h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ooh, wavefront moving through time, I haven't heard that one before but I like it.

Of course if we're being scientific then a time-changing electro-chemical-magnetic field or something along those lines.

*Everything* is a wavefont moving through time

And *I* get accused of being too abstract!

Noggin

Noggin,

No, not shallow! Maybe a bit wordy at times. But okay, perhaps it was just the *just*. And I did misunderstand (?) 'narrative' as meaning only verbal.

az

Everything is a wavefront moving through time? How so? Are we into the realms of "how does that damn particle manage to go through both slits at once?" again? Perhaps with a side-order of cruelty to cats?

If you're going to reduce consciousness to physics you have to describe it in terms that are appropriate to physics. The reduction is theoretically justifiable, but not useful, except to dismiss the concept of mind as supernatural.

Noggin

Noggin.

<*Everything* is a wavefont moving through time.>

I have a lot of sympathy with what I think you intend by that. It is neatly, but loosely put, however.

Perhaps it would be better (but not so neat) to say that all phenomena in the specious present constitute a wavefront moving through time?

Clearly "everything" is questionable because 'time' immediately fails the test of being in the set. Even then, 'time' remains a metaphor suggesting some kind of fluid through which we travel. I suspect that this would quickly become misleading. I also wonder what we want to say about matter and gravity in the context of this model. I suspect that some of it might be helpful, but maybe we'll find ourselves wanting to say 'spacetime' instead of time.

toxx

You're right, of course, but as I think you probably realised I was mainly pointing out that the characterisation failed to "pick out" consciousness from other physical phenomena in a useful way.

Noggin

<>

Yeah, but that's a lot harder to visualize.



<<*Everything* is a wavefont moving through time >>

Point taken.



<>

It would be usefull if we knew a bit more about it. Hopefully we will someday.




<>

Spacetime would have been a better word. Or maybe just Deos' computer simulation.

Pops in, puts a mark down, at everyone...dashs back out again....

I still like the idea. It might not necessarily mean anything, but its an interesting way to look at it. Gives an impression of fluidity.

Odds on that God exists, says scientist

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Education/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00.html

"A scientist has calculated that there is a 67% chance that God exists."



az

GIGO

Noggin

Bouncy - the problem isn't that it isn't true, but that it doesn't tell us anything useful about consciousness that we don't know anyway.

Noggin

"Another major interest of mine has been the source of errors in such problems. A common cause is for people to satisfice: to assume that their quick route to the answer is 'good enough'. This isn't something we can know in advance without doing the hard work first!"

Surely another major error factor is assumptions based on shared behaviours or value systems? In other words, such and a such an effect 'must have' been the result of a given cause, or a given cause 'must have' had a particular result, without checking to see whether that was so.

As a researcher working in policy, I was continually astounded by the way in which effects emanated from invalid causes - in other words, within the rules of policy, it was 'impossible' to create 'that' effect from 'this' cause - but it occurred. It was a salutary lesson in not basing models on what 'should' happen and 'what everyone does', but in checking. In other words: although 2 + 2 should = 4, does it in this case? Very often, the answer was no, not only for no discernable reason, but contrary to reason.

'The Probability of God: A simple calculation that proves the ultimate truth'

Obviously entirely scientific and lacking in ulterior motivation.

"I think it has more to do with experiances with classmates at school than with my parents."

Interesting - these are generally too late in the formation of the personality to have such a significant effect, unless that of reinforcement of an existing prediliction.

Were your parents the most significant relationships in your early life, or were there others which were highly significant to you?

"Not really, no. My parents were never in the habit of prommising things they thought I'd look forward to. Trips are predictable; we alwyas go on exactly the same vacations every year at exactly the same time of year. As for gifts, my parents never promise gifts. Though my mom does have a habit of sometimes suddenly getting very angry at everyone/everything without clear reason. I suppose you think that that would make me distrust people because my parents are unpredictable"

It doesn't take both parents - I've known it occur with one. Do you prefer the predictable and wish to retain a feeling of safety by creating hard and fast rules about your life?

I like words - but there is such a confusing array of meanings and punctuation that they can be easily misread. I agree sometimes no words say it all...and gestures mean more.

L.B - I like the waveform thing, I said something similar once (altho not about time) that I imagined space as being aliken to the sea...Geo is my scientific better half and sets me right on quite a few physics things, but still I like that imagining..it helps me get a grip of infinite somehow, can't explain it.

Time to me, is a measurement by us for us to examine chronological order of things. Nothing else seems to worry about time lapsed/elapsing in the grand scheme of things.

az

>>Odds on that God exists, says scientist

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Education/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00.html

"A scientist has calculated that there is a 67% chance that God exists."<<
---
But being the Guardian, that could be 76%...

Jez -