What is "Mind?"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 21641 - 21660 of total 22463 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Kalimon

Social climber
Ridgway, CO
Aug 9, 2018 - 09:14pm PT
On what basis will you wake up tomorrow knowing you are you?

A wonderful question that we should all take very seriously . . . our self identity is the core of our material existence. We take this for granted on a daily basis, our mind is the stage we live our lives upon. Without our self identity (ego) we would be adrift in the matrix of the world at large. Only our belief in the world of our senses keeps us on our daily path.
WBraun

climber
Aug 9, 2018 - 09:28pm PT
self examination might lead to erroneous conclusions.

Yes, they will lead to erroneous conclusions 100%, without God.

Since modern science says "There IS NO NEED for God" all their ultimate conclusions will always be erroneous, inconclusive an incomplete.

They Will be forced to be that way .......
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Aug 9, 2018 - 09:37pm PT
I don't need science to tell me I don't need any of the tens of thousands of gods...
Don Paul

Social climber
Washington DC
Aug 10, 2018 - 03:23am PT
Don:
Your F=ma question was straight forward and was handled by Ed.

I disagree. It's a serious flaw on a conceptual level. Ed's criticism of the steady state theory relied on the red shift measurements (the so called "Hubble expansion") which was what I was challenging in the first place. On this particular subject, people become defensive of illogical ideas they have an emotional attachment to, the hallmark of religiosity.

The CMB implies that there was a time of high temperature from which the current universe evolved;

Ed, here is another puzzle to solve. On the one hand, proponents of this theory state that "space itself" is expanding, rather than objects moving away from each other. Then in the next breath they tell you that once upon a time, the universe was a hot, dense mass - and then there was a great explosion. It's either one or the other.
MikeL

Social climber
Southern Arizona
Aug 10, 2018 - 09:28am PT
the Fet: Most scientific people understand models like the Big Bang include mechanisms and can be proven false. 

Honest observation and a little knowledge about how people construct understanding psychologically and sociologically suggest that just about everyone is in a delusional state that focuses on surface features and creative interpretations.

When you rest your arm on a table to type your post here, there is an implicit assumption that the table is solid, that what you’re writing or typing is what it appears to be (rather than squiggles created by differences in light reflections), and what you have to communicate is concrete and serious. Your orientations are instrumental: it doesn’t matter what things really are (to hell with that), you “get things done” by golly, so you’re good.

The everyday world of delusion and illusion appears everywhere to anyone who looks at any "thing” closely and systematically. Don’t believe me? Read up in almost any scientific discipline, and what you’ll find are very academic people who are telling you that there are deep structures that lie underneath (invisible) causally that give rise to common, everyday views. What *appears* to be going on for everyone here in everyday life is, we’re consistently told, ill-understood. (Thank god for all those “experts.”)

On the other hand, I’d suggest that if you don’t see everything in front of you as an energy flow, then you’re stuck in someone’s creative narrative (probably your own—which is what the physicalists appear to be concerned about with spiritualists).

But, hey, that’s ok for 99.99% of the people on the planet. They’re interacting with other folks who disagree (sometimes vehemently) about those delusions and illusions (ala, the same “facts”).

That there are significant disagreements everywhere about everything could lead you to a recognition that there must be delusion and illusion everywhere (or rampant belief structures taken as incontrovertibly real). We are smart enough to understand that: what we were told or taught when we were inexperienced or younger was over-simplified or not quite true. (Did you notice that not everything’s quite working out in conventional reality?)

So-called “no-mind” doesn’t make the world go away. For those who realize it (occasionally), it simply makes things in the world (to include oneself) a bit translucent or evanescent, a bit like a dream, not quite concrete and serious. For almost everyone on the planet, we live in a a dream that we cannot quite escape.

Which dream would you prefer? The one you’re completely involved in and committed to, or the one that you are conscious of?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 10, 2018 - 09:43am PT
the expansion is a measure of the shifting spectra of objects viewed in the sky. This doppler shift increases as the distance to the object increases.

The distance to the objects is measured by a luminosity relationship, objects farther away appear dimmer.

The hypothesis that dust causes the dimming, not distance, would alter the interpretation. The problem with dust is that as it absorbs the light from the stars it heats up, and then emits that energy, albeit in the infrared. The apparent creation of "magic dust" that can absorb the light without re-emitting the light has to provide some explanation of how the particles escape this process of re-emission.

Not only that, but the optical depth of the particles has to be such that the signature of expansion, that all points of the universe are expanding away from us (actually each point) uniformly, requires the distribution of the particles to be uniform.

Dust distribution in the universe is not uniform. Dust is generated in the cycling of material in stars, and stars are not uniformly distributed.

The methods for determining the distance essentially overlap as we go to farther and farther distances. Trigonometric parallax, proper motion, apparent luminosity. Improved telescopes are able to extend these observations to large distances.

I believe that gravitational lenses also provide a means of checking the distance scales, essentially these are "natural" telescopes and the geometric configuration of the objects help to confirm the distance relationships.

The first chapter of Weinberg's book gives a very good review of this accessible to a reader who would skip over the formulae, but might want to read the cited observational literature.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 10, 2018 - 10:14am PT
Ed, here is another puzzle to solve. On the one hand, proponents of this theory state that "space itself" is expanding, rather than objects moving away from each other. Then in the next breath they tell you that once upon a time, the universe was a hot, dense mass - and then there was a great explosion. It's either one or the other.

I'm not at all sure what your puzzle is, General Relativity (GR) makes space-time dynamical. This is the major extension of Newtonian gravity in which space-time is taken to be static.

A dynamical space-time can depend on the distribution of mass, its position and velocity. GR provides a way of discussing the time-dependence of space-time.

The Robertson-Walker scale factor, a, can be time dependent, and that is usually how we think about the expansion. The time-dependence of the density of the universe can be derived

dρ/dt + (3ȧ/a)[p+ρ] = 0

This relationship mixes up the expansion of space-time contained in the scale factor with the time and space distribution of mass (the density) and energy (the pressure). GR is a framework that tells how to do the mixing.

if ȧ=0, no expansion, then dρ/dt = 0, the density does not change with time, that is steady-state.
pressure and density in the square brackets has to do with the equation-of-state of the universe.

Here is where Einstein proposed the cosmological constant, which is also the vacuum energy, if

p=-ρ

then there can be expansion but static density.

For cold matter p=0 and ρ proportional to a⁻³ the inverse "volume"
for hot matter p = ρ/3 and ρ proportional to a⁻⁴

Physical cosmology has been around for over 100 years in its modern form and is becoming the focus of high energy physics, modern observation and the current model of cosmology indicate that the majority of the universe is composed of stuff we don't have any idea of... and since that is the goal of high energy physics, to describe all the fundamental stuff, we see a shift from accelerator based observation (which is at "low energy" comparably) to astrophysical observation and "precision" cosmology.

What is the equation of state of the universe?

How ȧ came to be is a least plausibly described in inflationary models, these put the "bang" in the big bang.

I'm not an expert on this though...
MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Aug 10, 2018 - 10:31am PT
I’d suggest that if you don’t see everything in front of you as an energy flow, then you’re stuck in someone’s creative narrative


You might be stuck in a traffic jam, too.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 10, 2018 - 10:39am PT
Which dream would you prefer? The one you’re completely involved in and committed to, or the one that you are conscious of?

...just eat the steak...
jogill

climber
Colorado
Aug 10, 2018 - 11:01am PT
"self examination might lead to erroneous conclusions"


A salient point, but unlikely to convince those with deep attachments to the process.

Don Paul

Social climber
Washington DC
Aug 10, 2018 - 11:39am PT
Ed the question I asked you is another well known problem with the Big Bang. The red shifts are isotropic, meaning that no matter which direction you look, objects at the same distance are receding (and accelerating) at the same rate. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that the earth is at the center of the expansion, which cannot be true. Hence, "space itself" must be expanding, or so they say.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 10, 2018 - 12:47pm PT
This leads to the inescapable conclusion that the earth is at the center of the expansion, which cannot be true. Hence, "space itself" must be expanding, or so they say.

it leads to the inescapable conclusion that every point in space is the "center of expansion"

I can see that you would be confused if you can't wrap your head around that.

Space-time is not separable from the stuff that occupies it, so that stuff is "moving" too.

This is not "a problem."
Don Paul

Social climber
Washington DC
Aug 10, 2018 - 12:57pm PT
So there was no great explosion in some faraway place? I thought you said the cosmic microwave background measurement proved the universe was once very hot.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 10, 2018 - 01:01pm PT
no, current thinking is that the inflatons did it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflaton
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 10, 2018 - 01:15pm PT
as the universe expands it cools off, at very early times its temperature is high enough that the universe is dissociated into a plasma of constituents.

the cooling results in the combination (recombination in some jargon, but it hadn't previously been combined) of those constituents eventually coming to the last, which is the combining of electrons and protons into atoms and the freeing of the photons.

Those photons then stream into the universe unabated by the neutral atoms.

While those photons form a black body radiation of 4ºK today, at the time of the combination the universe was about the temperature of the ionization energy of hydrogen, 13 eV which corresponds to 150,800ºK

the expansion of the universe is why the photons have red shifted down in energy... they have been moving away from us since the recombination
Don Paul

Social climber
Washington DC
Aug 10, 2018 - 01:21pm PT
That is some serious bullsht.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 10, 2018 - 01:25pm PT
^^^do you use GPS?


Lawyers are experts in detecting BS though.
an interesting claim with no evidence to back it up.
Norton

climber
The Wastelands
Aug 10, 2018 - 02:18pm PT
why is it BS, Mr. Paul?
jogill

climber
Colorado
Aug 10, 2018 - 03:29pm PT
Think of the surface of an expanding balloon. All points move away from one another. No center.
Dingus Milktoast

Trad climber
Minister of Moderation, Fatcrackistan
Aug 10, 2018 - 03:42pm PT
Balloon Dome is like that! The longer you’re on it the longer the pitches and the farther between the bolts.

Seriously.

DMT
Messages 21641 - 21660 of total 22463 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta