Total topics: 61
A - defining velocity through spacetime
There is a constant in nature, called C.
C is the speed at which anything moves through spacetime.
As predicted by Einstein and confirmed by experiments:
- A stationary massive object moves 100% of C through time and doesn't experience movement.
- A photon moves 100% of C through space and doesn't experience time.
- Anything else lies between these two extremes
Total spacetime velocity = [speed through time]^2 + [speed through space]^2
If we chart this "function", we get a circle as a result. Since the radius of a circle is always the same, we see that velocity through space-time is always C. This explains why moving faster slows time, it's because you cannot move faster than C through space-time. Faster spacial velocity necessarily slows time-velocity. The extreme endpoint is a photon (or anything massless), which doesn't move through time at all. Conversely, it explains why a motionless object experiences time quicker. Afterall, if an object doesn't move then it must move 100% of it's C velocity through time. All of these predictions of treating C as the constant space-time velocity fit the predictions of Einstein as well as experiments.
CONCLUSION: C is the universal constant of speed. Nothing moves slower, nothing moves faster, all things move at C through space-time.
B - defining space
Space should be pretty straightforward. Space is simple to understand. Speed through space is to change your position.
C - defining time
Time has no definitive conclusions. Time is relative, it depends on the spatial velocity of an object. Why is that?
Solution 1: Say that time is a magical/unseeable dimension that alters our 3d space
Solution 2: Say that time is "the rate of interaction" in the universe
Solution 3: Unknown (at least to me)
I want to make a solid argument for the second one. Time = the rate of interaction. (Interaction is when to objects have an impact on each other. )
The fastest possible way to interact is to send a photon. A photon uses 100% of it's C velocity through space, and doesn't experience any time-delay.
Imagine two stationary objects, both moving 0% of C through space. This means that a signal photon sent from A to B is the fastest interaction possible.
[A] -----------------------------===>[B]
A and B are both having a velocity through time of 100% of C, as predicted by Einstein. According to this model, they do in fact have a rate of interaction off 100%, since there is no conceivable way for them to interact quicker. But what if A and B were in motion? Well, it's velocity through space would increase, and it would move slower through time. What happens in our experiment?
[A]----------------------===>----------[B]
[A]----------------------------------===>[B]
Excactly what you would expect. B is moving away from the incoming photon, which means that an interaction from A to B via the photon is slower. No matter how fast A moves, the photons hitting B move at the speed of light. However, if the photon is reflected back at A, it would move much faster. In the end, the total "slowing of time" in the system AB is really not that noticeable. This fits our experiments with atomic watches in orbit around earth.
However, what if we let object AB move at 90% the speed of light.
- Interaction A=>B will take 10 times as long
- Interaction B=> will take 0.52 times as long
- In total, each interaction will last more than 5 times longer
- AKA: it would move through time 5 times slower
In other words, when an object like AB is approaching lightspeed, it starts to interact very slowly.
And guess what Einstein said about high speed? Answer: that time would start getting very slowly.
Anything moving at the speed of light cannot accelerate any further since acceleration requires interaction.
Massive objects can never achieve C, because no matter how much energy you put into it, time will slow down exponentially. When your last photon is fired in order to accelerate your particle into lightspeed, it will take near infinite "time" for the photon to reach our particle. From the perspective of the particle though, time is moving so slowly that it just feels like a moment. Acording to Einstein, moving at C destroys time. This is exactly what this model explains.
CONLUSION:
Time is how fast objects interact, which depends on how fast photons can make them interact, which depends on the velocity of the objects that experience time.
The correlation between spacial C and time C is that the spacial C creates time C.
This explains why a simple particle moves at 100% spacial C, while only complex systems of interaction have mass and "temporal" velocity.
In fact, C's "rate of movement" might be the actual definition of time we are searching for.
The funny part is that this model explains how an objective value "C" is needed for there to be a relative value "time.
HOW TO LEARN MORE/ UNDERSTAND BETTER:
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
Theologians still reject the obvious conclusion that God, being a trinity, should indeed be called "they".
Studies have found that 63% of known gods identify as males. While statistically, God is more likely a male than a female, no definitive answer have been given. Instead, they simply assume that God is a male. Nobody has ever considered that God is both the father and the son -- the missing link often called "holy spirit" is most certainly a female.
This is just speculation of course, as 0% of omnipotent Gods have been studied, due to the insane holy light that they emit. The most accurate tool of measurement, human eyes, cannot look at God's face, and nobody has ever volunteered to look at the holy parts of God's body. Historians suggest that Satan was banished from heaven after finding out the true gender of God. But as always, demonnews.org is not the most reliable source available.
The word of God does not provide a clear answer to the question, this includes all versions and publications such as Bible, Quran, Torah, Apocrypha, Book of Mormon, etc. It is therefore regrettable to call God a male without the theory being confirmed: God still has no known gender. The official reasoning is that God's aggressive, impulsive and self-centred personality leads us to believe that God has the psychology of a male rule of a barbarian tribe. A lesser-known reason is that males are the superior sex and that the perfect God would be a male if he had a gender.
The last reason you will find is that Jesus Christ was confirmed to be a male in 823 AD, after intense studies performed by a group called Christians -- who are almost indistinguishable from another group called Muslims. The only difference is that Muslims still claim that Jesus was a mammal while Christians call Jesus a hybrid species. This discussion is quite irrelevant though as God's DNA is still being studied. Experts have estimated that the entire genome of God might be infinitely long, in which case, Jesus would not be the true God because the divine part of his DNA would simply not fit inside his cells.
No need to worry though. After an official statement from God himself at the hospital bed last week, intellectual circles concluded that science will have killed God before he can send Messiah back to Earth. This means that God will never actually be able to settle this gender issue -- so your subjective opinion about the gender of God will never be proven wrong. The only downside is that hell will still be active even after God is dead, so there is no reason to leave your religion.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
P1: Every event has a cause
P2: An endless chain of causes is impossible
C: There exists a first cause
This is a standard argument for the ultimate reality or the first cause. It might often be called God, but the theories range from a multiverse to a cosmic force to Allah. What they all have in common is that they themselves have no external cause, but they caused other things. In other words, the first cause would be the only reason why other things exist. The reasoning behind them is that of causality, and the impossibility of something starting to exist with no cause. The argument concludes that God, or something similar, must have been the first thing in existence - it must have been both uncaused and eternal. The first cause would, by definition, be static and unchanging.
Since the first cause is eternal, and cannot change, the universe would be created an infinity ago. The only logical option other than an eternal universe is if the first cause CHANGED from a state where it didn't want to create a universe to the state where it wanted to create a universe (like God did according to theology). But such a change in the status of the first cause would contradict its static nature. If the first cause can change its status then it cannot be called the first cause. We can do some logical shenanigans and we end up with a paradox, namely that one of the following options must be true:
- No first cause exists
- The first cause is both static and dynamic at the same time
But both alternatives violate the laws of logic. Therefore, something must be wrong with the first-mentioned syllogism.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
This is a private forum - in order to make the discussion clean, structured and concise. Feel free to read through.
If you want to post on this forum then ask me for permission to join. Elsewise your post will be reported as distracting.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society
I will try to debate Intelligence_06
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
I challenge anyone to give me a moral system capable of support the abortion industry and human rights at the same time.
Moral system: A moral standard, a moral authority and a way to measure moral value (who is valuable means who should be treated morally good)
Human rights: The idea that all humans are equally valuable regardless of their position, traits and views.
Human: A being with its own distinct DNA which is a part of the species homo sapiens
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Causality: The idea that every event has a cause
Free will: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/free_will]
Does causality undermnine free will?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Wath this 2 minute long video and you will be shocked.
"Gay people should be protected" - strange man in military uniform
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Definition of faith according to the dictionary:
colloquial: "Trusting in something or someone"
religious: "Strong belief in God or religious doctrines, not based on proof but rather religious apprehension"
This definition can be showed to have strange conclusions.
1. Intelectual theism is based on faith, while atheism is not
2. Faith is a strong belief in God or religious doctrines, not based on proof but rather religious apprehension
3. Intelectual theism is based on a strong belief in God based not on proof but rather religious apprehension
In other words: Intelectuaul theism is based on a strong belief in theism based not on proof but rather religious apprehension
This definition makes all non-atheistic world views seem ungrounded and religious
How can we accept such a definition to exists?
If an intelectual raised an atheist and after a lot of reasoning becomes a theist (not religiou), his world view would be based on "FAITH"
While an atheist raised to believe in randomness or a multiverse, would be considered as "free-thinking, not relying on faith but instead proof"
This attitude brought about by the definition is not a correct perception of neither people nor ideas.
Gods existance is a binary question with only non-emperical evidence from both sides. So both a convicted athesit and a convicted theists use the same"faith-thing-ish"
If one were to be "free thinking, not relying on faith but instead proof", one would be an agnostic not an atheists.
Another argument is that God is kind of like the tooth fairy, something that must not exist but is instead "inserted" into ones world view. In other words, believing in God is not the same as not believing in God with regards to this "faith-thingy". But that assumption, that God is an addition to a world view is not correct:
The basis of a world view:
1. The logic law of causality: every effect has a cause
2. The big bang is an effect which requires a cause
We know that the ultimate reality exists, since "something" must have always existed. This thing could be either personal or impersonal. And the difference between theoretical theism and atheism is not their view of facts, but their interpretation of it. If miracles were documentered the two groups would most likely be split regarding the validity of the doccuments, based purely on their differing world views. Thus we can call this "faith-thingy" the assumption that is regarded as ultimately true, and which other truths or facts are interpreted around. THis would be a much more fair way to talk about world views, as it does not label one group as religiously apprehended people that have no proof to back up their views.
God is not an "addition" to a world view, he is the basis of it. Thus, if God exists the entire world view of all Christians, Jews, Muslims and so forth would collapse. The other way around, if God does exist then all atheistic world views like the multiverse, the infinite universe, the primacy of energy etc would collapse.
Why is are only non-atheistic world views based on faith. Simply put, because atheists want it to be so.
"Those that controll language, controlls ideas, and those that controll ideas, controlll people"
Therefore I want to challenge the basic assuption that only "positive claims" require evidence in order not to be based on faith.
We should have a new word, or change the definition:
Faith-thingy = "The basic lens a man believes in and bends his world view around"
This thing could just as easilly have been called Faith.
Thus I believe any claim or answer to a question not answered (the ultimate reality), should be based on "faith-thingy", not only the positive ones.
Example:
Does a the mind objectively exist as a single thing?
"YES requires faith, no requires no faith" - is this statement honest or true to the nature of the question at hand? I think not!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
This will be a forum page were one can post hilarious examples of funny rhetoric, nonsensical madness and any other piece of text that could make our days more fun and enjoyable.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
I want to propose a new perspective to look at reality
Why truth must exist
- If the claim "truth does not exist" is correct, it is a truth that exists
- Thus "Truth does not exist" contradicts its own statement
- If the statement "I exist" is objectively a truth I could not claim that
Why logic must exist
- A logical argument against logic is contradictory
- An illogical argument against logic would be subjective
- This is a forum, logic must be present
Definitions:
- Information: reduction of uncertainty regarding reality
- Truth: Information that corresponds to reality
- Logic: A function which uses known information to create new information
Premises:
- Nothing can exist that can not be described by specific truth-claims
- No process can exist that is not logical in nature, being either a single logical statement or a structure of multiple logical statements
- Conclusion: Nothing can exist that cannot be described using truth and logic
1. Nothing can exist that can not be described by specific truth-claims
This is really a no-brainer. If something cannot be described it cannot exist. By "describe" I do not intend to limit the possibilities, claiming that "only what humans can understand" can exist. I mean that if even God, if he exists, can not describe something using precise truth-statements, they literally cannot exist since they are not true.
2. No process can exist that is not logical in nature, being either a single logical statement or a structure of multiple logical statements
This one is interesting. I first want to explain what that statement means. Logic takes at least two truths/bits/numbers and "creates" a new truth/bit/number. The nature of logic is that it is 100% reliable and predictable. So far, science has proven that anything we thought of as "not logical", are just emerging features of logical systems. Randomness is just a product of complex physical laws that are nearly impossible to predict. Some mathematical functions and irrational numbers are used in order to "calculate" randomness inside our computers. We also know that chemistry is purely logical, there is no randomness or free will involved. Our brains, however, have properties of both randomness and free will, emerging features of a super complex chemical system. True randomness has never been confirmed, neither has true free will as a spirit or supernatural soul. One could believe in illogical decision-making systems like these as part of one's own faith.
Let me use God as an example, defined by having the ultimate free will.
How does God make decisions, logically, random or using free will? Someone has yet to explain what free will is, if not for emerging features of randomness emerging from logic. God would be the ultimate reality, and must thus be made of ultimate truths. As shown above, only logic can satisfactory explain how truths create other truths.
3. Conclusion: Nothing can exist that cannot be described using truth and logic
Again, if an all-knowing God could not explain a two-sided triangle using truth and logic, such a concept could not exist. Obviously, there is no evidence that realities outside our own universe would follow the rules of logic we know, but I have yet to hear anyone claim that God or any other ultimate reality do not operate on a logical basis. Even the Bible acknowledges the fact that God is logical in nature. Now many people still believe in such concepts as randomness or free will, but they are emergent features of logical systems, just like the randomness of rolling dice is created by the 100% logical laws of physics. What is strange is that theists and atheists alike believe that either "free will" or "randomness" exists independently of logic, as if logic, free will and randomness were separated. My model would be able to explain any world view, as long as the world view can be explained using truth and logic. Contrary, if a world view cannot be described by my model, it would necessarily be either wrong, misinterpreted or incoherent.
I understand if you are having trouble understanding this. I have spent hours and day thinking about it.
How this theory can explain any world view:
The ultimate reality
Any world view must begin with the ultimate reality. This is because no argument can refute this point: some truths are ultimate. We can know with absolute certainty, that "something exists" is a truth that has been, is and will always be true. Believing otherwise would destroy the foundation of reason since no cause must be present in order for existence itself to start. Any truth that shares these properties: "1. always true 2. Not created by other truths" will be included in the term "Ultimate reality".
Visualisation - understanding the fabric, not of the universe but really
I want to explain how free will, randomness and computation are equally logical in nature.
a. The laws of physics are mathematical, in other words, logical
b. Computers, randomness and our free will all work because of the laws of physics
c. Conclusion: different structures of truth (like atoms) create systems with different properties
-
The easiest way to visualise how computation, free will and randomness emerge is to use the analogy of a computer. A computer is 100% mathematical, it cannot by definition go beyond the limits of its structure. When we think about reality in terms of truth and logic, the computer analogy makes perfect sense. Why? First of all, it cannot change itself, just like the ultimate reality cannot change itself. Second of all, this makes it fairly easy to understand how it is both one and many concepts. A computer is one object, but you can divide it into RAM and CPU, and those can be divided even further. This explains why the ultimate reality can be understood as a whole (like a God for instance) but also deconstructed into small truths like "something exists". With the same computer, you can calculate random numbers, simulate the laws of physics or even simulate free will. Thus both an atheistic and theistic world view can be explained using the same model.
-
If you cannot prove that free will or randomness are illogical in nature, it does not matter whether our universe was created by free will, computation or randomness, we will reach the same conclusion about logic. All of them are different structures of logical statements, even free will.
-
The question would no longer be "what is truth actually", but rather "what structure does the ultimate truth have?" making reasonable discussion easier.
Dependant realities
Some truths, like the fact that I exist, are based on other truths, namely the existence of our universe. Our universe exists because of the ultimate reality. For example, our universe exists because "something exists" is true. Dependant realities have their own truths and logical structures. The truth "humans exist" exists in our reality only, not in the ultimate reality.
Note:
I am intentionally making the mistake of ignoring The Primacy of Existence. According to that model, existence is more fundamental than our ability to describe or understand it. The reason my model proposes the idea of truth and logic being more fundamental than the things they describe is simple: it allows us to debate any claim about reality, be it the ultimate, ours, metaphysics, the multiverse and so on, under the same model. Under no other model can we use knowledge about our world to discuss other realities. It also helps us to dismiss illogical ideas even when it comes to religion. Even as a Christian one must have good nerves to believe that free will is a magical concept after reading this, but unlike other theories this model does not by default exclude ideas like God, morality, the multiverse, as long as they can be explained logically.
Final words:
I have a rational faith that only logic and truth exist, based on arguments presented in this opening statement.
I do not claim that my model represents actual truth, rather it helps us to understand reality from a new perspective.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy