Another boring existential ponderance....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-05-2014, 06:09 PM
RE: Another boring existential ponderance....
If nothing existed it would, most likely, have an infinite quality.

Infinite nothingness is a term ascribed to such lack of existence, but even nothing is something. I've always tried to wrap my primitive mind around this concept, that where there is nothing there is always something, even if that something is nothing.

In humanity's terms, and with the limited vocabulary that we have molded over our existence, there can be no such thing as nothing, and thenceforth, there can be nothing that is ultimately finite, for all we do, ultimately, is add to the expansion of the quandary of our own existence (with each words we add as well).

In order to accurately ascribe meaning to that which can only be meaningless, many look towards religious figures, and that very point is the point in which they relieve themselves from the burden of thought.

You and I, however, face this challenge of thought head on, which leads to personal gain and fulfillment. Or, as I do not know your relationship with philosophical thinking, the very idea of infinity may be upsetting to you; but I can definitively say that it is not upsetting to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 06:43 AM
RE: Another boring existential ponderance....
(17-05-2014 05:04 AM)Airportkid Wrote:  As a strictly logical matter, no. An entity with the property of spatial dimension can always be cleaved in half by a mathematical axe, or doubled up.

Orly ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 06:44 AM
RE: Another boring existential ponderance....
Hello cjlr, how are you? I know I didn't start up this thread, but I would still like to thank you for two very informative contributions to it.

(18-05-2014 09:04 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 09:01 AM)RaisdCath Wrote:  ... science tells us that over 99% of the space in all of that is empty...
It's not empty, it contains fields.
(18-05-2014 12:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 09:29 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  ... could you try to define "fields" for me in as much of a layman's terminology as you can?
A field is the mathematical framework within which excitations propagate.

(...)

Mathematically, a field is simply a space with some value associated with each point. More technically, the "value" at each point can be pretty much any sort of mathematical object, from a scalar to a vector to a tensor or what have you.

(...)

But the important thing to my earlier brief statement is that fields are (in general) boundless.

(...)
When you declare that space contains fields, you are bringing up the notion of containment, which implies a container and its contents; in other words, a boundary between contents and non-contents. However, you also declare that fields are boundless; there is no boundary between field and non-field because fields project outwards infinite distances.

Faced with that inconsistency, and in order to try to understand how your descriptions fit the universe I seem to find around me, I need to discard one of them. I am tempted to discard the first one, space does not really contain fields but fields do occur in space; a field is a boundless set of locations around an object where the behaviour of other objects is affected. Would that convey the same notion you encoded in your initial declaration?

I think it is important to understand that fields occur in the same "place" as space occurs: in our minds. Outside our minds, what happens is that material structures have an effect on the behaviour of other material structures, but those regions where things have an influence on the behaviour of other things are abstract tools produced in our brains in order to help us visualise how things have an effect on the behaviour of other things; fields are not real things out there. A sizeless point is an abstraction and an infinite set of sizeless points is an abstraction too; fields as mathematical frameworks are abstract entities, as abstract as all-powerful gods (the difference is that fields describe the behaviour of reality, whereas all-powerful gods describe bollocks). Energy fields are in our minds; outside our heads there is matter and, over time, it exhibits behaviours.

For example, the planet's gravitationial field. I can visualise it as a set of little arrows pointing more or less towards the geometrical centre of the planet and becoming smaller and smaller as they get further away from the planet and the stellar system, indicating that any material structure located around the planet will experience a force in the direction of the arrow and proportional to the arrow's length. But there aren't any arrows out there that astronauts have to watch out for, those arrows are in my mind. The things you can bump into out there are material structures.

(18-05-2014 12:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  All of those names are shitty; "weak" and "strong" refer to field strength relative to electromagnetism, "quark" is a completely made up word (and comes from a reference to three of something, even though we now know of six types), "flavour" and "colour" have nothing to do with flavour or colour but even less to do with anything else, and "gluons", which are so called because they stick quarks together.
I partly agree with you, words like "flavour" and "colour" are terrible choices for attributes that are not flavour or colour, especially the first one.

Our tongues are covered in chemical sensors that enable us to analyse incoming potential food before we swallow it. Sour taste sensors are based on the incoming food's pH; that is, the concentration of hydronium ions in it, which is itself related to the number of free protons available. When a proton donor such as the citric acid in lemon juice lands on the surface of our tongues, excess protons can enter some specialised cells, directly or indirectly causing a membrane depolarisation and triggering a signal that our brains identify as a sour taste. So it can be argued that protons have a flavour, but particle flavour has nothing, or at least very little, to do with it.

Other names don't seem that bad, though. I'm not sure I agree with the notion, but the name "gluon" seems pretty good; not only because it sticks easily and it reflects one of notions it tries to convey, but also because it was not already in use when it became attached to notion it conveys.

Have a good day!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 07:19 AM
RE: Another boring existential ponderance....
(19-05-2014 06:44 AM)living thing Wrote:  When you declare that space contains fields, you are bringing up the notion of containment...

Nah, you did that.

(19-05-2014 06:44 AM)living thing Wrote:  ... which implies a container and its contents; in other words, a boundary between contents and non-contents. However, you also declare that fields are boundless; there is no boundary between field and non-field because fields project outwards infinite distances.

I could also say my post contains ideas. And an odd fixation on a very limited interpretation of "contain" would not be particularly useful in parsing that statement either...

(19-05-2014 06:44 AM)living thing Wrote:  Faced with that inconsistency, and in order to try to understand how your descriptions fit the universe I seem to find around me, I need to discard one of them. I am tempted to discard the first one, space does not really contain fields but fields do occur in space; a field is a boundless set of locations around an object where the behaviour of other objects is affected. Would that convey the same notion you encoded in your initial declaration?

That would seem to me to be an immaterial distinction; I do not see how the word "contain" presents any such problems, but substituting "occur" should you wish to contains no difficulty.

(19-05-2014 06:44 AM)living thing Wrote:  I think it is important to understand that fields occur in the same "place" as space occurs: in our minds.

Our models occur in our minds, yes, but reality is reality in any case.

(19-05-2014 06:44 AM)living thing Wrote:  Outside our minds, what happens is that material structures have an effect on the behaviour of other material structures, but those regions where things have an influence on the behaviour of other things are abstract tools produced in our brains in order to help us visualise how things have an effect on the behaviour of other things; fields are not real things out there. A sizeless point is an abstraction and an infinite set of sizeless points is an abstraction too; fields as mathematical frameworks are abstract entities, as abstract as all-powerful gods (the difference is that fields describe the behaviour of reality, whereas all-powerful gods describe bollocks). Energy fields are in our minds; outside our heads there is matter and, over time, it exhibits behaviours.

A quantised field is not sizeless; it occupies planck dimensions.

Nonetheless, that "point" is an abstraction does not prevent a quantity from being defined at any point.

(19-05-2014 06:44 AM)living thing Wrote:  For example, the planet's gravitationial field. I can visualise it as a set of little arrows pointing more or less towards the geometrical centre of the planet and becoming smaller and smaller as they get further away from the planet and the stellar system, indicating that any material structure located around the planet will experience a force in the direction of the arrow and proportional to the arrow's length. But there aren't any arrows out there that astronauts have to watch out for, those arrows are in my mind. The things you can bump into out there are material structures.

Well; to bump into anything is an electromagnetic interaction.

But of course, that's how a model works. Field lines are an abstraction, but fields exist, certainly insofar as the behaviour they characterise is eminently observable and readily explicable.

(19-05-2014 06:44 AM)living thing Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 12:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  All of those names are shitty; "weak" and "strong" refer to field strength relative to electromagnetism, "quark" is a completely made up word (and comes from a reference to three of something, even though we now know of six types), "flavour" and "colour" have nothing to do with flavour or colour but even less to do with anything else, and "gluons", which are so called because they stick quarks together.
I partly agree with you, words like "flavour" and "colour" are terrible choices for attributes that are not flavour or colour, especially the first one.

Our tongues are covered in chemical sensors that enable us to analyse incoming potential food before we swallow it. Sour taste sensors are based on the incoming food's pH; that is, the concentration of hydronium ions in it, which is itself related to the number of free protons available. When a proton donor such as the citric acid in lemon juice lands on the surface of our tongues, excess protons can enter some specialised cells, directly or indirectly causing a membrane depolarisation and triggering a signal that our brains identify as a sour taste. So it can be argued that protons have a flavour, but particle flavour has nothing, or at least very little, to do with it.

Sure, although "flavour" originally meant smell, not taste, and has meant "type" in a broader sense for centuries. But given the lack of overlap between particle physics and biochemistry the ambiguity is unlikely to arise.

Colour, not so much. Antigreen is not a helpful term. To say nothing of strangeness...

(19-05-2014 06:44 AM)living thing Wrote:  Other names don't seem that bad, though. I'm not sure I agree with the notion, but the name "gluon" seems pretty good; not only because it sticks easily and it reflects one of notions it tries to convey, but also because it was not already in use when it became attached to notion it conveys.

