Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 07:19pm PT
|
Deepak Chopra territory there.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 07:55pm PT
|
Cintune wrote:
Deepak Chopra territory there. ^
Cintune, can't it just be "feralfae territory"?
I am willing to stake it out over time, between bouts of throwing my life away in clay. I would like to have the opportunity to articulate feralfae territory, but I am not sure this is the place to do so. I believe I have the mental capacity—and affinity for logic—to be fairly rational in this discussion. But it might be better suited over on the physics forum.
I think this thread is worthy of some thinking, and while I am sitting at the wheel, it is a good time to think. But today it is snowing horizontally and too cold in the studio—and besides, I am celebrating with champagne tonight. :)
I'd hoped some might read "Causality and Chance in Quantum Physics" by Bohm, forward by deBroglie. Maybe only the first 100 pages will do it, but all in all, it is a lovely read.
I, on the other hand, am reading Joseph Campbell these days, if only to observe the unfortunate assumptions and contradictions he makes. He was a man of his age. Much as we humans label the egg-laying slave the "Queen Bee" when we speak of bees. And then again, I could be entirely mistaken about everything. There is always that chance.
Thank you for the (rather limiting) but perhaps flattering categorization of my post. I prefer to be in feralfae territory, as it is my own.
Thank you,
feralfae
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 09:06pm PT
|
On the subject of physical extent for hidden dimensions you might listen to Joanne Hewett's SETI talk. Joanne's talk is a good introduction to Lisa Randall's three lectures at CERN concerning the same topic. Randall's paper RS1 showed our old assumption that hidden dimensions must be highly compactified(small) is not necessarily true. Once you allow a hidden dimension to be large and to extend from the TEV to the Planck Brane then it is possible to solve the hierarchy problem and show that gravity can be as large as the strong force.
Right now we are fortunate to be living in a period that equals the excitement existing during Kepler's time.
I was unable to follow any logic in the posts to this thread so I won't comment directly. It all seemed to trace back to "sentience" but I have not been able to find a definition for sentience that employs well defined words. So you got nothing. Until we have an agreed upon meaning for sentience who would be so foolish as to claim they know how to test a computer for that property.
For those fascinated by computers, I will repeat myself and urge people to watch Jeff Hawkins' lectures on hierarchical temporal memory.
Revolutions everywhere one looks.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 09:41pm PT
|
but I think that this organized structure of existence must be recognized prior to delving more deeply into the questions of existence. Our material reality, after all, includes both gravity and dimension. And energetic states.
i for one, would love to hear your speculations upon the route of our existence. Beware though, i believe evolution is generated only by 20% genetics/material. The rest is conceived by environment. So what you say shapes my body.
Please proceed.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 09:45pm PT
|
healyje: And meditating yields no more definitive answers on the proposition than speculating because it's as possible to 'pierce the veil' or 'become it' as it is to "report back" after crossing the event horizon of a black hole. Largo: We all assume this pronouncement is based on empirical evidence - so kindly tell us what that is and where you got it. |
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 10:02pm PT
|
Until we have an agreed upon meaning for sentience
In the unscientific kangaroo court of supertopo.
In the unscientific court of pure biased western speculative fantasy of gross materialism is all in all.
And in all your pseudoscientific speculations and hypotheses which though unproven, are hypocritically included within the realm of your so called science.
You people are insane .....
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 10:07pm PT
|
For those fascinated by computers, I will repeat myself and urge people to watch Jeff Hawkins' lectures on hierarchical temporal memory.
Lots of parallels with what's currently going on in the big data world, part of which is starting to meld in what's called 'Streaming Big Data Analytics" (or 'real-time analytics'). It is embracing many of the same data ('sparse distributive representation') and algorithmic patterns employed by HTM. Where they part ways, at the moment, is in the more Bayesian/neuralnet-like aspects of HTM with SBDA doing little-to-no backward feedback in the streaming hierarchy (but it's coming fast and furious).
Here's a link to a good 2012 overview of the whole 'machine learning over big data' space which nods to Hawkin's product along the way: Machine Learning, Cognition, and Big Data
P.S. Nice to see they've open sourced it as OpenHTM - quite a few ports and derivations.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 10:29pm PT
|
How does "no physical extent" relate to this, John?
Randall Sundrum Model
Discuss with your car pool and report back.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2015 - 11:28pm PT
|
Feralfae: . . . must be . . .
That’s where you went wrong. You found a gap, and then you filled it willy nilly. Don’t do that. It’s imaginative and speculative and without justification—other by than your own mind.
Jstan:
I appreciate your affinity for a little revolution in your fields.
Why do you find boundaries and hesitate pulling out all the stops? You stay in bounds of what is conceptually and theoretically possible. Is that prudence? If so, then you might also be doing it so that you continue to have some legitimacy among a community that you may have significant differences with. It references a social bond and commitment to others.
What a paradox. The more honest and truthful any of us become, the more we alienate ourselves from others. What is more important: community or a fleeting sense of truth?
I personally see that there is a consensus of 3: me, myself, and I. It’s my little community.
I think if we were brutally honest, we’d admit that individually, we know just about nothing.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 06:13am PT
|
How does "no physical extent" relate to this, John?
Randall Sundrum Model
Discuss with your car pool and report back.
As I said I have no idea, These discussions evolve with everyone using their own coded
language. I could not read the discussion back and find any consistent use of the words
"physical extent".
This is not my field of expertise but I understand Randall as follows as regards extra
dimensions. You might consider a subspace as what we live on and a curled up extra
dimension being an addenda to that space. That extra dimension violates no laws if it is of
substantial extent, is not compactified. And over that extent there are large changes in
energy scale ( QM requires the energy to follow an exponential dependence) and a quantity
like gravity can undergo changes of 10^30. We live in the TEV brane where energies of the
LHC are obtained, and gravity is like 10^-30 of the size of the other forces. This disparity in
the forces is not what quantum mechanical calculations predict. Just possibly the forces
obey QM predictions in the high energy Planck brane that existed during the early Big Bang.
Generally, physical extent is defined as follows. After defining a metric or quantity of interest
and a space of interest you make a series of determinations in that space to see where the
quantity of interest is non zero and where it is zero. Where there is a delta function in the
difference between two measurements you know there is a boundary to physical extent.
I don't have a car pool. Besides, it is wise to follow both legal and practical best practice.
Third party testimony is generally inferior to testimony delivered by its originator. That's why
I cite my sources and sources publish papers that may be accessed.
But I was asked. We very much miss Ed.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 08:22am PT
|
OK
Using the above procedure for defining physical extent we can determine the physical extent of
a thought. Using CT scan get images of brain activity in an individual with and without a
thought and do a difference image. Define a lower bound on the value in the difference image
that is "absence of thought". The three dimensional representation of that bounded image then
defines the physical extent of the thought.
We can even do a statistical study using many subjects and come up with the distribution for
physical extents for the thought over a population. Once that has been done we can even say
with quantified confidence whether or not an individual is having the thought or another
thought. Individual X's image is five sigma off the mean so we are not sure the thought is the
one we think it is.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 08:42am PT
|
Everything in the universe has a physical extent. Everything.
You just made that up in your own MIND.
You have no proof of any such made up fabricated bullsh!t in your runaway out of control fertile Mind!
Life is nonphysical and nonchemical.
It is beyond matter and it is transcendental to the physical extent.
That is the basic difference .....
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 09:04am PT
|
In the absence of data, stating an opinion as if it were a fact is a losing proposition. Someone
with a different opinion will make the same error and we all lose. Gets very tiring.
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 09:06am PT
|
The secret of Ayurvedic flight revealed:
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 09:11am PT
|
Something I learned in budget discussions. Get angry, and no further attention will be paid
anything you claim. Saw it happen this way. Over and over.
The reptile brain gives little indication of learning.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 09:14am PT
|
In the absence of data, stating an opinion
Yes, you guys are stating opinions that matter is all there is.
It's a proven fact that that matter is NOT all there is.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 09:26am PT
|
How does "no physical extent" relate to this, John?
Randall Sundrum Model
Discuss with your car pool and report back.
Jstan, I apologize for not being clear. This little poke was directed at the other "John", namely Largo! His car pool involves the prodigies from Cal Tech that he cites frequently.
Your expertise on this thread is much appreciated!
;>)
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 09:32am PT
|
Ok, poem off topic, now posted on poetry thread.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 09:38am PT
|
John
No problem. I took the comment as something I deserved. It is very important we all appreciate input. Not doing so is the worst flaw.
Destructive.
I learned this around 1970 from Richard Petrowitz. After putting up ribbons to see if trails could help preserve the mountain laurel, Richie tore me a new one. It took milliseconds to realize if you want to accomplish something with others no input may be disregarded.
Nothing is more important than the learning.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 15, 2015 - 11:14am PT
|
I mentioned the fracus about "no physical extent" to a few science friends who John, who apparently distrusts other scientists, especially young ones, has referrered to as "prodigies," and one said, "Ask those duffers what the physical extent is of gauge bosons, photons and gluons." Or put differently, for the known phenomenon that have no physical mass, what is their physical extent?
John S. said that we need a cogent definition of sentience. My friends who approached the question in terms of programming an AI machine with same discovered that any definition would have to exclude tasking or computing or objective functioning as the basic nature of sentience, leaving them with no "thing" with which to program. Perhaps John has some other insights on he subject that could lead to a definition. Again, the default to objective functioning will not serve our definition since "the map is not the territory."
What does this really mean? It means that my daughter (petroengineer) has an incredibly detailed break down of a lightening bolt that struck an old rig she was working on in the Orinoco Belt down in Venezuela. The break down runs many pages and has an almost incomprehensible amount of detail per the objective physical aspects of the lightening bolt in question. But no matter how detailed and accurate the figures are, we will never get an electric shock by touching the map of forked lighening because said map is not forked lightening itself.
JL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!