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

Hello there! Lovely site, and I look forward to many stimulating conversations to come! From the looks of that forum thread you pointed out to me we have similar views on many things. While I would love to leap into the discussion, I think it would be better for now if I indicated a thread to you where I am involved in similar debate... joolsee's article on Free Will (link from my page), thread on free will in a superdeterministic universe.

I'm currently hacking away at a book on some of these topics and I will post the rough draft of a section of it on your page shortly so that we can discuss it (if you like )

I look forward to many long-winded discussions. Salute.

Ok, here's some stuff from my notebook;

Relativity; some thoughts on its implications

Matter is energy, and vice versa. Energy exists as a continuous field.
Space and time are one entity. Matter defines and shapes space-time. Large (or dense) chunks of matter 'curve' space-time measurably.
(Large chunks of matter contain more information) (Information is a derangement of singularity.) Space-time is a measurement of relative relationships between knowable points in the physical universe. An object 'moving' through space-time is simply changing its position relative to the rest of the physical universe. The rate of it's movement defines it's mass/energy ratio. Our experience of time 'moving forward' is actually due to the relative 'movement' of our planet, system, and galaxy relative to the rest of the universe.
An object 30 million light years from an observer is 30 million years
in that observer's past. Likewise, the observer is 30 million years
in that object's past as well. If there was any way to get 'outside' of the universe, it would appear as a collapsed singularity, becuase all the measureable relationships of its internal systems are determined by a 'bootstrap' comparison of each part against all the others. If the universe self-consistently 'expands' at the speed of light, no conventional mode of travel would ever get one 'outside' of the universe. Black holes are collapsed singularities. No information escapes from a black hole.

(Perhaps gravity, or curving space-time then, is a defined field of self-consistency of a relatively weak magnitude... dimensions are then strong gravitational fields).

You are a self-aware observer. Some portion of the universe, at least, can be said to be alive.. ie you. This text was written by some facet of inert matter which has been organized into a being capable of self reflection. Although life as we know it evolved into its current state within the relative framework of a period of time, it is meaningful to say that life is imminently part of the universe's structure of self-consistent relationships. The universe, therefore, has self-awareness enfolded into its structure. In fact, EVERYTHING that can be said to be 'contained' in the universe is enfolded into its structure. Subjective experience is a function of neural processes occuring 'within' the physical universe, specifically any act of observation of the universe. Observation and subjective/relative interpretations of the universe by neural processes are what define and differentiate it. Space-time is a product of human neural awareness. The universe's self awareness allows it to determine its self consistency.

The key here is that you cannot seperate the act of observation with the thing being observed, and cannot formulate any meaningful statement of reality that contends no observation of the system. This becomes most apparent on a micro-scale, when you need to bounce a photon off another photon to determine said photon's position and spin, but the cognitive paradox is at the heart of reality on any scale (indeed, scale, again, is relative). Hence, I AM THAT I AM.

An interesting twist on the entire concept is that every point in the continuum might be touching any or every other at all or any time, even though the fractional space between every point is infinite. It's amazing that my coffee mug seems to reach my mouth every morning. But I suppose it is always there when it is, whether it is or not.
But then it's all relative, isn't it?

Yep, you seem to grok it. The term 'infinite' is an interesting study in and of itself. I have some reading somewhere on work Cantor did on it, which became the basis for Chaos theory. Good stuff.

Thanks for making contact. I found you first by a serendipitous link from who was on-line, which was quickly followed by a recommendation from Minus-One. Serendipity indeed.

There are so many ideas here, and in Joolsee's forum, that perhaps there is a need to bring some order to these discussions - or perhaps not. It is wonderful to know that there are so many people out there with an interest, and with challenging ideas.

I think we are going to agree on a number of things, and probably agreee to disagree on a number of others. Should be fun.

I particularly liked the phrase, "The universe's self awareness allows it to determine its self consistency". Can I ask you to elaborate and explain what you mean more precisely?

And, yes, do post your writing so we can discuss.

By what name do you go under for short, Twophlag, Gargleblap, or perhaps just blap.

I have a lot of sympathy with this view. The non-local features of quantum theory seem to suggest that the physical space we perceive ourselves as inhabiting is a construct from something far more subtle. Have you thought more about this?

I have no problem with this view. I actually don't see much of a conflict between relativity theory and quantum indeterminacy; really they are faces of the same coin. Which brings is to (ta-daa) chaos theory which is the study of systems in the transition phase between dynamic action (quantum theory?) and non-dynamic action (relativity?).

I think David Bohm's views of implcate/explicate orders of reality seem to address this best. I think the basic 'stuff' if the universe is probably best understood as 'information' as he seems to be suggesting. Information, of course, needs to be read out somewhere to actually be such .

Discussions such as these often throw around concepts without defining them properly, and I think discussions of definitions and comparisons of context are really good foundations for establishing theories... matter is energy, but what is energy? "potential to do work"? what work? space is "expanding" but "expanding" into or relative to what? Quanta are symbols but symbols of what? (Jung contends that reality is composed of symbols btw).

I agree that a definition of concepts is a very useful place to start, except that it's probably the very hardest thing to do. The big problem with metaphysics is that it can so easily drift into circular arguments surrounding semantics. Academic philosophy has degenerated into nothing but semantics, and for me has become killed of interest in the process. The great thing about these forums is that you can explore all sorts of possibly wacky ideas without fear of making a public fool of yourself.

I am coming to the fray rather late tonight, so, as you brought the idea up, would you like to start with a definition of one of your key concepts?

Hi there, sorry it took so long for me to get back to you.. life is busy.

I'm not sure which term you would like defined . The thing about definitions is that they are linguistic models of an observed reality, and no model can ever perfectly describe the real thing without actually being the real thing. Bitch eh? I still think it's a good exercise to define things as much as possible (or tolerable) because so often people use loaded terminology that betrays their own biases without realizing that in so doing they undermine their own arguments. Still, as you pointed out, often academics bog down real discussions with meaningless semantics, and there is something to be said for 'groking' and trying to understand the overall construct of another person's 'view' rather than obtusely stumbling over every conceivable adjective uttered by that person in the course of expressing it.

Gargleblaster has put together a network of folks who are primarily interested in debunking religious dogma and so forth. I had in mind to perhaps gather some like minded individuals for a similar forum, one focusing on the search for ah cosmic understanding, using reason, intuition, and dedication to open-minded exploration as a basis for doing so. Would this be of interest to you? Yourself, mordek, minus-one, joolsee, and some others would be invited along as panel members of course I'd even welcome you being the one to organize it if such was your wont.

Anyways let me know

Cheers

Asking you to define a term first was just a bit of buck passing - because I didn't know where to start. I've also been rather short of time. I seem to have way too many projects on the go at the moment.

Having thought about this a little, perhaps its best to restrict the scope of a conversation to one topic, and request definitions where it is appropriate. I'm working on an article which I intend to post this weekend, which I would be very keen to get some feedback on. Meanwhile perhaps we should converse in free will and superdeterminism.

I too have been giving thought to providing a place for people to drop in for a bit of cosmic exploration. Seems highly appropriate for the guide. How should we go about this?

Serendipity,
Perhaos just go about it by recognising concept over dogma! But then our present world creates itself by using dogma to make money from those who don't understand the difference, dosn't it.
I don't know if you have ever watched the Star Trek proginatal series, but their postulated Ferengi race seem to have a great deal in common with old generation humanity.
Love is the law,
Mordek93

Yes