a game for this think tank

[mhuff]

lets play a game where there is an objective to make a object spin forever(the object is timeless). lets say that if you can think of a way to solve a problem then it could be implemented.



so now the question is do you want to be the debunker or the dreamer?

[JetPlaneFlyer]

Take the object out into deep space; start it spinning.. There you go?

Steve

[Montag DP]

Attach it to a timeless record player?

[mhuff]

it would have to be clean space and not have all the trash we have floating around our ball of dirt. what about orbit decay?

[Brandano]

it would have to be an ideal space with a complete vacuum, which doesn't exist. The molecules of the object should remain stable over the aeons, which won't happen... ultimately entropy wins.

[JetPlaneFlyer]

it would have to be clean space and not have all the trash we have floating around our ball of dirt. what about orbit decay?

In deep space there would be nothing to orbit around so 'orbit decay' is irrelevant.. However Brandano is correct; nothing is 'timeless', ultimately everything tends to disorder, entropy wins.

Steve

[mhuff]

doh! I did not see the "deep" part of your first post jetplaneflyer.

I said that it was timeless just to take the object breaking down out of the equation.


ok if entropy wins over forever then lets just say a long time say a billion years or so. if deep space can solve the objective then this one is done.

anyone care to post a "thinker"? hopefully it will be better than mine :D

[Brandano]

Just look at Earth. It's an object spinning in space, it has done so for roughly 4.5 billion years

[HX3D014]

lets play a game where there is an objective to make a object spin forever(the object is timeless). lets say that if you can think of a way to solve a problem then it could be implemented.



so now the question is do you want to be the debunker or the dreamer?
Lets see if this one is a thinker ;)

If I had a piece of string that was 1 light year long and we had it stretched taught . Now at my end of the string. I pluck it and watch the wave move towards the other end. how long will it take for the other end to receive the signal if the string was taught to 500kg of force and the stretch flex of the string would result in only 1mm increase in that length if the taught force was increase to 5000kg.


what if we applied that 5000kg of force. how long would it take till the other end was feeling that 5000kg of force?

[mhuff]

Lets see if this one is a thinker ;)

If I had a piece of string that was 1 light year long and we had it stretched taught . Now at my end of the string. I pluck it and watch the wave move towards the other end. how long will it take for the other end to receive the signal if the string was taught to 500kg of force and the stretch flex of the string would result in only 1mm increase in that length if the taught force was increase to 5000kg.

what if we applied that 5000kg of force. how long would it take till the other end was feeling that 5000kg of force?


red=? are you saying that the string will only stretch 1mm if you change the pulling force on the string from 500kg to 5000kg over the length of a light year? if that is the case then the string has no "give" and the the other end would feel it much quicker.

is this string in space or do you have it somehow on earth?

does anyone know if or how much faster a wave or vibration travels in a vacuum (space)?

can you tell us the wavelength or the resonance of the string so we can try to do the math?

[HX3D014]

red=? are you saying that the string will only stretch 1mm if you change the pulling force on the string from 500kg to 5000kg over the length of a light year? if that is the case then the string has no "give" and the the other end would feel it much quicker.

is this string in space or do you have it somehow on earth?

does anyone know if or how much faster a wave or vibration travels in a vacuum (space)?

can you tell us the wavelength or the resonance of the string so we can try to do the math?
It is in Space.
I don't know how much faster in a vacuum.
it is (Just say) about 1kg per Km of string.

Correct, the string will only stretch 1mm if you change the force on the string from 500kg to 5000kg.

My question really is . can that pulling force be felt before 1year after the tension from 500kg to 5000kg was applied?

[N74463]

I don't think it makes any difference how tightly the string is stretched. Or whether or not it's in a vacuum. My guess is that the sound from plucking the string or the motion from stretching it tighter both travel at the same speed. That speed is the speed of sound in whatever the string is made of. And it's going to take a lot longer than a year for that motion to travel 6 trillion miles or so.
But then, I'm not a physicist...
Joe

[Montag DP]

I don't think it makes any difference how tightly the string is stretched. Or whether or not it's in a vacuum. My guess is that the sound from plucking the string or the motion from stretching it tighter both travel at the same speed. That speed is the speed of sound in whatever the string is made of. And it's going to take a lot longer than a year for that motion to travel 6 trillion miles or so.
But then, I'm not a physicist...
JoeI'm pretty sure the wave speed in a string is a function of the tension.

[N74463]

Oops. Thanks, Montag. Maybe that will teach me to do some checking before opening my mouth. Indeed, speed of a transverse wave (plucked string) is a function of the tension and the linear density (mass per length)*. v = sqrt (F/mu), where v is the velocity, F is the tension, and mu is the linear density. So if you increase the tension ten fold, the speed of the wave should also increase by a factor of 3.16 or so.

Meanwhile, any motion from stretching (longitudinal wave) travels at the speed of sound. (I'm pretty sure. I have, on occasion, been wrong before...)

Joe

P.S. And as all you stringed instrument players know, the frequency of the wave is also related to tension and density.

[HX3D014]

Oops. Thanks, Montag. Maybe that will teach me to do some checking before opening my mouth. Indeed, speed of a transverse wave (plucked string) is a function of the tension and the linear density (mass per length)*. v = sqrt (F/mu), where v is the velocity, F is the tension, and mu is the linear density. So if you increase the tension ten fold, the speed of the wave should also increase by a factor of 3.16 or so.

Meanwhile, any motion from stretching (longitudinal wave) travels at the speed of sound. (I'm pretty sure. I have, on occasion, been wrong before...)

Joe

P.S. And as all you stringed instrument players know, the frequency of the wave is also related to tension and density.
:D

I am only suspicious of the Speed of sound part. (i have also been wrong on occasion. many an occasion ;))

lets put it another way.

lets say we had 500kg tension. and that was producing only .1mm stretch.

now we cut the string at one end.

How long till the other end knows the string has been cut? ie how long till the other end reads 0kg tension?

Bryce.

[Texas Buzzard]

I respect Jet Plane Flier for his past correct evaluations of aerodynamics. He is usually correct.

Recently he posted, "
In deep space there would be nothing to orbit around so 'orbit decay' is irrelevant.. However Brandano is correct; nothing is 'timeless', ultimately everything tends to disorder, entropy wins." Brando posted this.

He agreed with Brando for this statement, "Nothing is timeless". Then Brando said , "Ultimately EVERYTHING tends to disorder. Entropy wins"
.................................................. ...............................................

IS nothing timeless? OR is something timeless?
If you say nothing is timeless then you are saying that everything experiences the passage of time.
When Einstein was asked, "Sir, what is time?" Einstein said, "Time is that which separates events".
So if only ONE event occurred then there is no measurable time and in this case there was no time.
Dr. Williamson, the Princeton prof who invented the term, "Black Holes"
agrees with A. Einstein. I also agree with both of them.
All three of us. Einstein, Williamson and Gaston say that what man calls time IS AN INVENTION OF MAN HIMSELF. If you disagree with us then you are saying that a piece of granite can measure time. Your argument that there may be some radioactive decay in that granite is true BUT that doesn't measure time. Neither does C-14 decay measure time. Time is a function of man's thinking.

To say NOTHING is TIMELESS then that is to say the possibility of God is zero.
This may be good argument for an atheist but I don't think Brando meant to say that !! If Nothing is timless then there can be no realm of the spirit world. That means there can be no spirits. Eureka! If God was ( at one time) , in the beginning - and He has no end then that is ONE EVENT and as I said before; with one event time cannot be mesured. So How do we resolve this? We have to say that such a being can enter "man's time" with no respect what the calander says. Then a spirit could step into the world of Columbus or into the world of Neanderthals - and then exit that period of "time". Think.

People throw out the things they read in a Physics book easily. For instance,
Brando said Everything tends to disorder. Everything? That is probably true in the observable world and universe. But if there are noncorpreal spirits then that is not true.

See what happens when you guys start talking about time, entropy and enthalpy. Have you thought how C (carbon) unites with O (oxygen) and H (Hydrogen) in photosynthetic plants to make glucose (a high energy sugar).
How is it that the elments of low energy combine to climb the "energy hill" to make something containing more energy? You say it is sunlight? Tell me how that happens. That is an example of enthaly - not ENTROPY! This occurs independant of Man.

Have you noticed that most model fliers keep flying the same kind of planes over and over? Ask most of them a question and .....THEY HAVE AN ANSWER.
What does that mean? I expect that I will be called some names for this post. That is alright if I got some poor soul to think and not throw out trite tidbits.

[vintage1]

I respect Jet Plane Flier for his past correct evaluations of aerodynamics. He is usually correct.

Recently he posted, "
In deep space there would be nothing to orbit around so 'orbit decay' is irrelevant.. However Brandano is correct; nothing is 'timeless', ultimately everything tends to disorder, entropy wins." Brando posted this.

He agreed with Brando for this statement, "Nothing is timeless". Then Brando said , "Ultimately EVERYTHING tends to disorder. Entropy wins"
.................................................. ...............................................

IS nothing timeless? OR is something timeless?
If you say nothing is timeless then you are saying that everything experiences the passage of time.
When Einstein was asked, "Sir, what is time?" Einstein said, "Time is that which separates events".
So if only ONE event occurred then there is no measurable time and in this case there was no time.
Dr. Williamson, the Princeton prof who invented the term, "Black Holes"
agrees with A. Einstein. I also agree with both of them.
All three of us. Einstein, Williamson and Gaston say that what man calls time IS AN INVENTION OF MAN HIMSELF. If you disagree with us then you are saying that a piece of granite can measure time. Your argument that there may be some radioactive decay in that granite is true BUT that doesn't measure time. Neither does C-14 decay measure time. Time is a function of man's thinking.


I am in broad agreement with that statement..I think you will find Kant also arrives at this position.


To say NOTHING is TIMELESS then that is to say the possibility of God is zero.
This may be good argument for an atheist but I don't think Brando meant to say that !! If Nothing is timless then there can be no realm of the spirit world. That means there can be no spirits. Eureka! If God was ( at one time) , in the beginning - and He has no end then that is ONE EVENT and as I said before; with one event time cannot be mesured. So How do we resolve this? We have to say that such a being can enter "man's time" with no respect what the calander says. Then a spirit could step into the world of Columbus or into the world of Neanderthals - and then exit that period of "time". Think.

I am not going down the religious road..

People throw out the things they read in a Physics book easily. For instance,
Brando said Everything tends to disorder. Everything? That is probably true in the observable world and universe. But if there are noncorpreal spirits then that is not true.


My only observation there is to ask whether natural laws are timeless.
There is a body of opinion that they came into being when (sic!) the universe was formed. Or rather that they are a local property of the Universe, and if it didn't exist, neither would they.


See what happens when you guys start talking about time, entropy and enthalpy. Have you thought how C (carbon) unites with O (oxygen) and H (Hydrogen) in photosynthetic plants to make glucose (a high energy sugar).
How is it that the elments of low energy combine to climb the "energy hill" to make something containing more energy? You say it is sunlight? Tell me how that happens. That is an example of enthaly - not ENTROPY! This occurs independant of Man.

Have you noticed that most model fliers keep flying the same kind of planes over and over? Ask most of them a question and .....THEY HAVE AN ANSWER.
What does that mean? I expect that I will be called some names for this post. That is alright if I got some poor soul to think and not throw out trite tidbits.

Not at all. I think you have put the finger on some very interesting areas. I don't agree one bit with your conclusions, but the areas themselves are very interesting.

You quickly get, in these matters, down to some fundamental issues..

Is the Universe at all?
Is it what we see, touch and feel?
Is it what we think it is?
Is it really the scientific (or religious) models we construct of it?

Its only by asking silly questions like 'can something spin forever?' and 'how long is a piece of string?' that you are brought face to face with these fundamental metaphysical issues with respect to things.

What Descartes meant when he said 'Cogito, ergo sum' is that his thinking proved his existence.

I have another interpretation of that phrase. My thinking is the cause of my existence.

This is more along the Kantian line of thinking: that what is, is what is, but what we do to arrange sensation into phenomena, and create a workable order out of sensation, by grouping sensation into phenomena, adding in causality and space and time, and implicitly Natural Law, is a human activity.

The question 'why did the universe come into existence?' which seems at first sight a perfectly reasonable question, is shown by this philosophy to be a completely meaningless question. Since the question 'why?', implies intention. And intention is a human invention. The only answer is either 'why not?' or at another level 'because we create it ourselves'

Going back to spinning. forever, there are three issues.

1/. Is time forever?
2/. How would we know if something was spinning without interaction with it, and would that interaction cause it to slow down?
3/. Even if we take the whole universe, its all connected (allegedly) by gravity, so the Universe itself may be spinning, but the statement has no meaning or practical use, since we have no frame of reference outside the universe to measure it by, and whether it was, or not, would make no difference to any measurement we might make. (According to current theoretical models).

I wish more philosophy were taught at schools: Proper philosophy, rather than noddy Ethics. Because if it were people would be less inclined to confuse a theoretical model of the Universe, whether religious or scientific, with the reality of the world as it may well be.

[mhuff]

:D

I am only suspicious of the Speed of sound part. (i have also been wrong on occasion. many an occasion ;))

lets put it another way.

lets say we had 500kg tension. and that was producing only .1mm stretch.

now we cut the string at one end.

How long till the other end knows the string has been cut? ie how long till the other end reads 0kg tension?Bryce.



think of a long long train. if all the slack is out of the couplers between the cars (like your tight string) then when that train starts to move all the cars start at the same time. that is why I asked about the "give" of the string.

Now take that moving train with no slack(tight string) and hit the brakes(cut string) and you can hear coupler after coupler come in for many moments.

I would guess that the other end would feel the 0kg tension many years after the cut. because of the speed of that wave would be far less than the speed of light.

Would a wave in space travel faster than earth? would a tuning fork have the same resonance in space?

[mhuff]

texas buzzard you wrote: That is alright if I got some poor soul to think and not throw out trite tidbits.


I started this thread just to get people thinking about different things and posting quick little brain teasers. My first post was an easy one just to get the ball rolling. I did not want to get bogged down in a thread like the 300 page "plane on a treadmill".


At first I was going to ask how to get an object to spin forever on earth

[vintage1]

Would a wave in space travel faster than earth? would a tuning fork have the same resonance in space?

The wave isn't in space. Its in the material.

[vintage1]

At first I was going to ask how to get an object to spin forever on earth

Easy. Give it to a politician.

[mhuff]

lol vintage that is true

[BMatthews]

Brandano, I think if you check with the 'net you'll find references to the fact that our days are longer now than they were way back when. Even our earth is slowly slowing down in it's spin rate.


As long as we're tossing out all these oddball questions I'll ask one. What is the temperature of a perfect vacuum? And no Vintage, I'm not talking about your hoover in the closet.... :D

[vintage1]

What do you define a perfect vacuum, and temperature, to be?

I've never seen a perfect vacuum containing a thermometer, to start with..

Zen masters aren't that stupid when they want to know what the sound of one hand clapping is...

[Brandano]

Bruce, I never said that earth will spin forever. I am saying it has been spinning for a very long time, and will probably keep on spinning for a long time, which was what the original "sensible if wishful" question was amended to, probably for the sake of keeping a discussion alive. The actual scientific reply to the hidden question is: you can't build a perpetual motion device of the third order, thermodynamic principles are against you in that respect. We may know better in the future, but if we rely on the current knowledge it is impossible.

[Roj]

Regarding the original question:
Lets see if this one is a thinker

If I had a piece of string that was 1 light year long and we had it stretched taught . Now at my end of the string. I pluck it and watch the wave move towards the other end. how long will it take for the other end to receive the signal if the string was taught to 500kg of force and the stretch flex of the string would result in only 1mm increase in that length if the taught force was increase to 5000kg.


In theory, wave propogation along a hypothetical string adequately tight enough can be faster than the speed of light.

I'm sure there's a simple equation for wavelength and speed as a function of string tension and length.

Correct me if i'm wrong:
v = square root (tension x length / mass)

[Brandano]

Roj, that theory breaks down fairly quickly if you start to work out the mechanical properties of the material as a consequence of the atomic forces between its component atoms, so the relativity theorem still stands. It would be nice if we could have faster than light communications with a piece of string and a couple of papercups.

[Roj]

Roj, that theory breaks down fairly quickly if you start to work out the mechanical properties of the material as a consequence of the atomic forces between its component atoms, so the relativity theorem still stands. It would be nice if we could have faster than light communications with a piece of string and a couple of papercups.

Of course - hence the word hypothetical.

Are you suggesting that a string one light year long, that will stretch only 1mm when taught to 5000kg is mechanically realistic in the first place?

[HX3D014]

Regarding the original question:



In theory, wave propogation along a hypothetical string adequately tight enough can be faster than the speed of light.

I'm sure there's a simple equation for wavelength and speed as a function of string tension and length.

Correct me if i'm wrong:
v = square root (tension x length / mass)

OK. here is the next kicker.

1/ if we pulled that string from one end and the other end was not attached to anything but 1kg weight. would the person pulling it know that they were pulling that extra 1kg weight ? <of cause they would need to be able to pull weight of the string. But, lets say they are judging if the extra 1kg was needed>

or
better yet

How about this.
lets say we have a sting now that is 5 light seconds long and we (Inline) pulled the string a distance of 4 meters for one second.
At the other end was a 1kg weight. So One second later the sting did move because we pulled hard enough. but the thing is the 1kg weight was changed to a 100kg weight one second after we finished the pull. so the thing now is, really, we didn’t pull hard enough. but the string at our end did not yet know what was on the other end so it moved already. and since it moved, it had to move the 100kg weight that was since attached. the event already happened ?

Is that a paradox or is there some fundamental thing I am missing?

PS. the train analogy is kind similar. but fundamentally different.

[HX3D014]

Brandano, I think if you check with the 'net you'll find references to the fact that our days are longer now than they were way back when. Even our earth is slowly slowing down in it's spin rate.


As long as we're tossing out all these oddball questions I'll ask one. What is the temperature of a perfect vacuum? And no Vintage, I'm not talking about your hoover in the closet.... :D
There is no temperature! there is nothing in a vacuum to have a temperature. there may be EMR of some sort going in and through but "Nothing will come from nothing"
how much dirt is there in a 10cmx10cmx10cm hole in the ground?

[mhuff]

There is no temperature! there is nothing in a vacuum to have a temperature. there may be EMR of some sort going in and through but "Nothing will come from nothing"
how much dirt is there in a 10cmx10cmx10cm hole in the ground?


lol yeah


here is one for the math people. right or wrong I have heard that the distance light travels in one second could circle the earth seven times. how many times would the one light year long string circle the globe?

[BMatthews]

Well you guys are quicker than my average co-worker. :D

Most just look at me with a blank stare. The very occasional one will say "absolute zero". A couple of them over the years have said "NONSENSE! If I put a thermometer there it'll read absolute zero". To which I agreed that the THERMOMETER would read absolute zero but only because it was measuring its own temperature. He just didin't see it that way and a rather hearty 2 day debate ensued before he finally came around to the right way of thinking.

Apparently us modellers are made from more pragmatic stuff.... :D

Getting back to our light year long miracle fiber.....

Assuming this is some crazy black science monomolecular string or something equally exotic. There's still no way that a mechanical impulse at one end would travel at supra light speeds. Because it's a sound or mechanical impulse that means the material has to move and successive segments in turn will respond to that movement. So we have a PHYSICAL movement. That automatically brings into play the whole relativity issue. And since no material can move faster than the speed of light we would see a sub light speed limit of some form on the transfer of the mechanical impulse regardless of how tight or loose the fiber is.

By the way, why is it that on the old moon landing broadcasts that were supposedly live we never saw any evidence of the roughly 2 second return trip for radio waves? I remember thinking that it was odd that there was seldom a pause that would be expected by the round trip time.

[GDbot]

lol yeah


here is one for the math people. right or wrong I have heard that the distance light travels in one second could circle the earth seven times. how many times would the one light year long string circle the globe?

7x60x60x24x365=220,752,000 Doesn't seem like that big a number does it? Although, I wish I had that many dollars, I could retire and build all the planes I want to.

[mhuff]

the video camera that they used on the moon landing was made to only use 14 watts of power. can you imagine using only 14 watts in a time of vacuum tubes?

[mhuff]

7x60x60x24x365=220,752,000 Doesn't seem like that big a number does it? Although, I wish I had that many dollars, I could retire and build all the planes I want to.


no prize for you. A year is about 365 1/4 days(remember leap years). so you have 6 more light hours to wrap with ;)

[mhuff]

here is one. How can you draw a triangle with three straight lines and each line is 90deg to the next one?

[HX3D014]

here is one. How can you draw a triangle with three straight lines and each line is 90deg to the next one?
I might have to ball that one a bit.
I’m sure that some one between the North pole and Ecuador
may know the answer.

Hmmmmm. Give me some time ;)
Bryce.

[ghoti]

You guys would do better to ponder "how many angels can dance on the head of a ballpoint pen"

[Brandano]

IIRC it's 17, unless they are line-dancing, in which case it's 12.

[HX3D014]

You guys would do better to ponder "how many angels can dance on the head of a ballpoint pen"What ?

[ghoti]

OK, a straight pin.

[HX3D014]

OK, a straight pin.What are Angels ? ;)

[mhuff]

What are Angels ? ;)


I think that they are half of the cast to a stupid movie comming out soon.


that book was killing me. I only got about 100 pages in before my bs filter was full.

[vintage1]

7x60x60x24x365=220,752,000 Doesn't seem like that big a number does it? Although, I wish I had that many dollars, I could retire and build all the planes I want to.

No, they would take it all away from you to give it to the banks who seem to have mislaid it somewhere.

[vintage1]

here is one. How can you draw a triangle with three straight lines and each line is 90deg to the next one?

By bending your definition of space to include e.g. spherical trigonometry.

[mhuff]

By bending your definition of space to include e.g. spherical trigonometry.


huh? if all of those long words mean draw it on a sphere then you got it. ;)


but hx3do14 gets the prize because his subtle post(subtle like a punch in the throat)got it.

[vintage1]

huh? if all of those long words mean draw it on a sphere then you got it. ;)


But is a great circle the shortest distance between two points..

Is it even the shortest distance between two pints (hic!)

[Texas Buzzard]

Vintage,

You posted this: "My only observation there is to ask whether natural laws are timeless.
There is a body of opinion that they came into being when (sic!) the universe was formed. Or rather that they are a local property of the Universe, and if it didn't exist, neither would they."

I admire that statement even thought you used Lower Case letters in the words Natural Laws. ( Ha, ha, guess I have been reading too many Supreme Court cases.) You will agree with me that any Natural Laws would be useless if there were no physical entities in this universe won't you?

You observe that it is valid to ask if Natural Laws are timeless. That depends upon your meaning of TIMELESS. What do you mean when you use the word TIMELESS? I will out of respect for you to not include the noncorpreal zones. I use "zones" because I can't think of a better word.

[vintage1]

Well Texas, This is where we leave science and enter metaphysics..what is the sound of one hand clapping? If a tree falls in the wood, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

These are not foolish questions.

They draw attention to the fact that, for the purposes of objective science, we posit a godlike position for our mental activities such that they can exist outside of, independent of and aware of the state of the Universe.

This in fact I believe was the most final gift of religion to science, that religion did in fact have a concept of a soul, something that did exist outside of and independent from the material universe. That concept is encapsulated in the more modern expression of the form 'the detached observer'.

However post Heisenberg, we have entered realms where a detached observer is shown to be a myth: No observation is in fact possible on the material world without altering it.

That parallels a certain development in Philosophy, which started at the same time that science and religion parted company, and which to my mind has not been fully expressed even yet.

Its been a peculiar fascination for me, and a lifetimes study: Expressed simply its encapsulated in the question, first enunciated reasonably clearly in modern times by Kant,

"To what extent are natural laws a function of the Universe at large, and to what extent are they human inventions designed to catalogue perceptions and experience into a coherent ordered whole?"

My own conclusions is that broadly, they tend toward the latter: therefore it makes little sense to talk about natural laws outside of a human context.

This particular approach also solves the /religion/science debate, and puts both neatly in their place, probably equally upsetting the fanatical adherents to both..

To put in bluntly, there is no ultimate justification for space, time, matter, energy, or god at all. They are simply ways we look at things, to help form some coherent picture of the world. None are ultimately provably real, in the sense we want them to be.

It makes sense to at least start the metaphysic from the point of view that something is real, and that it has some kind of coherent order, but what it is is not what we think it is, or what it appears to be.


Once that is appreciated, the temptation to extrapolate human-centric questions beyond our ability to experience them, is forever lost. I.e. there are inherent contradictions in trying to posit questions about life after death, or time beyond Time, or completely empty spaces: The tools and concepts we use are derived from our experiences of Life, and they should be restricted to that arena.

The great trick of most cults is to use an implicit statement about reality in a question about it.

To me, when someone e.g. asks whether its possible to create a universe without an intelligent designer, I merely ask them 'when did you stop beating your wife?'

The questions have a similar structure. I.e. who says the Universe was created anyway? Or designed? and what is intelligent?

[Brandano]

And why is God so fond of beetles?

[vintage1]

And why is God so fond of beetles?
Or even Beatles.

[Texas Buzzard]

And why is God so fond of beetles?


I ask why does God Like stupid ugly people so much?
He must like stupid ugly people because He made so, so Many of Them! :eek:

[Texas Buzzard]

Well Texas, This is where we leave science and enter metaphysics..what is the sound of one hand clapping? If a tree falls in the wood, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

These are not foolish questions. I agree, Buddah first aske the one-hand clapping Qs. I believe. Prospective Monks were sent off to a mountain alone to ponder that for a month. Ha,Ha, I think that was done to start the beginning of learning to meditate.


They draw attention to the fact that, for the purposes of objective science, we posit a godlike position for our mental activities such that they can exist outside of, independent of and aware of the state of the Universe.
That's a mouthful!

This in fact I believe was the most final gift ( why did you choose the word FINAL?)of religion to science, that religion did in fact have a concept of a soul, something that did exist outside of and independent from the material universe. That concept is encapsulated in the more modern expression of the form 'the detached observer'.( Oh my! Did you just say that "the detached observer" is the equivalent of a "soul"?)
However post Heisenberg, we have entered realms where a detached observer is shown to be a myth: No observation is in fact possible on the material world without altering it. ( That is absolutely true to my knowledge.)

That parallels a certain development in Philosophy, which started at the same time that science and religion parted company, and which to my mind has not been fully expressed even yet. ( I have a problem with you saying that religion and science have parted company. Can you give a reasonable example?)
Its been a peculiar fascination for me, and a lifetimes study: Expressed simply its encapsulated in the question, first enunciated reasonably clearly in modern times by Kant,

"To what extent are natural laws a function of the Universe at large, and to what extent are they human inventions designed to catalogue perceptions and experience into a coherent ordered whole?"

My own conclusions is that broadly, they tend toward the latter: therefore it makes little sense to talk about natural laws outside of a human context.
( That is reasonable! I don;t think a Black Hole gives a Flip about Ethics or Morals ....or about Newton's Laws of Motion.)

This particular approach also solves the /religion/science debate, and puts both neatly in their place, probably equally upsetting the fanatical adherents to both..

To put in bluntly, there is no ultimate justification for space, time, matter, energy, or god at all. They are simply ways we look at things, to help form some coherent picture of the world. None are ultimately provably real, in the sense we want them to be. ( My good man, that is a sweeping statement.But few could contridict you logically.)

It makes sense to at least start the metaphysic from the point of view that something is real, and that it has some kind of coherent order, but what it is is not what we think it is, or what it appears to be.
( Aw, vintage 1, you can do better than that. To the average reader this is gobbledegook. I will agree that one has to have a starting position in order to discuss metaphysics. I believe the English word, metephysics, was meant to mean that "above" Physics. The universities in Europe began as we know them during the 1500's. It was a man named Ignatias who disiplined them and made universities respectable as a learning institution. Science was rolled up into what was called Natural Philosophy. Astonomy, Chemistry and some medical arts were rolled into one course. Math was also being introduced. But Theology was the Queen of of the early Universities as Astronomy was the Queen of the Sciences. So maybe vintage 1 will agree that as knowledge of the sciences grew in the 18th Century, Philosophy (as we know it), Theology and various studies of the Noncorpreal were naturally separated from the sciences ( as we know science today).


Once that is appreciated, the temptation to extrapolate human-centric questions beyond our ability to experience them, is forever lost. I.e. there are inherent contradictions in trying to posit questions about life after death, or time beyond Time, or completely empty spaces: The tools and concepts we use are derived from our experiences of Life, and they should be restricted to that arena. ( TEll that to the three year old who thinks there is a "Booger-Man under his bed.)

The great trick of most cults is to use an implicit statement about reality in a question about it.

To me, when someone e.g. asks whether its possible to create a universe without an intelligent designer, I merely ask them 'when did you stop beating your wife?'
( vintage 1, I once worked n the same building as an atheist. When he saw a religeous medal around my neck, he said to me," You might be interested to know that I have never seen God so I don't believe he exists." Later we were having lunch one day when he said he was a believer in the Big-Bang Theory. I said ,"Thats interesting, you belive the Big-Bang Theory, tell me where all that energy came from if there was absolutely nothing before - where did all the atoms, protons and particles come from? Since you are an Atheist you must have some explanation. Did the matter come from energy? Then where did the energy come from?" Then he changed the subject. What do you say to that vintage 1?
The questions have a similar structure. I.e. who says the Universe was created anyway? Or designed? and what is intelligent?
Some folks say the Universe doesn't exist and we are the dreams in the imagination of some unknown gigantic homogenous conscienceness.

What did deCartes say? He siad. " If I can ask the question - Do I exist - then I exist!" Who am I to argue with him after all he was a fair mathematician.

[luvF3b]

You guys have got it all wrong....I am orchestrating this whole thread for my own amusement :D

[vintage1]

Some folks say the Universe doesn't exist and we are the dreams in the imagination of some unknown gigantic homogeneous consciousness.

Well its a perfectly valid metaphysical position.
This is where the question turns from not what is the Truth - because that is unknowable - to what starting point is useful in a given context.
Monism, which is I think the name of what you describe, is not particularly useful.


What didDesCartes say? He said. " If I can ask the question - Do I exist - then I exist!" Who am I to argue with him after all he was a fair mathematician.

Well I do argue with him. I say that the real issue is that asking the question is what generates the existence ;)

( Oh my! Did you just say that "the detached observer" is the equivalent of a "soul"?)

In a sense, yes. What I was trying to convey, is , that if you look at the history of ideas, and stop worrying about whether they were real things or not, the development of the idea of a spiritual consciousness - a soul as the mediaeval minds would have put it - is the direct precursor of Western Science, in that it posits a godlike consciousness in us all that is able to interpret reality from a position outside it

The scientist, having firmly moved his consciousness to a position of total objectivity, is of course unable to see God any more, because that is where he has chosen to stand...:D :D


.....
My own conclusions is that broadly, they tend toward the latter: therefore it makes little sense to talk about natural laws outside of a human context.
( That is reasonable! I don;t think a Black Hole gives a Flip about Ethics or Morals ....or about Newton's Laws of Motion.)

How could it? those are human concerns alone.


This particular approach also solves the /religion/science debate, and puts both neatly in their place, probably equally upsetting the fanatical adherents to both..

To put in bluntly, there is no ultimate justification for space, time, matter, energy, or god at all. They are simply ways we look at things, to help form some coherent picture of the world. None are ultimately provably real, in the sense we want them to be. ( My good man, that is a sweeping statement.But few could contradict you logically.)


If you stop regarding these things as real, and put them in the place of tools that help you describe reality to yourself, and not all purpose tools either, then all the conflicts disappear.

I am an atheist more or less because I dislike intensely the use of Faith to produce Certainties. This is not a valid way to proceed, and its dangerous.

That doesn't mean that I actively disbelieve in many things beyond the 'normal' - it just means that I consider religions for the most part to be childish, stupid, and dangerous. I choose to have no belief and no faith whatsoever, in any absolute sense, in anything.

Religion, science, ideas..these are all metaphors. Analogies. That stand for things beyond themselves. They are not the 'things-in-themselves'

The map is not the territory.

The great mistake of the immature mind is to believe, and claim, that they are.

Responding to another point., metaphysics does mean above physics, or beyond physics, and it is currently understood to be the study of ideas themselves.

And that is why its so crucial in discussions that pit ideas against each other
.
( vintage 1, I once worked n the same building as an atheist. When he saw a religious medal around my neck, he said to me," You might be interested to know that I have never seen God so I don't believe he exists." Later we were having lunch one day when he said he was a believer in the Big-Bang Theory. I said ,"Thats interesting, you belive the Big-Bang Theory, tell me where all that energy came from if there was absolutely nothing before - where did all the atoms, protons and particles come from? Since you are an Atheist you must have some explanation. Did the matter come from energy? Then where did the energy come from?" Then he changed the subject. What do you say to that vintage 1?

Consider creationism versus a big bang. The true blue creationist believes that if you extend the time lines backwards by about 5000 years or so, suddenly there is a point where a massive intelligence created everything from nothing according to a Grand Design, putting in place enough fossil records and other data to completely fool scientists that it did all in fact happen billions of years previously. The justification for this rests on one artefact: The Bible. If this is 'completely literally true' then that is the only explanation.

The scientist simply looks at the data, extends lines backwards in time, and draws a graph, and see that every single one hits the axis about X billion years ago, and says 'which is more reasonable, a massively complex act of Creation happening 5000 years ago supported by only one piece of human generated material, or the evidence of millions of non human traces all of which point to a massive but totally natural and rather simple event some few billions of years ago'?

Mutatis mutandis it actually makes no difference. As you point out, we can't go back and watch an action replay..

So the metaphysical position, resolves to a choice of practicality. Occam stated that a pragmatic philosopher should 'not multiply entities beyond necessity'. Or 'keep it simple, stupid'.

So, given that the real state of affairs is unknown and unknowable, which is simplest?

Sadly, that depends on who you are. Someone with no knowledge of science at all, is likely to say 'well I only have to introduce one factor, Big G, and everything else is explained!'. The scientist will retort that this explains nothing at all really, its a complete cop out, and whilst it may just answer the question 'why?' does not address the question of 'how' at all.

He prefers just one simple event..a little twist, a broken symmetry, and everything flows naturally from that to now.

I don't have a problem with either way UNLESS the protagonists insist that their view is not a choice of views, something they simply use, but is in fact nothing more or less that a completely exclusive absolutely real supported by all the faith and conviction they can muster picture of how things really were.. Sadly, not a few scientists take that view, which upsets me. I would have expected them to know better. I expect nothing less from the followers of a religion that has based itself of papal infallibility etc etc for two millenia. Sadly all the smart people left religion to do science centuries ago.

I was taught science in what was then - and arguably is still today - very novel way. We were part of the 'Nuffield Project' . The idea was not to teach science as it was understood, but to follow the experimental path of all the crucial experiments in science, and to come to our own conclusions, before being presented with the theories that arose as a result of those experiments, and why they became adopted. Sadly it proved not a particularly fast way to achieve good exam results for the merely average, but it was hugely effective in giving insight to the more able, which I was informed I was.

At every stage. we implicitly were made aware, that no one 'discovered gravity' or whatever. They observed things, made measurements and came up with the 'idea of gravity' that fitted the facts mathematically. There is a crucial difference.

We never felt that 'gravity existed'. Or energy, or motion, or in fact any of these things. We were just finding equations that fitted the facts..whether or not those equations implied real life entities behind the scenes, was moot.

Too few scientists, and almost no theologians, are prepared to accept knowledge on those terms, sadly. Its too much for their poor little brains. They want solid hard facts. As a result we have conflict after conflict, as people who believe their ideas are facts, make war against other people whose ideas - held to be just as factual - differ.

You can see it played out here, in miniature. Newton versus Bernoulli. The absolutists versus the relativists etc. etc.

All despite 'Gullivers Travels' and the Little Endians being written hundreds of years ago..;)

I am not sure why I bother to try and explain all this. I suppose I feel that if one is going to play with Ideas, one had better understand what Ideas are, and reality is not what they are. At best, they are our best efforts to draw maps of the reality of our perceptions, maps which are never what really is, are necessarily limited, and depending on what they are intended to be used for, leave a lot of other stuff out.

[KraftyOne]

Ramen to that, Vin, you surely must be our "Philosopher in Residence".

And speaking of Reality, I recently heard a Quantum Physicist talking about the "fuzziness" of things at the quantum level, & asking the question:- "Do we have a fuzzy (focused) view of a sharp reality, or a sharp(ly focused) view of a fuzzy reality, & does it really matter which it is"?
(The Philosophers' Zone, ABC Radio 1).

Hmmm, I'll sleep on that.... :confused:

[vintage1]

Ramen to that, Vin, you surely must be our "Philosopher in Residence".

And speaking of Reality, I recently heard a Quantum Physicist talking about the "fuzziness" of things at the quantum level, & asking the question:- "Do we have a fuzzy (focused) view of a sharp reality, or a sharp(ly focused) view of a fuzzy reality, & does it really matter which it is"?
(The Philosophers' Zone, ABC Radio 1).

Hmmm, I'll sleep on that.... :confused:

At one level, it makes no difference.

At another, it may make a lot..

In Mayan, I believe the word for 'demon' is the same as for 'dysentery'.
Or they share the same root anyway.

Malaria,is a made up word meaning 'bad air' from the conviction that some miasmic property of swamps caused it.

Ideas about reality are encapsulated in the names we give things..It doesn't matter, unless you want to change things. And discover that filtering out the mosquitoes is more effective than filtering out the smell..but, for a primitive mind, avoiding bad smelling places - which stagnant waters, the breeding ground of the mosquito - are, is just as effective.

What Quantum Physics brings into sharp relief, is that our notion that things exists in tight measurable little bundles, is at best a approximation. That Godlike 'detached observer' even equipped with the best instrumentation we have is not able to perceive without altering.. Indeed, the physical world, not at a philosophical level, but at a hard edged physical level, is seen to be brought into being by the process of observing it.

In short we cant tell 'what's there' until it interacts with something else or spits out a photon. Changing state in the process.

Our idea of linear time is in fact a nonsense. Even within conventional physics, what we perceive e.g. visually, is nothing more than a series of digital photons arriving in our eyeballs, or a variation in velocity individual molecules of air against our eardrums..or the interaction of multiple discrete molecular entities against the nerves in our fingers, all one-at-a-time. WE turn the frame by frame into a movie, deciding on what are the characters, the drama and the forces at play. Nature doesn't care what we think. Except insofar as thinking also causes localised physical variations in the brain and nervous system..so even thinking affects reality at one level or another. Magic...:D

[mhuff]

I got one for you vin1

short and sweet, our mind works by electric impulses and how they react and group with other impulses(synaptic firing and so on). right?

and our skull is full of conductive tissue and fluid.
and all things electric put off a electro magnetic field to some degree.

so if you take an EMF and pass it through a conducter it makes a current.

my question is do you think that all of the emf that we are surrounded by all day everyday affects the way we think by introducing rouge impulses to our brain?

if you could go back 400 years and only have to deal with the earth's emf would you think as you do now?



then: if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

now: if a tree falls in the forest and nobody can hear it because the damn tv is too loud, did it make a sound?

[vintage1]

I got one for you vin1

short and sweet, our mind works by electric impulses and how they react and group with other impulses(synaptic firing and so on). right?

and our skull is full of conductive tissue and fluid.
and all things electric put off a electro magnetic field to some degree.



You might say that. I couldn't possibly comment. :eek:


so if you take an EMF and pass it through a conductor it makes a current.

my question is do you think that all of the emf that we are surrounded by all day everyday affects the way we think by introducing rogue impulses to our brain?

if you could go back 400 years and only have to deal with the earth's emf would you think as you do now?

Mate, I can feel whether I am in a city or in the country or in Africa, Europe or the USA. Of course we don't think the way we used to.We don't use the same words, have the same concepts or anything. Whether that's due to the basic herd instinct,minds synchronising into common patterns, trash on the EM spectrum, or just time marching on, I wouldn't care to speculate. All probably.

then: if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Depends on what you mean by a sound...Sound as a pressure wave we presume to exist independently of our ability to hear it..sound as a human detected quality of an event, is only present if humans are present to detect it in that way.

now: if a tree falls in the forest and nobody can hear it because the damn tv is too loud, did it make a sound?
Sorry can you say that again? :)

[KraftyOne]

my question is do you think that all of the emf that we are surrounded by all day everyday affects the way we think by introducing rouge impulses to our brain?Well, I've spend a fair bit of my life staring into a CRO screen in workshop surrounded by electrical stuff, & I'm still OK.... I think..... I am..... I think... :D


if you could go back 400 years and only have to deal with the earth's emf would you think as you do now?Now thats a good question.
My answer is NO, for a start I would not have spent a lot of time thinking about electronics.
But that's not the question you asked, is it?

[HX3D014]

For those of you with a remote for your car (Alarm on off type) the ones with no Arial. (my cars ignition immobiliser has an Arial, and it doesn't work with that one) If you want to increase your range. IE if you are across the car park and you push the button and the cars alarm door lock etc dose not activate de activate. Try holding the Remote directly on your temple and look at your car. then push the button. You will find that doing this will increase your range.

How much did you increase your range by ? (Come on, I know most of you will be running out of the office or house etc and trying it, so; "Do tell" :D)

just a titbit ;)

Bryce.

[Brandano]

I got one for you vin1

short and sweet, our mind works by electric impulses and how they react and group with other impulses(synaptic firing and so on). right?

and our skull is full of conductive tissue and fluid.
and all things electric put off a electro magnetic field to some degree.

so if you take an EMF and pass it through a conducter it makes a current.

my question is do you think that all of the emf that we are surrounded by all day everyday affects the way we think by introducing rouge impulses to our brain?

if you could go back 400 years and only have to deal with the earth's emf would you think as you do now?


Actually, no, our minds do not work through electric impulses, or at the very least they do not work through electric impulses alone, or we'd have no use for neuroreceptors and psychotropic substances. You'd not find the theobromine in chocolate nearly as enjoyable as you do if we ran on electricity, or the caffeine as invigorating. We run on chemical ionic exchanges, which are affected by electron flows, but not in the way of an electronic circuit. The fact that thought seems quick to us and that the electric shock feels close to the same sensation as when you get a nerve compressed leads people to think that nerves act like electric wires, while they do not. Anyway, be careful with the tinfoil hat, if anything it will catch the microwaves and heat up, and when you rise the brain's temperature you definitely affect the way it's working.

[vintage1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4P3pvKmbsg

[KraftyOne]

Oh dear, Marvin, the Paranoid Android. Next thing you'll have us all singing "The Philosophers' Song".

[Texas Buzzard]

MHuff is great guy. He probably typed befor doing any research though in this case for he posted this: "so if you take an EMF and pass it through a conducter it makes a current.

my question is do you think that all of the emf that we are surrounded by all day everyday affects the way we think by introducing rouge impulses to our brain?

if you could go back 400 years and only have to deal with the earth's emf would you think as you do now?"
.................................>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<.....................
What? " If you take an EMF and pass it through a conductor it make a current."
Current is better called Amperage. Ampere is ( to keep it simple) a certain number of electrons passing a poit per second.
EMF is Electro motive force. We measure that in what is called volts - truely that is connected to that thing called work. Never the less - - he said that ( or asked) if we were to work near som power lines or some large conductor carrying a large current would that effect the brain.
Studies were done on this very topic back in the 1970's. It was mainly to study the effect of large power lines crossing peach orchards. The studied over 100 square miles of these orchards. There was no signifucant effect.
Later studies were done to determine if radio waves of low frequencies ( AM broadcast band) had any effect on a human. They found that Classical music made one have to relieve himself more often and Country Music stimulated a thirst for suds. Other than that there was no significant effect on the human.
.................................................. .............................
He said, "deal with the earth's emf "
This just may be a hoax. Where is this Earth EMF located? We can saw a lightening bolt has an EMF, but where exactly are you talking about?

[vintage1]

Some people have been able to hear AM radio when their metal filled teeth acted as rectifiers.. :D Yup. I kid you not!

Of course it all makes SOME difference. we are sensitive beings, sensitive to all manner of influences. But I very much doubt that radio waves are anything like the major one!

WE are not adapted to be radio receivers ..we are adapted to be social animals in an environment of living creatures. WE are sensitive to the patterns that other living things make - whether smell, sound sight or any other sense you might think you have. That's what we respond to.

The greatest changes that have happened in the last 400 years, are far more about population DENSITY. Put bluntly, there are simply far more humans, and far less of anything else, around.

Those of us who have been to wild empty spaces, know it is a distinctly different feeling from being in the middle of a city.

[mhuff]

you go with Heisenberg and say that just by looking at something it is affected.
(dude where is my car? ooh the sun must of come up and moved it by hitting it with more photons)

when I post something to think about you pick it apart and and say shame on you for not digging up a 30+ year case that was tested and found to have no significant impact. did they have the tools 30 years ago to map and track the thoughts of the mind(I'm going to let you do the footwork on that one)? as I remember 8-track was some high tech back in the 70's.

did I ever say anything about a significant amount of change?

I was talking more about the infinitesimal changes.

like does your brain "see" a different shade of blue then you would have 400 years ago? and don't start up with junk about yes because of the air pollution or other answers that circumvent the question. when I say 400 years ago it is just a frame of reference to get us out of all the man made emfs and not all the other thousands of difference between the two.

would a rose smell any different?
would rye grass feel any softer underfoot?
could you hold a thought longer and not go off on a tangent?

would the answer 42 mean anything important to you if your mind was not "dirty" from emfs all of your life

[vintage1]

you go with Heisenberg and say that just by looking at something it is affected.
(dude where is my car? ooh the sun must of come up and moved it by hitting it with more photons)

when I post something to think about you pick it apart and and say shame on you for not digging up a 30+ year case that was tested and found to have no significant impact. did they have the tools 30 years ago to map and track the thoughts of the mind(I'm going to let you do the footwork on that one)? as I remember 8-track was some high tech back in the 70's.

did I ever say anything about a significant amount of change?

I was talking more about the infinitesimal changes.

like does your brain "see" a different shade of blue then you would have 400 years ago? and don't start up with junk about yes because of the air pollution or other answers that circumvent the question. when I say 400 years ago it is just a frame of reference to get us out of all the man made emfs and not all the other thousands of difference between the two.

would a rose smell any different?
would rye grass feel any softer underfoot?
could you hold a thought longer and not go off on a tangent?

would the answer 42 mean anything important to you if your mind was not "dirty" from emfs all of your life

"Wherefore we encounter that which we cannot know, we had best remain silent"

[Brandano]

Dude, I don't even know if your color blue is the same as my color blue. We don't know enough of the brain to tell whether we all sense the same things in the same way. I can hear a CRT monitor two rooms away, some people can't hear it in the same room. I know of people that have odd brain conditions that lead them to "smell colors", meaning that seeing a specific shade will bring them to perceive a smell... Even if we knew how the hardware works, the software is still a complete mystery to us.