Conspiracy of human intelligence.

reply to post by Lichter daraus


Well I am sorry if I fail to see the logic in how someone can redefine whatever they want and auto-magically be right about it. I've also asked quiet a few times for people to explain that logic to me, to no avail.

reply to post by sirnex


Um, who are terms defined by in the first place? People.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Redefining the usage of certain terms to imply something that is not commonly understood to mean is the problem.

Again, take energy for example. All forms of energy require a particulate of matter of some form including right down to the forces. Yet, using the word energy as if implying a physical substance separate from matter that could say... possibly exist in another realm of existence is illogical as the current definition, knowledge of and usage of the term energy does not imply any such feat.

Like I said, I don't care if they want to redefine it for their own ideas, but they should at the very least define it from the get go rather than using it in such a way to imply something that is not implied at all.

[EDIT TO EXPLAIN FURTHER]

Take this thread for example. LINK

Titled: "First black hole for light created on Earth"

The article linked to in this thread likens a particular method of capturing light to a 'black hole'. Yet, misusing that terminology in it's description lead the OP to post this.

I mean..... what if the black hole is able to grow?

How can an efficient light trap grow as if it were a real black hole? I mean... seriously, you don't honestly see how misusing words, terminologies and theories can be viewed as detrimental to the human intellect?

[edit on 18-10-2009 by sirnex]

reply to post by sirnex


I'm just saying, if we are so dumbed down then why are you continuing the argument. If we are so dumbed down as you say then how would we ever understand what your saying.
I think this is a pointless thread because no matter what, your views on others will never change, in your mind you will always be superior to everyone else because you THINK you are smarter then most.

Edit to add: I should also state that, i do think i know what your saying. Basically you cant have energy without matter, and you cant have matter without energy, basically meaning that they are not two separate things. Am i right?

[edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus]

[edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus]

reply to post by Lichter daraus


Edited my above post with a decent example of the point I'm trying to make. Sort of decent at least... Anyways, I am in no way laying claim to being smarter than anyone. I am just pointing out a simple problem of misusing things as if they imply something they don't imply at all. Honestly, where is the problem in that?

Edit to add: I should also state that, i do think i know what your saying. Basically you cant have energy without matter, and you cant have matter without energy, Basically meaning that they are not two separate things. Am i right?

Kind of. From my understanding of all forms of energy, they apparently seem to require some form of particle to mediate across. Like, thermal energy is not a separate 'physical thing', but is just atoms in a high state of motion when we call them 'hot' or with a high thermal energy state etc. Same goes for every form of energy I personally know about right now.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by sirnex]

[edit on 18-10-2009 by sirnex]

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Lichter daraus

 

Edited my above post with a decent example of the point I'm trying to make. Sort of decent at least... Anyways, I am in no way laying claim to being smarter than anyone. I am just pointing out a simple problem of misusing things as if they imply something they don't imply at all. Honestly, where is the problem in that?

I think it was more or less the way you presented your posts. You kind of came off as an arrogant a-hole. You may not be, it just seemed that way.

reply to post by sirnex


Kind of. From my understanding of all forms of energy, they apparently seem to require some form of particle to mediate across. Like, thermal energy is not a separate 'physical thing', but is just atoms in a high state of motion when we call them 'hot' or with a high thermal energy state etc. Same goes for every form of energy I personally know about right now.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by sirnex]



I know i don't know much about this stuff, but I'm very interested in it. All i know is what i have read about and seen on the science channel. With that said, i really don't crap about thermal energy. So i am learning something here and i like it better without the negativity in your posts, thanks

reply to post by sirnex


From wikipedia...

" Mental or psychic energy or activity is the concept of a principle of activity powering the operation of the mind, soul or psyche. The idea harks back to Aristotle's conception of actus et potentia. "Energy" is here used in the literal meaning of "activity" or "operation". Henry More in his 1642 Psychodia platonica; or a platonicall song of the souldefined an "energy of the soul" as including every phantasm of the soul. Julian Sorell Huxley defines "mental energy" as "the driving forces of the psyche, emotional as well as intellectual" (On living in a revolutionxv.192, 1944)."

Huuuh...those quacks! How dare they venture outside of norm! Notice how it says "concept"? It is only recently mental energy has been "seen" through the metabolism of the brain. Would this have fly'd with you a 100 years ago with you're "lockdown" on terms and applications of them?

You know what dark matter is? Neither do cosmologists, but they make an assumption that it is matter we cannot see...

Oh yeah...what about "entanglement",superposition and kymatics? I can't see a person with static "lab coat" view of reality coping well with those subjects

Could you address electrons, quarks, they're mass and imaginary particles like gravitons without seeing the irony???
[edit on 18-10-2009 by SmokeandShadow]

[edit on 18-10-2009 by SmokeandShadow]

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Amagnon

 

Look at all the different forms of energy and show me at least one form of energy or even a force that does not require some particle of matter to propagate through. Even the forces themselves are propagated by other pieces of matter.

What I'm finding troublesome is the usage of something like energy as if it's something we can die and exist within as if it is a separate 'thing' from matter. I'll bet no one here can legitimately show me one 'thing' of energy that does not require matter at all. If you think you got something, post it and I'll attempt to show tot he best of my ability why it does require matter, why energy is not separate from matter.

You should really read Penrose's CCC hypothesis or listen to his lectures (there are a total of 9 videos):



His basic argument is that after all matter has decayed / radiated away (through the WMAP we're seeing all matter flying to the edges of the universe, so the universe will likely die from an inflationary big freeze) that the only thing left will be a high entropy void of energy (highest state of randomness). From this Penrose postulates that energy somehow accretes back in to matter in a highly uniform state at the point of the singularity. Which seems to mimic your thoughts on energy requiring a constituent mass component.

The only oddity of this idea is we have a fairly huge volume of space somehow shrinking back down to a point, but if there's no mass, and no gravity then perhaps, even though gravity doesn't seem to thermalize, it somehow goes to infinity at the point of the singularity despite reaching a limit of 0 when all matter has decayed (this is why we really need a working quantum gravity model).

Penrose's usage of the Weyl curvature to resolve this is really quite clever.

Your complaint seems to be that you can't imagine through a series of breakdowns (entropy) that energy will contain "information" about us as humans when we die. This relates very strongly to the information paradox that's encountered when evaluating what happens at the event horizon of a black hole. However I caution you to be very careful about how you think of "information." The background radiation of the universe is technically "information" and it gives us data about the very inception of time & space. Furthermore if you take the CCC hypothesis it's even possible for information to survive between "big bangs." You'd be well served to research the Thorne-Preskill-Hawking bet.

My personal feelings on this relate strongly to Cliff Pickover's comment,

Somewhere inside the digits of pi is a representation for all of us -- the atomic coordinates of all our atoms, our genetic code, all our thoughts, all our memories. Given this fact, all of us are alive, and hopefully happy, in pi. Pi makes us live forever. We all lead virtual lives in pi. We are immortal. [1]

However I think Pickover truly underestimates the scope of infinity as represented by pi as a transcendental. I basically see an infinity of possibilities as a N-ary object that not only applies scaling, but growth & decay through logarithmic, trigonometric, and zero-sum properties applied across all possibly conceived spaces. To be honest I think Pythagoras had it right when he said,

That things are only a copy of Numbers; nay, that in some mysterious way, Numbers are things themselves [2]

But I digress, back on topic.

The only way the "big freeze" is likely overcome is through the concept of using a Planck scale amount of energy to possibly rip a whole in time-space to possibly move to another parallel space / dimension / what-have-you before the big freeze, but this sort of thing actually being possible is conjecture of the highest order.

It's also possible that Freeman Dyson is right in his paper "Time Without End: Physics and Biology in an Open Universe" where he argues against the cosmological constant citing a Scientific American article (issue 281, p. 58-65) "The Fate of Life in the Universe." This presumes, as suggested in the title of his work, that due to the open nature of the universe we can go on indefinitely.

However assuming the cosmological constant is accurate it's not that matter requires energy it's that matter can completely convert to energy and if that happens, assuming you accept Penrose's CCC hypothesis (which you seem to agree with based on your previous posts), energy somehow converts to mass and while everything is energy it's commonly agreed that all forces merge in to a single thing, creating a low entropy state, and then promptly divides.

So the whole argument really boils down to this: are we dealing with an open or closed system? I think quantum mechanics and virtual particles are the key to answering this question.

reply to post by SmokeandShadow

Notice how it says "concept"?

No duh huh, they actually defined what they meant when using the word. Hardly the same thing as what I have been discussing.

You know what dark matter is? Neither do cosmologists, but they make an assumption that it is matter we cannot see...

Correct, they don't know and they do assume or theorize on what it is, but again, different concept from misusing a theory or terminology.

Oh yeah...what about "entanglement",superposition and kymatics? I can't see a person with static "lab coat" view of reality coping well with those subjects

What do you personally think is going on with entanglement and superposition? Just out of curiosity. What is kymatics BTW, I haven't come across that term before seeing it here on ATS, I think you or someone used it before. Can you provide a link on it, I keep seeing myspace garbage when I do a search for it.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by SmokeandShadow

 

You know what dark matter is? Neither do cosmologists, but they make an assumption that it is matter we cannot see...

Yeah its a place holder scientists use for something they cant explain. That doesn't mean it exists or not...just saying

[edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus]

[edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus]

reply to post by Xtraeme

His basic argument is that after all matter has decayed / radiated away (through the WMAP we're seeing all matter flying to the edges of the universe, so the universe will likely die from an inflationary big freeze) that the only thing left will be a high entropy void of energy (highest state of randomness). From this Penrose postulates that energy somehow accretes back in to matter in a highly uniform state at the point of the singularity. Which seems to mimic your thoughts on energy requiring a constituent mass component.

It's essentially an assumption that the universe actually is expanding, the BBT hasn't really been proven to the point of taking it at face value and deeming it fact. It relies on a few thing's being constant about our universe despite the possibility that those things aren't actually constant at all.

The only oddity of this idea is we have a fairly huge volume of space somehow shrinking back down to a point, but if there's no mass, and no gravity then perhaps, even though gravity doesn't seem to thermalize, it somehow goes to infinity at the point of the singularity despite reaching a limit of 0 when all matter has decayed (this is why we really need a working quantum gravity model).

Yet that seems counter-intuitive to what BBT proponents say, when asked how can the universe apparently break the physical boundaries of a singularity they quickly state that there is no actual singularity and yet turn around and postulate the universe collapsing back into a singularity and expanding from over and over. Doesn't make sense to me. If all matter can be shown to pack down into an infinitely hot dense singular point and expand from it, then they need to show a viable mechanism for this rather than saying there is no actual singularity. I asked about this in another thread, I just can't think of the answer given by whomever it was.

Your complaint seems to be that you can't imagine through a series of breakdowns (entropy) that energy will contain "information" about us as humans when we die. This relates very strongly to the information paradox that's encountered when evaluating what happens at the event horizon of a black hole. However I caution you to be very careful about how you think of "information." The background radiation of the universe is technically "information" and it gives us data about the very inception of time & space. Furthermore if you take the CCC hypothesis it's even possible for information to survive between "big bangs." You'd be well served to research the Thorne-Preskill-Hawking bet.

Again, seems counter-intuitive to what we know about the human body and it's energy system. The 'information' that makes up 'you' has never once been shown to be something separate from the brain at all. Everything we know about the energy system of the brain that leads to you requires a constant influx of energy from an outside source. Take away that outside source of energy then any energy being utilized by the brain is dissipated or decoheres to a point of being useless to describe the 'you' that was made from it.

[EDIT TO ADD]

Even *if* a quantum theory of the mind is developed, it wouldn't be postulating some type of 'soul' that would exist after the bodily death of the self. I'm not sure if that is what your trying to allude to, but I do know others use that line of reasoning to show 'proof of' a soul. Any quantum system of the brain would be entirely dependent on the structure and arrangement of matter within the brain itself, once that arrangement has decomposed or ceased functioning even by taking out the electrical component of the system, there would simply be no logical sense to believe the self would still be in existence.

Not arguing against what your saying by stating this, but arguing against those who use this aspect of what you posted, so don't take it personally.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by sirnex]

reply to post by sirnex


Sirnex, my point was that if you close your ears as soon as, for example, a psychologist brings up dimensions,quantum mechanics or terms from separate disciplines, you will risk missing on the truth. A great example I found in thread on ats was a link to an interview karl pribram called the holographic brain. I'm sure google will bring it up.

from www.cymaticsconference.com/ancient-roots.html

" Dr. Jenny coined the term cymatics(from the Greek kyma, meaning "wave" and ta kymatica, meaning "matters pertaining to waves") to describe the study of wave phenomena. The implications of his cymatics studies are vast, especially as applied to the field of healing and vibrational medicine. "

For example, water molecules blessed by an eastern religious practitioner will take on a specific geometry. Watch "What the bleep do we know:down the rabbit hole"....it should be on google or youtube.
I

reply to post by SmokeandShadow

For example, water molecules blessed by an eastern religious practitioner will take on a specific geometry. Watch "What the bleep do we know:down the rabbit hole"....it should be on google or youtube.
I

Wasn't it you that I told I had seen the movie?

I've also read about that water thing and... what I found out about the supposed thing is that it was all bogus. You really have to look at some of the things that refute those claims. Like I said, even the scientists quoted from that movie were pretty pissed that they were misquoted so it sounded like they were in agreement with the movie. I'm not lying about it, seriously look it up if you don't believe me. I have *no* reason to lie, certainly not when the damn facts can be checked against what I say.

[EDIT TO ADD]

" Dr. Jenny coined the term cymatics(from the Greek kyma, meaning "wave" and ta kymatica, meaning "matters pertaining to waves") to describe the study of wave phenomena. The implications of his cymatics studies are vast, especially as applied to the field of healing and vibrational medicine. "

I'm going to be turning in for the night and I'll get into this tomorrow. But for now based on a quick look at the site, what do you think 'sound' is and how it's propagated? They certainly seem to be implying sound as if it's a separate 'thing' that can exist without matter by how they are describing it.

The eighteenth-century German scientist and musician Ernst Chladni, known as the father of acoustics, showed that sound does affect matter. When he drew a violin bow around the edge of a plate covered with fine sand, the sand formed intricate geometric patterns.

Do you understand the mechanics of what is going on here? I'm just asking out of curiosity, because if you honestly don't know and subscribe to the belief that sound is something that can exist separate from matter and have an effect on matter, then I do understand how you can buy into what the site is stating.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by sirnex]

reply to post by sirnex


Sorry sirnex I missed that post, but I will look into it further.

No I don't believe sound is "separate" and didn't imply it was magical...though the mechanics of any geometry formation I will, like I said spend some time researching. Sound as I know it is frequencies traveling and affecting air pressure.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by SmokeandShadow]

reply to post by SmokeandShadow


Here is a link I found in refuting cymatic therapies. LINK

Like I said, tomorrow I'll learn more about both sides before I make a final judgment on the subject, but just from a quick look it doesn't look like it will be in favor of.

reply to post by sirnex


www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsjV1gjBMbQ

Here is solid visual evidence in the above link proving that frequencies (Hz) do have a geometric producing affect on many substances. While it is unproven to "heal", cymatics itself is indeed real, legitimate and experiments can be performed it seems. I am having difficuty finding research on the specific mechanisms of the sound/matter action though. It raises some questions from me personally and makes wonder ( is there some wisdom in Genesis about God speaking the universe into existence e.c.t )

P.S Did anyone else catch that "global community" remark he made in the above video?

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

His basic argument is that after all matter has decayed / radiated away (through the WMAP we're seeing all matter flying to the edges of the universe, so the universe will likely die from an inflationary big freeze) that the only thing left will be a high entropy void of energy (highest state of randomness). From this Penrose postulates that energy somehow accretes back in to matter in a highly uniform state at the point of the singularity. Which seems to mimic your thoughts on energy requiring a constituent mass component.

It's essentially an assumption that the universe actually is expanding, the BBT hasn't really been proven to the point of taking it at face value and deeming it fact. It relies on a few thing's being constant about our universe despite the possibility that those things aren't actually constant at all.

I'm all for different perspectives, but this would imply you have some sort of observational data that's at odds with all the information that's currently been collected (cosmological red-shift, WMAP data, supernovae expansion rate, etc).

With the hubble constant currently being calculated at 71 +- 4 km/s/Mpc we can say based on present evidence that the strength of gravity compared to the density / pressure of the matter in the universe will cause it to expand indefinitely.

Do you disagree with the tests that have been run (if so what?), have alternate contradictory evidence, or do you simply disagree on principle?

Yet that seems counter-intuitive to what BBT proponents say, when asked how can the universe apparently break the physical boundaries of a singularity they quickly state that there is no actual singularity and yet turn around and postulate the universe collapsing back into a singularity and expanding from over and over. Doesn't make sense to me. If all matter can be shown to pack down into an infinitely hot dense singular point and expand from it, then they need to show a viable mechanism for this rather than saying there is no actual singularity. I asked about this in another thread, I just can't think of the answer given by whomever it was.

This is why I recommend you listen to Penrose's lecture. His theory (Weyl curvature hypothesis) basically states that when all matter has decayed, the Weyl curvature causes everything to converge because there's no mass, resulting in a conformally flat manifold.

To be more explicit,

This last possibility is tied up with the issue of the strength of the gravitational interaction ... . In the background of conformal geometry, the strength of gravity may be considered as being infinitely large at the Big Bang (which is, in a sense, why the gravitational degrees of freedom must initially be set to zero), and this strength gets smaller as time progresses, eventually reducing to zero at the final boundary. [1]

Which suggests that general relativity needs to be reformulated in a conformally invariant way.

Your complaint seems to be that you can't imagine through a series of breakdowns (entropy) that energy will contain "information" about us as humans when we die. This relates very strongly to the information paradox that's encountered when evaluating what happens at the event horizon of a black hole. However I caution you to be very careful about how you think of "information." The background radiation of the universe is technically "information" and it gives us data about the very inception of time & space. Furthermore if you take the CCC hypothesis it's even possible for information to survive between "big bangs." You'd be well served to research the Thorne-Preskill-Hawking bet.

Again, seems counter-intuitive to what we know about the human body and it's energy system. The 'information' that makes up 'you' has never once been shown to be something separate from the brain at all. Everything we know about the energy system of the brain that leads to you requires a constant influx of energy from an outside source. Take away that outside source of energy then any energy being utilized by the brain is dissipated or decoheres to a point of being useless to describe the 'you' that was made from it.

So what do you consider a person at birth? Nothing?

Clearly the information that defines me is a composite of my "brain" and the genetic material that dictates my morphology / instinctual behavior.

Information is simply an encoding.

Think of it this way. We know about Earth's history because we can dig up the ground and look at geological striation. From this we've discerned when mass-extinction events occurred; we know when dinosaurs existed through carbon-dating and correlation to geological strata; etc. All of this information is encoded in matter and the ordinality of that matter.

The way this is conveyed is through the electromagnetic spectrum to my eyes, the chemical-electrical processes that define touch / smell, and the vibrations in the air that reach my ears.

Even if Earth was destroyed, a type 3 civilization with advanced tools and a full understanding of the laws of physics could track all the particles in the universe that stemmed from the destruction of Earth. This would then allow for a complete reversal reconstructing where each particle necessarily must have come from and therefore reassemble the geological history of earth.

Even as matter starts to break down we can observe the radiation to determine other properties about it. Consider we know the properties of other planets composition by observing the data results from multi-object spectrometers (measuring light frequencies) and then we couple that with our knowledge that various elements have unique infrared spectral signatures. From this we know the chemical composition of extra-solar planets light years away!

Lets go one step further, our knowledge of the world around us is simply a recognition of properties that fundamentally exist in nature. So we're not actually "creating anything." We're simply transcoding information from reality to thought.

Even our art, something we call our own, is almost always based on physically observable things, interpretations of mathematically / abstract concepts, or it's tied to emotions which we've learned exist in every other animal. So again, even emotions are simply an external biological component that we internalize in to thought to understand the world outside of us.

Some might say that math is a man-made concept, but consider acoustic standing waves create geometric patterns in fluid-dynamic systems (cymatics). Look at the obscene recurrence of things like Euler's e, the Golden Ratio, & pi in nature. Really the only way to accurately describe any thing that occurs in nature is through math and it appears these things fundamentally *are* mathematical at their very heart.

As a game programmer I'm made even more aware of just how capable we are of encoding all things as numbers. Literally every aspect of a video-game is represented as a simple binary sequence that executes in a certain order. Everything from the logic, geometry, coloring of the world, to the music that plays through your speakers is all represented as a numeric sequence.

We can even digitally sequence your genome!

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Xtraeme]

Basically my point is that everything contains information simply in its mass and through the radiation of it information is gained. The fact that we don't have the tools to adequately decipher the state of your mind and the energy it gives off in heat doesn't mean that valid data about "you" doesn't exist when you've passed on. We simply lack the tools to properly decipher those states.

Furthermore I think humans really are just another pattern existing in the background radiation. Consider what makes me, well me, is what I simply observe and experience (which is external to me). Just like there's no time / spatial positioning if there's no mass relative to another unit of mass.

As strange as this sounds basically all things are different ordinalities of an infinite set of the same pieces. That data isn't lost it's simply radiated outwards. This may sound like a big claim, but I can show why this is very likely true in terms of math.

Consider that all numbers are made up of all other numbers. Sounds weird I know, but think about it in terms of Zeno's paradox.

"That which is in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal."

—Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b10

If I were to take any two integer values X and X-1. I can subdivide X infinitely many times and never reach X-1. Which is to say between any two numbers are all fractional parts that compose all other numbers. So from this we can see infinity is simply a recurrence between future integers. Which is a simpler way to express that the microcosm ultimately reflects the macrocosm. Or in symbolic terms:

n+1 = n+2.

Which could then be seen to say the infinity of parts of n+1 are equal to the infinity of parts of n+2.

You might say, "but N+1 can't equal N+2 using math as we understand it because it doesn't add up!" I'd beg to differ.

This idea of n+1 = n+2 can be demonstrated by showing that SqrRoot(2) = 2.

If you have a hard time seeing why this is true, simply remember SqrRoot(a^2 + b^2) is the hypotenuse of a triangle. Now consider there are two ways to travel from 0,0 to 1,1. One way is to calculate: SqrRoot(1^2 + 1^2) = SqrRoot(2). Another way is to walk from 0,0 to 1,1 along the X and the Y axis making right and left hand turns.

For example, if I were to travel from X=0 (A on the graph below) to X=1 (B on the graph below) and then from X=1 (B on the graph below) to Y=1 (C on the graph below). I will travel a distance of 2 to get from 0,0 (A on the graph below) to 1,0 (B on the graph below) and finally to 1,1 (C on the graph below).

Now imagine if I halve the distance from 1 in the X-axis to X=.5 (A1 on the graph below) and walk to the halfway point on the Y-axis to Y=.5 (B1 on the graph below) ; and then from X=.5 to X=1 (C1 on the graph below); finally navigating from Y=.5 to Y=1 (C on the graph below) . I would again travel a distance of 2. Now if I repeat this process from Lim n->infinity (Pn). Where Pn represents these subdivisions we never get to SqrRoot(a^2 + b^2). We always reach 2, even though Lim x->inf 1/x = 0. Which is to say we should hit a point where the two merge but there is no point where a difference of 2 - SqrRoot(2) is removed from this (Pn) algorithm.

See here for a helpful illustration:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/44cad66b75e8.gif[/atsimg]

Thus SqrRoot(2) = 2. If you can see this then:

Squaring both sides,

2 = 4 and dividing both sides by 2, we get
1 = 2 and adding n to both sides,
n + 1 = n + 2.

So all mathematics developed to construct rationals and reals will say all numbers are the same. That is everything is zero, with which the whole things started. And by starting with zero, we end up in zero.

What this suggests is literally all numbers contain all other numbers. Put another way you can consider 0 to sometimes mean 0_pi. In other instances 0_infinity. And so on.

It also shows there are two operations to achieve the same exact goal resulting in different outcomes, but are for all intents and purposes the same.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Xtraeme]

A Closed Mind is a Closed Door My Friend. Thru many ideas may come 1 miracle.
As far as education - education is not always classroom oriented. The best education is experience.