Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

What does make the world turn?
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:09 am

String theory is misnamed. It is not a theory. It is barely a hypothesis. Maybe a speculation ?

Until it can be tested empirically, meaning it must generate a testable prediction, it is just pink unicorns.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:23 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:String theory is misnamed. It is not a theory. It is barely a hypothesis. Maybe a speculation ?

Until it can be tested empirically, meaning it must generate a testable prediction, it is just pink unicorns.

What do you mean by that............its just a speculation? Its in the freaking dictionary: "a three dimensional hypersurface embedded in a higher dimensional bulk." As a hypersurface....shirley we can run around and play on it?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26774
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:01 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:String theory is misnamed. It is not a theory. It is barely a hypothesis. Maybe a speculation ?

Until it can be tested empirically, meaning it must generate a testable prediction, it is just pink unicorns.


Fair enough. It's just a mathematical model like the standard model of the atom. However it was the application of "field mathematics" that lead to quantum mechanics......so......you may as well start from somewhere.... :D

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8237
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Poodle » Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:19 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:... As a hypersurface....shirley we can run around and play on it?

Yes - just strap on your HyperbootsTM and you can play to your heart's content.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:52 am

The standard model of the atom led to testable predictions.
Quantum mechanics led to testable predictions.

Those predictions were tested and could not be falsified, giving strength to both ideas.
String "theory " has not done this.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:00 am

to be fair, String Theory doesn't aim to be more accurate than Relativity and Quantum Mechanics; it tries to combine the two into a unified theory and remove the cases where the tow contradict each other.

So it's more a question of whether is ST is more elegant/efficient than switching between the two theories as necessary.
Currently, it isn't.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:37 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Gord wrote:Besides, if it's supposed to be paradise, nobody wants a copy of me in there. :beee:
I can visualize it...

"Excuse me, who's in charge here? I need to make a complaint. There are at least a dozen signs in this so-called paradise that are mis-spelled. How can you call it paradise when I'm miserable every time I'm forced to look at imperfection? Fix it, already." :mrgreen:
FTFY
Wreckage.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:45 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:face it, not that many female wizard players
My main avatar was a female elf who was a chaotic good wizard. :mrgreen: Our Dungeon Master was also female...and harsh. I recall narrowly escaping with my life because I failed to specify how I was still holding onto the rope from which I was dangling whilst gesturing with both hands. She didn't kill me for it, but I did flip upside down and lose needed supplies as a result. :oops:
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10528
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:35 pm

He may already be stoned.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26774
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:17 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The standard model of the atom led to testable predictions.
Quantum mechanics led to testable predictions.

Those predictions were tested and could not be falsified, giving strength to both ideas.
String "theory " has not done this.


String Theory Finally Does Something Useful
"We can use string theory to solve problems in a different area of physics," said theoretical physicist Michael Duff of Imperial College London. "In that context it's actually useful: We can make statements which you could in principle check by experiment." Duff and his colleagues describe their findings in a paper in Physical Review Letters September 2.
https://www.wired.com/2010/09/stringy-quantum/

As Electric Monk states, String theory is a model that includes gravity. In this article, String Theory predicted something else which wasn't expected.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:47 am

That is fine, Matthew. But there is saying about the proof in the pudding ......

In other words, string theory must be used to make a testable prediction, which is then tested. If that is done, and the prediction is not falsified, I will be very happy to take it more seriously.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26774
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:49 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:That is fine, Matthew. But there is saying about the proof in the pudding ......

In other words, string theory must be used to make a testable prediction, which is then tested. If that is done, and the prediction is not falsified, I will be very happy to take it more seriously.


Lance. You and I are in same boat. We don't know yet.....but we are both watching. :D

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Confidencia » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:46 am

And by the looks of it without a poodle sorry paddle. If you widen your aperture you will not have to sit there like two peas in a pod waiting to get mushy over the next theory base. You can see the reality of it instead. The source of the universe cannot be governed by the universe's that it manifests. And there are lots of them.

Ultimately there can be no single set of rules that could possibly explain all physical interactions in the observable universe because the consciousness of it is changeful and always on the move (simple logic). Your dream world hangs on a thread of consciousness (this is your string theory) :lol:

You don't know what you are doing from one day to the next, even your quantum theories predict this uncertainty. Of course you have a technical idea but you see how ignorant your science is? You are trying to test things on the smallest of scale without having the technological ability to do so. In regards to truth, life, reality, consciousness you will always be chasing your tail and getting lost up your rear end. But hey when you are ignorant of your own ignorance what do you expect? :mrgreen: 's

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:00 am

Confidencia

Those of us who study science are very, very aware of how little we know. But, the real ignoramuses are those who try to avoid science and come up with intuitive ideas to replace science. Those guys are the genuine crackpots.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26774
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:29 am

Confidencia wrote: Ultimately there can be no single set of rules that could possibly explain all physical interactions in the observable universe because the consciousness of it is changeful and always on the move (simple logic).


You really are an idiot. The rule of the universe were established .00001 nanoseconds after the big bang, when no conscious thing was present. You simply suffer medieval religious narcissism in thinking life has anything to do with the rules of the universe, when no life was even present for billions of years. :lol:

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11441
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Major Malfunction » Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:24 am

Inside a black hole.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:43 am

Emergence creates new laws out of selecting only parts of the basic physical ones.
The universe wasn't created for life, but life is making a great effort at bending the universe to its will.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Confidencia » Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:34 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Confidencia wrote: Ultimately there can be no single set of rules that could possibly explain all physical interactions in the observable universe because the consciousness of it is changeful and always on the move (simple logic).


You really are an idiot. The rule of the universe were established .00001 nanoseconds after the big bang, when no conscious thing was present. You simply suffer medieval religious narcissism in thinking life has anything to do with the rules of the universe, when no life was even present for billions of years. :lol:


On the contrary. Life, consciousness, reality is independent of the mind, it is neither conscious nor unconscious. So which Big Bang are we talking about here? There is one every time consciousness explodes into being. Life as you know it was not present billions of years ago. Life as it is has always been the case. Whether there is an observer or not is irrelevant.

Long live drallE the drateR! :mrgreen:

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Confidencia » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:11 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Confidencia

Those of us who study science are very, very aware of how little we know. But, the real ignoramuses are those who try to avoid science and come up with intuitive ideas to replace science. Those guys are the genuine crackpots.



Yes Lance, indeed they are. And there are those of us who acknowledge the genuine crackpots and their genius. If it wasn't for these people science would not be where it is today.

Like ellard you study books lance or rather other people's findings, thinking for yourself would probably be too much of an arduous task for you. The way I see it it is not avoidance but rather seeing the obvious.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:41 pm

No, Confidencia.

I think for myself. But unlike the crackpots, I apply a little discipline to my thinking. This means I do not come up with clear signs of ignorance and silliness. I do not postulate stuff for which there is no empirical evidence, such as the universe having a consciousness.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26774
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:00 pm

Confidencia wrote: On the contrary. Life, consciousness, reality is independent of the mind.......blah blah blah,
Who cares? You made a really stupid religious claim that the rules of the universe are defined by consciousness, yet there were no minds, consciousness or anything other than photons, electrons and protons when the universe started and its rules were defined.

Your religious fantasy makes no sense. Go away.
:lol:

Subaru7
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Subaru7 » Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:25 am

'
It is well known in physics that the Planck Energy [square-root(h-bar x c^5/G) =1,956,330,837 Joules] is the highest energy possible in a single, well-defined quantum interaction.

Few people have considered what is the lowest possible energy. Yet it is obvious that this energy is equal to h-bar divided by the Hubble-age of the universe: 1.844932405 x 10^-52 Joules.

Apart from a geometrical factor, the ratio of these two energies equals the square root of the information content of the visible universe out to the event horizon at this particular epoch: 1.124407560 x 10^122 bits of information.

The entire physical history of the universe up to the present epoch may be regarded as the superposition of 1.124 E122 quanta of the lowest possible energy.

Since the time-uncertainty of each of these quanta extends back to the Big Bang, every single aspect of the history of the universe may, potentially, be modified.

In practical terms, only the universe itself is capable of modifying its entire history. Even quite minor modifications of the past require the coordination and resonance of a stupendous number of such low-energy quanta.

This is the real reason why time travel is impractical, in the sense of transferring large quantities of Shannon-type information.
.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Confidencia » Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:58 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:No, Confidencia.

I think for myself. But unlike the crackpots, I apply a little discipline to my thinking. This means I do not come up with clear signs of ignorance and silliness. I do not postulate stuff for which there is no empirical evidence, such as the universe having a consciousness.


You do nothing but postulate. Nothing you know is first hand, it is borrowed knowledge. You've applied constraints and limitations to you person which have been imposed upon you by the others. This means that the root cause of your various modes of thought and patterns and ways of thinking are conventional and manufactured .

Reality is under no obligation to fit into a frame work of discipline manufactured, self imposed or otherwise. Behavioural patterns is what prevents you from seeing the obvious. Self control is a noteworthy endeavour if put to good use, such as keeping the mind in abeyance. But a mind steeped in personal bias is not exactly conducive to free thinking. The child is out for the toy, the mother watches the child. Similarly you must learn to look at the mind and not its content, the content is subject to change. The mechanism will not change unless it is dislodged by some crises.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11441
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Major Malfunction » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:33 pm

Subaru7 wrote:'
It is well known in physics that the Planck Energy [square-root(h-bar x c^5/G) =1,956,330,837 Joules] is the highest energy possible in a single, well-defined quantum interaction.
[SNIP]
This is the real reason why time travel is impractical, in the sense of transferring large quantities of Shannon-type information.
.

So, presuming you could make a bubble say, 2 metres diametre, how much energy would it take to go one second back in time?
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:43 pm

Confidencia

The modern scientific revolution began with the realisation that mere thought was insufficient to discover what is true. What is needed is empiricism. That is, real world testing. Those of us with proper discipline and the ability to think rationally, look for good empirical evidence to support what we are told. When someone says the universe has consciousness, we realise that there is exactly zero empirically based evidence behind that assertion. As such, we know not to accept it.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26774
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:02 am

Confidencia wrote:You do nothing but postulate. Nothing you know is first hand, it is borrowed knowledge.

You just destroyed your own "philosophy" again.

A photon created and destroyed does not have to be observed by any consciousness to actually exist. We can measure it in other ways...after the event.

Your entire human-centric religious "philosophy" requires human consciousness to exist, which didn't exist for 13,6 billion years after the Universe started. Yet the universe was real for that entire 13.6 billion years.

Why do you run away from such huge holes in your religious human-centric "philosophy"?
:lol:

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Confidencia » Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:16 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Confidencia wrote: On the contrary. Life, consciousness, reality is independent of the mind.......blah blah blah,
Who cares? You made a really stupid religious claim that the rules of the universe are defined by consciousness, yet there were no minds, consciousness or anything other than photons, electrons and protons when the universe started and its rules were defined.

Your religious fantasy makes no sense. Go away.
:lol:


There were no conscious minds? Good enough. Photons, electrons and protons are all forms of
con-scious-ness
And this is the reason why I mostly ignore you. I said life, consciousness, reality is in-de-pen-dent of the mind. It is neither conscious nor unconscious. The conscious and the unconscious are attributes of the mind, not of consciousness.
The rules of the universe were already there as a potentiality in the seed consciousness. When the consciousness became embodied the mind was born and the rules defined.
The juice of the fruit forms the seed in the fruit, in that seed is a recording of the entire tree formation that produced the fruit. Thus the entire universe had already been recorded in the seed consciousness by the source.

Long live drallE the drateR the text book massive :mrgreen:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26774
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:18 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:When someone says the universe has consciousness, we realise that there is exactly zero empirically based evidence behind that assertion. As such, we know not to accept it.

Confidencia's religion is pretty standard. It is just another variant of "God made man in God's image" In short, Confidencia religiously believes that only a current human consciousness, as evolved on Earth 195,000 years ago, can "see" the universe. This is obviously crap. There were no human like consciousness in the early universe.

Confidencia's religion also falls apart, when if it has to consider more than one person "observing". You and I can stand at opposite ends of a room and take photos of the same event and then compare photos. Confidencia is really saying he religiously denies evidence.....but cannot say why he denies convergent evidence exists.

Finally, the worst element about Confidencia's religious philosophy, is that it is absolutelcreated y useless. No scientist could compile converging evidence to produce a working hypothesis. Yet, here is Confidencia posting on a computer that was created using scientific hypotheses and the scientific method.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26774
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:23 am

Confidencia wrote: Photons, electrons and protons are all forms of consciousness
No. You obviously don't know the meaning of the word.

How does an individual photon, electron or proton perceive or assess anything? Give me example of any of them doing this.
:lol:

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:36 am

There is a level of speculation which equates to fantasy. That is, fantasy in the fictional sense. Confidencia appears to be into fictional fantastic speculation. I do not know what we can do to bring him or her back to reality.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11441
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:38 am

Well, they do contain information and rules.

They don't think, tho'. Intelligence is an accretion, a condensate, a conglomeration, of the universal laws.

Confidencia just has it barse ackwards. As do most anthropocentrics. Can't imagine bottom up. Can only see top down.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26774
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: Confidencia appears to be into fictional fantastic speculation.
I would't even say that. Confidencia hasn't got a theory at all. Confidencia is saying "We can never really know" as an excuse for why he can't answer direct questions.

He's just seeking the attention here. pretending to be "a guru", that he's not getting on his own non-dualism religious forums populated with hundreds of sound-a-like "gurus".
:D

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11441
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:02 am

I really wonder why they come here. They must be masochists.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Confidencia » Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:52 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Confidencia wrote:You do nothing but postulate. Nothing you know is first hand, it is borrowed knowledge.

You just destroyed your own "philosophy" again.

In what way?
A photon created and destroyed does not have to be observed by any consciousness to actually exist. We can measure it in other ways...after the event.

Rightly so, nevertheless there must be consciousness whichever method you use you have to use memory. Details must be recalled and events compared.
My concern is not with the little nuances of the mind and its extraneous details, there must be a source from whence it came. Otherwise it could not have come about in the first place. The obvious seems to escape you.
Your entire human-centric religious "philosophy" requires human consciousness to exist, which didn't exist for 13,6 billion years after the Universe started.

No doubt to philosophise there needs to be consciousness. But seeing as the universe was present according to your conventions there must have been something to contain it. You could not talk of such time otherwise. But without awareness neither is possible.
Yet the universe was real for that entire 13.6 billion years.

If consciousness wasn't there then where did the memory of 13. 6 billion years come from? Memory is recognition, recognition is an awareness that something has been perceived before which to all intent and purpose implies consciousness prior to the count of 13.6 billion years.
Why do you run away from such huge holes in your religious human-centric "philosophy"? :lol:

Fix the holes in your net of contradiction and the holes you envisage should disappear.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:45 am

There is no need for such a source. Intelligence and consciousness evolved. Complex life forms evolved from simple. Simple life forms evolved from complex chemical systems. Complex chemical systems evolved from simple mixtures of molecules. At one time, there was no life. Just a few organic molecules. In the same way, intelligence and consciousness came into being from something much simpler, and ultimately from nothing conscious or intelligent.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Confidencia » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:29 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Confidencia

The modern scientific revolution began with the realisation that mere thought was insufficient to discover what is true. What is needed is empiricism.


And what is empiricism if not a thought, idea or notion? No experience is also an experience. Can you truly say there is nothing when you go into a dark room? Of course not, you are seeing darkness.

That is, real world testing.


There would not need to be any testing or evaluating if the world was really there, it would be self evident. The testing and evaluating is part of the creation process and a necessary corollary of speculation. When you are in deep sleep you are only alive, there is no tester and nothing to test; there is only light and the picture in the frame of your mind.

Those of us with proper discipline and the ability to think rationally, look for good empirical evidence to support what we are told.


Being told is the operational word here. An imposition is a form of enforcement. In this vein you will find what you recognise as prior. A baby in the womb does not know of a world beyond the womb for good reason, for it has nothing in it with which it can paint a valid picture. All this talk of empiricism imply memory and above all ignorance.

When someone says the universe has consciousness, we realise that there is exactly zero empirically based evidence behind that assertion. As such, we know not to accept it.


Realise the fact of the matter and it becomes self evident. What you see is inside of you. Time, space, matter these are all attributes of your inner world; the outer world you talk of is only a mental formation and purely speculative.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8237
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Poodle » Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:08 pm

Confidencia, you appear to be insisting that the universe could not exist without a consciousness to observe it. Is that an accurate summation of your views?

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Confidencia » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:05 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:There is no need for such a source.

Clearly you have not thought this through. This is the problem when you are told what to think and how to think. There seems to be a contradiction between a single cause and multiple causes, either one or the other must be wrong. The way I see it they are both wrong. Since the source of consciousness cannot be an object in the consciousness it deems it causesless. But according to your world view there is every need for a source. What is evidence if not a thing which helps you to form a conclusion? Are you going to deny the source of your evidence? but such a statement on your part only serves to highlight the contradictory nature of your argument. Your conviction in an observable universe denies your belief.
Intelligence and consciousness evolved.

Only in your mind. Evolution is just a modality a mode of thought.
Complex life forms evolved from simple. Simple life forms evolved from complex chemical systems. Complex chemical systems evolved from simple mixtures of molecules. At one time, there was no life. Just a few organic molecules.

Biology and chemistry only applies to the manifested. The source is not subject to any laws or discipline invented by the mind.
In the same way, intelligence and consciousness came into being from something much simpler, and ultimately from nothing conscious or intelligent.

You words are wiser than you are. The reality simply is, it is neither conscious nor unconscious. Nevertheless nothing is actually something that is ordinarily too subtle for the gross mind to comprehend.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Confidencia » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:10 pm

Poodle wrote:Confidencia, you appear to be insisting that the universe could not exist without a consciousness to observe it. Is that an accurate summation of your views?


The consciousness is not the observer. It is merely the medium in which the observations take place. The observed, observer and its observation are mental constructs. You can observe the observation and the object of observation but not the observer.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Time Travel Isn't Possible…Or Is It?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:37 pm

Confidencia

You fail to understand the importance of empirical testing, and the fallacy of logic and thought.

Humanity suffered a hiatus in all scientific progress for 2,000 years because of the influence of the Greek philosophers, and the Christian church, both of which denied the importance of empiricism, and emphasized logic (the Greeks) and authority (the church). Anyone who does what you are doing, and relies on some kind of mental inspiration in trying to find the truth, is doomed to error. The last 500 years of solid scientific progress has shown that, without empirical testing and objective results, it all all garbage.


Return to “Science, Technology, and Mathematics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lance Kennedy and 1 guest