Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 02:40pm PT
|
Those particles are nice and Largo seems to have a firm grasp of them . . . (jg)
I would disagree given his [resolute] conception of 'mass' as a thing versus a property or attribute (hj)
Joe, those of us who have been on this crazy thread for some time poke at each other. No one here could possibly think that Largo has a "firm grasp" of elementary particles and quantum phenomena. His car pool keeps him revved up and makes the whole thing fun.
;>)
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 03:30pm PT
|
I used to think I knew what mass was...until I checked.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 03:56pm PT
|
Some things just.. are.
Describing them doesn't explain them at the ultimate level.. what explains existance?
It just is..Science doesn't pretend to explain the origins or existence of everything. Such as what caused the big bang what created the laws of the universe?.. It does try to understand what they are.
So is mind.. or consciousness just something that.. IS ..?? Sometimes I think I'm just trying to dig too far.. farther than there is to go.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 04:19pm PT
|
At their most detailed, fundamental physical relationships are mathematical - a language few speak very fluently. And they are incomplete - so those who do disagree on some things that may seem 'already sorted out' due to our classical training - gravity, for example.
Are these relationships candidates for 'universal truth'? Sure. Could or would another technological species discover them? Yes - they'd have to to make any widgets of any complexity. Would the universe continue to work in the same way without us? Presumably.
While other 'truths' may apply only to our species, these physical relationships do not.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 08:36pm PT
|
As Blue suggested, the relationships may have existed before matter appeared, and formed a matrix upon which the physical universe was hung. This may be roughly what Tegmark is talking about in his mathematical universe conjectures. It's easy to think of math as a kind of symbol manipulation, but originally mathematics may have been a sort of mold into which the universe was poured.
Too bad Rich and Tim are not interested in this thread for they would do a better job of explaining recent mathematical concepts and results. These days I've returned to the 19th century and its charming analytics.
I'm an old "duffer" as Largo said who grumbles about the young guns, the Car Pool from Caltech! (CPCT)
All of this relates to the mind since it is the task of humankind to interpret and symbolize that eternal matrix supporting the physical world.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 09:26pm PT
|
it is the task of humankind to interpret and symbolize that eternal matrix supporting the physical world.
Waste of time.
One should understand who one is and why one really is here ....
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 09:41pm PT
|
One should understand who one is and why one really is here ....
And one is really here because . . . ?
Oh wait, I forgot you told us earlier we have been here for a billion years and scientists back then knew far more than us.
And it is a waste of time for ducks.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 09:56pm PT
|
While other 'truths' may apply only to our species, these physical relationships do not.
Because they are transcendent. Most simply, A squared plus B squared equals C squared is a fundamental, universal, transcendent reality in this or any other galaxy. It remains whether you exist or not, whether our planet or galaxy exists or not and is part of a fundamental mathematical order ubiquitous and necessary to existence and ultimately to mind itself... and tell me whence comes this order? Whence comes this plan behind the construction of all that is?
And how can it (mathematical order) not be the predicate to mind and existence itself?
And ultimately why order and what is its source?
It is the idea that is the predicate to creation and the idea can only be a product of mind.
All of this relates to the mind since it is the task of humankind to interpret and symbolize that eternal matrix supporting the physical world.
Beautiful... when I spoke of the divinity of number this is exactly what I was referring to.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 12:07am PT
|
I'm pretty sure a decent mathematician could create a logical system where the Pythagorean theorem is quite different.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 02:27am PT
|
... and tell me:
 Why order?
Whence comes this order?
Whence comes this plan?
What is its source?
It is the idea that is the predicate to creation and the idea can only be a product of mind.
Great questions. But the universal-mind-behind-the-curtain hypothesis still ultimately seems more a product of looking out a dark cave entrance in fear hoping against all hope someone is in charge and that that someone isn't the boogeyman.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 07:21am PT
|
Without self realization no real answers will come nor answers will actually be fully realized.
Self realization comes first.
Modern method = no self realization at all.
Thus no real real answers with no full realization of answers.
Only theory, mental speculations with no ultimate conclusions.
Just keep guessing and keep saying in the future we will know.
Post dated check and mislead the owner (yourself) ....
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 08:27am PT
|
The 'why all this order?' question may seem profound at first glance - until one considers the alternative. Only an empty universe is devoid of some form of order - and even that statement is questionable.
'Why not order?' is real question - one that answers itself, relegating it to the realm of nonsense.
As for 'the source' - well, that's a human construct reflecting an evolved human need, and therefore may be answered any way you prefer. Or not. It's really a 'why' question, but the universe is more of a 'how' kind of place. It's a big machine. Sorry if that's not enough for youz.
As for 'understanding who one is and why one is here' - welcome to 21st century narcissism and it's pointless pursuits. I mean, who cares? Others will decide for themselves 'who you are' easily enough. Just do your thang and STFU about 'finding yourself'.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 08:36am PT
|
Tvash -- "Self realization is a pointless pursuit.""
Tvash -- "No one even cares"
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 08:37am PT
|
Look what it's done for you.
I'll pass.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 08:39am PT
|
Tvash -- "Self realization is a pointless pursuit."
Tvash -- "No one even cares for self realization"
Tvash -- "Just do your thang and STFU"
Tvash -- Self realization is narcissism
Tvash -- All those whom ever went on such a path are narcissists
Tvash -- Thus even Buddha himself should STFU and never should have spoken
Tvash -- Largo should never have spoken and should STFU
Tvash -- Only a so called scientist should ever speak
Only Tvash should speak
Tvash is smart and sharp but missing intelligence .....
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 08:54am PT
|
As for 'understanding who one is and why one is here' - welcome to 21st century narcissism and it's pointless pursuits. I mean, who cares? Others will decide for themselves 'who you are' easily enough. Just do your thang and STFU about 'finding yourself'.
Yes, who cares? Certainly not you with your hundreds of posts on this and the religion thread.
And yes, it's nothing but narcissism to wonder what your own position in the cosmos might be. Just think of the countless number of philosophers and theologians thinking and staring longingly into their mirrors... hopeless and pointless, best crawl back into bed.
Only an empty universe is devoid of some form of order - and even that statement is questionable.
What a remarkably assumptive, god-like statement.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 09:23am PT
|
How many of you have founded and become ordained in your own ministry - complete with a deacon, and performed the sacred right of marriage?
Suffer yourselves to come unto me when your amateur hour is over, my lost children. For the meaning you seek may be found in SingTFU.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 24, 2015 - 09:32am PT
|
If we say that the inherent quality is "mass," what has mass, from what does mass emerge, what sustains said mass and why does it - whatever "it" is - have mass?
Fixed that for you...
[ P.S.: Mass is an inherent quality, not 'thing' - think m = E/c2 and gluons + quarks and you'll find that 'mass' and 'spin' are not so different with regards to the kind of thinking Largo is doing.
P.P.S. Largo, ask your rideshare buddies to account for the 'mass' of a proton... ]
Healje, you just dodged the hard question by rephrasing it so "mass" is an inherent quality. How about phenomenon that have no mass?
And Tvash, we accept that you are not of a mind given to introspection or the experiential adventures. That field is no more for everyone then music or math or wall climbing is for everyone. But ripping on stuf outside of your wheelhouse so compromises your credibility that no one takes you seriously. You are, in fact, the perfect canidate for a week long silent retreat.
An interesting aside that was mentioined earlier from someone is the idea that there is NO SOURCE for any person, place, thing or phenomenon in the world - this from a materialst who by definition is beholden to reductionism that claims we can reverse engineer all phenomnon back to physical causes, that is, a physical "source." The entire deterministic argument issues from the fact that all behavior is mechanistically sourced by objective functioning of material over which we have to control.
If in fact there is no "source" for anything, and mass is a property and not a physical thing, we are left to answer from whence does any person, place, thing or phenomenon arise; and "mass," if not a thing, is a "property" of what, exactly.
This is starting to get good... Finally.
JL
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 09:38am PT
|
Just think of the countless number of philosophers and theologians thinking...
And given the definitive yield and the now declining returns of the first 2500 years of such thought, particularly theological thought, we should expect what from the next 50? I mean, exactly what is new and exciting on the theological front beyond evangelicals racing ISIS back to the future?
...and "mass," if not a thing, is a "property" of what, exactly.
Exactly. Now you're asking the right question. Again, spin and mass are the same with respect to that "of what?" question.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 09:41am PT
|
You know nothing of me, Largo, past what I've posted here - which doesn't jibe at all with your assumptive assertions. I haven't ripped on your journey at all - just your taking that ball and running way out of bounds with it into fields you know little to nothing about, as well as your somewhat less than enlightened behavior at times. Your mass discussion - a phenomenon that, lets face it, you know nothing about, provides the latest example. That it also doesn't seem to have a point, other than refuting a 'stuff or no stuff filled' model of the universe that most of us abandoned after childhood is beside the point.
You also have a habit of 'definition swapping' and 'out of contexting' - two of many stupid pet tricks of the debate world.
I would give your a rather low grade for 'wisdom' because of this tendency to shoot from the hip without much knowledge about what you're actually shooting at in comparison to the people in my life, but hey, that's just me. So far, I remain unimpressed by the results of your experiential journey, but my mind remains open to future developments.
Of the self proclaimed seekers - Werner, Mike - well, it's quite the line up. Don't get me wrong - I've read works by other seekers who provided some truly useful and profound insights to being. You guys just aren't in that crowd.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!