Consciousness

[humbleman]

Yours are not illusions, yours are delusions.

Says the man who believes in a mind first universe...

Meanwhile, what do you think Einstein meant by:

Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it.

He wasn't a time dualist.

Poor Albert was a deluded dude.

No idea why people think he was a genius. A genius in school won't get excellent grades in mathematics only while almost failed in history, geography, and the other subjects.

Mathematics alone won't make you a genius because most of mathematics is abstract numbers, like Fermat's last theorem. You just can get trap in the illusion and delusion that mathematics can predict something. The universe is not subjected to mathematics.

The current universe we live in and observe is subjected to motion.

I discovered it. I applied it in everything: Motion rules the universe.

Gravity is motion in action, time is comparison of motion of physical means, you are composed of atoms in motion, atoms are composed of smaller elements in motion. No motion at all is the end of the universe.

A theory applying the idea of a body "at rest" is fake by principle, a principle that debunks it when there is nothing in this universe "at rest".

After making clear that Albert was just another guy in the street, and that he really invented fantasies which many believe are "science" lets go to his thought.

Show me where the quote comes from. I will check if he wrote it.

About the quote itself applying it to relativity.

Time is not measured. Time is a measure. You don't measure weight itself, but weight is the measure. You don't measure volume itself but volume is the measure, and so forth.

By expression we say that we measure time, like we also say that the Sun goes down late afternoon.

In reality we measure what is the time between two points at such and such speed, applying whatever you use as motion from point A to point B. It's practically the same than to say what is the length from point A to point B.

Having Time as just a measure, how in the world you can apply "time dilatation" to the quote "Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure"?

Can you dilate the measure of weight? If you increase you mass eating lots of food, what will be dilated: the measure known as volume or your body? Surely your body will increase in volume, but the measure known as volume is always the same.

When Albert told you that speeding will cause the slowing of a clock because "time" (the measure) is affected, then he surely is talking trash. The clock, the device, that is the one affected with speed.

Definitively the quote you have shown doesn't appear it belongs to Albert. And the reason is because as far as Albert went into, he just said that "time is that which clocks measure."

https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/mathematics/what-do-clocks-measure

Provide here from which one of his writings -he has many- he wrote such a quote.

 

[Kharakov]

There is no bigger contraction than saying there is something that exists but never had a beginning to it's existence.

Really? Can you explain the logical contradiction in asserting that something has always existed?

If something has no start to it's existence the logical conclusion is that it does not exist.

The illogical conclusion is that it exists.

That would not only be a miraculous state but it implies a completed real infinity, an impossibility.

I don't think logical means what you say it means...

 

[beero1000]

Says the man who believes in a mind first universe...

Meanwhile, what do you think Einstein meant by:



He wasn't a time dualist.

Poor Albert was a deluded dude.

No idea why people think he was a genius. A genius in school won't get excellent grades in mathematics only while almost failed in history, geography, and the other subjects.

Mathematics alone won't make you a genius because most of mathematics is abstract numbers, like Fermat's last theorem. You just can get trap in the illusion and delusion that mathematics can predict something. The universe is not subjected to mathematics.

The current universe we live in and observe is subjected to motion.

I discovered it. I applied it in everything: Motion rules the universe.

Gravity is motion in action, time is comparison of motion of physical means, you are composed of atoms in motion, atoms are composed of smaller elements in motion. No motion at all is the end of the universe.

A theory applying the idea of a body "at rest" is fake by principle, a principle that debunks it when there is nothing in this universe "at rest".

After making clear that Albert was just another guy in the street, and that he really invented fantasies which many believe are "science" lets go to his thought.

Show me where the quote comes from. I will check if he wrote it.

About the quote itself applying it to relativity.

Time is not measured. Time is a measure. You don't measure weight itself, but weight is the measure. You don't measure volume itself but volume is the measure, and so forth.

By expression we say that we measure time, like we also say that the Sun goes down late afternoon.

In reality we measure what is the time between two points at such and such speed, applying whatever you use as motion from point A to point B. It's practically the same than to say what is the length from point A to point B.

Having Time as just a measure, how in the world you can apply "time dilatation" to the quote "Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure"?

Can you dilate the measure of weight? If you increase you mass eating lots of food, what will be dilated: the measure known as volume or your body? Surely your body will increase in volume, but the measure known as volume is always the same.

When Albert told you that speeding will cause the slowing of a clock because "time" (the measure) is affected, then he surely is talking trash. The clock, the device, that is the one affected with speed.

Definitively the quote you have shown doesn't appear it belongs to Albert. And the reason is because as far as Albert went into, he just said that "time is that which clocks measure."

https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/mathematics/what-do-clocks-measure

Provide here from which one of his writings -he has many- he wrote such a quote.

No.

 

[humbleman]

Show the contrary

 

[humbleman]

Sometimes we, humans, want to discover things which are far away from our reach.

We pretend to know the universe from our limited point of view.

Like, you pretend knowing Italy by reading about it and watching pictures and videos.

You never went over there but you feel of having the "authority" of discussing with people who lives there about their daily living, their government, their preferences, even their crimes, and more.

The fantasy of detecting what is going on in far away galaxies and knowing their composition and more, is just an illusion, because if you claim that you are measuring how fast a far way galaxy is going away from us using the Doppler effect, first you must prove that your aim is excellent and that you are pointing exactly in the desired target between the hundreds and hundreds of bodies which appear around the targeted galaxy. And if by any reason the galaxy can't be perceived by telescope, your chances of using the Doppler effect are gone.

Then, we surely can study our consciousness from our limited position on earth up to our limited position on earth. Perhaps up to the space station.

We must be aware of our limitations. Thinking beyond our limitations is the cause of so many good for nothing imaginations around.

Of course. -out of topic- lots of people make good profit inventing ideas to be run around and create confusion. After people assimilate the ideas, they become easy prey of more and more new inventions which deviate us from our crude reality, we know almost nothing about ourselves, and less about the universe.

I exist, therefore I think.

My existence is limited, therefore my thoughts are also limited.

 

[bilby]

Sometimes we, humans, want to discover things which are far away from our reach.

We pretend to know the universe from our limited point of view.

Like, you pretend knowing Italy by reading about it and watching pictures and videos.

You never went over there but you feel of having the "authority" of discussing with people who lives there about their daily living, their government, their preferences, even their crimes, and more.

The fantasy of detecting what is going on in far away galaxies and knowing their composition and more, is just an illusion, because if you claim that you are measuring how fast a far way galaxy is going away from us using the Doppler effect, first you must prove that your aim is excellent and that you are pointing exactly in the desired target between the hundreds and hundreds of bodies which appear around the targeted galaxy. And if by any reason the galaxy can't be perceived by telescope, your chances of using the Doppler effect are gone.

Then, we surely can study our consciousness from our limited position on earth up to our limited position on earth. Perhaps up to the space station.

We must be aware of our limitations. Thinking beyond our limitations is the cause of so many good for nothing imaginations around.

Of course. -out of topic- lots of people make good profit inventing ideas to be run around and create confusion. After people assimilate the ideas, they become easy prey of more and more new inventions which deviate us from our crude reality, we know almost nothing about ourselves, and less about the universe.

I exist, therefore I think.

My existence is limited, therefore my thoughts are also limited.

Your existence would appear to be more limited than most.

 

[Subsymbolic]

All things that have no scientific explanation are not explained by science.

It is a truism.

It is a magical, absurd state. A miraculous state that defies reason and is supported by no observation.

As is the claim that the universe came into existence

That is totally besides the point and not true.

All that can be said about the universe is that it appears to have a beginning. Certainly all matter clearly has a beginning. The universe exists before organized matter exists.

And what is also true is that it is absurd to claim a completed real infinity exists.

The state of "always existing" is a pretend imaginary state, like a god.

It is not an explanation fit for an adult.

And yet an awful lot of serious qualified physicists either believe it to be the case or do not discount it in the cavalier manner that you do. There is more to science and indeed philosophy than defending your intuitions as if they were universal truths.

 

[bilby]

The first law of thermodynamics strongly suggests that mass/energy does NOT have a beginning - if it does, then certainly this is NOT something we observe routinely, or can simply assume to be true.

I would be interested to hear one single example of something beginning - not changing from one form to another, but actually beginning. I can't think of a single one.

Either something has always existed; or something began; or both. There is no empirical nor logical basis to reject any of these three possibilities, with the possible exception of 1LoT (although we cannot be sure that that Law applies at or before the singularity).

The universe doesn't have a beginning; It has a singularity which we cannot examine with our current tools, which might or might not conceal a beginning.

I lean towards an eternal past, which seems to me more elegant that the discarding of 1LoT - But anyone who claims to be absolutely certain whether or not the universe has a beginning is either a liar or a fool. One of the things we can know is that this is one of the things we cannot know, using our current epistemological toolkit.

 

[untermensche]

If something has no start to it's existence the logical conclusion is that it does not exist.

The illogical conclusion is that it exists.

That would not only be a miraculous state but it implies a completed real infinity, an impossibility.

I don't think logical means what you say it means...

So if I said you had no beginning it would mean you are immortal?

It would only mean that to somebody with a very twisted understanding of things.

 

[untermensche]

All things that have no scientific explanation are not explained by science.

It is a truism.





That is totally besides the point and not true.

All that can be said about the universe is that it appears to have a beginning. Certainly all matter clearly has a beginning. The universe exists before organized matter exists.

And what is also true is that it is absurd to claim a completed real infinity exists.

The state of "always existing" is a pretend imaginary state, like a god.

It is not an explanation fit for an adult.

And yet an awful lot of serious qualified physicists either believe it to be the case or do not discount it in the cavalier manner that you do. There is more to science and indeed philosophy than defending your intuitions as if they were universal truths.

Desperate appeals to some unnamed authority is not rational.

The idea of "always existing" is not a rational idea. It is silly childish idea. As good an idea as saying "god did it".

And there is no evidence to even suggest it is possible.

 

[untermensche]

The first law of thermodynamics strongly suggests that mass/energy does NOT have a beginning - if it does, then certainly this is NOT something we observe routinely, or can simply assume to be true.

I would be interested to hear one single example of something beginning - not changing from one form to another, but actually beginning. I can't think of a single one.

Either something has always existed; or something began; or both. There is no empirical nor logical basis to reject any of these three possibilities, with the possible exception of 1LoT (although we cannot be sure that that Law applies at or before the singularity).

The universe doesn't have a beginning; It has a singularity which we cannot examine with our current tools, which might or might not conceal a beginning.

I lean towards an eternal past, which seems to me more elegant that the discarding of 1LoT - But anyone who claims to be absolutely certain whether or not the universe has a beginning is either a liar or a fool. One of the things we can know is that this is one of the things we cannot know, using our current epistemological toolkit.

There is not one thing anyone can point to that does not have a beginning.

Organization appears after the singularity.

All matter appears after the singularity. It all began.

And of course it follows that every entity composed of matter had a beginning too.

It is impossible to look at any thing and conclude it did not have a beginning.

The idea of "no beginning" is a religious idea not a scientific idea.

 

[Treedbear]

...

And I've already admitted that I don't have the answer to whether it's possible.

You're half way there.

If you can understand that saying infinite time occurred before some moment is the same as saying all the fractions between zero and one were written out before that moment, you know.

That should be easy! Just tell me when the writing began.

Can there be writing without a start to the writing?

No. So how does that prove that time had a beginning? I'd hoped there was more to the riddle than just an example of something that so obviously requires a beginning.

Can there be time without a start to the time? Somehow people think they are just allowed to conclude this. They think they do not have to prove it is possible to have time without a beginning to it.

If time does not start it does not exist. That is what reason would conclude.

You haven't demonstrated that. I don't need to prove that it's so.

 

[untermensche]

...

You're half way there.

If you can understand that saying infinite time occurred before some moment is the same as saying all the fractions between zero and one were written out before that moment, you know.

That should be easy! Just tell me when the writing began.

Can there be writing without a start to the writing?

No. So how does that prove that time had a beginning? I'd hoped there was more to the riddle than just an example of something that so obviously requires a beginning.

You understand that for writing to exist it must have a start.

That is what the question is for. To get you to understand that to say something exists logically means it had a beginning.

To say something exists without a beginning is just invoking a miracle as an answer.

It is absurd nonsense.

Nothing anyone with a brain should take seriously.

 

[ruby sparks]

...s it possible to take, say, Oprah and made a mechanical body that looks exactly like Oprah and will respond exactly like Oprah would, but it is all done by unconscious programming? Is a Zombie -- the lights are on but nobody's home -- possible?

Possible......yes. Surely?

More efficient......wouldn't it be?

