General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2177150

    INFORMATION AS A FOUNDATION

    Locked

    by fluxit ·

    of the universe is an emerging view in deep science. In fact, the universe is built on far more information than its capacity to store it. More interesting, the basis of the particle universe is digital and not analog.

    This then brings into question what is our computer? Is it a computer within a computer like an infinite loop of video feedback or opposing mirrors?

    Are we all Max Headroom of a sort?

    What is the behavior of sureal numbers like infinite to the power of infinite. Why is the Earth at the exact geometric mean in terms of order of magnitude between the smallest particles and the largest galaxies? Both of which we cannot directly see. We only indirectly test and evaluate these objects.

    Which is correct the Blind Watchman Argument or Intelligent Design?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3350404

      Good LORD!!

      by jessie ·

      In reply to INFORMATION AS A FOUNDATION

      “And as soon as I figure out what you just said, I’ll come back with a smashing reply.” Danny Kaye – 1954 – White Christmas

      My gut feeling says Intelligent Design… I just feel like the Universe is too ordered for there NOT to have been someone putting all the pieces together… but I’m sure we won’t find the true answer in this lifetime.

      Of course, then the question is, Is there truly order to the universe or has man imposed a pattern in order to “wrap his mind” around the chaos?

      • #3350393

        CHAOS IS ORDERED

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to Good LORD!!

        Chaos is a perfectly orders indeterminant system.

        • #3237305

          But only as described by man!

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to CHAOS IS ORDERED

          😀

        • #3237288

          Mathematics is…

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to But only as described by man!

          the language of the universe. It is consistent everywhere.

        • #3237146

          Or so we Postulate

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Mathematics is…

          Just like an electron can only exist in one plane either up or down which can be con strewed as a 0 or 1 if you want to look at it in binary terms.

          We are constantly trying to find order in what may very well be a disorganized Universe and because we lack the ability to prove the hypotheses that is exactly what they remain nothing more and nothing less.

          Man kind can look at something and expect to find order and even establish order where none exists and because they think that they have created order they just work along and never question the original hypotheses that brought the order in the first place and promote this hypothesis to a theory without the scientific testing that it requires in an attempt to show order higher up the chain.

          Of course I’m only applying this to things like Quantum Theory and other sciences in their infancy that while are interesting are still no where the position of being able to prove the hypotheses that they are built upon.

          Col ]:)

        • #3242957

          MATHEMATICS APPLIES AT ALL LAYERS

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Or so we Postulate

          Math works in the Quantum layers as it does in the mesophysical and physical. The mathematics used at the Quantum level center on probabilitic or statistical outcomes rather than non-linear systems of equations used in the physical.

        • #3237978

          Mesophysical

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to MATHEMATICS APPLIES AT ALL LAYERS

          WTF? “Middle-physical”?

        • #3237853

          Mesophysical? 1st, you make up your own rules of logic; now, you own words.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to MATHEMATICS APPLIES AT ALL LAYERS

          Powered by Franklin Electronic Publishers

          The word you’ve entered isn’t in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.

          Suggestions for mesophysical:
          1. mesophyllic
          2. mesospheric
          3. mesophyllous
          4. mesophylls
          5. mesophytic
          6. museological
          7. misfocused
          8. misfocusing
          9. misfocussed
          10. misfocussing

        • #3237822

          I’m afraid I might know what he means.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to MATHEMATICS APPLIES AT ALL LAYERS

          A quantum mechanics professor who had a very enviable reputation at this particular university, used the word mesoscopic once to describe a system containing a number of quanta such that its behavior fit neither the microscopic (quantum) nor mesoscopic (classical) descriptions well. I do not remember what the properties of this scale of system were supposed to be, but I vaguely recall that the professor thought it to be of no theoretical importance, nor to have much promise in technology.

          But MrMiami, even if you used “mesophysical” meaningfully, and although quantum mechanics is described by probabilistic math, the microscopic phenomena described by quantum mechanics are also “physical”, not distinct from the physical but a smaller scale of the same universe in which Newtonian equations describe macroscopic objects at sub-relativistic velocities.

        • #3238931

          mesophysical

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to MATHEMATICS APPLIES AT ALL LAYERS

          is a layer between the quantum and the physical layer. It is often used to describe where nano-technology acts since constructs like protien micro-tubules possess quantum properties like superposition.

          I thought you guys were scientists?

        • #3238808

          The realm of Quantum effects IS the physical one.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to MATHEMATICS APPLIES AT ALL LAYERS

        • #3169640

          Another Astute Observation…Mr Miami.

          by black panther ·

          In reply to MATHEMATICS APPLIES AT ALL LAYERS

          As Pythagoras taught, Sacred Geometry is an ancient, universal language (land-guage). Geometric formations hold information and communicate ideas; not necessarily at a cognitive level, but often at a cellular level. They in-form us cellularly, just as our cells, the building blocks of our physiology, inform our bodies, providing a template for our development. Our cells are vehicles of involution; the movement from spirit to matter, as well as vehicles of evolution; movement from matter to spirit.

          One such tool of Sacred Geometry is the Phi Ratio, the number 1.6180339… (1.618 is commonly used)

          The progression or development of the whole of nature, from the subatomic to the supergalactic, follows this ratio. The twelfth century Italian mathematician, Leonardo P. Fibonacci, observed a predictable sequence of all natural development as shown by a progression of numbers:

          1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, ad infinitum.

          [1 + 0 = 1] [1 + 1 = 2] [2 + 1 = 3] [3 + 2 = 5] [5 + 3 = 8] [8 + 5 = 13] etc.

          The Fibonacci Sequence demonstrates the idea that each stage of natural growth or development refers to its prior state in order to take its next evolutionary step. (This is not unlike Piaget’s principle of rapprochement in child psychology.) It also follows the Phi Ratio, e.g. [5 X 1.618 = 8.09] or approximately 8.0, and over the course of the sequence, 1.618… is exact.

          The spiral is a common element of Sacred Geometry as well as to all natural development. Spirals in nature tend to follow the Phi Ratio or Fibonacci Sequence in their rates of expansion.

          It is only a relatively recent discovery in nature and mathematics that out of complete chaos you can find order. From the creation of a fractal we can understand ourselves and the world. A fractal is an aspect of the Whole that is also the Whole itself. Kind of like a drop of water from the sea, but not exactly. Fractals can be seen, for example, as a snowflake, a computer program, and even our very soul

        • #3171406

          The Pythagorians also believed that all numbers were rational; …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to MATHEMATICS APPLIES AT ALL LAYERS

          not to mention their mythologies.

          We now know the former to be false, and the latter to be wholly unsubstantiated.

          And, there’s nothing mystical about the “Golden Ratio” ( not the “sacred Ratio”). It is the solution to a trivial quadratic equation, and is, in fact, an irrational number, the very kind whose existence was denied by the Pythagorians!

          You’re missing the point that mathematics is an artifact; it is a human construct borne of a desire to [i]find[/i] an orderly way to describe natural phenomena.

        • #3237841

          Quark soup – Turtle Soup.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Or so we Postulate

          And, why stop with quarks?

          After all, there’s no way to prove that they too are naught but aggregations of even smaller particles.

          It’s still a Tower of Turtles, all the way down.

        • #3237855

          Mathematics is a descriptive construct, not an empirical object.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Mathematics is…

          It is consistent only within it’s own self-defined framework.

        • #3237844

          But, he’s not “man.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to But only as described by man!

          He’s the respository of all the “information” in the universe; but, in being such, lacks self-awareness.

          As a result, he is on a quest to find himself!

        • #3237856

          Not all Chaos is ordered; witness your inability to be logical.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to CHAOS IS ORDERED

          Time to put up or shut up.

        • #3170345

          Exactly Right!

          by black panther ·

          In reply to CHAOS IS ORDERED

          Interestingly, both science and religion recognize this law. In science it is often stated, “For every action there is an equal and opposing reaction.” Its religious counterparts are, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”; “As you sow, so shall you reap”; and “As you do unto others, it will be done unto you.” Even today’s common knowledge expresses this principle in the saying, “What goes around, comes around.”

          Consciousness and free will were the greatest qualities given any creation, but they came with equally great responsibility for their use or misuse.

          Therefore, each of these new free-willed beings would simply have to learn to take charge of themselves and to subdue harmful desires in order to live in harmony with the other companions and the Creator. To do otherwise would only bring chaos, suffering, and separation.

        • #3169767

          The Creator?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Exactly Right!

          Proof, sir; where’s the proof?

        • #3169732

          Well Sandy

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to The Creator?

          He’s from my part of the world so he has probably seen my White Mice! 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3169722

          Can you not see it???

          by black panther ·

          In reply to The Creator?

          It is all around you and inside of you but you must be willing to search and accept it!

        • #3169713

          No, I cannot.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Can you not see it???

          I have always had difficulty seeing things that do not exist, likewise I do not remember events that never happened.

        • #3169702

          If you were Blind

          by black panther ·

          In reply to No, I cannot.

          What would exist??

        • #3169697

          I would not claim to see “more” than seeing people.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to No, I cannot.

          You clearly hold a different set of values.

        • #3171019

          If I were blind??

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to No, I cannot.

          Sophestry at its best.

          What would exist? I think a larger question is why would it be any different if I would blind or sighted?

          A blind person simple can “see” in a different way than sighted folks.

          But by your premise, a blind person, because they cannot see, have no existance outside their own bodies…however this is untrue. The physical world has an effect on them.

          Using your logic, if I don’t beleive in gravity will I float away or will magical numbers like pi, phi, and e save me?

        • #3170997

          May the Force be with you!

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to No, I cannot.

          It all sounds a bit like “the force” in the Star Wars movies. No one ever saw it, they just “felt” it.

          Well, it was a beaut piece of fiction for a great (science) fiction series of stories, but that was all it was — fiction.

          In exactly the same way is the Creator (God, Allah, etc.) a fiction. Nice, perhaps, but totally unnecessary.

        • #3171470

          Talking of Star Wars

          by black panther ·

          In reply to No, I cannot.

          Episode III

          “Only a Sith deals in Absolutes” 🙂

        • #3171388

          Should that not be “May the Farce be With You?”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to No, I cannot.

          Makes more sense.

        • #3171385

          Farce? Yes, very likely!

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to No, I cannot.

          What happened at the stock exchange when Darth Vader chucked Emperor Palpatine down the shaft?

          Sith shares just plummeted.

        • #3171404

          No, since you posited such, you must PROVE it.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Can you not see it???

          Merely saying that you believe such does not make it so.

        • #3171373

          Proof

          by black panther ·

          In reply to No, since you posited such, you must PROVE it.

          Only you can prove it!

        • #3171349

          Then it remains but conjecture.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to No, since you posited such, you must PROVE it.

          I was hoping for rational discourse, but now find you engaging in mere sophistry.

        • #3192850

          Proof of the Creator…….???? Back in 1992? Comments?

          by black panther ·

          In reply to The Creator?

          A Seminal Presentation by Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, given in South Barrington, Illinois, April 16, 1994

          Editor’s note: This lecture was selected not in spite of being more than 10 years old, but because it is more than 10 years old. Virtually every statement and inference given in this speech has been reinforced and further validated during the last decade by measurements from the COBE Satellite, the Hubble Telescope, and advances in physics and astronomy.

          The hallmark of a truly reliable scientific theory is that it is thoroughly testable, scientifically falsifiable, and makes accurate predictions. Dr. Ross’s origins model has stood the test of time for nearly two decades, literally receiving further validation on a monthly basis as physics and astronomy journals publish new papers. I believe you’ll enjoy this ground-breaking information from Hugh Ross.

          Listen to Audio for “full version” or read for abridged version.

          http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

        • #3192789

          Why I can’t believe in a Creator God

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Proof of the Creator…….???? Back in 1992? Comments?

          I read with great interest the article from the talk of Hugh Ross. Yes, he said all the right things about cosmology as it was understood up until that time (1992/4), and yes, I couldn’t really fault his physics of cosmology.

          So why suddenly introduce a mythical being into the mix? Something that can probably never be proved, no matter how long into the future we try.

          God, or the Creator, is an invention of humanity’s making, something to fill all the gaps where missing knowledge still exists.

          God also edges dangerously close to the world of philosophy rather than science, so what benefits will there be by bringing him (her? it?) into a purely scientific construct?

          What’s wrong with math? Physics? Aren’t they both perfectly capable of standing on their own two feet, to give them the anthropomorphic view we generally reserve for this God person?

          Maybe science itself is edging slowly towards philosophy in its own right — don’t get me wrong here; I love philosophy, and studying it, but in its proper place, please — and certainly with quantum science going the way it is at present, this does appear to be so.

          Are physicists afraid of this trend? Yes, I think they probably are. If that’s the way science is heading at the moment — cosmology and quantum science in particular — it’s an area where most physicists haven’t been before, so they’re wary of it.

          We’re all a bit wary of the unknown, but the reason this time, I believe, is that if science edges too close to philosophy, it will become something that perhaps isn’t quite science any more, nor quite philosophical either.

          And once that happens, it could become untestable, unable to undergo experiments, issues always so closely linked to science that no-one ever thought there’d be a time when the two could be separated.

          Physicists and theoretical cosmologists simply don’t know how they’re going to deal with this new situation, that’s all, so they’re wary, and rightly so.

          And God, the Creator? Well, anthropomorphic as we’ve made this being, he still can’t be captured and put under a microscope, or stuck in a test tube and experimented on.

          We’ve done our best to de-anthropomorphise God in recent times, but even that doesn’t make it any easier to nab him for scientific observation.

          I lean heavily toward skepticism when it comes to the scientific method and experimentation. If an hypothesis buckles under their pressure, it doesn’t become a theory, much less a law.

          Therefore, God is a highly original figment of early humanity’s no doubt very vivid imagination, while those surrounding him — the Mary and Jesus myth for example, which so closely mirrors the older Isis and Horus myth from Egypt — all these and more are simply products of our ancestors’ minds, myths and legends all of them, a way to wile away the dark hours around community fires once the day was over and before going to sleep.

          Which is why I can’t believe in a Creator God any longer. I’ve grown beyond the need for one because science is all that’s necessary in my world, my universe.

          G

        • #3174513

          Still a metaphysical issue.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Proof of the Creator…….???? Back in 1992? Comments?

          As I and others have repeatedly noted, matters of philosophy are metaphysical, and, by definition, not provable given current knowledge.

          If and when they become provable, they become empirical, thus losing their mystical qualities.

          Arthur Clarke, author of [i]2001: A Space Odessey[/i], famously observed that “any sufficiently advanced technology will seem to be magic.”

          Gain sufficient information, knowledge & understanding, and the magical becomes the mundane.

        • #3174261

          Of course it is . . .

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Still a metaphysical issue.

          And I totally agree with you, Boone. But mystical or magical still doesn’t necessarily imply instant empiricism just because they may one day be provable.

          Okay, I admit to a little gentle facetiousness by talking about God the way I did, although it doesn’t alter the fact that I have no faith in any religion that supports such a God. I don’t.

          I’d rather put my “faith” in the common morals and ethics of our society and live by them than some amorphous anthropomorphic figment of our imaginations, that’s all.

          Maybe that post would have done better in Dawg’s thread than here, but no matter.

          However, there are still concepts that will forever remain “magic” or “mystical”, if you like, no matter how much we know about them, can even prove their existence and, to some extent, even test them via the scientific method.

          These concepts fall into two camps, the wholly astronomical, and the cosmological/quantum. The astronomical includes things like the Big Bang (I prefer the Big Whimper, but that’s another story!), plus dark matter, MACHOS, WIMPS, and a host of other bizarre objects that, because of distance, both temporal and spatial, will remain forever out of our physical reach.

          On the cosmological/quantum side, there are those many hypotheses that no matter how popular they become [in the quest for the ultimate TOE] or how “testable” they may be as well, will forever remain just as beyond our physical reach for as long as we remain in our present three-dimensional moulds. They will forever be just mathematical constructs.

          But just as much does this kind of “magic” edge towards the philosophical plane as the kind that produces Creator Gods (IMHO). Both are unreachable by current technology, and no matter what our progress in the future, may forever remain that way.

          Perhaps there’s a way to further define these images — “quantum magic”, “philosophical magic” and “cosmological magic” maybe.

          Okay, I’m ready to be proved wrong, and just as ready to be shot down in flames. I have great difficulty trying to put into words some of these concepts because we haven’t invented the words for them yet!

        • #3173879

          Well Gret

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Still a metaphysical issue.

          As you are into Astrology you may get a kick out of the latest {for me anyway} New Scientist that I’ve just got around to part way reading.

          God it is new I must have not filed a few it is however the Cover Story on the 4 June 2005 issue about negative refraction of light and why the current Star Maps may not be correct as well as explain just why the observations on the Pioneer 10 Spacecraft seem not to compute. They also go on to discuss not only Dark Matter but the possibility of Dark Energy.

          So before you begin drawing up “She Who Must Be Obeyed’ Star Chart you might want to delve into these possible problems and correct it accordingly. Of course if Negative Refraction does occur that will leave the Astronomers and Astrophysicists scratching their heads foe quite some time to come but it just may very well explain where all the missing matter actually is. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3173153

          Aaaahhhh! You mentioned the dreaded ‘A’ word . . .

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Still a metaphysical issue.

          That which we do not recognise! You will now have to crawl all the way to Melbourne on a bed of nails, kiss my Big TOE, beg forgiveness of the Mouse Queen and memorise everything there is to be known about quantum computers in order that your rash reference be forgiven, Col. This is serious, very, very serious!

          Negative refraction, from memory, has something to do with refractive lensing, I think. Uncle Albert and all that.

          Negative energy I’m still reading up on, so I’ll get myself a copy of the mag tomorrow. Dark matter — both hot and cold — is probably somehow tied up with quantum’s 11 dimensional universe.

          After all, if we can only account for 2% of all the [baryonic] matter that’s in the universe at present, then where’s the other 98%? It’s gotta be somewhere, and at the moment, until a better explanation can be offered, tucked away inside the other six dimensions seems to be the logical answer.

          I’ll have a stab at doing She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed’s star chart — ordinary star chart, that is — but first I’ll need her exact moment of birth, exact day and place, whether it was fine or wet, and what her mother said to the doctor afterwards before I can do anything.

          Hope the nails aren’t too sharp!

        • #3173063

          I thought that would get you worked up Gret.

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Still a metaphysical issue.

          I’m not even going to apologize as I’m just plain and simple sarcastic. 😀

          Now for the really important things “She Who Must Be Obeyed” was born at 3.25 AM on the 14-6-1756 in Paris France {Yes I know she’s a blood sucking immortal :)} the weather was bad and horribly rainy and the first words that her mother said to the Midwife who delivered her was Thank God that’s finished. 😀

          But the basis of refraction is that light is always bent the same way as it travels through different materials and this is something that has been used in Astronomy for a very long time now. The idea of Negative Refraction meaning the light is bent the other way was first postulated in 1637 I think and then latter Maxwell’s equations where thought of as the standard which are still used today in some form or other.

          That is Clerk Maxwell not the Silver Hammer Man that resides here though he could be the guy as he hides so much from the peers here so no one actually knows who he is so he could actually be well over 250 years old and be just like “She Who Must Be Obeyed!” 😀

          And for your information have a look at the posting toward the bottom of the page. Now would you like that to happen? :p

          Col ]:)

        • #3174453

          Hugh Ross

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Proof of the Creator…….???? Back in 1992? Comments?

          We had this in the Evolution Lie thread. I can’t remember whether it was posted by MrMiami or ippirate but it was certainly posted for the same reason that you have done so.

          I can’t be bothered to post on it again – quite a lot of the science is a bit iffy by the way – except to repeat the thought that I had last time.

          What this guy – and, by proxy, you – is asking us to believe is that the universe is as vast and as old and, yes, as wonderful as any dedicated big-bang cosmologist would say. What Ross states in addition, however, is that that wonderful, immense, ancient universe is a sterile backdrop for our tiny little planet and its inhabitants and their woefully small years of existence.

          How sad. How absolutely arrogantly narrow.

          Believe it if you want. I cannot and will not.

        • #3169638

          Right!

          by black panther ·

          In reply to CHAOS IS ORDERED

          The chaos of our human lives is re-iterated from the subatomic through the cosmic level. Chaos is the matrix of creation. It provides a bridge for unfolding “heaven on earth”, a means of manifesting and grounding spiritual energy, that is not only creative but healing.
          A state-of-the-art empirical foundation is essential for any well-grounded philosophy of life and a realistic self-concept. We create limited subjective fantasies about ourselves and the nature of the universe all the time. Usually we do not examine our a priori beliefs which condition those notions.
          We grasp our beliefs as though they were the most precious of gemstones, rather than just models or constructs. The true nature of perception dictates that we experience only a simulation of ourselves and the world-at-large (Tart, 1992). From our worldview come symbols and images which a small part of our brain, and an even smaller part of our mind and consciousness clings to, attempting to structure reality out of chaos.
          By clutching these beliefs, we then limit our experience of reality to that defined by them. For the most part, these underlying beliefs are rooted in notions about the nature of reality which are derived from 17th century physics and philosophy. The old mechanistic view asserts that mind and matter are separate.
          Newton’s discoveries bolstered the notion that reality is a universe consisting of separate objects interacting with one another according to fixed laws of cause and effect. The laws are learned through objective observation and measurement. Causal laws fit with our direct experience of the universe and are therefore supported as feeling “right” by intuition. Einstein said our language requires coordinates.
          Since we live in a culture which is mostly based on this science and its technology, we generally accept these notions as a given, as axioms too basic to be questioned. We may know about the irrational, counter-intuitive concepts of quantum mechanics, yet it hardly seems to affect us.
          Our beliefs are still largely rooted in cause-and-effect. From these axioms we also construct our ego and personality which is a collection of secondary beliefs about what we are and how we can relate to and control our surroundings.
          It seems to work. Using this system of thought and belief, we are able to control much of the physical world around us. That is, until catastrophic chaos intervenes in our lives. It may come in the form of natural disaster, random victimization, the bifurcation of a love triangle [paramour as strange attractor], or a crisis in transition from one phase of life to another.

        • #3171399

          By definition, chaos is NOT ordered.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Right!

          Any [i]appearance[/i] of order amidst chaos is a natural result of random clustering.

        • #3192806

          Hells bells, Mr M . . .

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to CHAOS IS ORDERED

          Haven’t you ever heard of quantum physics? Or the Chaos Theory? Get with it, man!

        • #3174511

          And, this from the one who started the Discussion entitled …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Hells bells, Mr M . . .

          “TECH’S KNOW IT ALL”
          [v]http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=165719&start=0[/v].

          Even then he was a shouter.

        • #3174260

          For just a single second . . .

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to And, this from the one who started the Discussion entitled …

          I thought your post was aimed at me, Boone, until I quickly realised you meant Mr Miami!

          I don’t know whether I feel up to an excursion into Chaos Theory at the moment though. I’ve just come from teaching my students about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Schrodinger’s Cat all afternoon! I need a rest!

        • #3173185

          Uncertainty Principle & Schrodinger’s Cat?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to For just a single second . . .

          Me thinks that you may know a bit more about Quantum physics than you’ve let on!

          Or, perhaps simply more than you realize.

        • #3173150

          Aw, c’mon, DS! You know very well . . .

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Uncertainty Principle & Schrodinger’s Cat?

          That’s the easy part of QP! It’s the rest that still fries my brain!!

        • #3174113

          Concept vs Consequences

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Uncertainty Principle & Schrodinger’s Cat?

          If I’m understanding you correctly, you do understand the concept of quanta and the logical implications.

          What is less clear to me is whether you are having difficulty understanding the consequences, or trouble reconciling them with your perception of reality.

          Whichever it may be, please try to not fry any more of your brain cells; between the lot of us we’ve barely enough left as it is.

      • #3256894

        want the true answer?

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Good LORD!!

        There’s a fantastic book called “Sync” that I’ve just finished reading. It explains how vaious chaotic systems spontaneously synchronize, and for me finalized the conclusion that there does not HAVE to be any “designer”, and that the entire universe is totally understandable as simply the sum of its parts. Of course there are still questions that cannot quite be answered, like the exact value of the Hubble Constant and all that depends on it, but my analysis is that the truth is out there, and not behind any one-way glass.

        • #3170991

          Yes please! — that is, I’ll have the book instead

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to want the true answer?

          Sounds like a good book, Absolutely. Any chance of some details, so that I can either pick it up at the Library, or more probably, just order it and buy it so I can read it any time.

          I’m not sure if things like the exact value of the Hubble Constant will ever really be known. It changes with the changing equipment we have for measuring distances, etc., out there, as well as the rate at which all these things change.

          We’d have to stop progressing entirely for the HC to gain an “exact” value, and, let’s face it, that’s not going to happen — thank heavens!

        • #3171390

          Steven Strogatz is the author

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Yes please! — that is, I’ll have the book instead

          And I cannot take any more of this thread. I’ll see you back at the White Mice’s lair, OK?

        • #3171383

          Thanks, Absolutely!

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Steven Strogatz is the author

          I’ll pay a visit to the book store and order a copy.

        • #3171340

          Not at all.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Thanks, Absolutely!

          I’m glad to provide you some interesting data this once, but I still owe you a few good turns!

      • #3237846

        Please, don’t encourage him by using the “L” word.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Good LORD!!

        He’ll think that he’s found an fellow proselytizer.

        • #3236756

          Perhaps we should lobby TR

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Please, don’t encourage him by using the “L” word.

          To have that particular 4 letter word #### out whenever it is posted.

          At least that way we could all get on with our lives without having someone read something that was never intended into any of our postings. 🙂

          Col ]:)

        • #3238803

          Where are the PC Police when they’re needed?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Perhaps we should lobby TR

          Oh, the inhumanity of it all.

        • #3235639

          Sitting on their fat ASCIIs?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Where are the PC Police when they’re needed?

          Eating…do loops?

          I think I’ve pretty well demolished MrMiami’s claim of the necessity for God based on excess information, so we may as well turn this into another mouse-joke thread…DA.M! I should have bet you that if I could do so, you’d explain the mystery of your name! Oh well, will you tell?

        • #3181463

          All in good time.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Sitting on their fat ASCIIs?

          You’re a clever enough lad; why not give it some thought?

          You see, observing others reactions here provides me with a measure of my success in choosing a suitable alias.

        • #3181755

          Flattery will get you nowhere.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to All in good time.

          I am clever enough to know that I’m no lad any more.

        • #3180484

          Are you certain of that?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to All in good time.

          See 2nd meaning.

          Main Entry: lad
          Pronunciation: ‘lad
          Function: noun
          Etymology: Middle English ladde
          1 : a male person of any age between early boyhood and maturity : BOY, YOUTH
          [b]2 : FELLOW, CHAP [/b]

    • #3245520

      you don’t say?

      by absolutely ·

      In reply to INFORMATION AS A FOUNDATION

      What evidence leads you to believe that the universe is built on far more information than its capacity to store it? This is a fascinating claim that I would love to understand fully. Websites, book titles, please, whatever.

      • #3238022

        TRY COMMON SENSE…

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to you don’t say?

        How do we achieve the most efficient storage of data occur in this Universe? Try one electron for one bit or let’s go smaller and use one quanta for a bit. Now try to store all the information about that quanta or electron using that same bit. You’ll need to store information like weight, dimensionality, charge, and duration of existence in that single bit. Oh by the way, some how my posting needs to be stored using bits and the information about the equipment will need to be stored. But the quanta is too busy trying to store data about itself and cannot be tasked with superflurious data.

        Oh wait DNA stores information but requires information to act on the strand such as timing, sequencing, and duration of genes firing? Where does that information comes from?

        Could it be that data is not stored physically in this universe? Perhaps you can enlighten me as to where all this information comes from. I believe Dr Dij has a mysterious POOF! and it appears from nowhere.

        • #3238008

          Common sense??? You seem to lack the necessary prerequisites as well as….

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to TRY COMMON SENSE…

          being deficient in manners. Too bad there isn’t a “Poof” that could make you disappear. Contempt does not begin to describe what is felt for your ignorance, lack of intelligence and overall bad manners. Take a hint scumbag, we are rapidly reaching a point where you won’t be addressed or responded to unless you clean up your act.

          Dawg

        • #3237289

          OK RETHINK THIS…

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Common sense??? You seem to lack the necessary prerequisites as well as….

          I am so used to being put on the defensive with continued less than rational scientific oh let us say emotional attacks and insults that my initial response is to return fire in kind.

          Information is thought to be stored holographically versus physically in this universe. Using wave theory and Fourier’s formulas compounded data can be stored and recalled.

          However, scientists are baffled because no one can determine the origin of information using pure science. It is a boundary limit that science cannot cross.

          I’ll pull resources on this. In fact, instead of posting here I’ll write techbriefs and post them on my site.

        • #3237850

          Where no mind has gone before.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to OK RETHINK THIS…

          You could’nt engage in a logical debate if your life depended on it.

        • #3237741

          WTF?

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to OK RETHINK THIS…

          Science can’t break into a philisophical mode!!?? AMAZING REVILATION.

          And what are you talking about with Fast Fourier Transforms (I assume this is what you are getting at)? All it is really used for is to convert TDM to FDM and vise versa (www.cis.rit.edu/htbooks/nmr/gloss.htm). So you are saying that somehow magically we can use this to store holographic images “in the universe?” How does that make any sense?

          You always try to whip out wave form this and [insert mathematical formula or intert buzz word here] that. The problem is you don’t know the first thing about them.

          Please explain to me how using the Fourier Transform we can deduce that information is stored holographically.

        • #3237735

          BY THE POWER OF GRAYSKULL!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to WTF?

          Mister Garvin, clearly you do not know MrMiami very well. Your use of the word “explain” is hilarious.

          His is clearly an example of the “new faith”, wherein not only proof and evidence are dismissed as heresy, but knowledge and understanding of any kind are tantamount to blasphemy! Explain…giggling maniacally…MrMiami, explain…ha!

          No, he just uses words that he doesn’t understand, just as he doesn’t understand his faith, and now can no longer understand the concept that understanding is even possible to humans.

          Did you notice how nicely deepsand made the symmetric replies?

          Sorry about the frivolity, it will happen again though!

        • #3237732

          The giggle factor.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to BY THE POWER OF GRAYSKULL!

          No doubt this would be viewed as a disruption of Holy Synchronicity, in an attempt by the Minions of Evil to disrupt the Eternal Continuity that Pervades All & provides for the Omnipresent Communion of The Believers with The One and Only True Creator of The Universe, Seen & Unseen, Knowable & Unknowable, Real or Otherwise.

          Damned, I’m good at this sh.it. Many have told me that I should be a writer; perhaps I’ll specialize as a Prophet.

        • #3237725

          Those TR stinkers

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to BY THE POWER OF GRAYSKULL!

          Took away my third die, now I only have 2 sixes 😉

          Excellent work, btw, making the responses above such a symmetrical triangular pattern!

          Now, I simply must find my password and write it down to access this page from work at lunch tomorrow. I read the posts at lunch today, and this is just too much fun to wait all day long!

        • #3236899

          hahaha

          by jck ·

          In reply to BY THE POWER OF GRAYSKULL!

          I HAVE THE POWER!!!

          Oh jesus…that’s funny

        • #3238902

          TIME/FREQUENCY/WAVE DIVISION MULTIPLEXING

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to WTF?

          In holography data is stored basically in constructive and destructive concentric waveform patterns that is the outcome of a reference beam and a data beam combining from a highly polarized waveform source – a laser in most cases. Fourier series deal with waveforms combining waveform signals or pull them apart for data aggregation purposes without having to store it in the traditional sense of an electrical charge on a silver-oxide surface. There may be a surface of some sort but not as we think traditionally.

          Historically, data storage effiency has been improving. 30 years ago it took millions of electrons to store one bit of data. Today data storage efficencies are much better. But the traditional storage methods store only attributes of an object and not the essences of the object.

          Holography is a capable of storing the essence of the object (with all the attribute embedded) and may actually be the method not only by which our minds store data but the universe itself since the implicit domain of the universe is essentially an ocean of waveforms.

          Therefore, waveform mathematics applies.

        • #3238878

          Taking all those claims at face value…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to TIME/FREQUENCY/WAVE DIVISION MULTIPLEXING

          would only lead to the logical conclusion that Fourier methods might have some relation to your case, not the direct application you imply. The claim that holography is capable of storing the essence of the object with all the attributes embedded is particularly…difficult.

          Why do you suppose that human memory is stored holographically? I’m pretty sure there are no lasers or optical data retrieval systems in MY head…

        • #3238810

          Arg my brain!

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to TIME/FREQUENCY/WAVE DIVISION MULTIPLEXING

          At no point in your rambling, did you even come close to an intelligent thought. I award you no points, may God have mercy on your soul.

          You still didn’t answer the question. How does TDM/FDM or the Fourier Transform relate to holography?

        • #3238805

          Mush ado about nothing.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to TIME/FREQUENCY/WAVE DIVISION MULTIPLEXING

          You’re still babbling.

          Address the logical flaw in ID’s premise.

        • #3237407

          WHAT IS IT ABOUT FDM…

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to TIME/FREQUENCY/WAVE DIVISION MULTIPLEXING

          and tdm and fourier transforms that you seek to know other than how it applies? Do what want proofs? Do you desire to learn about how to practically apply those methods? What is it about those you desire?

        • #3237382

          It’s not the Fourier methods that are unclear.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to TIME/FREQUENCY/WAVE DIVISION MULTIPLEXING

          It is their application to the view you are proposing. Fourier theory is useful because functions that cannot be represented by a single periodic wave can be represented as a superposition of severa periodic waves. How does that support the claim of too much information in the universe for there to be no “backstage area”?

        • #3237317

          Explain for me please

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to TIME/FREQUENCY/WAVE DIVISION MULTIPLEXING

          What your comments on the Fourier series have to do with ANYTHING in your post. Also explain how holography and TDM/FDM create some kind of magical matrix for you.

        • #3232278

          jmgarvin, I especially want to hear this one. It’s gotta be a beaut.

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to TIME/FREQUENCY/WAVE DIVISION MULTIPLEXING

          MrMiami and holography in the same post??? This one I really want to read. There are many things that holography can be used for but this is the first time I’ve ever heard of this particular application unless he is referring to virtual reality.

          Dawg ]:)

        • #3170347

          Starting to get close!

          by black panther ·

          In reply to TIME/FREQUENCY/WAVE DIVISION MULTIPLEXING

          Intelligent Design…

          The cosmos was built with music, arithmetic, geometry, harmony, system, and balance. The building blocks were all of the same material – the life essence.

          The universe… including humans is made up of “vibrations” and “light”.

          The earth, the sun, the moon, the darkness, the light, the planets, and all forms of life ? plants, rocks, animals, and people ? are interconnected; they come from the same source of light. Everything is united by a transparent net, or web, and each thread shines with great radiance. Everything pulses with the same luminosity ? a magnificent light of unparalleled brilliance.

          In metaphysical terms, light is eternal and omnipresent, and while it diminishes in inverse proportion to the square of the distance, it sooner or later fills the entire universe. Light is the vehicle of divinity.

          Of the infinate number of frequencies the only separation is of all matter is the “void”

          I can tell you this now; the void is less than nothing, yet more than everything that is! The void is absolute zero; chaos forming all possibilities. It is absolute consciousness; much more than even universal intelligence.

          Where is the void? I know. The void is inside and outside everything. You, right now even while you live, are always inside and outside the void simultaneously. You don’t have to go anywhere or die to get there. The void is the vacuum or nothingness between all physical manifestations. The SPACE between atoms and their components.

          The Big Bang was a “vibration” one of many Big Bangs.

          The Big Bang is only one of an infinite number of Big Bangs creating universes endlessly and simultaneously.

          It was the power of God that changed the length of its wave and the rate of its vibration which created the patterns for multitudes of forms. This action resulted in the law of diversity which supplied endless patterns. God played on this law of diversity as a pianist plays on a piano – producing melodies and arranging them in a symphony.

          Each design carried within it the plan for its evolution. This plan corresponds to the sound of a note struck on a piano. The sounds of several notes unite to make a chord; chords in turn become phrases; phrases become melodies; melodies intermingle and move back and forth, across and between and around each other, to make a symphony. Then in the end, the music will stop and the physical universe will be no more; but between the beginning and the finish of the music there was glorious beauty and a glorious experience. The spiritual universe will continue.

          Everything assumed its design in various forms and their activity resulted in the law of attraction and repulsion. All forms would attract and repel each other in their evolutionary dance.

          The nucleus of the soul was the balance of positive and negative forces that are equal in power. These forces produce harmonious activities: the positive initiating, impregnating, and thrusting forward; the negative receiving, nourishing, and ejecting. The steps of this evolutionary process are also the stages of the thought process: perception, reflection, and opinion.

          To enter into another level of creation and become part of it, the soul had to assume a new, or third consciousness – a physical form. Assuming a physical form is a way of experiencing that level of creation by means of a conscious mind (i.e., the third consciousness). Through the conscious mind, an individual can experience physical consciousness: the physical body, the five senses, the glandular and nervous systems. This transformation of consciousness does not apply everywhere at this level of creation. In other worlds and solar systems, the transformation may differ. One can only imagine the number of these other worlds and the aspects of divine mind which they represent.

        • #3170271

          Occam called, he wants his razor back

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to TIME/FREQUENCY/WAVE DIVISION MULTIPLEXING

          NT

        • #3170243

          Application

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to TIME/FREQUENCY/WAVE DIVISION MULTIPLEXING

          You have asked before whether we need instruction on Fourier transform theory or your theory. It is your theory that does not make sense. Feel free to assume knowledge of Fourier’s methods, and just make the application sensible.

        • #3237243

          This is all a little confusing

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to TRY COMMON SENSE…

          Perhaps it’s your incomplete understanding of what your trying to say. It may be our limited understanding and I’m willing to explore it.

          A couple of issues. Why do you believe that electrons are binary? Where do you get the concept of the “bit” from? Intel didn’t make them.

          As for the DNA. DNA is a part of a more complex system. On its own, it does nothing. The signals for replication are enzyme triggers kicked off by chemical stimulation – too much something, too little something. This is all in the scientific literature if you go and look. Nowhere does anyone mention extra-universe storage.

          As Absolutely requested. Sources, please?

        • #3237145

          Neil it is the latest in

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to This is all a little confusing

          Quantum Theory well the bit about the electrons anyway the current hypotheses is that an electron can only exist in one plane either up or down and reducing this to binary terms means a 1 or a 0. While it may well be correct it is just s Hypotheses and still lacks the ability to be tested but it is what a few people are doing in an attempt to try to make Quantum Theory more understandable by the masses. It is the main article in New Scientist’s February Issue.

          Col ]:)

        • #3237123

          Thanks Col

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Neil it is the latest in

          I’ll check it out. But he’s still talking about an attribute which is its own information simply because it is a state and therefore measurable. (Leaving out any Uncertainty Priciple from this).

          Neil 🙂

          I’ll stick to beating him up on DNA, I don’t have too much time for Quatum Physics these days.

        • #3237111

          Talking of space-Time

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Neil it is the latest in

          Have you got the new Dr. Who yet?

          I enclose this snippet from the UK papers:

          “Censors have ruled that children under the age of 12 will not be able to buy the new series on Doctor Who on video or DVD because it shows excessive cruelty towards a Dalek.”

          You couldn’t make it up!

          Neil 😀

        • #3237071

          Neil cut it out!

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Talking of space-Time

          I’m still crying from laughing so hard on that one excessive cruelty to a Darlek? 🙂

          What about the excessive cruelty that the Darlecks inflict on every other species? Or are they now more PC and all touchy feely? 😉

          Actually it starts here next Saturday Night at 7.30 PM so I know where I’m going to be if momy lets me. 😀

          I wounder if I’m old enough to buy the videos, maybe I’ll be adversely affected by all that mindless violence. 🙁

          God only knows what they must make of the rubbish like Days of our lives the Bold and the Beautiful or as I like to call it the BS for the Brain Dead. 😉

          Anyway I’m working on learning how to program a VCR as the destruction manuals are really not all that clear and I’m only a lowly computer tech so I’m not expected to understand such “High Tech” things. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3170965

          Dr ?

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Neil cut it out!

          Heavens Col, haven’t they started the new Dr Who up north yet? You poor, depraved — sorry, deprived — basket!

          We’ve had it for three weeks now down here and Mart’s in his element(ary), of course.

          Don’t tell me you actually watch those daily soaps? I can’t believe it! Haven’t you got better things to do, like b**n a CD or two for your poor, benighted friends who can’t even figure out where the serial numbers are??

          Anyway, you’ll get a real kick out of Dr Who. If nothing else, both he and his sidekick, Rose, are more or less 21st century, and both good-looking as well.

          Outrageously nonsensical stuff, but wonderful for watching now winter’s coming on. I’m looking forward to the Dalek that gets bashed, or clobbered or whatever. What a giggle!

        • #3237828

          And you Brits complain about us Yanks being daft?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Talking of space-Time

          Time to head to the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

        • #3170984

          Time And Relative Dimensions In Space

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Talking of space-Time

          Love it! Only got the first three episodes on DVD, but it’s screened here now every Saturday evening. Brings back all those childhood memories — of my kids, I mean!

          C’mon, Neil! It’s good, bland (i.e. no sex) sci-fi stuff to sit down and watch on a cold wintry evening and take you out of yourself (make you forget the Mr Miamis of this world).

          Love the bit from the paper! My son’s “under 12” (he never has grown up) going on 31, and he had no difficulty getting the DVDs.

        • #3170977

          Gret, I love it!

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Time And Relative Dimensions In Space

          Watched ’em all!

          I think he’s a great Doctor but he’s giving it up after one series! I think that they’ve got the mix about right for early evening with some comedy and good (slightly corny)) special effects. We get it Saturday at 7pm and it sets me up for an evening out.

          Neil 😀

        • #3170942

          A-travelling we will go . . . in time and space

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Time And Relative Dimensions In Space

          Glad to hear it, Neil. For just a moment I thought you sounded anti-Dr Who, and I simply couldn’t imagine why!

          You’re right. It is a good mix for early evening, and everyone I’ve spoken to about it really loves it. It’s great stuff for kids of all ages, from “9 to 99”, as they say.

