equations

[waygie]

if you cook 2 eggs on medium high for 10 mins and scramble them, you will have scrambled eggs every time. if you make a big enough explosion under the right conditions, you will have a universe every time.
in the equation that is the big bang(and whatever other factors were involved) it would always equal life. everything we are is because of the big bang. we are the results. and we weren't "random". this is a mathematical equation. everything we as a society do isn't "random" there are reasons for everything. and reasons for reasons. and so on. and there is only 1 *truly* possible outcome. and that is the outcome that happened. basically what i'm saying is everything is "predetermined". if you try to do something you normally wouldn't do because of this you were still always going to do that.

that said, i still think we need to take responsibility and try to craft our own future....but, if you do, just know you were always going to do it lol :wink:

 

[IJesusChrist]

This is called determinism, and I strongly agree with it. However, I do not like agreeing with it so I have a few questions for you.

There is a little thing called quantum mechanics. I'm sure you're aware, and if you truly are interested in determinism and it's consequences, you know a little bit about quantum mechanics;

How do you account for the probability issue that arises from heisenbergs uncertainty principle - nothing can really be forecasted, only the probabilities can be known.

Beyond that, it seems that the universe needs an observer to hold one direction. Without an observer, the universe actually becomes every possible outcome simultaneously. It seems that consciousness may indeed be the only force holding the glue to your initial equation. Given this result (consciousness is required for one path) then we easily see that the universe is actually every possible expression of a single equation using an operator (Quantum mechanics). Which means you put 2 eggs in a frying pan, and you stir, but you end up with a burned house, burned eggs, scrambled eggs, or sunny side up all simultaneously.

?

This question isn't going to be solved very quickly, and don't believe you have the answer!

 

[waygie]

definite conditions will always have a definite outcome(the problem us knowing the full eqation. we damn sure dont) in order to do anything other than cook the eggs there would have to be different contidions like the stove being messed up. bare with me(i dont want to have to go into page long details) but lets pretend the stove is fine, the temp is average, and you cook it correctly
and the universe isnt "every possible outcome" do you see random ass chaos everywhere? there is a rhyme and rythm to everything. but i get what you mean. and again it's perpective vs universitality. perspective = will to make things happen. just realize that universe has will, we just dont take note of it because it's usually so predictable. "Which means you put 2 eggs in a frying pan, and you stir, but you end up with a burned house, burned eggs, scrambled eggs, or sunny side up all simultaneously." the universe doesnt cook eggs. but the universe does still do things that have *definite* outcomes (eg photosynthesis)

"How do you account for the probability issue that arises from heisenbergs uncertainty principle - nothing can really be forecasted, only the probabilities can be known." considering our low level of consciousness i would never take anything we (subjectively) percieve to be set in stone
you only know the probabilties when it comes to dice, yes. but what if we had more consciousness? what if we had more control over the muscles in our hands? then we'd be able to make the dice land any way we want
the uncertainty factor is just how the dice is handled, the surface it lands on, and maybe the wind

imma mufucken genius

 

[IJesusChrist]

Rolling dice is not probability. You are missing the point.

When you roll the dice, on a macro scale, you can calculate where they are going to land, and what side using elementary physics. It's not easy because there are many forces, and almost impossible to measure without some very intense measuring devices.

In quantum mechanics however, we have true probabilities. There is absolutely NO way to know which outcome will happen out of two, wikipedia Shrodingers Cat. You will find that in this example, we have a cat that is both DEAD and ALIVE simultaneously. This is a result of quantum mechanics.

Of course on a large scale, these probabilities amount to very little variation from physical calculations - we can still tell where our space ships are going to land a hundred thousand miles away, but to have the accuracy of perfectness is impossible - if we want perfectness we would have to create an equation that accounts for all the quantum mechanical actions along our projected path. This will leave us with inmeasurable probabilities, impossible to distinguish whhich path is perfect. Yet, within the realm of a few hundred meters - we are very accurate.

What I'm saying is, is this:

When you tie in quantum mechanics, and you create a universe, there is not 1 path. There are innumerable amounts. Without an observer (us), the universe takes every possible path. Since the future holds no observers, the future thusly is a probability.

You are not a genius... yet.

 

[waygie]

okay it's like the question "does a tree make a sound when it falls in the woods(and no one is around)?"
the answer is yes. things don't need to be perceived to be real

it's as if your version of objectivity vs universality is really in inside your objectivity...if that makes any sense?

i need to learn quantum mechanics but the idea of superpositions for anything other than theorizing is retarded. the cat either dies or lives and it has a "50/50" (i use quotation marks because i don't believe in 50/50) chance of either. while we don't know the answer we can say both are possible. but only 1 happens

i would use superpositions to theorize about something but i would never take a superposition to be reality. i agree with your reality being objective....but you should still realize universal reality. just because you don't observe something doesn't mean nothings happening

here's a version of shrodinger's cat that should help you realize this: while you are sitting in your house any number of things could be going on outside...but does that mean *everything* is going on? no. does that mean there is a possibility that anything could be going on? yes, but to varying degrees

me=anything. shrodinger= everything
anything = hypothetical/*in your mind*/theorizing (cant think of a better word) everything = everything actually going on simultaneously

do you get what i'm saying? superpositions (from my 5 second glance at the wiki page) seem like they were meant to be for theorizing and shrodinger took it as reality

 

[IJesusChrist]

I do know what you are saying, and you may be correct, I used to be in your seat, but I switched.

The cat is both dead and alive. A consequence of this is zero-point-energy. It has never been observed.

If you, and the past me are correct, and the cat is indeed dead OR alive, then quantum mechanics will fall into determinism, and the future will have been foretold from the begging. Much like when you put two eggs in a frying pan, you know you will end up with fried eggs; if you make the big bang, you could know the very end result, and everything in between.

I however, over the past few months have adopted that the cat is both dead and alive. This is due to me not wanting determinism to be true. If determinism is true, then consciousness is simply the ability to perceive. There is nothing beyond perception - and only one future is possible.

With this comes a very fundamental observation, however, time is an illusion. It is a dimension, but it is not necessary to be viewed periodically. Consciousness in a streaming observer, such as ourselves, tells me that determinism would be meaningless - there would be no reason to not view the entire universe (or atleast our entire lives) simultaneously through time. Kurt Vonnegut once wrote about this, and I refer to it alot, since it is a very important concept to grasp. It is also talked about in The Watchmen, the blue guy has this ability.

When a tree falls in a forest it does not make a sound. It makes a physical wave through the air or medium around it. A sound requires an observer.

 

[waygie]

I do know what you are saying, and you may be correct, I used to be in your seat, but I switched.

The cat is both dead and alive. A consequence of this is zero-point-energy. It has never been observed.

If you, and the past me are correct, and the cat is indeed dead OR alive, then quantum mechanics will fall into determinism, and the future will have been foretold from the begging. Much like when you put two eggs in a frying pan, you know you will end up with fried eggs; if you make the big bang, you could know the very end result, and everything in between.

I however, over the past few months have adopted that the cat is both dead and alive. This is due to me not wanting determinism to be true. If determinism is true, then consciousness is simply the ability to perceive. There is nothing beyond perception - and only one future is possible.

With this comes a very fundamental observation, however, time is an illusion. It is a dimension, but it is not necessary to be viewed periodically. Consciousness in a streaming observer, such as ourselves, tells me that determinism would be meaningless - there would be no reason to not view the entire universe (or atleast our entire lives) simultaneously through tVonnegut once wrote about this, and I refer to it alot, since it is a very important concept to grasp. It is also talked about in The Watchmen, the blue guy has this ability.
When a tree falls in a forest it does not make a sound. It makes a physical wave through the air or medium around it. A sound requires an observer.

"When a tree falls in a forest it does not make a sound. It makes a physical wave through the air or medium around it. A sound requires an observer."
lol didn't I say give me a break(I'm typing on a phone right now)? Then it makes the perspectivless eqiuivilant of sound... Things exist outside of our personal perspective. Things exist outside humanity's perception. Death definetly exists. Denying this would be denying the past existed. Denying Obama being real because we've never seen it

this doesn't prove seeing the future(we couldn't be more seperate from universal consciousness, the goal us to make our conscious the opposite and everyone is at varying stages of this) . But what does prove it is subconscious prediction. Our subconscious can see the equation going on at any given moment and can predict the result (with different degrees of truth)



You're litterally saying the past was everything. I'm saying it couldve been anything but it definetly was something

 

[IJesusChrist]

So you believe, without someone to perceive the color "red", the color "red" exists, physically.

If you do, I strongly disagree, and there seems to be no way either of us can reach an agreement on this subject.

 

[waygie]

.... Color doesn't exist outside of perception but there is a reason,outside of perception, why we see it

so, again, the perspectiveless version of red does exist

 

[IJesusChrist]

Yes, the wavelength exists. Red does not.

Red does not exist outside of perception.

The color you see as Red may be someone else's blue. Is there anyway to tell? No.

There is no existance without perception. The real question is - when do things start perceiving.

 

[waygie]

Wow and you still try to argue it. It doesn't matter if you see red like I see blue, we identify it as red and there is a reason why we see it.
Are you saying that the inside of a house stops existing when no one is in it and the windows are covered?

Just give it up

 

[IJesusChrist]

You're acting as if I am an uninformed individual who has an extreme view point that only few believe...

Some of the most well-known theoretical physicists, psychologists, and philosophers agree with what I am saying. This is not a "Wacko" idea, it is a very profound and hard to grasp concept.

Your living room, the moon, the river close to your house, these all exist when you are not witnessing them because of chaos theory. You can deduct their presence by their tiny effects on the atmosphere, light reflections, and so on. Much like the butterfly exists in the gulf of mexico by it's creation and amplification of a hurricane (the most extreme example of chaos theory).

So no, your living room exists when you are not there to be inside it or even near it, because you are indirectly witnessing it's effects on the atoms and forces that surround it.

HOWEVER.

A 4 billion+ years ago, when there was supposedly no life on earth what-so-ever, there was nothing to witness any of the universe. There was no consciousness by its present definition. There was nothing to observe. Therefore time was not observed, nor was space - they did not need to exist since nothing needed to observe them, directly or indirectly.

What this eventually boils down to is that consciousness and perception thusly only "exist" and have meaning to observe time & space - in the dimensional definition.

You aren't thinking or opening your mind to what I'm saying. I'm not a loony psycho who believes anything he is told, infact I do not believe anything I'm told until I am sure.

You are not giving me much credit here and from this I will be less likely to discuss any topics with you in the future...

 

[waygie]

there are two versions of anything you perceive: how you perceive it and how it really is (the perceptionless version. the 3 dimensional version. universal version. whatever you want to call it) in my opinion it is your goal to make your perception objective (what i consider to be the perfect form of perception). a buddhists goal is to make their perception universal...which is really contradictory when you think about it, but thats their problem.

but the point is a thing needs to exist outside of perception to be perceived (by more than just you). and mores than that it is a definite thing. objectively it wouldnt be wrong to think something could be anything (with varying degrees of possibility) if you cant see perceive it for yourself. but it most definitely is something (and not "anything"). if anyone, phd or not, says otherwise then i am unblinkingly calling them wrong

something cannot literally be everything. and something most definitely cant be nothing




and i'm not saying there isn't logic in it. it seems like quantum theory is very objective (which i like) but it's actually rather subjective(because i think something truly objective would realize it's roots in a perspectiveless universe) and it take's it subjectivity too literally

 

[IJesusChrist]

I wasn't able to coherently understand that last post. My bad or yours, I don't know if I can respond.

A good book on the subject from my perspective is Biocentrism by Robert Somebody

 

[SkyFlow]

You guys have got yourselves into quite a discussion there, but waygie when you're dealing with quantum mechanics you have to leave conventional logic behind, your egg comparison for example is not valid. You also have to understand that observer in quantum mechanics doesn't mean an actual human being watching, it means any way of getting information/energy call it whatever out of a system. For example let's say there's free atom in space, how would it transmit its existence in the outer world-one way is for a photon to crash and then repel in some other direction, then this photon course basically carries the information of the electron it hit because of its direction speed etc were changed by the collision, but the thing is the electron itself also changed its position from that collision so the information is only correct to a past state and the current one is inaccessible. This example show that a state of a system cannot be perfectly known by observer as the observer changes the state and is also known as the uncertainty principle. So this leads to the conclusion that even if the universe was predetermined it's impossible to actually know the outcome as you can't know the current. Also quantum mechanics say that particles are not like physical object, if you for example try to describe a physical object you can point out its location, size etc. at subatomic level particles don't exhibit an exact position, if described they are described by the possibilities of position they could be exhibiting. All of this may not make allot of sense, there's reason why quantum mechanics are full of paradoxes, human mind is unable to understand the true nature of things, just like your mind can't comprehend the infinity of the universe the same way it can't believe that something can be at 2 places at the same time at some probability rather then being in a solid place. It's just the ways are brains are wired so that we can adapt at the macro level, they're practical not theoretical.

 

[EndlessEntity]

Both of you look up Plato's Cave Allegory
http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

 

[IJesusChrist]

personally, I don't find the allegory very insightful.

If the prisoners say "that is a book" they are using a very useful tool in their brain - the ability to connect an object's shadow to the object. This is a form of useful brain calculation.

The idea that the shadow is seperate from the book is subconsciously known. It is not important that one talks about the book without seeing the book - they have simply seen the shape of the book's silhouette and have matched it to an actual book.

The realization that the shadow is completely seperate from the book has little importance, but is known subconsciously.

 

[waygie]

holy shit fuck
I made a longvpost and it prompted me to log in....then never posted them
that happened twice

anyways: our (3d)universe is infinite to someone with consciousness in the 3rd dimension just like a floating sphere is infinite to someone with consciousness in the 2nd dimension...if you get what I mean

beyond that it still seems like you are taking our limited knowledge as fact. but I might be wrong and I'm about to make a thread about it

 

[EndlessEntity]

you dont think plato's allegory is insightful? then you must not understand it. its about reasoning something you dont know with your mind.. and if thats not insightful then uhhhh..... NOTHING IS

 

[IJesusChrist]

Plato isn't taking into account neurological functions that are very necessary to our evolution...

He's making the claim the slaves are stupid because they have the ability to tie a shadow to an object.

The ability to see that you are indeed tieing two seperate ideas together is not important in his allegory - there is no reason for a slave to wonder if the shadow is real or not. Without being prompted that the shadow may or may not be a real book or person, there is no reason to question it.

If you sat on your ass all day and asked if what you perceived was real, and not a silhoutte of something more fundamental then you'd be doing just that - sitting on your ass all day. What the fuck does that accomplish.

An allegory that does not raise an answer to the problem seems useless to me.