SplitInfinity Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Split, perhaps you should re-read your own postsyou shouted (all caps) some very strong statements at one point there. I don't mind you changing your position, but I wouldn't advise trying to revise history. Yeah...I do tend to have a CAP lock issue. LOL! But I am and always have been aware of Triangulation and my challenge to Sam was always really about seeing if he knew about the 6 Point system. If I could go back I would go about this in a very much different way. Split Infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) The 6 Point Positioning System not only allows you to find the star or celestial body those 6 point detail but since each of those 6 points or celestial bodies had to be predetermined as to their position from Earth's SUN as well as from each other in order to be certain their use would detail out the star or body they have been selected for....once the 6 stars have been identified as to their angle and distance from the hidden star thus also is known the six star groupings angle to your craft...this grouping can be compared to other groupings close to the crafts position or by simply comparing the size and brightness to your position of known stars within that 6 star grouping your distance from those stars or hidden star can be determined. Split Infinity Ok so you're talking about triangulation, which you do not need 6 points for, it requires no intersection of 3 pairs of lines. But I am and always have been aware of Triangulation and my challenge to Sam was always really about seeing if he knew about the 6 Point system. You should be concerned that a math expert had never heard of such a "simple" solution If I could go back I would go about this in a very much different way. The fact that you repeated the same arguments and continued to use caps lock over and over says otherwise. Edited June 12, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SplitInfinity Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Ok so you're talking about triangulation, which you do not need 6 points for, it requires no intersection of 3 pairs of lines. You should be concerned that a math expert had never heard of such a "simple" solution The fact that you repeated the same arguments and continued to use caps lock over and over says otherwise. Sam...you are more than aware at this point EXACTLY the reasons for using this 6 Point System as well as the benefits gained by using it when all else fails. As far as your MATH expert...well he obviously is not working at JPL so that point is moot. To continue to discuss this already BEATEN TO DEATH issue is ridiculous. It's time to go back to Mikey's Theory of Everything. Sorry Mikey. Split Infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Sam...you are more than aware at this point EXACTLY the reasons for using this 6 Point System as well as the benefits gained by using it when all else fails. As far as your MATH expert...well he obviously is not working at JPL so that point is moot. To continue to discuss this already BEATEN TO DEATH issue is ridiculous. It's time to go back to Mikey's Theory of Everything. Sorry Mikey. Split Infinity That's fine, just don't use 6 star points to explain anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SplitInfinity Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 That's fine, just don't use 6 star points to explain anything. Your statement just got me thinking about Mikey's original Topic....that being his development with a Lingual Theory of Everything. In order to EXPLAIN something we Humans need REFERENCE POINTS....just like how we need 6 Points to locate a Hidden Star under the conditions I have described...over many...many...MANY....MAAANNNYYY....posts of late on this topic. So in order for us to develop a description of EVERYTHING....we need to use REFERENCE POINTS or something that the reader can use in order for them to orient themselves as to what is being discussed. So I would think EVERYTHING would need an awful lot of points of reference to describe. Split Infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) In order to EXPLAIN something we Humans need REFERENCE POINTS....just like how we need 6 Points to locate a Hidden Star under the conditions I have described...over many...many...MANY....MAAANNNYYY....posts of late on this topic. Here's how it should be re-written: "In order to explain something we Humans need reference points just like how we need very rarely desire 6 Points to locate a Hidden Star under the conditions I have described." Intersecting lines still don't give you the exact location, it's coincidence wherever they intersect. Edited June 12, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SplitInfinity Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Here's how it should be re-written: "In order to explain something we Humans need reference points just like how we need very rarely desire 6 Points to locate a Hidden Star under the conditions I have described." Intersecting lines still don't give you the exact location, it's coincidence wherever they intersect. Let it go Sam...let it go. Split Infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I'll let it go when a mod steps in, someone changes the topic, or you actually provide any evidence or proof of what you're saying. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted June 15, 2013 Author Share Posted June 15, 2013 The subject here is A Lingual Theory Of Everything . . . mikes back.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SplitInfinity Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 The subject here is A Lingual Theory Of Everything . . . mikes back.pdf Mikey...I had this thought. Now I know that I have gone on about the likely existence of a Multiverse but I thought I would put this out there. We can see to the edge of our Universe with Hubble and within less than 380,000 Light Years of the Big Bang...so this basically let's us know that our Universe is FINITE....or at the very least has an edge or boundary so...either there is something BEYOND this edge or boundary or Space/Time only exists to the limits of where there is Matter and Energy as well as Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Given this I think it to be highly unlikely that either nothing exists beyond or that there does not exist other Divergent Universal States of Reality. Even if all this were taken into consideration in a Lingual Theory I think it would be necessary to also add to such a description a possibility for MORE to exist to be a part of this everything. I think that EVERYTHING or INFINITE is a term that defines something that the Human Brain cannot really comprehend. Say...even if there exists a Multiverse...perhaps there also exists a MULTIMICROVERSE MULTIVERSE where the size of our Universe and possible Multiverse is riddles with other MicroUniversal States say at below Quantum Levels but having a Quantum system of their own. Everything is a BIG word. Split Infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 Oh the toils of having a limit to observation. Woe... Woe! What about a multimacroverse. I've often thought, what about the idea of everything growing larger and our brain as a tool to decelerate this macroscipation, hence, acquiring memory and allowing for multimicroverse theory to be plausible. Or I might just be living in a proctocracy lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SplitInfinity Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 Oh the toils of having a limit to observation. Woe... Woe! What about a multimacroverse. I've often thought, what about the idea of everything growing larger and our brain as a tool to decelerate this macroscipation, hence, acquiring memory and allowing for multimicroverse theory to be plausible. Or I might just be living in a proctocracy lol! Well that's just it isn't it Pop? There are so many possibilities and probably infinite possibilities we haven't even considered...trying to explain or define EVERYTHING...is a BIG chore. Split Infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted June 17, 2013 Author Share Posted June 17, 2013 Mikey...I had this thought. Now I know that I have gone on about the likely existence of a Multiverse but I thought I would put this out there. We can see to the edge of our Universe with Hubble and within less than 380,000 Light Years of the Big Bang...so this basically let's us know that our Universe is FINITE....or at the very least has an edge or boundary so...either there is something BEYOND this edge or boundary or Space/Time only exists to the limits of where there is Matter and Energy as well as Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Given this I think it to be highly unlikely that either nothing exists beyond or that there does not exist other Divergent Universal States of Reality. Even if all this were taken into consideration in a Lingual Theory I think it would be necessary to also add to such a description a possibility for MORE to exist to be a part of this everything. I think that EVERYTHING or INFINITE is a term that defines something that the Human Brain cannot really comprehend. Say...even if there exists a Multiverse...perhaps there also exists a MULTIMICROVERSE MULTIVERSE where the size of our Universe and possible Multiverse is riddles with other MicroUniversal States say at below Quantum Levels but having a Quantum system of their own. Everything is a BIG word. Split Infinity Over the last day or two I have been giving a lot of thought to the points you raise , and generally this issue of choice , free will choice, from the domain of everything. To do this thinking I realized I needed to be somewhere that is deep in my personal being. That is the Coast, looking out from a cliff somewhere ,over the ocean. I could pick, go south and hit the south Devon coast looking into the English Channel , or go North and look out from high cliffs and look out at the Atlantic Ocean . I choose the latter and drove out across EXMOOR toward the coast. Had I gone south, my life now would be different. But with free will I chose North and headed out rising through a primevil forest toward the moor. The journey into a part of everything ( all possible choices ) [ my part of a multiverse ?] began . It gets interesting ! [break] The journey into a part of everything ( all possible choices ) [ my part of a multiverse ?] began . It gets interesting ! [break] I find driving on empty roads , very assisting in thinking. Starting into the woodland trail into the valley leading to Exmoor, I happened on a Bar , just opening for sunday trade. No body else was in. I explained to the proprietor of my desire to travel north to the coast. Should I go at the fork in the road, left to Lynmouth or right to Minehead ( both on the coast looking out at the Atlantic ) . He said " All depends what you want" finding he was of a scientific bent/interest I explained I was taking part in a ' journey into a multiverse experiment ' . . Rather than throw me out, thinking I was wacko, he posed my possible outcome depending which freewill choice I made. [ranging from various maladies to changes in my life pattern. I left and made my way up through the prime evil forest, across the desolate moor to Lynmouth, across the Headland coastal road to Porlock . I made a couple of sketches and am now off to Exeter to Paint them Up the multiverse adventure waits.