anyone taken a shot at this question?
In that case, there can be no right or wrong. Reality is usually determined by a consensus of the majority, not a stalemate.
How was "Space" created before the Universe
- Thread starter cb71109
- Start date
In that case, there can be no right or wrong. Reality is usually determined by a consensus of the majority, not a stalemate.
Well? i would like some insight because physics is not my specialty.
i know it seems like some dumb questions
Compasses rely on the magnetic north pole to function properly, no magnetic north in space = a useless compass.
Time is just something constructed by your mind in response to motion. It isn't something tangible that can be 'jumped' to at will.
so it would be just as easy to travel forward in time as it would to travel back?
so in theory, if something happened on day to make the world rotate in reverse on its axis, would we go back in time, or would we just die instantly?
anyone taken a shot at this question?
Actually the answer is they are both right and wrong at the same time. Only because color is an arbitrary term to identify what we perceive as color.
Even the red we see is not actually red but rather a consensual arbritrary term to represent the color.
I think this scenerio is similar to the Schrodinger's cat, paradox where the out come of the true color is 50% (assuming at least one of them got it right) and until there is another person to help determine it is both colors.
I think I might have omitted something. Light. A light source is required in order for the subjects to even see the object. So let's say there's light present from a distant star.
OK. Now that being said, you do raise a very good point about categorization and consensus being necessary requirements for assigning the attribute of color. But even then you still maintain that has no color?
by the way did you mean 'perceived' z, not y, when you said:
Remember a thread I started a while back; "what's really real?" That's where I first presented this thought experiment in order to support my position that reality can neither be objective nor subjective but CONTEXTUAL.
Objective reality implies that both subjects x and y must agree on the property of z.
Subjective reality ultimately amounts to solipsism (only the self exists, or can be proved to exist) which is bullshit imo.
So, when you think about it, contextual reality fits best with WSM theory in that spherical standing waves in our observable universe form within the context of other waves -- neighboring out-waves become in-waves -- which then become matter. As opposed to the particle model of matter where 'fields' have to be introduced to inter-connect discrete particles...
so in other words you're saying that if there are 3 people and 2 of them are psychotic, the 2 psychos say that an orange is cell phone, then you can make toll free calls with the orange?In that case, there can be no right or wrong. Reality is usually determined by a consensus of the majority, not a stalemate.
How can they be both right and wrong? Something can't be in 2 different states at once. It makes no sense. Can
And you're right, the scenario is similar to Schrodinger's Cat paradox. A paradox that's easily resolved once you get rid of the notion of matter being composed of particles. And likewise this x,y,and z scenario.
A compass's needle (magnetic tip) will align itself with the earth's magnetic field and point in the direction relative the earth's axis that we've designated as 'north' and accepted as convention. In space it should align itself with the dominant magnetic field and point in that undesignated direction. At least that's what I think. So yeah, a compass would 'work' in space.
cool
Does person x and y share at least two colors in common? The test involved in determining how we know dogs see a very limited range of colors would have been an interesting solution to your question
Last edited:
The equation will shape up similar to Schrodiger's cat, because until there is a third observer or viable instrument to confirm the color, statistically speaking, they are both right and wrong (assuming of course, that at least one of them are correct in the first place) just like the cat in the box is both alive and dead in Schrodinger's cat experiment. before there is an observer.
In this case a third person dosn't confirm the color of the object, instead he changes the probability of the color being on over the other, and if two out of the three agree the can come to an accord and arbitrarily name the their perception of color....... Even if a billion people agree to the perception of a color you will never statistically get 100% sure that they are all correct, its just a higher probability than anything less than a billion.
i have a pt that works for nasa and his job is exit and reentry planning for the shuttles. i asked him a question that i have had since a kid and he looked at me like i am stupid. here is the question.
if a shuttle or even a jet got to an altitude of 40-50,000 ft and kept at a perfectly straight line, at what point would they exit the atmosphere? since the earth is a sphere it just seems that if you can go straight up to leave the plane that you could leave going horizontally from the 'side' for lack of a better word.
he said it cant happen and never explained why. is he right or did he just not feel like telling how it could be done
if a shuttle or even a jet got to an altitude of 40-50,000 ft and kept at a perfectly straight line, at what point would they exit the atmosphere? since the earth is a sphere it just seems that if you can go straight up to leave the plane that you could leave going horizontally from the 'side' for lack of a better word.
he said it cant happen and never explained why. is he right or did he just not feel like telling how it could be done
without a reference, no.
I don't think I understand. could you explain. thanks.
The notion of being 2 conflicting things simultaneously is nonsensical and illogical. A statement can't be both false and true. Once you accept this, you might as well throw all logic aside.
huh?
In Schrodiger's cat, the cat is both dead and alive, 2 conflicting things simultaneously, until it can be verified, 50/50 chance.. In your scenerio, assuming that one them is correct its also a 50/50 chance so until you can get a third party neither is right and neither is wrong....The notion of being 2 conflicting things simultaneously is nonsensical and illogical. A statement can't be both false and true. Once you accept this, you might as well throw all logic aside.
huh?
Let me re-write: If a billion people were to agree on a color, statistically its still not at a 100% because even a billion people could be wrong.... However statistically speaking, the probability would be very close to a 100% and the probability would greater than any number less than a billion..
I disagree. Truth is truth regardless of the number of consenting parties. See the question I asked Count23:
so...?
a bit off topic sean, but u eva read this:
if so, what did you think?
no sir, pure old fashioned paperbackyou can try requesting it in the e-books sub forum, however IMO it's worth dropping $$$ on.
just finished reading this one as well
Man that shit just....
BLEW MY FUCKING MIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*two cents*
Where not talking absolute truth but, but rather statistical probability. In order to get close to the absolute truth you would need a properly calibrated spectrometer.
Think of it this way, what are the odds of a billion people being wrong about a color? It would never be 0% but that great of a number would be statistically close to zero.... Now what are the probability that two guys who see two different colors is right..... Well assuming that one of them is right in the first place it is 50/50 but with out verification,they are both equally right and both equally wrong, statistically speaking at least.
i still don't understand your reasoning. if there's 100% agreement, the probability is 1. but what does probability have to do with this scenario??
It has everything to do with your scenario. Again assuming that at least one of the men is right the probibility is 50/50 and with those odds, they are both equally right and both equally wrong, until confirmation..
absolute truth as opposed to ...??
Well, I am talking about 'absolute' truth. And you don't need a spectrometer to get to it. A spectrometer is just another measurement device (like your eyes) whose output still needs to be interpreted by the mind. The same mind that calibrates it.
but how do you confirm that one of them is right?
There have to be a arbitrary method between them, perhaps more people or a color chart or what ever.
Note neither would ever be 100% unless a properly calibrated spectrometer or some other device is listed at 100% accuracy and that's opening another can of worms..
I think I might have omitted something. Light. A light source is required in order for the subjects to even see the object. So let's say there's light present from a distant star.
OK. Now that being said, you do raise a very good point about categorization and consensus being necessary requirements for assigning the attribute of color. But even then you still maintain that has no color?
by the way did you mean 'perceived' z, not y, when you said:
Yeah, that's what I meant. You quoted me, pre-edit, while I was wrestling with blasted 'database errors'.. . . Anyway, below is the full quote.
Remember a thread I started a while back; "what's really real?" That's where I first presented this thought experiment in order to support my position that reality can neither be objective nor subjective but CONTEXTUAL.
Objective reality implies that both subjects x and y must agree on the property of z.
Subjective reality ultimately amounts to solipsism (only the self exists, or can be proved to exist) which is bullshit imo.
So, when you think about it, contextual reality fits best with WSM theory in that spherical standing waves in our observable universe form within the context of other waves -- neighboring out-waves become in-waves -- which then become matter. As opposed to the particle model of matter where 'fields' have to be introduced to inter-connect discrete particles...
Actually, I don't think this experiment refutes an objective reality, because the tools used to determine the 'isness' of the color attribute is flawed, the observers eyes. While x and y may disagree on what the color is, what's objective is that photons are present regardless of the eye's ability to process the light and interpret a color. Referring to my 'bat' example from my quoted comment, color is only relevant if you can see. Contextual reality is applicable here because light synthesizing eyesight becomes the basic tool of determination, which is very anthropocentric, which is 'our' contextual frame of reference. Having said that, context is meaningful even purposeful, and damn near ubiquitous.
What this experiment does for me is define a juncture where contextual reality ends and objective reality begins. This tells me that much of what 'we' describe as reality, at least in a general sense, is too dependent or constrained by our biology and neurology. Perhaps it's the case that if we're speaking of 'experiential' observation, then it's contextual, whereas properties that are independent of 'our' sensory machinery describe an objective reality.
Your thoughts?
JG
Last edited:
nope. that changes the scenario. there's ONLY x, y and z.
Who calibrates the spectrometer? Using what standard? Again, even if there were one available, a spectrometer wouldn't help even if it measured at 600 billion % accuracy.
bullshit! Again, there's only THE truth. No 'absolute', 'relative', 'dependent', 'circumstantial' etc, truth. Just the truth. Of course as defined within a formal system of reasoning, aka bivalent logic (yes or no)
In other words, you cheatedNote I added assuming one of them is right to keep the numbers and odds easy, throw in the variable one of them could be wrong and we have some real math on our hands and I don't want to go there.
So, you're saying that definition, (attribute/property) and agreement (consensus) are necessary requirements for assigning the color of the object, opposed to a bunch of photons. But couldn't this be said of all characteristics of all things detectable by our 6 senses? Such that if these criteria (definition an agreement) are met, then any and every property we attribute to an object is objective?
1) Imo, just saying the object is a bunch of photons is of no use --especially if you're trying to differentiate it based on a property -- you might as well say that for every visible object.
2) That light is a bunch of photon particles is an assertion that requires definition and agreement (the STANDARD particle model of physics) Yes, no? In which it case "photons" can't exist independent of a measuring/processing apparatus.
You're right that the eye sight is probably not the best example i could have used based on the degree of the subjective nature of vision but our other 5 senses are also subjective to a degree.
3) Your last statement make a lot of sense and is actually what the thought experiment was meant to highlight: experience (reality) is context dependent
Just my thoughts...
Last edited:
The word ... your word, "started" implies a beginning. A beginning invokes time. So now what?
Also, all his statement imply's is that during the state of singularity time does not exist, actually the notion stands to reason being that there wouldn't be any reference points to measure it against, (nor would there be any motion or space for that matter).
However, in no shape or form, does the statement hold meaning that time didn't exist, prior to the state of the singularity....
For example if our universe were to suddenly contract to the state of a singularity all time, space and motion would instantaneously cease... And right after, once could correctly make the statement that at that moment time does not exist.
However, that does not mean that there never was time, nor does that statement accurately explain how the singularity got there in the first place..
I think by implying that the big bang was the absolute beginning to everything, Chaka is taking his statement out of proper context, because there isn't a single shred of evidence that remotely suggests its truth.
Typical post-modernist world-view, which has everything so fucked up in the world. I reject it.
Similar threads
