A Big Debate

[Sander]

WOW, I have never thought of taht one before, it is very intriguing. But we then do have a problem, how do we know what the exact location in the universe is? According to modern physics, there is no such thing as an absolute location, since it always relative, but in the case of time-travel, what point will be taken in space, and more importantly, to what other point in space will it be relative. What if we were to take a point on the moon and a point on earth for that measurement, wouldn't we be on the same place, since the earth made the same movements as the earth(Assuming we made a full four weeks jump, so that the earth and the moon would be in the same relative position)? So to answer the question, we need to know what an absolute location here IS.

To further complicate things, there is also the problem of time-travel itself, how does it work? According to the modern quantum-physics, time travel would be done by going faster than the speed of light, but according to the same physics, that would not be possible. BUT assuming it is possible, the time-travel would work like this: By going faster than light, you would be able to go through the space-time continuum(please correct me on this point if I'm wrong, I'm a little rusty on this point), meaning that by going though time, you could also go through space, and therefore manipulate where you would come out(again, I'm a bit rusty here).

Also, there is also a theory of time-travel that allows for the multiverse/timeline theory. Meaning that when you go through time, you would enter a new and different timeline/universe, and therfore couldn't have caused any paradoxes, since you would be influencing a completely new world. But if we look at it from that point of view, would you come out on the same point when havin gone through time-travel? And, could you ever possibly return to your old universe, since you already left that one and changed it by toying with time the moment you left it

Wow, that's enough for now

[Aeronautics]

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it does it still make a noise?

Yes, why not? Just look at the physics of sound.

If a man says something and there is no woman to hear it is he still automatically wrong?

What's right and what's wrong?

[Sander]

Yes, Aeronautics, you can look at the physics of sound. But then you rule out one of the biggest philosophical issues, how can one be sure that that tree created sound without actually recording it? You see, as soon as you start to record something, you are actually witnessing it, and therefore you make the experiment invalid.

The whole point of the tree complex(if I got it right), was: How much does our perception of things influence the way the world is. YOu see, I am now looking at a screen, but how can one be sure that this computer screen is still here when there is nothing and noone to see it. You can't, that's why it's a philosophical dilemma. Normal physics can't solve it, since everything in physics revolves around things you witness....

[Karaman]

I LOVE LOVE LOVE Photoshop

http://www.plovdivart.com/karaman/pi...utions_big.jpg

[cairnswm]

I'm looking out of my window I see BLUE sky, GREEN grass and GREEN tress, with little WHITE houses with RED roofs.

If we change the neural connections from my eyes to YOUR brain, what color do you see?

Do all people see the same color images? Or do our brains (and eyes) see differtentr colors but because we are taught that that color is GREEN/RED/BLUE thats what we see - but they arnt neccessarily the same between different people....

[Sander]

Yes, that's right. How do I know that what I see as a circle, does not look to you as I see a square(alright, that's a bad explanation, but anyway).

How much do perceptions influence the world? I love that question, because you can never really answer it. How much do perceptions differ between people, and, what happens when your brain "completes" things automatically, such as letters and words.

It's interesting to think about whether I view something very differently from you, because it doesn't change how we think about the world itself....

[LP]

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it does it still make a noise?

If we think only of perceptions, then the answer is no; but it's not that simple. Now let me use some of exaggeration to explain my point: when a tree falls, in time it gets decomposed (or whatever it's called) then a wood company gets one tree less and a guy gets fired because of that. So actually he got fired because of a tree that did fall. This way it's actually a tree of events which is difficult to simulate in a real-time system (assuming there're infinite number of such events) which was made by us (humans) with our physics system. I say our physic system because if we're in some kind of neuro-simulation, the physic system we see may not be exactly the one of the real world (i mean, our bodies can be flying in space with our minds linked into the simulation where we have gravity).
Now after that I'd say that we MAY actually be in simulation because of the fact itself. Think about it - we can still determine if we are part of the system by having enough knowledge to interpret the real-time system we're in, however the system can limit us of knowing it by the system itself: world disasters (cataclysm, wars, disease), targeted limitation (a group of scientists get sick and die), mind limitation (we just can't learn beyond some point).
However I don't think we're in something LIKE Matrix because: if a machine would need power of us, it'd better either leave us unconscious or manipulate us to have no conscience at all (animals). Why wasting the power by doing us a favor? (world simulation). There're a lot more reasons but to make my post shorter I'll omit them.
The whole another concept is the conscience. Our world really IS a simulation for ourselves. I mean, take a look at planet Mars. It's dead rocky world and it'll stay that way. Who will care? The universe will go the way, the random way or predetermined way and that's all. Fortunally (for us, since the universe has no concept of fortune, just like I said) there're things like us trying to figure out what's happening. We create our own world, physically and mentally. For instance, the sky is blue because I think it's blue but it's in my power to change my mind and think it's green and nobody will be able to change that for me, unless I will change my mind. We also have real-time simulation system integrated in our brain. Think of it - before a meeting with your boss you can "simulate" in your mind how you will talk to him (in order to acoumplish something, like move deadline), etc. Anyway, that's a lot to talk about and I can't just write everything I've been thinking on, so... sorry for the big post

[Aeronautics]

Yes, Aeronautics, you can look at the physics of sound. But then you rule out one of the biggest philosophical issues, how can one be sure that that tree created sound without actually recording it? You see, as soon as you start to record something, you are actually witnessing it, and therefore you make the experiment invalid.

Maybe you can compare it with quantum mechanics. QM says that you don't know where a particle exactly is, until you measure it.

[Sander]

Exactly, that's the whole point. As long as you don't measure it, you don't know it. But as soon as you start to measure something, you also alter it by examining it.

There is a rather weird experiment for instance, if you take one foton, and you don't look at it, and let it go headed for two holes in a wall. If you don't examine it while it travels it'll go through BOTH holes at the SAME time, because you will see a dispersion pattern which can only be made by multiple projections. Things like that can getv very complicated, and also very interesting.