2
   

Free will .......

 
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Apr, 2007 01:10 pm
Ashers and pswfps, congratulations on a marvelous exchange. I do not follow, without a re-reading, all of pswfps's very evocative statements, but I do have a feeling that his use of emergence is useful. Everything, as Focus suggests with his frequent reference to nesting phenomena, arises out of more basic and general grounds of existence. In that sense, everything is a mirage generated by deeper mirages, which in turn rest on/or nest in still deeper mirages. The ego, by the very fact that it "exists" (even though as a mirage) is "real." Mirages are real, real mirages; we just can't drink from them--it's all a matter of interpretation. The ego exists only in the mental context of dualism (and, of course, this too is a manifestation of the universal process). "I" exist because I think of "its", and "its" exist because of "I". Neither exists independently of this mental dualism.

Out of this discussion the greatest wisdom so far is reflected in Asher's:

"Don't worry, I revel in this kind of mystery myself, I see the boundless possiblities rather than the uncertainty. Right and wrong have little place here, it's liberating. That "sort of know" is great to be with IMHO."
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Apr, 2007 02:13 pm
fresco wrote:
JLN and G-esti

A full discussion of "space" could take us in several directions :wink:
See paragraph 2 in....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space
Suffice to say I am not thinking about "potential observable locality in my minds eye" but rather a "mathematical space" in which specific relational "algebras" might apply equally at all levels.

There is but one constant that remains constant .... that is random change. H2O was not a planned occurrence, it evolved.
Einstein's use of the photon as a constant was wrong, light reacts to gravity. How would one correct his formula to compensate for random change
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Apr, 2007 04:44 pm
We seem to have reached a point involving some interesting mathematical speculations surrounding the nature of "existence" and "reality". For those uncertain of their bearings in this territory allow me to point out some significant features.

1. Einstein's major paradigm shift "space is curved" rests on the mathematical coherence of one variant of non-Euclidean geometry.
2, Another variant called "projective geometry" was used by Rudolf Steiner to model aspects of "the life process".
3.The geometry of "fractals" with its nested levels of structure has been used to model the "nested systems" involved in relating a "unity" to its "components".
4. Dynamic aspects of relationships have been modelled by "vector spaces" where directionality is a significant feature.

In short, we seekers of a vantage point, are looking for a coherent abstract system which reflects essential aspects of our thinking. For my part I am considering the potential implications of a "bi-directional vector" which might embody the mutual relationship/existence of "observer" and "observed". Perhaps Newton's "action and reaction are equal and opposite" is a sub-aspect of this, or alternatively it might model Piagets "assimilation-accommodation". Such a "vector" might even reflect the "synthesis" implied by the Hegelian dialectic involving "thesis-antithesis". This speculation includes the hope/possibility that such an idea may already been developed independently by some "pure mathematician". The observation that "projective geometry" (2 above) explores the isomorphisms between "points" and "lines" gives implicit support to my view that lines/vectors/relationships can be dealt with as coherently as points/ objects/bounded structures might have been in "naive realism".
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 12:12 am
Interesting that I refer to Fresco as "Focus"--something I've done before. Perhaps it is because he is so focused.
0 Replies
 
pswfps
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 03:55 am
Quote:
Einstein's use of the photon as a constant was wrong, light reacts to gravity.

You mean his assumption that light travels at the same velocity relative to any observer was wrong? A bold statement indeed.

Anyway, light does not react to gravity. According to relativity, a massive object such as a planet is always accompanied by a distortion in the geometry of space-time. The distortion could be called "gravity." This is not to say that a planet "causes" the distortion, rather the planet is the distortion and it's existence is not bounded by it's apparent "physical" limits. As far as the light beam is concerned, it is travelling in a straight line. Only to our eyes does it's path appear to curve around a large mass, eg a planet. The apparent curvature in the light path is entirely due to the distortion of space-time relative to our own.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 08:25 am
pswfps wrote:
Quote:
Einstein's use of the photon as a constant was wrong, light reacts to gravity.

You mean his assumption that light travels at the same velocity relative to any observer was wrong? A bold statement indeed.

I am no mathematician by any stretch so I assume that any constant is invariable to any degree.


What is a black hole?
---------------------
Loosely speaking, a black hole is a region of space that has so much mass concentrated in it that there is no way for a nearby object to escape its gravitational pull. Since our best theory of gravity at the moment is Einstein's general theory of relativity, we have to delve into some results of this theory to understand black holes in detail, but let's start of slow, by thinking about gravity under fairly simple circumstances.

Suppose that you are standing on the surface of a planet. You throw a rock straight up into the air. Assuming you don't throw it too hard, it will rise for a while, but eventually the acceleration due to the planet's gravity will make it start to fall down again. If you threw the rock hard enough, though, you could make it escape the planet's gravity entirely. It would keep on rising forever. The speed with which you need to throw the rock in order that it just barely escapes the planet's gravity is called the "escape velocity." As you would expect, the escape velocity depends on the mass of the planet: if the planet is extremely massive, then its gravity is very strong, and the escape velocity is high. A lighter planet would have a smaller escape velocity. The escape velocity also depends on how far you are from the planet's center: the closer you are, the higher the escape velocity. The Earth's escape velocity is 11.2 kilometers per second (about 25,000 m.p.h.), while the Moon's is only 2.4 kilometers per second (about 5300 m.p.h.).

Now imagine an object with such an enormous concentration of mass in such a small radius that its escape velocity was greater than the velocity of light. Then, since nothing can go faster than light, nothing can escape the object's gravitational field. Even a beam of light would be pulled back by gravity and would be unable to escape.

The idea of a mass concentration so dense that even light would be trapped goes all the way back to Laplace in the 18th century. Almost immediately after Einstein developed general relativity, Karl Schwarzschild discovered a mathematical solution to the equations of the theory that described such an object. It was only much later, with the work of such people as Oppenheimer, Volkoff, and Snyder in the 1930's, that people thought seriously about the possibility that such objects might actually exist in the Universe. (Yes, this is the same Oppenheimer who ran the Manhattan Project.) These researchers showed that when a sufficiently massive star runs out of fuel, it is unable to support itself against its own gravitational pull, and it should collapse into a black hole.

In general relativity, gravity is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Massive objects distort space and time, so that the usual rules of geometry don't apply anymore. Near a black hole, this distortion of space is extremely severe and causes black holes to have some very strange properties. In particular, a black hole has something called an 'event horizon.' This is a spherical surface that marks the boundary of the black hole. You can pass in through the horizon, but you can't get back out. In fact, once you've crossed the horizon, you're doomed to move inexorably closer and closer to the 'singularity' at the center of the black hole.

You can think of the horizon as the place where the escape velocity equals the velocity of light. Outside of the horizon, the escape velocity is less than the speed of light, so if you fire your rockets hard enough, you can give yourself enough energy to get away. But if you find yourself inside the horizon, then no matter how powerful your rockets are, you can't escape.

The horizon has some very strange geometrical properties. To an observer who is sitting still somewhere far away from the black hole, the horizon seems to be a nice, static, unmoving spherical surface. But once you get close to the horizon, you realize that it has a very large velocity. In fact, it is moving outward at the speed of light! That explains why it is easy to cross the horizon in the inward direction, but impossible to get back out. Since the horizon is moving out at the speed of light, in order to escape back across it, you would have to travel faster than light. You can't go faster than light, and so you can't escape from the black hole.

(If all of this sounds very strange, don't worry. It is strange. The horizon is in a certain sense sitting still, but in another sense it is flying out at the speed of light. It's a bit like Alice in "Through the Looking-Glass": she has to run as fast as she can just to stay in one place.)

Once you're inside of the horizon, spacetime is distorted so much that the coordinates describing radial distance and time switch roles. That is, "r", the coordinate that describes how far away you are from the center, is a timelike coordinate, and "t" is a spacelike one. One consequence of this is that you can't stop yourself from moving to smaller and smaller values of r, just as under ordinary circumstances you can't avoid moving towards the future (that is, towards larger and larger values of t). Eventually, you're bound to hit the singularity at r = 0. You might try to avoid it by firing your rockets, but it's futile: no matter which direction you run, you can't avoid your future. Trying to avoid the center of a black hole once you've crossed the horizon is just like trying to avoid next Thursday.

Incidentally, the name 'black hole' was invented by John Archibald Wheeler, and seems to have stuck because it was much catchier than previous names. Before Wheeler came along, these objects were often referred to as 'frozen stars.' I'll explain why below.
Continue
0 Replies
 
pswfps
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 08:45 am
To be honest, I think that article gives a poor explanation of a black hole. Basically, a black hole is a distortion of the geometry of space-time which is so severe that all straight-line paths from it's centre lead back to it. So when light attempts to leave in the normal sense that it might leave a star, in the case of the super dense black hole it ends up back where it started. It can never escape because there is no direction it can take to leave. It is trapped within the event horizon.

Light can be seen to curve around a massive object like a planet or a star. In the case of the BH, however, the curvature of space-time within the event horizon is so extreme that it can never leave. In all this though, light always travels in a straight line, it's just that the "material" which propogates the wave/particle is twisted relative to some other part of the "fabric" of space-time.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 11:20 am
A straight line is defined as "the shortest path between A and B. Gravity, be it from a black hole or a massive object, curves space. "Straight" in this sense doesn't mean "unbent". So I'd say that light doesn't react to gravity. Space does, and light travels within it...

Seems there is some mixing of terms in this thread. If I were to fly around the earth I could go in a straight line. Now, depending on which reference points I was using, different things would be constants and variables. If I measured altitude, I could fly in a straight line at a certain constant altitude above the ground, and end up precicely where I started. Straightness defined by my constant.

But if I were to use no "local" landmarks to navigate the flightpattern might not appear to be a straight line, but a circle...
0 Replies
 
pswfps
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 11:50 am
Quote:
A straight line is defined as "the shortest path between A and B. Gravity, be it from a black hole or a massive object, curves space. "Straight" in this sense doesn't mean "unbent". So I'd say that light doesn't react to gravity. Space does, and light travels within it...


It might seem like a quibble but a massive object does not curve "space." The curvature and knotting of the space-time continuum is the massive object. Highly localised areas of knotting (high energy) manifest as "matter." Around the "object" there are twists and curvs in space-time which are just as much a manifestation of the object as the "matter" itself. The whole thing (matter & ST distortions) are one phenomenon, namely a disturbance in space-time. Light is a ripple in the "fabric" of space-time. Things are straight or bent only according to your frame of reference.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 12:17 pm
Are you on some quantum mechanical level now?
0 Replies
 
pswfps
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 12:48 pm
Heh, a quantum-relativistic level, sure. That said, I am painfully aware that I am drawing entirely upon my perceptions of "external reality" as I happen to find it. (uh, more relativity!) The science stuff is a bit of a diversion though; I'd prefer to get back to the discussion as it was yesterday.

PS - mechanical is a forbidden word in this thread!!!
0 Replies
 
pswfps
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 01:26 pm
Quote:
Ashers and pswfps, congratulations on a marvelous exchange. I do not follow, without a re-reading, all of pswfps's very evocative statements, but I do have a feeling that his use of emergence is useful.

Thanks JLN, it was indeed a very worthwhile exchange. I hope Ashers enjoyed it as much too. Maybe I should summarise where I am with this.

I don't want to pursue the "emergent property" and "universal process" stuff since this is based on perceptions of external reality. I want to get away from that. A bit deeper. Basically, I am self aware, that is I perceive a "self." Then it occured to me that a self can only have meaning in relation to a perceived "something other than self", ie, a perceived external reality. Equally vice-versa. So perceptions of self and external reality must co-exist, that is one cannot occur before the other. Thus self cannot cause it's external reality anymore than ER can cause self. Since I do not recall being sentient indefinately, there must be a simultaneous beginning of perception; when self and external reality came into being together. Why this should have happened, I've no idea. However, I speculated upon what I called an "ultimate reality" which exists outside of my self and of my perceived external reality. I viewed this ultimate reality (whatever it may be) as that which gave rise to my self and my external reality. My sentience. Me.

Quote:
Everything, as Focus suggests with his frequent reference to nesting phenomena, arises out of more basic and general grounds of existence. In that sense, everything is a mirage generated by deeper mirages, which in turn rest on/or nest in still deeper mirages.

That sounds a little reducto-mechanical to me JLN. In a fractal, the whole and the details are inseparable. I see the totality of my reality in a similar way. Therefore I would have to argue that neither the whole nor the detail give rise to each other. They are a simultaneous existence. (I knew fractals would come into this sooner or later...)

Quote:
The ego, by the very fact that it "exists" (even though as a mirage) is "real." Mirages are real, real mirages; we just can't drink from them--it's all a matter of interpretation.

Exactly, couldn't agree more.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 01:49 pm
Can the universe really be measured or quantified by the perceptions of third dimensional beings?
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 05:38 pm
pswfps wrote:
Heh, a quantum-relativistic level, sure.


Problem. Quantum theory and relativity are not compatible. While I understand what you are saying I think about frame of reference I don't think that the mixing of terms from macro and micro physics can lead to an accurate description. They are two distinctly different approaches. The first depending on observation and verification, the second on calculating probability.

Also, what Gelisgesti said. However, I do think that the being in question is capable of freing it's thought from the boundaries of our three (or four) dimensions through various processes.
0 Replies
 
pswfps
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2007 02:23 am
Actually there is a high degree of compatibility. Not completely but that's entirely besides the point. Both Quantum and relativity theories move us towards an integrated holistic view of the universe. That's the point.

My comments concerning black-holes et al draw upon relativity more than anything. However, the parallels found at the quantum level are very striking.
0 Replies
 
pswfps
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2007 03:02 am
Gelisgesti wrote:
Can the universe really be measured or quantified by the perceptions of third dimensional beings?


Well, in relativity, I believe Einstein conceived of a four dimensional reality. The three spatial dimensions and the one temporal are all identical. In fact they are all one thing, hence the term space-time. It is impossible for us to imagine this four dimensional existence.

A shadow could be considered a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional thing. However, being two dimensional it can never fully capture the nature of the three dimensional object which it represents. Similarly, the three dimensional world which we perceive could be considered a mere shadow of a four dimensional reality.

Consider a ring doughnut, cut in half. Viewed on end in a two dimensional context, you might see two completely separate and unrelated circles. It is not until we view the situation in three dimensions that we see that the two circles are in fact intimately connected and related, being opposite ends of the one half 3D ring. If we could then view the situation in four dimensions, what would we see then? More unexpected relationships between "things?"
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2007 03:08 am
This should be of some interest, if you haven't already seen it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
0 Replies
 
pswfps
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2007 03:38 am
OK, I'll take a look tonight. I'm at work now so better get on...
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2007 03:48 am
It's quite entertainig, featuring the leading minds in the field today, divided up in sizable portions of 6-8 minutes per episode to a total of three hours. It gives a fairly good account of where science stands today on the subject of relativity vs QM and the efforts to bridge the gap.

When you've watched it discussion could be fun. There are some ideas that I cannot wrap my head around... :wink:
0 Replies
 
pswfps
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2007 03:59 am
Heh, you seem to be salivating at the prospect. It might be better to start a new thread about relativity/QM. If anything raised can be related to "Free-Will" then we can import the juicy bits. Question
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Free will .......
  3. » Page 8
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 02:34:30