Quantum Heraclitus:
DO'H!
Okay, give me a bit to think of a thought experiment, then.
DO'H!
Okay, give me a bit to think of a thought experiment, then.
Does Distance exist without time?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Because as it is my personal experience after suffering a stroke and living in a state of almost almost almost uncosnciousness for long period that listening to the minds of hundreds of different persons chatting away to themselves and having this as an ongoing experience but more refined as time and growth transpires proves with out doubt what I am saying.
However it is not enough to have this only as an ongoing developed personal experience and ability but one that could be extremely beneficial to the world if it was only safe enough to bring it to the for.
If you have ever listened into someones prayers you would know what I mean. City of Angels is a good movie to help describe the expereince.
Especially those that are praying for a solution to their traumatised childs or husbands or wifes mental conditions such as acute psychosis or paranoid schizophrenia.
So I know it is real and very effective but containing this aspect of human consciousness [ unconsciousness ] with out corrupting ourselves is extremely difficult to do.
So...where was I....hmmmm
Okay.
Suppose you have a sun and its planet in orbit.
At Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter equinox/solstices, you have the planet essentially at North, South, East, and West of the sun on a 2d grid.
Let's call these points in a 2d Cartesian grid: North/Spring: 0,5. East/Summer: 5,0. South/Fall: 0,-5. West/Winter: -5,0. The Sun is at 0,0 suffice it to say.
Let's also assume there is no substantial interstellar medium. That you are essentially seeing a matterless void, although naked space. I.E. There is distance and there is time and mass, but nothing between the sun and its planet at any time massive wise. Space is empty but for these two objects of mass.
Now at at the Summer Solstice, the planet is at a specific point on this 2d grid, correct? Yet clearly, it is not at all, despite the complete and utter absence of mass, invalidating all the other points it will go to. For instance: In 6 months, it will be exactly opposite of where it is now, in relation to the Sun it orbits. Clearly, it doesn't just "create" that space, yes?
So you have a real point, regardless of the fact that it has no matter, correct?
Sooo.....there is a difference between it and pure nothingness, no? And therefore, it makes sense to discuss a grid even in the absence of mass, where something can be placed in it.
Now if you remove the Planet and the Sun, and we have shown that it is okay to have no mass some place, then clearly it is okay to have no mass no place. We are thus left simply with a matterless, timeless (as there is no objects to make time needed to describe the situation), blank grid...But a grid which differs from empty space.
Suppose you have a sun and its planet in orbit.
At Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter equinox/solstices, you have the planet essentially at North, South, East, and West of the sun on a 2d grid.
Let's call these points in a 2d Cartesian grid: North/Spring: 0,5. East/Summer: 5,0. South/Fall: 0,-5. West/Winter: -5,0. The Sun is at 0,0 suffice it to say.
Let's also assume there is no substantial interstellar medium. That you are essentially seeing a matterless void, although naked space. I.E. There is distance and there is time and mass, but nothing between the sun and its planet at any time massive wise. Space is empty but for these two objects of mass.
Now at at the Summer Solstice, the planet is at a specific point on this 2d grid, correct? Yet clearly, it is not at all, despite the complete and utter absence of mass, invalidating all the other points it will go to. For instance: In 6 months, it will be exactly opposite of where it is now, in relation to the Sun it orbits. Clearly, it doesn't just "create" that space, yes?
So you have a real point, regardless of the fact that it has no matter, correct?
Sooo.....there is a difference between it and pure nothingness, no? And therefore, it makes sense to discuss a grid even in the absence of mass, where something can be placed in it.
Now if you remove the Planet and the Sun, and we have shown that it is okay to have no mass some place, then clearly it is okay to have no mass no place. We are thus left simply with a matterless, timeless (as there is no objects to make time needed to describe the situation), blank grid...But a grid which differs from empty space.
Quantum Heraclitus:
Ah, so you were essentially hearing the thoughts inside other people's minds?
Inteeereestttttttinggg. Very interestinggg. A reference to classical carciatures of Freud, but legitimately intriguing.
That being said, let me propose an analogy to an alternative view:
Could not one say that human unconsciousness is like the ocean, the conscious mind like buoys on the top of the sea? Our unconsciousnesses could be connected by being the water, but it would not have to have "zero dimensionality" as it were.
Ah, so you were essentially hearing the thoughts inside other people's minds?
Inteeereestttttttinggg. Very interestinggg. A reference to classical carciatures of Freud, but legitimately intriguing.
That being said, let me propose an analogy to an alternative view:
Could not one say that human unconsciousness is like the ocean, the conscious mind like buoys on the top of the sea? Our unconsciousnesses could be connected by being the water, but it would not have to have "zero dimensionality" as it were.
But the use of a cartesian grid is purely mathematical and visualisation and nothing more..pure imagination..can you not see that to be the case?
why do I wish to complicate a very simple system?
zero dimesnionality clarifies the whole issue in two words.
The only problem is conveying the issue to others...
ie.
stargate: 2 dimensional disc like plane were by on one side we have a planet X surface and on the other we have a planet Y surface. The distance between planets is zero through the gate yet 10 light years in 4 dimensional space....simple really not hard at all.
Why would I need to have a grid of spatial expansion other than to provide a mental conveniance to placate the need to visualise?
Well, according to Copenhagen, until a detector fires, there is no shape, size, color, texture, transparancy, spin, width, height, location or path.
Reiku:
Yes, but COpenhagen doesn't speak of observers having consciousness or not. According to Copenhagen, it doesn't matter. Observer is just a really bad choice. Let's instead say "interactor".
Yes, but COpenhagen doesn't speak of observers having consciousness or not. According to Copenhagen, it doesn't matter. Observer is just a really bad choice. Let's instead say "interactor".
As far as I can tell PJ the issue revolves not around zero dimensionality but more about the issue of zero vs infinity which is something you have been fighting about for ages...
the distinction between instantaneousness and infinitely fast....see?
the distinction between instantaneousness and infinitely fast....see?
good choice of words...swiss cheese could qualify as an observer and so too could teh lab windows and furniture...[ referring to a discussion a while ago with Crunchy Cat]
back soon and thanks for the discussion guys!
Quantum Heraclitus:
Let me introduce a principle and see if you can agree:
Any system that can explain a physical property can be said to share in the ontology of that. That is to say, whereas it may be conceptual, we can discuss the physical analogue which it describes, if the conceptual works inline with it.
That is to say, if a Cartesian grid describes space, then space has a Cartesian analogue physically.
Or conversely, if atoms describe space, then we can say that matter is organized into the equivalent to our mathematical/conceptual model of the atom.
In essence: That is the physics-math connection right there.
Let me introduce a principle and see if you can agree:
Any system that can explain a physical property can be said to share in the ontology of that. That is to say, whereas it may be conceptual, we can discuss the physical analogue which it describes, if the conceptual works inline with it.
That is to say, if a Cartesian grid describes space, then space has a Cartesian analogue physically.
Or conversely, if atoms describe space, then we can say that matter is organized into the equivalent to our mathematical/conceptual model of the atom.
In essence: That is the physics-math connection right there.
Quantum Heraclitus:
Yep. This does seem VERY similar to that.
It seems to be our main ideological difference.
This is very Eleatic v. Epicurean level "one principle makes all the difference" sort of debate.
Yep. This does seem VERY similar to that.
It seems to be our main ideological difference.
This is very Eleatic v. Epicurean level "one principle makes all the difference" sort of debate.
Reiku:
I don't know what the memory would have to change things, though?
I don't know what the memory would have to change things, though?
Quantum Heraclitus:
I don't see how it would?
Well this may be kicking a dead horse, owing to our inseperable gulf over infinity/instanteneous, but "there is a difference between a matterless vacuum and nothingness and spatial integrity ought to be kept unless there is a reason to suggest it is not".
Moreover, it is notable that wormholes keep spatial integrity...in four dimensions.
I think the classical model of the stargate (a wormhole) as a place where two places in 3d space are next to eachother in 4d space makes more sense.
Also, see ya later!
I don't see how it would?
Well this may be kicking a dead horse, owing to our inseperable gulf over infinity/instanteneous, but "there is a difference between a matterless vacuum and nothingness and spatial integrity ought to be kept unless there is a reason to suggest it is not".
Moreover, it is notable that wormholes keep spatial integrity...in four dimensions.
I think the classical model of the stargate (a wormhole) as a place where two places in 3d space are next to eachother in 4d space makes more sense.
Also, see ya later!
Well, memory is information, and the information we produce must be written somehow into spacetime itself. There is in fact a few models right now going about that thoughts and memeories might be stored in the vacuum.
Anyway, the information we add to spacetime is what matters, because unlike an atom, an atom cannot appreciate the finer points, like, what another systems position in space is relative to another observer apart from itself... or what an observer the atom may come meet is its dimensional external self. There is only a connection, which reduces Bosons meeting Bosons, to fall into the same states, or Fermions meeting Fermions, cancelling their spins out.
But consciousness exists as some kind of macroscopic phenomena, for it can normally only deal with observing entire quantum statistical systems. It doesn't focus in on the subatomic world, or the atomic world, other than by observing the system, the observer makes that entire system, lets say a piano, more and more ''defined'' (in the wave function), but i know you don't agree with the wave function of Copenhagen.
We also have self-awareness, so we make some kind of focal point in spacetime when we are self-reflecting on our existences. An atom can't do that. Its dead, in comparrison. Each tiny action made by a human observer, is found to be very much more effective at defining their surroundings, than an atom can, and this begs there is an importance with the conscious-collapse model.
The information in the Transactional Interpretation, states that they move throughout the time dimension faster than light, and will help mark everything consciousness observes and defines statistically.
Anyway, the information we add to spacetime is what matters, because unlike an atom, an atom cannot appreciate the finer points, like, what another systems position in space is relative to another observer apart from itself... or what an observer the atom may come meet is its dimensional external self. There is only a connection, which reduces Bosons meeting Bosons, to fall into the same states, or Fermions meeting Fermions, cancelling their spins out.
But consciousness exists as some kind of macroscopic phenomena, for it can normally only deal with observing entire quantum statistical systems. It doesn't focus in on the subatomic world, or the atomic world, other than by observing the system, the observer makes that entire system, lets say a piano, more and more ''defined'' (in the wave function), but i know you don't agree with the wave function of Copenhagen.
We also have self-awareness, so we make some kind of focal point in spacetime when we are self-reflecting on our existences. An atom can't do that. Its dead, in comparrison. Each tiny action made by a human observer, is found to be very much more effective at defining their surroundings, than an atom can, and this begs there is an importance with the conscious-collapse model.
The information in the Transactional Interpretation, states that they move throughout the time dimension faster than light, and will help mark everything consciousness observes and defines statistically.
Reiku, if I am understanding you right, you're affirming a sort of Quantum Mind theory?
a worm hole IMO is only a partial collapse of 4 dimensions on it's way to zero.
a 20 second ride to take you 10 ly means that the 4 dimensions have collapsed only partially and not completely.
A stargate as described is a total collapse of 4 dimensions into two dim. focused as it were on two points in 4 dimensional space but granting only one point in 4 dimensional space where there should be two.
I have actually witnessed first hand a dimensional collapse [partial wormhole] which caused the singeing of a persons woolen jumper in the shade by the heat from the sun.
The lady in question was extraordinarilly lucky to not get a hole drilled through her chest.
And to be perfectly honest I was pretty pissed at the instinctive intelligence at work that organised this little demonstration. Not nice at all. And I thought unecessary as well. But obviously it wanted to use her as an example of the gamut and potentials involved when someone starts playing with dimensional collapse.
Last edited: