It is currently Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:52 am


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
Joe, take a look at this, it explains things and for once in my life I've found someone thinking along the same lines as me,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxSGFsan7bY
Short but to the point.
Enjoy....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Posts: 6505
Location: Manchester
Dear Joe and Quasar and Brian
I think I am diverse in thought from all of you on these cosmological issues. Having said that I think you are more advanced in your understanding of cosmology than me.
That said speaking "nastily" I do not hold modern cosmology in very big esteem even to a point of almost holding cosmologists in contempt !
One area I disagree with you Joe, is that I don't want to listen to cosmologists own pet thoughts (no matter how respected the cosmologists might be).
A few years ago I suggested on this forum that amateur astronomers should be allowed more freedom of thought (eg with their own pet theories) than say professionals.
And I still think that.
My reasoning being that very few people would take an amateur astronomers ideas seriously, but if say a respected cosmologist came up with a pet theory it would\might be likely to be accepted.
With regards "parallel universes" I have tended to think of them alongside
"mutiverses" but trying to get into what I think you hint at; perhaps the ideas of parallel universes and mutiverses are very different.
Whatever, I tend to treat both as cop-outs (although I think the ideas are very successful in quantum matters - although possibly only current temporary stop gap answers).
In the case of multi-verses, from what I gather they conveniently cater for all possible crcumstances.
We are told (though possibly mixing up parallel and multi-verses) that there is another replica of Earth and you and me somewhere else in another universe. Well I assume that means my "opo" equivalent has exactly the same make up as me (exactly the same atoms with their electrons doing exactly the same thing as me). Of course the other me is also doing exactly the same thing as me all the time. Well if that is the case it all seems a bit pointless - why is there need of other ecact replicas doing exactly the same thing. It would be bad enough having a lot of other universes but to have exact replicas behaving exactly the same would be pointless. Although of course arguably the whole point about the Universe might be it is pointless.
My pie eyed view of the Universe is it is infite. I suppose an infite number of same universes then also ocurring an infinite number of times would be the same.
Best wishes from Cliff


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
Cliff wrote:
Dear Joe and Quasar and Brian
I think I am diverse in thought from all of you on these cosmological issues. Having said that I think you are more advanced in your understanding of cosmology than me.
That said speaking "nastily" I do not hold modern cosmology in very big esteem even to a point of almost holding cosmologists in contempt !
One area I disagree with you Joe, is that I don't want to listen to cosmologists own pet thoughts (no matter how respected the cosmologists might be).
A few years ago I suggested on this forum that amateur astronomers should be allowed more freedom of thought (eg with their own pet theories) than say professionals.
And I still think that.
My reasoning being that very few people would take an amateur astronomers ideas seriously, but if say a respected cosmologist came up with a pet theory it would\might be likely to be accepted.
With regards "parallel universes" I have tended to think of them alongside
"mutiverses" but trying to get into what I think you hint at; perhaps the ideas of parallel universes and mutiverses are very different.
Whatever, I tend to treat both as cop-outs (although I think the ideas are very successful in quantum matters - although possibly only current temporary stop gap answers).
In the case of multi-verses, from what I gather they conveniently cater for all possible crcumstances.
We are told (though possibly mixing up parallel and multi-verses) that there is another replica of Earth and you and me somewhere else in another universe. Well I assume that means my "opo" equivalent has exactly the same make up as me (exactly the same atoms with their electrons doing exactly the same thing as me). Of course the other me is also doing exactly the same thing as me all the time. Well if that is the case it all seems a bit pointless - why is there need of other ecact replicas doing exactly the same thing. It would be bad enough having a lot of other universes but to have exact replicas behaving exactly the same would be pointless. Although of course arguably the whole point about the Universe might be it is pointless.
My pie eyed view of the Universe is it is infite. I suppose an infite number of same universes then also ocurring an infinite number of times would be the same.
Best wishes from Cliff

Hi Cliff, I don't think that people understand Cosmology better than what you do, people have different perceptions of what takes place which may include ideas you may not have given thought to. Doesn't make them better at perceiving what is around them better than you do though.
Everyone is different and has different perceptions of what they hear, smell, taste, see and feel. Those perceptions we all experience are not wrong from our own point of view but different from someone else's perception.
The multiverse or parallel question as far as the Quantum field is concerned are very real because we have witnessed those events, how those events expand into and effect our living world are currently not understood by anyone and I mean anyone. The simple argument concerning parallel Universe's is that an infinite number of them are created at every instant from our preception but that is because of how the human mind works and because the human mind may not be able to see things as they really are. For example, we as humans do not know what happens to 'all the other possibilities'. I sit here typing on the keyboard and I move my arm to the left. That movement created and altered my own personal history but I might think to myself 'where would i be and what would i be doing now if I hadn't moved my arm'?
'what would have happened if i'd moved it to the right'? 'did I move it to the right in another Universe'?
There is an infinite number of possibilities of what you could do next but to you personally there is only one. The question we ask ourselves is 'what happens to all those infinite possiblities that as far as yourself is concerned never took place'?
Personally speaking Cliff, I do not believe that this scenario exists outside of the Quantum field and that Occam's Razor is the best thinking to deploy. What we see is real and happens only once and that is the most simple straight forward explanation and complicating it further than that is totally unnecessary. We don't need to complicate it further than it needs to be.
We as Humans however are forever trying to work out how things work and the land of the very small interests us quite a lot. The world of the Quantum is another Universe with a different set of rules compared with what we see up here. When I moved my arm to the left like a mentioned above, in the land of the Quantum a whole bunch of complications is taking place, because Sub atomic particles don't know what you and I are going to do next they have to prepare themselves for every possible outcome at the same time. That means those particles have to be able to be everywhere at the same time in one form then when something does take place be at that location in another form. Hence the wave function and then a particle function. I don't think this is over complicated, I think it's ingenious how nature does it and it amazes me.
When you transfer this mechanism into a bigger picture i.e a star sitting in a vacuum in open space, the same picture appears in the fact that time and space need to prepare themselves for every possibility of where that star could be. The difference being of course that spacetime replaces the Quantum wave function.
What we must understand though Cliff is that what we see out there and how we perceive it is ralated to our own Human brain and that brains perception of it with the tools we have available in the environment we live. As long as people understand that it is only a perception then we will be just fine. I wouldn't say any of you're own perceptions were wrong Cliff, I could only argue that they are not the same as mine. Doesn't make me right and you wrong.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:21 pm
Posts: 11
Location: Northumberland
Well, dark matter - an invention without foundation? Age of the Universe changing? Etc. Etc. We're still swimming through mud, barely seeing where we're going.

But one thing I'm certain of from my own observations. The passage of time is NOT fixed! As I get older it passes quicker and quicker.

Peter. :wink:


Last edited by petevasey on Sat May 01, 2010 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5279
Location: Lancashire
There's a psychological reason for why time passes "quicker" the older we get.
Older people have a greater stock of memories than younger people. This means that we spend more time inside our heads, sifting through memory, than the younger, who spend more time in the present.
If we want the day to be "longer", we should ignore memory ( not easy to do ) and stay in the present. A single day will seem like an eternity.

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:26 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4376
Location: Greenwich, London
Quasar wrote:
Joe, take a look at this, it explains things and for once in my life I've found someone thinking along the same lines as me,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxSGFsan7bY
Short but to the point.
Enjoy....

Well, you have now found two who think along the same lines as I agree with his thinking. Thanks for the link, he does get to the point.

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5279
Location: Lancashire
I might be misunderstanding Wilson here, but he seems to be too subjective about "reality".
Surely, we know what is "real" and what isn't? If we want to know if something conforms to our idea of it, we try it out. Truth lies in practice.
Good old English empiricism. :wink: Easy when you know how, in'it? Or am I being naive? :lol:

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:28 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4376
Location: Greenwich, London
Quote:
If we want to know if something conforms to our idea of it, we try it out.


As Wilson says, and has been said before in this forum, if you try to detect a photon with a wave detecter you will see photons as waves. If you use a particle detector you will see photons as particles. If you detect something with your eyes, you see something that your eyes are adapted to see.

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5279
Location: Lancashire
In other words, it depends on our frame of reference and each frame is true within its own parameters.

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:38 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4376
Location: Greenwich, London
I guess so, but then that's quite subjective, is it not?

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5279
Location: Lancashire
Not really, Joe. The observed phenomena are real. In all of their diversity, they actually occur, which makes them objective rather than subjective. The phenomena can also be utilised in practical life: radio, TV, etc. So much for Wilson's "naive realism".
Besides, what on earth do Platonism and Buddhism have to do with quantum mechanics?
Do I misunderstand you? :? :D

_________________
brian


Last edited by brian livesey on Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:06 am
Posts: 11
To me The Big Bang unfolded of Space and Matter. With the warming and cooling the particles such as neutrons etc were created. Hydrogen, helium and all the other elements came together with gravity that created everything.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 2:47 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4376
Location: Greenwich, London
brian livesey wrote:
Do I misunderstand you? :? :D

If you think that I am implying that they are not real then yes! :D

But I don't think you are, I hope. The problem arises when trying to define these phenomena. We resort to mathematics, as that is the most suitable language to describe the apparent duality and contradiction. For me that makes our view subjective. As you have said in the past, these are mental constructs, not real.

Plato held that what we see is not reality, rather shadows (mathematical, mental constructs) of the real, perfect entity (the phenomenon itself).

I have no idea where Buddhism fits in.

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5279
Location: Lancashire
I'm familiar with Plato's "Universals", the point being that Plato was an idealist ( subjectivism ), whereas quantum mechanics is materialist ( objectivism ).
Notice that in listening to Wilson, the lay-person can be forgiven for confounding the theory ( mathematics ) with the practice ( the phenomena ). Physicists should take care here that they don't confuse the public.
A consequence of confounding theory with practice is that we can fall into the idealist trap of thinking that the universe is a creation of the mind, which taken to its limit would imply that only I exist. :shock:
This might explain why the lady sitting next to Wilson is on the bottle. :lol:

_________________
brian


Last edited by brian livesey on Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:23 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4376
Location: Greenwich, London
brian livesey wrote:
A consequence of confounding theory with practice is that we can fall into the idealist trap of thinking that the universe is a creation of the mind,

I don't see anyone with any sense falling into that trap. As I see it, Wilson is only suggesting that the mind, through our senses, is one of many tools we employ to detect the universe - not create it.

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group