by use4d 138 Replies latest social current
I am pretty sure, Terry, that the essence of your message is that only the directly observable exists.
But surely we can surmise the existence of some things third-hand. A wobbly star, for instance, suggests another heavy body nearby. Can we also not declare real, or very likely real, those things that affect what we can see directly?
That would take the construction of atoms and multiple dimensions out of mere semantics and in to nearly proveable reality.
energy is equivalent to matter
I highlighted the portion you got right. The rest of your diatribes on this subject, in my opinion, amount to unsubstantiable skeptical claptrap. The data argues against you.
I appreciate your ardent fervor in eliminating the term "subatomic" from the discussion, but the fact remains that in your expressed view of the word "atom" I would have to caution you that we don't know the first thing about matter at the level where it cannot be split further. Every time we think we've reached that point of finding the constituents, we find we are wrong.
Let's follow your macro analogy to its end. Hammer is used, as you said, clock parts everywhere. Hammer is used again, parts bust up eventually until they are so small that the hammer is not a useful tool to break them apart anymore. The kid develops a way to pulevrize even these small parts (NOT to look for evidence of time, but to find out what the clock is MADE OF). Eventually, even that method is rendered useless. He has to keep coming up with way until now he is at a level below the elemental level. The elemental level, as in, "periodic table of elements": of any one of which the smallest unit is one atom. It is a scientific term with a specific meaning in scientific discussions that differs considerably with the meaning the Greeks applied to the word.
Since we are discussing science, and not Greek lore, perhaps you can reign in your liguistic enthusiasm to stay on point and in context with your semantic interpretations and usages. The "misunderstanding" as you call it was caused by stepping outside of contextual word usage. We are discussing science, not ancient Greek linguistics.
If you are willing to examine the subatomic reality (hell, if you are wiling to admit there is a subatomic reality) I will continue to discuss this with you. Otherwise, I will have to tune you out. I mean no disrespect in doing so. In other threads I very much appreciate your view on things, but here it seems you have allowed skeptics to poison you against the reality being revealed by quantum physics. I imagine you would shudder to think of yourself as a flat-earther. But you are coming across as one, in essence. Your arguments in this thread would have been equally useful some centuries back. There is no substance behind your argument, there is only historical and antiquated belief—even certainty.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
Before you spend too much time on 4th dimensional stuff, spend a little time on "how to form proper paragraphs" stuff. Baby steps before giant quantum leaps.
Farkel
I am pretty sure, Terry, that the essence of your message is that only the directly observable exists
Thats not quite right, jgnat. Your message "that only the directly observable exists" is called "Mach’s sensualism". But, It is much worse;-) Actually - and this is verifiable by quantum theory, especially by the decoherence theory - the things come just into existence through observation! Without observation, there is no matter; even no TIME. Objectively! Observer can be any sort of biological, molecular or atomic structure having sufficient complexity btw certain minimal-configuration to sense time intervals (better said: to quantize elapse time sequences).
Besides, the view, that things come just into existence through observation, is called "radical constructivism", and bases on the scriptures of Humbert Maturana (Chile) 1970, and Heinz v. Foerster.
Sorry, it was impossible to format the post in the right way. Dont know why;-)
Caution, flypisher, else Farkel will sacrifice you to the formatting gods. Just in case you were wondering, I do not subscribe to "Mach's sensualism". I'm simply trying to speak Terry's language.
Are you saying, flypisher, that it is possible that our actions, even a Word, could make our material world?
Are you saying, flypisher, that it is possible that our actions, even a Word, could make our material world?
Jgnat:
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.
Since we are discussing science, and not Greek lore, perhaps you can reign in your liguistic enthusiasm to stay on point and in context with your semantic interpretations and usages. The "misunderstanding" as you call it was caused by stepping outside of contextual word usage. We are discussing science, not ancient Greek linguistics.If you are willing to examine the subatomic reality (hell, if you are wiling to admit there is a subatomic reality) I will continue to discuss this with you. Otherwise, I will have to tune you out. I mean no disrespect in doing so. In other threads I very much appreciate your view on things, but here it seems you have allowed skeptics to poison you against the reality being revealed by quantum physics. I imagine you would shudder to think of yourself as a flat-earther. But you are coming across as one, in essence. Your arguments in this thread would have been equally useful some centuries back. There is no substance behind your argument, there is only historical and antiquated belief—even certainty.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
Science can only be meaningful in the context of math and a particular frame of purpose. Discussing it casually, which is what is possible on a discussion board, is what we are doing here. This makes you uncomfortable for some reason.
We would have no science without the ancient Greeks. What was best in their philosophy is still with us everywhere. To escape that influence is a silly effort.
You speak of a subatomic "reality". You don't know what you are talking about. But, that doesn't keep you from flexing your idiom as a censor. The very core of science is skepticism. It is the opposite of allowing an authority to tell you what you can and can not discuss or examine. You've lost your way on this, obviously.
Back to the analogy of the kids with the hammer.
Beating the pieces to smithereens ceases to be meaningful. That is the problem scientists face. They have chased the white rabbit down a hole and find themselves in Wonderland. They've lost their way and have infected the very discussions of "reality" with jabberwocky nonsense.
Newton's intellect gave us very useful insights.
Einstein's intellect gave us even more.
But, the air is thin now. The gaggles of eggheads in thinktanks are mired in much ado about twaddle of late.
In short: the theoretical physicists have run out of meaninful pursuits and are stalled on the precipice of slippery slopes. The public at large (I include US) have been dazzled by the bullshit "explanations" being shovelled out by popularizers who are drunk on metaphor and loose rhetoric. We think we see what they are trying to explain; but, we are deceived. Even they don't see what they are trying to explain.
It no longer matters at all how small the pieces of matter or energy might be WHEN SMASHED. The effect is illusory. You don't get anything meaningul from reality by smashing reality any more than you learn about clockmaking or time by hitting the clock with more and more hammers.
So, please, do us both a favor and "tune me out".
T.
The question becomes, how much potential energy is there in our universe? And the other question is, what about the energy that's available wherever our universe's energy end up when it "pops out" of our universe?So, Terry, can you explain how you KNOW there are only 3 spatial dimensions? I hope it isn't through experience, because you once rejected my belief in God on that basis alone.
You aren't going to like my answer.
The problem is with the concept of "potential". It is meaningless in every context except as a kind of probationary model of thought. a "potential" cannot ever exist. It is like the word "tomorrow". It is a category of being that can never come into being. It is like that empty chair at Passover for Elijah!
Your second question is worth taking a look at.
"...can you explain how you KNOW there are only 3 spatial dimensions?"
The key word in your sentence is not the one you made BOLD. It is the word only. This means you are really asking a different question: "how can you prove there are not more spatial dimensions?"
Here is really the pivotal issue. Why would I or anybody else find a practical purpose in more dimensions than those which we use in everyday life? If we could find, say, a way to go from New York to Chicago by side-stepping distance itself---it would be delightful! So, people who enjoy playing with numbers and thinking deep thoughts might set about theorizing a way that could happen: POTENTIALLY. Sometimes scientists hit the jackpot and everybody wins. But, I cannot imagine it useful for me or anybody else to buy-in to every crackpot notion which has a POTENTIAL. I am not persuaded of a supra-reality just because a big name is attached. That is buying in to Authority.
I find discussions about Time and Time Travel are sophomoric because they are nothing more than human fantasy and a waste of good intellectual energies. Anything/everything is possible in the "POTENTIAL". However, I live in the PRACTICAL.
4th Dimension talk is a special kind of talk. It is hypothetical and interesting the way chess is fun. But, beyond the exercise of one's creative thinking and problem-solving skills.....it can turn around on you and (like religion) convince you IT IS BETTER THAN REALITY.
This is what I react to. Anything at all which is illusory which people start adopting as an extra-reality sets off my warning bells.
Ignore me if it disturbs you. But, I won't shut up.
Terry
I am pretty sure, Terry, that the essence of your message is that only the directly observable exists.But surely we can surmise the existence of some things third-hand. A wobbly star, for instance, suggests another heavy body nearby. Can we also not declare real, or very likely real, those things that affect what we can see directly?
That would take the construction of atoms and multiple dimensions out of mere semantics and in to nearly proveable reality
Well, no.
I don't think you've read my words; just skimmed.
Only that which is quantifiable, measurable and definitive is worthy of objective reality in OUR THINKING. All else must be PROVISIONAL in a separate mental folder and not allowed to hug or kiss or even hold hands with our reality folder contents.
I'm all about protecting one's thinking by keeping track of what's what.
THAT is the essence of my participating in this discussion.
T.
