The Philosophy Thread


mali

-
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
6,543
Age
45
Location
EU
Website
Visit site
It seems nobody is interested in this gedankenexperiment. The consequences would be that reality moves "sideways". The medieval folks didn't know the world is round, but the future observation changed the earth to be round, so it was already round for the medieval folks. Nobody could prove it was not round, because you couldn't reverse this "sidestep" in reality or to be more precise, you can't carry over memory from the parallel thread.
This would mean that reality is a self-stabilising process.
 

dflemstr

It's a ball.
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
2,514
Location
Stockholm, Sweden
Website
Visit site
mali said:
It seems nobody is interested in this gedankenexperiment. The consequences would be that reality moves "sideways". The medieval folks didn't know the world is round, but the future observation changed the earth to be round, so it was already round for the medieval folks. Nobody could prove it was not round, because you couldn't reverse this "sidestep" in reality or to be more precise, you can't carry over memory from the parallel thread.
This would mean that reality is a self-stabilising process.
It's not like I'm not interested in the Gedankenexperiment, but rather that I don't understand the rules you're trying to introduce in this abstraction-changing universe.

So you're saying that if someone observes a new aspect of the universe, it not only comes true in that instance, but also retroactively. So if the Earth was flat right now, it would be possible for it to have been round this instant in the future... But how is that relevant for the universe's integrity? You know of the "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" problem, right? The same, I think, applies in this case: If no one observed - in pre-antique times - that the Earth was round, did its roundness matter? Did it have an appearance/shape at all?

So one would think that it'd make a difference that the observed changes apply retroactively, but I don't think that that's the case, because it doesn't make sense to introduce another observer retroactively.

And I think I see the dilemma you're bringing up: if person B discovered that the Earth was round, but before that, person A had observed that the Earth was flat, shouldn't the experience of person A be changed retroactively? But, see, the point I'm trying to make is that person A couldn't have seen that the Earth was flat. He'd have been the first to see the shape of the Earth, and would have seen that it's round.

Or expressed differently: before someone saw that the Earth was round, it had no shape at all; before that, it had simply been the ground we walk on etc. so there was nothing that was indicating or that was dependent on that it was round. It then "became" round once someone observed it from a sufficient distance, because the roundness was the only thing that could explain what had happened on Earth thus far (weather, climate, gravity etc)

Interestingly, this system would explain the Photon paradox: A photon stream (ray of light/other radiation) is normally a wave, but once observed it becomes a string of particles, that produces different results int he double-slit experiment and so on. It would be explained by means of this optimization theory: When you look at a beam of light, the universe "optimizes" it into a sine wave. Only when you look closely enough does it become individual particles. The universe then has a "bug" since it makes an observed photon beam behave differently than an unobserved one, but it's at least explainable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mali

-
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
6,543
Age
45
Location
EU
Website
Visit site
dflemstr said:
So one would think that it'd make a difference that the observed changes apply retroactively, but I don't think that that's the case, because it doesn't make sense to introduce another observer retroactively.
Thanks for adding to the discussion again :)

What I'm trying to do is abstract away from time. I'm basically not introducing another observer retroactively, but I replace the original observer with a different one from the "future". I try to focus on life as an observer acting in both directions of time. We see something that's behaving in a certain way, we look into it, find some obscure particles that let it behave in a certain way and these observed particles change the reality of the Universe. As soon as they are observed they get a history which has always been there and which led us originally to study them. You could retrace their origin back to the beginning of the Universe. Basically the "beginning" of the Universe would move into the future and create a causal loop, so to say

And I think I see the dilemma you're bringing up: if person B discovered that the Earth was round, but before that, person A had observed that the Earth was flat, shouldn't the experience of person A be changed retroactively? But, see, the point I'm trying to make is that person A couldn't have seen that the Earth was flat. He'd have been the first to see the shape of the Earth, and would have seen that it's round.
Yep, he would be the first to see the earth, but not the first to see it's shape, so he thinks the earth is flat, but it isn't flat, because it has been observed that the earth is round in the future and the causal loop adapted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mali

-
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
6,543
Age
45
Location
EU
Website
Visit site
Awesome, thanks :)
I'll put it on my phone and it will be my bed time lecture for a while.
 

mali

-
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
6,543
Age
45
Location
EU
Website
Visit site
So, since this thread contains many weird thoughts already, it's the best place for this question.
What is the theory? Is what stays inside or what comes out of the box the focus? The evils are unleashed on the world or something like that and hope stays inside. Is the hope as placeholder for "the good" that stays inside the person the object of interest or the evils that come out?
"The beast inside you will eat your heart out" if I remember that tweet correctly. Basically it has come true now, so is it intended to be some kind of self-therapy or maybe even open-ended with no real theory behind it?
I'm not sure if it's a good idea to post it now, but it would bug me and distract me if I didn't ask. So there it is. I'll check back from time to time and see if there is an answer. I somewhat doubt it though, but I had to get rid of it ;)
 

sold

songs in the key of AAAAAARRRGH!
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
469


Its all about the pi pie :)

Pi is infinite.

Pie is delicious (usually)

The amalgam of these things is infinitely delicious.

Unless you are catholic, in which case the pie is full of scorpions and guilt.
 

kuru

Laptop und Trachtenjanker
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
2,976
Location
the mockracy
mali said:
So, since this thread contains many weird thoughts already, it's the best place for this question.
What is the theory? Is what stays inside or what comes out of the box the focus? The evils are unleashed on the world or something like that and hope stays inside. Is the hope as placeholder for "the good" that stays inside the person the object of interest or the evils that come out?
"The beast inside you will eat your heart out" if I remember that tweet correctly. Basically it has come true now, so is it intended to be some kind of self-therapy or maybe even open-ended with no real theory behind it?
I'm not sure if it's a good idea to post it now, but it would bug me and distract me if I didn't ask. So there it is. I'll check back from time to time and see if there is an answer. I somewhat doubt it though, but I had to get rid of it ;)
You seem hurt, Mali. And that's just judging from that avatar chick sucking her finger. Or is she horny?

"The beast inside" Just reminded me of this neat little track by Schweisser.
/watch?v=39UsfpMU778 is an intro to this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPy2MaEcMOY[/youtube]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mali

-
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
6,543
Age
45
Location
EU
Website
Visit site
The pie is an interesting allusion to addictiveness, and that's the key somewhat. And then there is Mario Savio. I think I'm somewhat satisfied even if I won't know the motive. As long as you carry a mirror around you can learn and I don't mean in a narcistic way, but well humans are humans and narrow in options. A chain of feedback loops from birth to death.
@kuru, like Someguy once said, even contradicting points of view can be true at the same time ;)
 

kuru

Laptop und Trachtenjanker
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
2,976
Location
the mockracy
The Pi also reminds me of that trippy movie called "Pi" in which a mathematician is totally obsessed by revealing the hidden truth behind this elusive number.
 

mali

-
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
6,543
Age
45
Location
EU
Website
Visit site
What if Kant is right and time is just a construction of the mind? An attempt to create a "flaw" in timelessness to allow perception. Missing timelessness causes a feeling of passiveness, but maybe timelessness doesn't allow perception. So Reality is a compromise. A chicken-and-egg paradoxon, so to say.
 

mali

-
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
6,543
Age
45
Location
EU
Website
Visit site
Nobody seems to care, but whatever. Here is the newest version of reality.

I'd like to reduce the number of dimensions a bit. The first four dimensions combined are, let's call it "the causality space", where information is projected. The space "outside" is timelessness. Separating timelessness in this case is just a tool to explain the theory, in fact the causality space itself is timeless, so we end up with one dimension, a point.
The "current" version of the causality space contains the model of our universe with all inhabitants, matter, physics laws, etc.
The causality space exists, it has no start and no end, cause it's timeless. So the "known" universe just is and it only changes if we remove timelessness, which leads to a causal chain, thus it's called "causality space" ;)

The timeless nature of the causality space with introduced time to separate information to be perceived causes this space to overlay itself with information. This space "grows" because of interaction with itself.

This phenomenon is caused by time collapsing into timelessness. I try to find a model to visualize this from a point of view where time exists. The interaction with itself causes the information inside that space to increase rapidly, which causes it get more dense, so to say. The information density is nearing infinity and the higher the density the narrower the separation of time and the more that space itself becomes timeless.
In that regard we can circumvent the chicken-egg problem by assigning objective timelessness to that space which only has got time as a tool to perceive.

The model is the easy part, the hard part is always to interpret the consequences out of this :p
 

Goity

VIP Sleaze
Joined
Jun 22, 2004
Messages
5,598
Location
Isle of Ewe
sold said:


Its all about the pi pie :)

Pi is infinite.

Pie is delicious (usually)

The amalgam of these things is infinitely delicious.

Unless you are catholic, in which case the pie is full of scorpions and guilt.
The fifth number on that pie is backwards.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Goity

VIP Sleaze
Joined
Jun 22, 2004
Messages
5,598
Location
Isle of Ewe
trooper said:
Goity said:
The fifth number on that pie is backwards.

Correction, It`s upside down. :p

The seventeenth number is though.

Trooper
No, the fifth number is backwards too, otherwise it would be some sort of bizarre reflected 2.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

trooper

Trooper`s watching you !!!
Joined
Apr 20, 2003
Messages
5,503
Location
The DarkSide (London)
Website
Visit site
Goity said:
trooper said:
Goity said:
The fifth number on that pie is backwards.

Correction, It`s upside down. :p

The seventeenth number is though.

Trooper
No, the fifth number is backwards too, otherwise it would be some sort of bizarre reflected 2.

Well, Call me pedantic, But if you rotate the fifth number clockwise by 180 degrees, It will be a
number two the correct way round.

So technically, We are both correct. :rolleyes:

Oh, And.



<_<

Trooper
 
Last edited by a moderator:

R.B

Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
305
tongue.gif
sold said:


Its all about the pi pie


Pi is infinite.

Pie is delicious (usually)

The amalgam of these things is infinitely delicious.

Unless you are catholic, in which case the pie is full of scorpions and guilt.

You got it wrong PIE = 3.14159265
Is it a Hungarian Goulash Pie, if it is I will take 5 Dozen
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mali

-
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
6,543
Age
45
Location
EU
Website
Visit site
Dudes, you got it all wrong, it's PHI-losophy not PI-losophy :p
Nice to see you back, Mr. Baron :D


 
Top