          I was sorry to hear that both Christopher Eccleston and Billie Piper were bowing out at the end of the season. Not sure where that leaves everything after such a build up to the beginning.

          From hints dropped during episodes, most of the old Dr Who constants have gone — his home, the other time lords, especially his adversaries, and, presumably, his “reincarnation” every so often.

          The Tardis and the Daleks remain, of course, and since the companions always changed from time to time, nothing wrong with Rose leaving, but I really wonder how the next Doctor, assuming there is one, will change now from one to the other.

          I can’t remember, but I think the Doctor was supposed to have twelve lives in all, and while I’m not even sure which one we’re up to now, there must be at least two, maybe three or more “lives” still left.

          Unless the new writers want to change this (they may have a battle with fans about it though), I hope the new series continues until at least the twelfth Doctor if that’s the correct number.

          Whatever, I intend to enjoy it all while I can. Just love that Dalek!!

        • #3171447

          Maybe it’s a bit early yet

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Time And Relative Dimensions In Space

          But so much of the original series seems to have died Galafrey has died or been destroyed. The Doctor appears to be the only Time Lord Left and the insides of the TARDIS look positively Old Hat.

          The Doctor seems to have some unexplainable affinity for Earth as he has never gone anywhere else so far anyway, maybe it’s just to get new viewers interested but to me the old Doctor Who seemed so much more believable and the insides of the current TARDIS look like something out of a steam powered Train rather than a high tech unit with almost unlimited power available to it.

          Hopefully it will get better but knowing that the person who plays the current Doctor quit after the first season doesn’t bode well for the latest series which just happens to be the longest running TV series in history.

          Col ]:)

        • #3237831

          Quantum Spin?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Neil it is the latest in

          You seem to be referring to Quantum Spin, which I understood to have long since have been demonstrated.

          Are you referring to a different conjectured property?

        • #3236747

          Beats me

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Quantum Spin?

          I only got to read half the first column of the article but I did see the word Hypothesis used quite a bit when referring to this particular thing.

          The article was about making Quantum Theory useful to the masses so it could be better understood. As I said I only got a bit of the way through and then the quack called me one of the few times he was actually on time and I haven’t got around to reading any more of the article.

          That nasty other not to ever be used 4 letter word W##K has got in the way and prevented me from finishing it but as it is in the February Issue and I’m only now getting to have a look at it should tell you something. 🙁

          I’m unlikely to have any time in the foreseeable future either as tonight I’ve just come from the Intel Channel Partners 2005 meeting so I have a heap of stuff to wade through from them, and of course the one useful tool that they promised us is missing from the pack.

          Some days you just can not take a trick 😉

          Col ]:)

        • #3238797

          Have you a link to the on-line version?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Beats me

          I’d like to read it; it does sound like their addressing Quantum Spin, which goes wasy back, and is the explanation underlying the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

        • #3237528

          I’m afraid not

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Beats me

          I’ve just had a look at the New Scientist Web Site and they list No Articles in the archives.

          Sort of makes you wonder why they bother with the web site doesn’t it?

          Col ]:)

        • #3249479

          Their e-letter’s been MIA for a while as well.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Beats me

          Is the article you’ve referenced in a print copy, or an e-letter?

        • #3249198

          It was in a print copy

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Beats me

          The February edition dated 05 February 2005
          No. 2485 I think as currently I can not find the magazine like everything else here I think it has got buried under all the paper work that needs doing.

          Col ]:)

        • #3338966

          A pile for everything; and, everthing in its pile.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Beats me

          Just don’t make the mistake, as I did, of allowing a contractor to wander through your abode, for the purpose of taking measurements, unattended.

          Now, they’ve turned into one large pile!

          Needless to say, he’s not getting the job.

        • #3236572

          She Who Must Be Obeyed

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Beats me

          Would never allow that to happen!

          She is my Guardian angel who protects all my piles of “junk” from being moved or disturbed by anyone but me.

          She will net even come into this room unless I’m in here and will not ever allow anyone in here unless I’m here the door just stays locked and anyone that asks is told they are welcome to enter but they will be leaving themselves open to a slow painful death if they even so much a breath in this room.

          I knew I had her here for some reason. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3260387

          Does She multi-task?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Beats me

          If not, perhaps She knows of an another who is equally competent & omnipotent.

          I sure could use the help.

        • #3260234

          Multi Task?

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Beats me

          Naturally well sought of anyway as she just does what is required and has been known to lock me in my dungeon when I’m in the bad books or she is going out for something. 😀

          She is also constantly able to complain when I’m late back after what should have been a simple job has turned to S##T and taken hours. Like yesterday I took back a LT and all I had to do was setup the network connection, import the email & address book and a dial up connection. Well 6.5 hours latter when I finally got back I got where have you been!? As if she didn’t know where I was and didn’t have my phone number. 😉

          But I’m keeping her so hands off I’ve gone to all the trouble of breaking her in and I don’t want to start anew. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3239309

          Yeah, the training period’s a b*tch, and never really complete.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Beats me

          Still, one hates to throw away such a substantial investment by taking a flyer on a newcomer.

          Better the ***** you know, than the one you don’t.

        • #3339055

          Ignore this post

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Quantum Spin?

          Just don’t make the mistake, as I did, of allowing a contractor to wander through your abode, for the purpose of taking measurements, unattended.

          Now, they’ve turned into [b]one[/b] large pile!

          Needless to say, he’s [b]not[/b] getting the job.

        • #3191278

          Ignore this thread!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Ignore this post

          😀

        • #3192480

          Well, there has been one interesting & unexpected turn.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Ignore this post

          Contrary to the appearance first given, Black Pirate is [b]not[/b] seeking to support the position of MrMiami & his ilk.

          Rather, he has recently, following the death of his father, begun his own quest to know & understand the unknowable.

          Unfortunately, his lack of knowledge of that which is already known by science has resulted in his inability to ask the right questions, and created the appearance that he was seeking to advance his own beliefs.

        • #3192429

          Thank-you

          by black panther ·

          In reply to Ignore this post

          Everthing is not what is seems! 🙂

          Lets hope I can ask the right question!

        • #3193288

          You’re quite welcome, Black Panther

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Ignore this post

          I’m glad that your true purpose here has become clear, so that we can respond appropriately.

        • #3237835

          Careful, Neil; we’re obviously dealing with a superior lifeform here.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to This is all a little confusing

          Although I must confess, it seems to definitely be non-human, and therefore is most likely of extra-terrestrial origin.

          He may have friends out there, such as the Vogons, at his beck & call.

        • #3237739

          I think MrMiami is a Turing Test

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Careful, Neil; we’re obviously dealing with a superior lifeform here.

          It has to be…there is no way that there is REAL intelligence in MrMiami 😉

        • #3237733

          Deep Pink?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I think MrMiami is a Turing Test

          Does’nt seem to be any AI there either.

        • #3237177

          Try adding common knowledge to your “common sense”!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to TRY COMMON SENSE…

          You switch from one definition of “information” to another. Observe:

          “Try one electron for one bit or let’s go smaller and use one quanta [That would be “quantum”, by the way. Quanta is plural, the singular form is quantum] for a bit. Now try to store all the information about that quanta [-um] or electron using that same bit. You’ll need to store information like weight, dimensionality, charge, and duration of existence in that single bit.”

          The first two times you use the word information, you are referring to a physical data storage device for human use, which for our *convenience* is engineered to use the electromagnetic force, and two possible states, traditionally a positive voltage for 1 or on, and zero or negative voltage for 0 or off. Quantum storage would work according to similar principles, where spin 1/2 particles could be used in binary computers, and some research is investigating four-state systems for quantum cryptography.

          To use that bit for MY purposes, I do NOT “need to store information like weight, dimensionality, charge, and duration of existence in that single bit”. All those other properties of the electron or quantum are considered when devising the technology to store the bit of information, but they exist *independently* of the storage device. Your use of the word “information” is not consistent with the meaning used in information technology or information theory. Weight, dimensionality, charge, and duration of existence are *attributes* of a particle, and information in computers can be stored using only variable attributes like charge at a location. The mass of a particle for example, cannot be used to store information because it is constant, while the spin state of an electron has two possible values: up or down. In short, information storage requires a minimum two-state system, and mass is constant for any particle, meaning it has only one state.

          More abstractly, the mass, dimensionality and charge of the particle are constant throughout time, so the total information that the universe needs to store is vastly less than you must suspect, to make the claim that the universe cannot store itself. To keep track of all bottom quarks for exmple, the “Universal Supercomputer” only needs to store the constant mass and possible quantum states for the bottom quark once, in a single storage address on the Universal Supercomputer. When any particular bottom quark wants to know what to do, it just reports its location to the Universal Supercomputer, which runs a few simple algorithms based on the interactions of the four forces, and voila, the bottom quark has its instructions! There are a finite number of types of elementary particles, each with attributes that are constant throughout time, and all that changes is their location, which itself is dictated for each quantum by its relations via the four forces, to other nearby particles.

          But really that is all beside the point because your use of information to refer to a quantum’s or electron’s “weight, dimensionality, charge, and duration of existence” are incorrect. “Information” is meaningless as applied to inanimate objects. Inanimate objects have attributes, not information. Information is a construct, an intellectual tool unique to thinking organisms. Applying the concept to anything not human nor invented by humans is an example of anthropomorphism.

        • #3242768

          I’LL PREPARE A BRIEF

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Try adding common knowledge to your “common sense”!

          I getting tired of posting bits and pieces of a much larger concept then have people nit pic the minutia. I don’t have time to keep re-iterating stuff.

          I’ll prepare a bunch of tech briefs and post them to my personal site.

          You can go there

        • #3242721

          I think we wouild all prefer it

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I’LL PREPARE A BRIEF

          If you just posted a few sources and we can go and make our own minds up and, more to the point, check the credentials and objectivity of those sources.

          Please don’t feel the need for “tech briefs” as we’re all big boys here. If we want anything technical explaining, we’ll go and ask Colin who, as we all know, bounces TWICE when dropped.

          http://tinyurl.com/dp2p7

          Neil

        • #3236741

          Neil have you

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I think we wouild all prefer it

          Booked marked that URL? 😉

          Actually I thought that you awarded me a Dishonorer Doctorate for the sheep thing so it should read PhDPhDPhDPhD one bounce for every two fuds. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3237479

          No, not bookmarked

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Neil have you

          It doesn’t take more than a simple ‘Find in this page’ for ‘sheep’ to get any interested party right to it!

          Neil 😀

          Still – MM’s scored a point with “mesophysical” as this mythical domain where biology meets quantum. I should have Googled it. Though I still think he thinks that nanobots really exist and that The Matrix is history.
          !

        • #3237849

          Yes; and, please, keep it VERY brief.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I’LL PREPARE A BRIEF

          You’ve done nothing but re-iterate the same old innanities.

        • #3237714

          And all this after the re-ippiration of the EL thread

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Yes; and, please, keep it VERY brief.

        • #3238794

          MrMiami’s decided to sail under his own flag.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to And all this after the re-ippiration of the EL thread

          Living in the shadow of ippirate must have been a terrible burden for him.

        • #3256548

          Even Ippirate must have found him mentally deficient and wouldn’t play…..

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to And all this after the re-ippiration of the EL thread

          with one so cerebrally challenged, seeing as he claims that corner of the universe for himself. Actually I just left ippirate and his prostate problems over on EL. I should be receiving some sense of his wrath and indignation some time tomorow. LOL

          Dawg ]:)

        • #3339057

          Well, I may be wrong, but I cannot recall a single instance in which …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to And all this after the re-ippiration of the EL thread

          ippirate interjected himself in defense of MrMiami.

          So, you may be correct in concluding that ippirate saw him as intellectually inferior.

        • #3236938

          AND I’LL PREPARE MY BRIEFS

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I’LL PREPARE A BRIEF

          FOR THE PAST DAY AND A HALF, I’VE BEEN LAUGHING SO HARD AT YOUR DRIVEL I’VE WET THREE SEPARATE PAIRS OF MY BRIEFS! YOU OWE ME, MRMIAMI!

          PS I LOVE TO SHOUT!

        • #3238786

          I’m partial to bikinis.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to AND I’LL PREPARE MY BRIEFS

          Less than a bottle of stale beer suffices for their washing.

        • #3238666

          This is as good a time as any…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I’m partial to bikinis.

          to ask “deepsand”? What kind of a name is that?

          I got mine from the vague, non-absolute wishy-washy arguments I found in the EL thread and being annoyed by them. If you rather, offended till I was blue in the face, whatever. Actually, I’m thinking of a more generally applicable handle. But back to you, deepsand. How did you pick your name?

        • #3249476

          Before the revelation, some clues.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I’m partial to bikinis.

          1) It’s allegorical.
          Consider the 2 words “deep” & “sand,” as well as the concatenation of the 2. What images do these conjure up? What emotions might be evoked or suggested. And, what of their opposites?

          2) It was once used as the code name of a covert operation.

          3) It’s self descriptive.

          Before you hear my explanation, I’d be very interested to read your deductions or speculations.

        • #3249239

          Bikinis…sand…deep, man!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I’m partial to bikinis.

          Deep makes me think of water, or of people smoking weed describing their inability to understand one another’s trivial “ideas”. Also, it is used in the sense of “deep trouble”, or “deep science”, which may be quite synonymous, indicating an extreme state. “Deep in sand” only brings to mind images of quicksand. That’s all I have for the name “deepsand”. I just can’t imagine depth without a liquid quality, unless we’re discussing the dimensions of a solid or extended object. I guess with the hint covert operations, you might have had an assignment far into enemy territory, in the desert? I dunno. But I do like bikinis.

        • #3238648

          But remember that sand flows like water

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I’m partial to bikinis.

          When poured from a container and it is only the amount/depth that makes you think that it is solid. The reality is that sand is made up of millions of tiny particles which tend to slide against each other so it really acts more like a fluid than a solid unless some other agent is used to bond the individual particles together.

          Col ]:)

        • #3235978

          Are you saying…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I’m partial to bikinis.

          that you already know the answer, Hal? If so, lay it on me, the suspense is boring me. I lack the imagination required to treat a lot of particles as a liquid when I know they are in the solid phase. It’s a shortcoming.

        • #3339144

          Well this is not a good example but

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I’m partial to bikinis.

          Think of grains of sand as atoms and the jar/bucket that you are pouring them from the sand will flow like water or maybe a more vicious fluid toward the ground and then start to spread out. A liquid does exactly the same thing except that the bonds that hold the molecules together are no where near as strong as sand but if you where to try to go swimming in a high salt content body of water like the Dead Sea you would find it almost impossible to sink without added measures being taken. Similarly you could go for a swim in mercury which is a fluid at room temperature but a solid at a lower temperature and a temperature much higher than what is required to turn water to ice.

          Really it is all in the way that you view solids for instance when you tighten a steel bolt up it stretches and that stretch is what makes it tight and capable of holding things together. So I see bolts as some sought of elastic substance while others see it as a solid substance that is impossible with normal tools to distort or stretch.

          Sand is much the same if it isn’t so compacted together you can and do sink in it hence the popular misconception that is quite often mistakenly called “Quick Sand” this is just an area where the sand is no where as compacted together and has a much higher water content so the individual grains slip against each other and allow whatever is placed upon them to sink into the what looks solid ground. It also explains why areas like this are of limited size as the amount of water required and the ability to move masses of sand particles away are limited so you on one step can be on firm ground and on the next step sinking into the watery mess. But if you could move a bit further on you would find solid ground again.

          Is that confusing enough?

          Col ]:)

        • #3339058

          Well, guys, you’re starting to grasp part of it.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I’m partial to bikinis.

          Consider also the following:

          1)The differences between both the boundary layers & the optical transmissivities of Sand & Water.

          2) The similarities in their abilities to cloak that which lies beneath their surfaces.

          3) The human condition(s) that might be analgous to the above.

        • #3339048

          human conditions analogous to optical properties of silicates?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I’m partial to bikinis.

          Way too deep for me since I quit smoking hashish. But I’m sure HAL9000 gets you!

          🙂

        • #3338965

          If I were that way inclined

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I’m partial to bikinis.

          I could be getting a moniker inferiority complex, here.

          We have HAL_9000 and we all know where that comes from – complete with the eye! “I’m afraid I can’t let you do that, Colin”

          Absolutely’s name, judging by his posts, is absolutely spot on

          and Deepsands is so cryptic – or so easy – that it looks like I need to have it explained!

          And I just have my bloody name! It SUCKS!

          Neil 😀

        • #3338945

          There, there, Neil.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I’m partial to bikinis.

          I can tell from your posts that you are NOT that way inclined, but if you needed it you could take consolation in knowing that the picture you use speaks 1000 times as much as any word.

        • #3338942

          My avatar

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I’m partial to bikinis.

          Hilary Briss, butcher of Royston Vasey. A particularly sinister character from the most sinister comedy series that I have ever seen – The League of Gentlemen.

          They have just finished a movie – The League of Gentlemen’s Apocalypse – which, should it make it over your side of the water, is a must-see.

          Ah, well, bedtime now and workday tomorrow.

          Neil 😀

        • #3236570

          Is that right Neil?

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I’m partial to bikinis.

          And here I was thinking that you had taken that name for “The Young Ones” Neil the Droop out Hippie who was so much nicer than Vivian. 🙂

          But I really know that you are that Neil as only he would come out with the Idea that “The League of Gentleman” was funny and even worse made into a movie. Now shut up and pass me some of the butchers Special! :p

          Col ]:)

        • #3260382

          Come now guys, you can figure this out.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I’m partial to bikinis.

          Hal was on the right track, but pulled up short.

          And Neil, if you change the “or” in one of your statements to an “and,” that will provide an additional clue.

          As for Absolutely, who asked the question, we’re still waiting for his insight(s).

          There’s certainly more than enough cognitive powers here assembled to puzzle this out. Who knows, maybe MrMiami would seize on the Truth of the Matter in an instance, if only we might get his attention!

        • #3260161

          Perhaps, but I was never really looking for a riddle.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I’m partial to bikinis.

          Infernal “thought” puzzles, always require some goofy assumption that’s contrary to all productive approaches to real life!

          My best guess was based on your avatar, the Navy thingy. I couldn’t tell if it meant that now that you’re on land (or sandy beach, whatever) you miss the deep, or if you were always a lubber and glad to be out of the water. I really don’t know.

        • #3235672

          Did you say “riddle”? Sounds like another clue to me.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I’m partial to bikinis.

          Consider the various synonyms.

        • #3235669

          Oh wholly sit!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to AND I’LL PREPARE MY BRIEFS

          synonyms of what ds? “deep” & “sand”? I hope you’re enjoying this, because I’m getting board.

        • #3181462

          Of “riddle.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Oh wholly sit!

        • #3181760

          Mystery? Irritant?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Oh wholly sit!

          oops, lost interest.

        • #3180483

          Sorry to hear that.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Oh wholly sit!

          Without our whipping boy, it’s getting rather quiet here.

        • #3237851

          Metaphysical meanderings of an alien life form?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to TRY COMMON SENSE…

          You’re still babbling

        • #3338934

          WE HAVE BEEN TRYING COMMON SENSE!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to TRY COMMON SENSE…

          As MrMiami has developed a total immunity to common sense, the rest of us have had to resort to petty insult and name-calling. We regret this, but such is the way that it is.

        • #3170344

          Information Storage….

          by black panther ·

          In reply to TRY COMMON SENSE…

          One aspect of consciousness is how we process information. Most people think that our memories are stored in the brain, much like a hard drive in a computer with 100% available recall. Many cannot understand that if a person claims to have consciousness apart from the body and the brain is flat lined, how can a person recall their NDE? This is a good point, but easily understood when one understands the nature of memories, the way we process information, and the way we recall that information.

          There have been several recent studies on consciousness. One current theory is that consciousness is where the memories are stored, not in the brain as previously thought (Berkovich, 2001). Berkovich is in the forefront of scientists who is exploring the theory that as an information storage unit, the brain cannot possibly hold all the information that is required to function in our society. Consequently, scientist are considering the alternative that the brain is more of an accessing unit much like a radio receiver. The actual storage place is somewhere else, and NDEs would strongly suggest that place is the consciousness that survives the body.

          Recent findings have shown that we typically store information as a core memory attached to an emotion and then file it in a concept area in the brain (Ornstein, 1991). When we retrieve our memories, we are programmed to “fill in the gaps.” Therefore brain memories rarely are 100% totally accurate. Even Freud noticed that memories are stored by attaching emotion to them (p. 89). Emotions organize how we store and access information in the brain.

        • #3170261

          Just a little more evidence, please

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Information Storage….

          I spent an awful lot of time over in the Evolution Lie thread reading “scientific” posts and then discovering that the “expert” was from another discipline of science, a mathematician or even a lawyer. I got annoyed!

          I see the same pattern again. Grrrrr!

          Simon Berkovich is a Professor of Engineering and Applied Science. Why the f*ck should I take this man’s word on the molecular and synaptic mechanisms of memory? What is he likely to know about cytoplasmic polyadenylation, for instance?

          “Consequently, scientist are considering the alternative” Who? What are their credentials that justify you posting in such an authoritative style?

          As for NDE. Have there been any serious studies on this? Who has and who hasn’t had one and under what circumstances? Taking into account the abnormal psychological and physiological state just before death or after resuscitation, I’d be pretty damn surprised if there WASN’T some form of screw-up in the brain that led to imaginary experiences. Let’s also remember that thousands of people are convinced that they’ve been abducted by aliens or have seen ghosts – and this [b]without[/b] the aid of a knock on the head or anaesthetics.

          Neil

          Nothing personal, this. You’re just caught in the fall-out from EL

        • #3170239

          JUST HOW MUCH EVIDENCE WILL IT TAKE

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Just a little more evidence, please

          TO CONVINCE YOU THAT MRMIAMI IS A FEMBOT?

          I hope everybody here knows the Austin Powers scence to which I refer.

          Sorry about the shouting.

        • #3169881

          There has been lots of studies….

          by black panther ·

          In reply to Just a little more evidence, please

          Reprinted by permission from: The Journal of Religion and Psychical Research, 26, 1, 27-31. January 2003.

          ABSTRACT: There is serious evidence for veridical perceptions during the stage of flat electroencephalogram (EEG) in so-called near-death experiences (NDEs). This paper addresses common counter-hypotheses for a survivalist interpretation of these experiences. The only possible alternative which would account for veridical NDEs is the false memory through retrocognition-hypothesis. It is shown why this alternative is less parsimonious than a straightforward survivalist interpretation of NDEs.

          Introduction

          The near-death experience recently gained an increased scientific respectability by the publication of an article in The Lancet authored by Dr. Pim van Lommel of the Rijnstaate Hospital at Arnhem (the Netherlands) and his collaborators (Lommel, et al. 2001). Their prospective work with cardiac patients who were succesfully resuscitated after cardiac arrest, resembles similar research by Dr. Sam Parnia at the University of Southampton and his colleagues (Parnia et al., 1998).

          Both Van Lommel and Parnia have concluded that NDEs are real and that they cannot be explained by physiological or psychological causes (alone). Moreover, they have both accepted the implication that consciousness is not destroyed when our brain activity ceases, but that there is a continuity beyond brain coma and therefore probably after brain death as well. Consciousness does not ultimately depend on brain activity for its very existence, which makes it downright irrational to take for granted the idea that it would be obliterated after the brain ceases to exist as a physical system.

          Materialists (I mean the non-reductive ones who accept the reality of consciousness during physical life) generally see consciousness as an epiphenomenon or correlate of brain activity. For the question of survival, it is therefore sufficient to show that there is no ultimate existential dependence of the mind on such brain processing. The theory of ultimate mental dependence on cerebral functioning is refuted by the survival of consciousness after the cessation of (cortical) brain processes, regardless of whether that cessation is temporary or final.

          Near-Death Experiences and Materialist Theories of the Mind

          If it can be shown that consciousness is present even though the brain processes which following materialist theories are supposedly known to be responsible for it have ceased, those materialist theories can safely be considered as inadequate. Now, apriori there can be several responses to the challenge that is posed to materialism and epiphenomenalism by the recent NDE-findings:

          (1) Methodological scepticism: This is the usual response by skeptics whenever they are confronted by results that go against their (unquestionably closed-minded) world view. However, as the scientific reputation of the researchers involved in the recent studies certainly seems impeccable, and as their work has been accepted as worthy of publication in prestigious journals such as The Lancet, it may be safely assumed that the standard skeptic objection is simply baseless in this case. Research into NDEs cannot be dismissed anymore as being pseudo-scientific.

          (2) Flaws in the specific interpretation of the results: Some critics, such as C.C. French think that the findings of these studies should not be interpreted in a survivalist manner. It certainly seems to be the case that some individual patients are fully conscious during a flat EEG, but they really are not. The memories of the NDE they claim to have had are simply false memories (French, 2001). This can be further elaborated in two ways:

          A. Patients who claim they have had a NDE simply suffer from some kind of self-deception. They never experienced anything like it, but they just believe they did. At a subconscious level, they have constructed a fantasy accompanied by images and feelings, and they project this fantasy into their memory as if it concerned a real experience of the (imaginary) event while it occurred.

          B. Claimants of NDEs did indeed have a real experience before they came to, but not during their flat EEG. It happened during the seconds or minutes before they lost consciousness or during the last few moments before they fully awoke from their coma, and it was temporally distorted in their memory as if it really took place during the flat EEG.

          Against both these criticisms researchers stress that patients are reported to have had veridical impressions of events that took place inside but also outside the room that contained their physical bodies and during the stage in which their brains showed a flat EEG. Therefore, any hypothesis that claims that these people simply deceive themselves must account for these experiences. It is very convenient for skeptics that such experiences, which seem clearly related to extrasensory perception (ESP) as studied by parapsychologists, are still quite controversial for many scientists, so that they are obviously tempted to dismiss them out of hand. However, the evidence for such veridical experiences (or memories of experiences) is growing and its quality is also increasing (Ring, 1998; Rivas, 2000; Abdalla, 2002). So unless we wish to remain hard line skeptics at any cost, it seems wise to take them very seriously.

          What are the implications of real veridical experiences related to events that happened during a flat EEG? In psychical research we know two categories of ESP that relate to a time factor. First, there is precognition which in this context would boil down to an experience of an event which took place during the stage of flat EEG before that experience took place. In this case it would mean that a patient does not precognitively experience an event which – according to the false-memory theory – (unlike, say, the case of a Dunne-effect type of dream) he will eventually experience through ESP while it is taking place, because the theory holds that there would be no awareness of any events whatsoever during the stage of flat EEG. More importantly, the precognitive experiences should occur before the patient loses consciousness or at least before he enters the stage of flat EEG, whereas he should lose all memory of having had such a precognitive vision after he has come to.

          Therefore, I personally cannot take this very far-fetched possibility seriously and I think we should be confident in dismissing the precognitive variant of the false memory theory.

          The other time-related form of ESP is called retrocognition, i.e. knowledge acquired through ESP of past events. The retrocognitive variant of the false memory hypothesis interprets memories of veridical experiences during the stage of flat EEG as follows. Patients with a NDE subconsciously use ESP to get knowledge of past events which happened during their coma, and project that knowledge into their false memories during the last moments before they regain consciousness. The theory needs to hold that all patients with veridical experiences during their flat EEG were somehow motivated to create a fantasy and include in that fantasy false memories of real events through the aid of retrocognition. This means that during the moments between their flat EEG and their awakening from it, some patients are subconsciously motivated to use retrocognition to deceive themselves about their lack of consciousness during their flat EEG.

          Retrocognition is a very strange hypothesis for NDEs, because it implies that a patient would not use ESP to perceive events that happen between the stage of flat EEG and complete awakening, but would instead focus on events that have already taken place. It cannot explain cases of NDEs in which there is paranormal perception of events that took place during flat EEG but also of events which occurred during the awakening process itself and in which such a perception is experienced by the patient as part of a coherent and continuous stream of consciousness.

          An even more fatal weakness of this theory is that it uses a very unmaterialistic concept – retrocognition – to uphold a materialistic theory. Even if it were true, it simply could not be defended by a (reductive or non-reductive) materialist, at least not in the mainstream sense of this term. By its very nature, the retrocognitive false memory theory needs to be part of a broader radical dualistic theory about the mind-brain relation. It might be defended by the so called “animistic” school of thought within the parapsychological tradition, which promotes the explanation of possible evidence for survival after death in terms of ESP (or psychokinesis). However, it is very ironic that even a hard line animist like Hans Bender (1983, page 148) concluded that the ESP needed to explain veridical experiences during NDEs is in itself suggestive of survival after death.

          In any case, if veridical memories of events during flat EEG are taken seriously, we must leave the realm of (conventional) materialist theorizing about mind-brain relations. After that, we have to ask ourselves which theory is simpler or more parsimonious: a dualist theory which holds that the memories of events during flat EEG are false memories, constructed via retrocognition, or a dualist theory which holds that such memories simply are real memories based on real experiences. As dualists, we can no longer consider the real memory theory as less parsimonious just because it would imply survival, because – as even animistic champion Hans Bender acknowledges- at least some form of survival is implied by any serious radical dualist (and therefore also any animistic) theory. Therefore, I conclude that the false memory-theory is simply more complicated (i.e. less parsimonious) than necessary. In order to avoid the conclusion that consciousness survives death, it needs to postulate a mechanism which is only plausible within a parapsychological theory which ultimately implies at least some form of postmortem survival of the mind. So it really is a theory which is more complicated than a straightforward survivalist theory. It implies both survival and a strange, unknown kind of retrospective falsification of memory through retrocognition.

          Therefore, in my opinion, we should only adopt the ?false memory through retrocognition?-theory after it has been empirically shown that memories of NDEs must generally be false. It’s the animists (or moderate survivalists) who have to show the (radical) survivalists wrong in this case, certainly not the other way round. It?s just a question of parsimony. The radical survivalist theory is the most parsimonious exhaustive interpretation of NDEs and it can be falsified by evidence for a more complex theory such as the ?false memory through retrocognition?-theory.

          (3) Adaptation of mainstream materialistic neuropsychological theory concerning the present-day registrability of neural activity needed for consciousness

          The last materialist response (defended for example by Karl Jansen, a psychiatrist known for his attempts of artificially producing experiences which resemble NDEs) to the recent evidence for NDEs is that the memories are indeed real memories, but that a hypothetical residual and as yet non-measurable level of brain activity can still account for them (Abdalla, 2002). Of course, the veridical memories of events that took place in or outside the patient?s room during his flat EEG, are usually ignored by this theory. If they are not, they should be seen as mental activities which can be ?embodied? in unusually low-leveled brain activity.

          The problem with this theory is that there is (by definition) absolutely no evidence for it. Theorists seem to be quite content with pointing at unsuitable analogies such as certain types of sleep EEG, but no acceptable close empirical parallels have been presented so far. For instance, during most vivid dreams there is rapid eye movement (REM). As Pim van Lommel points out, if we accept NDEs as real experiences during flat EEG, we also have to accept that patients experience normal, full-blown and even heightened conscious mental activity in them. If critics want to explain this away by a still unknown type of residual neural activity, they have to present parallels which involve normal (lucid) or heightened conscious mental activity and which can at the same time be satisfactorily explained by known residual neural activity. Otherwise, we must conclude that the theory is based on nothing more than unfounded speculation! It is not forbidden to look for immunizations of a cherished, well-founded theory against apparently falsifying results, but such immunizations should of course be plausible and based on acceptable data. As far as I know, there is no serious evidence for the residual cerebral activity-theory as a counter theory for survival. That is precisely the reason that Pim van Lommel (personal communication) simply rejects it as having no scientific basis.

          http://www.mikepettigrew.com/afterlife/html/dutch_study.html

        • #3169712

          has-beens and looney bins

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to There has been lots of studies….

          I’m sure you meant “there have been…”

        • #3169705

          You Skeptisim is very “healthy”

          by black panther ·

          In reply to has-beens and looney bins

          **Every action has an equal and opposite reaction** 🙂

        • #3169693

          Your vagueness is very “unconvincing”.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to has-beens and looney bins

          What do Newton’s Laws have to do with anything you’ve claimed?

        • #3192425

          Your silence is very “illuminating”!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to has-beens and looney bins

          What have Newton’s Laws to do with your outrageous claims? I’m waiting…

        • #3192405

          And so has yours….If you refer to other posts????

          by black panther ·

          In reply to has-beens and looney bins

          ..?

        • #3192158

          Hey, steady on there, fellas!

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to has-beens and looney bins

          Stop. Think. Remove the blinkers, please, or you’ll have me thinking you’re all turning into Mr Miamis! Heaven forbid.

          In particular, deepsand, you who have read and/or seen “The Elegant Universe” of Brian Greene, for instance, should be able to penetrate under what Black Panther is trying to express.

          OK, I’m the first to say that metaphysical stuff and some kinds of philosophy leave my brain in severe meltdown, because in general, I’m a skeptic and lean very heavily away from anything that can’t be explained or can’t be put under the scientific microscope.

          Then we come to quantum science. We all believe quantum, but we can’t fully explain it all yet. Many areas of quantum certainly can’t be tested by normal scientific methods.

          The more we delve into it, the more we move perilously close to philosophy and yes, even metaphysics. I go cold just thinking about it.

          But the trouble is, we have to think about. It’s weird. It’s brain-bending and it gives me a headache. But quantum science in all its forms is the next step and we have no choice but to follow it.

          A few years ago, people who thought some of the things Black Panther is endeavouring to explain here were labelled crackpots and weirdos.

          I’m not talking about the pseudo-science of the Mr Miamis of this world; I’m talking about the world of quantum science, the weirdest thing I’ve ever studied.

          Suddenly, many of these originally “crackpot” ideas are being studied by serious physicists because that’s what quantum science is — ideas that can be mathematically harnessed (at least on paper!), even if that’s as far as we’ll ever be able to take them.

          We are so close to that “mystical” TOE now that “crackpots” and “weirdos” are no longer laughed at. If anything, they are even the very physicists now working in this area, accepted and often regarded with awe by the rest of the scientific world.

          I have no idea if what Black Panther is saying has any validity or not in a purely scientific framework. But I’m prepared to at least back him until otherwise proved wrong, because how do we know that any, or even all of this isn’t some tiny part of quantum gravity we just haven’t come across yet in the normal way of things?

          You can all correct me if I’m wrong here, but I think it was Voltaire who once said that he may not agree with what (his opponent) was saying, but he would defend to his dying day his right to say it.

          This in no way means I agree with what Mr Miami’s saying, believe me! I don’t. But to be fair, I guess he has a right to say what he does, just like the rest of us.

          No, this post is, in particular, more in support of what BP has to say. I don’t really understand what Mr Miami’s saying anyway; it’s all gobble-de-gook, but with what BP is saying, I can see a modicum of light, if I look at it through quantum eyes. (Boy, I must look strange then!)

          OK, now you can all shoot me down in flames. I’m ready!

        • #3193283

          Gret, the revelation was late in coming.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to has-beens and looney bins

          It was not until Black Panther addressed me further down & later on that his true nature was revealed.

          At that point, I posted a notice of such for Absolutely, which he apparently did not see prior to his newest post in this sub-thread.

          Information in this forum most definitely travels at hypo-sonic speeds.

        • #3169874

          and more and more

          by black panther ·

          In reply to Just a little more evidence, please

          Let me know how many you want to read?

          ‘Mind and brain seem to be separate’ says professor

          by SIMON FORSYTH

          Professor Peter Fenwick and NDE experiencer Heather Sloane answer questions from the audience. The lecture was held at The White Eagle Lodge in London.

          PROFESSOR PETER Fenwick, one of the world’s leading researchers into near-death experiences (NDEs), has told an audience of his belief that NDEs seem to provide evidence which strongly suggests that the mind and brain are not the same.

          Speaking at a lecture given at the London headquarters of The White Eagle Lodge, the professor spoke for over an hour about the phenomena which have been reported at the time of dying, prospective NDE studies and explanations for the phenomena of NDEs.

          Professor Fenwick said:

          “What I’d like to do is look at the whole process of dying. If near death experiences are really something about what happens at death then we must be able to get this reflected in some sense in the dying process itself. So if we start looking at the phenomena which occurs when people die we should begin to get a match with the near death experience, looking at it from different points of view.

          “Then I want to look at prospective NDE studies – prospective means that you don’t advertise in the papers for people who claim NDEs, you go somewhere where you know the experiences are likely to occur. and then, you find out from people who have them. You see the difference? Because although Heather said, and I know she’s right because there is work to support it, that she remembers everything that happened during her NDE, you have to test that. It may be that in the telling of the experience it all changes. It normally doesn’t, in fact, and there is some good data from France that shows it doesn’t. But you still have to check it and show that it’s true.

          “Then I want to look at some explanatory frameworks that we can put it in and then ask the question ‘are brain and consciousness the same?’

          “Let’s look at the dying process itself. Stage 1 is what are called nearing death experiences. These include what are called ‘take away visions’ or death bed visions. These are visions of relatives and friends who have already passed over who have come to help you through the dying process. The second one is the experience of light in other worlds that the dying person has. The dying person experiences these worlds, and then come back and tell you about it.

          “There are also what are called death bed coincidences. Now, we don’t know if these are in fact coincidences or whether they are real. These are visits to friends or relatives at the time of death. In other words you may be dying, your sister may be in Australia and she then has a visit from you at the time of your death.

          “So, what sort of things do the dying say? This is a patient of mine who had a slow growing tumour. His wife was able to talk to me about the time she spent with him just before he died. This is what she said:

          “‘He was going unconscious when I looked at him. He was looking fixedly at something in front of him. A smile of recognition spread slowly over his face as if he was greeting someone. Then he relaxed peacefully and died’.

          “Another example from a researcher called Erlendur Haraldsson. This is a 16 year old girl who starts the dying process and goes into a coma. Then, just before she dies she says:

          “‘I can’t get up.’ She opened her eyes. I raised her up a little. She said: ‘I see him, I see him! I’m coming.’ Then she died immediately afterwards with a radiant face, exalted and elated.

          “I want you to see the relationship between the patient seemingly greeting somebody and then almost immediately afterwards, dying. It seems as if we have within us the capacity, if we aren’t drugged completely, to choose the actual moment when we die. Quite often people seem to die and go with people at the time of death. Now, there isn’t very much literature on this. You could read ten papers on it, and become a world expert on it!

          “What happens at the time of dying? What do witnesses actually see? This was told to me by a GP in New Zealand. He was playing golf when another player had a heart attack. As he was going to help he saw what he described as a white form which seemed to rise and separate from the body. So here is the idea that something separates from the body at the time of death.

          “The approaching death experiences are telling us something about the dying process and what consciousness is.”

          Professor Peter Fenwick

          Speaking of his own research professor Fenwick said:

          “We need now some theories about the causation of NDEs. Now, you can’t say these are transcendent experiences because the people are unconsciousness. You can’t say they are psychological because the brain isn’t working. You can look at physiological models as to what state the brain is in, and if the brain function won’t support the experience you have to argue that mind and brain are separate.

          “So, let’s look at the physiological state of the brain and body at the time of reported NDEs. No detectable cardiac output, no respiratory output – they certainly weren’t breathing. Neither did they have any brain stem reflexes – in other words they was no activity whatsoever in the brain.

          “The NDE experiencers say that they didn’t have the experience before the heart attack occurred. We know that it couldn’t have occurred during the recovery of consciousness because in such cases the mind is very confused and the reported experiences are very lucid and clear.

          “So we are left with a real scientific problem. It looks as if what the NDE experiencers are saying is probably correct. Now, if that’s true then you have to say some very fundamental things about brain and mind. That carries a huge cost and consequence for science. So research in this area has to be done properly. But it looks as if mind and brain – if the data is correct – are separate.”

        • #3169867

          Hmmmm. So no bias here, then

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to and more and more

          Can we have some OBJECTIVE studies, please. If most of the world’s scientists are so wrong, it should be so easy to prove.

          I Googled some of the author’s work – “Out of the 63 cardiac arrest survivors that [] interviewed, 56 had no memories of any lucid experience. Seven, however, did. [] narrowed these down to four who clearly met all the criteria.”

          Oh, yeah! Conclusive or what? Considering that we have all been primed with what an NDE should be like by the media, I think 4/63 is pretty bad scoring. And then to be interviewed by a researcher with a vested interest…

          Please excuse my scepticism. By all means, though, continue the “research”.

        • #3169866

          Test for you Neil!!

          by black panther ·

          In reply to Hmmmm. So no bias here, then

          Science is just the set of “laws” of nature as suggested
          and accepted broadly till this point in time. What then
          are these “laws” of science ? The laws are just “MODELS”
          for explaining the phenomena observed in nature – as
          closely, consistently, and conveniently as possible today.

          All these laws and the concepts are objects of
          human imagination and creative modelling that help
          us understand certain observed phenomena.

          As we know, the law of gravitation, electomagnetism,
          mechanics, or relativity are all just models to explain
          certain things. The lines of force, concept of energy,
          momentum are all models to explain certain things. The
          electron, proton, neutron are just models of explaining
          the composition of matter. As we know, scores of more
          elemental particles have been named (more elemental
          than the electron, proton, neutron), and even they are
          just models, which help explain the universe a little
          better.

          In the same sense, the assumption that brain is the
          centre of all information processing is just another
          model, which fits with certain observed phenomena today.
          Tomorrow, more phenomena (hiterto unobserved) of nature
          and human intellect will be observed, and then maybe a
          more refined or drastically altered model of human
          intellect will be devised.

          My understanding of consciousness is that it is very
          abstract and very distinct from knowledge. It is a
          subjective thing like, say, pain is.

          When we step on a thorn, as per our current model of
          the brain, the electrochemical stimuli from the leg
          are being interpreted in the brain, but we “feel” the
          pain in the leg, not in the brain. If we are asked
          what is hurting, we would show the leg, not the brain.

          Similarly when we “feel” the existence of ourselves,
          where do we “feel” it ? There is no clear answer, but
          a certain phenomenon is observed almost universally
          through a very simple experiment.

          HERE IS THE EXPERIMENT (A VERY SIMPLE, LAYMAN TYPE).

          TRY TO POINT TO YOURSELF WITH YOUR RIGHTHAND INDEX
          FINGER.

          WHERE DID YOU POINT TO ? MOST PROBABLY YOU POINTED
          TO YOUR HEART, NOT YOUR BRAIN. WHY DID YOU NOT POINT
          TO YOUR BRAIN ?

