It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by smithjustinb
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by smithjustinb
The only way something can be in two different places at once is if space has no meaning and is therefore not real.
Nope.
Space does have meaning and is real.
Not to the electron that was in two places at once.
It's all a matter of perspective.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by smithjustinb
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by smithjustinb
The only way something can be in two different places at once is if space has no meaning and is therefore not real.
Nope.
Space does have meaning and is real.
Not to the electron that was in two places at once.
It's all a matter of perspective.
Okay, but without space your three dimensions plus the additional ones you're asserting cannot exist. You can't have it both ways.
Originally posted by smithjustinb
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
reply to post by smithjustinb
Yep. Lots of weird things at the quantum level.
What does that have to do with your claims?
The electron was observed in two places at once. Same electron. Two different places. Imagine you are in two places at once. The only way something can be in two different places at once is if space has no meaning and is therefore not real.
Originally posted by smithjustinb
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by smithjustinb
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by smithjustinb
The only way something can be in two different places at once is if space has no meaning and is therefore not real.
Nope.
Space does have meaning and is real.
Not to the electron that was in two places at once.
It's all a matter of perspective.
Okay, but without space your three dimensions plus the additional ones you're asserting cannot exist. You can't have it both ways.
Yes, but in the 4th dimension, space only exists as a 3 dimensional concept. It still exists, but only in 3d.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Originally posted by smithjustinb
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
reply to post by smithjustinb
Yep. Lots of weird things at the quantum level.
What does that have to do with your claims?
The electron was observed in two places at once. Same electron. Two different places. Imagine you are in two places at once. The only way something can be in two different places at once is if space has no meaning and is therefore not real.
Same electron?
Really.
And how did they determine that this was the same electron? Did they put a tracer on it? Was it wearing the same hat in both appearances? Maybe it was lying about being the same electron? I've seen this happen with twins, so don't tell me it's impossible.
Y'know, if I were you, and I didn't suddenly realize the ludicrous nature of my (your) assertion - after that small attempt (above) at mocking the notion of it - then I'd be concerned over my own capacity to determine reality from the inane crap that stumbles around between my ears and behind my eyes. I shouldn't have to explain why that assertion (from whomever it was that asserted it) that this electron, and the other electron, were absolutely and inarguably, the same electron, is absurd, and more than likely based on ignorance of what an electron (or any particle of matter, for that matter) actually is. I find it distressing that guys with letters strung out after their names haven't the capacity to realize when they've debunked the fundamentals of their own discipline. You'd think they'd be excited about such a revelation, but instead, they march right out there and declare reality to be malleable. You can't even hand some people a breakthrough on a silver platter without them spilling all over themselves.
When you have to reconstitute reality in order for an assertion to be remotely plausible, you've probably come to the wrong conclusion - even given the startling evidence as it exists. You may have to consider the possibility that your math is off somewhere along the determination chain, or that you haven't realized the existence of one or more factors affecting your processes. After all, while science is always debunking itself, quadrillions and quadrillions of perfectly, and seamlessly synchronized interdependent connections can't be wrong. This is why precedence is so popular with quality thinkers.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by smithjustinb
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by smithjustinb
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by smithjustinb
The only way something can be in two different places at once is if space has no meaning and is therefore not real.
Nope.
Space does have meaning and is real.
Not to the electron that was in two places at once.
It's all a matter of perspective.
Okay, but without space your three dimensions plus the additional ones you're asserting cannot exist. You can't have it both ways.
Yes, but in the 4th dimension, space only exists as a 3 dimensional concept. It still exists, but only in 3d.
Ahhh, so space does have meaning and is real.
Now you have to revisit your explanation of the double slit experiment.
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
You just agreed earlier that energy can't be created or destroyed, it just changes forms, just like modern science believes.
So how do you personally reconcile that with theories like the "big bang"? Even if the energy wasn't physically present in the universe, it had to exist in some form, somewhere. So where do you think it all came from? Or do you think the physical universe has always been here too, and just keeps changing form?
Originally posted by smithjustinb
It really depends on your perspective. Are you examining space from a 3d perspective or a 4d perspective?
From a 4d perspective that I am claiming to be more real than 3d, Space doesn't exist. It is real and has meaning to a 3d perspective.
It is hard to understand such a paradox so I sympathize with your doubt.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
You just agreed earlier that energy can't be created or destroyed, it just changes forms, just like modern science believes.
So how do you personally reconcile that with theories like the "big bang"? Even if the energy wasn't physically present in the universe, it had to exist in some form, somewhere. So where do you think it all came from? Or do you think the physical universe has always been here too, and just keeps changing form?
I don't know. What we recognize as the "Big Bang" could be a cyclical event. And I have no opinion on where the universe's energy came from. Any rational person would admit that nobody knows the answer to these mysteries right now.
But some claim they do know the source of that energy, and the source of the universe, and the source of life and they all attribute it to the activities of a deity. That's theoretically possible, though to date there's no evidence pointing that way and no rational reason to suspect such a hypothesis as truthful and accurate.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by smithjustinb
It really depends on your perspective. Are you examining space from a 3d perspective or a 4d perspective?
From a 4d perspective that I am claiming to be more real than 3d, Space doesn't exist. It is real and has meaning to a 3d perspective.
It is hard to understand such a paradox so I sympathize with your doubt.
When I asked you what you meant by "4d" you pointed me to a thread wherein you described "4d" as time. Time and space are tightly woven and as far as we know in physics, time and space appeared at the same time.
I don't see how adding dimensions makes space non-existent. To make space non-existent you'd have to remove dimensions, not add them.
Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by smithjustinb
Its the duality of collapsing wave function.
When you observe you create what you observe. Its hard to comprehend this on a fully functioning level.
Originally posted by smithjustinb
There is that double-slit experiment. That's about as good as it gets. But the implications of what the nature of the double slit experiment is about are profound.
Originally posted by smithjustinb
Whatever man. Thanks a whole lot for coming on here and trying your hardest to insult me, and make me doubt myself highly to the point of feeling like crap.
But before you came on here with your destructive attitude, you should have at least had some context as to what my "assertions" are based on. You should at least know what you are arguing against and why I say what I say.
Why don't you watch this little cartoon. Maybe your attention span could understand animation a little bit better.
www.youtube.com...
Originally posted by bubusmells
am i crazy or just found God?
Originally posted by bubusmells
am i crazy or just found God?
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by AlphaZero
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Consciousness and sentience are by-products of the mind. If you claim otherwise, show us another source and, if you can, an example.
That's quite an assertive statement. Have you investigated theories of consciousness other than materialistic explanations? I recommend David Chalmers' work, which definitely contrasts with materialist philosophers' work like Daniel Dennett's.
As for an example, research the "hard problem" of consciousness.
Yes, I've investigated some of the current research on consciousness by Dennett and others. But, I'll pose to you the same question: can you show me an example of consciousness existing somewhere other than a mind?