Which is my question (I don't know the answer).

If it was more efficient (in theory)....does this undermine the suggestion that consciousness is adaptive?

 

[Kharakov]

Your existence would appear to be more limited than most.

Someone has to be unter him.

 

[untermensche]

Your existence would appear to be more limited than most.

Someone has to be unter him.

Why?

Because you believe in miracles as answers?

You believe things can exist without a beginning to their existence. Like the Christians talk about their god existing but not having a beginning.

You believe in magic, miracles, as answers to situations that disturb you.

So that makes me what, except a witness?

 

[Kharakov]

Your existence would appear to be more limited than most.

Someone has to be unter him.

Why?

Ok, maybe he'd prefer a hot chick on top of him. I don't know. Whatever he likes, I'm not too worried about it.

Because you believe in miracles as answers?

Ok, if there is a stripper at the playground...

You believe things can exist without a beginning to their existence. Like the Christians talk about their god existing but not having a beginning.

Sure. Obviously something existed without a beginning.

You believe in magic, miracles, as answers to situations that disturb you.

Sometimes. Depends on if I have a vested interest in believing in the magic/miracles or if I think there is some sort of scam going on.

So that makes me what, except a witness?

wut.
Like a Jehovah's Witness of duh?

 

[untermensche]

Sure. Obviously something existed without a beginning.

If something existed without a beginning it is unlike anything we can observe in some way.

So what can be said logically is that to not need a beginning means you are not like what can be observed in some way.

That is all that can be said about no beginnings.

To claim all that all that can be observed in some way had no beginning is just irrational nonsense, invoking a silly miracle as an answer.

To progress as we understand it means there must be a beginning to the progression. To say there is progression without a beginning to it is irrational gibberish.

 

[humbleman]

Sure. Obviously something existed without a beginning.

If something existed without a beginning it is unlike anything we can observe in some way.

So what can be said logically is that to not need a beginning means you are not like what can be observed in some way.

That is all that can be said about no beginnings.

To claim all that all that can be observed in some way had no beginning is just irrational nonsense, invoking a silly miracle as an answer.

To progress as we understand it means there must be a beginning to the progression. To say there is progression without a beginning to it is irrational gibberish.

Problem:

While the universe appears of having a development, the crude reality is that the universe is in continued decay.

Elements in the universe are more simpler each time.

Living organisms were more complex and are now more simpler: degeneration.

The rate of decay for us it appears slow because we are less than a solitary microbe populating an entire planet, the whole scenario is too much for us.

Take the picture and think again about how the beginning should have been.

 

[bilby]

Sure. Obviously something existed without a beginning.

If something existed without a beginning it is unlike anything we can observe in some way.

So what can be said logically is that to not need a beginning means you are not like what can be observed in some way.

That is all that can be said about no beginnings.

To claim all that all that can be observed in some way had no beginning is just irrational nonsense, invoking a silly miracle as an answer.

To progress as we understand it means there must be a beginning to the progression. To say there is progression without a beginning to it is irrational gibberish.

Problem:

While the universe appears of having a development, the crude reality is that the universe is in continued decay.

'decay' is not a concept that applies to universes; you are making a category error here.

The universe is presumably a closed system, and so its total entropy increases with time; but entropy is not decay, and increases in total entropy do not preclude large decreases in local entropy - so certain areas of the universe are becoming more ordered and/or more complex with time.

Elements in the universe are more simpler each time.

Again, simplicity is hard to understand as it applies to 'elements', but if you are discussing chemical elements, we can see that proton and neutron number is increasing over time, making elements more complex, not simpler.

Living organisms were more complex and are now more simpler: degeneration.

This is simply false. Living organisms were simpler (on average) and have (mostly) become more complex over time. The exceptions are organisms in very stable niches, which often become highly specialized in ways that could be considered 'simpler', although the word is not really meaningful in this context.

The rate of decay for us it appears slow because we are less than a solitary microbe populating an entire planet, the whole scenario is too much for us.

Speak for yourself.

Take the picture and think again about how the beginning should have been.

It doesn't matter a jot how the beginning should have been; all that matters is how it was. And that depends what you mean by 'beginning', and whether or not there even is one in the context of 'the universe'.

Beginnings are essentially a human construct; When we try to pin down the details of 'beginnings', we often find that reality is too complex to fit that neat boundary.