Search results

Infinity and perfection is not the same as the idea of infinity and perfection.

Awareness? The higher dimensional architecture that supports and instantiates conscious thought -- beyond that possibly yet unseen complex and evolving forces, far more complex than fundamental forces we see in our everyday 3 dimensional view of the world.

They are not connected in regard to the question posed at the beginning of the thread - however, I believe it is necessary to question our own motivations because the question more or less shapes how we act. Who here is being completely honest with themselves? It's not that I don't think there...

It is my guess that those who believe we are not always selfish also believe that love is the highest form of emotion that is able to (ever) be experienced.

I don't think physics in it's present form (it's need for objective evidence and falsifiable thoeries) is capable of handling ontological questions. And I don't think physics is necessarily applying reason to reality. It's applying reason to epistemic names and concepts, which may or may not...

But by my reckoning, my "life as a human" is not to breath or digest food. My function is to perceive and react to thoughts and sensory information. But it does have meaning to me because I myself have found awe in that statement. It's this primacy thing I'm trying to understand. The...

Rade, I understand your position, but who was it that interpreted the unconscious thought "I Exist"? Thoughts are merely bits of brain activity. Without consciousness they are devoid of any meaning. You have made a distinction between subconscious and conscious, but you haven't explained...

It's funny how people hold on to the idea of an objective reality. I would support an actual reality of existance, but to me this reality is necessarily unexplainable, because it doesn't concord with any species of reasoning or logic. In my own theory of consciousness, objective reality takes...

I think you're right but I'm still confused with these brackets. It seems that the first bracket encompasses the whole formula, including (p & q) and the = (tribar). Argh! I was never good at algebra.

In my Intro to Logic textbook there is a truth-table with the formula: (~(p & q) = (~p v ~q)) The equal sign is meant to be a tribar What is the main operator in this formula? I think it is the first tilde but the textbook indicates that it is the tribar. Does anyone know the correct...

Noone said this was a math problem. It could easily be a philosophical problem. Indeed, many philosophers have pondered this very question in different words and symbols

Maths has limited utility in answering this problem because it's answer does not correspond with reality. That's why I call it a philosophical problem. I do concede though that in maths 0.9~=1. But if that's all you care about then you'll never learn anything.

No no. The point I was making was that every number that isn't whole is already (potentially) infinite in terms of the infinite regress involved when trying to quantize something.

Who said it was?

1 and 1/3 are different forms of representation. The example you gave is correct, 1/3 is predicated on there is a 1/3 that can be found and definately measured. It is a potential representation. This is a predicate in mathematics not reality. The case is different with 0.9~=1. The number 1 is a...

Do I have to? So what? Mathematics uses potential infinities not actual ones. This experiment...getting to 1 is a problem because in maths potential infinities exist whereas in reality they don't. This experiment is reality based, despite its mathematical content. It involves the...

1/3 is a non-mathematical representation of a potential infinity: 0.333...etc. There is no such thing as an actual infinity. I refer to the Hilbert's hotel paradox. Potential infinities exist in mathematics because it is a theoretical tool. Let me put it this way: does 0.9 = 1? No does 0.99...

I'd say the virus is no more alive than the weather in the sense that it is a natural system. It really is an oddity of evolution in that way. If you've ever seen that movie the Andromeda strain it shows how something can evolve without necessarily being alive. Evolution is a completely...

Yes but the difference is I can percieve the third dimension. I can't percieve time. All I see is a linking of causal events. The alarm clock is actually a good example of the illusion of a measurement of time. The causal events occuring in the alarm clock are very consistent,(the...

I ask this becuase I see time as the free flow of cause and effect within our own consciouness. And a descriptor for the process of change in the world around us. What if all events suddenly ceased to happen - the universe completely static. Does time still flow for the physicist...

Why is 10 a base number? Why not 4? Is it because we can count to 10 on our fingers? This sounds like a stupid question I know but it's been bugging me.

the fourth doctor hands down Boursa: "You have access to the greatest source of knowledge in the universe." Doctor: "Well, I do talk to myself sometimes." from doctor who: the invasion of time

I was being flippant.

According to Max Weber, the protestant ethic (and its concept of 'the calling') coupled with the spirit of capitalism made prtoestants wealthy in the 18th century. They did however, refrain from indulging in their wealth. In this case, hard work was definately percieved as a good thing...

In my opinion, every act is wholly self-centred, thus there is no such thing as a good or evil act. The very notion of good and evil depends on the assumption that there is something more than our own physical being (such as a soul that has moral impetus). A materialist would have problems...

I read John Gribbon's In Search of Schrodinger's Cat recently and have spent many moments puzzling over the implications of QM. Particularly this passage: Imagine an arrangement that records which hole an electron goes through but lets it pass on its way to the detector screen. Now the...

cheers loop

and what about a photon?

Is an electron everywhere at once within a waveform?

2 reasons why we see a higher percentage of INTJ 1%ers here. 1. The obvious: Physics forums are a stomping ground for the NT rationalist. 2. INTJs are independent and strong-willed, yet the 1% statistic confirms something their intuition always suspected. This validates the INTJ, knowing...