Well, neologisms are hard to come up with in any case.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 08:10 AM
RE: Another boring existential ponderance....
(19-05-2014 07:19 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Colour, not so much. Antigreen is not a helpful term. To say nothing of strangeness...

I believe the technical term is "pink":



Wink

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
19-05-2014, 10:06 AM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2014 12:23 PM by living thing.)
RE: Another boring existential ponderance....
I'm sorry, cjlr. I hate to ask, but I'd like to ask you for a few clarifications, as well as sharing a few remarks. I am genuinely interested in your answers to those questions and it is not an old tiring ploy.

(19-05-2014 07:19 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 06:44 AM)living thing Wrote:  When you declare that space contains fields, you are bringing up the notion of containment...

Nah, you did that.
I brought up the notion of containment in reference to matter, not to fields; material structures occupy a volume bounded by a surface. You've brought it in reference to fields, although you later clarified that this containment is an unbound one.

In your view, the notion of containment does not seem to imply that of a container. Fair enough, it is your view. In my view, containment does suggest a container as well as that which is contained, so while I don't have a problem using the word in reference to material structures, because I can understand the contents and the container as their non-empty volume and their surface, respectively, I cannot do the same for energy fields, because I only have contents, not a container.

(19-05-2014 07:19 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I could also say my post contains ideas.
Since ideas are abstract notions, and thus virtual entities, the limits to your post do not appear in space but over time. When your post is transferred as a stream of bits from the web server to a web client, the transmission is clearly delimited over time, from the beginning of the first bit to the end of the last bit, so even if your post can act as a virtual container of ideas, it is still a delimited container.

Of course, we can attach abstract notions to symbols arranged in space, so we can also view your post as the thing with letters that appears on the screen, in which case it is also delimited. Presuming that you are viewing this forum on a computer screen rather than the phone, have you noticed how there are a few pixels of non-post between my previous post and yours, and between yours and Hafnof's? In order to accept that some entity may be really or virtually contained, we need to be able to describe the container; otherwise, how can we be sure that the entity really is contained within its context?

(19-05-2014 07:19 AM)cjlr Wrote:  And an odd fixation on a very limited interpretation of "contain" would not be particularly useful in parsing that statement either...
It may be an odd fixation, and it may be a very limited interpretation of "contain", but the fact that you don't find it useful does not render it useless; I find it useful.

(19-05-2014 07:19 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 06:44 AM)living thing Wrote:  ... space does not really contain fields but fields do occur in space; a field is a boundless set of locations around an object where the behaviour of other objects is affected.
That would seem to me to be an immaterial distinction; I do not see how the word "contain" presents any such problems...
Really? Does the word "contain" not even remotely suggest the notion of a container in your mind? Well, it may be that they are completely unrelated notions.

(19-05-2014 07:19 AM)cjlr Wrote:  ... but substituting "occur" should you wish to contains no difficulty.
I'm glad we can agree on "occur". That term does not suggest a container in my mind so I don't have a problem with it.

(19-05-2014 07:19 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 06:44 AM)living thing Wrote:  I think it is important to understand that fields occur in the same "place" as space occurs: in our minds.
Our models occur in our minds, yes, but reality is reality in any case.
Please tell me what you understand by "reality".

(19-05-2014 07:19 AM)cjlr Wrote:  A quantised field is not sizeless; it occupies planck dimensions.
Please tell me what you understand by "occupy".

(19-05-2014 07:19 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Nonetheless, that "point" is an abstraction does not prevent a quantity from being defined at any point.
Please tell me what you understand by "defined".

(19-05-2014 07:19 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Well; to bump into anything is an electromagnetic interaction.
Not necessarily, if the structures interacting are electrically neutral.

(19-05-2014 07:19 AM)cjlr Wrote:  But of course, that's how a model works. Field lines are an abstraction, but fields exist, certainly insofar as the behaviour they characterise is eminently observable and readily explicable.
Ok, so for you, things exist if they characterise a behaviour that is eminently observable and readily explicable. With that operational definition in mind, do square roots of negative numbers exist?

Imaginary numbers are useful for describing observable behaviours such as rotations, so they must exist if I have understood your idea of existence correctly. But if multiples of the imaginary unit exist, then it follows that the imaginary unit exists too, as itself times one, leading me to conclude that the square root of -1 exists. Now, what "real" number would I have to multiply times itself in order to get -1?

I'm not sure I understand your idea of existence but please keep in mind that the notion I attach to the same word is different from the one you seem to attach. When I say that fields don't exist, I am not saying that fields don't characterise a behaviour that is eminently observable and readily explicable, I mean that they do not occupy the volumes in which they seem to appear. One location may be part of many different fields during the same interval of time, but one location cannot be part of two different material structures during the same interval of time.

(19-05-2014 07:19 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 06:44 AM)living thing Wrote:  I partly agree with you, words like "flavour" and "colour" are terrible choices for attributes that are not flavour or colour, especially the first one.

Sure, although "flavour" originally meant smell, not taste, and has meant "type" in a broader sense for centuries.
Yeah, you're right, thanks for pointing it out. And the chemical sensors that I mentioned are not exclusively located in the tongue; much of what we perceive as taste is in fact entering our bodies through our noses. Have you ever tried cinammon with your nose covered?

It is still a shit word to describe an attribute at a subchemical level of structure.

(19-05-2014 07:19 AM)cjlr Wrote:  But given the lack of overlap between particle physics and biochemistry the ambiguity is unlikely to arise.
Lack of overlap? Particle physics underlies biochemical structures and behaviours, how is that not overlapping?

(19-05-2014 07:19 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Colour, not so much. Antigreen is not a helpful term. To say nothing of strangeness...
You bet! I'd hate being antistrange!

(19-05-2014 07:19 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Well, neologisms are hard to come up with in any case.
I don't think they're so difficult to invent, and in any case it is worth the effort; it yields languages that are less ambiguous.

Thanks for your clarifications if you provide them. Have fun!

(Edit: fixed typo)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 04:56 PM
RE: Another boring existential ponderance....
I know exactly as you feel. I have had the very same feelings and thoughts as this myself.

The real question is how to define nothing? Is nothing something? Can something exist IN nothing? Is nothing a location and if not how can it be nothing?

Is the thoughts we think of, of the places and people who do not exist, exist in nothing?

Is none existence the same as nothing? Is a person who cannot exist (like a anime character) the same as a person whom does not exist yet or will not exist?


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2014, 09:01 PM
RE: Another boring existential ponderance....
(16-05-2014 09:51 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Yeah, another alcohol-infused run around from the fair heathen.

Pondering the extremes tonight. Existence and nothing. Forever or never was/will be.

I started watching the original cosmos series with Sagan last night just to kill time in between the new series' episodes since it's got me all pumped up for science at the moment. So's I've been thinking about us and existence and the universe and whatnot.

Got to thinking about nothing again, I know I've brought it up before but it's an intriguing subject to me. I like to think about "nothing" because it's a word used so often, but with a meaning so absolutely impossible to grasp if you really think about it. Where is nothing?....It's nowhere, because by definition it doesn't exist.

So where does our universe end? Where does the edge of our universe butt up against nothing? What is the boundary between existence and nonexistence? By definition there is no such boundary and there cannot be one.

This leads me to have to consider that existence must be infinite. Actually it leads me to logically conclude that there is no alternative. Existence in one form or another must be infinite, by the very fact that there is existence, because there is no nothing.

So now my mind is blown, because I can't come up with a more abstract or confusing concept as infinity than nothing, but there you have it. Does that make any sense?

Just thinking......

Edit: man, this whole thing was much grander sounding and involved when it was rolling around in my head, I guess sometimes words are a less than ideal means of communication than ideas. Hope you smell what I'm stepping in.

I am not 100% sure on the science here, feel free to correct me.

It is my understanding that the universe is finite in size, but as light and particles emanated out of the big bang escape into deep space at the speed of light, the plan of existence we call "space" expands at an equal rate. Therefore the universe is expanding as fast as it possibly in all directions. So in theory if you could get in front of that, you would find the boundaries of space, but by the laws of relativity that should be impossible. In order to travel fast enough to get there, time would either stop relative to your position, or would go backwards in time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2014, 09:08 PM
RE: Another boring existential ponderance....
(22-05-2014 09:01 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  It is my understanding that the universe is finite in size, but as light and particles emanated out of the big bang escape into deep space at the speed of light, the plan of existence we call "space" expands at an equal rate.
You are assuming that our big bang expansion defines the universe.
It might be possible that our big bang expansion is only a small part of the universe.
Smokin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2014, 09:22 PM
RE: Another boring existential ponderance....
(22-05-2014 09:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 09:01 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  It is my understanding that the universe is finite in size, but as light and particles emanated out of the big bang escape into deep space at the speed of light, the plan of existence we call "space" expands at an equal rate.
You are assuming that our big bang expansion defines the universe.
It might be possible that our big bang expansion is only a small part of the universe.
Smokin

Blink

I suppose that is possible yeah.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: