Tulpa.info - metaphysics

anon 7/24/2021 8:11 PM

immortalbeggar

that reminds me c is constant in relation to our 3d prespective universe , but from higher Ds all contants can change to varibles .. thonk

based on level i guess

ok let's break this down "c is constant in relation to our 3d prespective universe" - why do you think constant being constant is limited to the "3d perspective universe"? "but from higher Ds" - where did you get the higher Ds, what are they, how can you inspect them, what properties do they have, how did you determine that? "all contants can change to varibles" - how do constant change into variables, why would they change depending on the D they are in, why are they constant in different places but not different Ds, how did you determine that? (edited)

immortalbeggar

btw metaphysics = science under construction or not yet defined

science under construction still needs scientific method, how does your metaphysical philosophy/bsing use scientific method?

asking since you put the equal sign between metaphysics and science

What did the self-transforming machine elves teach you?

@Unfastened Belts - jump

1

"Sociality has profound evolutionary roots and is observed from unicellular organisms to multicellular animals," Picard and Sandi write. "In line with the view that social principles apply across levels of biological complexity, a growing body of data highlights the remarkable social nature of mitochondria."

They continue: "Similar to individuals among social networks, mitochondria communicate with each other and with the cell nucleus, exhibit group formation and interdependence, synchronize their behaviors, and functionally specialize to accomplish specific functions within the organism. Mitochondria are social organelles."

Of course, if mitochondria are conscious beings, that would mean we have trillions and trillions of these brainless beings chilling throughout literally every cell of our bodies. That idea may seem absurd until you consider a scientific concept which could explain it: Panpsychism, or the idea that consciousness is inextricably linked to all matter and simply grows stronger as a physical object become more complex.

(from https://www.salon.com/2021/07/23/panpsychism-the-idea-that-inanimate-objects-have-consciousness-gains-steam-in-science-communities/ )

"[animistic pantheism rebranded in a new-age way] gains steam in science communities" - the title alone tells me that this wasn't written by anyone with a passing understanding of what science is. Also specialization and cooperation are not indicators of sociality in the way that humans understand it. This is equivalent to comparing the consciousness of an ant colony to a human social network. They're not the same thing; they're not even based on the same principles. They are machines built on different building blocks designed to make intelligent decisions:

Ants are not particularly individually intelligent, they rely on pheromones and modulated growth stages to determine what social caste they will inhabit and how they will response to other ants. They don't actually make good decisions individually, and can become trapped in incorrect behaviour just by putting the wrong smell in their environment.
Human brains work like how ant hives work, with each part unaware but functional as a whole. But our social systems are not like that at all: They are adaptive switches with what might be billions of possible variables. Our social instincts are actively adaptive, based on emotions and sensations that ants don't possess, as well as actually referring to memory in far more complex ways. Ants are very good at storing scent portfolios individually. Humans are good at storing entire humans individually. Mitochondria meanwhile, do not have even show what ants possess.

(edited)

By the way it's important in science not to misunderstand the difference between hypothesis and theory. This article paints this as a "scientific concept". But no hypothesis is a "scientific concept" no matter how valid it might be. It's like the belief in multiple realities through timelines: where you aware that as of yet this not accepted in science? Many people presume it is because it's such a staple of sci-fi at this point. There may be multiple physical dimensions: But as far as we are aware there is no real evidence other than speculation for the existence of any other time than the stream we seem to inhabit. A theory requires evidence. It requires testing: Even if it fits into the mold of the science that came before it. As far as I can see there are several rationalist arguments for and against this hypothesis - But there isn't really any concrete evidence. So this is not a scientific theory.

1:39 PM

To me it sounds like people wanting to believe something is true, and seeing it in the data regardless of it being contradictory.

@Zen and yet again i have a feeling you are making too much sense, i'm afraid there is not enough clickbait in your essay for people to get it

ah Sock i had a hunch i would be called out on that one ...sigh these things are so damn lenghty to explain in chats........(and before i begin i must add some disclaimeer no we cant verify it with our current sci advances but yes we can make assumptions , hypothesis and so on)alright the idea of constants changing into varibles comes from the assumption that each new dimension unlocks a new prespective for the observer

3:40 PM

and as such some truths which may be set in stone can be precived entirely differently from diffrent relative prespectives

3:43 PM

as for lights constant speed , think why its a constant in our refrencial point of view in the first place? changes in space time varibles makes sure of it that no one breaks the speed limit from any refrence point from within the universe right?

3:45 PM

so if you jump out of the chess board and look down(ie lets say from a chaosverse point of view perhaps?) then ofc you will see all types of constants being regulated or restricted and so on ......

assumptions and hypothesis still need have some basis, otherwise it's just talking out of one's ass...

"the idea of constants changing into varibles comes from the assumption that each new dimension unlocks a new prespective for the observer" you need to demonstrate that there are other dimensions you are talking about before you start making assumptions based on that assumption, and still your assumptions should be based on the model of how additional dimensions work, you can't just say "this is my assumption of how it works therefore this is how the other thing works". that's mainly the reason why everything you say is very wobbly and not grounded in reality and just looks like joining random physics facts you watched on youtube the constants in the universe are for now a mystery. why do they have the values they have? why did you even assume they can be different? scientists have worked on it quite hardly and there was some interesting progress in the scientific world in that regard, which i'm not going to share since that's going to be misused by metaphysicists

you can't look at physical constants and say "oh, we have constants in programming, we also have variables in programming, what if universe's constants are variables!" (edited)

Heya people just an update to this discussion.....The speed of light has already been broken. Compressing pulses of photons into higher frequencies in different media has given us speed. The research paper is here : https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.205001 Even thought he individual photons arent exceeding the theoretical speed limits the pulses move in accelerated motion. So can I call constants variables depending on the reference point...I think so. And a similar result was attained during the quantum eraser experiment which changed probabilities depending on the single fact that it was observed or not.

Slow and Fast Light in Plasma Using Optical Wave Mixing

Interactions between two laser beams in a plasma allow for precise control over the light's velocity.

You are misunderstanding what the constant is. C is the speed of light in a vacuum. (edited)

Importantly, the upper limit is derivable from special relativity. If this equation is used if you actually exceed the speed of light the distance the particle travels contracts to nothing and the time it takes to do so becomes infinite/is a division by zero. Geting something to move slower than light is interesting, sure, but it's actively not defying anything. You're not breaking a speed limit by moving around below that speed, and as you say light definitely has been observed moving slower than C in things like glass. Even in air. (edited)

The ratio between c and the speed v at which light travels in a material is called the refractive index n of the material (n = c / v). For example, for visible light, the refractive index of glass is typically around 1.5, meaning that light in glass travels at c / 1.5 ≈ 200000 km/s (124000 mi/s); the refractive index of air for visible light is about 1.0003, so the speed of light in air is about 90 km/s (56 mi/s) slower than c

Iirc they slowed light down through a bose-einstein condensate to slow enough that you could see it moving with the naked eye

nibor

Heya people just an update to this discussion.....The speed of light has already been broken. Compressing pulses of photons into higher frequencies in different media has given us speed. The research paper is here : https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.205001 Even thought he individual photons arent exceeding the theoretical speed limits the pulses move in accelerated motion. So can I call constants variables depending on the reference point...I think so. And a similar result was attained during the quantum eraser experiment which changed probabilities depending on the single fact that it was observed or not.

how was the constant c broken again?

11:20 AM

and please, not again "observed"

"The experiment was conducted at the Jupiter Laser Facility, where an energetic pump beam and a low-energy probe beam were crossing inside a He/H plasma. By tuning the wavelength difference between the two beams the team was able to change the pulsed light group velocity from 0.995c to 0.12c and -0.34c" (edited)

11:39 AM

yea...I think I know what C is...

11:42 AM

uhh....I dunno if you read what I wrote above...individual photons never exceeded the limit...the pulse did....wait a more elaborate explanation : "A photon's speed is locked in place by the weave of electrical and magnetic fields referred to as electromagnetism. There's no getting around that, but pulses of photons within narrow frequencies also jostle in ways that create regular waves. The rhythmic rise and fall of whole groups of light waves moves through stuff at a rate described as group velocity, and it's this 'wave of waves' that can be tweaked to slow down or speed up, depending on the electromagnetic conditions of its surrounds. By stripping electrons away from a stream of hydrogen and helium ions with a laser, the researchers were able to change the group velocity of light pulses sent through them by a second light source, putting the brakes on or streamlining them by adjusting the gas's ratio and forcing the pulse's features to change shape."

Deleted User

and please, not again "observed"

We wont know that it happened if it wasnt observed...

11:46 AM

The research is still new..so its not well...accepted by all...I think theyll do more testing in it'll be given 2 years was the time I think yea...but I cant rule it out either.....just an interesting look into what might be next. (edited)

Uhm... I'm not seeing any information here that says anything travels faster than C here.

11:53 AM

In fact from what I can see it specifically says the highest group velocity measured is 0.12c

I waited for so long to hear a huge paragraph from you...

11:53 AM

what is this...one line

I was going to go on a spiel about how waves move and the false concept that used to exist in electricity that the whole wave moves simultaneously, but I decided it was superfluous information=D

nah....Id be more than happy to hear about that.. but I think we are way away from #metaphysics

I cant really agree with a whole wave moving....havent really read about it either...but they are saying whole groups...which may mean like 5-10 waves of light with matching frequency and wavelength were tweaked such that they were forced to move together as a whole...something like a laser just way more simultaneous... (edited)

I'm just not seeing any claim to that effect here on the surface. Nor do i intend to subscribe to this to see the actual study because fuck that.

and those pulses as they are put moved faster in plasma and in condensate were slowed down alot.

As far as I am aware there is no way for a pulse of light to move faster than C, nor is that being claimed on the face of this document. (edited)

funny seeing you cussing

I'm scottish, we swear.

12:06 PM

It's like punctuation to us.

12:06 PM

Part of proper form!

interesting....

12:08 PM

Oh yea I also remember another research where neutrino travelled faster than light. (edited)

12:09 PM

oh yea that were wrong results. (edited)

To extrapolate on the thing I was contemplating posting about earlier: In electricity it was a misconception that that waves of electricity moved faster than light. The original thought was that if you imagine a tube with balls in it, and place one ball in one end, the idea was that the ball at the other end would come out instantaneously because the whole structure was moving. But this isn't actually how it works, the wave must compress each electron/ball individually, and this is actually significantly slower than light.

I cant say Ive read about this but its interesting....yea each ball will have a compression which is slow..

nibor

yea...I think I know what C is...

i think you do not, c is speed of causality that is the same as speed of light in vacuum. physicists have known they could change speed of light since Newton's time, that's how optics work (edited)

oh Thank you kind sir

you are welcome

I wonder why am I even bothering to study at a university since I can learn everything from you.

guess they teach you different things than they did to me

mhmm...agreed

how do they explain the "observation" in your uni, i wonder?

12:29 PM

because that's really a youtube vocabulary of that phenomena

which they definitely not used on my physics classes

hmm...interesting....

12:30 PM

distinguished gentleman please if you could explain what observation means in your universe...

i'm confused who are you talking to

you sir. I would be very grateful if you could help this dimwitted fool out with that

i'm not a sir

12:31 PM

how does the "observation" process happen in the double split experiment, or the quantuum eraser experiment, happen that you referred to?

12:31 PM

what do physicists actually do to "observe" it?

12:32 PM

do they look at it with a looking glass? do they put a finger in it? what does your uni teach you?

12:32 PM

or unis in general nowadays

uh....I just asked you that...

you claimed in study on uni

12:33 PM

prove that you know what you are talking about (edited)

why are you changing topics?

i'm not, you claimed you know what you are talking about

12:34 PM

show then

12:34 PM

how is the "observation" happening in the experiment?

12:34 PM

how can you claim you know what is going on if you don't even understand how the experiment is ran?

12:34 PM

i thought so

The sheer passive aggression.

carry on with my day then, good bye

huh...I asked you to explain what obeservation is...

Zen

The sheer passive aggression.

it's quite active

12:35 PM

from my side at least

12:35 PM

i just can't stand people claiming they know what they are talking about

12:36 PM

why would i need to tell you what you meant by "observation"

hmm....you want me to fokin explain the quantum eraser expeiment then ?

?

12:36 PM

no, because 10% of the internet knows what it is from youtube

uh ok..then

but because they don't understand what the experiment is actually like

12:36 PM

they make wrong assumptions

12:37 PM

most of the time people talking about quantuum physics here is caused by people not understanding what those experiments even do to "observe"

hm....so out of everything Ive written where have I said something so wrong that I was making wrong assumptions....

you can't even explain the basic, how do i know you know what you are talking about in the rest of the post?

the basic..in the sense?

"And a similar result was attained during the quantum eraser experiment which changed probabilities depending on the single fact that it was observed or not."

12:39 PM

you don't even know what you mean by "observe"

12:39 PM

in that sentence

hmm...

anyway, i don't think i will get any answers

12:40 PM

bye

so observation isnt the act of the result being determined?

12:41 PM

goddamit I was in such a good flow now and they left...