the large hadron collidor particle accelerator

[ste4_20]

Leibniz?

Do go on....

Edited September 2, 2008 by ste4_20

[llcoolphil]

One philosophy claims that the base of matter is mathematical formula, and therefore, you'd be able to link the two worlds together.

[worm]

That should've been Lorentz, my mistake, was reading about Leibniz when I was typing, but a lot of what Leibniz did spurred Einstein on, through the Newtonian links. Ideas on symmetry and rejection of absolute space and relations that Leibniz had have also furthered science to the point it is now, giving the most accurate theorems on matter.

[worm]

If we accept that there is no divine intervention of any sort, then everything can be explained in mathematical terms since its all just a matter of chemical reactions and electrical impulses and the like, but Im not sure that's maths explaining matter and maths being matter are the same thing. I seriously hope not anyway or romance is dead!

[llcoolphil]

Why's that llcoolphil?

Regardless of divinity, you are presuming only a material reality in conjunction with a static language (maths in particular) and not one that involves consciousness, experience, meaning, phenomena, being and perception. Basically, one that is objective. As we've already raised, a purely material reality depends upon an essential basis. We don't have an essence. Just a series of categorical differences at various phenomenological stages of experience (the russian doll thing).

[worm]

I mean it in much simpler terms than that - if that makes sense. Everything that you've listed requires neurological process - consciously or otherwise - and neurologcal process can be broken down into mathematical formula - a bit of electrical activity at this node+ some at that one = that bit in my mind there.

Edited September 2, 2008 by worm

[ste4_20]

My relativity isn't great either but I understood both of these posts and they fit in entirely with my understanding of it. But because gravity is central to relativity, isn't there an argument that relativity breaks down when confronted with gravity at the extreme like in a black hole? Logic dictates to me that quantum mechanics and relativity are in some way directly related, but there's stuff that happens in the quantum world - spin for instance - that defies all logical interpretation at current levels of understanding.

[worm]

In 4-D and beyond, the analogy doesn't work.

[worm]

seems like another example of man's necessity to explain everything

[ste4_20]

We are the shadow of the 4-D universe. In the same way our (3-D) shadow is a 2-D image.

And then that depends on which 4-D model you believe.

Edit; The rubber sheet isn't the best example, I'll admit. The shadow thing might not be either, but it's a decent idea.

Edited September 2, 2008 by ste4_20

[worm]

We are the shadow of the 4-D universe. In the same way our (3-D) shadow is a 2-D image.

And then that depends on which 4-D model you believe.

Edit; The rubber sheet isn't the best example, I'll admit. The shadow thing might not be either, but it's a decent idea.

Edited September 2, 2008 by worm

[worm]

But because gravity is central to relativity

Edited September 2, 2008 by worm

[Atlanteanlost]

Didn't see this earlier.

Relativity is central to reality. Gravity depends upon relativity. In that everything does.

[ste4_20]

Just to clarify. 4-D = time and space?

If so, I don't need an analogy. I speak (and think) in it's language. If you don't, it's impossible to understand other than through crude metaphor.

That ^ actually sounds a bit nutty. It's quite harmless though.

[worm]

You more than likely don't speak and think its language. If that was the case, people 150 years ago would speak and think in a 3-D language. Gauss and Einstein didn't put us in a 4-D world, in the same way the next genius won't have taken us into the (n+1)th dimension. If we carry on in a similar way, theres plenty of other non-euclidean geometries for us to adapt to.

Edited September 3, 2008 by worm

[worm]

insert whichever word is more suitable...

Edited September 3, 2008 by worm

[RABun]

The language relates to the concepts of time and space. People still speak and think in an objective language. For instance, using bi-polemic descriptives and structural metaphors. Due to this, they are not inclined to understand how the concept of time and space works, having to use crude metaphor and such like.

Time and space is part of our reality. We seem to have our own reality reflected by our language and then a seperate one for the understanding of the mystical world of time and space. However, it is part of our reality too. It is not seperate to it. Realising this is the biggest attempt at cultural change since the Enlightenment period. It's huge.

[llcoolphil]

You refer to postivism? The translative functioning? The process?

You can't say what these things are without perception, consciousness, phenomena, being and meaning though can you. You need to categorise those things that you refer to and you have no idea how they work. Not meaning to get into meta-physics though. It's just that these things are subject to the aforementioned, is all.

No it doesn't, your experience and consciousness does. Your neurological process is reacting to that.

[worm]

Isn't everything a crude metaphor considering that time and space existed before language.

[worm]

All of which happens in the brain and is therefore reducable to mathematical formula

[worm]

Relativity is a theory, gravity quite patently not. If relativity is proved to be wrong at a later date, gravity won't disappear with it. Hence gravity is not at all dependent on relativity. However without gravity, relativity would either not exist or would exist in a completely different manner - so different as to not be relativity as we understand it. Id suggest you have that completely the wrong way round

Edited September 3, 2008 by worm

[worm]

Hmm.

[Shinny]

my understanding of most of this stuff comes from Star Trek

and to quote Scotty "you cannae change the laws of physics"

random comment but I felt the need to comment and I can't focus atm.

Gravity is a universal constant, I doubt it is still a theory now, though I guess there is always the possibility we can't prove it.

[worm]

Gravity is a universal constant

[Shinny]

That's hardly a definitive statement though. May I counter it with, cheese is food.

It's very much a theory.