          JUST LIKE YOU “FELT” THE PAIN IN THE LEG, DID YOU
          “FEEL” YOURSELF ARE LOCATED IN YOUR HEART ?

        • #3169837

          Hey! I passed

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Hmmmm. So no bias here, then

          I’m not sure what you were trying to say but I suspect it’s just a little more of the “I don’t understand it so I’ll invent something to explain it” attitude that we, as a species, should have given up by now if we hope to mature. If you are going to offer explanations then they have to be [b]better[/b] than the prevailing theory and not just different. Some evidence would be useful.

          Let’s just (gently) blow away your post to me.

          I pointed at my breastbone! Oooooo! Spooky!

          Perhaps, though, because that’s the easiest and most comfortable position for my relaxed arm when sitting at my PC. I’ve just done a test! I point to the same place when I’m standing! Possibly for the same reason or maybe it’s just my misguided sense of self.

          Pain? Really, your argument is very, very badly though out. Pain, by definition is a warning of hazard and injury. It HAS to be felt in the place where it will do some good.

          Neil

          p.s. I’m NOT a layman. I’m a scientist. So are an awful lot of the people that you’re posting at. Some (most) are nicer than me – but not all. Absolutely not all.

          Sorry.

        • #3169806

          Neil is right.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Hmmmm. So no bias here, then

          I’m not kind.

          In Japan, people point to their noses when speaking of themselves. Just social convention, which nobody bothers to correct or make more accurate by pointing to their foreheads, there or here, BECAUSE IT DOESN’T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE! It doesn’t mean the Japanese believe their essence is contained in the nasal cavity, it means that isn’t the topic on their minds in normal conversation, and it doesn’t matter to them where their essence is stored.

        • #3169757

          I quess I failed.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Hmmmm. So no bias here, then

          I pointed to my head.

          My mother was right; I’ll never amount to anything worthwhile.

        • #3169754

          I pointed to my chin

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Hmmmm. So no bias here, then

          What does that mean?

        • #3169748

          Don’t know, but I don’t think it’s good.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Hmmmm. So no bias here, then

          Now, if I can just find the damned frequency, we might have the answer.

        • #3169864

          Mind over Matter Neil

          by black panther ·

          In reply to Just a little more evidence, please

          Is there something called the mind which is non-physical,
          or everything including our mind is just a set of
          bounded physical set of objects ?

          If the latter is true, then everything at any given instant of time in future is theroretically
          predictable if we can model the whole universe as a huge state matrix at this instant of time.

          However if we postulate that there is some unpredictability in future if only due to the unpredictability of our own behaviours,
          then it is attributable to a non-bounded, non-physical model of mind.

          Then the other interesting question arises :-
          If mind is not matter, then how can it control the brain which is constiting of matter ? In our model of today’s laws, only physical entities (mass, energy, momentum) can cause a change in a physical object.

          IF THE BRAIN CAN BE INFLUENCED BY NON-MATTER (WHICH IS OBVOIUSLY NON-BOUNDED IN SPACE), CAN “MY MIND” INFLUENCE “YOUR BRAIN” TOO ?

          Rationalism is a desired trait, but trying to explain everything away with the limited set of models that exist today will actually stifle the creation of new models.

          🙂

        • #3169836

          CAN “YOUR MIND” INFLUENCE “MY BRAIN” TOO?

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Mind over Matter Neil

          Well. It will have to do a lot better than your posted “evidence”.

          “Rationalism is a desired trait”. Yes.

          Sorry.

        • #3169755

          Define “non-matter”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Mind over Matter Neil

          And, how & why is it “obviously” non-bounded (by which I assume you mean [i]unbounded[/i]?

        • #3169718

          Every posited myth is immaterial.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Define “non-matter”

          Since they don’t exist, they can be said to not matter, or equally accurately, to be composed of “non-matter”.

        • #3169716

          Matter

          by black panther ·

          In reply to Define “non-matter”

          All of the various realms of consciousness have different frequencies of vibration. For instance, you assume that the matter of earth is composed of atoms and that these atoms are composed of energy which vibrates. This matter of earth is denser than the matter of the higher realms. As you can see light waves which vibrate at a ‘visual observing’ rate, so you can see the matter of earth. However, as you cannot see radio or television waves which vibrate at too fast a rate to be seen, so you cannot see the matter of the world beyond, unless you are clairvoyant.

          The spiritual bodies of those who have died vibrate at a rate too fast for your physical eyes to see. However, they can be viewed by clairvoyants whose sight has been opened to receive this faster vibration.

          The astral world is almost a replica of your world, except that it is of a finer substance and we are not ‘bound’ by our objective reality as you are.

        • #3171394

          Non-responsive; fails to answer the question as asked.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Define “non-matter”

          I did [b]not[/b] ask for a definition of matter.

          Please re-address the questions as asked.

        • #3171387

          Er, dark matter?

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Define “non-matter”

          Hidden matter? Hot matter? Cold matter? How can ANY matter be “non”? Doesn’t make sense.

        • #3171360

          Non Matter

          by black panther ·

          In reply to Define “non-matter”

          Not have “mass” and not take up “space”.

        • #3171348

          Are photons then “non-matter?”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Define “non-matter”

          After all, they have a zero mass.

          And, left unanswered is the reference to “non-bounded.”

        • #3171344

          By my definition….

          by black panther ·

          In reply to Define “non-matter”

          First I need to know:-

          Do Photon’s take up space??

          The elementary particles that we usually encounter (protons and neutrons) do “take up space” in the sense that we can measure how close to the center of these particles collision interactions occur.

        • #3171337

          By my estimation…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Define “non-matter”

          We all *encounter* far more photons than any other form of mass/energy.

          “The elementary particles that we usually encounter (protons and neutrons).”

          1. Crawl

          2. Walk

          3. Run

          Analogy explained: learn the rules of physics before postulating alternative interpretations.

        • #3171302

          For Absolutely and please enlighten me

          by black panther ·

          In reply to Define “non-matter”

          I am on a different “tangent” to what the original discussion MR Miami posted is about.

          My primary purpose in joining this discussion was to discuss Mr Miami’s thoughts on other “dimensions” other than the “physical world” we know and live in.

          Not to be seen to be “defeated” or “shot down in flames” due to missing an intricate point in Physics.

          I like you “live” in the Physical world and are currently “exploring” the “existence” of other “dimensions” and “realms”, “NDE experiences” ( most likely in Scientific and Physics as we know it at the moment “unproven” ) not to say it will not be proven ( using the methods we know as proof at the moment ).

          I used to be (a everything is either “black” or “white” ) believer but I have know began a journey ( after the recent death of my father and sister in law ) with an open mind to explore other realms as I truly believe there is more to this world than “black” or “white”.

          If I can’t see, touch, physically feel, hear something ( does it mean it does not exist? )

          What about your sense of “inner feeling” or events that have taken place in your life that somehow seemed to be more than sheer “circumstance”?

          ( I would have liked to share some personal experiences of mine with you but I feel that you woundn’t have appreciated what I had to say )

          I regard Skeptism as highly as I regard the current researchers of the “spiritual” universe or realms, and I value your’s and other inputs.

          I am happy to keep posting but I cannot fill in for Mr Miami ( only myself ).

          Because I am not a “Physicist” or “Mathematician” or “Scientist” and don’t pretend to be I will make “unusual” assumptions as part to the exploration I am conducting.

          I do believe that without “valued” input from people with “Mathematics” and “Scientific” backgrounds such as I have found on this site that my quest would be all the harder, although I don’t understand what safisfaction and enjoyment some posters get by being obnoxious ,rude and belittle people.

          But I would prefer to try somewhere else if it’s going to be wasting both our times.

          As to the answer does a photon take up space if you could give me a ‘difinitive’ answer and reference that would be appreciated.

          I did some research myself ( if you look in my posting you would have seen that i provided an answer ) but thought I would clarify the point.

          I do at least have the decency to try and provide an answer as you ask ( whether fact or fictional )
          without putting you down.

          It seems you and Absolutely and some others have an “obvious” advantage over me with your knowledge of Physics and Mathematics and if possible I would like to ask you a “favour” if you have the time and inclination to look at the following link ( which is “The Skeptics Corner” and the second link “Scientific Evidence” on NDE’s and provide some feedback in due course.

          http://www.near-death.com/skeptic.html

          http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

          http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research08.html

          A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter
          DAVID BOHM

          Department of Theoretical Physics, Birkbeck College, University of London, Malet St, London WC1E 7HX, United Kingdom

          http://members.aol.com/Mszlazak/BOHM.html

          Do we create our own Reality? – Quantum Physicist -answers Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D. is a consulting physicist, writer, and lecturer

          http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9808&L=quantum-mind&P=R9474&I=-3

        • #3171296

          Yes, despite the fact that they have zero mass, photons “take up space”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Define “non-matter”

          I would strongly urge that, before seeking explanations for phenomena perceived as being beyond the realm of science, a certain level of knowledge & understanding of the pertinent science, in this case physics, mathematics & astronomy, would be in order.

          Also, a firm grasp of logic & the resultant rules of rational discourse, are mandatory for logical discourse.

          Finally, it must be recognized that, by definition, the meta-physical can be speculated about but never proven. That which is amenable to proof is, by definition, physical.

        • #3169714

          “not ‘bound’ by our objective reality”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Mind over Matter Neil

          That’s for sure, brother!

          Let it not be overlooked that human eyes also do not detect infrared and lower frequency photons, which vibrate too SLOWLY for our bounded physical sensory organs. It may be that not everybody who disagrees with you has failed to understand what you are saying, but rather that we understand it more fully than you would like.

        • #3193122

          A small curiosity, Absolutely

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to “not ‘bound’ by our objective reality”

          Many years ago when my late partner was still alive, he had an operation for cataracts. You may think that’s a nice, straightforward piece of surgery these days, but not so.

          My partner also suffered from glaucoma all his life, so they removed the iris completely. As a result, my partner not only regained his full eyesight but could also see well into the ultra-violet as well for some six months following the operation.

          For an astronomer, this was simply magical; a bonus that could never have been requested in ordinary circumstances. Observing the stars in natural ultra-violet light was a revelation.

          Unfortunately, this amazing ability faded with time, and after about six months, disappeared altogether.

          G

        • #3169844

          Well I do know a little of Physics

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Just a little more evidence, please

          And the one thing that can not be destroyed in energy. It can only be transmuted into other channels like electricity heating an electrical element gives off heat energy which while still existing dissipates into the surrounding air which is hotter the closer you get to the working element and in a very confined space will eventually increase the temperature of the space to that of the element before the cooling effect is lost by cooler air circulating around it and preventing any further cooling at this stage the element fails as it can not cool itself sufficiently to remain viable.

          Now I can pick up the 98 cents worth of chemicals mix them with the prescribed amount of water that makes up a human being but I will not have any form of life as we know it just a glutinous mass.

          However what does hold some water with what you have proposed is the fact that large chunks of a persons brain can be removed without apparent adverse affects but then the same can be said of large amounts of the body can also be removed for any number of reason and there is no basic belief system changes that has been acknowledged by those people who have lost large parts of their bodies. Similarly those who have undergone transplantation do not show any differences in their basic character after the transplant than what they did prior to the transplant other than appreciating life more.

          So the whole idea seems to fall down on the very basic tests that are applied to those who have suffered an injury or required a transplant.

          While I do not claim to have any working knowledge on NDE’s other than on the odd occasion when I’ve run off a race track out of control or whatever I’ll admit to seeing my life flash before my eyes on the first occasion {which I think was more a mixture of fright and adrenalin} but not on any of the subsequent ones. I find it impossible to believe that any body parts that may be either lost or replaced can produce a difference in the personality of the person who has had this happen to them. Similarly when it is medically possible to transplant brains I do not expect to see a marked difference in the behavior patterns of those involved in this procedure.

          I see any thoughts and reasoning coming from an external source that is the personality of the individual and that their body is only a vessel to hold that spirit or whatever you wish to call it. The parts are interchangeable between different bodies but not what the Judo-Christians call the spirit. I can not believe that if I was to receive a few transplants from someone like Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson I would become a Homicidal maniac and similarly if I was to receive some replacement body parts from Albert Ernestine or any of the other great geniuses of the current period I would develop their intellect I believe that I would remain exactly the same person as I currently am.

          I see what we currently call life as transitory but the Spirit lives on to take us all to eventual perfection once we accept that we have to work at making ourselves better people for the benefit of all around us.

          Now this thought has not come from conventional religious teachings but from reasoning just the same way as a lot of the everyday problems that I encounter do and when I’ve hit a brick wall in an effort to repair something I sleep on the problem and more often than not wake up in the morning with a solution.

          Now just how is it explainable how I arrive at these solutions while being asleep with neither my brain or body concentrating upon the problem?

          As for regressive Hypnosis or any form of Hypnosis I tend to be very skeptical on these things as I’ve seen far too many instances of “False Memories” being produced by these procedures to even consider them valid or worth looking at.

          But I’m open to suggestions, however what you have listed at length above while being interesting really doesn’t hold water as there are too many unknowns to be considered as believable.

          Col ]:)

        • #3169747

          1st hand experience with ESP under Hypnosis, under controlled setting, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Well I do know a little of Physics

          have led me to conclude that there is “something” there, with respect to communications between living human minds. However, I’m not about to say that it is something that ultimately cannot be explained without resorting to “supernatural” phenomona.

          As for uncovering “Past Lives” via “Age Regression” under hypnosis, I’ve seen no evidence of such.

        • #3169728

          Well I’ve seen lots of cases

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to 1st hand experience with ESP under Hypnosis, under controlled setting, …

          Of alleged Sexual Abuse while under Hypnosis all of which failed to stand up to scrutiny when investigated in the cold light of day.

          Unfortunately some of the people concerned where convicted on this pathetic evidence alone and will carry that stigma for the rest of their lives.

          Col ]:)

        • #3171350

          What I observed was real time knowledge of events at a distance.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to 1st hand experience with ESP under Hypnosis, under controlled setting, …

          Spooky, but true.

          I’ve no explanation for it, but given that I & the subject were the only persons present, with no means of communications with those at a distance, I cannot dismiss it as anecdotal.

          Furthermore, after I left the room, with the subject still inside, to communicate with those who did know what happened elsewhere, and then re-entered, the subject refused to answer any more questions on that particular matter, on the grounds that I already knew the answers!

        • #3193121

          Welcome to the wonderful world of quantum physics, Col!

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Well I do know a little of Physics

          Quantum science, in all its forms, is the future, Col. At least, it is if we’re to ever get within cooee of a TOE, a goal posited by many physicists and others over the years.

          Prepare to have your mind screwed big-time! Nothing else is possible.

          G

        • #3193103

          Gret my mind has been screwed big time

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Welcome to the wonderful world of quantum physics, Col!

          Just dealing with the concept of Quantum Computers which are much closer to reality than a lot of people think.

          The ideas behind these things are mind blowing and almost impossible to grasp the basic precepts but within 5 – 10 years they will be a common place thing and most likely no one will bother trying to understand how they work and just settle for the fact that they do work. Of course well need a whole new type of Operating System for these at first big beasts so they just might spell the end of M$ market dominance on the desktop and other places. But then again because of the number crunching power of these things most likely a lot of people will not need their power and just stick with their new X Box’s and rent the programs that they need to use on line and only store the data on the HDD in the X Box.

          But if you really want someone to screw with your brain all you need do is walk into any University and ask for the Computer Sciences Artificial Intelligence Section. That makes the Quantum look positively easy to understand. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3193322

          I’ve heard of the development of quantum computers, Col . . .

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Welcome to the wonderful world of quantum physics, Col!

          But have to admit I haven’t been following things there too closely of late. I guess I’ll be more interested in ’em when they come close to being of the PC variety. Perhaps not everyone’ll want to hire what they need for their X-boxes, but will really want the real thing in their homes after all.

          I also have to admit I wouldn’t have a clue as to how they’re going to function — quantum physics spins me out enough as it is, so quantum computers sounds like fantasyland at the moment!

          Still, we all know that yesterday’s science fiction is often today’s hardcore science in many cases, so I guess it won’t be long before these weird(?) machines are reality too.

          Can you email me privately about this? I’m really very interested in quantum science, even if it does screw with my mind, and I’d love to know more about these future machines as well.

          Like, what kind of operating system will they have to run, what sorts of software, hardware, etc. will be required? Will software and even hardware (as we presently know it) be required at all? How will we even work these machines?

          My curiosity’s escaped again! Sorry, Col! But I really am interested in all this.

          G

        • #3193318

          GOD NO what have I done wrong now?

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Welcome to the wonderful world of quantum physics, Col!

          I don’t deserve this honestly wanting to know about Quantum computers is a headache at the very least. They are considering using RAM with only a few atoms per layer and it’s all related to String Theory.

          As for OS’s they’ll still be required but they can or could conceivable be hard wired into the unit with software as well, what will exactly happen there is anyones guess at the moment but it is a safe bet to say that the first ones will sought of resemble the old Main Frames of yesteryear but with so much more processing power as to be almost unrecognizable.

          I’ll email you a starting point for these things privately when I find it again. 🙁

          Col ]:)

        • #3191569

          Thanks, Col!

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Welcome to the wonderful world of quantum physics, Col!

          I just thought a little bit more fried brain wouldn’t do you any harm!

          I’ll go and have a look at my emails; I haven’t opened ’em today!

          G

        • #3170244

          hallucination storage.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Information Storage….

          If every event “recalled” in the human brain were taken to suggest some real event, we would also have to explain dreams with the existence of a realm where almost everybody goes to school or work, at least once, either fully naked or dressed only in undergarments. Like Neil said, remembering something that did not happen is not surprising in NDE’s. If the brain has been dead, I would be more surprised if it returned to working order without at least a small malfunction.

        • #3169760

          What’s the Frequency, Ken?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Information Storage….

          I [b]really[/b] need to know, so that I can design a better tin foil hat.

        • #3169721

          Frequency

          by black panther ·

          In reply to What’s the Frequency, Ken?

          Are frequencies “Absolute?”

        • #3169706

          Of course they are.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Frequency

          Except for the ones that aren’t.

          The energy of any photon emitted due to an electron transition is constant throughout its path, until it is transformed to another form of energy, of absolutely exactly the same amount of energy as that emitted initially.

          The difference between any two atomic orbital energies, and thus between the energy or frequency of the associated resultant photon, is constant within a range determined by the Pauli exclusion principle and the material’s fine structure.

          What do you really mean by “Absolute”?

        • #3169701

          Meaning…

          by black panther ·

          In reply to Of course they are.

          Absolute in ranges!

        • #3169699

          Oh, now that’s clear

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Of course they are.

          …as mud.

        • #3171010

          What does that have to do with the price of beans

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Frequency

          What do you mean “Are frequencies ‘Absolute’?” The statement is a non-statement…it makes no sense and has no relavance to the discussion at hand.

          You even state are they “absolute in ranges.” WHAT DOES THAT MEAN!!??

          Are you asking if a 1hz freq is always 1hz away from a freq at 2hz? Are you asking about guard bands? Perhaps some OFDM for a light lunch?

        • #3171392

          You tell us.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Frequency

          It’s your conjecture.

        • #3169720

          It doesn’t matter.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to What’s the Frequency, Ken?

          It’s a wiespread myth that tin-foil hats can shield the voices of LGM’s and WM’s. Actually, it only adds the sound of crinkling! Faraday cages need to be made of steel or another material with high magnetic susceptibility.

    • #3237303

      No Blind Watch Maker or ID

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to INFORMATION AS A FOUNDATION

      It’s all down to the White Mice who built this planet and star system as a giant super computer to find out the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life the Universe and Everything. 🙂

      They designed us even in the currently corrupted form that we are in to be inquisitive and find what we perceive to be order in disorder. It doesn’t mean to say that there is any order just what we perceive and reason there to be order. Remember the girl who suddenly found the answer that made everything seem worth while just before the Vogons destroyed the place to make room for a Hyper Space bypass? 😉

      She had your answer now all you have to do is go out and find her and be with her when she discovers the answer but of course you being there will probably prevent her from doing this and there will be someone else who discoverers the answer so you’ll still never know because we’ll all be destroyed before the answer can get out or the Vogons couldn’t get paid to prevent it from happening could they? 😀

      If you want to see the real creators of us at least you need to look at the trans-dimensional beings that we perceive as White Mice. :p

      They are the Blind Watch Maker and ID at the same time and still are neither. 😉

      Remember

      Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant, they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.

      If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.

      Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let not this blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass. Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.

      Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

      Therefore, be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams; it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful.

      Strive to be happy.

      And the really important passage here is

      Therefore, be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be.

      Now that can range from God, Allah, Buddha, Jehovah or even the White Mice. It’s all in your own personal perceptions. :p

      Col ]:)

      • #3169629

        Inner Peceptions….Open Minds

        by black panther ·

        In reply to No Blind Watch Maker or ID

        One man saw the Being of Light changing into various personalities such as Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed, and then a mandala of human souls. Another saw the Being of Light as her Higher Self. The differences go on and on. However, despite these differences, all of these experiences are generally the same in that they contain many common aspects.

