Group: sci.med.psychobiology
Dialog and news in psychiatry and psychobiology.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
a deterministic reality?
a deterministic reality?
evolution and the biological models of life and the psyche are solely
dependent on determinism
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
determinism says that all reality we experience is due to a prior cause
and that no intervention in that cause happens
the contradiction to determinism is that there can be nothing like
thermodynamics in a closed system without intervention, that first cause
would have had to have been from outside the system, and if you are a
realist, you believe in one reality, and therefore determinism is
contradicted, there cannot be any outside or two realities
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
the introduction of random quantum events (which we do NEVER observe)
would make an indeterminate system, not a determinate one, in addition
the idea that quantum events are random is a stretch of the truth, the
Uncertainty Principle says we will always be uncertain when trying to
measure both location and momentum of particles due to the influence of
the measurement apparatus, uncertain does not equal random
that leaves free will as the only standing observed indeterminate causer
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
considering the above, is it really a stretch to say that some free will
set the larger chains of cause and effect in motion?
--
Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
see website for real email address
evolution and the biological models of life and the psyche are solely
dependent on determinism
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
determinism says that all reality we experience is due to a prior cause
and that no intervention in that cause happens
the contradiction to determinism is that there can be nothing like
thermodynamics in a closed system without intervention, that first cause
would have had to have been from outside the system, and if you are a
realist, you believe in one reality, and therefore determinism is
contradicted, there cannot be any outside or two realities
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
the introduction of random quantum events (which we do NEVER observe)
would make an indeterminate system, not a determinate one, in addition
the idea that quantum events are random is a stretch of the truth, the
Uncertainty Principle says we will always be uncertain when trying to
measure both location and momentum of particles due to the influence of
the measurement apparatus, uncertain does not equal random
that leaves free will as the only standing observed indeterminate causer
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
considering the above, is it really a stretch to say that some free will
set the larger chains of cause and effect in motion?
--
Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
see website for real email address
Re: a deterministic reality?
On 25 Mag, 14:18, Average Joe <THIS_IS_A_SPAMT...@comcast,net > wrote:
> evolution and the biological models of life and the psyche are solely
> dependent on determinism http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
>
> determinism says that all reality we experience is due to a prior cause
> and that no intervention in that cause happens
>
> the contradiction to determinism is that there can be nothing like
> thermodynamics in a closed system without intervention, that first cause
> would have had to have been from outside the system, and if you are a
> realist, you believe in one reality, and therefore determinism is
> contradicted, there cannot be any outside or two realities http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
>
> the introduction of random quantum events (which we do NEVER observe)
> would make an indeterminate system, not a determinate one, in addition
> the idea that quantum events are random is a stretch of the truth, the
> Uncertainty Principle says we will always be uncertain when trying to
> measure both location and momentum of particles due to the influence of
> the measurement apparatus, uncertain does not equal random
>
> that leaves free will as the only standing observed indeterminate causer http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
>
> considering the above, is it really a stretch to say that some free will
> set the larger chains of cause and effect in motion?
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
> see website for real email address
Is it possible to ignore him, please?
On 25 Mag, 14:18, Average Joe <THIS_IS_A_SPAMT...@comcast,net > wrote:
> evolution and the biological models of life and the psyche are solely
> dependent on determinism http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
>
> determinism says that all reality we experience is due to a prior cause
> and that no intervention in that cause happens
>
> the contradiction to determinism is that there can be nothing like
> thermodynamics in a closed system without intervention, that first cause
> would have had to have been from outside the system, and if you are a
> realist, you believe in one reality, and therefore determinism is
> contradicted, there cannot be any outside or two realities http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
>
> the introduction of random quantum events (which we do NEVER observe)
> would make an indeterminate system, not a determinate one, in addition
> the idea that quantum events are random is a stretch of the truth, the
> Uncertainty Principle says we will always be uncertain when trying to
> measure both location and momentum of particles due to the influence of
> the measurement apparatus, uncertain does not equal random
>
> that leaves free will as the only standing observed indeterminate causer http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
>
> considering the above, is it really a stretch to say that some free will
> set the larger chains of cause and effect in motion?
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
> see website for real email address
Is it possible to ignore him, please?
Re: a deterministic reality?
In article <Kcqdnf1XN8GRScvbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast,com >,
Average Joe <THIS_IS_A_SPAMTRAP@comcast,net > writes:
> evolution and the biological models of life and the psyche are
> solely dependent on determinism
So how come so many of your fellow reality-deniers claim that it's
pure randomness?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
In article <Kcqdnf1XN8GRScvbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast,com >,
Average Joe <THIS_IS_A_SPAMTRAP@comcast,net > writes:
> evolution and the biological models of life and the psyche are
> solely dependent on determinism
So how come so many of your fellow reality-deniers claim that it's
pure randomness?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Re: a deterministic reality?
On 25 May, 13:18, Average Joe <THIS_IS_A_SPAMT...@comcast,net > wrote:
> evolution and the biological models of life and the psyche are solely
> dependent on determinism http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
>
> determinism says that all reality we experience is due to a prior cause
> and that no intervention in that cause happens
>
> the contradiction to determinism is that there can be nothing like
> thermodynamics in a closed system without intervention, that first cause
> would have had to have been from outside the system, and if you are a
> realist, you believe in one reality, and therefore determinism is
> contradicted, there cannot be any outside or two realities http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
>
> the introduction of random quantum events (which we do NEVER observe)
We never observe nuclear decay?
> would make an indeterminate system, not a determinate one, in addition
> the idea that quantum events are random is a stretch of the truth, the
> Uncertainty Principle says we will always be uncertain when trying to
> measure both location and momentum of particles due to the influence of
> the measurement apparatus, uncertain does not equal random
Note the difference between uncertainty and probablistic measurement.
