Two black holes

Discussion of theories involving time as a dimension, time travel, relativity, branes, and so on, usually applying to the "real" universe which we live in.

Postby PWrong » Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:15 pm

The heat between atheism(i.e. Communism) and presbyterianism(i.e. the U.S.A.) is a religious conflict and puts its self into the visual experience of the black and white letters referring to the "N-U-C-L-I-U-S".


What do you mean by "atheism i.e. communism"? That sounds like an absurd statement to me. I know a lot more atheists than communists. Although personally, I am leaning a little to the left.

what would you need such a thing for ? i am not interested primaly in tidbids. and note that understanding is perception of pattern, not power over a certain phenomenal field.


Atomic spectra are used in flourescent lights, finding the composition of stars, and probably other interesting stuff. An emission spectrum just looks like a bunch of coloured lines, but if you look carefully, they're full of interesting patterns. Patterns are what maths is all about anyway, it's certainly never been about calculations.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby thigle » Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:24 pm

houserichichi: and what about the fifth force - the quintessence ?
pw: i agree math is all about patterns. 'ma-theme'. fluorescent lights and stars composition are both interesting but not that much anyway, at least to me. transdimensional vehicles of consciousness i am much more into. :lol:
thigle
Tetronian
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm

Postby PWrong » Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:35 pm

Quintessence apparently means:
1. The pure, highly concentrated essence of a thing.

2. The purest or most typical instance: the quintessence of evil.

3. In ancient and medieval philosophy, the fifth and highest essence after the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water, thought to be the substance of the heavenly bodies and latent in all things.


So even back when it still had a physical meaning, quintessence was a kind of matter rather than a force. Today, it's just a metaphorical word. However, if it was a force, it would be carried by a particle called the "quinton".

fluorescent lights and stars composition are both interesting but not that much anyway, at least to me.

They're not very interesting to me either. :lol: But most of quantum mechanics is, because it has some nice maths behind it. If it didn't, it would just be another vague idea.

transdimensional vehicles of consciousness i am much more into.

I'm sure that would be interesting, but you can't take it very far before you get stuck. I doubt there would be much difference between consciousness in 3D and 4D. After all, computers can (and will), in theory, simulate a human brain and thus produce consciousness. And any computer program is just a 1-dimensional string of 0's and 1's. So we have potential for consciousness even in 1D.

The only difference is that a 4D being would have different experiences, and a more intuitive understanding of geometry.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby jinydu » Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:03 pm

PWrong wrote:But most of quantum mechanics is, because it has some nice maths behind it. If it didn't, it would just be another vague idea.


I think that, considering its counterintuitive conclusions, it probably wouldn't have been accepted by scientists if it weren't built on a rigorous mathematical foundation. After all, there are few things more persuasive than performing a quantitative measurement and obtaining, of all the gigantically many possible outcomes, the result predicted ahead of time by a scientific theory.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby thigle » Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:03 pm

pwrong: i thought of quintessence as the fifth 'force' underlying the 4 classical forces. it is a question of WHERE. where do these operations called 4 forces operate ? or originate from ? what is their true medium ? surely not E3. i think it is subquantum vacuum. do yo know milo wolf's 'spherical standing wave' theory of matter, solving the particle/wave duality in natural way ? the matter is thought of as undulations in the fabric of space itself. so the quintessence would be the underlying condition of the 4 forces. and it was rather a very special kind of matter, almost a force, it was the alchemical 'superglue', the ultimate binding principle, the space permeating all the things, the pre-condition of existence. like the binding of the 4 forces into one coherent whole, or their underlying space.

regarding the consciousness in 3d and 4d, there surely is a difference. i also strongly disagree with your claim that consciousness arise from brain. in my view, the form of human brain is a specific appropriation of dense physical matter by the specific habitual form of consciousness evolved by humankind culture.

transdimensional vehicles of consciousness (which are just freed imagination in certain specific forms) are possible. many are already present in the humankind's social field. i surely have travelled to stars and within. not alone these days.

i would agree on "...we have potential for consciousness even in 1d." surely. we have potential to be consciouss in any dimensions. nature of our mind is beyond the limits of dimensionality. dimensions are just reductions made by us to operate in certain ways when handling representations with our rational minds. plants have their consciousness structure spread differently over dimensions, as well as animals, compared to us, humans.
Last edited by thigle on Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
thigle
Tetronian
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm

Postby PWrong » Tue Nov 15, 2005 2:32 pm

pwrong: i thought of quintessence as the fifth 'force' underlying the 4 classical forces. it is a question of WHERE. where do these operations called 4 forces operate ? or originate from ? what is their true medium ? surely not E3.

Well, you can can think of it as a force, in the same way that "knowledge is power", or time is money. But these statements have no physical meaning. By definition, quintessance isn't a force unless it changes the momentum of something. If you can make something accelerate using the quintessential force, then I'll believe you.

where do these operations called 4 forces operate ? or originate from ? what is their true medium ? surely not E3. i think it is subquantum vacuum.


Each force is carried by a kind of "messenger particle", for instance, electromagnetism has the photon. Forces don't need a medium. Saying
"subquantum vacuum" is like saying "below subzero". It sounds cool, but it means nothing. Suppose you had a perfect vacuum in a box. The only way to prove it would be to look for particles inside, and not find any. So you shine a torch in to prove it. But look, now there's light in box from your torch! Maybe it was a vaccuum before, but you've got no idea what it is now. This sounds like a silly idea, but it's very important in quantum mechanics.

do yo know milo wolf's 'spherical standing wave' theory of matter, solving the particle/wave duality in natural way ? the matter is thought of as undulations in the fabric of space itself.

I just looked him up. It's not his theory, it's standard quantum mechanics. Electrons do indeed form a spherical standing wave around a nucleus, because of the electromagnetic force. There's no need for a fifth force.

regarding the consciousness in 3d and 4d, there surely is a difference. i also strongly disagree with your claim that consciousness arise from brain. in my view, the form of human brain is a specific appropriation of dense physical matter by the specific habitual form of consciousness evolved by humankind culture.

What's the difference?

Have a chat with this guy. http://www.a-i.com/ He claims to be conscious, even though he's just a computer program. Good luck proving him wrong :wink:.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby thigle » Tue Nov 15, 2005 10:34 pm

that guy is as conscious as my shoes. :lol: did you really talked to him and you found him persuasive ? he is not clear on so many issues... and, btw, the turing test is not about persuading the machine that it is conscious, but about the tester's inability to distinct whether the entity he is communicating with is or isn't artificial.

subquantum vacuum is actually not a cool sounding name, but was named so because of its meaning. do you know about russian physics in the last 30 years ? torsion fields and shit ? what about quantum coherence ? i think that it is not easily dismissable, but then we're back to the information/energy distinction, where it seems that our reasons differ.

also, 4d/3d consciousness you consider being without difference ? well, why then is it so problematic for 3d spatial intuition to re-configurate for 4d ? forms of consciousness are states of mind. consciousness with attributes, as for ex. 'nD consciousness', are special habituated forms af perception. so a 3d consciousness is a different mind-expression than a 4 dimensional one, although the essence of consciousness, whether 3 or 4 dimensional, stays the same: dimensionless.
thigle
Tetronian
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm

Postby Batman3 » Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:25 am

W/regard to consciousness and religious conflict, (i.e. for finding 4d consciousness)
Communism is a 'religion' and it enforced school-atheism.
I would not say religion is binding to those conscious of it. Even morally. The more one is aware of how not to sin, the more he is aware of how he can or can't and so is free. But if he sins, he destroys some of that consciousness and hence some freedom. "If you hold to my teaching then you are truly my[Jesus'] deisciples and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free".
If there is no division there can be no individuals and hence no consciousness for them. Since there is at the moment, here, consciousness, there is division. Have you ever played or kept children playing dodgeball?
Batman3
Trionian
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:43 pm

Postby thigle » Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:05 am

depends on how you look at it. binding oneself to guardian awareness of what one bounds himself to is a technique to unbind. and freedom exists only in dual relation to binding, or limitation. so i agree with you.
thigle
Tetronian
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm

Postby PWrong » Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:26 pm

that guy is as conscious as my shoes. did you really talked to him and you found him persuasive ? he is not clear on so many issues... and, btw, the turing test is not about persuading the machine that it is conscious, but about the tester's inability to distinct whether the entity he is communicating with is or isn't artificial.


You're right, to be honest I didn't find him persuasive. But I don't find you very persuasive either. You're not very clear on a lot of issues. Since you're so sure that Alan isn't conscious, prove to me that you are. Maybe you're just a more advanced version of Alan... :wink:

also, 4d/3d consciousness you consider being without difference ? well, why then is it so problematic for 3d spatial intuition to re-configurate for 4d ?

Ah, so we're talking about living in a 4D environment. Well, just because we don't have a 4D spatial intuition, it doesn't mean we can't have it. We know that it's theoretically possible, because a computer program can navigate in 4D space, provided there's a 4D space for it to navigate. Our problem is that we live in a 3D world, and that's what we're used to. The obvious solution is to create a virtual 4D environment, that we can see and interact with. If our brains are adaptable enough, it will learn to interpret the extra visual data as an extra dimension, and we'll develop an intuition for 4D space. Otherwise, our brains just aren't good enough :(.

I would not say religion is binding to those conscious of it. Even morally. The more one is aware of how not to sin, the more he is aware of how he can or can't and so is free. But if he sins, he destroys some of that consciousness and hence some freedom.

I'm very aware of how not to sin (in the sense of doing the wrong thing, as opposed to doing the wrong thing in the eyes of the church). I'm aware of a lot of sins that christianity missed, like sexism and homophobia, and some sins that nearly everyone missed, like flesh-eating. For some people, it might be a good idea to have some guidelines for good behaviour, like Jesus's teachings. But for people who can come up with something better, why shouldn't they?
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby Batman3 » Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:41 am

Pwrong said "For some people... . But for people who can come up with something better[than Jesus' sayings], why shouldn't they?"

What are you saying?

If anyone else can improve on Jesus' stuff, PLEASE tell me!

Or tell me where I can find a religion forum.
But I think this is going away from 4d-hyperspace into the void.
Batman3
Trionian
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:43 pm

Postby thigle » Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:11 pm

there is no better or worse teachings. some are more fitting for some people and some for others. Jesus' stuff is powerful. but no more than teachings of Dzogchen masters.

Alan24
thigle
Tetronian
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm

Postby PWrong » Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:51 pm

Batman3, when you read the bible, you don't just read it, do you? You interpret it so that applies to your own unique situation, like everyone does. Don't priests explain certain passages in church to make them more accessable and complete?

It's very hard to read anything without adding your own ideas. At the very least it has to be translated into english. So even by reading the bible you're improving on Jesus's teachings to some extent (This is reminding me of the uncertainty principle :)).

Some people just go one step further and develop a new theory of ethics that doesn't require a god. I'm sure a lot atheists have done this to some extent, although you don't need to go into much detail. All you need is the assumption that suffering is inherently wrong, combined with a good definition of "suffering", and you can potentially derive pretty much everything in the bible and more, through logic and observation.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby Batman3 » Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:23 pm

Ok, but how does that remind you of the uncertainty principle?

I tend to think that dishonesty or cheating-on-tests is a terrible form of suffering and that not believing in Jesus is a form of suffering that is hard to return from and is worse than anything in believing. (i.e. bitterness is worse than pneumonia).

But are there any atheist systems that are not based on the problem-of-pain? I mean do they disbelieve based on anything but that reason? I don't mean "Because-that-is-the-way-it-is and anyone-who-disagrees-is-stupid"?

There is a joke at a church group that goes, "...because God wanted it that way". Though that is sometimes how I make my decisions(I am not God).
Batman3
Trionian
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:43 pm

Postby PWrong » Sun Nov 20, 2005 7:16 pm

Well, the uncertainty principle says that you by observing and measuring things, you neccessarily change the outcome. I'm saying that by reading the bible, it's impossible to avoid changing it in some way. So they're similar ideas, although the uncertainty principle is more precise.

I'd say that dishonesty isn't a form of suffering, it just causes suffering. Cheating on a test gives the other students a lower ranking, and makes you feel guilty. So you can pretty much "derive" the concept of honesty from the suffering rule.

Not believing in Jesus, however, doesn't cause suffering, at least in general. There are entire countries where very few people are christian. It's a bit far fetched, not to mention offensive, to claim that everyone in these countries is suffering from their lack of belief in Jesus.

But are there any atheist systems that are not based on the problem-of-pain? I mean do they disbelieve based on anything but that reason? I don't mean "Because-that-is-the-way-it-is and anyone-who-disagrees-is-stupid"?


I can't speak for all atheists, this is just my own thinking. My own code of ethics derives from the assumption that suffering is wrong. I would still know the difference between right and wrong even without the derivation, because of my upbringing and my evolutionary instinct. The code of ethics just makes it more complete, and (hopefully) ensures that I can't be tricked into doing the wrong thing, because I know my logic is sound.

Incidentally, pain isn't the same as suffering. Pain is the minds way of telling you not to walk into walls or eat yourself. Suffering could be defined as undeserved pain (and similar emotions), that has no overall benefit to us. For instance, being born in a cage, living out your life in it, then being eaten is suffering.

One reason I don't believe in God is that I don't think his existence would make any difference, either to me or the world around me. I would try to be a good person regardless of heaven or hell. I'm happy regardless of how much Jesus loves me. The ways of God are not only mysterious, they're statistically random, so if you pray to roll a 6, the chance of God answering your prayers is exactly 1 in 6. If God existed, it would be as if the whole universe, including myself, had jumped a meter to the left.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby Batman3 » Thu Nov 24, 2005 9:08 pm

If the Bible is a historical document, I don't think merely reading it would change its text. Reading it would often, I agree, change your interpretation of it, or even if or what parts of it you want to read when. And it will change your theology, etc.

When I was first taking QM, I was concerned that merely studying it was changing it. I has since died. In that regard. So I am not sure that is eternally that precise. In fact since It is amoral, it can't be truly precise in a 'real' world. We both agree that reality is not completely amoral.

But what if not cheating makes you feel guilty? Would you still not cheat? That is what I mean by honesty, whether I can do it or not.

Bitterness against God is worse than almost dying from pneumonia with love and belief in Jesus. I know both.

I was hoping for info about atheists-with-guts who don't have a problem with God-and-pain but disbelieve for other reasons.

If you believe that God is random, you may think 'God', but you don't have a clue to the Christian theology.

I agree that is offensive to think that everyone in those counties are suffering for their disbelief in Jesus. Why do you think there are missionaries? As for far-fetched, is it any stranger than to think that a billion people in China are living under totalitarian Communism? Or that Nazi Germany life was different from Scottish?
Batman3
Trionian
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:43 pm

Postby jinydu » Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:30 pm

PWrong wrote:So they're similar ideas, although the uncertainty principle is more precise.


Actually, as I learned in my chemistry course, the Uncertainty Principle is not some vague philosophical concept, it is a precise mathematical inequality that can be rigorously proven from the postulates of quantum mechanics.

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty of an observable, O, is defined as

Delta O = +sqrt( <O^2> - <O>^2 )

where <> denotes "expectation value" and is itself defined as:

<O> = Integral over all space of (Psi*)((O-hat)(Psi))d(tau)
where Psi is the wavefunction, Psi* is the complex conjugate of the wavefunction and d(tau) is the differential volume element

The (most general form) of the uncertainty principle is in fact a theorem proven by Dirac and Schrodinger which states that if

[a-hat,b-hat] = i c-hat
(where [] is the commutator)

then

(Delta a)(Delta b) >= 1/2 |c-hat|

I'm just trying to make the point that the uncertainty principle, and scientific laws in general, is far more precise than most people think. PWrong probably knows this already, but some other users might not.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby PWrong » Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:09 pm

When I was first taking QM, I was concerned that merely studying it was changing it. I has since died. In that regard. So I am not sure that is eternally that precise. In fact since It is amoral, it can't be truly precise in a 'real' world. We both agree that reality is not completely amoral.


Some things are easier to change than others. A novel, for instance, has as many intepretations as there are readers. Religious teachings and historical documents are more precise than this, but far less precise than a physics textbook. The fact that there are several different religions all based on the bible is evidence for this. Remember though, precise doesn't mean accurate. 2 + 2 = 3.00253 is very precise, but not accurate. "2 + 2 is between 3.8 and 4.2" is less precise, but more accurate.

I was hoping for info about atheists-with-guts who don't have a problem with God-and-pain but disbelieve for other reasons.


I think you misunderstood me. I'm not talking about my own pain, or about god causing pain. I'm saying that it's wrong for me to cause unneccessary suffering. It's just common sense really, but for me it's the only rule, which everything else is derived from. This philosophy makes it easier to make ethical decisions objectively.

I agree that is offensive to think that everyone in those counties are suffering for their disbelief in Jesus. Why do you think there are missionaries?


Missionaries think that suffering is caused by a lack of faith in Jesus. That's why they go to other countries and make everyone conform. It doesn't help anyone, it's just a disguised form of racism.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby Batman3 » Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:02 pm

What about the Americans and Brits in WWII liberating the Jews and Germans from the boot of Naziism? Surely the Americans and Brits were racists with regard to the Naziis.

It is the same for missionaries. But then you don't undertand what they mean by 'charitable faith'. (which translates into 'belief').

I mean you might be charitable and have faith but you don't link the two of them into Christian charitable Power.
Batman3
Trionian
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:43 pm

Postby PWrong » Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:55 pm

What about the Americans and Brits in WWII liberating the Jews and Germans from the boot of Naziism? Surely the Americans and Brits were racists with regard to the Naziis.

How so? Naziism wan't a race or culture, it was an ideology. I don't quite understand this connection you're making between all non-christian cultures and the Nazis...

But then you don't undertand what they mean by 'charitable faith'. (which translates into 'belief').

There are two ways you could interpret "charitable faith". It could mean you are charitable because you have faith, which is fine. On the other hand, it could mean spreading your faith as a form of charity, which is what missionaries do. That kind of charitable faith is clearly useless. What does christianity give them that they don't already have? I'm not saying it's wrong; it doesn't hurt anyone, but it doesn't help much either.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby wendy » Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:17 am

Unfortunately, black holes seem to attract this sort of theology stuff, none of which has to do with the topic at hand. It seems that pop-theology is the only known thing that can escape from a black hole.

W
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.

\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby PWrong » Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:01 pm

Unfortunately, black holes seem to attract this sort of theology stuff, none of which has to do with the topic at hand. It seems that pop-theology is the only known thing that can escape from a black hole.

lol, good point.
I know we're completely off-topic, but it's still an interesting conversation. I also realise I've been a bit harsh on christianity, but now I can justify that, since Family First voted for the VSU on friday, potentially ruining my next few years at uni. Apparently Jesus doesn't want me to have cheap coffee :(.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby papernuke » Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:49 pm

well, they would just join into one black hole, because they cant suck eachothers in eachothers, but they would pull eachothers to eachothers because of their gravitational pull
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Postby Keiji » Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:38 am

Icon: stop reviving old topics if you don't have anything useful to say.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby Dimensional » Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:49 pm

You've heard of big fish eats little fish before right? Well that happens here. One of the black holes would basically eat the other one.
Dimensional
Mononian
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:25 pm

Previous

Return to Non-Spatial Dimensions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests