AbnormallyHonest

If you're wrong and can't admit it, wouldn't you just be wrong. (Purely in the accurate vs. inaccurate dichotomy) Seems pretty finite to me.

I'm not sure, I guess it depends. Do you think that the value of "0" is a form of infinity? Well, I would say that admitting that you can be wrong, is accepted with much less effort than stubbornly sticking with an idea that no one agrees with. It would almost being comparable to having an idea that everyone agrees with... or is it an idea that everyone agrees with? "Wow, I was really wrong about that." could be replied to with, "You're absolutely right." How about flipping a coin 1000 times and getting heads every time. On the next flip, statistical and probable certainty would be that I would flip tails. So mathematically, the chances of flipping a heads again is so unlikely that it would be foolish to bet on heads again, yet you just flipped it 1000 times in a row.

Isn't it endlessly self validating?

Example: Being able to admit when your wrong, just as a means to always being right.

My goal was to generate a discussion challenging this statement with specific paradoxical ideas that do not present infinity superficially.

Infinity is at the root of all paradox.

Actually, I think we will. I think I may have a way to prove it. Our view of the the Universe is symmetrical from the center, wouldn't every center also show the same symmetry? Is there a view from somewhere in the Universe that is asymmetrical? Light from the big bang that is bent through a lensing effect. If the light is bent, it must have traveled farther than linear light to reach our perception. If you shorten the length of it to match the linear distances, the difference to resolve the disparity of how short the beam of light is to reach us, is an asymmetrical view of the Universe. Therefore, this would prove the Universe is in fact infinite, because we have to assume that if the light traveled linearly, it would have reached the center of it's Universe exactly as we see it is from ours. All perspectives are symmetrical.

The common view of the Universe does not resolve the paradox of seeing the “Big Bang”, a finite point in time, from further and farther away. Does that stand to reason that since we see the origin of the Universe that all of the matter that we see is essentially static? The amount of it being relatively even from beginning to end? How about the fact that we look at the larger Universe to see it at a “smaller” state? Also, what’s beyond our ability to see? This view of the cosmos seems fraught with paradox that does not settle quite so soundly with me. I would theorize that the Universe is, in fact infinite, and has been since its inception. If we were to reduce the three dimensions of space into only two dimensions, we would have an infinite Universe along two axis, but flat to our three dimensional perspective. Space as we know it would not exist. The “Big Bang” was an explosion of the third dimension, but even with the arrival of this new and increasing dimension, space was already infinite. This would explain the ability of space to expand from all points evenly without impedance—a three dimensional fractal pattern. The Universe we observe is just the light that has been given enough time to travel to our perception. As time passed, and the sphere of perception grew, and our awareness of the matter that it included also increased exponentially. When should we see the inception of this matter? Logically, at the first moment it was able to emit light, just after the “Big Bang”. Our limited view of the cosmos due to this finite obstacle in our perception is actually a dynamic block. I would think more like a tidal wave that increases the sphere of awareness from every point in space, for the most part, uniformly. So now we see the sphere of the Universe 27.4 billion light years in diameter. If we were to perceive the Universe from the edge of that sphere, we would likely see almost the same exact picture of the cosmos, and the location of the first perception would be at the edge of that sphere. This could continue over and over again, creating an awareness of an infinite Universe. Now this expansion, which is increasing at an accelerated rate, will eventually outrun the speed of light. At this point our view of the cosmos will begin to retreat back to the one perspective at the center of whatever sphere perceives it. Remember the space isn’t actually expanding, because you can’t make something that is infinite, “more infinite”. It is only our perception of a the rate of expansion as prescribed by a three-dimensional fractal pattern. When this happens, the speed of light will be the speed of light again and our view of the cosmos will begin to increase once again. When this happens will the matter of the Universe also reset? Will its location in relation to the center of perspective be returned to its location before the expansion? Is the Universe actually an oscillating perspective expansion? Perhaps an cosmic “breathing”, or just the collapse of a universal waveform due to perception? These questions I will probably never fully understand, but this model of the Universe reduces the level of paradox to only that of the view of infinity. In order for the Universe to accommodate this impossibility form one perspective, it is perceived as an Oscillating View of Infinity.

