Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Did you really believe that ?

  1. Yes.

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  2. No!

    5 vote(s)
    83.3%
  3. Physics is subserviant to Psychology.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Psychology is subserviant to Psychology

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Aug 16, 2004 #1
    Let me cut through the manifold of disagreements, and formulae you are working with. While I've never been adept at sorting through in my mind the mass amount of formulae and ideas. The archaic definitions, and the formal logic that encompasses the profession of physics and math, are a cumbersome tool that seems to obfusicate for speed, rather than literature.

    You're coming at a problem with bold aggression, and to wither down reality to it's basic precepts. But are you not missing something whenever you try to make it logical for this world to exist?

    This could be taken as a rant against established science, and it's manifest economy in the current stake in the world. But everyone who understands what quantum mechanics entails encompasses more than just the layman who is a willing participant in it's machinations.

    You are trying to describe the human mind. Admit that to yourselves, and you will unleash it's unfortold fortunes, and inherent in every discovery, it's ability to replicate, and in replication displace it's so called lesser creations. This multiplicity ensues, causing destruction to cascade around the edges, as a snake sheding it's skin.

    What you are trying to prove is that you are objective. This has to be what you are attempting to prove, simply because if you tried to prove elsewise, you would be running a circular argument. Since you need a definite concise conclusion, you cannot say that this conclusion will be circular.

    I have read poincare's treatise on the use of science, and I have come to the conclusion, that your abstractions are simply machinations made to produce a map of how the human conciousness interacts.

    This is the truth that will set you free, because once you realize that you are grabing for your own hand, so to speak, or as the chapel of the sistine shows, you are attempting to touch the hand of god. While this is not inherently evil, being ignorant of what you are trying to do will be evil incarnate.

    I am sure many of you have realized thus far, that what you are probing at is human conciousness. The evidence is manifold in the way electrons are incapable of being stripped of their information, and that in all probablity, these electrons are strung (string) in an unending sequence, and thus the cascading of the system. Everytime you check, it cascades infinitely through the system.

    What you are trying to pull at, is whether matter is infinite or whether it is finite. This means, in your string theory, whether there are uncoupled electrons out there, and how many of these strings get.

    Do not look at this incredulously, because before hand, you feel satisfied with extracating yourself from the act, while your logic dictates that you cannot. You will not find anything of use, as long as your belief stems from an abhorrent view of human reaction.

    We cannot know ourselves, we will only know that which tries to test us, or that which we test. This is the only knowledge of ourselves that is possible, and the time it takes to put this forth as a theorm, it will manifold itself, and return back erroneous data.

    This data, that you wish to fit to a set, or a few sets, will never yield what you wish. What the altruist wishes, for I am sure many study the phield of physics for it's exemplerary findings, or it's cash sum. However, those that are in it to discover the truely infinite within themselves, are finding themselves swamped beyond recognition of the very basis of our understanding.

    If it is true that quantum mechanics dictates a theory such as chaos, then it is in your best interest to discover why it is that a human cannot know itself. Why unlike every living thing, it is humans who do not know themselves. For why would we search for understanding, unity, if we did know ourself?

    Throw this away as simple philosophy if you would like, for it is nothing more to you if you cannot put it into your own language, your own vision, and your own preconceptions about imminent inception.

    Your own psychologies tailor the way mathematics views all the inanimate things around us. For it is filled with the religious theocracy, and the Atheistic determinism. Neither of which will find what is truly happening, because both believe that some how they can be an independant observer, when reality suggests that they can only observe what others allow them to.

    :rofl: :surprise:

    I am sure you have heard this before, that your science is a fatalistic expression of a humanity that forever wishes to diagnosis, then suture up it's vision of reality.

    This is not fatalistic, nor is it deterministic. You are the one viewing this apperition as such, you put the logic together in your own mind. I do not do it for you, thus the conclusion you wish is perscribed by that electron being destroyed at the center of the blackhole, and reappearing in the sun, just to tick another time through your own brain.

    We are connected, but through this connection, we are in an exponetial decay, a decay that is in our own minds. We cannot know ourselves, to do so would be to destroy what that knowledge is. This is why quantum cryptography works, once we attempt to view the system, we thusly eradicate the knowledge that was there.

    You can come at me with your technical jargon, and try to show me that your logic, or your course to logic is impeccable. But as soon as you do such, you will be only aware that the infallible statement is the one that is made to fail.

    Why did I come here, if it was understandable that no one would agree? Why would anyone put forth effort into their own destruction?

    There only exists creation, not religious creation, simply creation. It is creation that destroys our environment, it is the accumulation, and the secularization of knowledge that beckons destruction. It is the nature of the beast that wishes to end it's own life that he searches for prey.

    Every step along the way is simply a foot hold that was made come another day, or was placed another way in days long gone.

    If you wish, i'll describe what I believe:

    I believe that reincarnation is a fact.
    I believe that reincarnation takes any form that we, concious, deem 'alive'
    I believe that reincarnation, like the spins of electrons, know little of time, thus negating the need to only be reincarnated in the future, but also in the past.
    I believe that the mass corporeal existence is threatened by those who wish to prove that existence can live elsewhere, or that nothing truly exists.
    I believe that unity while possible, is the end play, where your 'branes' will reenact the focal point of existence once more
    I believe love is beauty, and in beauty we find whats on the otherside of our food source, the air we breath, the thoughts we stream, and the life we reticulate
    I believe we will not find an answer till we admit the truth we are searching for


    -- :rofl:

    The truth mathematics and physics are searching for is the state of the human condition. We want to know why it is possible for us to be concious of our inablity to know ourselves. Furthermore, why it is possible to exist without knowing the subsistence with which we exist, why it is impossible to know anything but the outward expression of others existence.

    Why we know how others think, but cannot codify what we think ourselves, why we are capable of love, yet in doing so we wish to destroy the surroundings, thus elevating that which we love.

    There is a time for everything, there is a place for everything, but why is there neither a time XOR a place for everything?

    If a tree falls in the forest, and lands on the last chicken on earth, laying an egg and no one is around, does it make a sound XOR which came first, the chicken or the egg?

    Failure to believe that what you are searching for is the equivelent of trying to map the human brain. You even use the term Brane, as if that was some clever reticule to make conversations shorter.

    All your mathematics and physics will inexorably be used to probe the human mind. And when you find that the human mind rejects your supposition, you'll try harder, and eventually, all your attempts will receive the answer. The answer you most likely will not like, and one of two possibilities exist:

    One, you will find that the answer is just another qubit, just another level, more complex.
    Two, you will find the ceasation of matter, releasing the quantum bomb.

    Do you really believe that you can stop an atom from vibrating, and nothing will happen? How neive.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 16, 2004 #2

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This discussion doesn't belong here. Try a philosophy forum.

    Patrick.
     
  4. Aug 16, 2004 #3
    Physics is pretty much of how things work and psychology is to do with mental...something like that.
     
  5. Aug 16, 2004 #4
    One of the basic assumptions of science is that nature can be understood,otherwise the scientific quest would be useless.We have no good reason to think that consciousness is above nature and there is absolutely no reason to think that science cannot account for it,in spite of today's situation in cognitive sciences.Secondly science is intrinsically fallibilistic so no final assumptions are made,some new data could change things dramatically.We have the right to define knowledge even in absence of certitudes,knowledge is not sinonymous with 'absolute truth'.But for this we need sufficient reasons.And it happens that there are no such sufficient reasons to back reincarnation for example and to consider it 'objective knowledge' (though certainly you have the right to believe,subjectively,that it does) or that consciousness involves more than the physical brain from all 'objective' data we have now.

    You need more than mere skepticism (notwithstanding rational,there are sufficient reasons for this stance) to say that scientific quest is misleaded or fatally limited (scientists openly accept that science might be fatally limited,incapable to account for consciousness anyway).Merely pointing out that the actual approach has some problems does not suffice (it is controversial even the [validity of deduction] or the frequentist interpretation of probabilities,widely used in science as a way of acquiring 'objective' knowledge about the world).

    The doubt cast upon the epistemological privilege of the actual set of scientific enunciations and of the scientific method itself by relativists based on the impossibility to justify induction inside logic and on the underdetermination of theories (some put forward even its 'strong' variant that there is underdetermination irrespective of the amount of empirical data gathered) are not enough,we have much more reasons to prefer to grant an epistemological privilege to the actual scientific method (well at least to a flexible method consisting in a minimum of criterions of what is science;sometimes ad hoc,even seemingly metaphysical,hypotheses are very helpful,but certainly not 'everything goes',not all ad hoc hypotheses are on the same level of rational preference,there are different degrees of 'ad hocness',we can still make a rational difference among them).
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2004
  6. Aug 16, 2004 #5
    Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context.

    Your arguments are reductio ad absurdium. In other words, you have rediscovered an ancient Greek method for playing with words.

    Have fun! :0)
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Did you really believe that ?
  1. Believe me Believe you (Replies: 2)

  2. Would you believe (Replies: 9)

Loading...