/posad/ - Paranormal

>>506
Never actually read it. Care to link me?

>>505
In physics time is quantized. That means time moves forward in discrete steps, one plank unit at a time.

One plank unit is 10e-43 seconds (0,_43zeros_1 s). What your brains experiences as "now" is like a bazillion plank units long. So the time you're experiencing might be a little bit in the past, present and future.

In order to experience "true now", you would need to seriously overclock your brain.

>>508
>>508
I think this comes between interpretations of reality;; Subjectively speaking such notions cannot be understood or realized through my conscious mind, so, for all intents and purposes they might as well not exist at all. I understand conceptually that time is part of the fabric of reality of our universe and that according to General Relativity that time is deterministic, but, I would say that because it is out of sight it is out of mind.

>>509
You are confusing words: Subjectivity is what you get from being a subject. You live in a capitalist world under bourgeois law and that means you have legal subjectivity, if you were living in the 14 century you would be a feudal subject, and have feudal subjectivity. This is not an antonym to objectivity. Scientific objectivity is something you get from measuring objective data about reality, here it means unbiased. The antonym to objectivity is experientially biased.

>according to General Relativity that time is deterministic
Yes the theory of general relativity is deterministic. But philosophical determinism predates Einstein.

<back to the topic
Your experience of simultaneous time is spread out over an interval of objective time. So Conscious moments are basically small periods of linear time (about 1/10 of a second) that you experience as happening all at once.

>>505
The past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. Time is merely a consciouss perception of change between these "moments".
>>508
Time is defined by changes in matter. Time can be derived from matter but not the other way around. Time can't be an independent physical thing.

>>523
>Time is defined by changes in matter. Time can be derived from matter but not the other way around. Time can't be an independent physical thing.

Probably, tho empty space-time might be a thing made out of some type of matter.
Locality is probably just an emergent phenomenon, and the bedrock of reality is non-local.

>>524
So by non local you mean deterministic?

>>525
I'm not entirely sure if all non-local theories necessitate determinism. But non local hidden variable theories like pilot-wave/DeBroglie-Bohm are deterministic. This one requires you to accept that faster-than-light effects exist, and that Einstein's light speed barrier has stuff on both sides of it. So slower than light things can't go faster than light and faster than light things can't go slower than light.

There are also local deterministic theories, but they require hidden universes.

Leave it to Leftychan to take something meant to be practical and useful and turn it into a pointless discuss about useless speculative 'knowledge'

>>527
>into a pointless discuss about useless speculative 'knowledge'
No this is not about speculative knowledge, this is about the philosophy of science. And that has practical implications.

You have a range of interpretations of the measured facts of reality. The range goes from hard-materialist to fully idealist. The materialist side considers science as an unfinished process where lots of stuff is still missing and lots of paradigms might have to be overthrown. While the idealist side doesn't want any new additions anymore and just complete the current level and then stop.

The ancient greek atomists offered the earliest recorded materialist philosophy of science, and they invented the concept of the atom (the smallest most fundamental indivisible unit of matter). When people went looking for the atom they found out lots of new science and that remade our scientific understanding of the world and of course depreciated lots of old theory. The idealists tried for centuries to get rid of the idea of the atom, they even tried to burn all the texts from ancient greek atomists like Epicurus. Today something similar at lesser intensity might be happening with the DebroglieBohm or pilotwave interpretation of QM. They are trying to get rid of the "corpuscle" which is the physical particle that is guided by the quantum wave. If people went looking for that it could once again lead to lots of new and unexpected things.

>>528
why would people try to debunk the atom

>>534
>why would people try to debunk the atom
If we are talking about the philosophical atom, as in the smallest, most fundamental, indivisible, fragment of matter:
There are many reasons.

Hardcore idealists believe that the reality is made out of thoughts, they want to get rid of the Atom because that's not a thought. Basically the atom is the building block of a physical world, they don't want a conception of reality that acknowledges a physical world that has definitively measurable objective reality. They try to incrementally undermine the concept of physical reality by getting rid of the atom first. The most hardcore subset of these idealists are solypsists who think that only their mind exists.

Sometimes it can also be very banal stuff like an intelligentsia that seeks to make their theories as incomprehensible as possible, so they can seem to be more intellectually impressive than they actually are. Hard materialism is the opposite of obscurantism, and doesn't help with big-brain-vanity.

The concepts in Greek atomism is what kick-started modern science. And people in power have a tendency to interfere with science, because scientific know how can lead to technological change and changing relations of power.

Theocratic societies try to suppress science because scientifically literate people are much harder to trick. If i know that the sun is a giant ball of mostly hydrogen gas that is producing light and heat via fusion that will continue for billions of years, you can't trick me into worshiping a sun-god, and manipulate me with fear that the sun-god might not come up in the morning unless i do what you say.

Even today there can be anti-science tendencies in the power structures, while capitalism is somewhat supportive, science can still have a precarious position. Scientists that figure out new stuff can set off unpredictable developments that can overturn entire economies. That can induce interference from up top. Interference can also come from the lesser echelons of Social status seekers. Those also have a tendency to inject them selves as middle-man in between measured physical evidence and theoretic conclusions for scientific models. I went on a tangent, sorry.

Back to atoms. I have a suspicion that quantum computer companies might be trying to fuck with theoretical physics. Their industry science advisors pop up in the credentials of media that is trying to push Everett's Many world QM interpretation (without atoms) as the replacement for Pilot-Wave theory (has atoms). They are using bogus already refuted arguments, so i'm relatively sure it's malicious, but i could only speculate about their intentions. The scientific implication: If Everett's Many world QM interpretation is true that means we probably reached the bedrock of reality. If "atomistic" PilotWave is true that probably means that there is more to discover.

In the 19 century the main opponents of Atomism was Machism, check out this video
https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=KomcVwC40h4
Those historic science battles can be interesting because often some of the dynamics are still present today.

>>537
>If i know that the sun is a giant ball of mostly hydrogen gas that is producing light and heat via fusion that will continue for billions of years
How do you actually know that?

>>538
Because every element and compound emits a characteristic wavelength of light when heated.

>>540
Source?