Time and time again. And ageing  

Page 2 / 3
  RSS
(@oyster_bells)
Roadhouse Regular
Posted by: Caoimhín Shirey

A being in the 4 dimension would look like you, Oyster Bells. To David Lynch (or Mark Frost, rather, IMO), a being in 5 dimensions looks like the Giant, Seniorita Dido, Bob, etc. but it could also look like you* . . . could be a mind like the Philosopher's god or Dr Manhattan from the Watchmen! Think about the Giant watching the Trinity blast on his tele as a loose analogy.

*5th dimension video:

The essay is about the behavior of matter, energy, light etc. at different frequencies  and what those universes might look and act like at certain densities. However, if major Briggs "shifted" to 4th density or was hibernating in a 4th density universe or whatever, then for arguments sake, he would've aged much slower. Doesn't explain why people age in the red room. Perhaps they're in a transitional state between densities? I think Frost, by helping with Hasting's website (if he indeed did), is just providing some kind of foundation for the oddities that exist in the visions that Lynch is portraying (e.g., the red room scene entered his head when he put his hand on the warm hood of a car). It's all for the fun of giving us some sort of ground.

Okay, so our world is the 4th dimension, because time applies?  The first 3 dimensions are x, y, z, the 4th is time, what element is added in the 5th, Caoimhín?  Or do we not know that?

Also, I am really good with geometry, 3D, and visuals, but I can't understand the tesseract.  Is time the additional dimension added in a tesseract, and so a tesseract is best seen animated and moving?  I just don't get three-dimensional drawings of it, it doesn't look like a solid object, it looks like a hollow frame.  The animated version is worse, like a hollow frame rotating in on itself, its shape cyclically shifting.  Reading wikipedia just doesn't explain because we can't ask it questions.

"Dougie, who do you prefer now, me or that Jade?"
"Jade."
"No, no, Dougie! Jade. Or. Me?"
"Me."
"Okay, once again. Jade. Or. Janey-E?"
"E."

ReplyQuote
Posted : 15/07/2017 4:06 am
(@oyster_bells)
Roadhouse Regular

And video says Hawking doesn't believe in free will.  That matches with the theory of time that I always hear in fiction : all time is a single object, and the past, present, and future are parts of that object.  So the future already exists, and therefore we can't deviate our course towards it from the present.

But this conflicts with the theory of alternate realities.  If alternate realities exist, that must mean we have free will.

"Dougie, who do you prefer now, me or that Jade?"
"Jade."
"No, no, Dougie! Jade. Or. Me?"
"Me."
"Okay, once again. Jade. Or. Janey-E?"
"E."

ReplyQuote
Posted : 15/07/2017 4:31 am
(@caoimhin)
Detective

Well, it's next to impossible to convey spacetime in three dimensions. How does one portray something that is the antithesis of our everyday experience with reality? I used to manage an art suppply store. One of our customers was looking for paint that had two-sided pigments. He stated that he wanted it in order to paint four-dimensional paintings. We provided him with the paint but he never returned to show us the finished product (think of a car painted in such a way as to change colors as you move around it).

This series of videos may help:

ReplyQuote
Posted : 15/07/2017 6:17 am
(@caoimhin)
Detective
Posted by: Oyster Bells

And video says Hawking doesn't believe in free will.  That matches with the theory of time that I always hear in fiction : all time is a single object, and the past, present, and future are parts of that object.  So the future already exists, and therefore we can't deviate our course towards it from the present.

But this conflicts with the theory of alternate realities.  If alternate realities exist, that must mean we have free will.

Have you read Graham Oppy's "Arguing About Gods"? 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 15/07/2017 6:22 am
(@jeffery_m_thompson)
Roadhouse Regular

Trying to use an equation editor in here time dilation the faster you go the slower your clock moves compared to a stationary object. A nice example already worked out using the lifetime of a pilot -
http://www.emc2-explained.info/Time-Dilation-at-Low-Speeds/#.WWocrTO-KRs

ReplyQuote
Posted : 15/07/2017 9:47 am
(@jeffery_m_thompson)
Roadhouse Regular

Trying to use an equation editor in here time dilation the faster you go the slower your clock moves compared to a stationary object. A nice example already worked out using the lifetime of a pilot -
http://www.emc2-explained.info/Time-Dilation-at-Low-Speeds/#.WWocrTO-KRs

ReplyQuote
Posted : 15/07/2017 9:47 am
(@myn0k)
Deputy

Bit off topic probably, but recently scientists have been proposing that we actually exist in a 2dimensional universe, but our brains interpret it as 3dimensional. 

 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 15/07/2017 1:44 pm
(@oyster_bells)
Roadhouse Regular
Posted by: Caoimhín Shirey
Posted by: Oyster Bells

And video says Hawking doesn't believe in free will.  That matches with the theory of time that I always hear in fiction : all time is a single object, and the past, present, and future are parts of that object.  So the future already exists, and therefore we can't deviate our course towards it from the present.

But this conflicts with the theory of alternate realities.  If alternate realities exist, that must mean we have free will.

Have you read Graham Oppy's "Arguing About Gods"? 

No I haven't.  Just read the synopsis.

Do you believe God exists, Caoimhín?  I find the book's synopsis puzzling : it offers 2 sides of arguments for and against the existence of God.  Is the book saying there's no proof of the existence of God, but there are strong arguments for it?  Is it also saying there's no proof that God doesn't exist?  Why is it using the word "argument" instead of "proof"?

"Dougie, who do you prefer now, me or that Jade?"
"Jade."
"No, no, Dougie! Jade. Or. Me?"
"Me."
"Okay, once again. Jade. Or. Janey-E?"
"E."

ReplyQuote
Posted : 16/07/2017 7:01 pm
(@oyster_bells)
Roadhouse Regular
Posted by: Jeffery M. Thompson

Trying to use an equation editor in here time dilation the faster you go the slower your clock moves compared to a stationary object. A nice example already worked out using the lifetime of a pilot -
http://www.emc2-explained.info/Time-Dilation-at-Low-Speeds/#.WWocrTO-KRs

Thanks for the awesome link, Jeffery. ?

Yep, need to get on a faster-than-light ship if we wanna outlive everyone....

"Dougie, who do you prefer now, me or that Jade?"
"Jade."
"No, no, Dougie! Jade. Or. Me?"
"Me."
"Okay, once again. Jade. Or. Janey-E?"
"E."

ReplyQuote
Posted : 16/07/2017 7:06 pm
(@oyster_bells)
Roadhouse Regular
Posted by: Myn0k

Bit off topic probably, but recently scientists have been proposing that we actually exist in a 2dimensional universe, but our brains interpret it as 3dimensional. 

 

Oh nooo, amidst all the talk of higher dimensions, here's one saying we're actually in a lower one!

?  Wanna elaborate on the gist of their argument, Myn0k?

"Dougie, who do you prefer now, me or that Jade?"
"Jade."
"No, no, Dougie! Jade. Or. Me?"
"Me."
"Okay, once again. Jade. Or. Janey-E?"
"E."

ReplyQuote
Posted : 16/07/2017 7:07 pm
(@caoimhin)
Detective
Posted by: Oyster Bells
Posted by: Caoimhín Shirey
Posted by: Oyster Bells

And video says Hawking doesn't believe in free will.  That matches with the theory of time that I always hear in fiction : all time is a single object, and the past, present, and future are parts of that object.  So the future already exists, and therefore we can't deviate our course towards it from the present.

But this conflicts with the theory of alternate realities.  If alternate realities exist, that must mean we have free will.

Have you read Graham Oppy's "Arguing About Gods"? 

No I haven't.  Just read the synopsis.

Do you believe God exists, Caoimhín?  I find the book's synopsis puzzling : it offers 2 sides of arguments for and against the existence of God.  Is the book saying there's no proof of the existence of God, but there are strong arguments for it?  Is it also saying there's no proof that God doesn't exist?  Why is it using the word "argument" instead of "proof"?

In the book Oppy critically analyzes a great many of the arguments put forth both for and against the existence of god (the philosopher's god that has been defined through centuries of Jewish, Christian and Muslim theology). His conclusion is that neither side has compelling enough arguments, on their own, to cause anyone to change their mind. I bring up that book because he covers arguments on the existence of free will. 

I have studied philosophy of religion in my spare time. 

Personally, no, I am not convinced that god(s) exist but I continue on in my search for truth. 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 17/07/2017 2:02 am
(@caoimhin)
Detective

He presents arguments in the form of syllogisms. If your proposotions are true and your conclusion is true (necessarily follows), then it is possible to have a logical proof. But in the arguments Oppy presents, the truth of one or more of the propositions is being debated as are the conclusions in some cases. So the arguments haven't proven god's existence one way or the other. 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 17/07/2017 2:12 am
(@oyster_bells)
Roadhouse Regular
Posted by: Caoimhín Shirey

He presents arguments in the form of syllogisms. If your proposotions are true and your conclusion is true (necessarily follows), then it is possible to have a logical proof. But in the arguments Oppy presents, the truth of one or more of the propositions is being debated as are the conclusions in some cases. So the arguments haven't proven god's existence one way or the other. 

Okay.

But was I right that relating to physics, there are 2 conflicting theories :

The first that time is a single object and the future already exists, and we move towards it without an option to deviate (no free will), which Hawking believes.

And the second, the Schrödinger's Cat and all the theories of alternate realities, enabling us with multiple deviations and therefore free will.

And that both these theories are supported by physicists?

"Dougie, who do you prefer now, me or that Jade?"
"Jade."
"No, no, Dougie! Jade. Or. Me?"
"Me."
"Okay, once again. Jade. Or. Janey-E?"
"E."

ReplyQuote
Posted : 17/07/2017 2:27 am
(@caoimhin)
Detective
Posted by: Oyster Bells
Posted by: Caoimhín Shirey

He presents arguments in the form of syllogisms. If your proposotions are true and your conclusion is true (necessarily follows), then it is possible to have a logical proof. But in the arguments Oppy presents, the truth of one or more of the propositions is being debated as are the conclusions in some cases. So the arguments haven't proven god's existence one way or the other. 

Okay.

But was I right that relating to physics, there are 2 conflicting theories :

The first that time is a single object and the future already exists, and we move towards it without an option to deviate (no free will), which Hawking believes.

And the second, the Schrödinger's Cat and all the theories of alternate realities, enabling us with multiple deviations and therefore free will.

And that both these theories are supported by physicists?

Multiverses alone don't conflict with determinism. Each universe could be causally determined. Or, the multiverse itself could be causally determined. 

You're correct in one sense: what is called "hard" determinism is more difficult to defend in the Many-Worlds Interpretation (Schrödinger). This has caused some determinists to defend compatibilism instead. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

The arguments are ongoing, however, so the truth of determinism, compatiblism, and free will, among philosophers, within any current model in theoretical physics has not been concluded. 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 17/07/2017 3:39 am
(@oyster_bells)
Roadhouse Regular
Posted by: Caoimhín Shirey

 

Multiverses alone don't conflict with determinism. Each universe could be causally determined. Or, the multiverse itself could be causally determined. 

You're correct in one sense: what is called "hard" determinism is more difficult to defend in the Many-Worlds Interpretation (Schrödinger). This has caused some determinists to defend compatibilism instead. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

The arguments are ongoing, however, so the truth of determinism, compatiblism, and free will, among philosophers, within any current model in theoretical physics has not been concluded. 

Arggh....

Oh, what about the tesseract, is it a hollow frame or solid?  And is it meant to be moving and shifting as a 4th dimension of time is added?

"Dougie, who do you prefer now, me or that Jade?"
"Jade."
"No, no, Dougie! Jade. Or. Me?"
"Me."
"Okay, once again. Jade. Or. Janey-E?"
"E."

ReplyQuote
Posted : 17/07/2017 5:52 am
Page 2 / 3
Share: