Is it possible that consciousness can effect...

Page 5 of 8 [ 115 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

cw10
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

21 Dec 2011, 11:52 pm

Just admit that I'm right.

I will admit I had to learn about atomic clocks, still boils down to shake shake, measure measure. Energy by any other name.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:

21 Dec 2011, 11:52 pm

cw10 wrote:

It's a glorified Seiko. It's still measuring a wave, which doesn't exist without energy. Maybe you need to learn something about the basics.

I never said it did not work without energy. I said that radioactive decay was not involved. Pay attention, kid. Pay attention.

cw10
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

21 Dec 2011, 11:55 pm

Fnord wrote:

cw10 wrote:

It's a glorified Seiko. It's still measuring a wave, which doesn't exist without energy. Maybe you need to learn something about the basics.

I never said it did not work without energy. I said that radioactive decay was not involved. Pay attention, kid. Pay attention.

Okay I had to relearn something I thought I understood, simple enough.

And also: Time=Energy

Or maybe it would be more accurate to say Time=Force.

cw10
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

21 Dec 2011, 11:59 pm

Fnord wrote:

Look, kid, we've been through this before. You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to science, and you pretend to be the only expert on anything scientific - both of these facts are obvious to the rest of us.

That's not entirely true. I know next to nothing about Zoology. Never claim to either.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

22 Dec 2011, 12:53 am

@Fnord

cw10 is inquisitive and crafts interesting posts. So he mistook a radiometric dating system for an atomic clock, big deal.

dmm1010 wrote:

Atomic clocks don't measure radioactive decay; they'd make terrible clocks if they did so, because radioactive decay is random.

It is not an absolute randomness, it can be influenced by external factors (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... uzzle.html). We do use radioactive decay rates to establish age, especially on the geological time scale.

@cw10

If you want to discuss free will with tech then I agree with him that you need to base the argument on something other than a personal preference. You need a more sophisticated argument, I some reading into free will and epistemology with an emphasis on establishing warrant and justification.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

22 Dec 2011, 2:06 am

91 wrote:

[...] It is not an absolute randomness, it can be influenced by external factors (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... uzzle.html). We do use radioactive decay rates to establish age, especially on the geological time scale. [...]

Thank you for the link, but unfortunately I can't view it because I'm not a subscriber.

The decay rates (half-lives) of various radioisotopes (e.g., carbon-14) are used for radiometric dating on scales upwards of hundreds of years. This depends on the probabilistic nature of radioactive decay, i.e., a radionuclide has a 50 percent chance of decaying during its half-life. I don't know what this has to do with timekeeping, which is generally done on scales of one second or less.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:

22 Dec 2011, 10:23 am

Time is not energy, although it may take energy to measure time.

Distance is not wood, although it may take a wooden ruler to measure distance.

Mass is not weight, although mass may be measured by weighing.

Volume is not glass, although it may take a glass measuring cup to measure volume.

Time is not energy, although it may take energy to measure time.

Class dismissed.

Sunshine7
Sea Gull

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 218

22 Dec 2011, 12:25 pm

Quote:

And also: Time=Energy. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say Time=Force.

Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

22 Dec 2011, 1:37 pm

Fnord wrote:

Time could be said to be the movement of energy or the transformation of energy.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,682
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

22 Dec 2011, 2:29 pm

Robdemanc wrote:

Fnord wrote:

Time could be said to be the movement of energy or the transformation of energy.

The rate of at least.

_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.

cw10
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

22 Dec 2011, 9:08 pm

Fnord wrote:

You do know, the best minds in the world cannot define what time is. But you, Fnord, can define what time isn't.

YOU DON'T MEASURE TIME, YOU ALWAYS MEASURE ENERGY.
In one form or another it's ALWAYS-A-MEASURE-OF-ENERGY.

Give me -ONE- instance just one Fnord, where time isn't a measure of some form of energy. Just one. Please.

TIME IS - MOTION, FLUX, MOMENTUM, DECAY, ENTROPY, RESONANCE. Without energy there is no time.

Spacetime consists of matter, and energy. Not matter and energy and time.

Haysus freaking Krishna.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:

22 Dec 2011, 9:18 pm

cw10 wrote:

Give me -ONE- instance just one Fnord, where time isn't a measure of some form of energy. Just one. Please.

Here are two:

1. Measuring the position of an unaccelerated material object in a frictionless, zero-gravity environment. The object neither gains nor loses energy, but only changes its position.

2. Measuring the rotation of an unaccelerated material object in a frictionless, zero-gravity environment. The object neither gains nor loses energy, but only changes its orientation.

Motion and position of an unaccelerated material object in a frictionless, zero-gravity environment are not dependent on energy. Only when a change in velocity (e.g., speed or direction) occurs does a change in energy take place.

This is classical mechanics, by the way, as described by Newton's First Law of Motion, and is not relevant in a quantum-level reference frame.

cw10
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

22 Dec 2011, 10:03 pm

Fnord wrote:

cw10 wrote:

Give me -ONE- instance just one Fnord, where time isn't a measure of some form of energy. Just one. Please.

Define frictionless zero-gravity environment. It's a postulate that doesn't exist within the framework of reality.

Material Objects always lose energy due to entropy and radiation.

The questions themselves are flawed.

Non inertial frames of reference in a universe outside of spacetime. or something. Fictitious forms of motion. You're measuring not the motion of the objects themselves but using them as a frame of reference to external forces, The box moves around the cat so to speak. So measure the momentum of the box.

I see what you did there.

cw10
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

22 Dec 2011, 10:05 pm

Newton was an a**hole by the way.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,682
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

22 Dec 2011, 11:14 pm

cw10 wrote:

Give me -ONE- instance just one Fnord, where time isn't a measure of some form of energy. Just one. Please.

TIME IS - MOTION, FLUX, MOMENTUM, DECAY, ENTROPY, RESONANCE. Without energy there is no time.

I hate to jump into a tiff but, here's the problem with that logic: without matter you have nothing to relate oscillation or movement back to - therefore using that same train of thought you could also argue that time is matter.

_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.

cw10
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

22 Dec 2011, 11:53 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

cw10 wrote:

According to Einstein they're interchangeable so yes. e=mc^2 yes? Not the first time the universe doesn't make sense.

But that's the whole point. Momentum is a property of matter also, and it's also energy.

Page 5 of 8 [ 115 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Jump to:

Is it possible that consciousness can effect... Post Reply New Topic

Is it possible that consciousness can effect...