Generalizing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2012, 12:15 PM
Generalizing
(05-08-2012 11:36 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(05-08-2012 11:07 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  For the record, I'm still waiting for someone to address the science Matt has presented. All I keep reading is people's anger that they can't prove him wrong.

I thought I did? lol

It's possible. Tongue

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2012, 12:16 PM
RE: Generalizing
Hey, Erxomai.

Word.

Hey, fst.

You haven't yet. You mentioned that you were pretty sure that the episode I posted was just "a special on the mathematical exploration of time". I ignored that post because my only thought upon reading it was, "Well why don't you watch it and find out?" I say this without any sarcasm whatsoever, I invite your critique of my comment.

Hey, AttT.

I disagree with the premise of your post. I'm not just wantonly being an asshole. I agree, my behaviour could be described as dickish if I was operating in a vacuum, but I'm not. Within this context, this is just me defending myself vigorously. People came after me and I stomped on them for it. I make no apologies for that. When people address me like I'm a human being and engage me in conversation, I'm the nicest, laid back dude in the world. I love conversation. But when people make the conversation about me in an attempt to undermine either me or my comments, I react severely; and bloody well rightly so. I have no patience for it and neither should anyone else. If a man gets punched and he punches back, that's not being an asshole, that's not taking other people's shit.

I made my comment half way through page 8. Between then and now, there has been one post about my comment (thank you again, Vosur), and around a dozen about me as a person... You know what? I'm tired of belabouring this point. Be nice to me, I'll be extra nice to you. Come after me, I'll ruin your day and not feel bad about it for a second. It's as simple as that.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to return to my darkened lair and await the responses of those willing to engage with me on a rational level about my comment and to think of new and exciting snide remarks to fire back at those who think they can somehow get away with attacking me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
05-08-2012, 12:20 PM
RE: Generalizing
(05-08-2012 12:16 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Erxomai.

Word.

Hey, fst.

You haven't yet. You mentioned that you were pretty sure that the episode I posted was just "a special on the mathematical exploration of time". I ignored that post because my only thought upon reading it was, "Well why don't you watch it and find out?" I say this without any sarcasm whatsoever, I invite your critique of my comment.

Hey, AttT.

I disagree with the premise of your post. I'm not just wantonly being an asshole. I agree, my behaviour could be described as dickish if I was operating in a vacuum, but I'm not. Within this context, this is just me defending myself vigorously. People came after me and I stomped on them for it. I make no apologies for that. When people address me like I'm a human being and engage me in conversation, I'm the nicest, laid back dude in the world. I love conversation. But when people make the conversation about me in an attempt to undermine either me or my comments, I react severely; and bloody well rightly so. I have no patience for it and neither should anyone else. If a man gets punched and he punches back, that's not being an asshole, that's not taking other people's shit.

I made my comment half way through page 8. Between then and now, there has been one post about my comment (thank you again, Vosur), and around a dozen about me as a person... You know what? I'm tired of belabouring this point. Be nice to me, I'll be extra nice to you. Come after me, I'll ruin your day and not feel bad about it for a second. It's as simple as that.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to return to my darkened lair and await the responses of those willing to engage with me on a rational level about my comment and to think of new and exciting snide remarks to fire back at those who think they can somehow get away with attacking me.

You could rigirously defend your position without being angry.

Btw. Fstratzero did more than mention that, he was the one who wrote the things you quoted.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
05-08-2012, 12:27 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2012 12:45 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Generalizing
(05-08-2012 12:16 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Erxomai.

Word.

Hey, fst.

You haven't yet. You mentioned that you were pretty sure that the episode I posted was just "a special on the mathematical exploration of time". I ignored that post because my only thought upon reading it was, "Well why don't you watch it and find out?" I say this without any sarcasm whatsoever, I invite your critique of my comment.

The idea that all time exists simultaneously is based on how time would relate from one item to the velocity of other distant items.

After watching your documentary, there is a portion of it also making the claim that time seems to have a linearity to it that we do not fundamentally understand.

"From the big bang to us the arrow of time was set."

Also noted he says that time may be an illusion.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2012, 01:45 PM
RE: Generalizing
Oh my.

Is my face red.

I'm sorry, fst. I have no idea why I thought Vosur wrote that. My bad. My gaff. Please accept my apology.

I'd like to also make the correction and recognise that YOU are the only person that has directly addressed my original comment. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. (Not to leave you in the cold, Vosur, you did ask for support for my assertion which I provided in the form of the Nova documentary.)

I'll reiterate and expand the questions and comments I posted before.

Quote:The idea that all time exists simultaneously is based on how time would relate from one item to the velocity of other distant items.

To me this sounds like you're making an argument against simultaneous time. Is that so? I mean, relativity has a lot to do with how and why we understand it, but you seem to be using that to downgrade the idea. Is that so?

Quote:After watching your documentary, there is a portion of it also making the claim that time seems to have a linearity to it that we do not fundamentally understand.

The arrow of time explains why we PRECEIVE time in a linear fashion (Stephen Hawking also supports the notion that entropy is behind the arrow of time).





(Note: he mentions briefly at the start of the clip that "the laws of science do not distinguish between the past and the future". BTW: That clip comes from Errol Morris' 1991 film "A Brief History of Time" which is essentially the film version of Hawkings' book "Quest for a Theory of Everything". If you haven't seen it, I HIGHLY recommend it. Excellent film.)

The arrow of time does not in any way contradict the notion of simultaneous time. If the alien on his bike is watching our 200-years-from-now now from his now, we're both still perceiving time as moving forwards. That's not the issue. The issue is that Einstein's theories showed that past present and future all exist (hence Hawkings' comment and Greene's contention that time is an illusion). Greene's documentary quite clearly makes the case that past future and present exist simultaneously.

The Nova Documentary Wrote:The past is not gone and the future isn't non-existent. The past, the future and the present are all existing in exactly the same way.
-Max Tegmark

The distinction between past, present and future, he once said, is only an illusion, however persistent.
-Attributed to Albert Einstein by Brian Greene

The past is not gone, now is not absolute and the future already exists. The entire episode is called the Illusion of Time for this very reason (which you now acknowledge the possibility of).

So my critique of the argument is that if all of time exists, an omniscient being could perceive all of it (and in fact would have to in order to be considered omniscient) and that that, what we consider foreknowledge (a misnomer if the future already exists and is not waiting to come into existence as the common sense view suggests), would not necessarily negate free will. Free will can still happily exist within simultaneous time. Doesn't mean that it does. Maybe life is scripted. Maybe causality is correct. But the notion that omniscience necessarily negates free-will is itself negated by this understanding of time; an understanding that enjoys the support of many prominent (and legendary) physicists as well as data from experimentation.

Hey, AttT.

If I can't get angry when someone attacks me, when can I get angry?

I love and respect Gandhi, and I believe firmly in many of the tenets of Satyagraha. But Gandhi never knew about message forums lol. I could say, "I don't appreciate the manner in which you just addressed me," but I tend to just tell people to go fuck themselves. Is it perfect? Probably not. Is it warranted? I think so.

If the waves from this little fracas are rocking the boat and making you uncomfortable, then I am genuinely sorry for that. I can sympathise. But I'm not going to shoulder the entire blame for it. Not referring to you in any way, I don't back down from bullies. I'm too large physically and too pig headed Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2012, 01:59 PM
RE: Generalizing
(05-08-2012 01:45 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Oh my.

Is my face red.

I'm sorry, fst. I have no idea why I thought Vosur wrote that. My bad. My gaff. Please accept my apology.

I'd like to also make the correction and recognise that YOU are the only person that has directly addressed my original comment. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. (Not to leave you in the cold, Vosur, you did ask for support for my assertion which I provided in the form of the Nova documentary.)

I'll reiterate and expand the questions and comments I posted before.

Quote:The idea that all time exists simultaneously is based on how time would relate from one item to the velocity of other distant items.

To me this sounds like you're making an argument against simultaneous time. Is that so? I mean, relativity has a lot to do with how and why we understand it, but you seem to be using that to downgrade the idea. Is that so?

Quote:After watching your documentary, there is a portion of it also making the claim that time seems to have a linearity to it that we do not fundamentally understand.

The arrow of time explains why we PRECEIVE time in a linear fashion (Stephen Hawking also supports the notion that entropy is behind the arrow of time).





(Note: he mentions briefly at the start of the clip that "the laws of science do not distinguish between the past and the future". BTW: That clip comes from Errol Morris' 1991 film "A Brief History of Time" which is essentially the film version of Hawkings' book "Quest for a Theory of Everything". If you haven't seen it, I HIGHLY recommend it. Excellent film.)

The arrow of time does not in any way contradict the notion of simultaneous time. If the alien on his bike is watching our 200-years-from-now now from his now, we're both still perceiving time as moving forwards. That's not the issue. The issue is that Einstein's theories showed that past present and future all exist (hence Hawkings' comment and Greene's contention that time is an illusion). Greene's documentary quite clearly makes the case that past future and present exist simultaneously.

The Nova Documentary Wrote:The past is not gone and the future isn't non-existent. The past, the future and the present are all existing in exactly the same way.
-Max Tegmark

The distinction between past, present and future, he once said, is only an illusion, however persistent.
-Attributed to Albert Einstein by Brian Greene

The past is not gone, now is not absolute and the future already exists. The entire episode is called the Illusion of Time for this very reason (which you now acknowledge the possibility of).

So my critique of the argument is that if all of time exists, an omniscient being could perceive all of it (and in fact would have to in order to be considered omniscient) and that that, what we consider foreknowledge (a misnomer if the future already exists and is not waiting to come into existence as the common sense view suggests), would not necessarily negate free will. Free will can still happily exist within simultaneous time. Doesn't mean that it does. Maybe life is scripted. Maybe causality is correct. But the notion that omniscience necessarily negates free-will is itself negated by this understanding of time; an understanding that enjoys the support of many prominent (and legendary) physicists as well as data from experimentation.

Hey, AttT.

If I can't get angry when someone attacks me, when can I get angry?

I love and respect Gandhi, and I believe firmly in many of the tenets of Satyagraha. But Gandhi never knew about message forums lol. I could say, "I don't appreciate the manner in which you just addressed me," but I tend to just tell people to go fuck themselves. Is it perfect? Probably not. Is it warranted? I think so.

If the waves from this little fracas are rocking the boat and making you uncomfortable, then I am genuinely sorry for that. I can sympathise. But I'm not going to shoulder the entire blame for it. Not referring to you in any way, I don't back down from bullies. I'm too large physically and too pig headed Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

I am not saying you can't get angry, I was just saying there was a better alternative.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2012, 02:16 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2012 02:59 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Generalizing
(05-08-2012 01:45 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Oh my.

Is my face red.

I'm sorry, fst. I have no idea why I thought Vosur wrote that. My bad. My gaff. Please accept my apology.

I'd like to also make the correction and recognise that YOU are the only person that has directly addressed my original comment. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. (Not to leave you in the cold, Vosur, you did ask for support for my assertion which I provided in the form of the Nova documentary.)

I'll reiterate and expand the questions and comments I posted before.

Quote:The idea that all time exists simultaneously is based on how time would relate from one item to the velocity of other distant items.

To me this sounds like you're making an argument against simultaneous time. Is that so? I mean, relativity has a lot to do with how and why we understand it, but you seem to be using that to downgrade the idea. Is that so?

Quote:After watching your documentary, there is a portion of it also making the claim that time seems to have a linearity to it that we do not fundamentally understand.

The arrow of time explains why we PRECEIVE time in a linear fashion (Stephen Hawking also supports the notion that entropy is behind the arrow of time).





(Note: he mentions briefly at the start of the clip that "the laws of science do not distinguish between the past and the future". BTW: That clip comes from Errol Morris' 1991 film "A Brief History of Time" which is essentially the film version of Hawkings' book "Quest for a Theory of Everything". If you haven't seen it, I HIGHLY recommend it. Excellent film.)

The arrow of time does not in any way contradict the notion of simultaneous time. If the alien on his bike is watching our 200-years-from-now now from his now, we're both still perceiving time as moving forwards. That's not the issue. The issue is that Einstein's theories showed that past present and future all exist (hence Hawkings' comment and Greene's contention that time is an illusion). Greene's documentary quite clearly makes the case that past future and present exist simultaneously.

The Nova Documentary Wrote:The past is not gone and the future isn't non-existent. The past, the future and the present are all existing in exactly the same way.
-Max Tegmark

The distinction between past, present and future, he once said, is only an illusion, however persistent.
-Attributed to Albert Einstein by Brian Greene

The past is not gone, now is not absolute and the future already exists. The entire episode is called the Illusion of Time for this very reason (which you now acknowledge the possibility of).

So my critique of the argument is that if all of time exists, an omniscient being could perceive all of it (and in fact would have to in order to be considered omniscient) and that that, what we consider foreknowledge (a misnomer if the future already exists and is not waiting to come into existence as the common sense view suggests), would not necessarily negate free will. Free will can still happily exist within simultaneous time. Doesn't mean that it does. Maybe life is scripted. Maybe causality is correct. But the notion that omniscience necessarily negates free-will is itself negated by this understanding of time; an understanding that enjoys the support of many prominent (and legendary) physicists as well as data from experimentation.

Hey, AttT.

If I can't get angry when someone attacks me, when can I get angry?

I love and respect Gandhi, and I believe firmly in many of the tenets of Satyagraha. But Gandhi never knew about message forums lol. I could say, "I don't appreciate the manner in which you just addressed me," but I tend to just tell people to go fuck themselves. Is it perfect? Probably not. Is it warranted? I think so.

If the waves from this little fracas are rocking the boat and making you uncomfortable, then I am genuinely sorry for that. I can sympathise. But I'm not going to shoulder the entire blame for it. Not referring to you in any way, I don't back down from bullies. I'm too large physically and too pig headed Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Thanks for the apology.

I try to keep my emotions out of any argument. I want to argue to come closer to the truth not to be correct.

Quote:Einstein wrote in his book, Relativity, that simultaneity is also relative, i.e., two events that appear simultaneous to an observer in a particular inertial reference frame need not be judged as simultaneous by a second observer in a different inertial frame of reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Also I need to see how they dealt with entropy. As time moves from one point to another chaos increases. So that if you went back in time things would become more disordered even though it's clear that the early universe was the most ordered thing.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2012, 03:04 PM
RE: Generalizing
Hey, fst.

You are most welcome Big Grin

Quote:Also I need to see how they dealt with entropy. As time moves from one point to another chaos increases. So if you went back in time things would become more disorder even though it's clear that the early universe was the most ordered thing.

No. This is what Hawking is talking about in the clip and Greene addresses it in The Fabric of the Universe too.

Entropy ONLY increases. Ordered systems become disordered systems. As Hawking says, you can't win, you can't break even, you can't even get out of the game. The universe, as contained in the singularity before the big bang, was INCREDIBLY ordered. The most ordered it has ever been. It exploded outwards and has, for 13.5 some odd billion years, been getting more disordered. It is this unrelenting increase in entropy that gives time forward direction, the arrow of time, because you cannot go back to a point in time when there was less entropy; only to a point in time when there is more.

Hey, AttT.

I was with friends last night and we discussed the idea, "you don't know me like that." There are many people on this site that can tear a strip off of me and I laugh. There are others who don't know me, that I don't know, that don't respect me, and/or that I don't respect. Most of those people "don't know me like that." They haven't earned the right to tear a strip off of me. When they do, they deserve only my anger because, well, who the fuck do they think they are?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2012, 03:13 PM
RE: Generalizing
(05-08-2012 03:04 PM)Ghost Wrote:  No. This is what Hawking is talking about in the clip and Greene addresses it in The Fabric of the Universe too.

Entropy ONLY increases. Ordered systems become disordered systems. As Hawking says, you can't win, you can't break even, you can't even get out of the game. The universe, as contained in the singularity before the big bang, was INCREDIBLY ordered. The most ordered it has ever been. It exploded outwards and has, for 13.5 some odd billion years, been getting more disordered. It is this unrelenting increase in entropy that gives time forward direction, the arrow of time, because you cannot go back to a point in time when there was less entropy; only to a point in time when there is more.

I'm not well versed enough to even argue this point. So I'll have to go do some research before I can comment.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like fstratzero's post
06-08-2012, 07:01 AM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2012 09:09 AM by Ghost.)
RE: Generalizing
Hey, fst.

ENTROPY

Main article: Entropy
Quote:-The second law of thermodynamics states that in general the total entropy of any system will not decrease other than by increasing the entropy of some other system.

-It follows from the second law of thermodynamics that the entropy of a system that is not isolated may decrease. An air conditioner, for example, may cool the air in a room, thus reducing the entropy of the air of that system. The heat expelled from the room (the system), which the air conditioner transports and discharges to the outside air, will always make a bigger contribution to the entropy of the environment than will the decrease of the entropy of the air of that system. Thus, the total of entropy of the room plus the entropy of the environment increases, in agreement with the second law of thermodynamics.
-From Main Article: Entropy - Section: Second Law of Theromodynamics

Quote:Entropy (which means, ‘inherent tendency’) is a familiar and important concept in thermodynamics. The three laws of thermodynamics (nicely summarized as ‘You can’t win’, ‘You can’t break even’ and ‘You can’t quit playing’) revolve around entropy.
-T Padmanabhan, from Website Article: Snippets of Physics





ARROW OF TIME

Main Article: Entropy (Arrow of Time)

Website Article: Time According to Sir Stephen Hawking.

Quote:Just like a computer, we must remember things in the order in which entropy increases. This makes the second law of thermodynamics almost trivial. Disorder increases with time because we measure time in the direction in which disorder increases. You can’t have a safer bet than that!
-Stephen Hawking, from WikiQuote

SIMULTANEOUS TIME

Main Article: Special Relativity
Related: Relativity of Simultaneity

Main Article: Eternalism (Philosophy of Time)

Quote:Surprising as it may be to most non-scientists and even to some scientists, Albert Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes:

Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

Einstein's belief in an undivided solid reality was clear to him, so much so that he completely rejected the separation we experience as the moment of now. He believed there is no true division between past and future, there is rather a single existence. His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."
-From Website Article: Albert Einstein and the Fabric of Time

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: