PDA

View Full Version : 11 years later I've just posted this on Quora


Loose rivets
27th Oct 2018, 23:54
We used to talk a lot about strange things, and my link down this post was back in the day. No, I never did find out who the lovely lady was, or just what was going on in my mind, but a thread on Quora, more or less about reality, I thought might pique the interest of some ppruners

The Quora thread is: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-disbelieve-that-there-s-more-when-our-bodies-die-The-soul-is-energy-everything-is-energy-and-energy-can-t-die-it-can-only-be-converted-that-s-science

I read Francis Crick’s, ‘Astonishing Hypothesis’ when it was first released. That was a long time ago and I thought I was old then, so these days a lot of my consciousness is taken up wondering just what is going to happen when finally I fall off my perch.

Just yesterday, one of my kids said that he didn’t believe in an afterlife. I replied that our so-called reality is so bizarrely impossible that experiencing a new kind of consciousness after death is not one jot more unbelievable. ‘Continuance’ is what I called it in my novel, but that’s just a story. However, I did need some sort of energy to explain, well, all sorts of things, so I invented the 5th Force. All very convenient.What is pretty certain is that if a soul does exist, then it’s not carried on any of the known fields in spacetime. It could not be bound by the speed of light since all our life-experience would need to stream out and be stored safely away should we come to a premature and abrupt end. Okay, just the kind of things students talk about when they’re getting drunk for the fist time.

It’s good to think, and good to keep one’s mind open to all possibilities. I ran David Chalmers’ Ted Talk and was amused to find I’d already come up with the idea that Trump being president must be part of a mischievous designer’s simulation.In less than half my lifetime we’ve gone from vague images of ants attacking a fort, to the new cowboy game that takes you into an uncomfortably lifelike set of programmable simulations. I say uncomfortable, because I’m not at all sure that if there is ‘continuance’ I want to be a Matrix-like simulation. Seeing ‘Avatar’ in 3D for the first time was a stunning experience; one of the most impressive things for me as a pilot was the reality of the wondrous creatures flapping their wings in a frantic effort to rise up to a ledge. Beautiful graphics crafting and so physically plausible.

In my book, in a moment of crisis, the protagonist is suddenly whisked away to a beautiful place. Trees, fields and a lovely stream. They walk and talk for a while and it’s mentioned that this place ‘Is a construct of our minds. Not your solid reality . . .” The idea is that our universe is very specifically designed for a solid and often cruel reality. The burdens placed upon us having a very important role in our soul’s development. Any hey, all this rambling yarn is being created in a small neurophysiological blob in my skull. I’m making up a universe as I want it, and changing rules as I please. Just imagine what a vast intelligence could do after billions of years of toying with an idea.

Are we real?Getting back to films for a while, I was fascinated to see a program about the generation of graphics. It seems making mountains that have been solid for billions of years, or the searing molten rock chasing Harrison Ford towards a ravine, is best rendered over a framework of triangles. Handy little shape. So easy to make a temporary reality with. So easy for a computer to manipulate.So what is it that makes us so sure we’re real?

Dr Brian Cox holds up a small stone and tells us that the electron cloud extends about 2km. We exist of energy, and the bits we perceive as solid, if they could be stripped from every human being on the planet, would fit in the shape of a sugar cube. No doubt it would need a very strong cup. But the point is, how can we learn this much about our material fabric and still be sure of . . . anything?

What do I feel? Well, I feel there is something more but is it that I was simply programmed as a child? That lovely picture hanging in our local chapel, Jesus knocking on a large oak door. Knocking upon our hearts that he may be let in. I feel something deep inside, but I’ve always wanted to be a scientist - how can I reconcile my two emotional states? Well of course, I can’t. But I have had just a few strange things happen that make me wonder about the reality of my existence. Nothing huge, but rather strange and one quite recent.

Sitting in a big armchair, one arm on the right rest, I suddenly felt the most extraordinary feeling of wellbeing in just my right arm, and then in the fingertips of the left hand which were quite near my right hand. When I say, wellbeing, I mean freedom from all the creakiness of old age, a lovely warmth, nearing blissful, but only in those extremities. Sadly, it didn’t spread but soon dispersed.It wasn’t too hard to imagine an explanation, until I thought about the pattern of the affected area. It was as though something was in front of me, slightly to the right. Something with a boundary in that circular region and by some chance, or for some reason, I was reaching into it. It doesn’t sound much, but if I could only convey to you the feeling of almost exquisite wellbeing in that area, you would understand why I’m so puzzled by it.

Another instance was many years ago, and simply indicates how many of our mental process work while being hidden from us.I won’t bulk out the post with the scene, but I used to post a lot on the professional pilot’s forum where I appear as Loose rivets. I called this post, ‘And then I saw her.’ The mental processing was odd, but the feeling I had for the woman, at least for a moment, reached deep into my, what shall I say . . . Soul?

And Then I Saw Her (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/306026-then-i-saw-her.html#post3797978)

So what of reality? An atomic world where we feel awareness and pain. Just how do you make a machine, albeit organic, feel pain? Logically, it’s impossible.

There are so many facets to our perception of ‘self’, I can’t begin to imagine how one determines the falsity of a single one.

funfly
28th Oct 2018, 13:25
Don’t forget that your view of the universe, life etc. is just that. It can only be from your eyes, from your ears, from your senses. Add to that the fact that all these senses are converted into signals which are interpreted by your own brain - no one elses.
Your world consists of ‘memories’ whatever they are, within your brain, no one elses.
Even things you perceive as solid are, we are told, merely forces reacting against forces, reflected light ‘seen’ by your eye and interpreted by yourbrain.
So it is just you, or in my case its just me, the rest is conjoured up in my brain.
My question is, does anything else exist apart from what I perceive.
Indeed, am I alone?

G-CPTN
28th Oct 2018, 14:40
The whole 'universe' is merely a chemical reaction within a Petri dish.
Whatever you think you see and feel are all figment of your imagination - which is in turn merely a reaction to stimulation.

The question is:- "What is doing the stimulating?"

Bergerie1
28th Oct 2018, 16:21
Loose Rivets, what is time?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6rWqJhDv7M

Pontius Navigator
28th Oct 2018, 16:29
I see red. You see red. Red is represented by a string of shapes. These are called numbers.

The numbers I see as representing red are replicated in my mind as the same red as I think you see as representing red.

And so on . . .

Gertrude the Wombat
28th Oct 2018, 17:17
I see red. You see red. Red is represented by a string of shapes. These are called numbers.

The numbers I see as representing red are replicated in my mind as the same red as I think you see as representing red.
... and some people don't realise that they've got TWO EYES which see DIFFERENT COLOURS ...

Some people more than others, probably, but try it and see.

fltlt
28th Oct 2018, 17:20
Aye, but what about the third eye?

funfly
28th Oct 2018, 18:52
It seems to be generally agreed that time stretches out behind this 'instance' and in front of this 'instance'.
If we consider an 'instant' we must accept that one instant has no length in time, without a length adding up a series of instances must also have no dimension, i.e. 0+0=0
If time itself is the result of a number of instances added together then time itself is only an instant, .
So we exist in a number of instances each instance having no length of time. The concept of time therefore cannot exist as the length of any time is the total of all the instances it is made up from and, as said before, if an instance has no length then a number of instances added together also has no length.
There is therefore no such thing as time, only the instance we inhabit at any moment.

Loose rivets
28th Oct 2018, 22:13
Bergerie 1, thanks, I like Carlo Rovelli. I have his book about reality. I would say, he's a much, much better writer and scientist than he is a public speaker.

I like him in particular because he seems to dismiss String Theory and favour Loop Quantum Gravity, and if there were to be a 'fabric of spacetime' then QLG suits my spacetime inflow hypothessis very well. Hypothesis? Well, more a pretentious proposal being hollered from a dark gravity well by an aging mind.
.
.
.

funfly
28th Oct 2018, 22:30
My 'point in time' my 'instant' is not an area that we pass through to get to the next one, as hypothesised in my post above.
The 'moment in time' that we all occupy moves with us. We inhabit this 'moment' all our lives.
References to a 'past' or 'future' refer to where our moment will be or has been. There is no time dimension, no back or forward just the now.
We occupy that moment, whether we are in the company of millions of others or simply on our own cannot be proved.
I totally disbelieve those who 'prove' things by mathematics. Making a complex equation balance might be clever maths but to use it as a 'proof' of our perceived and actual world is arrogant.
Apart from in Loose's book time is not a fourth dimension, it is a description we use to suggest something in our own future.
I will die some day and I have a strong feeling that everything else will finish (as far as I am concerned) at the same time. My life is a perception by me and that perception will no longer be valid if I am not able to perceive it.
I'm starting to confuse myself now.
FF

nonsense
29th Oct 2018, 07:57
I've experienced death. I've been dead for many millenia, then I was born, and slowly became sufficiently organised to become conscious. And one day I will be dead again, and I do not expect it to be any different from the last time.

My existence as a personality is entirely the product of the physical arrangement of my physical body. Disrupt that, and "I" am disrupted or destroyed.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is indulging in simple wishful thinking.

Bergerie1
29th Oct 2018, 09:03
Loose rivets,

Have you read Carlo Rovelli's book 'The Order of Time'? I don't pretend to understand it all but it is beautifully written and it opens the mind to mysteries we can only briefly sense. My problem is that my understanding is rooted in the beauty of Newtonian physics with a smattering of Einstein!! Here are two reviews of his book you might like:-

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/books/review/order-of-time-carlo-rovelli.html

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/apr/14/carlo-rovelli-exploding-commonsense-notions-order-of-time-interview

funfly
29th Oct 2018, 09:21
I've experienced death. I've been dead for many millenia, then I was born, and slowly became sufficiently organised to become conscious. And one day I will be dead again, and I do not expect it to be any different from the last time.

My existence as a personality is entirely the product of the physical arrangement of my physical body. Disrupt that, and "I" am disrupted or destroyed.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is indulging in simple wishful thinking.

I like that idea.

ehwatezedoing
29th Oct 2018, 15:11
I've experienced death. I've been dead for many millenia, then I was born, and slowly became sufficiently organised to become conscious. And one day I will be dead again, and I do not expect it to be any different from the last time.

My existence as a personality is entirely the product of the physical arrangement of my physical body. Disrupt that, and "I" am disrupted or destroyed.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is indulging in simple wishful thinking.
Very well but we are 7.7 billion now.
When I was born we were roughly 3.4 billion.

Thatís a lot of sufficiently organized to become conscious...people in this last 1/2 century :confused:

funfly
29th Oct 2018, 19:01
Just looked at my posts above - what a load of rubbish!
What I was on I just don’t really know,
I realise that I can spout rubbish without the help of weed.
WhenI am dead, I will be finished, just a few cinders , all finished. I wont have to see the world of the future thank goodness.
Was going to say thank God but as I dont believe in a God.......
FF

Mac the Knife
29th Oct 2018, 19:26
"Teach it...teach it....phenomenology" (Cmdr Powell)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29pPZQ77cmI

Nomad2
29th Oct 2018, 20:07
Loose.
You're thinking too much.

Relax. You know nothing really, and there's nothing to worry about.

You'll find out in due course, as will we all.

Loose rivets
30th Oct 2018, 00:27
I think I'm thinking too little. Not because I want to but because my brain simply will not perform as it used to. Funny (or not) thing about that is that when I take a particular antidepressant, by brain power seems to increase enormously. Sadly, this new-ish pill makes me as sick as a dog, and my hands tremor. Quite a larf when one's hobby is restoring pilot's chronographs.

Bergerie 1, thanks again. I'd like to hear Benedict's reading of that. Sadly, as I intimated, Carlo's lecturing I find rather trying.

Mac, I spent so long with my Crystal, the vast crystalline mind making up much of the 83,000 tonne mass of my Maria Celeste. When I had to put her into stasis and diagnostics mode, I missed her just being there. She was sentient, indeed sapient, and I imagine perhaps the only method we'll be able to use to achieve a mind. 86 Billion neurons for a human. I wonder how that translates to a super-mind that has to have its interconnections planned rather than self seeking.

funfly. Not rubbish, though I make use of a fifth force rather than a forth dimension. "Not detected by humans . . . yet."
From time to time I write something on Quora that I think seems to make a lot of sense . . . until the next morning. Now and then I've had to rush a lot of editing to stop my post losing its (dynamic) position in the thread.

Bergerie1
30th Oct 2018, 07:21
Loose rivets,

I tried to send you a short extract of Cumberbatch reading Rovelli but the link would not copy. Try going to soundcloud.com/penguin-books.

https://soundcloud.com/penguin-books/the-order-of-time-by-carlo-rovelli-read-by-benedict-cumberbatch

https://soundcloud.com/penguin-books/the-order-of-time-by-carlo-rovelli-read-by-benedict-cumberbatch

Hussar 54
30th Oct 2018, 20:08
I've experienced death. I've been dead for many millenia, then I was born, and slowly became sufficiently organised to become conscious. And one day I will be dead again, and I do not expect it to be any different from the last time.

My existence as a personality is entirely the product of the physical arrangement of my physical body. Disrupt that, and "I" am disrupted or destroyed.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is indulging in simple wishful thinking.


I've always thought / believed that all life ( animal / vegetable / mineral) is just a chemical reaction in progress.

Eventually some of the chemicals are used up in the reaction : the other chemicals go out of balance ; life as we categorise it then stops.

From where those chemicals first came - no idea.
How those chemicals first started to react in a way to produce what we categorise as life - no idea

Is death as we categorise it the end of the grouping / reaction of the chemicals which make life as we categorise it ?

Highly probable but who can say for sure - maybe the remaining chemicals start a different reaction which creates / leads to a different animal / vegetable / mineral life form than previously but which can't be experienced or recognised until the first reaction stops and the second ( or third or fourth, etc ) reaction starts.

Loose rivets
31st Oct 2018, 00:17
But the problem starts when you disassemble these chemicals into constituent parts. We've all got a rough idea about atoms, and Dmitri Mendeleev gave us a solid foundation on which to build right from high school level. But then we find the electrons are not little planets spinning around the nuclei but something much, much more complex, at least until we briefly capture one in a liberated state. However, it's when we pry into the nucleons that things get exciting. Quarks are easy to learn about in terms of just putting them into an ordered structure, but to me, it's the Gluon energy that I find the most . . . chilling. 96% of the energy. Most of the sheer apparent mass - if we can allow 'matter/mass' as opposed to the relevant fields in the modern thinking. But Back to an atom and all the people on the planet with specifically the matter bits removed from their atoms. Collect those and put them in a space the size of a sugar cube, and weigh it, for want of something better to do. Now we're both seeing reality for the first time, and opening a window onto the impossibility of being able to comprehend reality. And now on top of this, we're told that the very time - by which we measure our daily lives - is little more than an illusion. Or at least a mechanism no one truly understands. Back to my question of 'where is our reality?'

One exciting post on Quora explained the time sheer across say, small m in the vicinity of M. Say, Earth. When struggling to understand general relativity I'm intrigued to model a varying time over the radius of small m and how that equates to a warped spacetime. One needs to spend some time listening to Leonard Susskind and his thoughts on that model.

Benedict's reading.
I ran the sound bite thanks. Frustrating when it stops. He certainly has got an admirable voice and I think I'll put him down to replace Patrick Stuart if they make another Star Treck series. I can still hear both of them despite severe hearing damage in the last two years. A joy.

It is with some irony that I can't hear the Rivetess' voice anymore. Nice as it was, it's on some of my dead frequencies.