Or perhaps I will find the discussion going on in another tread. The philosophy and sciences of mind is (As far as Im aware) in a rather pitiful state and could surely use some new inputs.

[Ken]

Well... I was impressed by the attempt to define "semantons"... I think it can be a fruitful approach. (Gives one something to search for.)I hadnt the time to read the thread carefully, but I think i will (having time and patience) return to it.

Or perhaps I will find the discussion going on in another tread. The philosophy and sciences of mind is (As far as Im aware) in a rather pitiful state and could surely use some new inputs.

 

 

What is this "science of mind" of which you write?

 

:P