Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Re: thoughts on dimensions [Re: entiformatie]
    #1949851 -

really time is relative to the way your perceive it, just as everything else. Time itself is no more concrete than space. A moment can be a life time and a life time a moment, the counting we use in clocks is simply a counting of electrical impulses, which don't really determine time at all.... also in responce to automan's comment on where the ball was at three seconds and that it wasn't a valid question because the ball wasn't frozen it was in motion,well really everythign is in constant motion, absolute rest doesn't exist thus the consept of where things are in time is never really a valid question. In this way time doesn't really exist. It's merely an illusion of the mind used to keep one from having to embrace the concept of infinity, which no mind has been able to grasp, unless you would say that maybe the divinity of christ and buddha was based on their understanding of infinity. Like aldous huxley said, if the doors of perception were cleansed all things would be viewed as the truley are: infinite.


--------------------
Without love in the dream
It will never come true

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: thoughts on dimensions [Re: Hooty]
    #1950060 -

as i have come to know it in the last few days, time does exist as a temporal dimension, just as length, width, and height exist as spacial dimensions. the way humans relate to the temporal dimension is to break it up into segments (as the tics of a clock).

in the same way, though, that is how we handle the first 3 spacial dimensions. we break the first dimension into inches or millimeters, the second and first dimension into area (square feet), and the first 3 dimensions into volume (cubic feet). we do this so we have a way to relate to our universe.

in reality, though, time is a real dimension. there is no forward or backwards movement of time. time isnt liquid. it just is. as the first three dimensions just are.

in response to:
entiformatie said:
heh, that makes sense. but just out of complete speculation, does 0 mass really mean that the object doesn't exist? of course, i'm sure it would mean something completely significant to our perception of the object... but maybe it would exist, in spirit form or some random crap? or maybe i'm making no sense with this speculation, lol. just random thoughts, yes?


according to einstein: energy (e)= mass (m) times the speed of light (c) squared.
if you make mass equal to 0, then energy has no choice but to be 0, in order to mainttain a balanced equation.


--------------------
No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical. ~ Niels Bohr

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: thoughts on dimensions [Re: automan]
    #1950337 -

Quote:
according to einstein: energy (e)= mass (m) times the speed of light (c) squared.
if you make mass equal to 0, then energy has no choice but to be 0, in order to mainttain a balanced equation.


E=mc^2 is correct only for immobile objects. That equation describes the inherent energy in a non-moving mass. The full equation is:

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2

where "p" is the object's momentum. For an immobile object the momentum is zero, which reduces the above equation to E^2 = m^2 c^4, which turns into the famous E=mc^2 when you take the square root of both sides.

So in the general case you get E^2 = p^2 c^2 if you set m=0. This gives us p=E/c which is the energy-momentum relation for massless stuff like for example electromagnetic radiation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: thoughts on dimensions [Re: automan]
    #1950681 -

It is not always the case that when mass=0 energy=0.

Force-carrier particles (energy) ALL have ZERO MASS (which is the reason they can move at the speed of light) but quite obviously carry some energy with them.

I think what Einstein was getting at with E=mc2 is that energy and mass are interchangable. Think of mass as condensed energy. If you pile energy into a confined area of space, the total mass of that area of space will go up. I think at some point (with enough energy density) the energy will collapse in on itself to form matter (remeniscent of a black hole?).

The best theory (I think) currently for why mass exists in the first place is the Higgs Boson. The theory states that ALL of space sits in a "Higgs Field" (with the Higgs boson as it's force-carrier) and that particles gain mass by interacting with this field. The field, when interacting with a particle, wants to hold the particle where it is (momentum). In order to move the particle, you have to overcome the force of the Higgs field which is trying to keep it from accelerating (mass). The more strongly a particle interacts with the Higgs field, the more "mass" it gains.

Think of a room FULL of people, I mean shoulder to shoulder. These people are the Higgs field. Now you (a particle) are on one side of the room and want to get to the other side. You start moving, but all the people standing shoulder-to-shoulder hold you back and give resistance to your movement. You have to push your way through the room.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: thoughts on dimensions [Re: trendal]
    #1951183 -

trendal said:
Think of a room FULL of people, I mean shoulder to shoulder. These people are the Higgs field. Now you (a particle) are on one side of the room and want to get to the other side. You start moving, but all the people standing shoulder-to-shoulder hold you back and give resistance to your movement. You have to push your way through the room. 


You should have used a concert reference, instead of just a plain room... :grin:

Unless it is a Linkin Park concert. If they have fans there at all, they are all pussies and you can inevitably plow them all under.
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: thoughts on dimensions [Re: fireworks_god]
    #1951298 -

I would like to see some undeniable proof that time exists.


--------------------
Without love in the dream
It will never come true

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: thoughts on dimensions [Re: Hooty]
    #1951318 -

Hooty said:
I would like to see some undeniable proof that time exists. 


Well, as your title states, "Reality is relative". :grin:
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: thoughts on dimensions [Re: Hooty]
    #1951628 -

Hooty said:
I would like to see some undeniable proof that time exists.


peter lynds argues that motion itself is is the proof of time. you should read his paper. (it takes a second to download. it's a pdf)


--------------------
No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical. ~ Niels Bohr

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: thoughts on dimensions [Re: automan]
    #1952691 -

Here are my thoughts on dimensions.

There are an infinite number of dimensions. A dimension is to me a way of organising objects. When givin an infinite number of objects, one can organise those in an infinite number of ways. What is a one dimensional line in one perspective may be a spiral in another dimension. What may seem like a random grouping of points to one perspective may be a plane or a line in another dimension.

I truely believe that this dimensionality is an illusion or better put a construction of ourselves. I believe that there is only one, that I am that one experiencing myself in many different perspectives and that you are the same as me.

My construction of dimensions is a reflection of a single thing that repeats and lasts forever and that it is a trick of my existence not to comprehend the whole.

Joshua


--------------------
The Shroomery Bookstore

Great books for inquiring minds!

"Life After Death is Saprophytic!"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: thoughts on dimensions [Re: Joshua]
    #1953752 -

> There are an infinite number of dimensions.

I used to study an area of mathmatics called psi calculus, which deals with dimensional equations. The idea of the calculus is that you can represent problems, such as heat transfer, independent of dimensionality. If you wanted to express a dimensionally-independent equation within a given dimension, you would apply the psi operator (similiar to the = operator in normal math) with the 'shape' of the dimension that you wanted the answer to be expressed.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: thoughts on dimensions [Re: Seuss]
    #1954072 -

Interesting. I was just going to recommend Fourier Analysis as a good introduction to infinite-dimensional vector spaces.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: thoughts on dimensions [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1955558 -

Is anyone here familiar with david bhom's theory of quantum mechanics? the implicate and explicate orders?..


--------------------
I'll eat myself if i have to!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: thoughts on dimensions [Re: Psychogenik]
    #1956386 -

I know the basic idea behind Bohm's pilot-wave theory, but I haven't read much about his metaphysics (the explicate and implicate orders). The pilot-wave theory is derived from the Schr?dinger equation by factoring out the square root of the probability density from the wave function and using it to define a global "force" that determines the trajectories of all individual particles.

The only problem with this theory is that it is non-relativistic. As far as I know there is still no bohmian treatment of the relativistic counterparts of the Schr?dinger equation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: thoughts on dimensions [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1956472 -

i just wanted to tell phluk that i love your website.

(this is my thread, i can go off topic if i want. :smile:) 


--------------------
No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical. ~ Niels Bohr

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: thoughts on dimensions [Re: automan]
    #1956802 -

The Implicate and Explicate Orders
Some phrases in this excerpt from David Bohm's "A New Theory of Mind and Matter" sound like the mystical literature of the East.

The question of the relationship of mind and matter has already been explored to some extent in some of my earlier work in physics. In this work, which was originally aimed at understanding relativity and quantum theory on a basis common to both, I developed the notion of the enfolded or implicate order. The essential feature of this idea was that the whole universe is in some way enfolded in everything and that each thing is enfolded in the whole. From this it follows that in some way, and to some degree everything enfolds or implicates everything, but in such a manner that under typical conditions of ordinary experience, there is a great deal of relative independence of things.
The basic proposal is then that this enfoldment relationship is not merely passive or superficial. Rather, it is active and essential to what each thing is. It follows that each thing is internally related to the whole, and therefore, to everything else. The external relationships are then displayed in the unfolded or explicate order in which each thing is seen, as has already indeed been indicated, as relatively separate and extended, and related only externally to other things. The explicate order, which dominates ordinary experience as well as classical physics, thus appears to stand by itself. But actually, it cannot be understood properly apart from its ground in the primary reality of the implicate order.
Because the implicate order is not static but basically dynamic in nature, in a constant process of change and development, I called its most general form the holomovement. All things found in the unfolded, explicate order emerge from the holomovement in which they are enfolded as potentialities and ultimately they fall back into it. They endure only for some time, and while they last, their existence is sustained in a constant process of unfoldment and re-enfoldment, which gives rise to their relatively stable and independent forms in the explicate order.
The above description then gives, as I have shown in more detail elsewhere, a valid intuitively graspable account of the meaning of the properties of matter, as implied by the quantum theory. It takes only a little reflection to see that a similar sort of description will apply even more directly and obviously to mind, with its constant flow of evanescent thoughts, feelings, desires, and impulses, which flow into and out of each other, and which, in a certain sense, enfold each other (as, for example, we may say that one thought is implicit in another, noting that this word literally means 'enfolded').
Or to put it differently, the general implicate process of ordering is common both to mind and to matter. This means that ultimately mind and matter are at least closely analogous and not nearly so different as they appear on superficial examination. Therefore, it seems reasonable to go further and suggest that the implicate order may serve as a means of expressing consistently the actual relationship between mind and matter, without introducing something like the Cartesian duality between them.





--------------------
I'll eat myself if i have to!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Thoughts on Magick...
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Anonymous 6,233 68 11/20/01 02:40 AM
by Swami
* projecting thoughts (artificial entities) Monkah 1,731 11 11/12/02 04:59 PM
by FreakQlibrium
* Thoughts Anonymous 1,120 8 02/09/02 04:59 PM
by BigYetti
* thoughts on freedom.... CleverName 1,416 15 11/08/03 12:36 AM
by ZenGecko
* One thought every second... fireworks_godS 2,403 14 10/21/03 05:15 AM
by fireworks_god
* The REAL Thought Creates Reality fireworks_godS 746 5 02/19/03 09:55 AM
by fireworks_god
* A nice mind-blowing thought to ponder upon
( 1 2 all )		 Kremlin 13,108 30 09/26/01 08:39 PM
by Deviant
* Random Unexplainable Thoughts... ArisEve 1,982 8 07/23/02 06:52 PM
by whiterastahippie

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,063 topic views. 2 members, 379 guests and 51 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 15 queries.