Uses of The 4th Dimension (Einstein was wrong!)

by use4d 138 Replies latest social current

Terry

Are you saying, flypisher, that it is possible that our actions, even a Word, could make our material world?

The above concept demonstrates EXACTLY WHY I AM SO CAREFUL in what I think and how I think about it.
Mysticism is everywhere like the mold that gets on your bread when you open the package.
You only have one brain. How you use it determines how you cope with the real world. The first assault on your rational mind is two steps:
1.Convincing you that you cannot understand anything "really".
2.Convincing you that there really is no reality.
That is what all mystics engage in when they approach you with their ideas (attractive and dazzling as they are.)
Mystical conversation is about deconstructing everything into a grey blur of potentiality so that your mind loses its grasp.
Buy in and you'll have a rollicking good ride; but, you won't make any progress in your real life.
Remember: two folders only:
1.Actual
2.Provisional
The actual is measurable, quantifiable and definitive
The provisional is all else.
We control our life when we see the difference and use the difference to our benefit.
T.
Terry

Recent state of the art in quantum physics (decoherence theory) says: YES. But note: Its not only YOUR individual action or observation "making the world" . Its rather the cooperation of many many single "observations" of molecular und atomic structures that is "making the world". If these "observations" default, there INDEED is no matter, no space, no time. Your individual observation has just an effect so far, as trillions x trillions of molecular and atomic "observations" (which made the structures existing at all) are sensed by your receptors, neurons and synapses.

The above is what MYSTICS do best!
t.
AuldSoul

It is the opposite of allowing an authority to tell you what you can and can not discuss or examine.

I am not tellingyou what to examine or discuss. I am telling you that you created misunderstanding by your ignorance of what quantum physics is studying and by your wierd adherence to archaic Greek usage of the word atom.
The word "atom," like most words in our language, began with one semantic meaning and eventually morphed into another. Since I am not an Ancient Greek, and do not relate to the term atom the way you suggest I should, you make yourself poorly understood to assert a long archaic meaning for the word. While your explanation is correct, it doesn't change the FACT that "atom" does not mean what "atom" once meant. If you insist on using the word the way you used it here, expect to be frequently misunderstood.
I invite you to play semantics with me all you want, semantics is what makes language matter. Words apart from their meaning are nothing more than pixels on a screen. Today, currently, "atom" is the smallest element of matter, or one unit of any element from the periodic table of elements. You yourself said that atoms have constituency, you argue against yourself to assert that "atom" must mean that which cannot be divided further.
Quantum physics is precisely the constiuency of atoms and the nature of the constituency of atoms. It is not the study of atoms. Since we were discussing quantum physics, your arguments to the nature of atoms is completely immaterial to the subject at hand. It doesn't matter what allegory you use, when it can be observed and the data attests to energy popping in and out of our observable existence questioning the nature of the source of the energy is very viable and can be approached skeptically.
Skepticism, as it relates to scientific discovery, is not the exercise of avoiding questions or proposed answers to them. It is an exercise in suspending judgment and doubting. You aren't doubting and you haven't suspended judgment. You are certain. Since you are certain, you are wrong.
Just as wrong as those who were certain the earth was flat. On the other hand, I don't think I know. I think I'm finding out. The scientific method is served well by skeptics who have reasonable arguments in objection to theories raised. It is poorly served by those who assume they know enough about the discussion to interject meaningless drivel in the form of imperious certainty. That would be the role played by the Catholic Church with Copernicus and Galileo. That is the role you play in this thread.
AuldSoul
flyphisher

Terry
The above is what MYSTICS do best!
We cannot help us.... we have to accept the world and the physics of our world in that way it is. Quantum theory is weird, oh yes; and the more they research, the more weird become the results. Thats a fact.

I think the same happens with "God". I read a thread here today, see http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/105908/1.ashx, full with aggressions and attacks against "JHWH" (Jawhe, Jehovah...). Oh boy oh boy....we cannot select our God. We have to accept him, his nature, his essence. Even if we do not understand his actions at all. Some people hate the WTBS, and because they hate them, they have an unbelievable fury against God too. That is nonsense in topmost perfection...
Terry

I invite you to play semantics with me all you want, semantics is what makes language matter. Words apart from their meaning are nothing more than pixels on a screen. Today, currently, "atom" is the smallest element of matter, or one unit of any element from the periodic table of elements. You yourself said that atoms have constituency, you argue against yourself to assert that "atom" must mean that which cannot be divided further.

Dear me; has anyone ever labored so hard to get something simply stated tied into a knot as you have here?
Read my very first post.
Did I not clearly state THIS IS AN ANALOGY?
This is an analogy.

