• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Faster-than-Light Particle

Migrated topic.
TheAppleCore said:
gibran2 said:
Science cannot explain consciousness using what is currently known about the brain any more than one can explain the functioning of a computer after having observed that the “on/off” switch causes a change of state.
Click to expand...
The on/off switch DOES, in this sense, explain the fact that a machine works, in a simple way, because it causes the machine to function. The difficulty of the explanation is just a matter of how complex an explanation you want. An explanation can always become even deeper, and eventually you'll hit a wall explaining anything, because you'll get into the most fundamental subatomic particles known to man, and after that you can't break things down any further.
Click to expand...

Actually, the On/Off switch is a 2c part from Radio Shack (or any component manufacturer), and plays no part whatsoever in the functioning of any machine you place it in other than breaking or completing a voltage circuit.

This explains nothing about the machine as the exact same switch can be used to build an infinite variety of machines that do an infinite variety of things.

The same basic set of chemicals and neural structures gives rise to the utter uniqueness and abundance of personality and consciousness we see in the world? Not likely.

Consciousness is not merely a complex machine either, but the ability to understand complex machines, dream up new configurations for them and build machines that have never existed before. Consciousness in not a tool. Nor is it merely the creator of novel tools. It is the fundamental foundation in which the understanding or recognition of anything is possible.

You assume that answers will be found by breaking matter into smaller and smaller pieces. This is typical in materialist culture, but has thus far only resulted in smaller and smaller pieces. And, there is no reason to expect that splitting these pieces into smaller ones will give us any insight into consciousness.

Going the other direction has more potential IMHO. Putting small pieces together into bigger and bigger structures might eventually lead to a holistic understanding. And the holonomic processes revealed in variegated conscious infinity just might explain our human consciousness... as well as the origins of our universe and more.
 
Hyperspace Fool said:
Actually, the On/Off switch is a 2c part from Radio Shack (or any component manufacturer), and plays no part whatsoever in the functioning of any machine you place it in other than breaking or completing a voltage circuit.

This explains nothing about the machine as the exact same switch can be used to build an infinite variety of machines that do an infinite variety of things.
Click to expand...

Well, if you accept the very specific definition of "explain" that I offered, it certainly does. If you're going to refute that notion, you're going to have to provide your own definition of the word. Which I would be very curious to see from you as well, gibran.

I said that an explanation for something was simply a description of its cause. And when an on/off switch completes and breaks a voltage circuit which is crucial to a machine's functioning, it very much causes the machine to function. Among many many other criteria as well, of course.

The same basic set of chemicals and neural structures gives rise to the utter uniqueness and abundance of personality and consciousness we see in the world? Not likely.

Consciousness is not merely a complex machine either, but the ability to understand complex machines, dream up new configurations for them and build machines that have never existed before. Consciousness in not a tool. Nor is it merely the creator of novel tools. It is the fundamental foundation in which the understanding or recognition of anything is possible.
Click to expand...

I'm just arguing that consciousness isn't incompatible with a completely materialistic worldview (which I happen to have). Are you arguing that it is? That it has to be immaterial?
 
Oh gasp! :shock: Another material vs. immaterial debate via consciousness!

My favorite. :p *Breaks out the popcorn, and sits in a comfy chair)

Let the show go on :lol:
 
TheAppleCore said:
Well, if you accept the very specific definition of "explain" that I offered, it certainly does. If you're going to refute that notion, you're going to have to provide your own definition of the word. Which I would be very curious to see from you as well, gibran.

I said that an explanation for something was simply a description of its cause. And when an on/off switch completes and breaks a voltage circuit which is crucial to a machine's functioning, it very much causes the machine to function. Among many many other criteria as well, of course.
Click to expand...
wiktionary said:
explain verb:
To give a sufficiently detailed report about (a) the reason for something, about why something happened, about a causal chain of events; about (b) how something works, about how elements in a system interact; about (c) how to do something, about the steps which need to be accomplished in order to accomplish a certain goal.
Click to expand...

Your definition meets none of those criteria. As I’ve said before, you are simply creating a circular definition which is devoid of meaning: “some complex systems are conscious if we define consciousness as a property of some complex systems”. We can say the same about anything: “some complex systems are X if we define X as a property of some complex systems”. Are you suggesting that this statement is an explanation for all X – for everything?

Why would you consider your circular definition to be an explanation? You’re telling us something that everyone already knows: Human beings are complex systems and human beings are conscious. How do these two facts constitute an explanation of consciousness? It’s reasonable for a materialist to claim that consciousness is related to the brain (what other claim can a materialist make?), but making a claim about a relationship between the brain and consciousness does not explain consciousness.

My disagreement with your language has nothing to do with your beliefs regarding consciousness, but rather with what you consider to be an explanation of a phenomenon.

I might say “consciousness is the result of quantum mechanical phenomena”. This might be true and it might be false. Regardless, the statement explains neither consciousness nor quantum mechanics. You seem to be suggesting that such a statement explains both!
 
gibran2 said:
Your definition meets none of those criteria.
Click to expand...

It meets the very first criterion. "To give a sufficiently detailed report about the reason for something, about why something happened, about a chain of causal events". A chain of causal events leading up to my computer being powered on would be: 1) I have the intention to use the computer. 2) I push the power button. 3) The power button opens an electrical circuit. 4) The power-up sequence is engaged.

Now, that's a rudimentary and very incomplete explanation, failing to give the complete chain of causal events leading to the power-up. BUT, for a complete explanation, one would be forced to trace the power-up straight back to the big bang itself! So, this cannot really be the meaning of a "true explanation".

As I’ve said before, you are simply creating a circular definition which is devoid of meaning: “some complex systems are conscious if we define consciousness as a property of some complex systems”.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where I make that slip. Can you quote the specific text that creates the circular argument? Not trying to "challenge" you or anything, I'm just enjoying this debate. =)
 
Things get circular when you split one concept into two and raise the two to the status of causing the one. Be aware.

This debate is fallacious. Why?

That which exists and encompasses all things, encompasses "consciousness", "material", "immaterial".

One may learn by debating the abstractions and intricacies but it will in the end, always lead to ^ that.

All debating does is iron out your past delusions.
 
TheAppleCore said:
gibran2 said:
Your definition meets none of those criteria.
Click to expand...

It meets the very first criterion. "To give a sufficiently detailed report about the reason for something, about why something happened, about a chain of causal events". A chain of causal events leading up to my computer being powered on would be: 1) I have the intention to use the computer. 2) I push the power button. 3) The power button opens an electrical circuit. 4) The power-up sequence is engaged.

Now, that's a rudimentary and very incomplete explanation, failing to give the complete chain of causal events leading to the power-up. BUT, for a complete explanation, one would be forced to trace the power-up straight back to the big bang itself! So, this cannot really be the meaning of a "true explanation".
Click to expand...
Your explanations are not sufficiently detailed.

You may feel satisfied that describing the action of a computer’s on/off switch “explains” the operation of a computer, but I do not. I guess that you are more easily satisfied than most.

You are also using an “either/or” fallacy – either we “explain” something without sufficient detail, or we explain it with full detail “straight back to the big bang itself”. There are many levels of detail in between these two extremes which you conveniently fail to consider. There is no debate when one exercises rhetorical/logical fallacies.

Before attempting to engage in debate again, you might want to read through this.
 
gibran2 said:
Before attempting to engage in debate again, you might want to read through this.
Click to expand...

I can't possibly be expected to consciously double-check every logical conclusion I make for every "official" argumentative fallacy. Logical arguments are something that just has to come naturally, man.

Anyway, we have discovered that your disagreement with my argument stems from the fact that we have a difference in opinion as to what a "sufficient" explanation is.

Just because we have a difference of opinion doesn't mean you can call my argument logically fallacious.


Also, correct me if I'm wrong, I get the feeling from you that you seem to hold the position that it is completely inconceivable that anyone could ever explain consciousness. There has to be some degree of complexity and intricacy in the chain of causal events leading to consciousness, which even gibran2 will consider to be "sufficient" in an explanation. We obviously haven't found that level of detailed knowledge yet, but why can't we in the future?
 
..this is all very interesting, but what about Faster Than Light Particles?😉

tachyons theoretically can never travel slower than light (the 'mirror' universe)
..if a tachyon had zero>negative mass, and very fast velocity (say c to the power of c, or infinite, if possible, velocity)..it would have zoomed off to infinity before it left..but say there was a 'circular structure' to the cosmic bubble?
..or a force (similar to the 'lambda' force) that acts more strongly on objects the greater their distance (the opposite of gravity)..this could in effect work like a mirror..as a tachyon goes further away from others, it is eventually pulled ('reflected') back the other way..
fast enough tachyons would therefore appear to be stationary, and eternal.. (cycling the cosmic existence bubble)
they perhaps are space..

light (photons) are the bridge between 'above & below'...

.
 
People are still assuming that these observations if they'd proof to be correct, would by definition violate the known laws of nature.

That doesn't have to be so at all.

There could be numerous explanations that would totally fit everything we know thus far.
 
polytrip said:
People are still assuming that these observations if they'd proof to be correct, would by definition violate the known laws of nature.

That doesn't have to be so at all.

There could be numerous explanations that would totally fit everything we know thus far.
Click to expand...
I’ve already read one such possible explanation on a science site (can’t remember which one). It said that neutrinos may travel in a 4th spatial dimension resulting in a shorter path. So they still might be traveling slower than light, but just taking a shorter route that is inaccessible to other particles.
 
Cker wrote:
Special Relativity says the mass of a particle is equal to it's rest mass times 1/SQRT(1 - v^2/c^2). As v approaches c the equation blows up to infinity and such a particle would need an infinite amount of energy to move at a speed of c. If the particle moves faster than c, this equation becomes complex but it's magnitude is no longer infinite. I'm not sure Einstein ever said particles couldn't travel faster than the speed of light, just not equal to the speed of light.
Click to expand...
thanks for some cool ponderings, Cker
..anyone wanna exercise their imaginations (or is that not scientific enough?)..8)
 
gibran2 said:
I’ve already read one such possible explanation on a science site (can’t remember which one). It said that neutrinos may travel in a 4th spatial dimension resulting in a shorter path. So they still might be traveling slower than light, but just taking a shorter route that is inaccessible to other particles.
Click to expand...
That is exactly correct gibran. Although what I read theorized that neutrinos may travel through the 5th dimension (not 4th). Either way this allows for the possibility of what was observed not invalidating Einstein's theory of relativity, since the Einstein's theory is based on 3 spacial dimensions.

What I find MOST amazing about this discovery is that we may have potentially found proof of extra-dimensional space! We all pretty much know that it must exist, but we've never been able to document proof of its existence. To me this would be the most groundbreaking of all proofs, if it were to be proven.

On a separate note, I'm pretty much on board with Clouds. We are nothing less than arrogant and closed minded if we believe that our extremely primal knowledge of physics can hold a candle to what is really true and possible. It's really just a matter of keeping our minds as open as possible, and then some.

Peace,
-idt
 
Yes we do. MY consciousness arises when I wake up from a nap. That's just one way in which I KNOW consciousness arises.
Click to expand...

sometimes when i wake up, it feels like i am leaving my consciousness behind:?
 
..hey wait a (nano)sec..
Traveller posted:
Quote:
The CERN team had to account for a lot of different variables to do this, like the time that it takes for the clock signal to make it from the satellite in orbit to the ground, but they may have forgotten one critical thing: relativity.
Click to expand...
..groovy explanation, but i don't think it's been proved yet either..it certainly hasn't made much of a noticeable impression on CERN who plan to repeat the experiments:

see 2011 OPERA faster-than-light neutrino anomaly - Wikipedia

& CERN bulletin 24Oct2011: OPERA's measurements

can we really call this one yet..?
 
Back
Top Bottom