        Because of the variations in human understanding, there is certain to be a lot of variations in human experiences. Beauty may not be the only reality existing in the eye of the beholder. Current quantum physics support the notion that ALL reality is in the eye of the beholder. The NDE is no exception in that people create their own reality.

        In ordinary life, we create our own reality from the actions we take and the thoughts we think inwardly

        Quantum Physics suggests one cannot truly define reality because when they do, they start setting up limitations to it ? limitations that can be broken. From this concept, one can conclude that beliefs limit an open mind. The physicist Fred Alan Wolfe has stated the laws of the universe may simply be the laws of our own minds. Perhaps when we try to define reality, we may not really be getting closer to its actual definition. Perhaps all we really define is our own perception of reality. Keeping an open mind about all things being possible might be as close as one can get to this concept without setting up limitations. Like the mysterious particle of light in quantum physics, when one tries to define it, one changes it. Maybe it is merely our perception of the light that is changing, rather than the light itself.

        🙂

        • #3171005

          You have quantum physics wrong

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Inner Peceptions….Open Minds

          Your, uh, definition of quantum physics is strange at best.

          Quantum phsyics, simply stated, says that discrete units are assigned to certain physical quantities. A good exmaple would be the energy of an electromagnetic wave.

        • #3171462

          I’ll be cruel like others and say

          by black panther ·

          In reply to Inner Peceptions….Open Minds

          Where’s the proof – Speculation! 🙂

        • #3171398

          Not so much Speculation as scientific theory

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to I’ll be cruel like others and say

          While you think it is cruel to say speculation, the theories behind how quantum mechanics work are verifiable in a lab (at least to some extent)…

        • #3171380

          For starters, see Einstein’s 1905 treatise on the photoelectric effect.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I’ll be cruel like others and say

          The “quanta” of all electro-magnetic radiation, which includes visible light, is the photon.

          See
          [v]http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Photoelectric_effect[/v]

        • #3171389

          Quantum physics makes no such “suggestion”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Inner Peceptions….Open Minds

          The heart of Quantum physics is the “quanta,” as in quantity.

          A “quanta” is simply the smallest observable unit of measurement of any given physical characteristic.

        • #3171331

          open minds = impressionable minds

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Inner Peceptions….Open Minds

          acceptance of philosophically similar lies leads to experientially similar hallucinations. There is no mystery.

        • #3171263

          Re: Open Minds…

          by black panther ·

          In reply to open minds = impressionable minds

          I am on a different “tangent” to what the original discussion MR Miami posted is about.

          My primary purpose in joining this discussion was to discuss Mr Miami’s thoughts on other “dimensions” other than the “physical world” we know and live in.

          Not to be seen to be “defeated” or “shot down in flames” due to missing an intricate point in Physics.

          I like you “live” in the Physical world and are currently “exploring” the “existence” of other “dimensions” and “realms”, “NDE experiences” ( most likely in Scientific and Physics as we know it at the moment “unproven” ) not to say it will not be proven ( using the methods we know as proof at the moment ).

          I used to be ( everthhing is either “black” or “white” ) believer but I have know began a journey ( after the recent death of my father ) with an open mind to explore as I truly believe there is more to this world than “black” or “white”.

          If I can’t see, touch, physically feel, hear something ( does it mean it does not exist? )

          What about your sense of “inner feeling” or events that have taken place in your life that somehow seemed to be more than sheer “circumstance”?

          I regard Skeptism as highly as I regard the current researchers of the “spiritual” universe or realms, and I value your’s and other inputs.

          I am happy to keep posting but I cannot fill in for Mr Miami ( only myself ).

          Because I am not a “Physicist” or “Mathematician” or “Scientist” and don’t pretend to be I will make “unusual” assumptions as part to the exploration I am conducting.

          I do believe that without “valued” input from people with “Mathematics” and “Scientific” backgrounds such as I have found on this site that my quest would be all the harder, although I don’t understand what safisfaction and enjoyment some posters get by being obnoxious ,rude and belittle people.

          But I would prefer to try somewhere else if it’s going to be wasting both our times.

          As to the answer does a photon take up space if you could give me a ‘difinitive’ answer and reference that would be appreciated.

          I do at least have the decency to try and provide an answer as you ask ( whether fact or fictional )
          without putting you down.

          It seems you and Absolutely and some others have an “obvious” advantage over me with your knowledge of Physics and Mathematics and if possible I would like to ask you a “favour” if you have the time and inclination to look at the following link ( which is “The Skeptics Corner” and the second link “Scientific Evidence” on NDE’s and provide some feedback in due course.

          http://www.near-death.com/skeptic.html

          http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

          http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research08.html

          A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter
          DAVID BOHM

          Department of Theoretical Physics, Birkbeck College, University of London, Malet St, London WC1E 7HX, United Kingdom

          http://members.aol.com/Mszlazak/BOHM.html

          Do we create our own Reality? – Quantum Physicist -answers Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D. is a consulting physicist, writer, and lecturer

          http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9808&L=quantum-mind&P=R9474&I=-3

    • #3237858

      Good grief.

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to INFORMATION AS A FOUNDATION

      You could’nt defend your postion at EL, so you thought to escape by beginning a new discussion.

      How very juvenile.

      Now, go home & stay in your room.

      • #3237817

        To be fair

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Good grief.

        I’ve been fanning the flames of this moribund argument relentlessly for something like a month now.

        Finally, some results! 😉

        • #3237734

          He’s still doing the “baffle them with bullsh.it” shuffle.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to To be fair

          This is clearly someone who has bought into the idea of others, with no clear understanding either the premises or the manner in which the conclusion was deduced from those premises, simply because the conclusion affirmed his pre-existing believes.

          As a result, he his wholly unable to defend said idea, but can only parrot others; or, as we here see, cobble together a pseudo-scientific statement comprised of techo-babble, in the hopes that his detractors will be unable to provide suitable rebuttal, with the result to follow that it is we who are unable to comprehend the truth owing to our lack of the requisite skills for grasping the scientific & mathematical issues involved.

          Furthermore, he still fails to grasp the fact that no amount of supporting evidence can overcome a premise that is logically flawed, no matter the verity of the conclusion.

          The sad part is, he really believes that it is we who are the idiots!

        • #3237730

          I like to type bullsit, but whatever

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to He’s still doing the “baffle them with bullsh.it” shuffle.

          I think MrMiami is a lot easier to take than people I’ve known who defend their faith as if it is their own idea. They are the frightening ones, who give the impression of knowing what they are placing as a higher value than life on Earth according to one’s own intellect.

          I get the impression that MrMiami might actually believe in heaven & stuff. It’s quaint, and even a bit comforting.

        • #3238792

          Hire the mentally handicapped; …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I like to type bullsit, but whatever

          they’re fun to watch.

    • #3236900

      Chaos theory and theoretics in general

      by jck ·

      In reply to INFORMATION AS A FOUNDATION

      Nothing in the universe is ordered. Either we order it, or we quantify it to make it seemed ordered at some level we perceive with comfort.

      The universe isn’t built on anything more than what it is. And, it has capacity to store everything it is built on. It is just that we are not capable of defining or quantifying the extent of existence within it.

      Also, the basis of the particle universe is not just digital…it is energy and matter which work together in a symphony of chaos. Digital and analog are just forms of energy understanding being passed across matter.

      In the concept of what we are, you can imagine things of a sort based on principles of infinite size and infinite minutia. Indeed, light refracts 1 inch ever so many hundreds of millions of light years due to gravity. Hence with the bending of light from a source, eventually in an extremely long period of time that light would travel full course in a circle.

      So, we may well be fish in a fish tank for which some larger life has no concept of our incredible smallness. Likewise, we may look upon the cells, molecules, atoms, alpha particles, leptons and quarks and think we have discovered the smallest part yet, when all we are probably seeing are googleplexes of existences of our type whose smallness is not yet perceivable by us.

      Mathematically, infinity is never reachable and therefore infinity to the power of infinity is just infinity. It is a concept, not quantifiable finiteness.

      • #3236674

        Is “containment” the issue?

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Chaos theory and theoretics in general

        The evidence of ID here seems to be that the information in the universe is more than the universe can contain. Then perhaps all dishes other than Tupperware and similar products that fit within one another are also particular proofs of the existence of a higher power? Sorry if this doesn’t make sense, I think somebody put something in my drink!

        • #3237466

          maybe that’s why I don’t understand you

          by jck ·

          In reply to Is “containment” the issue?

          I need a drink…maybe I’ll go home and pick up some Captain Morgan on the way.

    • #3238925

      SOFTWARE COMPRESSIBILITY

      by fluxit ·

      In reply to INFORMATION AS A FOUNDATION

      If one looks at the universe as an outcome of software code then what is the minimal amount of code necessary to form it then operate it. How much information is necessary to feed it?

      • #3238875

        Ultimately, information is not the question

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to SOFTWARE COMPRESSIBILITY

        Like I have said, information is a construct of thinking organisms. This universal information to which you refer is only the relation of mass, energy, and distance among all the various constituents–quanta–that comprise the system. Different quanta operate according to different rules, which our intelligence can comprehend and describe, but that does not make the quanta intelligent themselves!

      • #3238873

        I think you’re thinking of the Matrix

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to SOFTWARE COMPRESSIBILITY

        That’s a movie, you know. It’s just a little less real than nanobots.

        If one DOESN’T look at the universe as an outcome of software code…

        Neil

        • #3238804

          42

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to I think you’re thinking of the Matrix

          NT

        • #3238781

          Terabytes?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to 42

          But, that’s just the source code for Earth alone.

        • #3238773

          Bah!

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Terabytes?

          They need to optimize it. Had “they” actually coded it in C++ rather than C#, they would have gotten it down to a few million gigabytes 😉

        • #3249480

          Machine code’s the way to go.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Bah!

          Remember, the Creator need [b]not[/b] be platform independent.

        • #3237525

          Oh I see

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I think you’re thinking of the Matrix

          We are now in TRON watch out for the Master Control Program before he/she/it catches you and puts you into the game arena to be wiped out of existence. 😀

          Col ]:)

      • #3238788

        With bated breath, we await your elucidation.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to SOFTWARE COMPRESSIBILITY

        Just more obfuscation.

        You really think you can evade reality, don’t you.

      • #3238771

        Time to retake some courses

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to SOFTWARE COMPRESSIBILITY

        Did you skip your finite state automata and algrithmic analysis courses?

        I would guess you claim P=NP

      • #3237459

        ok…I gotta ask, Mr. Miami

        by jck ·

        In reply to SOFTWARE COMPRESSIBILITY

        Are you normally like this, or stoned and possessed by Tim Leary?

        I could really get into some cool talks with you about Brownian Motion and Improbability, but it’s time for no tea. 😉

        BTW…want a good paper to read, get “Magnetic Theory” by Edward Leedskalnin. See if you can understand that. If not and you’re in Miami, head down to Homestead.

        Leedskalnin was a genius. He proposes theoretics and ideals I can’t even begin to imagine.

        Oh wait…that just means I’m dumb. hahaha 😉

        • #3235802

          Searched the author’s name on amazon

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to ok…I gotta ask, Mr. Miami

          Only found Magnetic Current. Is that the one you meant, or does he have another?

          Wait a minute, magnetic current? Are there any magnetic monopole suppositions in there? I’ve had it with hippie “science”, please elaborate on the approach of this book.

          Thanks.

      • #3170342

        The Expansion of Conciousness is the fuel!

        by black panther ·

        In reply to SOFTWARE COMPRESSIBILITY

        The expansion of consciousness is the fuel which fills the universe! 🙂

    • #3232302

      I’LL BE BACK…

      by fluxit ·

      In reply to INFORMATION AS A FOUNDATION

      Guys, I’ll address many of your questions shortly. I am very busy right now…

      • #3232204

        AKA: I don’t have answers

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to I’LL BE BACK…

        I think MrMiami is tapped for information. He’s been called on all his technobabble and now he is waiting for us to forget so he can obfuscate some more!

        • #3249482

          Let’s give thanks for obfuscation.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to AKA: I don’t have answers

          Without it, some people would have nothing to say, and might be mistaken for dead.

          With it, when they do speak, we know that it’s time to change the channel.

      • #3249481

        Does that mean you’ll finally address the logical flaw in ID’s premise?

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to I’LL BE BACK…

        If not, don’t bother.

        • #3249226

          His repetition of the logical flaw in ID’s premise has been illuminating.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Does that mean you’ll finally address the logical flaw in ID’s premise?

          I’m reminded of a Catholic theologian who I believe was assigned the task of combatting the tendency of people to “lose” faith as the application of reason began to prove its worth. The solution: the “logical” need for a first cause. I might have to phone a friend for this one, but I think that’s the way this argument that God “must” exit began.

        • #3260385

          It’s a sign of insanity.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to His repetition of the logical flaw in ID’s premise has been illuminating.

          Someone once defined insanity as repeatedly engaging in the same action with the expectation of a different result.

          Seems to fit MrMiami quite nicely.

        • #3260339

          You’re slow.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to It’s a sign of insanity.

          An older definition of insanity is the inability to distinguish between reality and make-believe. You could slap that definition on anybody the first time they argue for a deist perspective as proven fact. Religion is always a matter of faith. Period.

          🙂

        • #3260332

          Of course; but, the specific issue at hand was …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You’re slow.

          his failure to logically respond to the rebuttals that he initially received, choosing instead to merely repeat his original premise & supporting “evidence” in ever changing variations.

          My point all along has been [b]not[/b] to attempt the impossible. i.e. to [b]prove[/b] that no dieties exist, but rather to [b]disprove[/b] the validity of the construction of his argument, via the inherent weakness in the premise, thereby rendering his conclusion unsupported by facts.

        • #3260259

          That has never been my issue

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Of course; but, the specific issue at hand was …

          But I do see what you’ve been doing.

          He repeats the same process, you only need to repeat the word “recursive” with very little alteration to your rebuttal template. It’s very hysterical 🙂

          The difficulty with a circular argument is that its proponents’ worldview tends to be airtight, so to speak. Come to think of it though, maybe “difficulty” is not the right word. Would it be more accurate to say: “The entertainment value in refuting a circular argument is that its proponent is blind to the inherent flaw, thus providing unlimited tail-chasing amusement.”?

          Also, do you know that you are misspelling deities? It’s very ironic considering a short exchange I had over on d/c/v about Oprah Winfrey being accepted by the mainstream as God.

          The Eternal Supreme Dieter!

        • #3239304

          I’m prone to character transpositions, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Of course; but, the specific issue at hand was …

          both when typing & verbally reciting character strings.

          Where possible, & when practical, I’ve gotten in the habit of using a spelling checker. Here, I just give it a quick visual scan, which, as you’ve observed is less than perfect.

      • #3249473

        Hey MrMiami, you can run but you can’t hide. You’re done this time. Toast!

        by sleepin’dawg ·

        In reply to I’LL BE BACK…

        Okay big mouth you’ve shot your load and been proven somewhat deficient in facts, logic and common sense. Now go and learn some manners before returning to spread more of your insane views. Your bad manners are irritating but might have been tolerated if anything you said had one iota of truth or fact upon which you based your silly assinine comments. Now you are on the edge of being totally ignored. It must be wonderful to live your life knowing you will never need any Preparation ‘H’.

        Dawg ]:)

      • #3339054

        OK GUYS!

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to I’LL BE BACK…

        I had to prepare for a speech and got tasked with a coding project. I do work unlike some you who are here all the time posting a 1000 times a day.

        “Yo, dis es DeepCrap. I yo homie in dis hood. The word for today is ‘Obfuscate’. Can you say ‘Obfuscate’?”

        I have decided instead of putting up with your nonsense, slights, and other demeaning banter and babble I have begun to write a series of tech briefs on my website. Each brief covers a topic with references and conclusions. I will include a feature later up the road to permit a dialog on the topics I have written about.

        I’ll attempt to provide some sort of ‘whiteboarding’ on the site that supports graphics and mathematical symbols.

        • #3339047

          IF YOU EVER STOP SHOUTING

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to OK GUYS!

          your identity will probably be considered suspect around here. I, personally, would wonder if your TR handle or your entire computer had been ippirated.

        • #3338967

          Yup, you’re the Master of Obfuscation.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to OK GUYS!

          Now, address the fundamental logic flaw in the core premise of ID.

          Without that, all else that you might present is mere anecdotal “evidence” and speculation.

        • #3338951

          Befor any of us insult MrMiami again,

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to OK GUYS!

          let us walk a mile in his shoes.

          Then when we call him more names, we’re a mile away and we have his shoes.

          OK. so I can’t not do it…

          Obfuscate: To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand.

          Headline news: MrMiami lectures on obfuscation! Accuses Deepsand! Head explodes with hypocrisy overload!

          p.s. Posting this Sunday evening during commercial breaks whilst watching ER.

        • #3338948

          Pure genius Neil!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Befor any of us insult MrMiami again,

          🙂

        • #3260323

          What is the URL?

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to OK GUYS!

          Or if you prefer URI of your page?

        • #3260258

          www.bogus.nut

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to What is the URL?

          🙂

        • #3181730

          I thought it was www.crack.pot

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to www.bogus.nut

          NT

        • #3181137

          Like his arguments

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I thought it was www.crack.pot

          his URL’s are all over the place.

          What does NT mean? Other than “not trustworthy” of course, as in Microsoft!

        • #3180459

          NT = No Text

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Like his arguments

          NT

    • #3235664

      INFORMATION AS A WRECKING BALL

      by absolutely ·

      In reply to INFORMATION AS A FOUNDATION

      Consider that an electron’s mass is less than 1/1800 the mass of a proton. They have equal but opposite charge. They have other quantum numbers that will either be the same or not, but the important fact is that they have a finite number of these quantum variables. Now, would you agree that storing all those quantum states that descrive the proton, using fewer than 1800 electrons, demolishes the claim that “the universe is built on far more information than its capacity to store it”?

      http://www.ageia.com/

      According to Maximum PC May 2005 page 14, the physics processor, available on a PCI card, can perform calculations for 50,000 bones simultaneously. I did not find this claim on the manufacturers’ site, but the Maximum PC people rarely lie. If anything, they take video games far too seriously.

      • #3179364

        TRY GODEL’S THEOREM

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to INFORMATION AS A WRECKING BALL

        In short, dude this Universe cannot be self descriptive. The information to form this place cannot come from within this place. There has to be something more.

        • #3179342

          BUT, GREEN IDEAS DO SLEEP FURIOUSLY, I JUST KNOW IT!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to TRY GODEL’S THEOREM

          http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=51122

          If you had made any points thus far, they would be deducted for inappropriate use of the word “dude”.

          Now, I’ve tried Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, and found it not to support your claims. Numbers require definition by humans, particles do not. The requirement of human definition of rules and axioms is the fundamental axiom in Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, and by definition that axiom does not apply to the physical universe, each particle of which was very much in existence before humanity evolved, and obeying the same laws of physics the entire time.

        • #3179293

          Bad Bad Boy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to BUT, GREEN IDEAS DO SLEEP FURIOUSLY, I JUST KNOW IT!

          You used that unusable word EV######N shame on you for that slip up. Now go wash your mouth out with soapy water {the industrial strength stuff not the weak domestic stuff} and you’re not allowed near a computer for 5 days. 🙂

          Col ]:)

        • #3179283

          Neener, neener, neener!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Bad Bad Boy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          I did not use EV######N, I used the past tense verb EVOL#ED, so why don’t YOU go wash your EYES out with soapy water if you can’t tell the difference!

          No, until Tech Republic becomes Trek Republic, I’ll interrupt this nanobot babble and other science fiction with the occasional science fact whenever it suits me. And this time, MrMiami has gone TOO FAR. I hope he bursts an artery when he checks all those refutations at Everything2!

        • #3179234

          Good entertainment is hard to find.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Neener, neener, neener!

          So, let’s hope that he survives.

        • #3180797

          If you find any, please tell me where!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Good entertainment is hard to find.

          This is getting ridiculous.

          Strike that, it was ridiculous from the outset, but it’s getting boring.

          MrMiami: you may believe what you like. I do NOT want to see your BRIEFS.

        • #3180741

          Well, when they were both frequenting EL, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Good entertainment is hard to find.

          ippirate & MrsMiami (no, that’s [b]not[/b] a typo) were quite entertaining.

          Now that the 2 of them have become like the Cheshire Cat, it’s hard to maintain momentum.

        • #3180709

          speaking of EL

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Good entertainment is hard to find.

          who is this Hawkins (Dawkins maybe?)? I need to argue with ippirate and don’t know what name to Google…

        • #3180662

          I have no idea but I’m staying away

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Good entertainment is hard to find.

          The only person I know off as Hawkins is Steven Hal kings the Astro Physicist who suffered a bout of something that confided him to a wheel chair in his late teens or early 20’s.

          He is considered as an “Expert” on the issues that he addresses.

          Is that any help?

          Col ]:)

        • #3180653

          Absolutely, Not Stephen Hawking, more likely Richard Dawkins

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Good entertainment is hard to find.

          Stephen Hawking is on http://www.hawking.org.uk/home/hindex.html but I’d be certain that you already knew about him.

          Richard Dawkins is author of the “The Blind Watchmaker”, which is the book that really causes ippirate and MrMiami to froth at the mouth. He’s currently “Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science” at Oxford University.

          It’s worth mentioning that “Professor” in the UK implies the highest rank of teacher in any department and is, I believe, not quite the way that the title applies in the US. Oxford is, well, Oxford so Dawkins credentials are pretty good.

          I like reading Dawkins and it’s only thanks to the EL thread that I discovered him.

          Neil

          something that I hadn’t realised until checking Dawkins references for you was that the Professorial Chair was endowed by a couple of guys who made their money by being in on the early days of Microsoft. I will use my Windows with more pride from now on.

          😀

        • #3180613

          Thanks, Neil, that’s the right Hawkins.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Good entertainment is hard to find.

          Thanks for the imagery of those two frothing at the mouth, that was pleasant…

        • #3179250

          Information is an ARTIFACT, not an initial condition.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to TRY GODEL’S THEOREM

          You are still engaged in circular reasoning.

          And, you continue to dodge the tough issues, such as the logical flaw in your premise.

          If you can’t step up to the plate and address such, [b]nothing[/b] that you might say is of any consequence.

        • #3179231

          You still haven’t answered the following

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to TRY GODEL’S THEOREM

          1) What is your URL so we can all read the refutations on your web page?
          2) Please explain how holographic images and TDM and FDM are somehow related to the life the universe and everything.
          3) Please explain how the universe/information fits with Godel’s theorem, which in essence says: there is always a statement about natural numbers which is true, but which cannot be proven in the system. What does that mean…something everyone who has taken freshman calculus knows; math is a little fuzzy around the edges.
          4) Are you saying that because of Godel we can never know if P = NP or if the secret to life, the universe, and everything is 42? Or are you saying we know this but only through tangental relationships that are true? Or are you saying that because of various portions of proof that are true in any given case that the whole proof is true (or false)?

        • #3180733

          He’s not willing to engage in logical debate.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You still haven’t answered the following

          Perhaps, he’s incapable of such.

          Since he’s claimed to be an aeronautical engineer, we might be wise to inquire as to the identity of his employer, so as to avoid flying on craft bearing the mark of his hand.

        • #3180713

          Well we all know it wasn’t

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to He’s not willing to engage in logical debate.

          Concorde don’t we. They only had one fatal accident over their life time and even that wasn’t caused by the aircraft but another one that was in the process of falling apart on takeoff. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3180881

          That still leaves way too many possibilities.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Well we all know it wasn’t

          Fortunately for me, my preferences, with regard to mode of transportation, in order, are:

          1) Motorcycle
          2) Automobile
          3) Train
          4) Boat or ship
          5) Aircraft

          So, I guess the odds are in my favor.

        • #3179746

          Well on most days

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to That still leaves way too many possibilities.

          I would take the Motorcycle and if it is rally bad rainy cold weather the car towing the motorcycle for when things clear up. 😀

          Now if only that horrible Ducati was quieter and didn’t attract speeding tickets like Successful performers attract groupies every thing would be perfect. 😉

          But if it was it wouldn’t be a Ducati with Conti’s would it? Oh the noise is music to my ears. :p

          Col ]:)

        • #3170066

          Ducati

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to That still leaves way too many possibilities.

          I once had an old 1250 with worm drive; that was a beast and a half.

        • #3170815

          Well I once had a Ducati

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to That still leaves way too many possibilities.

          250 EX GP racer it was built by the factory in 59 for the 60 season but never raced, the factory eventually sold all 5 of them to Vic Camp in England how it ended up here is way beyond me and I only got it for the Tacho as it was a box of bits when I first saw it.

          Of course the wife was on my back so I told her I would restore it and she could ride it around, well that lasted until I split the crank case and saw just what was inside it. 😀 But I did keep to my word and built it up as a road bike and told her if she could pull in the clutch she could ride it, the fact that you required a 10 ton porter power to do it was beside the point.

          God that had a heavy clutch and generally required both hands to pull it in except when something broke at racing speeds then for some strange reason I never had a problem hauling the clutch in and holding it there.

          But I spent several years working as technical director for a race team which was running 1982 900 SS Darmah’s and we had brought 4 of the things with the idea of having a 3 bike team and one spare bike available always. Well 23 of these things where brought into AU that year and we got to chose which ones we wanted straight from the boxes and when they where opened and assembled they where of course all different, so much for Ducati’s production line they just added whatever they had handy at the time for these special edition bikes. So we had to keep one as a “Control” bike and make all the others identical to it ranging from front forks to muffler height and width. I of course refused to allow any of the racers to actually ride the control bike as I didn’t trust them as far as I could throw them, they all showed as much mechanical sympathy to the equipment as Hitler did to the Jews and on most occasions made Hitler look positively a nice guy. But when this class finally stooped running I took the control bike with me as part payment for my outstanding money owed to me. I think at the time that I took it away it had about 3,000 KMS on the odometer and I had put those there all on the race track in nice controlled conditions and other than occasionally robbing some parts off it when one of the bikes was crashed it’s still the same as the day I pulled it out of the crate. Now it has 17,000 on it and up until a Social Disease ran me down in an attempt to protect children from me as I must have been on my way to abuse a few it had never been along the road. Granted one day it was moved around and the guy put it on the side stand and allowed it to sink into the grass and fall onto a retaining wall but other than a very small dent in the tank and the paint work there was no real damage, but for some unexplained reason he never touched the Ducati again. 😉 I think he is now about 12 inches taller after doing that one. 🙂

          But it is a real pig to ride minimum revs is 3,000 and that in first = about 72 KPH where the speed limit here is 60 KPH and even down to 50 KPH in the back streets. The open road speed limit is 100 KPH and that is either a little over minimum revs in second or a little below minimum revs in third the fact that there are another 5,000 RPM’s to play with don’t count. 😀

          Not being one to willingly speed I’ve never had it in top gear on the open road and I’ve “Absolutely” never considered taking the Tacho up near the 8,000 RPM beginning of the Red Line well that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. 🙂

          I could lower the final gearing but that would take all the fun out of riding it around and even at 8,000 RPM you can piratically count the power strokes the fact that you get about 2 foot of flames out each exhaust pipe on the overrun has absolutely nothing to do with a badly maintained exhaust system but I do believe that the 220 degrees of valve overlap just may play a small part in that one.

          It makes a lovely noise at 8K with all those lovely gears whirring around and not a single chain anywhere to be heard inside the motor, the sound of air rushing into the air intakes through the pigeon guards and those nice quite straight through Megaphones that pass as mufflers give off a quite distinctive note that just sounds so nice. or so I’m told as I’ve never heard it any place other than on the riders seat and no one is allowed to touch it now. 😀

          Of course if I’m taking it for a real ride I disconnect the speedio cable to prevent breaking the speedio as you can wind the needle against the zero stop and then pop it off the spindle which works out a bit expensive. But I’ve also been known to give it a tune up and then take it for a short ride and end up several hundred K’s away without any money on me. Once you start riding it you just can not stop. 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3181076

          GODEL’S THEOREM

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to You still haven’t answered the following

          “3) Please explain how the universe/information fits with Godel’s theorem, which in essence says: there is always a statement about natural numbers which is true, but which cannot be proven in the system. What does that mean…something everyone who has taken freshman calculus knows; math is a little fuzzy around the edges.”

          Godel’s theorem states that a system cannot be self descriptive. However, by going outside that system one can describe the system. But as an outcome we get cascading systems that get larger and larger in attempts to explain the smaller system. We see this in describing our universe today when we have gone from a single universal model to the Brane-world model of many universes. The model got more complicated and the basic questions have not been answered in science or math. ie Where did it all come from? What is its origin?

          The questions that need to be asked are:
          1. What is the shortest message that can describe a system to a certain level of detail? (software compressibility)
          2. How can one know if a particular algorithm is actually the shortest possible? (Godel’s Theorem)
          3. Can the Universe be its own simulation?

          Other questions will be answered when I complete my paper.

        • #3181057

          So, MrMiami IS out of this world!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to GODEL’S THEOREM

          According to “Godel’s theorem states that a system cannot be self descriptive. However, by going outside that system one can describe the system,” it follows that in describing the entire universe, MrMiami is outside of it.

          :p

        • #3180976

          CORRECT

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to So, MrMiami IS out of this world!

          My view point is an intelligent design viewpoint which is outside the Universe looking in.

          The Blind Watchmaker is myopic and his viewpoint is from within looking outward.

        • #3180880

          You realize what that means, don’t you?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, MrMiami IS out of this world!

          He’s a Deity!

        • #3180841

          Holy Lucifer!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You realize what that means, don’t you?

          What it really means is that he CLAIMS to be God, which means…BLASPHEMER!

        • #3179829

          No, not God; but, one of many Gods.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You realize what that means, don’t you?

          Remember that his premise is infinitely recursive, such that its logical conclusion is that there are an [i]infinite[/i] number of Creators, or Gods.

        • #3180875

          Don’t bother with the paper.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to GODEL’S THEOREM

          Spare the resources for those who know how to put them to good use.

        • #3180854

          hummanah hummanah hummanah

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to GODEL’S THEOREM

          Wow, you are REALLY stretching Godel’s (Incompleteness) Theorem.

          1) I’m not sure what you are asking here and why it is relevant to Godel’s theorem. You have brought up a NP Complete problem though. However, if you are asking how far we can compress before we lose detail you might want to read up on lossy and lossless compression techniques.
          2) Once again NP Complete (see Traveling Salesman)
          3) The Matrix was awful and pseudo-technobabble.

        • #3179825

          It’s “God Els’ Theorem.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to hummanah hummanah hummanah

          MrMiami’s writing skills are on a par with those of his reasoning.

          Still, I’ve no idea who or what the h*ll God El is. Perhaps it’s one worshipped in a heretofore secret religion.

        • #3180835

          So close it must hurt.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to GODEL’S THEOREM

          But Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem does not state “that a system cannot be self descriptive.” It states that a branch of *mathematics* will always rely on some other branch or on everyday language for one or more of its definitions. If Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem is to be the basis of your claim about an Intelligent Designer, you will need to prove somehow that the known universe is governed by all the same limitations as mathematics.

        • #3179824

          Stop it; you’ll just confuse him further with facts.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So close it must hurt.

          He’s still trying to learn the rules of logic, and having a very, very bad time of it.

        • #3179570

          further confuse?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Stop it; you’ll just confuse him further with facts.

          Not possible, methinks.

          In the worst sci-fi, the evil machine is defeated by “overloading”, as if data were equivalent to high voltage. Just want to see if he’s a robot.

        • #3170044

          Maybe his is an alien virus?

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Stop it; you’ll just confuse him further with facts.

          You know like Independence Day, but backwards…and in a forum…and not so much like Independence Day, but more like just an alien mind virus posting to a website…

        • #3169976

          If so, it’s definitely non-sentient.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Stop it; you’ll just confuse him further with facts.

          It shows absolutely no sign of intelligence.

        • #3181067

          A universe can not be self-descriptive?

          by jck ·

          In reply to TRY GODEL’S THEOREM

          how about a comparative:

          Say Mr. Universe is the only universe to survive the big bang, before all the other universes form in the nothingness of being.

          If Mr. Universe is existing and alone with no one around to describe or delineate his being…then, he can be no more? His ceases to exist when not defined by something else?

          If that’s Godel’s Theorem, then Godel needs to get off the bottle.

          BTW, you’re applying Godel’s Theorem to a quantified entity (this chat, I assume). Godel’s Theorem is applicable to sets (particularly natural numbers) which are considered infinite with the probability that within that set there will be some distinction which breaks the axiomatic constant of it’s being.

          Plus, you apply the theorem to “this Universe” as a singularity. When in fact “this Universe” is innately a multiverse within itself and could be (under your own rules of cross-comparison) self-defined relatively as a whole by its own components.

        • #3180974

          MR UNIVERSE

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to A universe can not be self-descriptive?

          is a set of processes described by algorythms founded in mathematics. It is not uniquely a singularity instead it is indeed a set.

          If you follow intelligent design it describes atleast three universes. Science is only concerned with one.

        • #3180876

          Bullsh*t piled on bullsh*t piled on bullsh*t.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to MR UNIVERSE

          You are a fraud.

          You babble on about things that you do not understand.

          You ignore rebuttals.

          You refuse to submit to critical review.

          You refuse to use logic in a consistent manner.

          You are a master of the “baffle them with bullsh*t” shuffle.

          You are a fraud.

        • #3179568

          bullsh*t by any other name…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Bullsh*t piled on bullsh*t piled on bullsh*t.

          still isn’t pleasant. Call it Intelligent Design, dialectical materialism, or original sin. It’s still just the oldest, smelliest BS.

        • #3170082

          Thank G*d I have severe adnosmia!

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to bullsh*t by any other name…

          I can only see it; and, if I don’t see it, it does’nt exist!

        • #3180839

          Miss America

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to MR UNIVERSE

          or wtf-ever.

          If the universe is not just a set, but numerous sets, and if any of them overlap, meaning any one member is contained in more than one set, your claim collapses. Except that it never stood. See above.

        • #3170173

          Science concerns

          by jck ·

          In reply to MR UNIVERSE

          Since the 1980s, scientists have stepped up their investigation that atomic-level matter exists in various phases, since they’ve never been able to pinpoint the position of anything atomic.

          Part of this investigation is that matter holds state in various material parallel universes, i.e.- legitimate scientists are pursuing the hypothesis that matter not only exists in your reality, but in an infinite number of others, based on the fact that they can not define the position of even the neutrally charged particle of the atom.

          So in the basic terms, you are wrong. Science is concerned with more than one universe, and they hypothesize them as endless.

          QED

        • #3170157

          never been able to pinpoint the position

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Science concerns

          I think the precision that can be achieved is quite impressive, considering our magnitude compared to the atomic. I don’t see how Heisenberg’s uncertainty (principle?) necessitates any major revision of anything.

        • #3169774

          Re: Mr Universe (and please don’t shout. My ears hurt)

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to MR UNIVERSE

          Mr Universe? Isn’t he the governor of California or something?

        • #3169751

          Nah; that’s the Governator.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Re: Mr Universe (and please don’t shout. My ears hurt)

          Aka Arnold Schwarzenegger, of [i]Terminator[/i] fame.

          Prior to that he was a professional body builder, winning the title of [b]Mr. Olympia[/b] 1970 through 1975,a s well as 1980.

        • #3170938

          I stand corrected!

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Nah; that’s the Governator.

          >>>

        • #3171356

          Sitting will be satisfactory.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Nah; that’s the Governator.

          As will any other pose that strikes your fancy.

        • #3169644

          Parallel Universes…..Not as silly as it sounds….Mr Miami

          by black panther ·

          In reply to MR UNIVERSE

          The universe is destined to end. Before it does, could an advanced civilisation escape via a “wormhole” into a parallel universe? The idea seems like science fiction, but it is consistent with the laws of physics and biology. Here’s how to do it

          Michio Kaku

          ——————————————————————————–

          The author is professor of theoretical physics at City University of New York. This article is adapted from his book “Parallel Worlds” (Allen Lane)

          The universe is out of control, in a runaway acceleration. Eventually all intelligent life will face the final doom???the big freeze. An advanced civilisation must embark on the ultimate journey: fleeing to a parallel universe.

          In Norse mythology, Ragnarok???the fate of the gods???begins when the earth is caught in the vice-like grip of a bone-chilling freeze. The heavens themselves freeze over, as the gods perish in great battles with evil serpents and murderous wolves. Eternal darkness settles over the bleak, frozen land as the sun and moon are both devoured. Odin, the father of all gods, finally falls to his death, and time itself comes to a halt.

          Does this ancient tale foretell our future? Ever since the work of Edwin Hubble in the 1920s, scientists have known that the universe is expanding, but most have believed that the expansion was slowing as the universe aged. In 1998, astronomers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Australian National University calculated the expansion rate by studying dozens of powerful supernova explosions within distant galaxies, which can light up the entire universe. They could not believe their own data. Some unknown force was pushing the galaxies apart, causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. Brian Schmidt, one of the group leaders, said, “I was still shaking my head, but we had checked everything??? I was very reluctant to tell people, because I truly thought that we were going to get massacred.”

          Physicists went scrambling back to their blackboards and realised that some “dark energy” of unknown origin, akin to Einstein’s “cosmological constant,” was acting as an anti-gravity force. Apparently, empty space itself contains enough repulsive dark energy to blow the universe apart. The more the universe expands, the more dark energy there is to make it expand even faster, leading to an exponential runaway mode.

          In 2003, this astonishing result was confirmed by the WMAP (Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe) satellite. Orbiting at a million miles from earth, this satellite contains two telescopes capable of detecting the faint microwave radiation which bathes the universe. It is so sensitive that it is able to photograph in exquisite detail the afterglow of the microwave radiation left over from the big bang, which is still circulating the universe. The WMAP satellite, in effect, gave us “baby pictures” of the universe when it was a mere 380,000 years old.

          The WMAP satellite settled the long-standing question of the age of the universe: it is officially 13.7bn years old (to within 1 per cent accuracy). But more remarkably, the data showed that dark energy is not a fluke, but makes up 73 per cent of the matter and energy of the entire universe. To deepen the mystery, the data showed that 23 per cent of the universe consists of “dark matter,” a bizarre form of matter which is invisible but still has weight. Hydrogen and helium make up 4 per cent, while the higher elements, you and I included, make up just 0.03 per cent. Dark energy and most of dark matter do not consist of atoms, which means that, contrary to what the ancient Greeks believed and what is taught in every chemistry course, most of the universe is not made of atoms at all.

          As the universe expands, its energy content is diluted and temperatures eventually plunge to near absolute zero, where even atoms stop moving. One of the iron laws of physics is the second law of thermodynamics, which states that in the end everything runs down, that the total “entropy” (disorder or chaos) in the universe always increases. This means that iron rusts, our bodies age and crumble, empires fall, stars exhaust their nuclear fuel, and the universe itself will run down, as temperatures drop uniformly to near zero.

          Charles Darwin was referring to this law when he wrote: “Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress.” And one of the most depressing passages in the English language was written by Bertrand Russell, who described the “unyielding despair” he felt when contemplating the distant future: “No fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought or feeling, can preserve a life beyond the grave??? all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system; and the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins.”

          Russell wrote this passage in an era before space travel, so the death of the sun does not seem so catastrophic today???but the death of the entire universe seems inescapable. So on some day in the far future, the last star will cease to shine, and the universe will be littered with nuclear debris, dead neutron stars and black holes. Intelligent civilisations, like homeless people in rags huddled next to dying campfires, will gather around the last flickering embers of black holes emitting a faint Hawking radiation.

          String theory to the rescue?
          Although thermodynamics and cosmology point to the eventual death of all lifeforms in the universe, there is still one loophole. It is a law of evolution that, when the environment changes radically, life must adapt, flee or die. The first alternative seems impossible. The last is undesirable. This leaves us with one choice: leave the universe.

          Although the concept of leaving our dying universe to enter another seems utterly mad, there is no law of physics forbidding entering a parallel universe. Einstein’s general relativity theory allows for the existence of “wormholes” or gateways connecting parallel universes, sometimes called “Einstein-Rosen bridges.” But it is still unknown whether quantum corrections make such a journey possible or not.

          Although once considered a preposterous idea, the concept of the “multiverse”???that our universe coexists with an infinite number of parallel universes???has recently generated much interest among physicists from several directions. First, the leading theory consistent with the WMAP data is the “inflationary” theory, proposed by Alan Guth of MIT in 1979. It postulates a turbo-charged expansion of the universe at the beginning of time. The inflationary universe idea neatly explains several stubborn cosmological mysteries, including the flatness and uniformity of the universe.

          But since physicists still do not know what drove this rapid inflationary process, there remains the chance that it could happen again, in an endless cycle. This is the chaotic inflationary idea of Andrei Linde of Stanford University, in which “parent universes” bud “baby universes” in a continuous, neverending cycle. Like soap bubbles which split into two smaller bubbles, universes can constantly sprout from other universes.

          But what caused the big bang and drove this inflation? The question remains unanswered. Since the big bang was so intense, we have to abandon Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which forms the underlying framework for all of cosmology. Einstein’s theory of gravity breaks down at the instant of the big bang, and hence cannot answer the deep philosophical and theological questions raised by this event. At these incredible temperatures, we must incorporate quantum theory???the other great theory to emerge in the 20th century???which governs the physics of the atom.

          Quantum theory and Einstein’s relativity theory are opposites. The former governs the world of the very small, the peculiar subatomic realm of electrons and quarks. Relativity theory rules the world of the very large???of black holes and expanding universes. Relativity, therefore, is not suited to explaining the instant of the big bang, where the universe was smaller than a subatomic particle. At this moment we would expect radiation effects to dominate over gravity, and hence we need a quantum description of gravity. Indeed, one of the greatest challenges facing physics is to unify these theories into a single, coherent theory of all the forces in the universe.

          Physicists today are groping for this “theory of everything.” Many proposals have been made over the past half century, but all have been shown to be inconsistent or incomplete. So far, the leading???in fact, the only???candidate is string theory.

          The latest incarnation of string theory, M-theory, may answer a question which has dogged advocates of higher dimensions for a century: where are they? Smoke can expand and fill up an entire room without vanishing into hyperspace, so higher dimensions, if they exist at all, must be smaller than an atom. If higher-dimensional space were larger than an atom, then we should see atoms mysteriously drifting and disappearing into a higher dimension, which we do not see in the laboratory.

          In the older string picture, one had to “curl” or wrap up six of the ten original dimensions, leaving the four-dimensional universe of today. These unwanted dimensions were squeezed into a tiny ball (called a Calabi-Yau manifold) too small to be seen. But M-theory adds a new twist to this: some of these higher dimensions can be large, or even infinite, in size. Imagine two parallel sheets of paper. If an ant lived on each sheet, each would think that its sheet was the entire universe, unaware that there was another universe close by. In fact, the other universe would be invisible. Each ant would live out its life oblivious to the fact that another universe was only a few inches away. Similarly, our universe may be a membrane floating in 11-dimensional hyperspace, while we remain oblivious of the parallel universes hovering nearby.

          One interesting version of M-theory cosmology is the “ekpyrotic” (from the Greek for “conflagration”) universe, proposed by Paul Steinhardt, Burt Ovrut and Neil Turok. It assumes that our universe is a flat, infinite membrane floating in higher-dimensional space. But occasionally, gravity attracts a nearby membrane. These two parallel universes race towards each other until they collide, releasing a colossal amount of energy (the big splat). This explosion creates our known universe and sends the two parallel universes flying apart in hyperspace.

          Searching for higher dimensions
          The intense interest in higher dimensions generated by string theory has slowly spilled over into the world of experimental physics. Idle dinner-table chatter is being translated into multimillion-dollar physics experiments.

          At the University of Colorado in Denver, the first experiment was conducted to search for the presence of a parallel universe, perhaps only a millimetre away. Physicists searched for tiny deviations from Newton’s inverse square law for gravity. The light from a candle is diluted as it spreads out, decreasing at the inverse square of the distance of separation. Similarly, according to Newton’s law, gravity also spreads out over space and decreases in the same way. But in a four-dimensional universe, there is more room for light or gravity to spread out, so they decrease at the inverse cube of the distance. Hence, by searching for tiny deviations from the inverse square law, one may pick up the presence of the fourth dimension.

          Newton’s inverse square law is so precise that it can guide our space probes throughout the solar system. But no one knows if it holds down to the millimetre level. At present, only null results have been found in these experiments. Other groups are searching for even smaller deviations. Physicists at Purdue University in Indiana are trying to test the law down to the atomic level, using nanotechnology.

          Other avenues are also being explored. In 2007, the large hadron collider (LHC), capable of blasting subatomic particles with a colossal energy of 14 trillion electron volts (10 trillion times the energy found in a typical chemical reaction) will be turned on outside Geneva. The world’s largest atom smasher, this huge machine, 27km in circumference, straddling the French-Swiss border, will probe into places 10,000 times smaller than a proton. Physicists expect to find an entire zoo of new subatomic particles not seen since the big bang.

          Physicists predict that the LHC may create exotic particles like mini-black holes and supersymmetric particles, dubbed “sparticles,” which would provide indirect evidence for string theory. In string theory, every particle has a super-partner. The partner of the electron is the “selectron,” the partner of the quark is the “squark,” and so on.

          Furthermore, around 2012, the space-based gravity wave detector Lisa (laser interferometer space antenna) will be sent into orbit. Lisa will be able to detect the gravitational shockwaves emitted less than a trillionth of a second after the big bang. It will consist of three satellites circling the sun, connected by laser beams, making a huge triangle in space 5m km on each side. Any gravitational wave which strikes Lisa will disturb the lasers, and this tiny distortion will be picked up by instruments, signalling the collision of two black holes or the big bang aftershock itself. Lisa is so sensitive???it can measure distortions a tenth the diameter of an atom???that it may be able to test many of the scenarios being proposed for the pre-big bang universe, including string theory.

          Steps to leave the universe
          Unfortunately, the energy necessary to manipulate these higher dimensions, rather than just observe them, is far beyond anything available to us in the foreseeable future: 1019bn electron volts, or a quadrillion times the energy of the large hadron collider. To operate here one needs the technology of a super-advanced civilisation.

          In order to organise a discussion of advanced extraterrestrial civilisations, astrophysicists often use the classification of Type I, II and III civilisations introduced by Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev in the 1960s, who ranked them by their energy consumption.

          One might expect that a Type III civilisation, using the full power of its unimaginably vast galactic resources, would be able to evade the big freeze. The bodies of its citizens, for example, might be genetically altered and their organs replaced by computerised implants, representing a sophisticated merger of silicon and carbon technologies. But even these superhuman bodies would not survive the big freeze. This is because we define intelligence as the ability to process information. According to physics, all machines, whether they are computers, rockets, locomotives or steam engines, ultimately depend on extracting energy from temperature differences: steam engines, for example, work by extracting energy from boiling water. But information-processing, and hence intelligence, requires energy supplied by machines and motors, which will become impossible as temperature differences drop to zero. According to the laws of physics, in a uniformly cold universe where temperature differences do not exist, intelligence cannot survive.

          But since the big freeze is probably billions to trillions of years away, there is time for a Type III civilisation to plot the only strategy consistent with the laws of physics: leaving this universe. To do this, an advanced civilisation will first have to discover the laws of quantum gravity, which may or may not turn out to be string theory. These laws will be crucial in calculating several unknown factors, such as the stability of wormholes connecting us to a parallel universe, and how we will know what these parallel worlds will look like. Before leaping into the unknown, we have to know what is on the other side. But how do we make the leap? Here are some of the ways.

          Find a naturally occurring wormhole
          An advanced civilisation which has colonised the galaxy may have stumbled during its past explorations upon exotic, primordial left-overs from the big bang. The original expansion was so rapid and explosive that even tiny wormholes might have been stretched and blown up into macroscopic size. Wormholes, cosmic strings, negative matter, negative energy, false vacua and other exotic creatures of physics may be relics left over from creation.

          But if such naturally occurring gateways are not found, then the civilisation will have to take more complex and demanding steps.

          Send a probe through a black hole
          Black holes, we now realise, are plentiful; there is one lurking in the centre of our own milky way galaxy weighing about 3m solar masses. Probes sent through a black hole may settle some unsolved questions. In 1963, the mathematician Roy Kerr showed that a rapidly spinning black hole will not collapse into a dot, but rather into a rotating ring, which is kept from collapsing by centrifugal forces.

          All black holes are surrounded by an event horizon, or point of no return: passing through the event horizon is a one-way trip. Conceivably, two such black holes would be needed for a return trip. But to an advanced civilisation fleeing the big freeze, a one-way trip may be all that is required.

          What happens if one falls through the Kerr ring is a matter for debate. Some believe that the act of entering the wormhole will close it, making it unstable. And light falling into the black hole would be blue-shifted, giving rise to the possibility that one might be fried as one passed into a parallel universe. No one knows for sure, so experiments must be done. This controversy heated up last year when Stephen Hawking admitted that he had made a mistake 30 years ago in betting that black holes gobble up everything, including information. Perhaps the information is crushed forever by the black hole, or perhaps it passes into the parallel universe on the other side of the Kerr ring. Hawking’s latest thinking is that information is not totally lost. But no one believes that the final word on this delicate question has been spoken.

          To gain further data on space-times which are stretched to breaking point, an advanced civilisation might create a black hole in slow motion. In 1939, Einstein analysed a rotating mass of stellar debris which was slowly collapsing under its own gravity. Although Einstein showed that this rotating mass would not collapse into a black hole, an advanced civilisation may duplicate this experiment in slow motion by collecting a swirling mass of neutron stars weighing less than about 3 solar masses and then gradually injecting extra stellar material into the mass, forcing it to undergo gravitational collapse. Instead of collapsing into a dot, it will collapse into a ring, and hence allow scientists to witness the formation of a Kerr black hole in slow motion.

          Create negative energy
          If Kerr rings prove to be too unstable or lethal, one might also contemplate opening up wormholes via negative matter/energy. In 1988, Kip Thorne and his colleagues at the California Institute of Technology showed that if one had enough negative matter or negative energy, one could use it to create a transversable wormhole???one in which you could pass freely back and forth between your lab and a distant point in space (and even time). Negative matter/energy would be sufficient to keep the throat of the wormhole open for travel.

          Unfortunately, no one has ever seen negative matter. In principle, it should weigh less than nothing and fall up, rather than down. If it existed when the earth was created, it would have been repelled by the earth’s gravity and drifted off into space.

          Negative energy, however, has been seen in the laboratory in the form of the Casimir effect. Normally, the force between two uncharged parallel plates should be zero. But if quantum fluctuations outside the plates are greater than the fluctuations between the plates, a net compression force will be created. The fluctuations pushing the plates from the outside are larger than the fluctuations pushing out from within the plates, so these uncharged plates are attracted to each other.

          This was first predicted in 1948 and measured in 1958. However, the Casimir energy is tiny???proportional to the inverse fourth power of the separation of the plates. To make use of the Casimir effect would require advanced technology to squeeze these parallel plates to very small separations. If one were to reshape these parallel plates into a sphere with a double lining, and use vast amounts of energy to press these spherical plates together, enough negative energy might be generated for the interior of the sphere to separate from the rest of the universe.

          Another source of negative energy is laser beams. Pulses of laser energy contain “squeezed states,” which contain negative as well as positive energy. The problem is separating the negative from the positive energy within the beam. Although this is theoretically possible, it is exceedingly difficult. If a sophisticated civilisation could do this, then powerful laser beams might generate enough negative energy for the sphere to peel from our universe.

          Even black holes have negative energy surrounding them, near their event horizons. In principle, this may yield vast quantities of negative energy. However, the technical problems of extracting negative energy so close to a black hole are extremely tricky.

          Create a baby universe
          According to inflation, just a few ounces of matter might suffice to create a baby universe. This is because the positive energy of matter cancels out the negative energy of gravity. If the universe is closed, then they cancel out exactly. In some sense, the universe may be a free lunch, as Guth has emphasised. Strange as it may seem, it requires no net energy to create an entire universe. Baby universes are in principle created naturally when a certain region of space-time becomes unstable and enters a state called the “false vacuum,” which destabilises the fabric of space-time. An advanced civilisation might do this deliberately by concentrating energy in a single region. This would require either compressing matter to a density of 1080g/cm3, or heating it to 1029 degrees kelvin.

          To create the fantastic conditions necessary to open up a wormhole with negative energy or to create a false vacuum with positive energy, one might need a “cosmic atom-smasher.” Physicists are attempting to build “table-top” accelerators that can, in principle, attain billions of electron volts on a kitchen table. They have used powerful laser beams to attain an energy acceleration of 200bn electron volts per metre, a new record. Progress is rapid, with the energy growing by a factor of ten every five years. Although technical problems still prevent a true table-top accelerator, an advanced civilisation has billions of years to perfect these and other devices.

          To reach the Planck energy (1028eV) with this laser technology would require an atom-smasher ten light years long, beyond the nearest star, which would be well within the technological capabilities of a Type III civilisation. Since the vacuum of empty space is better than any vacuum attainable on the earth, the beam of subatomic particles may not need light years of tubing to contain it; it could be fired in empty space. Power stations would have to be placed along the path in order to pump laser energy into the beam, and also to focus it.

          Another possibility would be to bend the path into a circle so that it fits within the solar system. Gigantic magnets could be placed on asteroids to bend and focus the beam in a circular path around the sun. The magnetic field necessary to bend the beam would be so huge that the surge of power through the coils might melt them, meaning that they could only be used once. After the beam had passed, the melted coils would have to be discarded and replaced in time for the next pass.

          Build a laser implosion machine
          In principle, it might be possible to create laser beams of limitless power; the only constraints are the stability of the lasing material and the energy of the power source. In the lab, terawatt (trillion watt) lasers are now common, and petawatt (quadrillion watt) lasers are slowly becoming possible (in comparison, a commercial nuclear power plant generates only a billion watts of continuous power). One can even envisage an X-ray laser powered by the output of a hydrogen bomb, which would carry unimaginable power in its beam. At the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a battery of lasers is fired radially on a small pellet of lithium deuteride, the active ingredient of a hydrogen bomb, in order to tame the power of thermonuclear fusion.

          An advanced civilisation might create huge laser stations on the asteroids and then fire millions of laser beams on to a single point, creating vast temperatures and pressures unimaginable today.

          Send a nanobot to recreate civilisation
          If the wormholes created in the previous steps are too small, too unstable, or the radiation effects too intense, then perhaps we could send only atom-sized particles through a wormhole. In this case, this civilisation may embark upon the ultimate solution: passing an atomic-sized “seed” through the wormhole capable of regenerating the civilisation on the other side. This process is commonly found in nature. The seed of an oak tree, for example, is compact, rugged and designed to survive a long journey and live off the land. It also contains all the genetic information needed to regenerate the tree.

          An advanced civilisation might want to send enough information through the wormhole to create a “nanobot,” a self-replicating atomic-sized machine, built with nanotechnology. It would be able to travel at near the speed of light because it would be only the size of a molecule. It would land on a barren moon, and then use the raw materials to create a chemical factory which could create millions of copies of itself. A horde of these robots would then travel to other moons in other solar systems and create new chemical factories. This whole process would be repeated over and over again, making millions upon millions of copies of the original robot. Starting from a single robot, there will be a sphere of trillions of such robot probes expanding at near the speed of light, colonising the entire galaxy.

          (This was the basis of the movie 2001, probably the most scientifically accurate fictional depiction of an encounter with an extraterrestrial lifeform. Instead of meeting aliens in a flying saucer or the USS Enterprise, the most realistic possibility is that we will make contact with a robot probe left on a moon from a passing Type III civilisation. This was outlined by scientists in the opening minutes of the film, but Stanley Kubrick cut the interviews from the final edit.)

          Next, these robot probes would create huge biotechnology laboratories. The DNA sequences of the probes’ creators would have been carefully recorded, and the robots would have been designed to inject this information into incubators, which would then clone the entire species. An advanced civilisation may also code the personalities and memories of its inhabitants and inject this into the clones, enabling the entire race to be reincarnated.

          Although seemingly fantastic, this scenario is consistent with the known laws of physics and biology, and is within the capabilities of a Type III civilisation. There is nothing in the rules of science to prevent the regeneration of an advanced civilisation from the molecular level. For a dying civilisation trapped in a freezing universe, this may be the last hope.

        • #3171378

          This is currently MAIN STREAM science!

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Parallel Universes…..Not as silly as it sounds….Mr Miami

          And, what does it have to do with the subject at hand?

        • #3171351

          Off Track

          by black panther ·

          In reply to This is currently MAIN STREAM science!

          When you look at the ‘subject’ we are getting OFF Track now and again ( but I do believe most posts on this site seem to do that! )

          Maybe this site is not the best place to discuss issues like this – although I do appreciate the “Absolute” ( for want of a better word ) points of view I receive.

          Just to get a response means something as I would imagine that no response at all would mean absolutely no interest or it’s not worthy of a reply!

          Contrary to what you or others may think this is my way of exploring both sides of the argument.

          Let me know if I am wasting your and my time and I will be happy to stop posting!

          and many thanks for the replies! 🙂

        • #3171345

          Merely pointing out that …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to This is currently MAIN STREAM science!

          the concepts of parallel universes, multiple non-parallel universes, etc. are neither new nor proscribed by any known laws of nature. In fact the concept of multiverses has captured the minds of many, both those doing serious research as well as the community of (hard) science fiction writers.

          And, wondering if the post was intended to have particular relevance to this thread.

        • #3180929

          Numbers require definition by humans, particles do not.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to TRY GODEL’S THEOREM

          Therefore Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem does not apply to the physical universe, only to fields of mathematics, or other fields of human inquiry sufficiently similar in nature.

        • #3180874

          He’s quite deaf to the voice of reason.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Numbers require definition by humans, particles do not.

          Even if he knows that, he’s not going to admit such.

        • #3180850

          THAT’S WHY I KEEP SHOUTING AT HIM!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to He’s quite deaf to the voice of reason.

          😀

        • #3179830

          WHAT? Oh, sorry; …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to THAT’S WHY I KEEP SHOUTING AT HIM!

          I forgot that I still had my ear plugs in.

        • #3169773

          Obfustifusion — I think!

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to WHAT? Oh, sorry; …

          Excuse me, please. Is this the right thread? It just seems like EL all over again, but in disguise. I’m confused!

        • #3169763

          Very astute of you.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to WHAT? Oh, sorry; …

          Same game, but with the 2nd & 3rd string on the field.

          ippirate’s out with laryngitis, MrMiami seems to be suffering from narcolepsy, so Black Panther’s been called up from the farm league.

          I can’t wait to see if they try to draw Moses out of retirement.

        • #3169761

          deepsand!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to WHAT? Oh, sorry; …

          Don’t you think it’s a bit presumptuous to title a response to yourself “very astute”? Even though you’re right.

          😉

        • #3169752

          And, very astute of you, too.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to WHAT? Oh, sorry; …

          Don’t you just love the convolutions generated by the fixed level structure here?

        • #3169740

          levity and deception

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to WHAT? Oh, sorry; …

          I fully agree that obfuscation and confusion are running rampant here, assuming that is what you mean by “obfustifusion”, but don’t you think some are likely to take the invention of new words as encouragement to invent new sciences, new universes, and new, looser definitions of words like “thought”, “think”, “reason”, “logic”, “plausible” and “evidence”?

        • #3169738

          I’ll always accept genuine compliments.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to WHAT? Oh, sorry; …

          Level structure is the least irritating convolution here at INFORMATION AS AN EVASION.

        • #3180837

          Then information may not have formed this place.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to TRY GODEL’S THEOREM

          Can you prove that the concept of information itself is anything other than a result of intelligence? Does information mean anything to a sheep? An amoeba? A muon?

        • #3179816

          Proof? MrMiami? Can you say “oxymoron”?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Then information may not have formed this place.

          Need I say more?

        • #3169772

          Bring me the brick wall, please

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Proof? MrMiami? Can you say “oxymoron”?

          Why even try? He wouldn’t know what oxymoron meant any more than he understands logic, let alone try to say it.

        • #3169750

          But, brick walls are’nt nearly so much fun.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Bring me the brick wall, please

          This wall actually [i]speaks[/i].

          And, occasionally responds to external stimuli as well!

        • #3170932

          That’ll do just fine

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to But, brick walls are’nt nearly so much fun.

          All this obfustifusion and governators and stuff is giving me another headache. I think I must have walked into the wrong thread after all. It sounds exactly like EL.

        • #3171374

          Spawn from ‘ell?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to But, brick walls are’nt nearly so much fun.

      • #3180821

        DNA as the dynamite.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to INFORMATION AS A WRECKING BALL

        Chromosomes contain all the information necessary to build the entire human body. Need I say more?

        Neil, I’m sure you’ve been giggling all along while the rest of us didn’t notice this.

        :p

        • #3179823

          Bah…

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to DNA as the dynamite.

          DNA is folk lore! Only those that worship the evil science claim it is real! The reality is in hamburgers…you can’t see DNA can you, but you can see a hamburger…so there…

        • #3179817

          Yes, but, MrMiami’s claim is that DNA is the product of ID!

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to DNA as the dynamite.

          ID maintains that DNA is “too ordered, or complex” to have arisen from a disordered system without the intervention of a “more complex” system which they call the Creator.

        • #3179766

          I had DNA long before I had ID.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Yes, but, MrMiami’s claim is that DNA is the product of ID!

          How does pseudo-science *support* the claim that DNA is “too ordered, or complex” to have arisen from a disordered system without the intervention of a Creator?

          Badly, I’m sure!

        • #3179751

          Their position is quite simple

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I had DNA long before I had ID.

          It’s too [insert reason] so it *must* have been mediated by an external intelligence.

          Select from complicated, complex, ordered, consistent, inconsistent, neat, fragile, elegant…

          The ID “scientists” compare DNA sequences to human language. (btw We had a splendid example of that particular ploy over in the EL thread, though the author chose not to explain but merely to be enigmatic and superior).

          What they argue is that – in language – if meaningful sentences are isolated from each other then it is usually impossible to convert one sentence to another via a series of random letter changes, where each intermediate sentence has meaning. They then go on to apply the same argument to gene and protein sequences, concluding that they, like meaningful sentences, must have been produced by intelligent agents.

          Any closer look, however, shows that the analogy between language and biological sequence is poor for many reasons.

          One example: Proteins can lose 80% or more of their sequence similarity and retain the same structure and function (I can furnish examples if required). If we look at any English phrase where four out of five characters have been replaced with a randomly generated text string then it would be indecipherable.

          Another goody is “There is no mechanism or example of the generation of new information”. Oh yes there is.

          And we have “Enzyme structures are so specific that they and the DNA coding for them could not have happened by chance”. They’re not. Sometimes the active part of an enzyme is no more than half a dozen amino acids – eighteen bases. The rest of the molecule can vary hugely.

          I could go on, but I won’t. They have absolutely no evidence to “support” their claim other to deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life?s history and diversity, then assert that an “intelligent designer” provides a better explanation. I’ve never seen a positive account of “intelligent design” since I started looking into this, by the way. ID doesn?t stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened, how, and why. Only a reasonably detailed model could provide explanatory hypotheses that can be empirically tested.

          To sum up their stance: An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason.

          Neil

        • #3179747

          And they self-consciously ignore the evidence that would help them most.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Their position is quite simple

          Their own stubborn atavistic ignorance surely could not have survived 1,000,000 years of competition for resources?

        • #3179732