[Consciousness, the border of the universe..] - A New Kind of Science: The NKS ForumA New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum
Pages:1
Consciousness, the border of the universe..
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: rudeonline
Since the mind and life institute is trying to explain more about science and spiritualism I would like to tell you my idea about consciousness. The thing is that men is looking in the wrong direction with A. Einsteins relativity theory. Not light itself is moving, we are moving true time and space with the speed of light. Light is only an energy leaving his source as a trail.
At the speed of light there is no time. So nothing can move.
From the point of view from a person each distance is a possibility into the future. While we travel true time we are able to see all options what the light is showing us.
To prove my idea I wrote the following text...
I can prove that the relativity theory of Einstein is wrong. The good point is that I can make this understandable for many people in a very simple way. The issue I try to prove with my idea is that our own consciousness is the absolute border of the universe. To prove this I have to prove that the speed of light is not 300.000km/sec but actually zero. I know that this sounds completely strange but read on and I will try to explain you in a short way how I think to prove this.
The first thing to know is that there is no time at light speed. How can something move if there is no time to move? Looking to the twin paradox a traveler true space leaves the earth and comes back and is only 1 second older. The person on Earth is than for example 2 years older.
If the traveler true space only became one second older, he never could make a longer trip than 300.000km. He had only 1sec to travel! The person on earth was traveling in the same "period" at least 30km/sec, because that is the speed of earth around the sun. Well, 2 years x 30km/sec is a lot more than 300.000km.
Off course I have to explain you a lot more than this, I just hope that I can open some eyes of the scientists working with this theory. If the theory is relative, you also should put it upside down. If light moves with 300.000km/sec one way, we are moving with the same speed the other way. Notice that we measure seconds, not the photon. You need time to move.
I would like to tell you a lot more about the way it is possible that we can "see" things if light is not moving, also this is not to difficult to understand. From the point of view from the individual all other positions are possibility's in the future. The person travels true time ( to tomorrow and so on..) while light leaves a trail into the past from the point of view where it comes from.
I hope that you understand my idea what I would like to show to the people. The idea of a multiversum is so a lot closer to mankind ( everyone is the middle of his own universe) ans consciousness is the border of the universe. We can chose our own future.
Posted by: rudeonline
No suggestions?
Posted by: rudeonline
If time and space are not absolute, how can it be that the speed of light is absolute?
Speed do you measure with time and space...
Where are your answers??
Posted by: Latyshev
Looks like an interesting perspective...
Would be cool if someone with maths background commented.
Posted by: AJSkaley
I'm trying to follow your logic, but it is hard... you need to explain it a little better... I mean, how does light moving at 0 m/s relate to the twin paradox?
"If light moves with 300.000km/sec one way, we are moving with the same speed the other way. "
I'm assuming this has to do with equal and opposite reactions. Well this has to do with force and momentum and since photons have no mass they have no momentum and therefore don't create an opposite force when they are released.
I think it is an interesting idea that our consciousness is the border of our universe, because it is true that our understanding does not reach beyond our knowledge.
One proposition I have to you is that mass is an attribute of conscioussness, if so, all matter must be aware of its own existance. This way we can shape not only our futures but also our realitites as well. In a way, people can be said to interact with eachother over a distance just like matter does through gravity because they come together at certain points and create events that effects everyone around them (through photons funny enough). We call these events coincidences.
Posted by: rudeonline
A mathematical prove is very simple. If the time stops at the speed of light, there never could be a time to make a movement. 0sec x ..km is still 0 km. Also the concept of time dilation and length contraction seems to tell us that space and time will become zero at the speed of light.
If we just can prove in a simple way that time really goes slower if you move. It's much more logical that you are not really making speed, but that you put on the break.
If you would do a test with 2 persons, it is simple to see on a clock who moves most distance trough space from the point of view from the light.
If I would stay on earth an become 10 years older, I was at least moving 10 years with 30km/sec trough space.
If a traveler leaves earth and comes back only 10sec older because he was traveling with almost the speed of light, he never could have make a longer trip than 10sec x 300.000km/sec.
Well, the twin paradox tell us that in theory I can stay here waiting 10 years for the other persons return while he only became 10sec older.
From the point of view from light I travel 10 years with 300.00km/sec, the other person only 10sec with the same speed.
You can say then that you never can make more km/sec then 300.000km.
At the speed of light distance and time must be zero. It is impossible for a mass to stand absolute still in the universe. If it was possible, the mass would had to be so heavy that all other Mather would move to him. A mass with the absolute speed of light would bring the whole universe to stand still.
I hope this is more clearly,
Posted by: green_meklar
If the traveler true space only became one second older, he never could make a longer trip than 300.000km. He had only 1sec to travel!
One of his seconds. Once he is going fast enough, the dilation reaches the point where it outweighs the remaining fraction between his speed and the speed of light, and after that point it appears to him when he arrives back that he has completed his journey at faster than the speed of light. For example, at 0.99 C, the dilation factor is 7.089, so for one of his seconds, 7.089 seconds pass for all stationary objects, and he travels 2103920.66 kilometers.
Similarly, as you already said, photons experience zero time. Yet of course they travel at the speed of light. So no matter what journey the photon makes, if you divide the distance by the subjective time, it appears to be going infinitely fast (which is much faster than the speed of light). See what I mean?
If time and space are not absolute, how can it be that the speed of light is absolute?
Speed do you measure with time and space...
From what I can tell, it's possible that the speed of light is not absolute either. It's possible that whatever variable controls the speed of light also controls the scale of the Universe. In such a case, doubling the speed of light would double the size, mass, strength, age, timeflow, etc, of everything else, so that our perception remains exactly the same (an analogy would be if you doubled the speed at which cellular automaton cells affect each other by making each cell use up four pixels on your computer screen rather than one; the actual mechanics remain exactly the same, it just looks bigger to anyone outside it). Although you'd have to ask a physicist to get a clear answer on whether this is possible.
Posted by: rudeonline
For example, at 0.99 C, the dilation factor is 7.089, so for one of his seconds, 7.089 seconds pass for all stationary objects, and he travels 2103920.66 kilometers.
So in this case you could say that the speed of light also can be 300.000km/ 7.089sec. That''s not so fast..
Posted by: Jason Cawley
I really think none of this belongs here, but I will make one very minor attempt and then give it up as hopeless.
The speed limit of c is not a serious obstacle to more rapidly crossing huge distances as measured in a rest frame. The distance to objects distant in a rest frame can be shortened, or in rest frame terms you can go as fast as you like, or you can slow down your time as much as you like. Limited of course by energy and engineering impracticality etc.
Suppose you point a spaceship at the Andromeda galaxy and accelerate toward it at 1G continually. Half way there, you flip the ship around and decelerate at 1G continually. The figure you get for a distance of 1 megaparsec - 3.26 million light years - is around 60 years ship time. (Andromeda is actually about 10% closer than that, but who cares?). It doesn't matter that 3 (or 6 - averages and slowing back down etc) million years have passed on earth, they haven't for the ship or anyone on it. If you can get 2G constant acceleration you can do it in 30 years ship time.
Some here seem to be laboring under the illusion that it would always take at least 3 million years ship time, that that is what maximum speed implies. Not so, as greenmeklar was kindly attempting to inform you. It just means in a ground frame the ship goes to speed .999... C and then time slows on board (from the ground frame, time on the ship seems to slow down; from the ship frame, time on earth seems to speed up, etc).
Please go hash this out on some more general forum elsewhere and appraise yourself of the elementary aspects of it all. This forum is about NKS issues, exclusively, and this isn't one of them.
Posted by: rudeonline
C and then time slows on board (from the ground frame, time on the ship seems to slow down; from the ship frame, time on earth seems to speed up, etc).
What happens if you measure a speed with a clock witch runs to slow?
Posted by: rudeonline
If this is New Kind of Science, why is there nobody responding on a new theory?
Posted by: rudeonline
For the Dutch readers..
http://rudolfhendriques.volkskrantblog.nl/
Posted by: Iconasostacles
As I understand it, Relativity theory expresses a more calculable universe than Classical theory by maintaining attention on the fact that every event is "experiential." A train coming towards me doesn't have a velocity separate from my movement toward it. Each factor is relative to and dependent upon the other factor. Each on 'experiences' the other rate as a function of the total relationship between them.
In this model it is quite reasonable to assume that the 'null point' around which a relational system functions is somehow akin to the core prinicple of an experiential relationship. We might easily call that principle "consciousness."
It cannot be measured, though it might be detectable. Zero is always zero no matter how the detecting device is moving relative to any other motion.
Although these consideration might seem out of place on the NKS forum, I would expect some species of convergence between all theories of "the edge of detectable experience."
Certainly the absolute velocity of light, whether it is Consciousness or not, reaches its own calculability limit. The novelty of that 'edge' is too great is too great to decode though it may nonetheless prove ammenable to human harnessing.
This is the promise of Wolfram's work, no? That we can perfectly habituate novelty as an endlessly useful tool that maximizes our ability to intelligent harness the edge of comprehensibility in all patterned structure?
Posted by: rudeonline
Just one question..
If the big bang happend 13.7 biljon years ago an we can see it a a distance of 13.6 bilj lightyears..
With witch speed have we been travelling away from the big bang?
I would say that the big bang is also an absolute zeropoint in the universe.
What is the speed of light compares with the speed of the big bang travelling away from us?
( hmm.. 2 questions..)
Posted by: rudeonline
Where are you? People????
Posted by: MikeHelland
Since you're going to be so demanding:
Consciousness is the border of the reality.
