A question that came out spontaneously, what do you think?
Following Kant you would be exactly right in saying that it is not a philosophical question.This is not scientific nor philosophical in the smallest regard.
Thank you, I have a dictionary. I am interested in the OP context of thoughts.Transcend: to pass beyond the limits of.
No it would not be redundant if you say for instance that space-time emerges from loop quantum gravity, or from twistor space, or from any other mechanism you can mathematically define (or at least describe).The phrase "the fabric" in "the fabric of space and time" is redundant, so we could reformulate this as simply "spacetime."
So this is not a scientific question, since by definition (such as Einstein was describing in great details more than a century ago), space-time should be understood as comprehending the entire Universe, including possible extension we are not yet aware of, and which were later suggested by the flexibility of the equations.Can mankind go beyond the limits of spacetime?
Nobody could possibly convince anybody else either way, provided one has already make up his mind on this question. Once again this is not scientific.I do not know anyone who can convincingly argue that we are merely material bodies.
My abstract thoughts are located in the chemical reactions taking place in the neurons of my brain.Our more abstract thoughts already seem to be beyond space and time, so it seems that without our mundane bodily lives we would all be beyond space and time.
I do not know what book you read, but I can tell you I personally talked to people who measure antineutrons fall. Antimatter does not fly away in a gravitational field, this is an experimental fact. There is no such thing as antigravity. This is science-fiction.using advanced antimatter reactors(which have not been invented yet) you can develop an anti gravity field around a craft
I think the technics you are referring to in your previous post require negative energy density. Basically, there are Hawking theorems which prove you will not be able to do fancy stuff such as time travel and teleportation (or merely over-speeding light) unless you break some energy positivity condition.Anti gravity is not like gravity at all... All i am saying is that energy evolved during annihilation can be used to create a repulsive force field around the desired object, which can be used to counteract effects of gravity.
I think the answer to that one will not satisfy you : gravity is always attractive for the same reason that mass is always positive.But there is no reason for antigravity to not exist. Of all the four fundamental forces other three attract as well as repell.. so why should gravity just attract?
You can't literally mean that the thoughts are in my brain, the same way that my brain is in my skull. You must mean that you think the chemical reactions somehow give rise to thoughts. But there is no mathematical or scientific formulation of this idea, and so your idea is just as nonsensical as any other.My abstract thoughts are located in the chemical reactions taking place in the neurons of my brain.
I am sorry that you have changed your mind, and am interested to know what could possibly have convinced you.You can't literally mean that the thoughts are in my brain, the same way that my brain is in my skull. You must mean that you think the chemical reactions somehow give rise to thoughts. But there is no mathematical or scientific formulation of this idea, and so your idea is just as nonsensical as any other.
If I type a thought into the computer, that doesn't mean the thought is in the computer, but only a typed symbolic record of it. In fact it would require thought to interpret the typed symbolic record as a thought. Don't confuse the thing that holds a record of the thoughts (computer memory, the human brain) with the thing that has (feels) thoughts.
By the way, I am a physicist and I also formerly held on to the nonsensical dogmatic belief that "thoughts are identical to the electro-chemical processes of the brain."
I studied the history of philosophy for a few years. Now it's hard for me to discourse with other physicists, because they are only playing with half a deck.I am sorry that you have changed your mind, and am interested to know what could possibly have convinced you.
In logical discourse the standard for claims of impossibility is nothing less than rigorous proof. This means that your claim is unfortunately based only on a feeling that you have. Stories like this are not totally uncommon, I also know of one involving a graduate student in mathematics who was functionally identical to his colleagues:There is nothing nonsensical about it. No one is confusing the brain with any special magical 'feeling' of thoughts. Your thoughts can not exist without your physical brain.
Physical input is irrelevant to my argument. The plain fact that we have any thoughts, whether based on a physical reality or not, is enough to ask "what's going on?"It is that simple. Just because the human brain has the wonderful ability to experience the senses without physical input dose not mean that there is anything magical going on.
When all else fails, use connotations ("feelings") and talk louder ("ZERO"). How about this as empirical evidence: "I see the color red."As a physicist, why would you rather assume that an option based on ZERO logical and empirical evidence is in anyway viable? Why would you base a belief, ANY belief on 'feelings' and whimsical ideals? We all know how incredibly subjective 'feelings' can be.
What is this logical way of describing and quantifying thoughts in terms of electro-chemical processes?There is however a logical way of describing and quantifying with the scientific method the reasons why 'thoughts' which exist only in the imagination of a brain seem so intangible.
I agree, that has been our best model so far. But the questions in this thread go beyond our current physical models. Don't you realize that what you are stating as a universal fact is actually a model that has existed for less than 10^(-18) % of the duration of the universe, and has weakly been confirmed by limited observation of the light that is visible from this solitary planet? Remember that cosmology predicts that up to 98% of the mass in the universe is exotic matter that is not to be found on the periodic table, and so we must admit that we have no idea what forces between these particles must be like. Don't let "the quest for the theory of everything" hype affect your thinking about what is possible, we should be willing to admit how much we don't know.Gravity is not a force. It is a pseudo force that arises from the nature of spacetime.
ok seeing as einstein was the greatest mind we have ever known and he said that gravity is just mass making a dent in the fabric of space-time which governs everything we have ever experienced, I'd say he was right. So gravity is not an attractive force but just objects "falling" towards other larger objects which create a bigger dent in space-time. Now how do we create anti-matter then? The absense of a dent in space-time? wouldnt that just be space-time? so there would be nothing falling or repelling.But there is no reason for antigravity to not exist. Of all the four fundamental forces other three attract as well as repell.. so why should gravity just attract?
Proof by authority is not valid, and Einstein succeeded because of his hardwork, not because of his intelligence. Consider what the great mathematician David Hilbert said:ok seeing as einstein was the greatest mind we have ever known and he said that gravity is just mass making a dent in the fabric of space-time which governs everything we have ever experienced, I'd say he was right.
I never said that Einstein was wrong, I just pointed out that he is far from being "the greatest mind we have ever known." You must have low perception if you think I said he was wrong.haha so your saying einstein was wrong? ask nasa if they agree! or even people in Hiroshima for that matter haha