New edgy thread

You need to brush up on your quantum theory !

yes i probably do, though i think i touched on it earlier...

quantum physics..... deeeez nuuts.

but seriously, i'll google the experiment and get back to you. but in the meantime, theory doesnt make something fact. and its now raining so i wont be going out bouldering. i have started to eat peanut butter from the jar and i have to true wheels. dull dull.

YouTube - Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment

:D

Time: Time exists regardless of matter, even if everything is gone, if no matter existed - time would still exist.
The Universe: The universe sits within a substrate called 'space'.

yes and yes. and to be honest, i dont see why not.

Hmmm . . .

So the universe sits on or in a substrate called space, what do you think this stuff 'space' is ? Does it physically exist ?

And time can exist not just as a measure of change but in it's own right ? Again this raises the same question, what then is this 'stuff' you call time ? Does it physically exist ?

hmmm, ii just watched dr quantums piece on it on you tube. interesting but it doesnt convince me. there are still things beyond our knowledge and grasp, and i would be happy to say that the observing in this experiment influenced the outcome, but still, not the thing.

yes i probably do, though i think i touched on it earlier...

but seriously, i'll google the experiment and get back to you. but in the meantime, theory doesnt make something fact. and its now raining so i wont be going out bouldering. i have started to eat peanut butter from the jar and i have to true wheels. dull dull.

Use the peanut butter to lube up the nipples.

Theory is as near to fact as our language allows.

hmmm, ii just watched dr quantums piece on it on you tube. interesting but it doesnt convince me.

This is like someone who has never spoken Aramaic, coming back after 7 minutes of briefly skimming through an acient text and telling us:* "like I said, it's just all nonsense, it's not a real language, the words don't even make sense"*.

:P

When you say you are not convinced, can you be specific, what part of the theory do you find unconvincing.

the observing in this experiment influenced the outcome, but still, not the thing.

What is 'the thing' ?

How did the observation influence the outcome ??

The reason for adding it was that it is a very simple explanation to what you guys are talking about here :) Also if you have not seen "down the rabbit hole" I suggest you do, it is very interesting for us laymen :)

Hmmm . . .

So the universe sits on or in a substrate called space, what do you think this stuff 'space' is ? Does it physically exist ?

And time can exist not just as a measure of change but in it's own right ? Again this raises the same question, what then is this 'stuff' you call time ? Does it physically exist ?

why not? i mean, the earth sits in its place in the universe, why not the universe sit in its place in something else? like russian dolls. im not sure i believe it, but i dont see why it couldnt be true. we cant measure and dont know everything.

time, the word and its meaning is a human construct of course, used to understand and measure the changes around us in the world, yes. but although time might be irrelevant in a vacuum of nothing, i would argue that it still passes. if you were to creat a vacuum in a lab, it wouldnt signal the ceassation of time. just its relevance in that vacuum. so even if our universe ends up in the big crunch into nothing, time would still pass, though not measuring or signalling change in that universe (where it would be irrelevant), in the possible bigger russian doll that surrounds our universe, time is still passing and still be relevant, (er, or not.)

regardless, i suppose my bottom line is that i dont hold the view that time is only there when change is, but that time is only relevant when change occurs.

This is like someone who has never spoken Aramaic, coming back after 7 minutes of briefly skimming through an acient text and telling us:* "like I said, it's just all nonsense, it's not a real language, the words don't even make sense"*.

:P

When you say you are not convinced, can you be specific, what part of the theory do you find unconvincing.

there was no theory. it just showed what happened. nothing else.

What is 'the thing' ?

dam, i dont know. whatever the electrons are capable of i guess. if the electrons are capable of acting like waves when they are watched, then that is still what they are and what they do. they just didnt know it before.

How did the observation influence the outcome ??

that is the question isnt it. of course i dont know the answer, do you? but it doesnt change my point that if electrons are capable of acting like particles and waves, then thats what they are and what they do. if you watch them or not doesnt change the fact that they are capable of acting like particles and waves. its just changes how they act while you are watching. which is what i was saying somewhere up there^^^, its not the observing that causes the change just that in observing, you observe the change.

what i find unconvincing is the idea that observing changes the fundamental potential of the outcome. that by not observing you limit the only possible outcomes to 1 and 2 and 3, and by observing, the possible outcomes completely change to include 4 and 5 and 6. why is it not possible that the potential outcomes are 1- 6 already, and that we only really ever see 1 - 3 but when we observe, we see the 1 - 6 occur.

This thread hurts my head. Where are the shiny things?

portabello road, saturdays. enough shiney silver cutlary to sink ships.

why not? i mean, the earth sits in its place in the universe, why not the universe sit in its place in something else? like russian dolls.

Because the universe means 'everything'.

. . but although time might be irrelevant in a vacuum of nothing, i would argue that it still passes. . . . if you were to creat a vacuum in a lab, it wouldnt signal the ceassation of time. just its relevance in that vacuum.

A vacuum is a very busy place, there would be numerous other things happening in that vacuum that could be measured (could be timed). An truly empty space is just a philosophical idea.

But where there is nothing, there is no time.

so even if our universe ends up in the big crunch into nothing, time would still pass.

You still haven't answered the question of what then you think this stuff time is - if not simply a measure of change.

this thread hurts my ability to spell.

portabello road, saturdays. enough shiney silver cutlary to sink ships.

Know the ladbroke grove area too well..

Next?!

tynan i am way out of my depth here clearly.

i actually didnt know that the universe meant literally everything. i thought it was some abstract idea of what scientists believe, with boundaries. hence my notion of what is past the boundaries?

but if a truely empty space is just a philosophical idea, isnt it sort of a moot point?

i see exactly what you mean about where there is nothing there is no time. and no i cant explain what this stuff time is. but i can say that time is not a measure of change, in fact it is change which is measured against time, which is infinite.

this is funny, im sitting here laughing at myself and my point, thinking back to all the religeon threads i have read where you have posted. it sounds like ii am talking about god, or heaven in the way i cant describe it but yet know it. take a walk in my shoes?

time is an abstract concept which is only really describable in terms of change, yet to my mind, it is independant of that change. seperate and not dependant upon it for its continuation. its the best i can do and we'll have to agree to disagree.

im spent, but i didnt do too badly did i? im actually quite proud of myself for carrying on this long and being able to articulate in this way. and to think, it all comes down to a sticky point about not being able to describe time...

Know the ladbroke grove area too well..

Next?!

christmas time. liberty on carnaby street. thety have a whole floor of shiney things.

christmas time. liberty on carnaby street. thety have a whole floor of shiney things.

Too far away. :( looks at shiny nose stud on my nose instead

Is this edgy enough?

Tynan, you're doing a lot of writing here. Them t-shirt illustrations better be done!

Tynan, you're doing a lot of writing here. Them t-shirt illustrations better be done!

Finished !

I just checked the t-shirt thread and everything appears to be in order. As you were, Tynan. As you were.

Could someone give me a brief synopsis of this new edgy thread/what has been covered thus far? Something along the York Notes level please.

YouTube - Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment

:D

That is the young sluts .... sorry I mean the young slits experiment....

faux naif; but then you already knew that, eh?

Ironically (if i correctly understand the definition of ironically) I had to google this.

So then Berkeley is defining sound as something you sense' -so he would give the answer 'no, if no one was there, there would be no sound'.

Again, a matter of definitions, define how the word sound is being used and the question answers itself.

The dissipation of pressure waves through an independent medium it is a theory not a hypothesis. [/pedant] :p

My point is that Berkeley has a serious reason for defining sound in that way for his purposes, and that makes it not just a matter of definition. He's interested in how we get from the things that are available to sense experience to things that aren't, and he is genuinely concerned about that. It's not as if it is in any way part of common sense to define 'sound' as anything other than something dependent on our senses.

And pedantry or no pedantry, the claim that the sound we hear is caused by the dissipation of pressure waves is a hypothesis and not a theory worthy of the name.