studiot

I'm not suprised as there is far too much off topic material being introduced in this thread. +1 I don't see states of matter have to do with relativity? In any even Physics recognises at least four states of matter and Chemistry several times that number. Again I don't see any connection between Thermodynamics and Relativity. Both Energy and Mass are frame dependent quantities. Energy is also configuration dependent, as is mass to a lesser degree. So do I take the short response as meaning you have understood my answer to your title question and agree with it ? Thank you for this lengthy response to my question. Rather than jumping the gun a simple answer would have done. I still do not know if you understand the difference between moment of inertia and product of inertia. One point before I elaborate, both forms also apply to slight bending as opposed to spinning. And surely we are talking about slight bending here rather than rotational dynamics. Or are you of the opinion that space / spacetime is somehow spinning ? For any given moment of inertia value there are an infinite count of configurations that possesses this value. These are indistinguisable from the point of view of MOI. The product of inertia contains the information of the distribution of the mass about the centre of rotation to achieve this value. That is it selects a particular configuration. In the 'Inertia Tensor' the product does this by including off diagonal elements, not present the the moment. This is similar to the tensors in GR, but as I said much simplified since the coefficients in the GR tensors are themselves functions of the coordinates and not simple constants like inertia tensor. These differences can also be show in matrix formulation, for those who, like me, prefer them.

I think it is a very reasonable question that many don't think to ask, but I also think swansont's question was not only perfect physics, but just the question I was going to ask when he got in first. Unfortunately I also think this thread has become rather hectic with a lot of extraneous off topic material being suddenly thrown in. I have reversed one red mark and offer my expanded answer to your question, in exchange for your answer to one of my own. Do you know what the moment of inertia and the product of inertia are in mechanics. There is no catch, these provide an example of a simpler but similar mechanical effect. GR itself is a mechanical theory. The point is the the so called Field Equations of GR that make up GR do not only refer to a 'quantity of matter' in a local sense. They are global equations that also refer to the distribution of that matter. And the 'curvature' is determined by both the quantity and the distribution of the matter. So if you 'take some matter away somewhere locally' you must move it somewhere else globally. So the matter is then redistributed and the curvature reconforms itself to take this into account, according to the Field Equations. Over to you for your reply.

Since they are taking measurements that is quantifying. Yes I place consciousness above awareness. No awareness pertains to more than just sensors. The optician example was just that - a single example. I was also making the point that awareness is not a binary function of being aware or not aware, although that can be the case sometimes. At other times there is a whole scale of awareness. For example: I am aware there is a world F1 championship going on. I am also aware of some of the results for some of the drivers, but I am not aware of all the details. Does this help ?

As already noted quantifying awareness, at least in some cases, is well defined. What can you see in your peripheral vision ? Basically nothing at all in general, at least you are not aware of anything. Now suppose a moving object approaches from your side, you will become aware of this and may even take evasive action. But opthalmologists have a machine for measuring this precisely. By testing your 'field of vision' they are measuring your visual awareness. This is what I meant by I think the pecking order is quite the reverse. The exact nature of consciousness is very difficult to pin down and I am not sure I can do that. But what I understand about awareness is that it is definitely a graduated quality on a measurable scale and appropriate technicians do this all the time, day in day out. Further this graduation is partly at least under the control of the subject who must be 'conscious', whatever that means. Equally if that subject is not conscious she will be unable to be aware of many things, again in a scientifically measurable manner.

Thank you for your response. The program was on BBC last Wednesday evening. It described the New Horizons spacecraft project from its launch in 2006 to it fly past od Pluto in 2015 and the subsequent analysis. There were many significant suprises. One of which was the bright red colour of much of the planet's surface. It had been thought that Pluto was a dead planet, too cold for anything else and largely made of ice. Yet it showed definite volcanic activity, ice being a rock at those temperatures and the magma being made of flowing water. There has been very significant revisions to planetary geology theory as a result. It was also thought to be far outside the zone where life might commence. However the quantum fact that radiation energy is proportional to frequency means that although sunlight is seriously weakened there is still some radiation of sufficient energy to spilt one of the main chemical compounds there ie methane. The program likened the effect to a Los Angeles smog where large carbon framed molecules are formed in the atmousphere and fall back to the surface as red dust particles, accounting for the red colour. Earthside laboratory experiments have confirmed this process. So Pluto has water, and the natural ability to generate complex organic molecules. The weakness of the sunlight prompted my comment about Pluto being perhaps way behind Earth in the life generation race, unlike our normal assumption of alien life being way ahead of us.

And more to the point he was misrepresenting what I actually said, and not for the first time.

Yes but this thread is not about space travel alone. Communication alone may be possible over some of the distances involved. I wouldn't care if some useful new maths theorem or a proper cure for Covid, was bequeathed to me by some little green andromodean or my next door neighbour in Somerset. Incidentally did you see that BBC program about Pluto ? It has some amazing implications for Chemistry.

Why do old farts like you and I try to communicate and pass on 3/4 of a lifetimes learning with other, younger people ? There is much more to it than you seem to be making out, especially when you break it down. Why for instance did the proto polynesians set out into the wide blue yonder of the Pacific ? Columbus was looking for a civilisation when he stumbled over your own land. Why have we been we searching Antarctica for more than a century, with no expectation of any civilisation ? And why did you consider my other comments less worthy of comment, since they are totally scientific?

Well I don't recall joining in with this thread before but having read the discussion so far I have a few observations. 1) The title is interesting "Nobody out there cares about us" Yet there has been quite a bit of discussion along the lines of noting that our species has undertaken a great deal of exploration, not just at one point in time but for a long period of time. Clearly we care, so why wouldn't at least some other species care as well ? 2) The timescales discussed are interesting. Interesting because there is a tacit assumption that the timescales are similar to our own. After watching the BBC programme on the latest developments concerning Pluto it has occurred to me that because sunlight is so much weaker at plutonic distances life in general and intelligent life in particular will take longer to develop there so that development has yet to happen. The reason that Pluto has the most astounding red colour is even more astounding than the colour.

Does your opinion run to responding to the comments of other members ?

Doesn't that view simply introduce another poorly defined term/concept ? IMHO there are already have too many such concepts in this thread, particularly consciousness itself. There is already a current thread about 'artificial' consciousness which would seem to imply that some at least think that life is not necessary, whatever definition of life is chosen.

Thank you for wasting my time. I tried to have a civilised non vindictive conversation, but now I'm done here.

I would agree with this point of view. However I disagree with the following statement. I think the pecking order is quite the reverse. The exact nature of consciousness is very difficult to pin down and I am not sure I can do that. But what I understand about awareness is that it is definitely a graduated quality on a measurable scale and appropriate technicians do this all the time, day in day out. Further this graduation is partly at least under the control of the subject who must be 'conscious', whatever that means. Equally if that subject is not conscious she will be unable to be aware of many things, again in a scientifically measurable manner.

Thank you for this short post, it encapsulates beautifully what I am saying is wrong with your discussion style. I don't know why other members seem to have given up trying to hold a discussion with you, but this may be part of their reason. Firstly a classic attempt to wriggle out of another member's point by trying to change the subject and not answer directly. Secondly further demonstration of your continued use of too general (all embracing or absolute) statements. Science/Maths has found over the years that, even if there are a limited number counterexamples, such situations are best handled by 'weak and strong' laws or 'nearly all' laws. You will be unable to make progress with your ideas (which may have some value) if you flatly refuse to modify them in the light of comments by other thinking souls. In respect of artificial consciousness, personally I am unable to show that it can't arise by accident, rather than design. Of the comparable situations I know about, I have 3 particular cases in mind. Firstly what Science knows about chemical reaction kinetics. Secondly the recent revelations about Pluto and why it is bright red. Thirdly an SF short story about the 'Corps of Unorthodox Engineers' and the accidental generation of intelligable radio signals. In all these cases design is not needed, so the artificial in your 'artificial' consciousness is not needed. For if consciousness can arise from random natural causes, then some entity (including us) could choose to use these same processes to intentionally reproduces these effects.

Then you simply haven't studied any science whatsoever. This is a Science website. Simple simple class machines, including the wedge, are studied by 12 ans 13 year olds in school. Here is a pdf of a class experiment. https://cdn.images.fecom-media.com/FE00015525/documents/Simple+Machine+wedge.pdf If you want to lay down the law on technical matters, please come properly equipped.

Perhaps you should recast your speculation ? I can't see the remotest correspondence between number theory and all this physics, speculatory or otherwise.

Why is anyone suprised that in an Edmonton, Alberta, winter they use more heating than in Edmond, Oklahoma or that they drive further to meet other folks or just go shopping, considering the difference in population density ?

I'm not clear what your point, question or stance is here. Energy is a property. There are several kinds of energy. What kind of energy does an electron possess, orbital or otherwise ? Or are you denying the existence of an electron ?

You have persistently responded to points put to you by repeating stuff about matters not put to you, instead of addressing the points themselves. As I have not commented on this part of your thesis I find it counterproductive to be addressed in this way. Most machines are constructed for a purpose and therefore may be said to be designed or programmed. This has never been in dispute. But this is not the case for all machines and it is these machine that arise by accident not by design that I am taking as counterexamples to your claim that all machines are designed. Constructs are a wider class of object, and again most are 'constructed' by design. But again some arise by accident. And some of these accidental constructs can become machines by a further accident. For example say I cut off a designed length of plank from a random length. The offcut is an accidental construct and not, in general a machine. If, however the end of the wood is damaged so the offcut comes in pieces, then one or more of those pieces could be wedge shaped. A wedge is a primitive machine. So I have a randomly generated machine that I did not intend or design.

I see you have given up trying to defend your misapplication of the first order logic law of the excluded middle. Instead you are using the old trick of replying to several questions with the same answer. I did not introduce machines. Quite the reverse. Machines are constructed for a purpose, not question and there never has been. Call that a program if you wish. But not all constructs are machines and I am referring to those that are not machines. So programs are totally irrelevent to my questions. Since you so rudely demand that I look up what a machine is here is the definition I was taught in school and still holds sway today. A machine is a device for doing work. This is pure Physics. I will allow you a wider definition however, since you have posted in Philosophy. Please insert you preferred wider definition at this point.

Small niggle, but I like the general line of thinking. +1 How is the monitor conscious of not being powered ?

It has to do with this claim Since I note you have just joined, be aware that our anti spam measures include limiting the number of posts to 5 in the first 24 hours for new members. I see that you have one of these left so please don't wast it replying to me quickly, but take time to think about it. If the force N was not the same strength as the force S would that not violate conservation of energy ?

Which do you think is stronger N or S ?

I said nothing whatsoever about programming. Quite the reverse my thesis has always been that you have not demonstrated and discounted a random occurrence as impossible. I regard a random occurrence as an unprogrammed/programmable or not programmed/programmable occurrence. By introducing a program, you have assumed (in part) what you set out to proove. As to your attempt to avoid the issue of your own actual words which I quote, yet again. I said, first quite subtly, and then not so subtly that you should go away and look up the conditions of applicability of your 'law'. I even offered a suggstion as to the part of General Philosophy to look in, since this is where you have started this thread.

I did. See the entire rest of the article. That's rhetoric until you show me exactly what's wrong with my argumentation. I already told you exactly what was wrong with your argument, although I am not bound to. The onus of proof lies with the proposer, not the listener. However I will repeat my statement that you tried to misapply first order logic. This law ( also called the law of the excluded middle) is derived from more fundamental axioms which are what you have actually tried to misapply, notably The axiom schema of specification. In set terminology this axioms prevents Russell and other similar paradoxes by defining a 'restriction'. The law you refer to is not and never can be absolute.