It has nothing to do with perception. It doesn't require a human observer. No, it may not, but it does require that the information be recorded, and how do you suspect that the information transfers discretely and onto another medium. I suppose nature has made some paradox for this to happen "naturally". We create technology. We are part of nature. I do not disagree, the matter if our bodies is natural, but where does that get you without consciousness. Just matter. The inception of consciousness is actually something not natural. It can act with disparity to nature, it can decide to violate the laws of nature. Is it is not practical to deduce, as the only thing that is known to harbor this ability, it must be something that does not exists under the same guise as the laws of the Universe we perceive. It is different, separate, unique. Perhaps something from somewhere else all together. Also, I might add, since when did a philosophical perspective demand such rigorous scientific scrutiny?

No I don't, you're just too arrogant to be stumped. But ok.... a wave of light passes through a slit, it's perceived... does anything change? Two rocks are falling to the earth, what will happen? What if I catch one? I'm using my iPhone to make this post, I suppose my iPhone must be a result of accretion? Or radiation? Or something purely explainable with the laws of nature. I am not the one with the burden of proof, just the burden of insight. Evidence? How does nature create technology? How does nature propel a living being off a planet? How does nature collapse the wave of potential without consciousness? How does nature catch a rock and not let it hit the ground? How does nature harness energy and smash subatomic particles? How does nature decide when to obey the laws of nature or when to manipulate nature to allow for a different distribution of probability? If there is anything else I would require proof, but as there is not, it is not a speculation, just a reality.

I think most of you are asking questions that will strengthen your perspective. Shallow perspectives make for shallow arguments. You ponder the answer of a neuroscientist? I counter with, "ask a physicist". As far as all "empirical" data would suggest, the Universe is in fact a waveform that reduces to realization upon perception. This is at even the largest of scales. At the smallest, just the fact of perceiving a particle changes the way it behaves e.g. Exists. I suppose the scientists that have used this model for quantum physics for over a hundred years lacked "empirical" data as well. Consciousness is an artifact in the Universe. It is the only thing within the Universe that can manipulate energy with disparity to nature. There's your evidence. If you can name one thing that can change the way the Universe unfolds along the set of algorithmic laws, principles, and certainties we all use our scientific data to dictate... I will rethink everything I have ever thought about intelligence and declare you the most intelligent human being I have ever even heard of.

I think projecting into higher dimensional reasoning is like trying to understand why we see the Universe at a "smaller" state the further we increase our perspective at large. We experience 3 dimensions, so we can explain them. A fourth being time, but implying a 5th that allows movement through it renders the idea of the 4th dimension moot. That's like saying there must be a Z axis that matter can exist along the whole entirety of the axis simultaneously, or are we really just speaking about 2 dimensional space?

Is a fish conscious? It has far less "brain"... or is it's consciousness just experienced differently because of the limitations of the conduit that harbors it. It's consciousness is no more or less conscious then yours or mine, it just doesn't have the capacity to create a more acute experience of it because if it's limited matter. The Universe is a collection of coincidences that happen a long a well defined mathematical timeline. So then why can my hand pick up a rock and throw it? That doesn't seem like a consequence of classical or even contemporary physical understanding of our world. What moves my hand? My arm? My body... my head my brain? My consciousness has never been studied "empirically".

The moons orbit is a period that is "synched" with its revolution around the earth. So a period of 27-29 days or so. If it's tidally locked this revolution is just a consequence of that, and not a result of angular momentum. So what happened to that angular momentum? The momentum that should cause the rotation has been transferred somewhere else, probably the kick that began its orbit to move slightly out of place. Earths tidal friction explains where the acceleration comes from, but a mean central force as Newton predicted does not allow that bulge to pull discriminately on the moon. A preservation of its orbital period due to resonance does. The force from the angular momentum of the moons rotation can not be dismissed until the moons rotation is completely stopped. At the point of tidal locking, there is an abundance of force otherwise its tidal lock is merely just a coincidental progression... and it's maintainence is due to some other force we do not understand.

Consciousness is like one of those electric glass spheres we've all seen. So the glass is like the Universe, the fabric of space-time. The finger, is us; you, me, and everyone in between. Everyone has their spot, or touch where they exist in the surface of the glass. Everyone's perspective is unique, and experiences are different. Consciousness is like the arc that forms from our contact with the glass. It's the matter of our bodies that allow us to retain memories to interpret the Universe using the senses that upload the most information about this world to it. It's the combination of the ability of our minds to retain information about our experiences with that universal spark that allows us all to have similar, yet independent perspective and understanding of each of our own realities. Although consciousness relies on the matter of our bodies in order to a create fluid and adaptable flow of information about the Universe, it does have the ability to retain an emotional memory that doesn't require the chemical and physical changes that short and long-term memories require. The physical changes we experience due to emotions are our body's reaction to the push and pull of our emotional consciousness. Since, on the other side of the glass, all of the electricity is centralized, this too is true about consciousness. It is more or less one universal entity, and we all just access a piece of it at a time. Our bodies are unique and belong to us, but consciousness is only borrowed and without our bodies, with our physical memory, the experience of the Universe would be very confusing, erratic, and short. Instinct was an earlier version the evolution this process has gone through. A genetic memory carried down through our DNA until life had evolved enough to create a more acute description of the Universe we all see, hear, smell, touch, and taste today. When our bodies shut down, we simply allow consciousness to be independent by freeing it from the input of our physical senses. This is when our physical minds experience a back flow a short way beneath the glass surface as we upload the information we collected with our senses throughout the day. We experience this as dreaming. And when we wake up, our consciousness is reconnected to begin sensory input, but due to the backup we carry in our bodies, most of us are completely unaware that the consciousness we're experiencing is something independent of us and isn't really our "soul" property or a part of the reality that our senses tell us is "real". So as we upload this conscious memory of our senses, Consciousness, as a whole, will begin to accumulate the experiences we share. As these accumulate, the overall experience of reality will begin to show relative shifts as the overwhelming majority of experience, as a whole, begins to sway with the times. We call this the Zeitgeist, or the spirit of the times. If the majority of people are either suffering or prospering, as a whole, the experience of the world, as a whole, would cumulatively be either negative or positive. This would have an influence on the overall Zeitgeist of our time, and our time is very critical. Our huge population increases and better understanding of the world of experience, allow us to manipulate that Zeitgeist at a rate that has never before been possible. This can happen with only a few small ideas that can spread at almost the speed of light because of our artificial web of collective consciousness we call the internet. This is a very unique time to be alive on this world. Now imagine that there was a way to experience from the center of the sphere or anywhere within the glass surface. You might be able to directly communicate with other arcs or simply influence them in some way. It would not matter how far away they were because you are now on the inside of the glass and no longer need to traverse the surface of the glass. You'd be able to cut right through the center and tap in on the experience of someone on the other side of the world... or even the other side of the Universe.* When we return the matter of this existence back to the realm of the Universe, the experiences we uploaded throughout our lifetime will forever be a part of the whole Consciousness and a part of every one of our own experience. There could be moments when large pieces of an individual's experience seep through another arc with more clarity or influence. There have been many whom claim to retain memories from a previous life. Another thing to consider, is that if your piece of consciousness became so attached to this world, that it was unable to let go of this reality, it may be possible that a small piece of that energy could remain behind rather than contribute to the the whole. The ability to choose not to return that piece of consciousness we borrow is what we interpret as free will. It also may be possible that some pieces separate and are lost due to a misunderstanding of their experiences and require guidance to navigate back to their origins. For those of us that are still gathering information through our physical senses, those pieces, with no physical conduit anymore, would probably only be experienced as phantom energy, possibly interacting with our physical world. So when we lift our finger and end our conscious day, it is up to us how we decide to carry on in our quest for understanding. Being independent and harboring a unique perspective on the Universe is an essential for the Universe to experience itself, but for me, the wealth of experience that is offered by the collection and the possibility of influencing experiences through other arcs as they continue to form, would be a way to continue existence within this Universe and begin another day. Unfortunately, this decision will not be made entirely by me. If Humans, as a whole, do not understand this, and fail to recognize that we are not alone with absolute certainty, we will be choosing to allow our portion of the Zeitgeist to break off from the Consciousness we all owe our experience to. If this happens, the human experience will never be capable to of connecting to the larger collection of experiences throughout the Universe or contributing to its understanding. Not only will we be forever isolated, our "Soul" Consciousnesses will be left to wander the vastness of space. Earth will become a ghost ship. Humans have learned enough about this natural world to understand the scale of the observable Universe alone, and if we continue to cling to the impossible** belief that the human race may be the only intelligence in existence, we will manifest that reality because of our ignorance. We are the lost due to misunderstanding, and we keep refusing the guidance offered to us. So we need to let go and open our minds in order to remain connected to the Consciousness that I, as a human, have grown to appreciate and long for. Otherwise, we will forever be alone and never even grasp what it was we lost. K.C.G.*** *I would probably more accurately describe Consciousness as a singularity, so there would not be a need to "cut through" as you would already be there. As this reality is only an interpretation through Consciousness, it would make sense that we experience the Universe as a singularity as well. (No matter where you exist in space, you are always at the center of the Universe.) **Impossible is not a term I would ever use about anything in this Universe except this one idea. It does not require faith, belief, or evidence because I know it to be true absolutely. If you are able to look up at the sky and down at the earth and realize that you are alive and intelligent, there would be no cover up or conspiracy or lack of evidence that could ever convince you otherwise. The only requirement is an independent thought, and if one person can come to that inevitable conclusion, than it can be and is, the reality of the whole. ***I would claim this interpretation as my own, but if that were true, I would only be aware of where my finger makes contact with the glass.

When the Moon's rotatio and revolution became synched, doesn't it loose its angular momentum prematurely because the rotation is now maintained by tidal forces and not momentum? Wouldn't that momentum be transferred into linear momentum (perhaps a nudge). Also, due to resonance, won't the moon maintain its orbital period from a larger orbit that should have a longer orbital period? Wouldn't that create acceleration to maintain that period which would increase the altitude of the Moon? It seems more plausible than a tidal bulge leading it around. Even if the mass is unevenly distributed, doesn't the Earth still have a gravitational mean center? If you were to spin two rubber balls on a table with the same angular momentum, what would happen if the surfaces of the two balls touch? The friction represents the tidal lock.

The phrase, "all points on a light beam are simultaneous" does not seem like a misnomer? To say "all points" when the simultaneity would imply that they are actually the same point. That's my point. My apologies for not being more clear. What I meant was that the idea of simultaneity is dependent on the absolute time dilation, or to the extent that time stops. The uncertainty principle would imply a subatomic mechanism that would render an analysis of only what is witnessed as superficial. Therefore, I would hypothesize that what we see on the surface is actually subordinate to an underlying uncertainty and therefore dynamic. e.g. The slower you travel from the speed of light, to the lesser degree you move the simultaneity from the origin. As nothing can ever really be "stopped" this disparity can never be fully resolved which seems consistent with the idea of uncertainty. Also, I might add, that as you accelerate to the speed of light, the simultaneity can never move past the origin... imposing a "limit". How can you be at the center of the Universe at two points simultaneously?

My apologies as I am new to this forum and forums in general. The original thread was intended to present an application of a much broader idea. I presented it in two locations within this form with hopes of generating an interest from varying demographics to gain a broader perspective. Also, my thoughts were that this broader application would indeed yield results, but the results may not be considered valid unless the mechanics of delayed choice could be explained. This was the only reason I could reason why the method had not been attempted, or reviewed as far as I could tell. I was merely attempting to isolate the portion of the application that affects the validity of the original thread. As far as my "wordage", again I can only apologize for my lack of experience, in both forums and with exposure to stimulation that does not require such explanation.

To imply that the collapse of the particle is absolute dependent on absolute time dilation would be superficial. I would hypothesize that that uncertainty would render the process as dynamic at speeds under the speed of light.

This is why I included the use of quotation marks on the identification of the light as a particle, only referring to it's properties which, in this case, excludes actual mass. Furthermore, I am not aware that massive particles are excluded from relativistic time dilation at the speed of light, or near the speed of light. If they were to travel at a relative velocity that would not allow the relativistic effects to include the actual passage through the slit, does the delayed choice phenomenon still hold precedence?

Light is a wave of potential that emanates from the point of origin to the point of perception. At the point of perception, its potential is realized by its potential collapsing to a probability of “1”. At this point we know its properties take on the form of a “particle”. At what speed did this “particle” just traverse linear space? At that speed, how does this particle experience time? So does this “particle” exist in every moment in space on its way to reach perception, or is it only aware of the one moment it exists? Furthermore, when the potential of the wave collapses to a probability of “1”, does it make sense that the “particle” knew every differing moment in space that it became a particle, or would it become a particle in only the one moment it exists? I would reason that the velocity of the particle would cause time to stop and no time would pass. There would be no time between its origin and perception. They would be the same moment. In a sense, to the particle, these two events would happen simultaneously. This would also seem consistent with the fact that no matter when light is perceived, it is always a perception of the origin (e.g. when I view a star, I view it at the moment the light departs and not at its state when the light arrives). The light seems to be a singular moment in time, but stretched linearly across warped spatial time. So when the potential of a light wave collapses to a probability of “1” at the perception, when would you expect to detect that collapse at its origin? Logic would reason that this event must happen simultaneously at both the perception and the origin, and this is why it appears to us that the light always “knows” if it will be perceived even before the decision is made to do so. The collapse of the wave to a particle is realized at both the perception and the origin simultaneously, so if detected, the light would actually originate as a particle, because to the particle, it is the same moment as its perception. It seems less probable to me that this is the result of some unexplainable retro-chronological flow of information, but rather just a consequence of relativistic simultaneity.

Light is a wave of potential that emanates from the point of origin to the point of perception. At the point of perception, its potential is realized by its potential collapsing to a probability of “1”. At this point we know its properties take on the form of a “particle”. At what speed did this “particle” just traverse linear space? At that speed, how does this particle experience time? So does this “particle” exist in every moment in space on its way to reach perception, or is it only aware of the one moment it exists? Furthermore, when the potential of the wave collapses to a probability of “1”, does it make sense that the “particle” knew every differing moment in space that it became a particle, or would it become a particle in only the one moment it exists? I would reason that the velocity of the particle would cause time to stop and no time would pass. There would be no time between its origin and perception. They would be the same moment. In a sense, to the particle, these two events would happen simultaneously. This would also seem consistent with the fact that no matter when light is perceived, it is always a perception of the origin (e.g. when I view a star, I view it at the moment the light departs and not at its state when the light arrives). The light seems to be a singular moment in time, but stretched linearly across warped spatial time. So when the potential of a light wave collapses to a probability of “1” at the perception, when would you expect to detect that collapse at its origin? Logic would reason that this event must happen simultaneously at both the perception and the origin, and this is why it appears to us that the light always “knows” if it will be perceived even before the decision is made to do so. It seems less probable to me that this is the result of some unexplainable “retroactive” chronological flow of information, but rather just a consequence of relative simultaneity. This can further be substantiated by the “delayed choice” variation of the double slit experiment. Now if you wanted to test this theory experimentally, you might set up a double slit experiment with one unhindered slit and the second with a photovoltaic material just beyond its threshold. If you directed single photons through the open slit, they should not interfere with the photovoltaic material behind slit #2, provided that you have a way to detect the photons after they pass through slit #1. It would not matter the distance away from the slit you set the detector, or even if the choice to detect the photon was delayed. As we know, the collapse of the wave to a particle is realized at both the perception and the origin simultaneously, so if detected, the light would actually originate as a particle, because to the particle, it is the same moment as its perception. Conversely, if I turned my detector off, and did not take a measurement, the light should behave as a wave and pass through both slits, and thereby interacting with a very strategically placed photovoltaic material beyond the threshold of the second slit. (If this subordinate detection somehow interfered with the results, to further confound the occurrence of discrete measurement, you might also connect your photovoltaic material to a reservoir which is exposed to another power source to render the interaction neutral—inference is not the same thing as measurement.) With a few simple tests you would be able to verify if you had desired results. Once a working model of the experiment is achieved, what would you expect if you fired photons through the open slit and allowed them to continue unimpeded into the cosmos? Is it possible that you might be able to detect life… and likely intelligent life? Would you know where it’s located? If, and how far it may have migrated and how much of it is aware of us? Would you know this immediately? …just a thought.

Light is a wave of potential that emanates from the point of origin to the point of perception. At the point of perception, its potential is realized by its potential collapsing to a probability of “1”. At this point we know its properties take on the form of a “particle”. At what speed did this “particle” just traverse linear space? At that speed, how does this particle experience time? So does this “particle” exist in every moment in space on its way to reach perception, or is it only aware of the one moment it exists? Furthermore, when the potential of the wave collapses to a probability of “1”, does it make sense that the “particle” knew every differing moment in space that it became a particle, or would it become a particle in only the one moment it exists? I would reason that the velocity of the particle would cause time to stop and no time would pass. There would be no time between its origin and perception. They would be the same moment. In a sense, to the particle, these two events would happen simultaneously. This would also seem consistent with the fact that no matter when light is perceived, it is always a perception of the origin (e.g. when I view a star, I view it at the moment the light departs and not at its state when the light arrives). The light seems to be a singular moment in time, but stretched linearly across warped spatial time. So when the potential of a light wave collapses to a probability of “1” at the perception, when would you expect to detect that collapse at its origin? Logic would reason that this event must happen simultaneously at both the perception and the origin, and this is why it appears to us that the light always “knows” if it will be perceived even before the decision is made to do so. It seems less probable to me that this is the result of some unexplainable “retroactive” chronological flow of information, but rather just a consequence of relative simultaneity. This can further be substantiated by the “delayed choice” variation of the double slit experiment. Now if you wanted to test this theory experimentally, you might set up a double slit experiment with one unhindered slit and the second with a photovoltaic material just beyond its threshold. If you directed single photons through the open slit, they should not interfere with the photovoltaic material behind slit #2, provided that you have a way to detect the photons after they pass through slit #1. It would not matter the distance away from the slit you set the detector, or even if the choice to detect the photon was delayed. As we know, the collapse of the wave to a particle is realized at both the perception and the origin simultaneously, so if detected, the light would actually originate as a particle, because to the particle, it is the same moment as its perception. Conversely, if I turned my detector off, and did not take a measurement, the light should behave as a wave and pass through both slits, and thereby interacting with a very strategically placed photovoltaic material beyond the threshold of the second slit. (If this subordinate detection somehow interfered with the results, to further confound the occurrence of discrete measurement, you might also connect your photovoltaic material to a reservoir which is exposed to another power source render the interaction neutral—inference is not the same thing as measurement.) With a few simple tests you would be able to verify if you had desired results. Once a working model of the experiment is achieved, what would you expect if you fired photons through the open slit and allowed them to continue unimpeded into the cosmos? Is it possible that you might be able to detect life… and likely intelligent life? Would you know where it’s located? If, and how far it may have migrated and how much of it is aware of us? Would you know this immediately? …just a thought.