I can’t edit my post, but here
Lecture - 1 Introduction to Quantum Physics;Heisenberg''s uncertainty principle - YouTube Watch here, from 43:30, a much better answer to your question given from a famous professor about how “laws change”
Well, duh. We live inside it.
Can we at least concede that we live “inside its field of influence” and are extremely susceptible to its whims and fluctuations?
What does that have to do with anything? Any person from any pre-literate society could have told us that we are in the “field of influence” of the sun, based on radiant heat. Anyone since Galileo and Kepler could have told us that we are “inside its field of influence” in termns of gravity. Throughout the twentieth century we have learned more about its influence in terms of radiation and radioelectric waves.
None of those clearly understood phenomena have anything to do with the utter nonsense that Anthem (0) is spouting.
If you think you understand his point and can describe it in plain English, please do so. If not, you are not really helping.
i was told some math was coming today?
The math won’t matter
You can make up any set of guidelines and have them be fully consistent with reality (although odds are, talking near 100% here, that Anthem does not know enough current physics to be able to do this).
But if those mathematics can’t predict things any better (or if they are contradicted), they’re useless over current frameworks.
so, then, how does this conversation ever end?
∞
.
This made my eyes bleed a little.
…blood, just gushing from my eyes.
I really can’t wait. Not even kidding. According to your profile you haven’t started the new thread yet, but I implore you to post a link or announce it when you do so. I’m really curious to discover the extent of your personal rabbit hole’s “IN” dimension.
Y’know, I don’t think so.
You are free to post another thread addressing the “math,” but if it is as silly as this one we will probably close it. This thread is probably not going to survive much longer, either.
If you want to do the Socratic schtick, then I suggest you get a volume of Plato’s essays and see how it is done. (Hint: insulting your audience and telling them that you have some great revelation that you will only reveal if they prove worthy to hear it is not how it is done.) You have already demonstrated that you do not grasp basic facts that impinge on the “topic” of this thread and, while it is fun for some folks for a while, there is too much temptation in the long run to entice other posters to begin making references to trolling or resort to name-calling. If you need to express these great truths, you can get a blog and control the reactions to your thoughts without making Marley or I do the work of keeping the response civil.
[ /Moderating ]
I don’t think you’re understanding the point I was making. I understand that the mathematical equations don’t break down once you enter outer space and I stated as much in my post. What I’m saying is that the LAWS (the ACTUAL PHYSICAL properties) themselves breakdown. Not the mathematical equations which describe these physical properties, the ACTUAL law inverts and becomes NEGATIVE. The math equation doesn’t change but the actual principle being described is no longer itself, it is the opposite of itself. Pressure becomes “anti-pressure”, warmth becomes “anti-warmth”. You go from having full control of movement You go from being one of the largest things in the environment (humans are gigantic compared to most everything on Earth, especially as far as terrestrial life is concerned) to being so small as to be completely invisible. You go from being able to move freely in three-dimensional space to being able to flop about madly in your tiny 3D bubble while traveling in an uncontrollable singular direction which can only be described as “whichever direction you were headed when you left/entered”…which is just another way of saying every POSSIBLE direction. Why complicate this by attempting to define any location in this zone using three-dimensional coordinates which only apply in the hilariously tiny bit of inhabitable space on the surfaces of gigantic orbs which are so far away that the distance has NO translation in any sort of 3D space itself? This is simply the OUT - which is just expanding out into infinity from a “singular” point.
Black holes tell us that singularities aren’t ACTUAL singular points in space…they are quite a bit larger than an infinitely tiny dot. The atmosphere of planets where reality inverts is collectively a singular point, especially in comparison to the size of 3D space.
Seriously think for a moment. The fact that the math doesn’t change when EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of physical reality changes as much as anything could possibly change should be screaming at you that you aren’t understanding something about the math itself…and math is something which should be understood before trying to use it to describe ALL of reality.
Seriously, fuck all this arguing about bullshit and disagreeing with every single thing I say and talk to me straight for a single post. Can you think of an environment which is LESS like earth-space than outer space? Is it even possible to conceive of such a thing? It is literally the opposite of EVERYTHING we know. But somehow, the math still works, so we think nothing of it.
It’s even worse when you apply a bit more context. Let’s talk about BOTH parts of Earth, because Earth is CLEARLY two completely separate environments with an almost comically obvious dividing line. Follow the chain from IN to OUT. Deep underwater environment is basically pressuring collapsing on you from all sides. This is simply called IN. The surface of the Earth is the SURFACE of the Earth…water included. The surface of Earth doesn’t follow the ground under the water, and only a terrestrial creature could be so silly as to think it does. Almost 99% of LIFE on Earth exists underwater (this ratio should be ringing a bell). Underwater creatures exist IN from terrestrial creatures. Hell, look at how greatly 3D motion improves underwater.
That is the first CLEAR mark of a boundary of reality and hence an inversion. But this isn’t the physical inversion which takes place once you go OUT once more through the atmosphere…this is the “metaphysical” inversion point. This the point where our own earth-space inverts itself and since we literally exist AT this “point” (the surface), we have the advantage over math as to properly contextualizing the finer details of what is actually happening here. Several inverse relationships are obvious at this level, but mathematically, little to nothing changes. For instance, two of our primary physical senses are sight and sound. Sight is obviously determined by light, which has a clear particle representation. Sound, however, is only able to be determined by the effect it has on everything around it, particularly all the other “particles” which we can see. In air, sound travels “slowly” and has a very limited range while light is blazing fast. This relationship inverts itself almost instantly at the intersection of air and water at the surface of Earth.
But look at the instantaneous and obvious difference to us and our lives. On land, we’re affected by gravity which pulls us to the surface of Earth. Underwater, we rise to the surface of Earth. As strict abiders of determinism, we KNOW this is because of the air in our bodies…but that is an ass-backwards interpretation which ignores all context. But it is factual.
With any context whatsoever applied, we “really” can only move in 2 dimensions on Earth. We tell ourselves otherwise, but it’s completely unjustifiable. I can either turn left or I can stay straight. Up and down only exist as they relate to the SURFACE of Earth, and while artificial altitude can be created, without firm footing (like a building underneath us), we will very quickly be back to that two-dimensional ground via the mechanism of gravity. Our “three-dimensions” are like a bad joke that no one will fess up to. There is a reason maps of the planet are drawn from the top down view…because you can’t make a comprehensible map of the planet from a side view (sea level). There is no side view except for as it relates to the surface. Our existences are almost entirely two-dimensional. X and Y extend all the way to the horizon and intersect a great distance away (this distance is about as far as we’re capable of even pretending to be able to comprehend). Z is a split between infinity (up) and 0 (down). It is PURELY relative…100% relative. Hence the +1/-1.
So, what does math have to say about this clear boundary between air and water which is virtually the embodiment of our entire existences? NOTHING. It can’t even tell the difference. It is utterly incapable of describing a difference which, to us, is literally a matter of life or death.
Basic shit like this is regularly overlooked (if not deliberately thrown under the rug) for the sake of numbers, both by blind followers of its principles and also by people who really should know better.
The fact that the same set of equations can describe so many completely separate environments is not only proof of the power of math…it’s proof of our complete lack of understanding of what that math means. CONTEXT should never be ignored for the sake of MATH. Math is only useful so long as the concept it is meant to describe is comprehensible. We can’t comprehend outer space - period. The scale is completely beyond our ability to fathom. Allowing math to tell us that “light travels through space” has blinded us to the obvious truth that SPACE isn’t a singular damn environment. There are many different sizes of and types of space and each is only relative to the ones surrounding it.
There is a simple reason why quantum mechanics and general relativity don’t mesh well…because these “spaces” aren’t touching each other. That’s what a dimensions is - how many points in space are needed to describe something. It is completely and obviously related to the SIZES of objects. WE are in the middle and therefore KNOW both ends exist. But even we can only SEE one end. Ironically, we FEEL the other end. And while math may transcend these boundaries at the intersection where WE exist, what use is that if we’re going to allow math to dictate to us what all of space is. Math is orderly enough to describe both earth-space and outer space with the same deft stroke, but it’s simultaneously so unbelievably stupid that it can’t tell the difference between earth-space and outer space. Why are so many of you ok with allowing something that stupid to interpret reality for you? Yes it can describe it, and with much accuracy, but interpret it requires actual THINKING? People have forgotten how to THINK as we’ve lazily allow math to do the thinking for us. I love math, always have, and will for a bit longer, but it cannot contextualize reality…at best, it can only partially define what is already there.
The Theory of Everything is not a series of mathematical formulas, it’s simply contextualizing the math we already have. And it’s easy as balls to do if you pull your head out of your asses for long enough to realize that nothing I’m saying is contradicting a single thing mathematically, only our backwards interpretations of the math. All I’m doing is interpreting the math in the context of the reality I exist within rather than letting the math interpret reality for me.
There is a reason why x-x=0 and that reason is called BALANCE. You cannot accurately describe reality only by the (+), you also require the (-). Calling spactime 3+1 dimensional is only decsribing physical reality. Hell, by the own rules science has placed on itself, only physical evidence is permitted. This leads to ridiculously backwards behavior like describing phenomena like gravity and sound by the EFFECTS they have on the tiny scraplings of matter which we CAN see, rather than simply trying to understand what in the hell they ARE.
This is a phenomenon which people ignore entirely too often, and that is very dangerous when it permeates the realm of factual knowledge. We look in a spoon and the image inverts itself vertically (UPside DOWN or FRONTside BACK) but retains its basic morphology. We look in a mirror and the image inverts itself horizontally (LEFTside RIGHT or FRONTside BACK). But these are the only two dimensions we can really see and this is because we are OUT from them. They are negatives. When your physical body enters outer space, the same thing happens, but INside OUT inversion is correspondingly more severe. But your body literally tries to expand itself inside out…just like your body tries to compress itself OUTside IN when deep underwater. These are the same damn effect.
Think, people.
You sure waste an awful lot of text to say nothing.
All you’re doing is revealing that you’re completely misunderstanding that your arguments have been utterly crushed.
I think you should learn a bit more about what we DO know about science before you go around talking about what we DON’T know, because right now you’re coming across like an ostrich with its head in the sand while the rest of us are just snickering.
Nothing “breaks down.” Things don’t “invert.” Give an actual example of what you mean instead of just serving up heaps of word salad.
Every single “Theory of Everything” guy I’ve spoken with is exactly the same. Delusions of grandeur, credentials they won’t reveal, ignorance of modern science, Gish Gallops every time an argument is given, dodging and weaving of crucial counter-points, no actual central argument, etc.
“Warmth becomes anti-warmth.”
Okay, this is one I know about; I did the math in college. You can, in most engineering applications involving temperature, replace “t” with “X-t.” X might be, say, room temperature. X-t is a measure of how much cooler an object is – say, a pitcher of beer – than room temperature.
And y’know what? The math works fine! You can describe the flow of “coolth” in a system, exactly as you describe the flow of heat. “Coolness” flows through metal more rapidly than it flows through wood, etc.
(And you can even feel it for yourself: find a nice metal railing on a balcony somewhere, such that half of it is in sunlight and half in shadow. The shadowed part is cool.)
The phrase “warmth becomes anti-warmth” is vacuous. You can describe “coolth” very much the way you describe warmth, but one never “becomes” the other. It isn’t observed in deep space probes, and it isn’t observed in stellar astronomy. The star Vega isn’t “cold.” It’s rather hot (being a blue giant.) Stars don’t “cool” the clouds of dust surrounding them.
ETA: MDKSquared: you got in ahead of me: total agreement. I chose to pick at one particular phrase, because it’s something I once actually did the math on. Our correspondent is using ordinary terms in a hopelessly unclear fashion.
Oh, this is also wrong. Mirrors don’t reflect “left and right.” They reflect straight forward and backward.
When we hold a book up to a mirror, to read the mirror writing, we tend, by habit, to turn it “left to right.” In that case, we’re the ones reflecting the book left and right, not the mirror. If you flip the book vertically, the mirror suddenly reflects “up and down.”
[sarcasm]Pretty amazing – almost like the double-slit experiment in Quantum physics! How does the mirror know when I’ve flipped the book horizontally, and how does it know when I’ve flipped it vertically! Eerie, isn’t it?[sarcasm]
To elaborate on the mirror thing, Feynman also explains why you’re wrong, Anthem:
Of course, I know you won’t actually watch this. Every time a video has been given to refute one of your crucial points, you ignore it and move on as if nothing has been said.
once more…
response.
I want to see the math thread. I really, really do.
We live on a big rock containing water, atmosphere, etc – spiraling through outer space.
So what?
Like I said, give an actual example of what you’re talking about so we can focus on that instead of your word salad.
Anyways, this is the main problem in every single argument you make.
You say “only physical evidence is permitted” as if we have something better. We live in a physical universe, dude. You don’t have the luxury of basing the truth value of something on anything more than that. All we can talk about are the effects. Gravity can be described mathematically, and to the extent that it is predictive, accurate, and reproducible.
Asking what it “is” is meaningless. What is gravity? Why do magnets repel? All this stuff was addressed in the video I showed you earlier that you conveniently ignored. Asking why things are the way they are – or what they are – doesn’t get you anywhere. Gravity is a phenomenon of our universe, and that’s all we know. We can ask what it “is” and come up with infinitely many answers to address it, so how do you know which one is true?
But that’s ultimately what makes metaphysics useless. It doesn’t offer any new knowledge. It just offers a possible interpretation no better than any other. It doesn’t help us predict anything new – which is huge because if you really had a Theory of Everything, you would be able to describe every aspect of our universe that empirical science hasn’t been able to yet. But you can’t, and there’s a reason for that: Your “theories” are no better than what science has to offer, because nobody can do better than what science has to offer.
It’s a fundamental limitation of our epistemological basis as physical beings in a physical universe.
Here is a good quote explaining why your approach is faulty:
To be scrupulously fair, there are quite a few people here who don’t like to watch videos as part of a debate. (I’m one of 'em…) The information bandwidth is lower than in regular text. (Well, except, as you note, when someone engages in a “gallop.”)