All things are made of a "smallest part". We used to call them atoms. Suffice it to say these building blocks are what "things" are made of.

Have I not CLEARLY STATED "We used to call them atoms. Suffice it to say...." ? How much clearer can I make it?
T.
Terry

... we have to accept the world and the physics of our world in that way it is. Quantum theory is weird, oh yes; and the more they research, the more weird become the results. Thats a fact.

Yes, well......what I'm focusing on is the manner of presentation.
Anything natural cannot be "weird". It is the context we frame it with that places us precariously off center and wrong-side up.
I think that is worth noting.
Now, many of you here like to wallow in weirdness. I don't.
I like to reframe things in a context that makes natural things (nature itself) appear natural when discussed and explained. It isn't necessary to go over all this again. My cavil is with the use of language to "explain" things that cannot be explained with language. Subatomic particles/waves require math. When you stray from math you set landmines to understanding and it creates a religious atmosphere of "belief" and "non-belief". If you doubt that just look at how Auld Soul has bristled against my "flat Earth" mentality :)
He has invested belief in something which should not require belief at all. The fact he has embraced weirdness and such demonstrates adequately how far from understanding nature he has strayed.
I fear you too have completely swallowed the camel as well.
Quantum matter/energy cannot be weird; only the language of explanation can. You/we cannot make a precise analogy between the potential and the actual without going off a cliff.
My only purpose in posting in the first place was to demonstrate that TIME is an illusory construct and that "going back" in IT is a mental fantasy.
T.
Terry
AuldSoul

Quantum physics have PROVEN that the smaller parts comprising the atom are NOT matter. Does that at all affect the view you have expressed here? It is the nature of the constituency of an atom that I have been trying to get you to discuss. Are you willing to do so, or will you keep playing word games to avoid the two series of questions I twice asked oh these many moons ago?
My only purpose in posting in the first place was to demonstrate that TIME is an illusory construct and that "going back" in IT is a mental fantasy.
Yes, but you see the way you "proved" your point was by stating as fact some of that which has been soundly disproven and some of that which has been called severly into question (something skeptics are supposed to be in favor of). When flyphisher and I attempted to reason with you on your errors of statement, you kept defending them with more and varied errors of statement.
Do you know what a lepton is? How about a quark? A hadron? A gluon?
How can matter—at any level—be at once neutral and massless and still be said to exist? Isn't that wierd—matter that is neutral and massless, but serves to bond quarks of respectively -1/3 and +2/3 charge so that hadrons can form?
You don't think it is wierd that at the most basic level we can currently discern, energy pops in and out of observable existence? That means, on a macro level, that which seems perfectly solid, is not. That which seems constant is blinking. If the constituents of atoms are winking in and out of observable existence very rapidly, could our minds be playing Gestalt games with what we think we see, like a cartoon or old projector reel on methamphetamines?
My biggest question for you, in all of this, is why are you so certain that all the energy in the universe is constant? What is your basis for certainty? 2000 years of observation on a planet that—universally speaking—has some of the most stable states of matter in the entire known universe? 200 years of knowing that atoms had oddly consistent properties in proportion to each other?
On what magnitude of experience or data do you propose to make your claim stand? If you were truly skeptical you would be able to better critique your own posture in this thread. You have no basis for your certainty except ignorant superstition against anything that strikes you as bearing any mark of mysticism. You hold up your religion as the combatant against such "nonsense" and no doubt mourn the fall of those who are won over. But they are not won by argument, they are won by data.
AuldSoul
Terry

First off, you misrepresent everything I say and remove the context in which it was presented. This is either carelessly imprecise on your part; or, it is deliberately dishonest. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I don't know you.
In a previous post I made the following statement:
TERRY: If I read your post correctly you seem to take issue with one point only: WHAT IF MATTER CAN COME INTO BEING? Yes, if matter could increase or decrease IN TOTAL my concept would be wrong.
AULD SOUL: You have no basis for your certainty except ignorant superstition against anything that strikes you as bearing any mark of mysticism
You see the mismatch? I easily state that I WOULD BE WRONG if matter could increase or decrease in total. You characterize my position as CERTAINTY.
How is this accurate on your part?
You then ask the question:
My biggest question for you, in all of this, is why are you so certain that all the energy in the universe is constant?
Where are you finding CERTAINTY which I must defend? In paranoia?
Here is another statement I made in a previous post:
All conversations about DIMENSIONS (when it goes beyond the observable) is conjecture and science is comfortable talking about it. All I am pointing out here is that science is never FINAL or SETTLED.
All along I've been pointing out that this matter is not final. You appear to take a completely different view AS THOUGH it were very much settled. Which of us actually sounds CERTAIN?
The most telling of our antithetical points of view is contained in this nugget of an exchange:
Terry
All things are made of a "smallest part". We used to call them atoms. Suffice it to say these building blocks are what "things" are made of.
A traditional physical view, meanwhile up-dated by the results of modern quantum theory, e.g. teleportation. Note: You cannot operate with simplified "building blocks" having those paradoxical quantum mechanics-features, known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect.
You seem to insist that there IS NO SMALLEST PART and all the while continue to enumerate the small parts by name! (hadrons, leptons, quarks, etc.) This would indicate to me that you have stepped into the quicksand I warned about earlier. The Achilles and Tortoise paradoxes of ancient Greece had the old greeks baffled too because they had not resorted to higher math to express the infinite series required to demonstrate their misperceptions. You err in a similar way.
Incidentally, I am cynical and not skeptical.
Conservation of Energy is pretty important in Physics and that is what convinces me that the ledger always balances in favor of a finite amount of matter/energy.
All the popping in and out you refer to is something you fall prey to because it is expressed in words that have very limited math meanings and you take them as existential identities of semantical interest.
What you are doing and are probably not aware that you are doing is operating inside of two sets at the same time when the rules of each set require otherwise.
You categorically state that YOU CANNOT OPERATE with simplified building blocks having paradoxical quantum-mechanics features. That is not too dissimilar to saying it is impossible for a Bumble bee to fly because of its physiognomy.
Let me explain to you the main reason for the "weird" effects at the quantum level.
In order to see an object in a room you have to bounce photons off the object and have the bounced light arrive in your eye.
At the subatomic level you must resort to accelerated bombardments of another nature that knocks the bejeezus out of the target. It is the impact which creates the weird effect (not unlike throwing a bowling ball at a mirror.) IT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH WHAT OCCURS IN NATURE.
These particles which are then "discovered" as a result of the collisions would never have been there had it not been for the artificially created impact.
I once sat next to a friend of mine who suddenly grabbed my ribs with his clenched fingers (he later said it was an impulse to tickle me) and I reacted by smashing him right in the mouth! My impulse would never have happened in everyday life. It was so out of character for me that he was quite puzzled (and injured) by the turn of events. Why do I mention this? Because the artificiality of the incident reveals nothing meaningful either about me or the guy who got punched. Physics goes around tickling everything. What physicists think they learn by the reaction they get is self-deluding at the sub-atomic level.
T.
Terry

Quantum physics have PROVEN that the smaller parts comprising the atom are NOT matter

Well my grandma proved that the smallest ingredients in lemon pie were not lemon pie. So what?
T.
AuldSoul

So, are you willing to discuss the different properties of the ingredients of a lemon pie instead of focusing on the lemon pie itself? If not, then you are unwilling to discuss quantum physics.
Busting a clock can tell you a lot about what kinds of material a clock is made of. Busting atoms has led to scientists being able to "build" atoms in laboratories that had never been observed in nature, this filling in more of the few remaining gaps of the Periodic Table of Elements. In other words, they learned quite a lot about "making" that particular kind of "clock" from "smashing it with a hammer." Your analogy has already been proven false.
Feel free to try again, though. Your analogies are entertaining since I know the data says otherwise.
The bottom line is, matter IS energy. But matter is only ONE EXPRESSION of energy. There are others. We know quite a lot of what energy does. However, we have barely scratched the surface of understanding what energy IS. Since we know matter is an expression of energy, we have to understand what energy is before we can claim to understand what matter is.
Here is an analogy for you:
A Neanderthal uses fire to cook his food. He knows what it does. He knows one of its properties, it is hot. He may be able to bring it about when he needs it through friction.
He may even name it. But he does not know what fire is, he has simply labeled the orange hot stuff he cooks with. Technology is the ability to use it, this fire. But Science is also the question, "What is it? What else can I do with it? Why does it do that?" The pursuit of science doesn't start and stop at practical use.
Now we know much more about fire. It is actually just a demonstration of matter in a changing state.
When it comes to understanding energy, we are still at the Neanderthal stage of the game. It is too early by far to be making claims about how much energy there is or where it comes from. These are questions that should still be asked because ... no one has answered them yet. We should look for answers because that is what the scientifically minded among us do.
By the by, as a child I learned quite a lot about radios, electronics, computers, and many other technological advances by taking them apart. I was looking at and trying to understand the components that made the finished product, trying to figure out why each component was there, what its function was. I think many have had personal experience that contradicts your assumptions about the clock and hammer. If the boy never smashed a clock how would he know what was inside a clock?
AuldSoul

Uses of The 4th Dimension (Einstein was wrong!)

Share this