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminism
> that leaves free will as the only standing observed indeterminate causer http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
>
> considering the above, is it really a stretch to say that some free will
> set the larger chains of cause and effect in motion?
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
> see website for real email address
On 25 May, 13:18, Average Joe <THIS_IS_A_SPAMT...@comcast,net > wrote:
> evolution and the biological models of life and the psyche are solely
> dependent on determinism http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
>
> determinism says that all reality we experience is due to a prior cause
> and that no intervention in that cause happens
>
> the contradiction to determinism is that there can be nothing like
> thermodynamics in a closed system without intervention, that first cause
> would have had to have been from outside the system, and if you are a
> realist, you believe in one reality, and therefore determinism is
> contradicted, there cannot be any outside or two realities http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
>
> the introduction of random quantum events (which we do NEVER observe)
We never observe nuclear decay?
> would make an indeterminate system, not a determinate one, in addition
> the idea that quantum events are random is a stretch of the truth, the
> Uncertainty Principle says we will always be uncertain when trying to
> measure both location and momentum of particles due to the influence of
> the measurement apparatus, uncertain does not equal random
Note the difference between uncertainty and probablistic measurement.
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminism
> that leaves free will as the only standing observed indeterminate causer http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
>
> considering the above, is it really a stretch to say that some free will
> set the larger chains of cause and effect in motion?
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
> see website for real email address
Re: a deterministic reality?
On May 25, 8:18 am, Average Joe <THIS IS A SPAMT...@comcast,net >
wrote:
> evolution and the biological models of life and the psyche are solely
> dependent on determinism http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
>
> determinism says that all reality we experience is due to a prior cause
> and that no intervention in that cause happens
No. That is the definition of causal. Stochastic systems can be
causal, but are not deterministic.
> the contradiction to determinism is that there can be nothing like
> thermodynamics in a closed system without intervention
Deterministic mechanics produces thermodynamics in the thermodynamic
limit (number of particles to infinity).
In this limit the determinism and time reversibility are lost.
Thermodynamics is an approximate truth which only applies to large
systems.
Deterministic mechanics is the more fundamental truth which can be
used to derive thermodynamics.
(all speaking classically)
>, that first cause
> would have had to have been from outside the system, and if you are a
> realist, you believe in one reality, and therefore determinism is
> contradicted, there cannot be any outside or two realities http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical realism
>
> the introduction of random quantum events (which we do NEVER observe)
We never observe? You never observe.
> would make an indeterminate system, not a determinate one,
If they are truly random, then yes. But quantum measurements are
interactions between large macroscopic systems and the quantum system.
The result of such an interaction would be effectively random even
with regular deterministic mechanics.
> in addition
> the idea that quantum events are random is a stretch of the truth, the
> Uncertainty Principle says we will always be uncertain when trying to
> measure both location and momentum of particles due to the influence of
> the measurement apparatus, uncertain does not equal random
The uncertainty principle doesn't actually speak of uncertainty or
randomness.
It is a feature of waves. There is a relationship analogous to it for
music.
You cannot produce a note with arbitrarily precise frequency at an
arbitrarily precise time.
> that leaves free will as the only standing observed indeterminate causer http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free will
Define "free will".
> considering the above, is it really a stretch to say that some free will
> set the larger chains of cause and effect in motion?
On May 25, 8:18 am, Average Joe <THIS IS A SPAMT...@comcast,net >
wrote:
> evolution and the biological models of life and the psyche are solely
> dependent on determinism http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
>
> determinism says that all reality we experience is due to a prior cause
> and that no intervention in that cause happens
No. That is the definition of causal. Stochastic systems can be
causal, but are not deterministic.
> the contradiction to determinism is that there can be nothing like
> thermodynamics in a closed system without intervention
Deterministic mechanics produces thermodynamics in the thermodynamic
limit (number of particles to infinity).
In this limit the determinism and time reversibility are lost.
Thermodynamics is an approximate truth which only applies to large
systems.
Deterministic mechanics is the more fundamental truth which can be
used to derive thermodynamics.
(all speaking classically)
>, that first cause
> would have had to have been from outside the system, and if you are a
> realist, you believe in one reality, and therefore determinism is
> contradicted, there cannot be any outside or two realities http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical realism
>
> the introduction of random quantum events (which we do NEVER observe)
We never observe? You never observe.
> would make an indeterminate system, not a determinate one,
If they are truly random, then yes. But quantum measurements are
interactions between large macroscopic systems and the quantum system.
The result of such an interaction would be effectively random even
with regular deterministic mechanics.
> in addition
> the idea that quantum events are random is a stretch of the truth, the
> Uncertainty Principle says we will always be uncertain when trying to
> measure both location and momentum of particles due to the influence of
> the measurement apparatus, uncertain does not equal random
The uncertainty principle doesn't actually speak of uncertainty or
randomness.
It is a feature of waves. There is a relationship analogous to it for
music.
You cannot produce a note with arbitrarily precise frequency at an
arbitrarily precise time.
> that leaves free will as the only standing observed indeterminate causer http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free will
Define "free will".
> considering the above, is it really a stretch to say that some free will
> set the larger chains of cause and effect in motion?
Re: a deterministic reality?
On 3-Jun-2007, shipmodeler1 <rog999@comcast,net > wrote:
> Path:
> news.ThunderNews,com !dartmaster!s02-b15.iad01!nx01.iad01.newshosting,com !newshosting,com !newsfeed.news2me,com !headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
> From: shipmodeler1 <rog999@comcast,net >
> Newsgroups:
> alt.drugs.psychedelics,alt.philosophy,sci.med.psychobiology,talk.origins
> Subject: Re: a deterministic reality?
> Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 09:57:41 -0700
> Organization: http :// groups.google,com
> Lines: 7
> Sender: news@darwin.ediacara.org
> Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
> Message-ID: <1180889861.390451.118190@q19g2000prn.googlegroups,com >
> References: <Kcqdnf1XN8GRScvbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast,com >
> <466103ac$0$13719$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews,com >
> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1180890279 39411 128.100.83.246 (3 Jun 2007
> 17:04:39 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 17:04:39 +0000 (UTC)
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.19.40.25
> In-Reply-To: <466103ac$0$13719$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews,com >
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; ,net
> CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google,com
> Injection-Info: q19g2000prn.googlegroups,com ; posting-host=24.19.40.25;
> Xref: news.ThunderNews,com alt.drugs.psychedelics:289536
> alt.philosophy:363110 sci.med.psychobiology:8423 talk.origins:1101130
>
> "I thought for many hours trying to come to a simple deterministic
> reality of where our universe originated from. I could
> only think that our universe was simply a large exploding fart from
> God."
>
> So you're a theist, then? :)
Hmm... I don't think it is because I'm a theist... It's just that I'm
against the idea of people saying that we shouldn't play the lottery because
we can't build a computer to predict the outcome... There are, after all,
people in this world who have won the lottery who would completely disagree
with your opinion.
--
Delusional power corrupts, real power corrupts more, the benefit of the
doubt is absolute.
On 3-Jun-2007, shipmodeler1 <rog999@comcast,net > wrote:
> Path:
> news.ThunderNews,com !dartmaster!s02-b15.iad01!nx01.iad01.newshosting,com !newshosting,com !newsfeed.news2me,com !headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
> From: shipmodeler1 <rog999@comcast,net >
> Newsgroups:
> alt.drugs.psychedelics,alt.philosophy,sci.med.psychobiology,talk.origins
> Subject: Re: a deterministic reality?
> Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 09:57:41 -0700
> Organization: http :// groups.google,com
> Lines: 7
> Sender: news@darwin.ediacara.org
> Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
> Message-ID: <1180889861.390451.118190@q19g2000prn.googlegroups,com >
> References: <Kcqdnf1XN8GRScvbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast,com >
> <466103ac$0$13719$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews,com >
> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1180890279 39411 128.100.83.246 (3 Jun 2007
> 17:04:39 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 17:04:39 +0000 (UTC)
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.19.40.25
> In-Reply-To: <466103ac$0$13719$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews,com >
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; ,net
> CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google,com
> Injection-Info: q19g2000prn.googlegroups,com ; posting-host=24.19.40.25;
> Xref: news.ThunderNews,com alt.drugs.psychedelics:289536
> alt.philosophy:363110 sci.med.psychobiology:8423 talk.origins:1101130
>
> "I thought for many hours trying to come to a simple deterministic
> reality of where our universe originated from. I could
> only think that our universe was simply a large exploding fart from
> God."
>
> So you're a theist, then? :)
Hmm... I don't think it is because I'm a theist... It's just that I'm
against the idea of people saying that we shouldn't play the lottery because
we can't build a computer to predict the outcome... There are, after all,
people in this world who have won the lottery who would completely disagree
with your opinion.
--
Delusional power corrupts, real power corrupts more, the benefit of the
doubt is absolute.
Re: a deterministic reality?
kmurphy004@houston.rr,com wrote:
> On 3-Jun-2007, shipmodeler1 <rog999@comcast,net > wrote:
>
>> Path:
>> news.ThunderNews,com !dartmaster!s02-b15.iad01!nx01.iad01.newshosting,com !newshosting,com !newsfeed.news2me,com !headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
>> From: shipmodeler1 <rog999@comcast,net >
>> Newsgroups:
>> alt.drugs.psychedelics,alt.philosophy,sci.med.psychobiology,talk.origins
>> Subject: Re: a deterministic reality?
>> Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 09:57:41 -0700
>> Organization: http :// groups.google,com
>> Lines: 7
>> Sender: news@darwin.ediacara.org
>> Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
>> Message-ID: <1180889861.390451.118190@q19g2000prn.googlegroups,com >
>> References: <Kcqdnf1XN8GRScvbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast,com >
>> <466103ac$0$13719$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews,com >
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
>> Mime-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>> X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1180890279 39411 128.100.83.246 (3 Jun 2007
>> 17:04:39 GMT)
>> X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 17:04:39 +0000 (UTC)
>> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.19.40.25
>> In-Reply-To: <466103ac$0$13719$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews,com >
>> User-Agent: G2/1.0
>> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; ,net
>> CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google,com
>> Injection-Info: q19g2000prn.googlegroups,com ; posting-host=24.19.40.25;
>> Xref: news.ThunderNews,com alt.drugs.psychedelics:289536
>> alt.philosophy:363110 sci.med.psychobiology:8423 talk.origins:1101130
>>
>> "I thought for many hours trying to come to a simple deterministic
>> reality of where our universe originated from. I could
>> only think that our universe was simply a large exploding fart from
>> God."
>>
>> So you're a theist, then? :)
>
> Hmm... I don't think it is because I'm a theist... It's just that I'm
> against the idea of people saying that we shouldn't play the lottery because
> we can't build a computer to predict the outcome... There are, after all,
> people in this world who have won the lottery who would completely disagree
> with your opinion.
>
Why are you posting all those full headers? Are you using a real
newsreader or are you posting from http? It really is annoying - we
really don't need to read the headers. You're a Windows user aren't you?
Well, sorry, I don't have anything to do with this thread, but posting
full headers is kind of a dead giveaway that you may not know just what
you are doing.
--
Americans for the Separation of Drugs and Alcohol.
kmurphy004@houston.rr,com wrote:
> On 3-Jun-2007, shipmodeler1 <rog999@comcast,net > wrote:
>
>> Path:
>> news.ThunderNews,com !dartmaster!s02-b15.iad01!nx01.iad01.newshosting,com !newshosting,com !newsfeed.news2me,com !headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
>> From: shipmodeler1 <rog999@comcast,net >
>> Newsgroups:
>> alt.drugs.psychedelics,alt.philosophy,sci.med.psychobiology,talk.origins
>> Subject: Re: a deterministic reality?
>> Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 09:57:41 -0700
>> Organization: http :// groups.google,com
>> Lines: 7
>> Sender: news@darwin.ediacara.org
>> Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
>> Message-ID: <1180889861.390451.118190@q19g2000prn.googlegroups,com >
>> References: <Kcqdnf1XN8GRScvbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast,com >
>> <466103ac$0$13719$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews,com >
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
>> Mime-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>> X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1180890279 39411 128.100.83.246 (3 Jun 2007
>> 17:04:39 GMT)
>> X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 17:04:39 +0000 (UTC)
>> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.19.40.25
>> In-Reply-To: <466103ac$0$13719$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews,com >
>> User-Agent: G2/1.0
>> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; ,net
>> CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google,com
>> Injection-Info: q19g2000prn.googlegroups,com ; posting-host=24.19.40.25;
>> Xref: news.ThunderNews,com alt.drugs.psychedelics:289536
>> alt.philosophy:363110 sci.med.psychobiology:8423 talk.origins:1101130
>>
>> "I thought for many hours trying to come to a simple deterministic
>> reality of where our universe originated from. I could
>> only think that our universe was simply a large exploding fart from
>> God."
>>
>> So you're a theist, then? :)
>
> Hmm... I don't think it is because I'm a theist... It's just that I'm
> against the idea of people saying that we shouldn't play the lottery because
> we can't build a computer to predict the outcome... There are, after all,
> people in this world who have won the lottery who would completely disagree
> with your opinion.
>
Why are you posting all those full headers? Are you using a real
newsreader or are you posting from http? It really is annoying - we
really don't need to read the headers. You're a Windows user aren't you?
Well, sorry, I don't have anything to do with this thread, but posting
full headers is kind of a dead giveaway that you may not know just what
you are doing.
--
Americans for the Separation of Drugs and Alcohol.
Re: a deterministic reality?
"Chip Flintknapper" <nobody@home.us> wrote in message
news:sp3ki.4821$rR.4225@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink,net ...
| kmurphy004@houston.rr,com wrote:
| > On 3-Jun-2007, shipmodeler1 <rog999@comcast,net > wrote:
| >
| >> Path:
| >>
news.ThunderNews,com !dartmaster!s02-b15.iad01!nx01.iad01.newshosting,com !newshosting,com !newsfeed.news2me,com !headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
| >> From: shipmodeler1 <rog999@comcast,net >
| >> Newsgroups:
| >>
alt.drugs.psychedelics,alt.philosophy,sci.med.psychobiology,talk.origins
| >> Subject: Re: a deterministic reality?
| >> Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 09:57:41 -0700
| >> Organization: http :// groups.google,com
| >> Lines: 7
| >> Sender: news@darwin.ediacara.org
| >> Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
| >> Message-ID: <1180889861.390451.118190@q19g2000prn.googlegroups,com >
| >> References: <Kcqdnf1XN8GRScvbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast,com >
| >> <466103ac$0$13719$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews,com >
| >> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
| >> Mime-Version: 1.0
| >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
| >> X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1180890279 39411 128.100.83.246 (3 Jun
2007
| >> 17:04:39 GMT)
| >> X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
| >> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 17:04:39 +0000 (UTC)
| >> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.19.40.25
| >> In-Reply-To: <466103ac$0$13719$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews,com >
| >> User-Agent: G2/1.0
| >> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1;
,net
| >> CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
| >> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google,com
| >> Injection-Info: q19g2000prn.googlegroups,com ; posting-host=24.19.40.25;
| >> Xref: news.ThunderNews,com alt.drugs.psychedelics:289536
| >> alt.philosophy:363110 sci.med.psychobiology:8423 talk.origins:1101130
| >>
| >> "I thought for many hours trying to come to a simple deterministic
| >> reality of where our universe originated from. I could
| >> only think that our universe was simply a large exploding fart from
| >> God."
| >>
| >> So you're a theist, then? :)
| >
| > Hmm... I don't think it is because I'm a theist... It's just that I'm
| > against the idea of people saying that we shouldn't play the lottery
because
| > we can't build a computer to predict the outcome... There are, after
all,
| > people in this world who have won the lottery who would completely
disagree
| > with your opinion.
| >
|
| Why are you posting all those full headers? Are you using a real
| newsreader or are you posting from http? It really is annoying - we
| really don't need to read the headers. You're a Windows user aren't you?
|
| Well, sorry, I don't have anything to do with this thread, but posting
| full headers is kind of a dead giveaway that you may not know just what
| you are doing.
No way of knowing what OS he's using:-
<Path:
uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
From: kmurphy004@houston.rr,com
Newsgroups:
alt.drugs.psychedelics,alt.philosophy,sci.med.psychobiology,talk.origins
Subject: Re: a deterministic reality?
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 21:58:29 GMT
Organization: ThunderNews,com >
"Chip Flintknapper" <nobody@home.us> wrote in message
news:sp3ki.4821$rR.4225@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink,net ...
| kmurphy004@houston.rr,com wrote:
| > On 3-Jun-2007, shipmodeler1 <rog999@comcast,net > wrote:
| >
| >> Path:
| >>
news.ThunderNews,com !dartmaster!s02-b15.iad01!nx01.iad01.newshosting,com !newshosting,com !newsfeed.news2me,com !headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
| >> From: shipmodeler1 <rog999@comcast,net >
| >> Newsgroups:
| >>
alt.drugs.psychedelics,alt.philosophy,sci.med.psychobiology,talk.origins
| >> Subject: Re: a deterministic reality?
