Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Culture
»
Just How Big the Universe is
Rank: Member Joined: 6/4/2015 Posts: 604
|
tycho wrote:¿ wrote:tycho wrote:No. I haven't misrepresented Einstein. There's absolute space-time in general relativity. Let me try to explain how before I refer you to a book that I'm sure will give you a more succint explanation.
Take any three observers moving at different velocities and acceleration, they'd have different registers of space-time yet the speed of light is constant regardless of the relative differences... Kindly check on this in 'Fabric of the cosmos'.
About absolutes again: think about string theory for example. The mathematical models used in reconciling quantum physics with theories of relativity would seem to rely on the foundation of strings that have certain characteristics that in my estimation, border or are even absolute... Like? The limit of a Planck's length... Will newness affect that reconciliation?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
'Evolution' of science? That's probably equal to the evolution of Man. Remember evolution is about heritable qualities. Science is as old as Man; probably as old as the universe itself.
To understand and put the issue of newness into context, I took a journey into history and looked into all thinkers and scientists I could find. Did they trace a pattern? In an infinitely ranging universe there's continuous need for adaptation and reconciliation. That's why the highest forms of mind trainning target an empty mind.
The human domain, especially with respect to a culture and worldview is always finite and will always be challenged to open up by the apparent newness of experience.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 6/4/2015 Posts: 604
|
tycho wrote:'Evolution' of science? That's probably equal to the evolution of Man. Remember evolution is about heritable qualities. Science is as old as Man; probably as old as the universe itself.
To understand and put the issue of newness into context, I took a journey into history and looked into all thinkers and scientists I could find. Did they trace a pattern? In an infinitely ranging universe there's continuous need for adaptation and reconciliation. That's why the highest forms of mind trainning target an empty mind.
The human domain, especially with respect to a culture and worldview is always finite and will always be challenged to open up by the apparent newness of experience. Yes yes tycho. Everything changes but everything stays the same.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
tycho wrote:No. I haven't misrepresented Einstein. There's absolute space-time in general relativity. Let me try to explain how before I refer you to a book that I'm sure will give you a more succint explanation.
Take any three observers moving at different velocities and acceleration, they'd have different registers of space-time yet the speed of light is constant regardless of the relative differences... Kindly check on this in 'Fabric of the cosmos'.
About absolutes again: think about string theory for example. The mathematical models used in reconciling quantum physics with theories of relativity would seem to rely on the foundation of strings that have certain characteristics that in my estimation, border or are even absolute... I will certainly look for 'Fabric of the Cosmos' thanks for the reference. Meanwhile the colored text above seems to deny your insistence on absolutes. Speed of light may be constant but that does not make it absolute (unchangeable). You know it does change. The injunction against anything traveling faster than the speed of light C applies only to objects with mass. And then any 'thing' moving even close to C causes funny things to happen to space and time, meaning they are not absolute either. In fact Einstein used the term 'frame of reference' partly for this reason. The reality you perceive depends largely on your frame of reference. Your reality is not my reality. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
tycho wrote:@Wakanyugi, the other day I drew a conclusion that may seem 'fantastic' or even offensive to some: Knowledge is and has been constant through the ages and across the universe, but the metaphors and the rates at which human experience has been reconciled to metaphor has varied.
Tycho, This is deep and I have to think about it. But I am already tempted to agree with you. After all I subscribe to the hierarchy of: data - information - knowledge. Knowledge therefore is data and information given meaning. We are surrounded by data so knowledge must be equally ubiquitous, meaning we don't create new knowledge as much as we interpret old data in new ways. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 10/4/2006 Posts: 13,823 Location: Nairobi
|
Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:@Wakanyugi, the other day I drew a conclusion that may seem 'fantastic' or even offensive to some: Knowledge is and has been constant through the ages and across the universe, but the metaphors and the rates at which human experience has been reconciled to metaphor has varied.
Tycho, This is deep and I have to think about it. But I am already tempted to agree with you. After all I subscribe to the hierarchy of: data - information - knowledge. Knowledge therefore is data and information given meaning. We are surrounded by data so knowledge must be equally ubiquitous, meaning we don't create new knowledge as much as we interpret old data in new ways. What is 'Knowing'? since 'Knowledge' is a derivative of 'Knowing' What is capable of 'knowing'? A dog 'knows' it's way home. A cat knows it's dangerous to hang around dogs...does a stone know? is knowing an attribute of sentience? if so - did we come to this conclusion due to our limitation? i.e. it because it's all we 'know'? Who can 'know'? and so "Knowledge is and has been constant through the ages and across the universe" - who 'knew' it?  All Mushrooms are edible! Some Mushroom are only edible ONCE!
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
masukuma wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:@Wakanyugi, the other day I drew a conclusion that may seem 'fantastic' or even offensive to some: Knowledge is and has been constant through the ages and across the universe, but the metaphors and the rates at which human experience has been reconciled to metaphor has varied.
Tycho, This is deep and I have to think about it. But I am already tempted to agree with you. After all I subscribe to the hierarchy of: data - information - knowledge. Knowledge therefore is data and information given meaning. We are surrounded by data so knowledge must be equally ubiquitous, meaning we don't create new knowledge as much as we interpret old data in new ways. What is 'Knowing'? since 'Knowledge' is a derivative of 'Knowing' What is capable of 'knowing'? A dog 'knows' it's way home. A cat knows it's dangerous to hang around dogs...does a stone know? is knowing an attribute of sentience? if so - did we come to this conclusion due to our limitation? i.e. it because it's all we 'know'? Who can 'know'? and so "Knowledge is and has been constant through the ages and across the universe" - who 'knew' it? I have not thought about these questions since the day I left the late Mr Benaars philosophy class. But one thing I 'know' is that what we call knowing is largely the interpretation of patterns and drawing various conclusions from this process. That is how you, and the dog, find your way home, for example. The Universe around us is comprised of many such patterns (basically data) which we call information or knowledge once we have given them meaning. The big questions, for me, are: (i) Without a space/time frame of reference,the matrix on which most of these patterns are super imposed, would we know what we know? (ii) Quantum entanglement implies that particles are able to communicate (pass information) with each other outside of this matrix. Why can't we? "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 10/4/2006 Posts: 13,823 Location: Nairobi
|
Wakanyugi wrote:masukuma wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:@Wakanyugi, the other day I drew a conclusion that may seem 'fantastic' or even offensive to some: Knowledge is and has been constant through the ages and across the universe, but the metaphors and the rates at which human experience has been reconciled to metaphor has varied.
Tycho, This is deep and I have to think about it. But I am already tempted to agree with you. After all I subscribe to the hierarchy of: data - information - knowledge. Knowledge therefore is data and information given meaning. We are surrounded by data so knowledge must be equally ubiquitous, meaning we don't create new knowledge as much as we interpret old data in new ways. What is 'Knowing'? since 'Knowledge' is a derivative of 'Knowing' What is capable of 'knowing'? A dog 'knows' it's way home. A cat knows it's dangerous to hang around dogs...does a stone know? is knowing an attribute of sentience? if so - did we come to this conclusion due to our limitation? i.e. it because it's all we 'know'? Who can 'know'? and so "Knowledge is and has been constant through the ages and across the universe" - who 'knew' it? I have not thought about these questions since the day I left the late Mr Benaars philosophy class. But one thing I 'know' is that what we call knowing is largely the interpretation of patterns and drawing various conclusions from this process. That is how you, and the dog, find your way home, for example. The Universe around us is comprised of many such patterns (basically data) which we call information or knowledge once we have given them meaning. The big questions, for me, are: (i) Without a space/time frame of reference,the matrix on which most of these patterns are super imposed, would we know what we know? (ii) Quantum entanglement implies that particles are able to communicate (pass information) with each other outside of this matrix. Why can't we? question 1: no... we 'observe'. without a frame of reference called 'space/time' there would be no 'observation'. at least as far as we 'know'. question 2: We don't 'know' if this happens at a macro scale since Quantum field theory (the theory of really small things) and general relativity (the theory of really big things) seem not to be coherently unified. But i think we would have this answer since if we could do it (exchange this info outside the frame of reference we call space-time).... we would have observed it! We could have not understood it but we would have 'known'. we would have known we could... long before we could have known that this happens at the quantum level. if we were able to do this - it would mean everything else would be able to... dogs for example would make this 'communication' so would flies and earthworms and even bacteria and even stones and pebbles - it would be global info exchange of everything between the quanta and us... and perhaps even planets and the systems would do the same to each other.... gets mucky right? maybe it does happen but since it happens to everything it gets cancelled out from observation. All Mushrooms are edible! Some Mushroom are only edible ONCE!
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:No. I haven't misrepresented Einstein. There's absolute space-time in general relativity. Let me try to explain how before I refer you to a book that I'm sure will give you a more succint explanation.
Take any three observers moving at different velocities and acceleration, they'd have different registers of space-time yet the speed of light is constant regardless of the relative differences... Kindly check on this in 'Fabric of the cosmos'.
About absolutes again: think about string theory for example. The mathematical models used in reconciling quantum physics with theories of relativity would seem to rely on the foundation of strings that have certain characteristics that in my estimation, border or are even absolute... I will certainly look for 'Fabric of the Cosmos' thanks for the reference. Meanwhile the colored text above seems to deny your insistence on absolutes. Speed of light may be constant but that does not make it absolute (unchangeable). You know it does change. The injunction against anything traveling faster than the speed of light C applies only to objects with mass. And then any 'thing' moving even close to C causes funny things to happen to space and time, meaning they are not absolute either. In fact Einstein used the term 'frame of reference' partly for this reason. The reality you perceive depends largely on your frame of reference. Your reality is not my reality. Let's start by asking ourselves, what relates any two or more bodies accelerating towards each other at different rates? The answer is gravity... Now take each different frame of reference and relate it to gravity. That would mean that even if each frame of reference would have a different experience set, the sets wouldn't have a null intersection. This automatically implies a universal and binding set for all these frames of reference...
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
What is knowledge? Does knowledge depend on observation?
I say knowledge begins with sensation being organized to meet certain ends. It's a function of systems.
Now sensation is a matter of resonance of energic frequencies. Hence knowledge is the organization of resonated frequencies for certain objectives as dictated by a system. In this case a stone can know. Because a stone is a system dictated by structure, both chemically and physically.
Knowledge is probably independent of space-time...
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Culture
»
Just How Big the Universe is
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|