Does Distance exist without time?

[Quantum Quack]

Also, let's get back on our theoretical stuff. Check my post before my last in this thread (on page 16) for my answer to your moment question.

hate to say it but simply put as far as I am aware there is no material evidence to support your position. Only logic.
If you can provide a link to show evidencial support I would appreciate it.
To show as you propose flies in the face of most of current scientifically acquired evidence.
A moment of suspended time is like a blank spot thus the universe must flicker.
The idea that as energy alternates it's polarity means that it must pass through zero to acquire the polarity would suggest a flicker but this is not the case as far as I can tell as the polarisation is generated from and has it's genesis from Zero point as opposite polarities to begin with and they actually overlap granting continuity of base energy levels. i.e. 12vlt AC Base level is 12vlts.
Sorry if that was a bit much....[ but I like to stir I guess ]

 

[Prince_James]

To put forth a contrary view:

There is nothing at all within the brain, or within the phenomenology of consciousness, that suggests any quantum effects whatsoever. If anything, we are speaking of either an emergent (property) dualism, or an actual dualism, neither of which has anything to do with quantum physics. The nature of quantum events and activities has no analogue whatsoever to those working in the mind. Entanglement, tunnelling, wave-particle duality, and all those other issues simply have no place in something which is either emergent from a macroscopic brain or a non-physical substance.

In fact, I'd challenge you to make the connections reasonable.

 

[Quantum Quack]

To put forth a contrary view:

There is nothing at all within the brain, or within the phenomenology of consciousness, that suggests any quantum effects whatsoever. If anything, we are speaking of either an emergent (property) dualism, or an actual dualism, neither of which has anything to do with quantum physics. The nature of quantum events and activities has no analogue whatsoever to those working in the mind. Entanglement, tunnelling, wave-particle duality, and all those other issues simply have no place in something which is either emergent from a macroscopic brain or a non-physical substance.

In fact, I'd challenge you to make the connections reasonable.

And in time I shall.

the brain and human body is an object of mass as well...

any thoughts PJ on how we happen to be self animated or self willed?
Vat is dis ting called life?

 

[Quantum Quack]

To put forth a contrary view:

There is nothing at all within the brain, or within the phenomenology of consciousness, that suggests any quantum effects whatsoever. If anything, we are speaking of either an emergent (property) dualism, or an actual dualism, neither of which has anything to do with quantum physics. The nature of quantum events and activities has no analogue whatsoever to those working in the mind. Entanglement, tunnelling, wave-particle duality, and all those other issues simply have no place in something which is either emergent from a macroscopic brain or a non-physical substance.

In fact, I'd challenge you to make the connections reasonable.

current understanding of how the brain works is way off the mark because again the use of the photon model falsifies the perception.

 

[Vkothii]

I can remember a doco that was shown absolute years ago, a British one about some kids with essentially no grey matter - they had all suffered a rare congenital disease that meant their cranium was mostly empty space - just a thin layer of cortex.
But they seemed "normal" they could speak and interact, although they did seem a bit robotic or something. I don't think it was a hoax or anything.

So consciousness might not depend on a certain threshold level of neurons.

 

[Quantum Quack]

to be perfectly honest.
If I believed in the photon model I would still be in a hospital somewhere staring into a mirror

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

hate to say it but simply put as far as I am aware there is no material evidence to support your position. Only logic.
If you can provide a link to show evidencial support I would appreciate it.
To show as you propose flies in the face of most of current scientifically acquired evidence.
A moment of suspended time is like a blank spot thus the universe must flicker.
The idea that as energy alternates it's polarity means that it must pass through zero to acquire the polarity would suggest a flicker but this is not the case as far as I can tell as the polarisation is generated form zero point as opposite polarities to begin with and they actually overlap granting continuity or base energy levels.

My good man, you yourself are giving us a logical model. You have not presented your evidnece on a physical thus far to back your claims of zero-point and have instead chosen to give some stuff which seems to indicate impossibilities (such as your talk of nothingness and even a brief mention of the universe creating itself over and over from ex nihilo). Again, you speak of nothingness, zero-point, et cetera, without validation of those concepts. As we are discussing physics, logical-mathematical is very important. So I fully recognize your necessity to speak of logic.

Zeno's paradox of the arrow seems to put the kibosh on your entire theory. Here you have the same sort of removal of time, but you clearly have space: In fact, every moment of time is equivalent to a state of space that is utterly static, like pages in a flipbook. As such, it behooves you to show why Zeno's paradox be wrong.

Also, to refute your nothingness theory, I will resort to simple mathematics: What is zero multiplied by x? Where x is any integer from 1 to infinity?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I can remember a doco that was shown absolute years ago, a British one about some kids with essentially no grey matter - they had all suffered a rare congenital disease that meant their cranium was mostly empty space - just a thin layer of cortex.
But they seemed "normal" they could speak and interact, although they did seem a bit robotic or something. I don't think it was a hoax or anything.

So consciousness might not depend on a certain threshold level of neurons.

correcto mundo....

There is a hell of lot more to what we are than meets the eye. oopa! IMO

 

[Reiku]

Can i just ask, why so much with the concern of the photon, par the explanations abobe?

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

any thoughts PJ on how we happen to be self animated or self willed?
Vat is dis ting called life?

The processes of animation are physical: Beating heart, working cells, chemical exchanges in the blood, all that deal.

Self willed? Well consciousness has features which are irreducible to the physical brain as such. These include qualia and the general first-person perspective of the Cartesian Ego. In essence, all the phenomenological features of consciousness are unexplainable by relation to the syntax of the brain. The semantic features are explainable, however, as another level of emergence, just as bridges and houses have different features from their constitutent parts. Or, in the vein of Descartes and Leibniz and others, we are dealing with an actual immaterial mind, and we are in effect, ghosts in the machine, to borrow Ryle's derogatory terminology for the Cartesian theory.

Of course, the latter is hampered by having no reasonable way that the mind can interact with the body. This is the Mind-Body Problem. As such, emergent dualism (property dualism) is more substantiated, by not having any sort of mind-body problem.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Heraclitus:



My good man, you yourself are giving us a logical model. You have not presented your evidnece on a physical thus far to back your claims of zero-point and have instead chosen to give some stuff which seems to indicate impossibilities (such as your talk of nothingness and even a brief mention of the universe creating itself over and over from ex nihilo). Again, you speak of nothingness, zero-point, et cetera, without validation of those concepts. As we are discussing physics, logical-mathematical is very important. So I fully recognize your necessity to speak of logic.

Zeno's paradox of the arrow seems to put the kibosh on your entire theory. Here you have the same sort of removal of time, but you clearly have space: In fact, every moment of time is equivalent to a state of space that is utterly static, like pages in a flipbook. As such, it behooves you to show why Zeno's paradox be wrong.

Also, to refute your nothingness theory, I will resort to simple mathematics: What is zero multiplied by x? Where x is any integer from 1 to infinity?

So what makes you think that time has static or nul moments?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Heraclitus:



The processes of animation are physical: Beating heart, working cells, chemical exchanges in the blood, all that deal.

Self willed? Well consciousness has features which are irreducible to the physical brain as such. These include qualia and the general first-person perspective of the Cartesian Ego. In essence, all the phenomenological features of consciousness are unexplainable by relation to the syntax of the brain. The semantic features are explainable, however, as another level of emergence, just as bridges and houses have different features from their constitutent parts. Or, in the vein of Descartes and Leibniz and others, we are dealing with an actual immaterial mind, and we are in effect, ghosts in the machine, to borrow Ryle's derogatory terminology for the Cartesian theory.

Of course, the latter is hampered by having no reasonable way that the mind can interact with the body. This is the Mind-Body Problem. As such, emergent dualism (property dualism) is more substantiated, by not having any sort of mind-body problem.

far enough, believe what you will.

 

[Prince_James]

Vkothil:

I can remember a doco that was shown absolute years ago, a British one about some kids with essentially no grey matter - they had all suffered a rare congenital disease that meant their cranium was mostly empty space - just a thin layer of cortex.
But they seemed "normal" they could speak and interact, although they did seem a bit robotic or something. I don't think it was a hoax or anything.

So consciousness might not depend on a certain threshold level of neurons.

Yes, this is another reason why emergent properties seem more likely. In a pureyl physicalist paradigm, these cases would be impossible. It also leads credence to substance dualism, as substance dualism would not depend on grey matter.

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

current understanding of how the brain works is way off the mark because again the use of the photon model falsifies the perception.

I don't understand how current paradigms of the mind depend on photon theory?

So what makes you think that time has static or nul moments?

Time has to move sequentially from one moment to another, 1, 2, 3........ten quadrillion. Each moment can be reduced to a spatial analogue (the aforementioned Zeno's arrow). As such, we get a situation in which it is rather like a flip book between static space. Of course, the flow of time is constant on a whole, and the motion of time itself is real, thus we are not dealing with a reality that is "flickering" really.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Finally. Its been a while since i have seen a poster understand how quantum mechanics links with consciousness (despite the overwhelming evidence that supports it)

''A comprehensive theory of mind and matter needs the fundamentals of zero space to be understood first before any theory of mind can be included.''

100% Correct. The point in here, we call the internal world, and the place out there, we call the external world, are connected through zero-dimensions, as strange as this sounds. This is because the mind doesn't exist in space, so there can be no dimensional relevance [[SIMULTANEOUSLY]], because they are complimentary to each other, as in, the Complimentarity Principle of Copenhagen.

''the backdrop to 4 dimensions] - mind analogue = consciousness.
Non Relative zero is when all mass is removed and absolutely nothing is present [ zero point theory ] - mind analogue = unconsciousness''

Again, i agree, and i think i can put this into some kind of math. If you want...

You said also

''How do you think perceptions of the universe share so much in common?''

I cannot be sure, as no one but Yahweh Elohim can, but i would guess it has something to do with the fact, that maybe, and i know i am going to be grilled by everyone... but consider this theory i came up with two month ago:

''It is said that when two photons are created from a single system, they are entangled. But we then know that they are entangled, only because of the factors they where born in the paranormal activity of simulaneosity... I ask, then if all matter ''instantly'' appeared from one source (whatever that source is if there even is one), wouldn't that conlude that maybe all the particles in the universe are entangled with one another, according to their groups, such as Bosons and Fermions??? Is this a mental claim?''

Everything is connected to everything, no thing can be unconnected and it is via zero point that this connection is acheieved.
All minds all matter and all substace to this universe are connected viz zero point.
And it is via this connection that we are able to observe the universe with commonality and "relative objectivity"
This objectivity can only be achieved by information sharing via zero point.
If a religious analogue was to be applied God would be defined as zero. Nothing at all.

we are now touching upon the a zero point field of Reflective sciences. The science of Reflection [ as in mirrors ]

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Heraclitus:



I don't understand how current paradigms of the mind depend on photon theory?



Time has to move sequentially from one moment to another, 1, 2, 3........ten quadrillion. Each moment can be reduced to a spatial analogue (the aforementioned Zeno's arrow). As such, we get a situation in which it is rather like a flip book between static space. Of course, the flow of time is constant on a whole, and the motion of time itself is real, thus we are not dealing with a reality that is "flickering" really.

But why does time have to move from one moment to another PJ...this I cannot understand? Why is it not continuous and smooth with out segmentation?

 

[Reiku]

Yeh, since special relativity is an observer-dependant theory. It just then stand to reason that there is a relative objectivity. Only thing i would add myself, it that even though this relative objectivity is still yet, objective in sense, but by final operation, it remains a subjective phenomenon.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Heraclitus:



I don't understand how current paradigms of the mind depend on photon theory?

well accroding to current thinking. photons enter the eye at the speed of 'c' and what we see is nto actually whgat we see at all. What we see is what the photons tell us to see.
That the stars aren't where we think they are. That we are somehow deluded by the light.

That the brain has this miraculaous ability to deciipher a zillion bits of data just top maintain a steady gaze not including a moving one.

The brain is by far more clever in construction that to be so inefficient.

It does not have to construct and continue to re-construct reality as photon theory burdens medical science with.

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

But why does time have to move form one moment to another PJ...this I cannot understand? Why is it not continuous and smooth with out segmentation?

Any whole depends on its parts. A truly seamless continuum would depend upon indivisibility. The only thing which is indivisible would be a monad (an infintesimal quanta) by virtue of it being "the smallest one can be from nothing".

 

[Reiku]

But why does time have to move from one moment to another PJ...this I cannot understand? Why is it not continuous and smooth with out segmentation?

To claim alone that the universe is static with only one dimension though, you would need to explain why galaxies are rushing either away or tpwards each other. In two dimensions of real time, or imaginary space and imaginary time, or real space, one static, and the other not, would be the only way i think to allow a notion of a smooth continuous frame.

But again i stress, it is only us who experience this. Physics tells us that consciousness binds time together in a continuous set of instants, and yet in the external world of imaginary time, things are not smooth at all... strange eh?