Imagination

This is a discussion on Imagination within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; >The universe started off with the big bang and within seconds went from below the size of a proton to ...

  1. #76
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711
    >The universe started off with the big bang and within seconds went from below the size of a proton to billions of miles in diameter, it continues to expand as we speak.<

    See, this is what I have trouble with. How can everything we know come from an explosion of nothing. I mean there's NOTHING and then all of a sudden BAM! "nothing" explodes and makes "something."

    I just can't understand that. I guess this is where I bring out my beleifs on God, and you bring yours on evolution, right.

  2. #77
    S­énior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    982
    >I guess this is where I bring out my beleifs on God, and you bring yours on evolution

    I suppose it depends on how you define God, but if you're just using him to fill in gaps in your knowledge then we may as well be living on a flat earth. I doubt even the most extreme evolutionist would claim to have all the answers, unlike some medieval romanticists.

  3. #78
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711
    Jeez, Sorensen. I'm sorry I offended you if I did. I was just making a joke. Now, I'm upset.

    >but if you're just using him to fill in gaps in your knowledge<

    *edit* Wait, I took that wrong. Anyway, I already said it was a joke, so...

  4. #79
    S­énior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    982
    Ha, ha. Too funny (I think??).

  5. #80
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711
    *confused*

    Don't you hate it when you can't tell if someone is being sarcastic or not? Damn this primitive form of communcation we call the Internet!

  6. #81
    S­énior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    982
    Yep. I set my sights on a religion flamewar, too bad. Can't you just pretend that it wasn't sarcasm?

  7. #82
    Unregistered
    Guest
    >>Clyde: The Earth is round and I can tell you now that will never change, and will never be re-defined.<<

    Actually its more squashed on the poles...

  8. #83
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711
    LOL, no way. The one that happened at the old board (the one Sayeh and everyone else [and their brother] replied to) was enough for me for an entire lifetime.

  9. #84
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    132
    "So the universal speed limit only applies to things with mass? That can't be right. And even so, how come light doesn't travel faster than it does currently? If it's pushing infinitely hard (or maybe it's not and that's where I'm confused) then it should travel infinitely fast, right? "

    F=MA

    There is no force, no mass and no acceleration. Its not pushing any thing. The speed limit only applies to things which are being accelerated TO the speed of light, not things which already are at the speed of light.

    The problem with accelerating objects with mass is that the mass keeps increaseing, so to keep the acceleration above zero, you must keep increasing the force.

    But actually to say light doesn't have mass is a bit of a simplification... but anyway i don't care, I'm just in high school.

  10. #85
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "I used the word 'suggest'. And it is a valid interpretation of the principle"

    You can "interpret" it how you like, but the Anthropic principle does NOT say or "suggest" that the laws of physics exist because of us. Human beings have had zero impact on the laws of physics.

    "So please, desist from using the words 'correct' or 'wrong'; your over-vaunted opinion of the extent of your own knowledge does not qualify you to make such judgements - 'I agree' or 'I disagree' would be perfectly adequate and considerably less invidious"

    No, two opinions are not necessarily equally right merely by virtue that they are opinions. The idea that the laws of physics exist because of us, is simply WRONG, as in incorrect, as in they do not. When i'm sure about something i say "right" or "wrong", when i'm uncertain i say "i disagree", or "IMO...".

    "That's a 'no' then on the provision of an experiment to prove your assertion"

    What?

    "As to the assumptions being valid otherwise science wouldn't work, you must know that this statement is false logic? It is equivalent to something like, "we pour the blood of the sacrificial victim onto the earth so the rains come. The rains come so pouring the blood must work." "

    Do you have any idea what your actually saying, in effect you are saying that not only are our senses not based on reality, but they are also being DELIBERATELY USED to make it look like they are! Cause umm... that's believeable isn't it.

    You see, DERIVED theory results in testable predictions that come true. Now the fact that they do come true implies that the theory is correct; IF our senses were not based on reality....... (in-fact its an utterly absurd "if" to start off with), then assuming that whatever our senses were based on was consistent (which is another absurdity; a consistent non-reality), then one would expect that non-derived theories would "work", in so far as you test that wood floats, then build a boat out of wood, BUT derived theory would NOT, because the underlying principles used in deduction would be FALSE.

    "Maths is a tool, a construct of human thought. When I think 'E=mc^2' it's me that thinks it, visualises it, imagines it, realises it"

    You visualise a load of symbols, that's not maths, you imagine a load of symbols, that's not maths either, you "realise it" whatever the heck that is, that certainly isn't maths. Mathematics is not imagination, and its not a human construct, if it was then slugs wouldn't use trigonometry to work out where they are going, and mathematical constants like PI would not crop up everywhere. Mathematics is the extrapolation of real and imaginary ratio's, that extrapoloation is most certainly NOT subjective.

    "Yes, blind people can imagine red and deaf people can imagine g sharp. Although these things can be imagined they may not correlate exactly with the property described, regardless of the current capability of the observer's senses. "

    ...... you can't be serious. You think blind people who have never seen can imagine red.

    Ok that has to be the stupidest thing you have said so far. Can they imagine "oewitrhohinfd" too? Because "oewitrhohinfd" has as much meaning to them as "red" does, how can you be so foolish?

    Of course they cannot imagine red! Because red does not exist for them.

    Me: Blind person, can you imagine red?
    Blind person: What's red?
    Me: Well it's a colour duh.
    Blind person: What's a colour?
    Me: Well it's umm.. what you see when different wavelengths of light hit the back of your eye.
    Blind person: See?
    Me: Yea damnit SEE!
    Blind person:?

    Blind people (born bline) cannot imagine colour, deaf people (born deaf) cannot imagine sound. You cannot imagine 4th dimensional space.

    "And anyway, "four-dimensional space-time continuum" was the elegant descriptor provided for us by Einstein; although the total number of dimensions can be considerably higher in some manifestations of string theory. Where do you get this living in 3d space guff? "

    Oh i see, my bad your right i don't really know what i'm talking about..... oh wait YES I DO. 4 dimension space time is THREE spacial dimensions and one temporal dimension. String theory does indeed predict more spacial dimensions, BUT they are all "curled up".

    "Please desist from attempting to anticipate my thoughts, knowledge and words; your success rate is nil."

    My bad i didn't see the "blind people can imagine red" thing coming......

    "Thought experiments"

    Thought experiements demonstrate scenarios, shown as possible through mathematical equations, and slate them up against other mathematical equations. For example, Einstein's famous "thought experiment" involved the use of intertwined photons, that could exist as a result of quantum mechanics (read equations), and seemed to break relativity (read equations).

    "Though experiments" do NOT mean scientists sit back and solve a problem by picturing what's going on in their heads..

    ", in this case I find myself in partial agreement: your imagination does indeed seem quite limited."

    Yea... cause blind people can imagine red.

    " As for 'maths has no limits' - maths is axiomatic; it is taken as a priori simply from the very human need to have a viable starting point for modelling reality""

    Mathematics cannot by definition have "limits", it can be impossible to predict phenomena with maths (Chaos theory), but maths itself cannot reach a point where it no longer "works". And don't give me this "assertation" nonsense either, if you think maths has "limits", explain how maths can POSSIBLY HAVE "limits".

    "I disagree. PTFE, PVC or any polymer built up of the same monomer can be described as simple molecules."

    You can disagree all you like, but i am CHEMISTRY undergraduate, and i can tell you right now that polymers are NOT refered to as simple molecules.

    "What is a 'metre'? "

    Your point? We make up a scale, we don't make the actual property, or maybe you think we do, maybe you think we made up the acceleration due to gravity........ after all as we know blind people can imagine red....

    "Count the 'I's in Descartes statement and see the circle for yourself."

    But.... its not circular logic, at all, even like vaguely. Because "I think" is not deduced from "I am".

    "As for "You think that the only thing we can EVER be 100% sure of is a circular argument?" please stop trying to put words into my mouth - I have not even implied this and it is anile for you to suggest otherwise. "

    Your phrasing made it look very much like you believed "I think therefore I am" was circular reasoning.

    "I agree, you can't. In any event, for me, undergraduate level qt would be a backward step."

    LOL, you have to be kidding me, you're telling me you know quantum mechanics, yet you don't understand why you get quantum mechanical break down of non quantum sized objects (if you do understand, why exactly did you claim it was "arbitrary")? Look at the EQUATIONS, look at them!

    "but saying one thing and then later claiming you meant something entirely different is very poor"

    ...... we were talking about observation, so i presumed you would be able to make the huge leap required to realise that i was refering to .... *drum roll* obervations.

    "It doesn't matter if you use bare senses or instrumentation (that were ultimately conceived by those same bare senses) to make the observation. Any observation, with or without instrumentation, is described according to some arbitrary scale; there is only a notional difference between the arbitrary precision of scales. Furthermore, the observed and the observer interact, so the thing that is under observation is altered from it's pristine state by the act of observation"

    It's very simple, if measureing wavelength was subjective, two people measuring could get different answers..... they never do, so it's not.

    "that's a major advancement i'm unaware of. I guess i'll just have to forget all about statistical analysis, concepts such as error, precision and accuracy or repeatability and reproducibility"

    Umm... no...... statistical analysis would be done AFTER you collect the data, error precission is due to the MACHINES accuracy at measuring. The people reading the display will always read the same number.

    "Thankyou. My apologies for not noticing and therefore ending this some time ago. "

    But the point being it DOESN'T MATTER that you can't "prove" everything "absolutely", i can't "prove absolutely" that a giant green mutant killer 9 foot tall rabit isn't about to materialise two feet above my head, and kill me. Absolute proof doesn't matter because we have probability.

    "BTW, the "breakdown with macroscopic object" may be regarded as a combination of probabilities issue. For a single atom, eg Hydrogen (1s1) with a single electron in a spherical orbital (a region of ~90% probability of finding an electron ie there is a 10% probability that the electron is 'anywhere'. Once you start to add other atoms and combine these probabilities the 1 in 10 chance rapidly diminishes BUT NEVER REACHES zero."

    That is merely the probability of finding an electron in a given place, you are still dealing with a single electron. And the energy of that electron within the molecule is still quantise.

    If you take particle in a box the energy levels converge to a limit above that limit quantisation no longer occurs, and classical behaviour will be observed. However in certain situations there may well be a finite proability for quantum effects, but it doesn't matter, because the probability is too small. - Giant killer green bunny small.

    Anyway, YOU are the one with your great knowledge of quantum mechanics that claimed that we existed everywhere at the same time which is total BS, we don't. Quantum effects do not happen to large objects (in part due to the probability being too small), if they did happen we would DIE; if you hear suddenly jumped over to the US, you would die. But guess what it doesn't because quantum effects do not occur for macroscopic objects.

    1 "I assert that all things are possible. This assertion is currently not provable nor disapprovable"

    And i assert that there is a giant pink floating hippo abover your head, this assertation is currently not proveable nor disproveable, but just like yours is utterly rediculous. What matters is what is probable not what is "proved".

    "2. All observation is subjective for the reasons that I have discussed; for further reading go search on the 'Philosophy of Science' and 'empiricism' or even 'deducto-hypothetico technique'. A review of skepticism wouldn't hurt either"

    Balls, the reading off a volt-metre is not subjective.

    "3. Science, in my considered opinion, is the 'best of the rest'. It has the same flaws that all other philosophical doctrines possess in that it makes core assumptions about the nature of reality and our interaction with it within that framework. I recognise and acknowledge these assumptions; it does not mean that I rebuke, scorn or otherwise disagree with science, its functionality or application. But science is, by its own admission, theoretical. "

    Science makes one assumption, and the alternative is rediculous, it may be "theoretical", but it is also pratical. Science is not just better than the "other philosphical doctrines", it is the ONLY logical way to deduce the properties of the universe around us.
    Last edited by Clyde; 06-04-2002 at 03:49 PM.

  11. #86
    Unregistered
    Guest
    LOL thx for the novel clyde

  12. #87
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "How can everything we know come from an explosion of nothing. I mean there's NOTHING and then all of a sudden BAM! "nothing" explodes and makes "something."

    I just can't understand that. I guess this is where I bring out my beleifs on God, and you bring yours on evolution, right."

    Evolution...... that would be biology.

    The problem you speak of how can something come from nothing..... well the fault lies with the question::

    1) Time begain with the big bang, so there was no "before".

    2) Our concepts of causality, are inherantly due to teh laws of physics, which are properties of the universe, hence applying them to the creation of the universe does not work.

    We don't like the idea because it is totally unlike anything we have experience with, when people studying classical physics come across quantum mechanics for the first time, they almost always object, and are convinced for quite a while that it is totally wrong (even Einstein), because it is so unlike anything else.

    sloting in God into the equation doesn't actually make all the bad "something from nothing" go away, because you are left if God coming from "nothing", (yes I know God could "always have existed", but then so too could a precursor to the big bang).

    If we ever have an "answer" it will be written in maths, and won't be the satifying "ah thats how it works!" kind, because the "ah thats how it works!" kind always involves reducing a problem down into the familiar.

  13. #88
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "LOL thx for the novel clyde"

    Any time.

  14. #89
    Peace
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,510
    But the point being it DOESN'T MATTER that you can't "prove" everything "absolutely", i can't "prove absolutely" that a giant green mutant killer 9 foot tall rabit isn't about to materialise two feet above my head, and kill me. Absolute proof doesn't matter because we have probability.
    Herein lies the ultimate piece of reasoning that I pointed out earlier. I'd consider changing my never-changing signature to reflect these words. I suggest everyone reads this point at least once before every post to this thread. ... No really... Read it again!

    I'm not interested in possabilities, only probabilities.
    "There's always another way"
    -lightatdawn (lightatdawn.cprogramming.com)

  15. #90
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Well at least spell possibilities right before you put it in your signature.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Pretty Optimistic
    By mithrandir in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 11-06-2001, 10:27 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21