GENIUS FORUMS

I think brokenhead is talking about the maximum rate at which effects can propagate from a specific cause. If the speed of light is taken as an upper speed limit, then a specific cause at point A can only effect point B after a certain minimum delay - the time it takes at the speed of light to traverse between those two points. Not that I necessarily agree with that.

brokenhead wrote:It demonstrates that we can have meaningful discussions about things that cannot in principle be proven to exist, such as anything in the region called "elsewhere."

In principle, using your logic, you can't even prove that your monitor exists, even though you see the light from it. It is also in the "elsewhere" just like stars.

brokenhead wrote:I am afraid many very educated people do believe that.

If you asked them, they would explain that that's not what they mean.

It wouldn't be in print otherwise.

In physics an mathematics many things only have meaning within the context for which they were designed, and should only be understood within that context. They should not be applied more broadly.

It demonstrates that we can have meaningful discussions about things that cannot in principle be proven to exist, such as anything in the region called "elsewhere."

As Jason reminded you, and as I pointed out previously, even your computer is in the "elsewhere", since you can only infer its possible existence through things like light.

That this is possible demonstrates an ability which has evolved far beyond that which is necessary in order to survive

The ability to make inferences can certainly help us to survive.

Jason wrote:I think brokenhead is talking about the maximum rate at which effects can propagate from a specific cause.

That's probably what the theorists had in mind.

Kevin Solway wrote:As Jason reminded you, and as I pointed out previously, even your computer is in the "elsewhere", since you can only infer its possible existence through things like light.

Oops, I didn't see your post Kevin.

Jason wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:As Jason reminded you, and as I pointed out previously, even your computer is in the "elsewhere", since you can only infer its possible existence through things like light.

Oops, I didn't see your post Kevin.

The computer is not in the "elsewhere." Neither of you understand the concept. The computer is within the light-cone. Everything you have ever touched or seen is in the light cone. The light cone is not a 3-D object, but a 4-D object in space-time.

Seriously, guys. Understand the idea before telling me it proves me to be wrong.

Kevin wrote:

Jason wrote:

I think brokenhead is talking about the maximum rate at which effects can propagate from a specific cause.

That's probably what the theorists had in mind.

Of course it is. And that is precisely what I have in mind.

The ability to make inferences can certainly help us to survive.

Of course it can! But the ability to make inferences about things which can never physically affect us or be affected by us, even in principle, is an ability which exceeds the minimum requirements for the survival of any conceivable single organism of evolutionary species. Yet that trait exists in our genes and is passed on from one generation to the next. I am asking why?

brokenhead wrote:The computer is not in the "elsewhere." Neither of you understand the concept. The computer is within the light-cone. Everything you have ever touched or seen is in the light cone. The light cone is not a 3-D object, but a 4-D object in space-time.

Seriously, guys. Understand the idea before telling me it proves me to be wrong.

You previously used the example of stars though, and you've seen them:

brokenhead wrote:You cannot prove the "elsewhere" exists. You cannot even demonstrate it. In other words, when I look out at the stars, I am not seeing them as they "are." As they "are" resides in the elsewhere, by definition, since it takes a finite amout of time for the light from them to reach the earth.

Yet I make a logical "leap" to concede that the stars in some sense exist right now. That is, my leap assumes that "elsewhere" exists.

Jason wrote:

brokenhead wrote:The computer is not in the "elsewhere." Neither of you understand the concept. The computer is within the light-cone. Everything you have ever touched or seen is in the light cone. The light cone is not a 3-D object, but a 4-D object in space-time.

Seriously, guys. Understand the idea before telling me it proves me to be wrong.

You previously used the example of stars though, and you've seen them:

brokenhead wrote:You cannot prove the "elsewhere" exists. You cannot even demonstrate it. In other words, when I look out at the stars, I am not seeing them as they "are." As they "are" resides in the elsewhere, by definition, since it takes a finite amout of time for the light from them to reach the earth.

Yet I make a logical "leap" to concede that the stars in some sense exist right now. That is, my leap assumes that "elsewhere" exists.

Jason, what is your point? I am saying the stars that I "see" are not stars at all, but the light from them emitted at some point in the past, for distant stars, long past. What I am seeing is within the light cone. The stars as they are right now are not. Even the sun doesn't enter my light cone until about eight minutes from now. In other words, if the sun would suddenly go out, you would not be able to know it for eight minutes.

brokenhead wrote:The stars as they are right now are not.

Likewise with your computer, right now. All these things are in your "elsewhere". And all these things, whatever form they are currently in, continue to have effects on what is not "elsewhere" - just as your computer, right now, is having effects that will impact on you.

brokenhead wrote:Jason, what is your point? I am saying the stars that I "see" are not stars at all, but the light from them emitted at some point in the past, for distant stars, long past. What I am seeing is within the light cone. The stars as they are right now are not. Even the sun doesn't enter my light cone until about eight minutes from now. In other words, if the sun would suddenly go out, you would not be able to know it for eight minutes.

By your logic you're not seeing the computer either, only it's light. Both the computer and stars have a delay between when the light is reflected/emitted from them and when it reaches you. So why aren't they both in this "elsewhere"? Is the sun in the elsewhere? At what distance does this elsewhere come into force?

Kevin Solway wrote:

brokenhead wrote:The stars as they are right now are not.

Likewise with your computer, right now. All these things are in your "elsewhere". And all these things, whatever form they are currently in, continue to have effects on what is not "elsewhere" - just as your computer, right now, is having effects that will impact on you.

I see your point, Kevin. I don't understand why you are making it, but I see it. At any given moment, the computer is in my "elsewhere." Yet my life exists for longer than a moment. In fact, it is not infintessimally short, as it would have to be in order for my computer to be in my elsewhere. If you are denying that the past happened or that the future will happen, how can I argue with that? My argument can only run this way: Life is on earth finite. Not zero in length, and not infinite. I will generously accept all the recorded information from the past as lying within my light cone. In other words, everybody else's experiences, if transmitted to me somehow, can cause an effect upon me. They are all within the lightcone of an organism with a finite lifetime. Is that acceptable to you?

Jason wrote:

brokenhead wrote:Jason, what is your point? I am saying the stars that I "see" are not stars at all, but the light from them emitted at some point in the past, for distant stars, long past. What I am seeing is within the light cone. The stars as they are right now are not. Even the sun doesn't enter my light cone until about eight minutes from now. In other words, if the sun would suddenly go out, you would not be able to know it for eight minutes.

By your logic you're not seeing the computer either, only it's light. Both the computer and stars have a delay between when the light is reflected/emitted from them and when it reaches you. So why aren't they both in this "elsewhere"? Is the sun in the elsewhere? At what distance does this elsewhere come into force?

Yet I can touch the computer if I want to in order to verify its existence. I am speaking of cause and effect. You cannot live long enough to verify the existence of something more than about a hundred light years away, even in principle, as I keep saying, only that it existed at some point in the past. Mind you, I am not denying this existence of the stars at this moment.

Yet my life exists for longer than a moment. In fact, it is not infintessimally short, as it would have to be in order for my computer to be in my elsewhere.

Maybe I can put it this way. If the "height" of our light cone (in 4 dimensions) is zero, we are restricting consideration to just the present moment. The light cone would then have zero volume, so nothing could be in side of it. If we restricted space to 2 dimensions, then the light cone would in fact be a normal 3-D cone, and time would progress along the axis from the tip of the cone to the center of the circular base.

brokenhead wrote:

Jason wrote: By your logic you're not seeing the computer either, only it's light. Both the computer and stars have a delay between when the light is reflected/emitted from them and when it reaches you. So why aren't they both in this "elsewhere"? Is the sun in the elsewhere? At what distance does this elsewhere come into force?

Yet I can touch the computer if I want to in order to verify its existence.

The delay caused by the signal travelling from your hand to your brain can be no less than the delay incurred by the travel of emitted/reflected light from the computer to your eyes. Interesting how we often feel that the sense of touch makes things especially concrete and real.

I am speaking of cause and effect. You cannot live long enough to verify the existence of something more than about a hundred light years away, even in principle, as I keep saying, only that it existed at some point in the past. Mind you, I am not denying this existence of the stars at this moment.

The more general issue I see this leading to is: what constitutes sufficient evidence or proof that a thing exists.

brokenhead wrote:I see your point, Kevin. I don't understand why you are making it

The point is that things in what you call the "elsewhere" have an impact on your world - even though you may have transformed into a corpse or somesuch by the the time the cause has an effect on your world.

You cannot live long enough to verify the existence of something more than about a hundred light years away, even in principle

Neither can you verify the existence of your computer right now - not even in principle. That's why it is just as much in your "elsewhere" as the stars, and is just as capable of impacting on your world.

brokenhead wrote:

However, the difference is, in the God-game one plays with ones self, essentially, and it may take eons to conclude, or a split second; it all depends on an individual self.

Very well put, indeed. If the relationship is only between God and self, then I choose the eons, not the split second. The longer game. "Eons" clearly lasting beyond a single lifetime. You may have done it inadvertantly, but you have made my point very nicely.

By ‘eons’ I did mean beyond a single human lifetime, because one ponders over bits of knowledge gathered over generations, but when any one realizes, it takes but a split second to sink in.

However, I did not say it is a game between God AND self, but essentially with ones own self, as in Self-reflective–Self. Say between a Self and its reflectiveness. And I did not mean that as in a choice between eons and split second. What that also alludes to is that it could take years for one to realize, or may be even never, but on the other hand, one could realize at a very young age; both do require time, but the moment it happens, it is like the last few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle fitting right in, and a single big picture emerges. It is that split moment from which all future perspectives change, that’s all.

BTW, I’m far less educated than any of you, but in my opinion, the ‘light cone’ would essentially be the mind itself, for whatever is sensed, would necessarily require at least some amount of finite time before something is sensed. Wouldn’t it?

Alternatively, there might be no cone at all, (simply infinite causal conditions), by the mere fact that I am capable of imagining, and that that is necessarily caused, and does create effects; for a broad example - beliefs.

I find the latter more plausible and rather consistent with our experiences.

By ‘eons’ I did mean beyond a single human lifetime, because one ponders over bits of knowledge gathered over generations, but when any one realizes, it takes but a split second to sink in.

However, I did not say it is a game between God AND self, but essentially with ones own self, as in Self-reflective–Self. Say between a Self and its reflectiveness. And I did not mean that as in a choice between eons and split second. What that also alludes to is that it could take years for one to realize, or may be even never, but on the other hand, one could realize at a very young age; both do require time, but the moment it happens, it is like the last few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle fitting right in, and a single big picture emerges. It is that split moment from which all future perspectives change, that’s all.

Nice bit of back-tracking there, Sapius.

Alternatively, there might be no cone at all, (simply infinite causal conditions), by the mere fact that I am capable of imagining, and that that is necessarily caused, and does create effects; for a broad example - beliefs.

I find the latter more plausible and rather consistent with our experiences.

Now you're getting somewhere. But for the sake of argument, I'd prefer to stick with the definition of lightcone given succinctly by the wikkipedia link I gave above. I am trying to get Kevin to acknowledge there might be meaning to life aside from self-interest and mechanical, biologically-driven urges to reproduce. That is, that life might be Life. That we can discuss it at all seems to me to suggest something. If you follow Kevin's arguments logically, and closely, you must come up with the conclusion that since we cannot verify the existence of anything in the elsewhere, then for all intents and purposes, it does not exist.
Kevin - don't start in again about not being interested in models. Any time you assert your "truths," you are presenting no more nor less than a model.

brokenhead wrote:I am trying to get Kevin to acknowledge there might be meaning to life aside from self-interest and mechanical, biologically-driven urges to reproduce.

I've never said that the meaning of life is "self interest", but that living things tend to have a natural drive to reproduce - because if they didn't, they wouldn't be here.

All things are caused. It doesn't matter what they're caused by - whether it be by "biology" or "psychology", or whatever. Even if there are creator aliens who had some input into our evolution, they too must have all of their thoughts and actions caused.

since we cannot verify the existence of anything in the elsewhere, then for all intents and purposes, it does not exist.

I don't agree with that at all. There are countless things that we cannot experience directly, such as the computer in front of us, yet we can infer their existence.

brokenhead wrote:I am trying to get Kevin to acknowledge there might be meaning to life aside from self-interest and mechanical, biologically-driven urges to reproduce.

Then why don’t you simply ask him? For one, aside from that, there is wisdom, truth, enlightenment, for example; does that not give more meaning to life? And how about enjoying a chilleeeeeed beer on a hot summer day?

Kevin wrote:

There are countless things that we cannot experience directly, such as the computer in front of us, yet we can infer their existence.

If we cannot "experience" the computer in front of us, what material object can we experience?

Neither can you verify the existence of your computer right now - not even in principle. That's why it is just as much in your "elsewhere" as the stars, and is just as capable of impacting on your world.

Kevin, again you are skirting the point I am trying to make. You can experience the computer in front of you by touching it. The same way primitive man could experience a wild beast in front of him - by it "touching" him repeatedly with its teeth and killing him. You are glossing over the distinction I am trying to make here.
The wild beast and the computer are NOT in the elsewhere as modern physics and I are using the term. Something NOT in the elsewhere can affect you. Something IN the elsewhere CANNOT. It's that simple.

Honestly, can you and Sapius not see this point?

More generally speaking, something in the elsewhere cannot in principle exchange information with you. Thus it cannot affect your life or death. Therefore, it cannot affect the genepool of life on earth, if you concede that life on earth began after the formation of the earth. Therefore, anything in the elsewhere cannot have had a direct influence on evolution.

Kevin, you are saying the computer in front of me is something I cannot directly experience. Then how can the environment affect any species' collective genotypes by selectively paring away individuals with a particular genotype and affecting future genepools? You persist in not making sense in order to defend your worldview.

Try not contradicting yourself on this point. The point is simple: there exists a conceptual boundary in space and time called the "lightcone." Causes outside the lightcone cannot produce effects inside the lightcone. Yet both regions exist. Or do they? That is what I am tryimg to get you to respond to. Don't repond by telling me my computer is outside the lightcone - in the "elsewhere." It isn't. It simply is not in the elsewhere for an organism with a finite lifetime or "worldline," which is an individual's path through spacetime. (Inamimate objects also have worldlines - in fact, often much loner ones.)

Sapius writes:

Then why don’t you simply ask him?

I have been asking!!!!

To further underscore my point, pretend there is a gun on your desk instead of a computer. That gun obviously exists within the lightcone of the collective worldlines of the set of all human beings living and dead. The reason? Some one designed it, some one built it, some one can use it.

You can pick up that gun and cause an effect on local evolution by gunning down the first six pregnant women you encounter.

Later on, when you are rotting away in prison, other people can discuss the pros and cons of gun control in the wake of your heinous criminal acts.

Full stop, as Kevin would say.

Right after the TV program with the pundits arguing over gun control, there is a PBS airing of Nova. The topic is Special Relativity. During the program, two physicists speak of the light cone and the world line of an individual. The interviewer asks them questions and they discuss the concept at length. They mention and define a concept called the "elsewhere."

In the first program, the topic was guns. Guns can and do have an effect on individuals and on society at large.

In the second program, events in the conceptual "elsewhere" were discussed. Such events can by definition never can have an effect on anything inside the set of lightcones lying along an individual's world line. If you take the collection of world lines of everything living and nonliving on earth, it is possible to envision an "elsewhere" to the set of lightcones of all these world lines. In fact, that is why the concept of an "elsewhere" is of interest in the first place!

I understand whay humans evolved the ability to speak in terms general and abstract enough to discuss guns. Guns can and do impact individuals and society, and therefore, evolution.

Yet humans also evolved the ability to discuss - from the beginning of the twentieth century on - concepts about events (in the "elsewhere") which not only do not affect evolution, but cannot affect evolution.

And I am asking you why.

Something NOT in the elsewhere can affect you. Something IN the elsewhere CANNOT.

You simply need to demonstrate that there are things that can have no effect on us.

You said previously:

when I look out at the stars, I am not seeing them as they "are." As they "are" resides in the elsewhere, by definition, since it takes a finite amout of time for the light from them to reach the earth.

By this argument, literally all things are in the elsewhere. Even when you touch things it takes a finite amount of time for the signal to reach your brain.

That we cannot personally communicate or interact with things thousands of light years away is not an argument that they have no effect on us.

Stars that are thousands of light years away obviously do have an effect on our world because their light reaches us.

You need to demonstrate that there are things whose light, or gravity, can never possibly have any effect on our world, either now or in the distant future.

Note that if "God" beings exists in your "elsewhere", they could not possibly have any effect on us, ever, and they could never even know of our existence.

Yet both regions exist. Or do they?

This is what you need to demonstrate.

humans also evolved the ability to discuss - from the beginning of the twentieth century on - concepts about events (in the "elsewhere") which not only do not affect evolution, but cannot affect evolution.

And I am asking you why.

Because humans are extremely stupid.

[Note from admin: I accidentally messed this post up, but have fixed it up as well as I can. - KS]

Kevin Solway wrote:You simply need to demonstrate that there are things that can have no effect on us.

I think I have.

That we cannot personally communicate or interact with things thousands of light years away is not an argument that they have no effect on us.

Of course it is.

Stars that are thousands of light years away obviously do have an effect on our world because their light reaches us.

Those stars were not in our elsewhere thousands of years ago.

Note that if "God" beings exists in your "elsewhere", they could not possibly have any effect on us, ever, and they could never even know of our existence.

I am not saying anything about God beings in the slightest.

But since you bring it up, maybe a God being, having created space and time, is not bound by either - that is, transcends both.

Because humans are extremely stupid.

I am trying to demonstrate that what humans have evolved into - the way we are - exceeds any need for simple survival.

Why would life ever have moved onto land?

Why would non-sea life have evolved beyond insects?

Their numbers are staggering and their adaptive abilities unparalleled.

Kevin, you yourself have said

There could be a conscious alien creator being (God), out there somewhere, and he could be either good or evil. It's just that there's no reason to think that there is any such being.

This is very telling. You will admit the possibility, which I guess is all one can ask of a skeptic. Yet you tack on this "good or evil" caveat. If he's evil, then evil compared to what?

Does any human being have a soul?

Do you think that a spirit world may exist, that mind may exist where there is no material body?

Have you ever had an out-of-body experience?