Tres Juicy

"determinism or fate or whatever you want to call it is kind of supernatural" No, not at all. Determinism says that the state of things as they are now directly affect the way they will be in a given time frame. It's all down to physics and not in any way supernatural. Picture the demolition of a building, a charge is placed at the base of the building and detonated. Given enough information we could potentially model the entire collapse with 100% accuracy - Charge detonates with X force in Y direction causing piece 1 to travel in direction B at velocity C (not The C) hitting piece 2, piece 2 travels.... and so on....Cause and effect. "If given three options, by definition of determinism, 2 out of the three would be imaginary." This is an interesting point though... Once the choice has been made the others are imaginary... I'll have to think about this. "Now that I look at it that way, those who don't believe in a creator of some sort should automatically believe in free will." No, I don't think this is true at all. Also oddly, it's the people who do believe in a ctreator that are the ones who tend to go with free will. After all, its in the Book.

"Just because you can't apply the implied meanings, doesn't mean my words are meaningless" What?!

It still works

It is a difficult question to answer and the consensus we've reached is somewhat ambiguous... It will be interesting to get everyones opinion

Thats a good point, retirement would be a long way off Maybe we'd spend the first 200 years at school...

"Which side of what fence? My point is that there is no fence." Annoyingly, I have to agree - even though that leaves my question not only unanswered but rendered moot to a degree.

Similarly, imagine if the human lifecycle was very short (like a week). We'd probably be very short-sighted and selfish creatures.

While I agree with most of what you're saying, you have slightly avoided the question with your fancy joined-up thinking... "I think the beauty of it is that something can be completely deterministic, but still be free will." How? Surely that's just the illusion of free will? "I think that choice itself is deterministic. That means that the decisions we make are fully determined by the laws of physics acting on the particles that make up our bodies." So, you're going with determinism? "But then again, we ARE those particles, so it's us as well as just a bunch of particles. We make the choices..." Wait.. Free will then? Surely it can't be both (a weird superposition "free-determinism") Which side of the fence do you come down on Captain "confuse the hell out me" Panic?

Hi all, I was thinking about this the other day and have just read the below article http://www.newscient...in-control.html "One argument goes as follows: the universe, including the bits of it that make up your brain, is entirely deterministic. The state it is in right now determines the state it will be a millisecond, a month or a million years from now. Therefore free will cannot exist." New Scientist ________________________ I'd like to believe I have free will, but the logical conclusion for me is that determinism makes more sense. What are your thoughts? Edit: I changed my vote about 4 times and then added "undecided" as a category

To my knowledge we have never actually found "nothing" even in the best vacuum we can create http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle Virtual particles also kind of lend themselves to this

I see, that would make more sense...

Hi all, This has always bothered me: Photons travel at the speed of light. Why do we need to accelerate them in the LHC? Other, slower particles yes but not photons Surely they're going as fast as possible already? Also, why dont I get collisions occuring when I point two lasers at each other?

Think what you could do in 1000 years... If the planet holds out that long

Will nobody check their pockets?!

Just look in your pockets, there's bound to be one in there somewhere

You're suggesting we should be devil worshippers?

You'd have a very old frozen bucket Maybe on a larger scale something like this could work - but its highly doubtful in a bucket

I had one in my pocket the whole time...

Well, that's a bit different. I don't know

A few questions and examples of things you've said: "In mathematical terms, infinitely valueless would be represented as [0] (absolute zero) or perhaps zero to the i (imaginary zero). There are various ways to describe infinitely valueless." What is imaginary zero? "I've already explained this and discussed it with dozens of my associates." Who are these associates? "If you were sincerely interested in this theory, you would actually discuss it. Instead, you have my semantically break down everything little thing I say" That's science, science does not just accept what it's told, it asks questions and tries to get to the meaning of things. Since your explanations are vague and at times meaningless (see below for examples), expect to be asked questions. "Let me break it down for you. When I try to come up with quantitative predictions, I end up imagining everything that happens in the universe, between the quantum mechanics and the general relativity of anything and everything. One day, I realized this is what many scientists are working on today, in physics, quantum physics, astrophysics, mathematics, and philosophically as well. You're right. I can say or hypothesize that the reason the particles of your body are able to associate and remain in the same universe together at the same time and also to stay that way, is because the imparticles they're made up of are intrinsically intertwined and can't allow them to be separated in regards to general relativity or quantum mechanics. On the other hand, I can't measure this prediction. That's why it is hypothetical, like String Theory, but nonetheless it has theoretical meaning and is reasonable and logical." Imagining is the operative word here "Thus, to "observe" the imparticle is to imagine a unit that is without space, and also between time." A lot of imagining "Reflectively, they exist between time as well…. <SNIP> To say that they exist "outside" time would be misleading, because something that exists "outside" of the dimensions of the universe, does not really exist here." So, whats the difference? Outside time/between time, if time does not have any hold over them whats the difference?? "Just because you can't apply the implied meanings, doesn't mean my words are meaningless" This makes no sense and as an explanation of your meaning it falls down "Normal people understand them when I have discussions almost every week. Now, either they are telepathically understanding what I'm saying, or else my words have scientific meaning to them." What constitutes "normal people" or "scientific meaning" to you? "For god's sake, they are making up dimensions only for the sake of accommodating String Theory. I simply have a different approach. It is not so far fetched, you just have to gain perspective." On the other hand you're saying there are 9 dimensions to accomodate this idea, what makes your 9 dimensions any more plausible than those of string theory? "Many, many people of different angles have payed loads of attention to my theory. They've discussed it, turned it inside out and backwards, and gone through logical experiments with it on their own and with third parties." Please share with us these experiments as this would be a great help to us "They exist without space and between time, and it is in this facet of the universe that they convulse and BUILD into massive particles. They are hyper-quantum for a reason. I'm not just vomiting out words, I am making sense. That's why I used String Theory as a contrast, to point out that obviously this theory is legitimate." How does string theory legitimize this idea? Why is it so obvious? "Imparticles naturally exist without time and without space, but in being intrinsically entangled, they are miraculously forced into order." I am inclined to question any "theory" which use words like "miracle" and "miraculous" "I have reasoned that like photons are the quanta of light, so are imparticles the quanta of quantum, or essentially they are the quanta of itself" This is nonsense again "I found invisible particles that exist interchangeably, simultaneously, composing all that exists at the same time…" How? Do you have a access to the LHC at Cern? or are you guessing? "… but they eventually convinced me (of their existence) logically." Again, how? "Stop right there guy. Building does require a process. I call it convulsion. But as I clearly described, a process that involves no energy, and has no reference to any quality of MASS, cannot and does not "require time" (theoretically). How would it? Why would it? Furthermore, I've already found and explained all the dimensions that allow them to exist entirely and go through their convulsion process, which freely allows them to be built into massive particles and energy particles. Naturally, these dimensions are consecutive and they do build on each other perfectly." Please explain this "At any rate, whatever the mechanics are, regardless if they're superstrings or not, these mechanics are not self-explained and imparticles are the very thing which explain them ultimately." Please support this statement with some evidence. You can't say "imparticles explain everything" and expect science to go "oh, brilliant, we don't need to examine this claim any further". "Simultaneity, in part--the sixth dimension. That describes how our singular now are instantly singular. But the dimension describing how yours and mine now are singular is Singularity, which Simultaneity is built onto. Perhaps that doesn't fully answer your question..." No, this is nosense again and does not answer anything Please answer these points as best you can Thanks, Al

"If anyone has a definition of time that will fit all situations precisely, and can demonstrate how that fits into predictive models, then I suggest immediate publication -- and preparation for a trip to Stockholm." Post it in speculations first though

It obviously wouldn't be visible through calculation - only through measurement (why would you change the maths without observng a reason to?)

"Atoms, subatomic particles, mass, particles of energy, appearing in a universe and interacting with each other singularly without every disassociating from any other particle under any circumstances. When this does not happen, my hypothesis will be proven wrong. Or, when someone uses logic to suggest that it is wrong, that would be reasonable as well." This is not a prediction its another example of being vague... Please what does this theory suggest/predict/do?

"That's neat o. They don't have a prediction for the mass of this particle, until they see how it works exactly." No, they don't, but they do make some predictions about the Higgs at what it does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson What predictions does your theory make? how have you arrived at these? Thats all I'm asking, you have been quite vague and in places contradictory. In order to arrive at a theory it needs to describe nature by making testable predictions. I cannot see that this one does. Please (in plain English) explain your predictions of "Imparticle Theory"

(BTW, why would they? It's like saying "Here we are, come and bother us.") Um.... Thats what we did...