| >> Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 09:57:41 -0700
| >> Organization: http :// groups.google,com
| >> Lines: 7
| >> Sender: news@darwin.ediacara.org
| >> Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
| >> Message-ID: <1180889861.390451.118190@q19g2000prn.googlegroups,com >
| >> References: <Kcqdnf1XN8GRScvbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast,com >
| >> <466103ac$0$13719$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews,com >
| >> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
| >> Mime-Version: 1.0
| >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
| >> X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1180890279 39411 128.100.83.246 (3 Jun
2007
| >> 17:04:39 GMT)
| >> X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
| >> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 17:04:39 +0000 (UTC)
| >> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.19.40.25
| >> In-Reply-To: <466103ac$0$13719$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews,com >
| >> User-Agent: G2/1.0
| >> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1;
,net
| >> CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
| >> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google,com
| >> Injection-Info: q19g2000prn.googlegroups,com ; posting-host=24.19.40.25;
| >> Xref: news.ThunderNews,com alt.drugs.psychedelics:289536
| >> alt.philosophy:363110 sci.med.psychobiology:8423 talk.origins:1101130
| >>
| >> "I thought for many hours trying to come to a simple deterministic
| >> reality of where our universe originated from. I could
| >> only think that our universe was simply a large exploding fart from
| >> God."
| >>
| >> So you're a theist, then? :)
| >
| > Hmm... I don't think it is because I'm a theist... It's just that I'm
| > against the idea of people saying that we shouldn't play the lottery
because
| > we can't build a computer to predict the outcome... There are, after
all,
| > people in this world who have won the lottery who would completely
disagree
| > with your opinion.
| >
|
| Why are you posting all those full headers? Are you using a real
| newsreader or are you posting from http? It really is annoying - we
| really don't need to read the headers. You're a Windows user aren't you?
|
| Well, sorry, I don't have anything to do with this thread, but posting
| full headers is kind of a dead giveaway that you may not know just what
| you are doing.
No way of knowing what OS he's using:-
<Path:
uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
From: kmurphy004@houston.rr,com
Newsgroups:
alt.drugs.psychedelics,alt.philosophy,sci.med.psychobiology,talk.origins
Subject: Re: a deterministic reality?
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 21:58:29 GMT
Organization: ThunderNews,com >
Re: a deterministic reality?
On Jun 1, 6:25 am, "Dr. Wayne Simon" <wayne.si...@comcast,net > wrote:
> We have a feeling as if the universe is predetermined because our genetic
> codes have so much influence on who and what we are. But as has been pointed
> out by religious scholars and philosophers we also have a certain amount of
> free will. (the amount can be debated).
There is only will. The will is not free but determined by our
experience, motivation, situation and genetics. How is it that we
choose a course of action if not by reference to our sub-consciously
determined motives?
We cannot escape ourselves. "Free" will is nothing more that a fiction
propogated by the church to provide us with a "free" choice to be
redeemed. But we can in no way abandon or suspend our disbelief,
anymore that a Christian can easily dismiss his programmed delusion
concerning the existence of the tooth fairy or Jesus son of God.
So human life perceives the
> universe as a combination of determinism and interventionism.
All intereventions are determined by ourselves, not by a hairy-fairy
free will which can have no real meaning.
We have
> choice, but some of the time the choice feels pre-programmed. Its a matter
> of perception as a species, more than a representation of the reality of the
> external world. Clearly the natural world keeps forming more and more
> complex realities, and thus in this sector of the universe the complexity at
> its utmost so far is human life, and that life form does have options.
And the limits of those options are determined by our personal
environments, our up-bringing and our choices are determined and
limited by our desires all our determined by our characters determined
by our genes it an effectively infinitive chain of causality. That the
world is determined is not mitigated at all by the fact of the
indeterminablity or unpredictability.
On Jun 1, 6:25 am, "Dr. Wayne Simon" <wayne.si...@comcast,net > wrote:
> We have a feeling as if the universe is predetermined because our genetic
> codes have so much influence on who and what we are. But as has been pointed
> out by religious scholars and philosophers we also have a certain amount of
> free will. (the amount can be debated).
There is only will. The will is not free but determined by our
experience, motivation, situation and genetics. How is it that we
choose a course of action if not by reference to our sub-consciously
determined motives?
We cannot escape ourselves. "Free" will is nothing more that a fiction
propogated by the church to provide us with a "free" choice to be
redeemed. But we can in no way abandon or suspend our disbelief,
anymore that a Christian can easily dismiss his programmed delusion
concerning the existence of the tooth fairy or Jesus son of God.
So human life perceives the
> universe as a combination of determinism and interventionism.
All intereventions are determined by ourselves, not by a hairy-fairy
free will which can have no real meaning.
We have
> choice, but some of the time the choice feels pre-programmed. Its a matter
> of perception as a species, more than a representation of the reality of the
> external world. Clearly the natural world keeps forming more and more
> complex realities, and thus in this sector of the universe the complexity at
> its utmost so far is human life, and that life form does have options.
And the limits of those options are determined by our personal
environments, our up-bringing and our choices are determined and
limited by our desires all our determined by our characters determined
by our genes it an effectively infinitive chain of causality. That the
world is determined is not mitigated at all by the fact of the
indeterminablity or unpredictability.
Re: a deterministic reality?
Cross-posts removed.
"chazworth" <chazwyman@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:1181170474.863878.109000@a26g2000pre.googlegroups,com ...
| [...]
| There is only will. The will is not free but determined by our
| experience, motivation, situation and genetics.[...]
I have lots of books.
I can open any one of them and read
anywhere in it that I choose.
I can't read a book that I don't have,
but I can look for any book that I
don't have, and, on finding it, read
as above.
If I don't find it, I still can't read it.
But I can write it, if I do the work
inherent in learning the topic to
which the book will be devoted.
I can even give-away free copies
of the book, and tell anyone who
has a copy of the book to go ahead
and make as many copies of it as
they want to, and give them away,
too.
All of this has happened through
my own Free Will.
Nothing 'predetermined' that I'd
write the book and give it away.
Nothing 'predetermines' whether
anyone else reads it, copies it,
or gives it away, too.
Where is 'predetermination'?
Yes, there's 'gravity', so I stay
on the ground, rather than
floating off into space, but, if I
were to float off into space, I'd
die, so I'm glad for 'gravity', and
don't feel that it delimits my Free
Will -- although I'd find some use
if other things were less acted-
upon by 'gravity' -- so I could pick
up a car, say, with one hand and
arm :-] Get more done between
having to eat.
And there's that -- having to eat,
to resupply my body with energy.
But I don't have to eat. I do so be-
cause I want to Live.
And so forth, with respect to all
of physical reality's 'laws', which
are Deterministic.
And my body is comprised of
physically-real stuff that literal-
ly incorporates those Determin-
istic 'laws'.
But I can still write, and give away,
that book.
I can't fly, and I think I'd enjoy be-
ing able to.
But I can walk, and drive my car,
and take an airplane, or go on a
cruise ship, to get where I want
to go -- if I can pay the fuel costs,
or fares :-]
I "snipped" it, but in your post, you
wrote, "We cannot escape ourselves."
No, we can't. Life comes with the
bodies we have.
But out nervous systems can 'go'
where they want to go -- in terms
of transforming themselves.
That's what I wrote the book on.
There are no limits upon how our
nervous systems can transform
themselves.
Their capacity for doing so is In-
finite.
As long as it's so, there's Free
Will, and the Will is Free.
It's all explained in the book I
wrote and gave away :-]
k. p. collins
Cross-posts removed.
"chazworth" <chazwyman@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:1181170474.863878.109000@a26g2000pre.googlegroups,com ...
| [...]
| There is only will. The will is not free but determined by our
| experience, motivation, situation and genetics.[...]
I have lots of books.
I can open any one of them and read
anywhere in it that I choose.
I can't read a book that I don't have,
but I can look for any book that I
don't have, and, on finding it, read
as above.
If I don't find it, I still can't read it.
But I can write it, if I do the work
inherent in learning the topic to
which the book will be devoted.
I can even give-away free copies
of the book, and tell anyone who
has a copy of the book to go ahead
and make as many copies of it as
they want to, and give them away,
too.
All of this has happened through
my own Free Will.
Nothing 'predetermined' that I'd
write the book and give it away.
Nothing 'predetermines' whether
anyone else reads it, copies it,
or gives it away, too.
Where is 'predetermination'?
Yes, there's 'gravity', so I stay
on the ground, rather than
floating off into space, but, if I
were to float off into space, I'd
die, so I'm glad for 'gravity', and
don't feel that it delimits my Free
Will -- although I'd find some use
if other things were less acted-
upon by 'gravity' -- so I could pick
up a car, say, with one hand and
arm :-] Get more done between
having to eat.
And there's that -- having to eat,
to resupply my body with energy.
But I don't have to eat. I do so be-
cause I want to Live.
And so forth, with respect to all
of physical reality's 'laws', which
are Deterministic.
And my body is comprised of
physically-real stuff that literal-
ly incorporates those Determin-
istic 'laws'.
But I can still write, and give away,
that book.
I can't fly, and I think I'd enjoy be-
ing able to.
But I can walk, and drive my car,
and take an airplane, or go on a
cruise ship, to get where I want
to go -- if I can pay the fuel costs,
or fares :-]
I "snipped" it, but in your post, you
wrote, "We cannot escape ourselves."
No, we can't. Life comes with the
bodies we have.
But out nervous systems can 'go'
where they want to go -- in terms
of transforming themselves.
That's what I wrote the book on.
There are no limits upon how our
nervous systems can transform
themselves.
Their capacity for doing so is In-
finite.
As long as it's so, there's Free
Will, and the Will is Free.
It's all explained in the book I
wrote and gave away :-]
k. p. collins
Re: a deterministic reality?
kmurphy004@houston.rr,com wrote:
> On 25-May-2007, Average Joe <THIS_IS_A_SPAMTRAP@comcast,net > wrote:
"Determinism gains impetus from the idea that if we put a supercomputer
on the moon, for instance, and input all the mechanics of all the atoms
on the earth then it is possible to predict the future and it is
ridiculous and contrived. It has no philosophical value whatsoever.
It's basically science fiction."
The real definition of science fiction is scientific possibility not yet
implemented, not monster movies or spooky religious bullshit.
I'm not so sure about time travel, but there are many other
possibilities that are not being exploited. Time is a very interesting
subject, however.
In my opinion, one of the major flaws in the study of physics is that
all time is based on the duration of the day on Earth. A day on Mars is
much different, etc.
There should be an absolute unit of time which would be true at any
point in the universe. That is, we should not have to convert all
formulas to Earth time.
Apparently, we are not as advanced as we suppose ourselves to be. In
fact, there is not much difference between us and our predecessors of
500 years ago, save that now we have flight and electricity.
--
Americans for the Separation of Drugs and Alcohol.
kmurphy004@houston.rr,com wrote:
> On 25-May-2007, Average Joe <THIS_IS_A_SPAMTRAP@comcast,net > wrote:
"Determinism gains impetus from the idea that if we put a supercomputer
on the moon, for instance, and input all the mechanics of all the atoms
on the earth then it is possible to predict the future and it is
ridiculous and contrived. It has no philosophical value whatsoever.
It's basically science fiction."
The real definition of science fiction is scientific possibility not yet
implemented, not monster movies or spooky religious bullshit.
I'm not so sure about time travel, but there are many other
possibilities that are not being exploited. Time is a very interesting
subject, however.
In my opinion, one of the major flaws in the study of physics is that
all time is based on the duration of the day on Earth. A day on Mars is
much different, etc.
There should be an absolute unit of time which would be true at any
point in the universe. That is, we should not have to convert all
formulas to Earth time.
Apparently, we are not as advanced as we suppose ourselves to be. In
fact, there is not much difference between us and our predecessors of
500 years ago, save that now we have flight and electricity.
--
Americans for the Separation of Drugs and Alcohol.
Re: a deterministic reality?
Chip Flintknapper wrote:
> In my opinion, one of the major flaws in the study of physics is that
> all time is based on the duration of the day on Earth. A day on Mars is
> much different, etc.
>
> There should be an absolute unit of time which would be true at any
> point in the universe. That is, we should not have to convert all
> formulas to Earth time.
Um, this already happened a long, long time ago. The fundamental unit of
time in physics is the second, which (though it *originally* came from
dividing an Earth day into 86 400 parts) is now officially defined as
the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to
the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
the caesium-133 atom.
--
--Sean
http :// spclsd223.livejournal,com /
Wilson: Be yourself: cold, uncaring, distant.
House: Please, don't put me on a pedestal.
Chip Flintknapper wrote:
> In my opinion, one of the major flaws in the study of physics is that
> all time is based on the duration of the day on Earth. A day on Mars is
> much different, etc.
>
> There should be an absolute unit of time which would be true at any
> point in the universe. That is, we should not have to convert all
> formulas to Earth time.
Um, this already happened a long, long time ago. The fundamental unit of
time in physics is the second, which (though it *originally* came from
dividing an Earth day into 86 400 parts) is now officially defined as
the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to
the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
the caesium-133 atom.
--
--Sean
http :// spclsd223.livejournal,com /
Wilson: Be yourself: cold, uncaring, distant.
House: Please, don't put me on a pedestal.
Re: a deterministic reality?
"Sean Carroll" <seanc130@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:Qk9ki.6976$wG2.955@newsfe17.lga...
> Chip Flintknapper wrote:
>
> > In my opinion, one of the major flaws in the study of physics is that
> > all time is based on the duration of the day on Earth. A day on Mars is
> > much different, etc.
> >
> > There should be an absolute unit of time which would be true at any
> > point in the universe. That is, we should not have to convert all
> > formulas to Earth time.
>
> Um, this already happened a long, long time ago. The fundamental unit of
> time in physics is the second, which (though it *originally* came from
> dividing an Earth day into 86 400 parts) is now officially defined as
> the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to
> the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
> the caesium-133 atom.
I found the OP confusing, to some extent. For example (and I don't know the
exact value off the top of my head) the day on Mars os slightly more than 24
hours long. Does the OP think that an hour (minutes and seconds) actually
lasts longer on Mars as compared to a watch on Earth (Quibbling about the
practically insignificant differences cause by lower gravity in relation to
relativity and mass asside)?
Boikat
--
"Krrrrriptonite!"
Lex Luthor
"Sean Carroll" <seanc130@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:Qk9ki.6976$wG2.955@newsfe17.lga...
> Chip Flintknapper wrote:
>
> > In my opinion, one of the major flaws in the study of physics is that
> > all time is based on the duration of the day on Earth. A day on Mars is
> > much different, etc.
> >
> > There should be an absolute unit of time which would be true at any
> > point in the universe. That is, we should not have to convert all
> > formulas to Earth time.
>
> Um, this already happened a long, long time ago. The fundamental unit of
> time in physics is the second, which (though it *originally* came from
> dividing an Earth day into 86 400 parts) is now officially defined as
> the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to
> the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
> the caesium-133 atom.
I found the OP confusing, to some extent. For example (and I don't know the
exact value off the top of my head) the day on Mars os slightly more than 24
hours long. Does the OP think that an hour (minutes and seconds) actually
lasts longer on Mars as compared to a watch on Earth (Quibbling about the
practically insignificant differences cause by lower gravity in relation to
relativity and mass asside)?
Boikat
--
"Krrrrriptonite!"
Lex Luthor
Re: a deterministic reality?
"Boikat" <bullpup@bellsouth,net > wrote in message news:4G9ki.123
| "Sean Carroll" <seanc130@hotmail,com > wrote in message
| news:Qk9ki.6976$wG2.955@newsfe17.lga...
| > Chip Flintknapper wrote:
| >
| > > In my opinion, one of the major flaws in the study of physics is that
| > > all time is based on the duration of the day on Earth. A day on Mars
is
| > > much different, etc.
| > >
| > > There should be an absolute unit of time which would be true at any
| > > point in the universe. That is, we should not have to convert all
| > > formulas to Earth time.
| >
| > Um, this already happened a long, long time ago. The fundamental unit of
| > time in physics is the second, which (though it *originally* came from
| > dividing an Earth day into 86 400 parts) is now officially defined as
| > the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to
| > the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
| > the caesium-133 atom.
|
| I found the OP confusing, to some extent. For example (and I don't know
the
| exact value off the top of my head) the day on Mars os slightly more than
24
| hours long. Does the OP think that an hour (minutes and seconds) actually
| lasts longer on Mars as compared to a watch on Earth (Quibbling about the
| practically insignificant differences cause by lower gravity in relation
to
| relativity and mass asside)?
I wasted a year of my life reading a book about time and could only conclude
that no-one has any idea what it is. I think it is an illusion to prevent us
perceiving everything at once and that the universe is a 4D solid. That
makes me a determinist.
--
http :// www .chaosmatrix.org/library/humor/buttercat.html
Back up the link to http :// www .chaosmatrix.org/library/ for serious
articles on this subject.
"Boikat" <bullpup@bellsouth,net > wrote in message news:4G9ki.123
| "Sean Carroll" <seanc130@hotmail,com > wrote in message
| news:Qk9ki.6976$wG2.955@newsfe17.lga...
| > Chip Flintknapper wrote:
| >
| > > In my opinion, one of the major flaws in the study of physics is that
| > > all time is based on the duration of the day on Earth. A day on Mars
is
| > > much different, etc.
| > >
| > > There should be an absolute unit of time which would be true at any
| > > point in the universe. That is, we should not have to convert all
| > > formulas to Earth time.
| >
| > Um, this already happened a long, long time ago. The fundamental unit of
| > time in physics is the second, which (though it *originally* came from
| > dividing an Earth day into 86 400 parts) is now officially defined as
| > the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to
| > the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
| > the caesium-133 atom.
|
| I found the OP confusing, to some extent. For example (and I don't know
the
| exact value off the top of my head) the day on Mars os slightly more than
24
| hours long. Does the OP think that an hour (minutes and seconds) actually
| lasts longer on Mars as compared to a watch on Earth (Quibbling about the
| practically insignificant differences cause by lower gravity in relation
to
| relativity and mass asside)?
I wasted a year of my life reading a book about time and could only conclude
that no-one has any idea what it is. I think it is an illusion to prevent us
perceiving everything at once and that the universe is a 4D solid. That
makes me a determinist.
--
http :// www .chaosmatrix.org/library/humor/buttercat.html
Back up the link to http :// www .chaosmatrix.org/library/ for serious
articles on this subject.
Re: a deterministic reality?
"Spencer ©¿©¬" <qsx1@supahat,com > wrote in message
news:5fcoimF37f22rU2@mid.individual,net ...
>
> "Boikat" <bullpup@bellsouth,net > wrote in message news:4G9ki.123
> | "Sean Carroll" <seanc130@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> | news:Qk9ki.6976$wG2.955@newsfe17.lga...
> | > Chip Flintknapper wrote:
> | >
> | > > In my opinion, one of the major flaws in the study of physics is
> that
> | > > all time is based on the duration of the day on Earth. A day on Mars
> is
> | > > much different, etc.
> | > >
> | > > There should be an absolute unit of time which would be true at any
> | > > point in the universe. That is, we should not have to convert all
> | > > formulas to Earth time.
> | >
> | > Um, this already happened a long, long time ago. The fundamental unit
> of
> | > time in physics is the second, which (though it *originally* came from
> | > dividing an Earth day into 86 400 parts) is now officially defined as
> | > the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding
> to
> | > the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
> | > the caesium-133 atom.
> |
> | I found the OP confusing, to some extent. For example (and I don't know
> the
> | exact value off the top of my head) the day on Mars os slightly more
> than
> 24
> | hours long. Does the OP think that an hour (minutes and seconds)
> actually
> | lasts longer on Mars as compared to a watch on Earth (Quibbling about
> the
> | practically insignificant differences cause by lower gravity in relation
> to
> | relativity and mass asside)?
>
> I wasted a year of my life reading a book about time and could only
> conclude
> that no-one has any idea what it is. I think it is an illusion to prevent
> us
> perceiving everything at once and that the universe is a 4D solid. That
> makes me a determinist.
> --
> http :// www .chaosmatrix.org/library/humor/buttercat.html
>
> Back up the link to http :// www .chaosmatrix.org/library/ for serious
> articles on this subject.
>
Time ? Look at the Earth revolving as it orbits the Sun, the Moon as it
orbits the Earth. These mark the Passage of Time. Why is that so hard to
comprehend? You're making this all much harder than it is. Try thinking as
theoretical physicists do and call it TimeSpace.. that helps you see time as
inseperable from space and can help you develop a concept of the passage of
time.Forget about clocks and AM PM or Calandars. The Celestial Bodies mark
the passage of time and are that is enough.
"Spencer ©¿©¬" <qsx1@supahat,com > wrote in message
news:5fcoimF37f22rU2@mid.individual,net ...
>
> "Boikat" <bullpup@bellsouth,net > wrote in message news:4G9ki.123
> | "Sean Carroll" <seanc130@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> | news:Qk9ki.6976$wG2.955@newsfe17.lga...
> | > Chip Flintknapper wrote:
> | >
> | > > In my opinion, one of the major flaws in the study of physics is
> that
> | > > all time is based on the duration of the day on Earth. A day on Mars
> is
> | > > much different, etc.
> | > >
> | > > There should be an absolute unit of time which would be true at any
> | > > point in the universe. That is, we should not have to convert all
> | > > formulas to Earth time.
> | >
> | > Um, this already happened a long, long time ago. The fundamental unit
> of
> | > time in physics is the second, which (though it *originally* came from
> | > dividing an Earth day into 86 400 parts) is now officially defined as
> | > the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding
> to
> | > the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
> | > the caesium-133 atom.
> |
> | I found the OP confusing, to some extent. For example (and I don't know
> the
> | exact value off the top of my head) the day on Mars os slightly more
> than
> 24
> | hours long. Does the OP think that an hour (minutes and seconds)
> actually
> | lasts longer on Mars as compared to a watch on Earth (Quibbling about
> the
> | practically insignificant differences cause by lower gravity in relation
> to
> | relativity and mass asside)?
>
> I wasted a year of my life reading a book about time and could only
> conclude
> that no-one has any idea what it is. I think it is an illusion to prevent
> us
> perceiving everything at once and that the universe is a 4D solid. That
> makes me a determinist.
> --
> http :// www .chaosmatrix.org/library/humor/buttercat.html
>
> Back up the link to http :// www .chaosmatrix.org/library/ for serious
> articles on this subject.
>
Time ? Look at the Earth revolving as it orbits the Sun, the Moon as it
orbits the Earth. These mark the Passage of Time. Why is that so hard to
comprehend? You're making this all much harder than it is. Try thinking as
theoretical physicists do and call it TimeSpace.. that helps you see time as
inseperable from space and can help you develop a concept of the passage of
time.Forget about clocks and AM PM or Calandars. The Celestial Bodies mark
the passage of time and are that is enough.
