ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
&&&&& + &&&&& = &&&&&&&&&&
How exactly does space/time fabric work?
- Thread starter high|hgih
- Start date
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
well he has mentioned a talking, thinking rock that we could never conceive the "why of it"
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.
― Penn Jillette
Doer
Well-Known Member
Quack? Did I hear a quack?
an appeal to gods to want the perspective of actual math and physics experts
These aren't god, but humans. Mired in human pride and anthro-centricity. Hardly the experts or higher powers to invoke. Experts in the entirely wrong, self serving career for this.
Everyone prefers the right-fight to discussion. Prefer Ridicule to ideas. Not my problem.
an appeal to gods to want the perspective of actual math and physics experts
These aren't god, but humans. Mired in human pride and anthro-centricity. Hardly the experts or higher powers to invoke. Experts in the entirely wrong, self serving career for this.
Everyone prefers the right-fight to discussion. Prefer Ridicule to ideas. Not my problem.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
So here we are again, Doer crying "Noooo!" with no support or explanations, just a mere contrary opinion and no actual substance or critique of the argument. It is impossible to hold a reasonable discussion with someone like this if they can't even verbalize what is actually wrong with the ideas presented.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Anyone can have a contrary opinion. Anyone can have a contrary attitude. I express my ideas and get called names, dispersed as un-qualified, to have no useful opinion, and generally have my ideas denigrated in an un-friendly goading fashion. You seem to insist that I conduct myself in a certain way and don't present controversy.
I tell exactly what is wrong with anthropomorphic thinking, in some detail. But, I'm not challenge on it. I'm dismissed. And sneered at. That's what you are giving me again. You cannot admit that you cannot know. So, you produce the various level of right-fight, to cover shallow thinking.
You act like I never said a word.
And now we may see the false argument, I somehow can't stand the arena of ideas, when actually I can easliy withstand your sideshow. I just find it distasteful in an amusing sort of way.
I tell exactly what is wrong with anthropomorphic thinking, in some detail. But, I'm not challenge on it. I'm dismissed. And sneered at. That's what you are giving me again. You cannot admit that you cannot know. So, you produce the various level of right-fight, to cover shallow thinking.
You act like I never said a word.
And now we may see the false argument, I somehow can't stand the arena of ideas, when actually I can easliy withstand your sideshow. I just find it distasteful in an amusing sort of way.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
You did not, you merely made the assertion and never demonstrated why it's anthropomorphic. You are being dismissed because you don't support your argument. You just make the accusation and act as if it is right without need for elaboration.
Doer
Well-Known Member
How could it not be? We only possess this one point of view and are constantly suprised at how ignorant we were. It is belief only, your contention.
That is my only point. Since you have no data. But, you have only your claim and I'm not making an assertion beyond that self evident fact. You still want to argue. So what? I think I have demonstrated it.
Some will agree. You don't. You can't assume these things with only one data point. But, you are. So, just as statistically you can say there are "probably" these other beings, I can say it favors just as well there are probably, no other beings.
It is the same with math. The human statistics will only work if you postulate a humanoid view of the universe. A being that is in need of triangulation for anything??? I know, you can't imagine. Exactly. That's all you have and all you cling to, it seems. It's not a data set with only one datum.
It is a null set, toss up not a right-fight. You postulate a Universal frame for fundamental forces, but, you also realize that too is only an assumption, the basic assumption of Physics.
My God man, we could be inside a black hole, for all we know. It would certainly explain a lot. The Universe could already be gone. The Human math works to either conclusion. If you were intellectually honest you could see that. All the time effects, Hubble constant, Dark Energy and Matter work out quite nicely also, if we were just inside an Event Horizon, already.
So, don't chide me, dude. I never said Nooooo to anything except a very narrow view.
I don't think accusation is the proper term, at all.
That is my only point. Since you have no data. But, you have only your claim and I'm not making an assertion beyond that self evident fact. You still want to argue. So what? I think I have demonstrated it.
Some will agree. You don't. You can't assume these things with only one data point. But, you are. So, just as statistically you can say there are "probably" these other beings, I can say it favors just as well there are probably, no other beings.
It is the same with math. The human statistics will only work if you postulate a humanoid view of the universe. A being that is in need of triangulation for anything??? I know, you can't imagine. Exactly. That's all you have and all you cling to, it seems. It's not a data set with only one datum.
It is a null set, toss up not a right-fight. You postulate a Universal frame for fundamental forces, but, you also realize that too is only an assumption, the basic assumption of Physics.
My God man, we could be inside a black hole, for all we know. It would certainly explain a lot. The Universe could already be gone. The Human math works to either conclusion. If you were intellectually honest you could see that. All the time effects, Hubble constant, Dark Energy and Matter work out quite nicely also, if we were just inside an Event Horizon, already.
So, don't chide me, dude. I never said Nooooo to anything except a very narrow view.
I don't think accusation is the proper term, at all.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
A contention backed up by logical thought.
I have data. The fact that many cultures have repeatedly come up with similar and identical mathematical solutions to problems about the natural world strongly suggests that math uncovers what is already there and not an invention like spoken language. You haven't made a single demonstration from what I can see. Maybe you need to be more clear.
I don't have one data point. I have repeatedly shown you many.
This is your repeated assertion without any support. I have seen nothing that demonstrates this view is human based. I have continuously, along with other mathematicians attempted to remove the human element and we still come up with the same conclusions, that there are some fundamental truths about our universe and numbers and math relate to them, whether I'm a human, a dolphin or a Martian.
Triangulation can be used by any organism that wants to calculate a distance to a star. Can you suggest a way to do it without math?
Not only is it unimaginable how a being can become technologically advanced without using any math, you haven't even provided a scintilla of a suggestion of what that might look like? You are correct that just because I can't imagine it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, however, we can imagine a great deal of things, including what advanced technology might be able to accomplish, including that of alien races.
Even if physics is different elsewhere, the rules will still boil down to math. If you doubt the assumption about universality of natural laws, that's fine but that doesn't say anything about mathematics which is basically logic, and logic is universal. The rules of logic are absolute.
What the hell does any of this have to do with the discussion?
Don't chide you? Then quit acting like a dick. Your attempts at admonishment, right-fight, refuge of the ignorant, anthropomorphic thinking, sideshow, and on and on, came before I said anything negative to you. I'm trying to have a serious discussion. This interests me. You claim I am unable to think outside of my human existence and if so I want to know how I am doing so. I like to challenge myself and if I am wrong, I want to know. You claim to know where I am failing yet have not been able to verbalize what and how except to repeat the claim that I'm failing. I have attempted to demonstrate how the thought process has extended to include very alien physiology, including extending the range of potential sensory attributes from the very narrow visible light spectrum and auditory frequencies to include broad spectrum and novel ideas such as using Tesla coil discharges. Your argument that I am appealing to authority is lost when the authority is spending their days working on figuring this stuff out. Jim Kakalios was one example. There are many other physicists, mathematicians and information theorists that spend their days trying to solve the problem of how to communicate with species that might not have ears and eyes and may see the world different than we do. This is decidedly NOT thinking anthropomorphically, it is specifically doing what you claim I am not. The fact is that things in this universe have numerical values and although there might be something that we haven't thought of, the probability is high that any organism we come across will have some sort of number system and math if they have technology. You no doubt will still say I'm wrong, and I'm fine with that but then the onus is on you to offer up an example of how it might be wrong.
fb360
Active Member
What are you talking about? I like to keep my mind open and speculate. I clearly mentioned that I speculate that an advanced species would look at addition, subtraction, multiplication, even calculus and see them as primitive. They might be able to directly sense the probable "belief state" energy, and consequently discern upon which action is "better"; why don't you do some research into Artificial Intelligence and get back to me; we write algorithms which create "learning" in "unintelligent" machines... When you start to comprehend how WE think, you can start to comprehend how primitive we really are.
I would LOVE for any of you to PROVE that my speculation of an advanced species not using our mathematics what so ever, to be completely, and utterly false. Do it.
Doer
Well-Known Member
I know, we keep saying these things, in a very reasonable fashion, considering the topic. But, many, too many folks here either don't know a discussion from a right-fight, or they pretend they don't. It is troll bait, in that case. You have to be the judge. Reasonable, seemingly, until we answer. Then the rude excoriation instead of civil disagreement and the "who me, I didn't insult you." ploy. Next, "You must Prove me wrong!" is exclaimed.
Then "Why are you even posting?" Always with the insults. "You must have a mental block", is just the beginning.
Pretty transparent. And very childish.
Then "Why are you even posting?" Always with the insults. "You must have a mental block", is just the beginning.
Pretty transparent. And very childish.
fb360
Active Member
It's all good. I don't get butt hurt by name calling. I would just like to see them think more broad, outside of the box... If we are to learn anything from history, it is that we have been 100% wrong 99% of the time. In fact, thinking the exact opposite than current beliefs is not only logical, due to my above statement, it is efficient and worth speaking about.
A good example is when they shut down the possibility of intelligent life forms taking no physical structure. How can be sure of that with our limited and narrow knowledge base? We can't. period.
A good example is when they shut down the possibility of intelligent life forms taking no physical structure. How can be sure of that with our limited and narrow knowledge base? We can't. period.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Once again you ignore the substance of the responses. No one is discounting the possibility of intelligent life without physical form, but discounting how such a being can interact with the physical universe and thus produce technology. The idea that a being can somehow evolve to eliminate the need for physicality implies that they had physical form at some point in their history. Considering the probabilities of the type of beings that will likely evolve on other worlds is thinking outside the box. Now since you have never actually answered any of the points put to you, I'm not sure why you even bother to continue to respond except to remind us that you haven't been able to answer the objections to you posts.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
HAHA. Man I am high. I feel like i'm catching retard in this thread.
Doer
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure why people bother to even speak. But, look in the mirror. Not for you to say or use as a dismissal.. The problem is base lack of understanding how adult communication works on topics where no one can be right. It's not to merely shit on the messenge that attempts to be clear. It is not a bandy of pettiness to obfuscate the narrow view. Then the plea to Prove the narrowness of view is childish.
Expand the view. That is the only thing that can prove the initial narrow.
Very difficult to find substance, if any, in the nature of most responses. Most of these responses are mired in personal ego. That is hardly the topic.
Expand the view. That is the only thing that can prove the initial narrow.
Very difficult to find substance, if any, in the nature of most responses. Most of these responses are mired in personal ego. That is hardly the topic.
fb360
Active Member
Oh right man, we forgot, you are ever knowing, with a comprehension of physics that is unfathomable. Why don't you just tell us how the universe works, and unify gravity while you're at it buddy.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
First, you must prove to me that bigfoot is completely and utterly false. Now that the pointing out of the obvious problem with your closing statement has been done...
Please, prove to me how they could possibly avoid basic arithmetic if they have any sort of commerce. You can't have an inventory without addition and subtraction.
fb360
Active Member
We already went through this.
Coin, paper and physical "currency" is a primitive human concept.
If you live off of energy, and you have an abundant form of energy, you don't need petty currency. I don't see how you could even project currency onto an intelligent species as it is given... No it isn't. Neither is arithmetic.
And my statement is so much different than your "analogy" lol... He was trying to TELL me that IT IS 100% IMPOSSIBLE to have an intelligent life form without physical form, as if he can scientifically prove it. I never once stated that it is CERTAIN to be true, rather, I speculated it COULD be true, much like your example. However, the Earth is a finite size, and a small finite size at that relative to the universe, which could be infinite, and could exist infinitely in parallel, who knows. Comparing speculation of bigfoot to the universe is silly.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Liar, liar, pants on fire!