This has been known for thousands and thousands years.
Ever heard of the Tao? The Hebrew Bible?
Ok.
So now that you've gotten the confirmitive response to your thread:
where are your comments in my thread?
Posted by: AdamL
Can't "things" exist before and after consciousness? Isn't consciousness a specific complex outcome of a system that is real, beyond ourselves? Isn't a consciousness merely a part of the whole?
NKS says for example, that consciousness or will would have been retained because it is the easiest way to predict the outcome of a system. In other words, it is a new way of moving. It invests the random order with a direction, in this case early on one of self-preservation and proliferation, because that is simply the best way to ensure that those things happen. Unconscious, undirected beings, are less efficient in serving their own being than directed beings. Therefore, directed beings are retained.
Posted by: MikeHelland
Originally posted by AdamL
Can't "things" exist before and after consciousness?
Yes. But a different kind of exist.
Isn't consciousness a specific complex outcome of a system that is real, beyond ourselves?
But a different kind of real.
Isn't a consciousness merely a part of the whole?
Consciousness is like the bridge between your reality and absolute reality.
These are very old teachings in most cultural heritages.
When you pass the bridge, that which was something, becomes nothing. And that which was nothing becomes something.
Posted by: rudeonline
Originally posted by MikeHelland
Yes. But a different kind of exist.
But a different kind of real.
Consciousness is like the bridge between your reality and absolute reality.
These are very old teachings in most cultural heritages.
When you pass the bridge, that which was something, becomes nothing. And that which was nothing becomes something.
So, the statement I make "conscoiusness, the edge of the universe" is not so weird.
The only things that are real in the universe are the things that happen. Something that does not happen, does not exist.
Yesterday, does not exist anymore, so yesterday does not need any kind of space.
The future does not exist, so there is no time and space in the future. Yhe only thing wat is real is the "now".
All we see is in fact an picture in your brain. Your brain give's you the idea of the space arround you.
In my opinion is everything arround me just an option for my own future, this count's also for you and any orher observer
By moving myself into a direction I create some kind of future,
The places I never will visit will never take place.
The space and time of the thing I never will do, will never exist.
The only real thing is reallity, only reality needs time and space to exist.
Posted by: AdamL
I guess I don't understand the reason for believing in the primacy of consciousness. The very best argument I read for it was found in "The Physics of Consciousness" but I am not a physicist and so my evaluation of that is not very well informed.
But NKS seems to me to be at least an alternative to that. Because it contends to explain quantum phenomenon in a way that doesn't require consciousness for wave form collapse. It restores the primacy of reality. Or no?
Really confused,
Adam
edit - sorry I didn't see Jason's request...
Posted by: MikeHelland
Originally posted by AdamL
But NKS seems to me to be at least an alternative to that. Because it contends to explain quantum phenomenon in a way that doesn't require consciousness for wave form collapse. It restores the primacy of reality. Or no?
I don't think so.
This is my favorite topic to discuss and contemplate, and I don't see how NKS itself lends itself to that topic.
On the other hand, I think that an NKS approach will be used in combination with a few other insights, and breath new life into the topic.
As for the "primacy" of consciousness, I think we are saying mind is more fundamental than matter; but that doesn't mean it is most fundamental.
I can't explain it to you, but I may be able to help you down a path where you may explain it to yourself.
The first step is answering this question:
What is reality?
Posted by: rudeonline
Let me try..
Reality is all what really happens. The only reality is your own "now". Past and future does not really exist. Like yesterday is gone and tomorow will come. How tomorow will look depends for a big part on yourself.
Posted by: tomjones
let me help you rudeonline by sharing this quote from Mike Helland with you:
"So my ideas have been trounced and exposed as utter garbage."
Mike Helland freely admits his ideas are garbage and thus I would not spend any time answering them.
Happy to save you some trouble...
Posted by: MikeHelland
If you really felt I was beating a dead horse, you wouldn't be posting in these dead threads.
Posted by: tomjones
"So my ideas have been trounced and exposed as utter garbage."
-Mike Helland
option a:
"If you really felt I was beating a dead horse, you wouldn't be posting in these dead threads."
option b:
discredit you on the forum so nobody bothers responding to you ever again on this forum
option best option and my option
Its my automatic Mike Helland response you like it?
Posted by: ask
Motion depends on force.
Moving speed can not surpass force speed.
We accelerate things by electromagnetic force.
EM waves travel at speed C. That's the highest force speed we know so far.
So that's our possible speed limit so far.
Am I have a point?
Posted by: rudeonline
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=chKxcXMAxss
I made a few animation's.. maybe you get my idea after watching them...
Forum Sponsored by Wolfram Research
© 2004-2008 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Powered by vBulletin 2.3.0 © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises, Ltd. |
Disclaimer
vB Easy Archive Final - Created by Xenon and modified/released by SkuZZy from the Job Openings