Beyond the human's mind to concieve- the limits of us as a people - Page 8

Genkotsu Ikaru · 01-29-2005, 01:48 AM

It's true that a different evolutionary path could have done that. But the chances are slim that an evolutionary path might lead to humans with wings, but no muscular structure to support flight, no nervous structure to control them. If humans had wings, they wouldn't simply be decoration. They'd be functional in some degree, however limited.

Relativity was based on an idea that made more sense out of phenomena. The math, the formulae in which were based on the mechanics of the universe, indicated the existance of such an object. Thus, things we observed lead logically to the mathematical implication of things we had not yet observed. If there was no such thing, then the equations would have been different, because the universe would be operating differently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

It's become clear that something is there

You mean, we've observed that there has to be something there. We've observed that something is creating an effect. And... Your point is?

Sithdarth · 01-29-2005, 02:05 AM

Now your saying something all together different. At first you said we can only observe things via an effect that was caused by that thing itself or that you know someone is behind you because you hear air vibration from their foot. A very large amount of the predictions of relativity just fell from the theory itself. Einstien simply thought about situations and did a little math and produced his theory. This was later varified in many ways. There was nothing that directly lead Einstien to blackholes or to time dialation or a curved spacetime. Nothing that is besides the math. Later we explained things we saw through the math but we could be wrong. Saying that our math is somehow on observation of the universe and every possible event out there can be explained through it is far to sweeping. In fact many times during the development of relativity standard math and graphing techniques had to be tossed aside for new ones. Also, a new dimension had to be introduced.

Everyone has always noticed time but nothing ever suggested it was connected to space the way Einstien showed it was, except that is the math. Math that has no connect to phyiscal observations and can describe things that couldn't actually exist in our universe. It doesn't make the math wrong or the things it describes unreal in anyway. Six dimensional space is in comprehenisable to us and there is no prove that our space is structured that way. That doens't mean six dimensional math is worthless or not real.

Genkotsu Ikaru · 01-29-2005, 02:16 AM

How is it "different" from what I said to make observations, follow the inherent logic, and observe the conclusions made? Something exists, and affects the universe. Due to math, we find out that yes, they do exist, and yes, they have an effect we can observe. I don't see how that's in any way counter to what I've been saying.

Math is, in fact, related to reality. I have three sticks. I wonder what would happen if I broke them all. Instead of breaking them and counting, I multiply the number of sticks by two, and discover that I could have six sticks. It's an observation of how the world works. Now, Einstein's stuff could have been an error. But it turned out not to be. Because somewhere in the universe, there were black holes, and they were having an effect that could be observed, but hadn't yet. Discovery of black holes didn't suddenly make them real. Anyone could have observed them at any time before. They just didn't.

Time may not be exactly like what people have always believed it to be. Einstein's math just proved it to have different properties. But no one can doubt the existance of time. It has effects that can be observed. Six (or ten) dimensional reality is one theory that may be supported by the existance of time. In theory, it has an effect (time) and thus, if it is the correct theory, proven or not, it is "real".

Sithdarth · 01-29-2005, 02:37 AM

So I suppose you can explain to me the physical effect of something in the universe that explains complex numbers. Also, you have yet to address my strongest point on alternate reality and string theory. (Strings as stated in string theory are pretty much unobseravble.) Because they exist matter may exist or they could be floating out there for no real reason at all. This point is kinda week though.) You have compeletly passed over the alternate reality points and claimed that because you can mess around with your concept of observable you're right and I'm wrong.

Besides Fuzzy was talking about things beyond our direct observation with our senses. A point which we have moved beyond. Also, you stated that this thing outside our senses would have some huge effect that we would have detected already. Then you admitted that there were things that we predicited through obtuse means that we later developed the ability to see. So why is it that there couldn't be something out there we haven't detected yet that math may lead us too and then allow us to build something to detect. I don't think Fuzzy said, and I'm not saying, that this thing outside our normal senses could never be detected by a machine just that it's outside our senses and some other race of beings might have developed with the ability to detect it already. Saying that everything is observable in some way that we can translate into data we can understand doesn't disprove that.

Genkotsu Ikaru · 01-29-2005, 03:12 AM

"Complex" numbers are also called "imaginary" numbers. There's a reason for this. They don't describe anything real.

Alternate realities, by their definition, exist entirely independant of this one. They would, presumably, operate via the same rules of physics. By being outside of this reality, they are, by definition, "real", or "not of this reality". As far as strings go, I must confess I don't know much about string theory. But if there is force or (as you suggest) matter of some variety is involved, then it affects something in a way that can be observed.

You seem to be reading Fuzzy in a far different way than I am. He's suggesting that there is something, i.e., a force, acting on the Earth in a major way, but we have not detected it yet. I say that if this thing is having an effect, it would result in something we could observe, and thus, we'd have some indication it was there. If you read the initial post, he's wondering what amazing things there could be out there that we would have no concept of. It's been the purpose of me, and a few others, to state that if there was such a thing, we would have detected it through other means. If nothing else, we would be aware of something that we did not understand. Let me try stating it this way: OUR DIRECT SENSES ARE NOT OUR ONLY WAYS, AS HUMAN BEINGS, OF PERCIEVING THINGS. WE WOULD BE AWARE OF THIS THING IN OTHER WAYS, WHETHER WE KNEW THE DETAILS OF IT OR NOT. This is not some celestial body billions of miles away. This is not some infintessimal particle responsible for matter behaving as it does. The things specifically addressed are massive forces having a vast influence, or a race of people existing alongside us that the ordinary physical laws clearly don't apply to. I've never tried to say that science knows everything there is to know. All I've ever tried to say here is that if either of those two things existed, they'd have effects we would have observed by now.

Sithdarth · 01-29-2005, 03:24 AM

We weren't always aware of electricty or magnetism until far into our development. Also I don't see where he said these creatures or things made of some other stuff would have a massive effect. Nor do I see him mentioning any force at all in his posts. In fact his entire point is that there could be a material, like dark matter, thats out there and interects with our matter in a very slight way, that other things are made off. So we haven't discovered exactly what this stuff is or it's effect or the magnitude of its effect, that doesn't mean it isn't there. You admited that there was things we couldn't detect until we developed the correct tools whats to say we have the right tools yet. It could be that we misinturperted something along the way and inertia is generated because of the interaction. Fuzzy and I are not saying that it is this way just that it could be this way. Any probability is still a probability.

01-29-2005, 02:05 AM	#72
Sithdarth Friendly Neighborhood Quantum Hobo Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Outside the M-brane look'n in Posts: 5,403	Now your saying something all together different. At first you said we can only observe things via an effect that was caused by that thing itself or that you know someone is behind you because you hear air vibration from their foot. A very large amount of the predictions of relativity just fell from the theory itself. Einstien simply thought about situations and did a little math and produced his theory. This was later varified in many ways. There was nothing that directly lead Einstien to blackholes or to time dialation or a curved spacetime. Nothing that is besides the math. Later we explained things we saw through the math but we could be wrong. Saying that our math is somehow on observation of the universe and every possible event out there can be explained through it is far to sweeping. In fact many times during the development of relativity standard math and graphing techniques had to be tossed aside for new ones. Also, a new dimension had to be introduced. Everyone has always noticed time but nothing ever suggested it was connected to space the way Einstien showed it was, except that is the math. Math that has no connect to phyiscal observations and can describe things that couldn't actually exist in our universe. It doesn't make the math wrong or the things it describes unreal in anyway. Six dimensional space is in comprehenisable to us and there is no prove that our space is structured that way. That doens't mean six dimensional math is worthless or not real.

01-29-2005, 02:16 AM	#73
Genkotsu Ikaru Troopa Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Kansas Posts: 69	How is it "different" from what I said to make observations, follow the inherent logic, and observe the conclusions made? Something exists, and affects the universe. Due to math, we find out that yes, they do exist, and yes, they have an effect we can observe. I don't see how that's in any way counter to what I've been saying. Math is, in fact, related to reality. I have three sticks. I wonder what would happen if I broke them all. Instead of breaking them and counting, I multiply the number of sticks by two, and discover that I could have six sticks. It's an observation of how the world works. Now, Einstein's stuff could have been an error. But it turned out not to be. Because somewhere in the universe, there were black holes, and they were having an effect that could be observed, but hadn't yet. Discovery of black holes didn't suddenly make them real. Anyone could have observed them at any time before. They just didn't. Time may not be exactly like what people have always believed it to be. Einstein's math just proved it to have different properties. But no one can doubt the existance of time. It has effects that can be observed. Six (or ten) dimensional reality is one theory that may be supported by the existance of time. In theory, it has an effect (time) and thus, if it is the correct theory, proven or not, it is "real".

01-29-2005, 02:37 AM	#74
Sithdarth Friendly Neighborhood Quantum Hobo Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Outside the M-brane look'n in Posts: 5,403	So I suppose you can explain to me the physical effect of something in the universe that explains complex numbers. Also, you have yet to address my strongest point on alternate reality and string theory. (Strings as stated in string theory are pretty much unobseravble.) Because they exist matter may exist or they could be floating out there for no real reason at all. This point is kinda week though.) You have compeletly passed over the alternate reality points and claimed that because you can mess around with your concept of observable you're right and I'm wrong. Besides Fuzzy was talking about things beyond our direct observation with our senses. A point which we have moved beyond. Also, you stated that this thing outside our senses would have some huge effect that we would have detected already. Then you admitted that there were things that we predicited through obtuse means that we later developed the ability to see. So why is it that there couldn't be something out there we haven't detected yet that math may lead us too and then allow us to build something to detect. I don't think Fuzzy said, and I'm not saying, that this thing outside our normal senses could never be detected by a machine just that it's outside our senses and some other race of beings might have developed with the ability to detect it already. Saying that everything is observable in some way that we can translate into data we can understand doesn't disprove that.

01-29-2005, 03:12 AM	#75
Genkotsu Ikaru Troopa Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Kansas Posts: 69	"Complex" numbers are also called "imaginary" numbers. There's a reason for this. They don't describe anything real. Alternate realities, by their definition, exist entirely independant of this one. They would, presumably, operate via the same rules of physics. By being outside of this reality, they are, by definition, "real", or "not of this reality". As far as strings go, I must confess I don't know much about string theory. But if there is force or (as you suggest) matter of some variety is involved, then it affects something in a way that can be observed. You seem to be reading Fuzzy in a far different way than I am. He's suggesting that there is something, i.e., a force, acting on the Earth in a major way, but we have not detected it yet. I say that if this thing is having an effect, it would result in something we could observe, and thus, we'd have some indication it was there. If you read the initial post, he's wondering what amazing things there could be out there that we would have no concept of. It's been the purpose of me, and a few others, to state that if there was such a thing, we would have detected it through other means. If nothing else, we would be aware of something that we did not understand. Let me try stating it this way: OUR DIRECT SENSES ARE NOT OUR ONLY WAYS, AS HUMAN BEINGS, OF PERCIEVING THINGS. WE WOULD BE AWARE OF THIS THING IN OTHER WAYS, WHETHER WE KNEW THE DETAILS OF IT OR NOT. This is not some celestial body billions of miles away. This is not some infintessimal particle responsible for matter behaving as it does. The things specifically addressed are massive forces having a vast influence, or a race of people existing alongside us that the ordinary physical laws clearly don't apply to. I've never tried to say that science knows everything there is to know. All I've ever tried to say here is that if either of those two things existed, they'd have effects we would have observed by now.

01-29-2005, 03:24 AM	#76
Sithdarth Friendly Neighborhood Quantum Hobo Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Outside the M-brane look'n in Posts: 5,403	We weren't always aware of electricty or magnetism until far into our development. Also I don't see where he said these creatures or things made of some other stuff would have a massive effect. Nor do I see him mentioning any force at all in his posts. In fact his entire point is that there could be a material, like dark matter, thats out there and interects with our matter in a very slight way, that other things are made off. So we haven't discovered exactly what this stuff is or it's effect or the magnitude of its effect, that doesn't mean it isn't there. You admited that there was things we couldn't detect until we developed the correct tools whats to say we have the right tools yet. It could be that we misinturperted something along the way and inertia is generated because of the interaction. Fuzzy and I are not saying that it is this way just that it could be this way. Any probability is still a probability.