Take everything you know about the universe and throw it out..

[Kreij]

not even science has an answer for "what if bulldozer were a fast processor. would intel go back into their spaceship and fly home?"

I suppose there may exist an alternate reality where AMD processors stomp all over Intel processors, but since there is no scientific method, that I know of, to test the theory we would just have to classify it under "wishful thinking" or "irrational logic".

 

[W1zzard]

Reality isn't real; it's what each individual perceives it to be. I am here AND there, constant, eternal, everlasting

you claim that you can be in multiple places at the same time? (in a macroscopic world)

 

[twilyth]

you claim that you can be in multiple places at the same time? (in a macroscopic world)

I'm both on my couch and in your internetz eatin ur bandz wit

 

[W1zzard]

I'm both on my couch and in your internetz eatin ur bandz wit

are you skynet? or siri?

 

[m1dg3t]

you claim that you can be in multiple places at the same time? (in a macroscopic world)

It's no claim, it's a fact. Perception is a wonderous thing! The world is much more interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception

are you skynet? or siri?

He is both! and we are the same

 

[Drone]

Reality isn't real

Nobody knows. Maybe it's a simulation software. Some physicists believe so. Because our world is pixilated fundamental particles are "pixels" and everything can be described by wave function. Our universe depends on probabilities with all those nested "IFs", "ORs","NOTs", "ANDs" "XORs". It appears to me that it is some kind of complex program based on unknown and weird algorithm.

it's what each individual perceives it to be.

Then we are like hardcore characters from Diablo. Everyone has own skills, level, exp, class etc. And we all have to go through all the ACTs. Yes it's all about perception. Everyone builds own character to play his/her game.

I am here AND there, constant, eternal, everlasting.

This is kinda true. Because there's a theory which says that information never gets destroyed (even black holes can't destroy it completely). It means that past doesn't get erased and it's connected to present and future. And all this structure always existed, exists and will exist as one whole thing. It means all the mistakes we made are always there. Past events are like indestructible polaroid shots.

 

[Inceptor]

Nobody knows. Maybe it's a simulation software. Some physicists believe so. Because our world is pixilated fundamental particles are "pixels" and everything can be described by wave function. Our universe depends on probabilities with all those nested "IFs", "ORs","NOTs", "ANDs" "XORs". It appears to me that it is some kind of complex program based on unknown and weird algorithm.

Then we are like hardcore characters from Diablo. Everyone has own skills, level, exp, class etc. And we all have to go through all the ACTs. Yes it's all about perception. Everyone builds own character to play his/her game.

This is kinda true. Because there's a theory which says that information never gets destroyed (even black holes can't destroy it completely). It means that past doesn't get erased and it's connected to present and future. And all this structure always existed, exists and will exist as one whole thing. It means all the mistakes we made are always there. Past events are like indestructible polaroid shots.

The Holographic Theory of Gerard T'Hooft?
It's an interesting possibility.

Here's a 90 minute video of a panel discussion on the topic, with physicists Gerard t'Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Herman Verlinde, and Raphael Bousso. Great discussion, although Susskind is a bit plodding at times.
http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/a_thin_sheet_of_reality_the_universe_as_a_hologram

 

[twilyth]

I'm at best a dilettante when it comes to these things so I only know what I read that's been dumbed down for lay people. But the impression I get is that there is growing dissension among theoretical physicists over string theory. To put it in a nutshell, it seems to explain everything by explaining nothing. IOW, various flavors of string theory seem to tie everything together more or less but provide few if any testable hypotheses. And really, when you come right down to it, any scientific theory that you can't actually test isn't much better than a religious belief.

 

[Kreij]

I had to deal with string theory this morning. My wife came back from catfish fishing the other day and made a huge rats nest of her line and got it so completely embedded in her casting reel that i had to dismantle it to get it out.

Kreij's rule #1 of string theory : Get out the pocket knife, you're gonna need it.

 

[Inceptor]

I'm at best a dilettante when it comes to these things so I only know what I read that's been dumbed down for lay people. But the impression I get is that there is growing dissension among theoretical physicists over string theory. To put it in a nutshell, it seems to explain everything by explaining nothing. IOW, various flavors of string theory seem to tie everything together more or less but provide few if any testable hypotheses. And really, when you come right down to it, any scientific theory that you can't actually test isn't much better than a religious belief.

The ultimate epistemological problem.
'a priori' vs 'a posteriori'
'analytic' vs 'synthetic'
etc etc
As I understand it, String theory and related ideas, provide a mathematical solution and reconciliation between Quantum mechanics and General Relativity.
There's the problem; it seems to be mathematically consistent, but is physically untestable, at this point.

So, at this point, what can be said? Either mathematics has a deep inconsistency somewhere that we are not aware of at this time, rendering the solutions of String theory invalid, or the mathematics of String theory are consistent and so String theory is 'analytically' true, even if it is 'empirically' unverified.

 

[W1zzard]

string theory is mostly based on elegant math that looks nice to theorists. it makes no predictions, so it's not testable, which means it is closer to religion and philosophy than to science. this doesnt mean that putting more research into it may lead to new theories that may provide something useful.

also string theory keeps inventing new features to stay one step ahead of its opponents

 

[Kreij]

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"

But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam, where I created him from the dirt of the Earth."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

Just thought I'd throw that in to the discussion to add a little flavor.

 

[Inceptor]

which means it is closer to religion and philosophy than to science.

That's one way of looking at it, but I'd phrase it this way:
"which means it is closer to pure mathematics and philosophy than to empirical science"

To a mathematician, mathematics is the pure science; number theory, for example.
To a physical scientist, biologist, or engineer, pure science involves empirical verification.

Mathematics precedes physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering, and is used by those disciplines.
But it's not empirical, it's a purely mental discipline which manipulates purely abstract concepts and objects.

In some ways, the old perception still exists, that mathematics is not science, that it is a branch of the Arts. Or at best somewhere in-between bundled with the Philosophy of Mathematics, Formal Logic, and Mathematical logic.

It all makes me wonder if it ever will be possible to empirically confirm anything beyond whatever is discovered with the LHC and its larger, more powerful, successor.

 

[twilyth]

That's one way of looking at it, but I'd phrase it this way:
"which means it is closer to pure mathematics and philosophy than to empirical science"

To a mathematician, mathematics is the pure science; number theory, for example.
To a physical scientist, biologist, or engineer, pure science involves empirical verification.

Mathematics precedes physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering, and is used by those disciplines.
But it's not empirical, it's a purely mental discipline which manipulates purely abstract concepts and objects.

In some ways, the old perception still exists, that mathematics is not science, that it is a branch of the Arts. Or at best somewhere in-between bundled with the Philosophy of Mathematics, Formal Logic, and Mathematical logic.

It all makes me wonder if it ever will be possible to empirically confirm anything beyond whatever is discovered with the LHC and its larger, more powerful, successor.

The problem with axiomatic systems though is that they can never be complete unless they have inconsistent axioms - isn't that one of the implications of Goedel's Completeness Theorems?

 

[D007]

dont mix science and religion.
if you have an experiment to test your theory, then run that experiment to confirm. and let other people come up with experiments on their own to disprove your theory. if it's not testable it's not science

This is what I knew, someone would think, I was trying to do, but I'm not. I don't think anyone is qualified enough to say "no we don't have a soul".
I am not religious..
But no one can say we don't. therefor I leave the possibility on the table.

We believe in alternate dimensions but we don't think our soul could reside, in an alternate dimension. Maybe that is the connection. I stress maybe. But To say "we don't have a soul because there is no proof and we can't test it"?
Maybe we just don't have a method, to test it.

There are things we cannot even begin to comprehend and we have no methods of testing them. That doesn't mean we don't believe in them.. You can't test a wormhole or traveling through time. But we believe the possibility "may" exist.

Can't test string theory really, though there are about a million, different theories about it..
But I can't say, "Since I can't verify string theory is real, I have to say it can't be real." That is a bit dangerous.
Just throwing it out there..lol.. No religion at all. I really want to keep this topic off religion tbh.
It's just something I've always wondered about.

this doesnt mean that putting more research into it may lead to new theories that may provide something useful.

That's exactly what I'm hoping for. A little effort, to make a definitive decision, in regards to a "soul".
I quotate that, because like I said previously, I am not saying a soul would be what people expect it to be. It could just be, almost nothing or nothing at all.
Both of which I'm fine with. Such is life.. I think.. Or is it?... heh..

 

[Inceptor]

The problem with axiomatic systems though is that they can never be complete unless they have inconsistent axioms - isn't that one of the implications of Goedel's Completeness Theorems?

Godel's Incompleteness theorems, yes.
I don't think any mathematicians have tackled the problem of showing how this incompleteness manifests itself.

How do you prove, with any kind of consistent certainty, with mathematical methods, within the structure of mathematical rules, that the structure of mathematical rules is inconsistent?
You have to step outside of the system, but how do you do that and remain rational, objective and scientific?
Godel could do it because he was 'up-one-level' of abstraction from the system of mathematical logic itself, but still operating on a rational, formal, logical level.
So, logically and analytically, it's understood.
Practically? That's another question entirely.

Mathematical logic is interesting, I'm very very rusty, I haven't thought about it in years. But there is a distinction between a system that is, 'finitely consistent' and one that is 'infinitely consistent'. A 'finitely consistent' system is commonplace. The stronger, more extreme form of the Incompleteness theorem basically says that an 'infinitely consistent' mathematical system is not possible. 'Infinitely consistent' meaning a mathematical system that is consistent and complete across an infinitely large range; in other words, within an infinitely large axiomatic system something will be undecidable (i.e. unprovable).

Maybe it's all academic and such undecidability won't come to light this early in the Universe's history. If the cosmologists are right we've got trillions of quadrillions of years ahead of us. So, maybe it's OK if it works, in the 'short term', even though it's ultimately undecidable

 

[twilyth]

Could you be thinking of the difference between consistency and completeness?

Completeness says that you can derive all true conclusions permitted by your axioms. I think this is what Goedel disproved.

Consistency IIRC says that all correctly derived conclusions will be true.

 

[D007]

Could you be thinking of the difference between consistency and completeness?

Completeness says that you can derive all true conclusions permitted by your axioms. I think this is what Goedel disproved.

Consistency IIRC says that all correctly derived conclusions will be true.

I like where the conversation is going. I can grasp what you are talking about but I was unaware of this, until just now. This is why I enjoy, engaging in conversations, with intelligent people.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

Ha, very interesting, the implications, that simple statement makes.. Gets pretty deep, if you really think about it.

string theory is mostly based on elegant math that looks nice to theorists. it makes no predictions, so it's not testable, which means it is closer to religion and philosophy than to science. this doesnt mean that putting more research into it may lead to new theories that may provide something useful.

also string theory keeps inventing new features to stay one step ahead of its opponents

That's what bugs me about string theory. Anything that can just keep spewing out more math, to compensate for shortcomings, is IMHO the wrong direction and likely a waste of time, that could be going toward, something actually feasible.

It's like shoving the square block, into a circle.. Yea you can do it, but it won't be pretty and it's obviously, not the way, to go about it.

 

[Inceptor]

Could you be thinking of the difference between consistency and completeness?

Completeness says that you can derive all true conclusions permitted by your axioms. I think this is what Goedel disproved.

Consistency IIRC says that all correctly derived conclusions will be true.

I'm probably using the terminology incorrectly.
This is in territory that's deep water for me. But, from what I understand, being able to derive all true conclusions from your axioms is consistency; the system is axiomatically consistent. That is what Godel disproved, that it is actually inconsistent, and in order to do it, he went outside the axiomatic system of formal mathematics. Up one level of abstraction.
But what I was referring to about 'finitely consistent' and 'infinitely consistent' systems was a distinction between an axiomatic system that is large, but not infinite, and one that actually is, for all intents, infinite. If the system is not infinite, but extremely large in scope, then I think it can be proved to have at least a limited consistency that would seem 'good enough' to us. If it is 'infinite', it cannot be consistent or complete, according to Godel's logic.

The abstract idea behind the incompleteness theorem is so compelling. It would be interesting if that abstract logical structure had analogues in other areas of study, and knowledge. But it's too speculative for any kind of serious, systematic analysis to have been done.

 

[Drone]

As I understand it, String theory and related ideas, provide a mathematical solution and reconciliation between Quantum mechanics and General Relativity.
There's the problem; it seems to be mathematically consistent, but is physically untestable, at this point.

I thought some scientist proved that universe can be described by bare naked maths. After all theoretical physics is more about maths than physics. The bad thing is strings require ultra high energies, something we cannot provide. We don't have accelerator which could break down matter into strings. We can't even get free quarks (confinement). Only space itself can carry out such experiments with ultra high energies. I guess we only have to build more sensitive telescopes and other equipment so we could measure it. In a nutshell we just stay and stare to catch the moment.

 

[m1dg3t]

Just wanted to interject with some unintelligent rambling's

I believe every person has a "soul" it is our core energy, everything has energy, when our body "dies" it (our soul/energy) transforms/transcends and we continue to "be" in another place/time, whether or not we are conscious of this is unknown and is as speculative as this idea in itself. Just because we can not quantify something, at this time, does not mean it doesn't exist and i'm not referring to religion as i think the likelihood of a God scenario as depicted in modern religion's is a stretch, at best.I think it is more likely the "Bible" is/are accounts of visitations from advanced beings in our history. I think i'm more of a philosopher than a physicist; however physics does interest me greatly.

String theory and Null physics (which no one has mentioned and not very "important" at this time) are in the "early" stages of study so it's is rather hard to discredit their validity at this point in time IMHO. I believe their true value will come to fruition as the field/s mature; whether it be directly related to them or applied to other known areas physics.

"Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence"

Great converstaion people!

 

[D007]

Reading back on some of this stuff, makes my mind twirl..lol. If there area any zombies nearby, that are on the internets. You can expect them, to be looking for the people, with big brains.. Barricade your houses people!

Ever hear what Nostradamus said about telepathy? He said anyone can use telepathy. You just take two people and have them know, where the other one is at and be familiar with that location, in detail. You concentrate on that location and that person and after doing this, for some time, you will form a telepathic link..

I know, sounds completely ludicrous. But I always wondered about it. I still think humanity is capable of more..

 

[lyndonguitar]

Ever hear what Nostradamus said about telepathy? He said anyone can use telepathy. You just take two people and have them know, where the other one is at and be familiar with that location, in detail. You concentrate on that location and that person and after doing this, for some time, you will form a telepathic link..

I know, sounds completely ludicrous. But I always wondered about it. I still think humanity is capable of more..

this I agree, In my understanding, Our brain is an Hybrid Electrical/Chemical Machine, it just uses electrical impulses to transfer info all over the body, correct me if I'm wrong, If we can just learn how to send it controllably (only send what we wanna send) to other people DIRECTLY, brain to brain, not in verbal, written, etc, form.

One problem is what type of info would you send, You might end up moving the other person's arm or head instead of just sending a message.

There must be a part of the brain that can or is capable of sending information to other brains. we haven't just unlocked/learnt it. or maybe it needs a kind of devices that can amplify the brains ability to send.

But this is dangerous, You lose your brain, you lose your mind, you lose yourself, you lose your life, you die.

 

[W1zzard]

Our brain is an Hybrid Electrical/Chemical Machine, it just uses electrical impulses to transfer info all over the body, correct me if I'm wrong, If we can just learn how to send it controllably (only send what we wanna send) to other people DIRECTLY, brain to brain, not in verbal, written, etc, form.

how much power does your brain use? how much power is needed to transmit information? doing simple rough calculations helps with such claims

 

[m1dg3t]

The entire central nervous system operates off of electrical pulses/impulses, basically our whole body. Telepathy is possible IMHO but in the society we currently live in i find it highly doubtfull we will evolve this capability as we don't really have a "need" for it. Evolution baby!

Neuro science is still in it's infancy, as are many sciences, so the future look's extremely promising. To me anyways