• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sign in to follow this  
Great Guy

Ask dosbods

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, onlyme said:

I have a big problem with the if a tree in a forest falls argument. Yes, if nobody is there to observe it, or wander in and find a fallen tree then nobody would know about it, but it still happened, all the aroms in the upright tree are now atoms in a fallen tree. Also in terms of perception if there were say 10 observers, they'd all see the event in a different context/experience - visual and hearing acuity, native language to describe it but the event they watched was the same event, just fro a different perspective. So no the event was the event the rest is our interpretation, and most of the time there is a general consensus that the event was the same thing in essence, a tree that was in the forest fell.

As for mathematically impossible, some of the most capable mathematicians have embedded themselves in stats/economics, they didn't even see 2008 coming, unless most were just lying/toeing the line, so don't find that convincing at all either. 

It is not an argument.  It is an observed event.  From the slit experiment and many others similar we observe that what happens depends upon who is watching.  Relativity proves that events appear different to different observers.  It is fairly easy to see this when dealing with the very small and fairly easy to prove when thinking of vast distances and very high speeds.  However the principles and observations apply to all scales.  It just becomes hard to measure the difference.  I don't think it is possible for anyone to accept it on any sort of instinctive level.  It is a conclusion reached that makes no sense in our day to day life but is an inescapable conclusion of quantum and relativity theory.  Both theories have reams of evidence of their truth and if the theories are wrong our universe is even stranger than they predict.   

Coming back to the falling tree:  whether or not and when the tree falls depends upon the relative speed of the observers and the tree.  Since all observers are pretty  much the same then, yes, the tree falls but if one observer were traveling at close to the speed of light then his observations, and reality, would be different.  In an extreme case (very close to the speed of light) then the tree never falls at all.   All observers are correct so the question of whether the tree falls is valid when viewed from a very extreme condition.  However the extreme position is just as valid as any other so there becomes no truth as to whether the tree "really" fell in any intrinsic way. 

I don't think you can compare economic theory with the origin of life.  When the chances of creating a single protein is in the order of 20 to the power of 200 we arrive at numbers well beyond anything to do with what goes on in a bank.  I think we have to accept on an intellectual level that life is impossible using natural, random events.  This leaves us in a huge void.  We are impossible but we are here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, MrLibertyRedux said:

Can someone please explain to me the current propensity for shaving ones eyebrows off and then having them painted back on?

If you look at old films, etc, some girls had very big eyebrows. Now they look like inflatables with no hair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snow bird said:

I don't think you can compare economic theory with the origin of life.  When the chances of creating a single protein is in the order of 20 to the power of 200 we arrive at numbers well beyond anything to do with what goes on in a bank.  I think we have to accept on an intellectual level that life is impossible using natural, random events.  This leaves us in a huge void.  We are impossible but we are here. 

If “everything” existed as a quantum superposition of all possible arrangements until such a time as it was “observed”, then the unlikeliness disappears.

On the subject of Darwinian problems...  Protein divergence during speciation is an interesting problem: the odds of randomly creating a new protein that is usefully employed by an organism would appear to be astronomical, yet it seems to occur very frequently and in tiny isolated populations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

If “everything” existed as a quantum superposition of all possible arrangements until such a time as it was “observed”, then the unlikeliness disappears.

On the subject of Darwinian problems...  Protein divergence during speciation is an interesting problem: the odds of randomly creating a new protein that is usefully employed by an organism would appear to be astronomical, yet it seems to occur very frequently and in tiny isolated populations.

"If “everything” existed as a quantum superposition of all possible arrangements until such a time as it was “observed”, then the unlikeliness disappears."

Very true but we have to ask, "Who is the observer?"

Your second point is really just a variation of the original problem.  Statistically it is next best thing to impossible but it happens so we must be missing something.  That "something" that we are missing, must be huge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Snow bird said:

Very true but we have to ask, "Who is the observer?"

Your second point is really just a variation of the original problem.  Statistically it is next best thing to impossible but it happens so we must be missing something.  That "something" that we are missing, must be huge. 

Yes, but you can always explain a one off freak occurrence of an astronomically unlikely event as an inevitability given sufficient time and space in which it can occur. That explanation is not available for the millions of only slightly less unlikely speciation events in the last 600 million years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Yes, but you can always explain a one off freak occurrence of an astronomically unlikely event as an inevitability given sufficient time and space in which it can occur. That explanation is not available for the millions of only slightly less unlikely speciation events in the last 600 million years.

You make a good point but I would add that the creation of life needed far more than the freak occurrence of one event.  It needed the freak occurrence of hundreds or even thousands of events to create even the simplest cell of life.  The chances of life starting at all and the subsequent speciation are both so ridiculously huge that random chance must be discounted by any reasonable person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Snow bird said:

"If “everything” existed as a quantum superposition of all possible arrangements until such a time as it was “observed”, then the unlikeliness disappears."

Very true but we have to ask, "Who is the observer?"

Your second point is really just a variation of the original problem.  Statistically it is next best thing to impossible but it happens so we must be missing something.  That "something" that we are missing, must be huge. 

Time is the observer. The tree grows, dies and falls in its own timespan, regardless of whether a bag of human DNA observes it or not (either stationary or at near speed of light).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, onlyme said:

Time is the observer. The tree grows, dies and falls in its own timespan, regardless of whether a bag of human DNA observes it or not (either stationary or at near speed of light).

That hypothesis is not supported by experimentation.  All experiments we are able to perform (only at the atomic level) contradict that hypothesis and conclude that the event is governed by the observer.  Denying the results of experiment is just not scientific no matter how crazy the results sound to your view of reality.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Snow bird said:

That hypothesis is not supported by experimentation.  All experiments we are able to perform (only at the atomic level) contradict that hypothesis and conclude that the event is governed by the observer.  Denying the results of experiment is just not scientific no matter how crazy the results sound to your view of reality.   

I'm not denying that at the quantum / atomic level the world gets very strange.  However turn it on its head, if it were purely at the observer level that events happen, what about a solar eclipse, observer by billions, the sun was there, then wasn't, then was again, what is the likelihood that so many observers would see the same event in such a world you describe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, onlyme said:

I'm not denying that at the quantum / atomic level the world gets very strange.  However turn it on its head, if it were purely at the observer level that events happen, what about a solar eclipse, observer by billions, the sun was there, then wasn't, then was again, what is the likelihood that so many observers would see the same event in such a world you describe?

When all the observers are essentially in the same place and traveling with respect to each other at very small relative speeds then they will observe the event almost identically.  An observer some distance away traveling close to the speed of light would not observe the event the same way.  That is established relativity theory.  The hard part is recognizing that both observations are correct.  There is no "truth" of what happened.  What happened is Dependant on the observer.  Keep in mind that from the point of view of the observer in this case the solar system went whizzing by at near the speed of light and he did not observe a solar eclipse.  From his, perfectly valid, point of view there was no solar eclipse though he might calculate that if he were in the frame of the solar system there would have been a solar eclipse.  This would be to him academic since anything he did would have to use the information that there was no solar eclipse because in his frame there was not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Snow bird said:

When all the observers are essentially in the same place and traveling with respect to each other at very small relative speeds then they will observe the event almost identically.  An observer some distance away traveling close to the speed of light would not observe the event the same way.  That is established relativity theory.  The hard part is recognizing that both observations are correct.  There is no "truth" of what happened.  What happened is Dependant on the observer.  Keep in mind that from the point of view of the observer in this case the solar system went whizzing by at near the speed of light and he did not observe a solar eclipse.  From his, perfectly valid, point of view there was no solar eclipse though he might calculate that if he were in the frame of the solar system there would have been a solar eclipse.  This would be to him academic since anything he did would have to use the information that there was no solar eclipse because in his frame there was not. 

I love stuff like this.

One of my favourites, that makes me feel a bit funny is the mass/energy equivalence. We're all just posh sunshine.

 

The other one that blew my young son's mind when we talked about it is that the only place in the universe hot enough to make everything you need to make a person is a star, so we're all just stardust that know's it's here.

Edited by Roger_Mellie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Snow bird said:

When all the observers are essentially in the same place and traveling with respect to each other at very small relative speeds then they will observe the event almost identically.  An observer some distance away traveling close to the speed of light would not observe the event the same way.  That is established relativity theory.  The hard part is recognizing that both observations are correct.  There is no "truth" of what happened.  What happened is Dependant on the observer.  Keep in mind that from the point of view of the observer in this case the solar system went whizzing by at near the speed of light and he did not observe a solar eclipse.  From his, perfectly valid, point of view there was no solar eclipse though he might calculate that if he were in the frame of the solar system there would have been a solar eclipse.  This would be to him academic since anything he did would have to use the information that there was no solar eclipse because in his frame there was not. 

That the travelling observer did not see the event in the same way surely though does not change the fact that in no dilated time the earthed for a while was actually in an eclipse.

Take another example the observer is sitting on a rock hurtling towards the earth on a collision course, it hits, both rock and earth destroyed, no matter what was observed by either parties during the event no matter how radically different, the end result is not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, onlyme said:

That the travelling observer did not see the event in the same way surely though does not change the fact that in no dilated time the earthed for a while was actually in an eclipse.

Take another example the observer is sitting on a rock hurtling towards the earth on a collision course, it hits, both rock and earth destroyed, no matter what was observed by either parties during the event no matter how radically different, the end result is not. 

To your first point: yes indeed the earth was in eclipse for the people on earth and it was a real event to them.  It is of no relevance to them that someone else saw it differently.  We do need to know however that this event was not universally real.  If we had interaction with other observers we need to know their perception.  An example would be gps positioning satellites.  The satellites are traveling fast enough that they see the earth a little differently than we do.  They have to be corrected for the effect of relativity. 

To your second point: Although the end result would be identical for both observers they would disagree as to when it happened.  Their time frame would be different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, sbn said:

I dont think I will ever be able to fully grasp this.

It does seem incredibly supportive of the idea that this is all just a simulation, and “stuff” only exists as a set of possibilities until needed for interaction with the sims.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My intuition is that quantum effects are our first sighting of eternity, not time slower or faster but no time at all, everything at once.

Edited by Panther

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, onlyme said:

I'm not denying that at the quantum / atomic level the world gets very strange.  However turn it on its head, if it were purely at the observer level that events happen, what about a solar eclipse, observer by billions, the sun was there, then wasn't, then was again, what is the likelihood that so many observers would see the same event in such a world you describe?

I believe that some of the flat Earthers maintain that every person gets their own individual version of the "cosmos" served to them, based upon their location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Snow bird said:

You make a good point but I would add that the creation of life needed far more than the freak occurrence of one event.  It needed the freak occurrence of hundreds or even thousands of events to create even the simplest cell of life.  The chances of life starting at all and the subsequent speciation are both so ridiculously huge that random chance must be discounted by any reasonable person. 

The mutation is random, the filters of selection are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hail the Tripod said:

It does seem incredibly supportive of the idea that this is all just a simulation, and “stuff” only exists as a set of possibilities until needed for interaction with the sims.

 

It just seems that the immense distance of everything relative to us is very convenient.  Just think of the recent imaging of the supermassive black hole in the centre of our own galaxy!  How much simulation time would it have taken to generate that shitty image!  My spectrum from the 80's could have simulated that... and that's our neighbourhood SMBH!!!!

Basically if its not extremely local, its a point of light or a fuzzy cloud... yup thats what 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is from your point of view... SIMS!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/09/2019 at 22:49, Snow bird said:

The origin of life.  Darwin's theory of evolution works fairly well once we have life but getting the first self replicating string of DNA, never mind all the other DNA required to produce even the simplest life form seems mathematically in the realm of impossible.  As the video implies we are lead by science to the need for a God of some sort or another and even he poses the same problem since we have to ask where he came from. 

So my question would be: how can we possibly exist?   . . . . . or maybe we  don't.  I do, but you lot might be a construct of my consciousness . . . whatever that is!   

I see they rolled out Intelligent Design advocate and resident nutter Stephen Meyer. He's about as much of a scientist as I am with his background in 'Philosophy of science.'

'Comments are disabled for this video' tells you about as much as you need to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear DOSBODS,

Will my nob get bigger if I tie a couple of bricks to my bell-end, and chuck them off a bridge...?

Or will it just turn black, and fall-off....?

 

Asking for a weird cunt on the Middlesbrough Transporter...

 

XYY

Edited by The XYY Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.