I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[doronshadmi]

Doronshadmi, what is the difference between the past and the future?

Generally, less redundancy and more diversity among the multiple phenomena across the universe.

For example, in the past there were free particles in plasma form that during the time expressed more diverse and complex phenomena like atoms, which enabled the release of light to travel freely across the developed universe.

So, during time the free particles were connected with each other in more complex forms of matter like gas, liquid and solid known as the chemical elements (that were combined by gravitational forces inside stars, that ended their lives through explosions) where these combinations provided more and more diverse and complex phenomena.

Life phenomena (at least as known in our plant) are the concrete result of the developed diversity among multiplicity, which gradually becomes aware of itself and its relations with its close and far environments.

The current and future developments is the ability of life phenomena to become an harmoniums factor that is characterized by less redundancy and more diversity across universe's multiple phenomena.

The ability to be developed currently and in the future into an harmoniums factor among universe's multiple phenomena, is based on the ability of self aware creatures to directly be aware of the simplest state of existence, which is the actual substance of multiplicity.

Without actually fulfill this fundamental self awareness as natural ability of creatures like us, we will not become harmoniums factors among universe's multiple phenomena, and naturally will be disassembled and replaced by other self aware living creature that will get their chance to fulfill themselves as harmoniums factors among universe's multiple phenomena, which constantly increasing its diversity right from its simplest state (which is the natural and neutral substance of multiplicity).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10438257&postcount=1429 (including its links) and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10439351&postcount=1449 schematically provide the universe's past, current and future development, according to my Neutral monism paradigm.

My Cybernetic Kernels are demonstrated by one revolution of Archimedean spiral

that interferes or does not interfere itself.

 

[Nonpareil]

Yes, they are also enable to contradict themselves by A AND ~A statements, as you currently do.

So what exactly is your point?

Apparently, beyond you.

 

[doronshadmi]

Apparently, beyond you.

This time I simply fall of my chair because of this amazing reply.

 

[doronshadmi]

as though you are conscious, you are conscious.

Worng, as though it is conscious, has no guarantee that it is actually conscious.

Your definitions, in this case, are trivial, which is not the same as simple.

 

[Belz...]

Nonpareil and Belz - these definitions are yours and a few other extremists.

Open a dictionary if you don't believe us.

 

[Belz...]

Worng, as though it is conscious, has no guarantee that it is actually conscious.

Then I can't know if you're conscious, and you have no idea if anybody but you is conscious.

Congratulations, you have solipsism.

 

[doronshadmi]

Please look at http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/

This is all thanks to the photons being able to shape-shift into waves and particles, a quality called wave-particle duality. If you alter the shape of the wave, you create a slower, curvier photon.

As Padgett explains to the BBC, the mask “looks a little bit like a bull’s-eye target.”

"And that mask patterns the light beam, and we show that it's the patterning of the light beam that slows it down.”

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/jan/22/structured-photons-slow-down-in-a-vacuum

Goëry Genty, a physicist at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland says that the experiment is interesting because it measures the group velocity of photons. "In that sense, the results are not in contradiction with anything we know from textbooks, and certainly not with special relativity," he adds. "There have been couple of experiments in the past to show this effect, but perhaps here the novelty lies in the fact that the researchers are dealing with single photons."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/01/21/science.aaa3035

Abstract:

That the speed of light in free space is constant is a cornerstone of modern physics. However, light beams have finite transverse size, which leads to a modification of their wavevectors resulting in a change to their phase and group velocities. We study the group velocity of single photons by measuring a change in their arrival time that results from changing the beam’s transverse spatial structure. Using time-correlated photon pairs we show a reduction of the group velocity of photons in both a Bessel beam and photons in a focused Gaussian beam. In both cases, the delay is several micrometers over a propagation distance of the order of 1 m. Our work highlights that, even in free space, the invariance of the speed of light only applies to plane waves.

So after all I was right, if you change a photon into its wave form and "you alter the shape of the wave, you create a slower, curvier photon" in vacuum.

So the invariance of the speed of light (and in this case the measurement was done on single photons) only applies to plane waves in vacuum, or in other words, single photons with plane waves forms can't move slower than 299 792 458 m / s, but this is not the case with single photons with formed waves.


More details are found in http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30944584

Not by much - a few millionths of a metre - but it showed that it had not just been slowed by the mask, but had continued to travel at less than light speed even after it had returned to free space.

and we are talking here on single photons.

 

[doronshadmi]

Then I can't know if you're conscious, and you have no idea if anybody but you is conscious.

Congratulations, you have solipsism.

Only if awareness if known only at the level of thoughts (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10437465&postcount=1409).

 

[tsig]

This time I simply fall of my chair because of this amazing reply.

If your chair is causing you to sin, stand up.

 

[tsig]

Only if awareness if known only at the level of thoughts (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10437465&postcount=1409).

Without thought there is no awareness.

 

[Nonpareil]

Worng, as though it is conscious, has no guarantee that it is actually conscious.

Just because you are looking at an object which reflects light with a wavelength of four hundred and seventy-five nanometers doesn't mean it's actually blue.

 

[doronshadmi]

Without thought there is no awareness.

No, thoughts are only the multiple expression of direct awareness of the simplest state of existence, which transcends any variant phenomena including thoughts.

 

[doronshadmi]

Just because you are looking at an object which reflects light with a wavelength of four hundred and seventy-five nanometers doesn't mean it's actually blue.

Just because you are thinking about direct awareness of the simplest state of existence does not mean that you actually directly aware of it.

 

[LarryS]

Open a dictionary if you don't believe us.

I googled and read up - and I find nothing but contention and lack of consensus. So, it leaves me with 2 options, option 1, I accept there is a lack of consensus and in fact no claims of any workable theory of brain as computer (or definition of "is" as behavior), or option 2, I accept the bumper sticker wisdom of a few anonymous characters on one of many forums on the internet.

I'm sticking with Option 1.

 

[Nonpareil]

Just because you are thinking about direct awareness of the simplest state of existence does not mean that you actually directly aware of it.

And yet another point goes sailing over your head.

Or, rather, sailing over where your head would be if you were anywhere in the vicinity of the actual discussion taking place. But you're not. You're off in another room, ranting at thin air.

No one is addressing your claims about the "simplest state of existence", doron. No one cares.

Come back when you have a coherent definition.

 

[Nonpareil]

I googled and read up - and I find nothing but contention and lack of consensus. So, it leaves me with 2 options, option 1, I accept there is a lack of consensus and in fact no claims of any workable theory of brain as computer (or definition of "is" as behavior)

You could actually look it up, you know.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, constant speed > 0 and position's change are inseparable of each other, therefore you did not provide, yet, an objective evident that is absolutely invariant.

Any way I wish to thank you since during our replies I have learned that group velocity can be reduced and photon's speed remains constant, according to the current scientific knowledge, which is, b.t.w, another example of why light is not absolutely invariant objective phenomenon.

I am going to look at it more carefully by not ignoring the current knowledge that photons have complement properties of waves or particles.

Here it is (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30944584):

"But once that pattern has been imposed - even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just propagating in free space - the speed is still slow."

But hang on a minute. If a photon is a particle, how is it possible to impose a pattern on it?

It's because photons exist in the exotic and rather wonderful quantum realm, where the rules of the reassuringly solid world in which we live tend to lose their grip.

They exhibit what physicists call "wave-particle duality": they behave like both a wave and a particle. So you can send them round a racetrack two by two like particles, yet change the shape of one of them as if it was a wave.

Prof Padgett says: "What makes our experiment different, and what has brought clarity to this, is that rather than looking at a light pulse which contains many, many, many photons we've reduced the experiment down to a single photon.

"So we measure the speed of a single photon as it propagates.

"And we find it's actually being slowed below the speed of light."

So Mr. Belz... after all you have no case.

 

[doronshadmi]

No one is addressing your claims about the "simplest state of existence", doron. No one cares.

Ye, just several millions people around the globe that practicing techniques like TM.

 

[doronshadmi]

And yet another point goes sailing over your head.

Or, rather, sailing over where your head would be if you were anywhere in the vicinity of the actual discussion taking place. But you're not. You're off in another room, ranting at thin air.

No one is addressing your claims about the "simplest state of existence", doron. No one cares.

Come back when you have a coherent definition.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10440785&postcount=1481 is a concrete example of something that goes sailing over your head, as clearly shown in your

Gears, some sort of locking mechanism, or something of that sort is my best guess. No idea if it's correct,

poor abstraction ability.

 

[doronshadmi]

Come back when you have a coherent definition.

A ridiculous request of a person that is not aware of its own contradictions (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10439469&postcount=1463 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10440690&postcount=1480), and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10440789&postcount=1482 is his bast reply on this subject.