Relatively thought-provoking questions?

[Chaotic Yoshi]

Yeah, this is a tricky question It reminds me of another dilemma, teleportation.

Say there's a teleportation device which operates with two machines in different locations. One machine, at the starting point, takes a perfect image of the person's body, down to the atomic level, all the electrical charges and whatever. It sends that data to the second machine which then reconstructs the person copying the data exactly. Then the body in the first machine is destroyed, because the Bible says human cloning is wrong and everyone still kind of a luddite even in the age of teleporters. Plus that's the only way they can make the telporter work for now!

Would you still use this device? I'm not sure I would. What basically happens is, you die when you use the machine, and another person (who is exactly like you, but is not 'you' in terms of continuity of existence) lives on instead and benefits from all your hard work earning money for a teleportation to Mars. But I think I'd probably use it eventually after lots of stalling. I'm pretty sure even brain cells only last so long, so I'm not the "original" me in the same way the ferry might not be the 'original.'

That was in a movie from which the name escapes me. It was a movie with 2 magicians competiting with each other. One magician used tricks for his teleporting act, and the other used as you said, an actual teleporter which duplicated its contents and drowned its original copy.
_______________

There is a group of chimpanzees and one oragutang (screw spelling for now) that were brought up listening to humans speak. They themselves cannot speak as they vocal chords do not allow them to do so. The scientists they grew up with can ask them questions and they respond accordingly and correctly. Such things as "pass the cup, point to red" and some yes/no questions, basic things.

So this relates back to the topic, we think in words, but what about the chimps?

_______________

Mr.GaW, Time is not a materialistic thing, technically it doesn't even "exist". It's just a concept used by humans for communication/convience purposes. I also think time travel is just silly.

 

[-=Marth_n_Roy=-]

Chimps are following the Line of Darwin now, using random crap has tools as we once did oh so long ago. (which is true regardless of creation/evolution)

They may evolve into humans some say, but due to the chances in the whole ecosphere i think chimps of today will wind up something quite different from us

 

[GoldShadow]

Mr.GaW, Time is not a materialistic thing, technically it doesn't even "exist". It's just a concept used by humans for communication/convience purposes. I also think time travel is just silly.

Actually, according to modern physics, time is a physical thing without which the physical (three dimensional) universe would not exist the way it does. The rate of change of time varies based on relative velocity.

As for time travel... I don't think it's possible, unless you count the fact that we're constantly traveling forward at a rate of 1 second per second.

 

[Omni]

There is a group of chimpanzees and one oragutang (screw spelling for now) that were brought up listening to humans speak. They themselves cannot speak as they vocal chords do not allow them to do so. The scientists they grew up with can ask them questions and they respond accordingly and correctly. Such things as "pass the cup, point to red" and some yes/no questions, basic things.

So this relates back to the topic, we think in words, but what about the chimps?

I think the problem is that too many people define "language" to something that is orally spoken, which could not be any more wrong if you thought about it for 2 seconds. Any being without language learns language through their senses: hearing, feeling, seeing, smelling, and tasting. Each of these senses pass a "message" for instance, when you touch something hot, your brain passes the message that hot things hurt. Or when a person speaks, the being hears this and the brain instinctively directs the eyes to that location. For every action that challenges the senses, the brain forces an instinctive response. Eventually, when these responses become more and more frequent, the responses become less instinctive and more controlled. This is how a thought process is developed.

So in regards to you, Chaotic, I believe your question is already a fallacy for babies do not think in words ENTIRELY. People learn words by how it SOUNDS; the same goes for any other being without a controlled thought process. This is why people can train dogs to sit and stay, or teach parrots how to answer questions. However, these kinds of animals are limited due to their brain's own limitations, but correct me if I'm wrong, but a monkey's brain is the most similiar brain to that of a humans. The only difference is that monkeys are not able to mimic or copy a human's vocabularly. Since monkeys cannot respond with a vocabularly due to their vocal chords, they are able to reply with sounds, but more importantly, actions including nodding and pointing.

Does this make any sense?

 

[-=Marth_n_Roy=-]

*from loads of books and teachers*

I have always viewed 'time' as our 4th Dimension as you said we can only move in it forward one second per second. The reason i saw it is a 4th D, is largely due to the fact of its importance to the functions of the universe. Had we not have been able to move along a fourth D, we couldn't metaphysically interact with ANYTHING even ourselves.

Now on the subject of time travel, i will show you its mysteries in five minutes
/sarcasm

actually i think its quite possible, as you know. . .when you travel from west to east in the world you have to set your watch FORWARD one hour for each zone. and you may have to set you watch back a day when u circumnavigate the globe.

Now, if you increase the speed of travel, isnt possible to actually travel forward substantially? SO taking a Jet at the speed of sound EAST to WEST would allow you to travel backwards in time, provided you have a sufficient power source for the trip (im talking a fusion/fission reactor here)

 

[GoldShadow]

I think you're confusing time zones with time! Time zones are a man made construct used to help us all work on the same daytime/nighttime scale.

As for time travel itself... I think the problem with the general assumption that if we were to travel backwards in time is that it would be like rewinding a videotape.

In other words, let's say time is a road with several turns. As you move forward, there is a right turn, then a left turn, then a right turn. Most people assume that if we were to travel back in time, we'd follow that same road and take a left turn, then right turn, then left turn to go right back where we started. However, what if, when going back, the properties of the road change? What if the direction of turns changes, what if new turns are added, or taken away, just because you're going backward?

What I'm saying is, maybe when going forward, the road is built a certain way. But when you go back, the very conformation of the road changes. Depending on if you're going forward or backward, the shape and conformation of the road shift. So you couldn't just go back and forth and expect the location and shape of the road to stay the same. I read something like this somewhere, I'll have to go find out where.

 

[Mr.GAW]

That was in a movie from which the name escapes me. It was a movie with 2 magicians competiting with each other. One magician used tricks for his teleporting act, and the other used as you said, an actual teleporter which duplicated its contents and drowned its original copy.

Yup. That was The Prestige. It was a pretty great movie- I recommend everyone checks it out. It's pretty thought provoking. The second time I watched it it was twice as good.

Mr.GaW, Time is not a materialistic thing, technically it doesn't even "exist". It's just a concept used by humans for communication/convience purposes. I also think time travel is just silly.

I have to disagree. I think while time is obviously not tangible- It is VERY real. In the sense that our emotions are real. (Although you can argue that.)

Anyways, my sister told me that it's theoretically possible to travel in the future- by flying around the world very very quickly at the speed of light- or something. I'll need someone more knowledgeable than me to elaborate on that.

Marth_n_Roy: While I think you're sort of on the right track- I don't traveling from east to west is actually time-traveling; at least not in a universal sense. Think about it- the only reason we have different time zones is because of how the earth rotates- which doesn't effect nor is it affected by universal time... I think.

Actually, now I'm confusing myself.

EDIT: Okay, Goldshadow said what I wanted too but better .

 

[Chaotic Yoshi]

I think the problem is that too many people define "language" to something that is orally spoken, which could not be any more wrong if you thought about it for 2 seconds. Any being without language learns language through their senses: hearing, feeling, seeing, smelling, and tasting. Each of these senses pass a "message" for instance, when you touch something hot, your brain passes the message that hot things hurt. Or when a person speaks, the being hears this and the brain instinctively directs the eyes to that location. For every action that challenges the senses, the brain forces an instinctive response. Eventually, when these responses become more and more frequent, the responses become less instinctive and more controlled. This is how a thought process is developed.

So in regards to you, Chaotic, I believe your question is already a fallacy for babies do not think in words ENTIRELY. People learn words by how it SOUNDS; the same goes for any other being without a controlled thought process. This is why people can train dogs to sit and stay, or teach parrots how to answer questions. However, these kinds of animals are limited due to their brain's own limitations, but correct me if I'm wrong, but a monkey's brain is the most similiar brain to that of a humans. The only difference is that monkeys are not able to mimic or copy a human's vocabularly. Since monkeys cannot respond with a vocabularly due to their vocal chords, they are able to reply with sounds, but more importantly, actions including nodding and pointing.

Does this make any sense?

I agree completely. I just thought mentioning it would help with the topic starters inquiry, whether it's possibly to think complex thoughts without a language (oral?).

 

[psicicle]

*from loads of books and teachers*

I have always viewed 'time' as our 4th Dimension as you said we can only move in it forward one second per second. The reason i saw it is a 4th D, is largely due to the fact of its importance to the functions of the universe. Had we not have been able to move along a fourth D, we couldn't metaphysically interact with ANYTHING even ourselves.

Now on the subject of time travel, i will show you its mysteries in five minutes
/sarcasm

actually i think its quite possible, as you know. . .when you travel from west to east in the world you have to set your watch FORWARD one hour for each zone. and you may have to set you watch back a day when u circumnavigate the globe.

Now, if you increase the speed of travel, isnt possible to actually travel forward substantially? SO taking a Jet at the speed of sound EAST to WEST would allow you to travel backwards in time, provided you have a sufficient power source for the trip (im talking a fusion/fission reactor here)

Heh, hope you're not serious but it's hard to tell on a forum.

I think that backwards time travel is pretty much impossible, or at least incredibly impractical. When you send something into the past, disregarding the problem of where they would end up, there would be two of that entity in that period of time. THat means that either one of the entities has to magically dissapear (or maybe the elements that make up the entity but are not actually the entity) or we have to feed enormous amounts of energy into the "time machine". Otherwise the first law of thermodynamics will have been broken (unless time travel is some weird exception).

Forwards time travel is easy. Just start moving or being pulled by gravity and you will move through time faster than things that are not moving or being pulled by gravity.


Now for the real thought provoking question: Does Santa Claus exist?

EDIT: ELABORATION HERE- WARNING KNOWLEDGE AND LOGIC BELOW

Light goes at a constant speed, it doesn't matter if you are travelling 100 mph holding a flashlight, the photons will still average out in speed to the speed of light when you are at rest and holding the flashlight. An observer watching you do this will also see light going at the same speed, whether you are travelling towards them holding the flashlight or away from them holding the flashlight.

This is a pretty weird phenomenon, since at everyday speeds, somebody who is running while on a train will go faster than someone just running on a road. Einstein realized that the only way to explain this experimental data was to say that in order to keep the speed of light constant, one would have to speed up or slow down time.

So, when you move forwards and hold the flashlight, you would expect the light to go the speed of light plus your speed right? Well, according to einstein (and a lot of experimental data), time will slow down for you, compared to an outside observer, to compensate for your speed to keep the speed of light constant.

 

[dr.neo]

Havent you always wondered how they make baked ice cream? I mean, it doesnt even melt right away.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

I just read through all this about time, and language, very scary, in a way. Especially now that it's like, 9:00 pm here. Thank you Dr. Neo. Your comment about baking ice cream is just enough to get it out of my head and allow me to sleep tonight. What if, like, there are these alien dudes.
Wouldn't they be like, sittin' on mars with a telescope saying: "What the hell, how do they survive with only ONE mouth?"
Anyway, if you really want your brain bended up, watch " The sound of thunder". It's about time travel, and evolution, and adaptation and stuff. The acting truely does suck eggs though.

 

[pikachun00b7]

Okay Okay, I have thought so much about this question and I dont have any kind of answer.

Think about it.

We all think we know what color we see. Red, blue, green ect... Whose to say other people see the same color? I am see black here which is a certain color to me but... In theory the other person might be seeing a different color. They would also call it black because that is all they have ever know it as.

I hope I am getting this out right. We could be seeing different colors but because we have always been told what color it was we could not think of it differently. If I was asked to describe black I would say dark. But if you are seeing what I would consider blue you would still think it was black because you have always known it to be.

Anyone understand?

I thought that question when I was 11.
We see the way everyone else does(except Isai he sees things that we aren't supposed to see) since
1. Our eyes has the same "cone cells" that capture color. This cell allows differentiation of colors.
2. Our colliculus's output is the same.

 

[GoldShadow]

Enough with answering neo's "eye" question already, it's been answered about 4 times and his original intent has been explained as well.

edit: also, baked ice cream? Since when is there baked ice cream?

 

[m3gav01t]

i think he means fried ice cream. it's made by getting the ice cream to an extremely low temp and then briefly frying it. i like it.

 

[JFox]

Well, this isn't a question, just an interesting quote I heard. It was said by a philosopher and was something like: One night I was a human dreaming that I was a butterfly. Ever since that night I felt like I am actually a butterfly dreaming that I am a human.

It brings up the old philosophical question: How do I know that my entire reality is not simply a dream, or some other sort of product of the mind, and that reality is really far from what I believed I was perceiving?

Edit: Here is some background I found relating to the butterfly dream. http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/butter.htm

 

[psicicle]

I think the answer is simply that you do not- that is why I think that everything in life is uncertain (except math).

 

[Virgilijus]

As much as it is a wonderfully whimsical philosophy and worth spending rainy days thinking over, I give it nothing more than that; we share i this rational thought that is reality. If he actually is a butterfly and, in dreaming, becomes a man (or anything else for that matter) that means his world as a man is a dream. This includes the people in his dream, namely us. If this is true then it means either we are part of his dream and do not exist otherwise or that we dreamed his story, to put it in shorter terms. Since I know I am real, in one form or another, me being part of his dream is ruled out. Now, is he part of mine? Honestly, with the amount of things in this world, physically and metaphysically, that perplex me, I know my mind could not single handedly create such complex things and then voluntarily have my own consciousness not understand them my whole life.

So in sum; very fanciful but equally impossible...well, at least in my opinion

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

I see what your saying. Only I can truely know that i'm real. You could be lying, but we can only know that ourselves are real. I could be lying to you, but I know that I'm not. But then how do you explain having a child (no, I'm a male). If you were the only real person, and you were a female, and you had a child, wouldn't that child have to be real?
If only there was an absolute way to prove that you are real.

 

[JFox]

Virgilijus- You cant disprove that philosophy, its impossible. You are trying to use all principles that apply to a world that could very well not exist. Therefore, you mind could be very different than what you know it to be. It could single handedly create anything, and than again it may not. If you do not know anything about the mind, but only about the studies done by this world you question to be a dream, than those logical derivations take you no where.

Also the dream is just an example. You could be hooked up to a computer of some kind that is sending signals to your brain, and this computer is creating this "dream" world you call your own. But in reality, you may be nothing like what you perceive yourself to be, and your environment can all be false.

Really there is no way to determine this. The only thing that is certain is that you perceive, and therefore must exist somewhere. (I think therefore I am)

Its not like it should really change your outlook on life just because there is a possiblity that life is not what you perceive it to be, its just an interesting concept.

 

[Virgilijus]

JFox: I know how your argument goes, and I don't want to start jogging in circles with you so I will let this be my only retort:
In my completely honest opinion, philosophies that are built on improvable, untestable, and untraceable things are void. The possibility of proof (let alone an infinitely looping proof) by the impossibility of disproof has a probability of 1 out of the infinite number of other improvable, untestable, and untraceable proofs that, if true, would nullify it. However, a 1 out of infinite chance is zero. Not close to zero; it is zero.

This is just my opinion though.

 

[Mr.GAW]

How much can anyone resist Fate's will?

 

[psicicle]

Fate? I don't believe in such a thing because of quantum mechanics.

"In my completely honest opinion, philosophies that are built on improvable, untestable, and untraceable things are void. The possibility of proof (let alone an infinitely looping proof) by the impossibility of disproof has a probability of 1 out of the infinite number of other improvable, untestable, and untraceable proofs that, if true, would nullify it. However, a 1 out of infinite chance is zero. Not close to zero; it is zero."

not true, that would assume each scenario has a "probablility" associated with it. Only one is true, and that makes each scenario either a 0 probability or a 1 probability. Because you only have a sample size of "one" (your life), you can't really bring probabilities into this. Although, weather predictions are based on probabilities, but they have a larger sample size.

 

[Virgilijus]

One is true in retrospect if you can look at it and see that it is indeed true. However, with an unprovable, untraceable, untestable theory you cannot ever look back in retrospect and confirm that it is indeed true. How many possible theories have these three characteristics? An infinite amount. How many, if true, would make the theory we are talking about null and void? An infinite amount. So of an infinite of improvable theories, this one, being completely indistinguishable from all the others by being untestable, holds the same chance of being true; 1 out of the infinite theories which is zero.

 

[psicicle]

the problem is that the sample size of one is not large enough so that you can use probabalistic methods. It's like speculating on the probability that the universe would turn out as it did, with a sample size of one that is impossible. Probabilities only apply to larger sample sizes.

Also there is the notion that all of the theories have the same "chance" of being true. There isn't really any chance involved; it's not like we can conduct this "experiment" over and over and other theories will turn out to be true in those tests.

 

[JFox]

I don't see that its possible for a theory to have a chance of 0 if it is very well possible that that theory could be true.

Thats like saying the big bang theory has a chance of 0 because an infinite number of theories could contradict the big bang theory.

Anyway, I don't care what the probability of this theory being reality is. The point isn't that I think we are all butterflys. The purpose of this thread is not to convince anyone of anything, nor is it your job to try to disprove everything that is interesting to think about.

It just provokes the idea that reality is never totally in one's grasp. All you can be sure of is that your own mind is real. And that to me is interesting.

 

[psicicle]

You can also be sure of math.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

Alright, I have a good question, but I'm going to suck at asking it.

This is from a Harry Potter movie, I think the third one. When Harry is about to be eaten by a dementor, he thinks he sees his dad, and he thinks that he will save him. But in reality he sees himself travel back in time, and the him that traveled back in time is the one who saved him.

Now the question, the first time this happened i.e. real time, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to travel back yet, so he wouldn't have seen his dad (himself) and he wouldn't have been able to save himself, so shouldn't Harry have died and never been able to travel back in time? This could work with almost any time travel thing where you save yourself.

I hope this is clear.

 

[Sporkman]

Now the question, the first time this happened i.e. real time, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to travel back yet, so he wouldn't have seen his dad (himself) and he wouldn't have been able to save himself, so shouldn't Harry have died and never been able to travel back in time? This could work with almost any time travel thing where you save yourself.

I hope this is clear.

Essentially there isn't a 'first time'. There are infinite parrallel universes if you will in which the same thing always happens. Think of it as a loop with no beginning and no end. Just constant.

Probably not the greatest explanation.

EDIT: Perhaps look at it this way, there is always one in front and one behind.

 

[KevinM]

Well i figured that people that are bringing up things mean i can bring up a random question thats been bothering me for a year.. so here we go

Why do we have control over our brain? Like what makes it so my "soul" is within this body and i am the one controlling it and not someone else. Do you see what i'm trying to explain, why am i conscious with this mind?

 

[Zook]

Now the question, the first time this happened i.e. real time, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to travel back yet, so he wouldn't have seen his dad (himself) and he wouldn't have been able to save himself, so shouldn't Harry have died and never been able to travel back in time?

Yes, he would have.

Why do we have control over our brain? Like what makes it so my "soul" is within this body and i am the one controlling it and not someone else. Do you see what i'm trying to explain, why am i conscious with this mind?

I don't get the question. You mean why do you have your body, maybe? It's because the brain has your body. You, your 'essense,' 'soul,' is your mind, your brain. It's like a little man in a big robot in space; the man has all of the controls to the robot, and the robot protects the man and feeds him back information.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

I see what he was saying, but I don't get what the question is. I don't like this thread anymore, it's freaking me out.

 

[Virgilijus]

What he is saying is that if you take one atom and look at it it is lifeless; just matter. Take two and look at them it is the same. Yet some how when you have a certain amount of purely lifeless things arranged in a particular way, life and thought are attached to it. Why should it? A rock has as many atoms, why does it not think? How?

 

[SSBMasterFox]

Alright, I have a good question, but I'm going to suck at asking it.

This is from a Harry Potter movie, I think the third one. When Harry is about to be eaten by a dementor, he thinks he sees his dad, and he thinks that he will save him. But in reality he sees himself travel back in time, and the him that traveled back in time is the one who saved him.

Now the question, the first time this happened i.e. real time, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to travel back yet, so he wouldn't have seen his dad (himself) and he wouldn't have been able to save himself, so shouldn't Harry have died and never been able to travel back in time? This could work with almost any time travel thing where you save yourself.

I hope this is clear.

Well, you've got to keep in mind that magic exists in the Harry Potter books, so it doesn't have to make sense, anyway.

There was some game where the guy needed a key, so his past self said, "Here!" and threw him a key. After being asked where he got the key, he just said, "Just pass it along." Then later, the one who recieved the key threw it to a new guy, who then asked him where he got the key, in which he responded, "Just pass it along."

There was no first one, otherwise he'd be able to tell him where he got the key, and there won't be a last one, 'cause the key has to continually be passed down. It's just a paradox, so there isn't any decent explanation for it. It's just impossible. Magic makes it work, though.



I've always wondered that too, about the atoms. How exactly can unliving things make up a living thing? Heck, atoms can't be seen, so I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't exist anyway.

 

[psicicle]

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of atoms. Besides the fact that all of chemistry is based on the atom's existence, there is something called brownian motion. When you look at a cup of water that appears static, zoomed in you can see little particles in the water jiggling around. This, accompanied by some math, shows that atoms exist because the atoms are what are pushing the little particles around.

Unliving things can make a living thing- if you want to know how just look at yourself. Just because the things that make us don't think does not mean that we don't have to think. THe components of a watch don't know how to tell time on their own. The components of your computer don't know how to read binary. Yet when put together, they do.

 

[KevinM]

What he is saying is that if you take one atom and look at it it is lifeless; just matter. Take two and look at them it is the same. Yet some how when you have a certain amount of purely lifeless things arranged in a particular way, life and thought are attached to it. Why should it? A rock has as many atoms, why does it not think? How?

Basically thats what i'm asking, along with the fact that like how am i controlling myself KevinM, with my mind, and why my mind is not Virgilijus' you know.

I'm sorry its a really hard question to explain.

 

[GoldShadow]

Heck, atoms can't be seen, so I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't exist anyway.

Haha, actually, besides the various experiments proving they exist, we actually can see atoms and molecules with electron microscopes nowadays. We can also see things a bit more indirectly with x-ray crystallography.

 

[SSBMasterFox]

Dang it, my chemistry teacher's full of crap. (but he's retiring this year, so it's all good) He told me that we don't have a microscope powerful enough to see an atom yet. And I didn't say I didn't think they exist, I just said it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't. If someone proved they didn't exist, I'd just think, "Huh..."

 

[KevinM]

Bring up Rutherford then?

 

[SSBMasterFox]

You mean Daniel Rutherford?

 

[GoldShadow]

Bring up Rutherford then?

Rutherford's gold foil experiment showed that atoms contained a large, central, charged mass (ie the nucleus), disproving the plum pudding model of the atom. But they couldn't actually see atoms back then.

You mean Daniel Rutherford?

Ernest Rutherford, not Daniel!