( Break ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SplitInfinity Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Over the last day or two I have been giving a lot of thought to the points you raise , and generally this issue of choice , free will choice, from the domain of everything. To do this thinking I realized I needed to be somewhere that is deep in my personal being. That is the Coast, looking out from a cliff somewhere ,over the ocean. I could pick, go south and hit the south Devon coast looking into the English Channel , or go North and look out from high cliffs and look out at the Atlantic Ocean . I choose the latter and drove out across EXMOOR toward the coast. Had I gone south, my life now would be different. But with free will I chose North and headed out rising through a primevil forest toward the moor. The journey into a part of everything ( all possible choices ) [ my part of a multiverse ?] began . It gets interesting ! [break] I find driving on empty roads , very assisting in thinking. Starting into the woodland trail into the valley leading to Exmoor, I happened on a Bar , just opening for sunday trade. No body else was in. I explained to the proprietor of my desire to travel north to the coast. Should I go at the fork in the road, left to Lynmouth or right to Minehead ( both on the coast looking out at the Atlantic ) . He said " All depends what you want" finding he was of a scientific bent/interest I explained I was taking part in a ' journey into a multiverse experiment ' . . Rather than throw me out, thinking I was wacko, he posed my possible outcome depending which freewill choice I made. [ranging from various maladies to changes in my life pattern. I left and made my way up through the prime evil forest, across the desolate moor to Lynmouth, across the Headland coastal road to Porlock . I made a couple of sketches and am now off to Exeter to Paint them Up the multiverse adventure waits.( Break ) I find it interesting that of all the possible paths existing which choices are expressed in a possible Multiverse....very often these paths end at a BAR! LOL! Split Infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Hey Mike, I believe that most philosophers (and even the supreme court here in the US) have made a consensus that the "free will" is an illusion. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted June 17, 2013 Author Share Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) Hey Mike, I believe that most philosophers (and even the supreme court here in the US) have made a consensus that the "free will" is an illusion. INTERESTING LECTURES I Have doodled up this Diagram while Listening to put CHOICE in the context of LINGUAL THEORY of EVERYTHING . Note that the Past is set, History has taken over. Able to make pointers for the future. No longer real . . Reality is in the Present .NOW. where probability and possibility is being turned into something concrete, REAL. . The Future is the entire spectrum of possible realities, probabilities from one end of the Cosmos to the other.Not yet realized into the Present. According to the [ Oxford English Dictionary ] Cosmos is defined as the 1. The world or universe as an ordered system 2. Order, Harmony, a harmonious system .3. A Plant of the American Genus Cosmos characterized by it's showy flowers. Cosmology is defined as : the theory of the universe as an ordered whole, and the general laws which govern it.Also a particular system of the universe and its laws. b. that part of metaphysics which deals with the ideal of the world as a totality of all phenomenon in space and time. The 'world' as mentioned here is not to be viewed as the globe we call Earth but rather the infinite totality. Edited June 18, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 (edited) Mike Smith Cosmos, What seems un-multiuniverse to me, is that what ever you do, stays in this one, affects this one, and is done with the environment and the conditions, that this universe presents. Let's say for instance, that I choose to break a glass. That glass has lost its ability to hold water, and if I shattered it well enough, there is not anybody that will ever drink from that glass. I have choosen a path for this universe to take, that no longer includes that glass. And the pieces remain in this universe to be ground to sand or to cut people's fingers, that try to pick it up. Somebody decides to take down the twin towers, they remove the buildings from this universe, for everybody and everything in the universe. They have modified THIS universe, not created another one. There is NO universe that contains a Milky Way, with a Sun, with an Earth and a U.S. and a New York, with a lower Manhattan that has twin towers, anymore. Regards, TAR2 Edited June 18, 2013 by tar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted June 18, 2013 Author Share Posted June 18, 2013 (edited) Mike Smith Cosmos, What seems un-multiuniverse to me, is that what ever you do, stays in this one, affects this one, and is done with the environment and the conditions, that this universe presents. Regards, TAR2 I am inclined to agree with you that there must be some connectivity between all regions of the Cosmos, even if the far reaches differ by some awesome degree. I have added some definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary, not that what was defined in the past is sufficiently current for modern ideas. I am not an expert myself on Multiverse , but am interested in the idea of different possibilities/probabilities/alternatives opening up from the future, and how these can change our present and then our past as we make these CHOICES. I, personally think we do have free will. Those last two lectures were arguing for ' we do not' I think, unless i missed something. In our own little domain, which we can have large influence (twin towers example you give ), We are making REALITY . And as an earth full of choosers we are making an EARTH FULL of REALITY from the entire spectrum of possibilities. Now whether that can include Multiverse I do not know . A colleague Split Infinity is an advocate. I personally can see them as part of All the Possibilities, But the moment a choice is made I see the choices collapse into ONE REALITY ( The present) and ONE history. (The Past ) no longer alternative possibilities. Split will probably bounce me all over the cosmos when/if he reads this. Mike Edited June 18, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Mike, Conflating the whole image, is the pure size of everything, and as well the speed and complexity at which things of smaller than human scale, unfold. I am of the opinion that we absolutely have choice. It is ours to maintain that which we wish to maintain, destroy that which we wish to destroy and create that which we wish to create. That our reach is so limited, confuses people into thinking that that means our choices do not matter, when they absolutely matter...to us. Flashback to you (if you were an 11 year old boy, like I was once) and an encounter with an anthill. Did you not have the choice to excercise some control over those ants? Many of us 11 year old boys realized our power over that colony. Perhaps we wiped the hill away, to watch it rebuild, or took sides as we discerned an ant war occurring between the red ants and the black ants. Perhaps we squished a few, or fed the colony crumbs. Immaterial really, whether we excercised constraint and care, or wanton destruction. The point being, we had a choice, and the result of our choice mattered, at least to the ants. Does it matter, in the history of the world, probably not. Does it matter to a spinyark on a planet circling Alpha Centuri? Probably not. Did it matter to you and the ants? Absolutely. One other consideration, modifying a bit my statement suggesting that the twin towers are gone from reality. Since the speed of light is finite, there is no way the Spinyark could know what has happened here on Earth, over the last 4.4 years. A Quadrunk on a planet 15 lys from here has not experienced the fall of the twin towers. There might be an argument that the twin towers stand, in reality, in the area of the universe between the large spherical shell marked by the distance light could travel since they were built, and the spherical shell marked by the distance light could travel since they fell. In that mode of considering "everything" we would fall rather short in conceptual horsepower. We would not have a proper grasp, until we considered everything, from every possible "current" location, and that would just give us a grasp of one tiny slice of time, about as wide as our defined moment. Then there would still be the vast amount of earlier moments, and the likely vast amount of future moments to consider, before we could get anywhere close to feeling that we have considered "everything". In light of all this, I "choose" to consider that the universe has not done what it is going to do next. And being 100% universe material myself, I have something to do with what that next thing is going to be. Regards, TAR2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 (edited) I agree with Sam Harris and mr Dennett that we don't have a free will, just that we have the illusion of free will, and more particularly, freedom itself. I have good reasons to assume this is the case as well. As a linguist and an engineer, I can't believe in free will for the sole purpose that it makes things indeterminate, which is highly undesirable. I cannot accept any premise that suggests randomness, chaos, or indeterminacy even in the slightest bit, it's inconsistent with all observation to say the least. As Dan puts it, given the replication of the exact precise moment that a choice arises, the "decision" that is made will 100% of the time be the same exact decision. Edited June 19, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 (edited) Popcorn Sutton, But interestingly enough, the given is not possible. You cannot have an exactly precisely the same moment, again. Each moment happens only once. And if reproduction of the exact moment, were to be repeated, it makes sense to imagine that all those variables lining up the same way, would result in the thing that happened, because it did. But I will not give Mr. Dennett his given. That particular collection of stuff is no longer in play. Like the Earth making a cycle around the Sun, when it completes a year, things are not the same as they were a year ago. Rock has eroded, trees have grown, the Sun itself has continued on its course around the center of the galaxy, all the planets are in different relative positions, the Sun is in a different stage of its 14 or 11 year cycle or whatever it is. A moment is not repeatable, but in retrospect and imagination. You, as an engineer, know that chaos is a factor. Water slides are designed to keep the rider in the chute, but just a slight change in the flow of water at the top, can set up an oscilation that builds as it makes its way down the course, and every once in a while a rider is launched out of the course. And no two snowflakes are precisely the same. The exact conditions of pressure and heat and movement and humidity, gravity and particle attraction during the growth of the crystal, evidently disallow the creation of an oracle, a seed crystal, that HAS TO, grow to a particular exact shape. The universe is not determined. It has not yet done, what it is going to do next. Regards, TAR2 Edited June 20, 2013 by tar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Tar, I have to concede on the grounds of the anthropic principle. There is no omniscient mortal that I am aware of. That does not go to say that if I were the person in control of the water that I could have done differently, because I do not believe that I could have. I don't think our views are different though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 (edited) I would be willing to guess that no model can be designed, more precisely taking into account, every variable, than the real thing that the model is of. And IF the model was complete, it would no longer be a model, it would be the real thing. Popcorn Sutton, One of my favorite "original" sayings that I made up, in a discussion similar to this one, years ago, is "you can roll the dice as many times as you want, and you will never get a Queen of Hearts. For that, you need a deck of cards." Regards, TAR2 Edited June 20, 2013 by tar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Tar, No dice. If you come to know anything about me, know this. I will not bet on dice. I will, however, bet on a distinguished card counter. Or a very precise dice rolling calculator... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Popcorn Sutton, Whoops, I am wrong again. My saying has been falsified. Regards, TAR2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts