guy incognito
Well-Known Member
And they post on riu
you're god does not exist
- Thread starter ThE sAtIvA hIgH
- Start date
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
..."incognito"
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Guys ... !! cn
Moebius
Well-Known Member
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
There are plenty of trees in the forest of solitude.
Moebius
Well-Known Member
I would say thats fair.
A 'tree' only became a tree after it was thought of. 'We' define the object with our perceptions. Before this its a collection of atoms indistinguishable from the other atoms. It is our minds that shape the object, give it colour and meaning.
(i think)
edit:
I define 'we' as 'life'.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
It got the name tree after we assigned it, but the tree itself was a tree before we were around. Dinosaurs knew about trees.
Moebius
Well-Known Member
Dinosaurs are 'we'. For the purposes of this discussion, plants are 'we' too. All carbon-based life share a common ancestry and DNA.
The colour 'green' does not exist in the objective universe. ..... Take out the empty space from atoms and the entire human race would barely fill a tea-spoon. It's our minds that give meaning to mass.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Green is a specific wave length of light. Those wave lengths predated us, and they very much existed before we were around to observe them.
Moebius
Well-Known Member
'Green' is the subjective interpretation of the wavelength. ... Some animals would perceive it as 'blue'. Even within life-forms there is ambiguity.
Moebius
Well-Known Member
[SIZE=+3]Perception and Reality[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Jorge Martins de Oliveira, MD, PhD[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Our perception does not identify the outside world as it realy is, but the way we are allowed to recognize it, as a consequence of transformations performed by our senses. Thus, we transform photons into images, vibrations into sounds and noises and chemical reactions into specific smells and tastes. Actually, the universe is colourless, inodorous, insipid and silent.
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n04/opiniao/percepcao_i.htm
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Jorge Martins de Oliveira, MD, PhD[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Our perception does not identify the outside world as it realy is, but the way we are allowed to recognize it, as a consequence of transformations performed by our senses. Thus, we transform photons into images, vibrations into sounds and noises and chemical reactions into specific smells and tastes. Actually, the universe is colourless, inodorous, insipid and silent.
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n04/opiniao/percepcao_i.htm
[/SIZE]
Moebius
Well-Known Member
source http://www.peterrussell.com/SCG/ideal.php
No Matter?
Although we may not know the external world directly, we can draw conclusions from our experience as to what it might be like. This, in essence, has been the focus of our scientific endeavors. But to our surprise, the world "out there" has turned out to be quite unlike our experience of it.
Consider our experience of the color green. In the physical world there is light of a certain frequency, but the light itself is not green. Nor are the electrical impulses that are transmitted from the eye to the brain. No color exists there. The green we see is a quality appearing in the mind in response to this frequency of light. It exists only as a subjective experience in the mind.
The same is true of sound. I hear the music of a violin, but the sound I hear is a quality appearing in the mind. There is no sound as such in the external world, just vibrating air molecules. The smell of a rose does not exist without an experiencing mind, just molecules of a certain shape.
The same is also true of the solidness we experience in matter. Our experience of the world is certainly one of solidness, so we assume that the "thing in itself" must be equally solid. For two thousand years it was believed that atoms were tiny solid balls—a model clearly drawn from everyday experience. Then, as physicists discovered that atoms were composed of more elementary, subatomic particles (electrons, protons, neutrons, and suchlike) the model shifted to one of a central nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons—again, a model based on experience.
An atom may be small, a mere billionth of an inch across, but subatomic particles are a hundred thousand times smaller still. Imagine the nucleus of an atom magnified to the size of a golf ball. The whole atom would then be the size of a football stadium, and the electrons would be like peas flying round the stands. As the early twentieth-century British physicist Sir Arthur Eddington put it, "Matter is mostly ghostly empty space." To be more precise, it is 99.9999999% empty space.
With the development of quantum theory, physicists have found that even subatomic particles are far from solid. In fact, they are nothing like matter as we know it. They cannot be pinned down and measured precisely. Much of the time they seem more like waves than particles. They are like fuzzy clouds of potential existence, with no definite location. Whatever matter is, it has little, if any, substance.
Our notion of matter as a solid substance is, like the color green, a quality appearing in consciousness. It is a model of what is "out there", but as with almost every other model, quite unlike what is actually out there.
No Matter?
Although we may not know the external world directly, we can draw conclusions from our experience as to what it might be like. This, in essence, has been the focus of our scientific endeavors. But to our surprise, the world "out there" has turned out to be quite unlike our experience of it.
Consider our experience of the color green. In the physical world there is light of a certain frequency, but the light itself is not green. Nor are the electrical impulses that are transmitted from the eye to the brain. No color exists there. The green we see is a quality appearing in the mind in response to this frequency of light. It exists only as a subjective experience in the mind.
The same is true of sound. I hear the music of a violin, but the sound I hear is a quality appearing in the mind. There is no sound as such in the external world, just vibrating air molecules. The smell of a rose does not exist without an experiencing mind, just molecules of a certain shape.
The same is also true of the solidness we experience in matter. Our experience of the world is certainly one of solidness, so we assume that the "thing in itself" must be equally solid. For two thousand years it was believed that atoms were tiny solid balls—a model clearly drawn from everyday experience. Then, as physicists discovered that atoms were composed of more elementary, subatomic particles (electrons, protons, neutrons, and suchlike) the model shifted to one of a central nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons—again, a model based on experience.
An atom may be small, a mere billionth of an inch across, but subatomic particles are a hundred thousand times smaller still. Imagine the nucleus of an atom magnified to the size of a golf ball. The whole atom would then be the size of a football stadium, and the electrons would be like peas flying round the stands. As the early twentieth-century British physicist Sir Arthur Eddington put it, "Matter is mostly ghostly empty space." To be more precise, it is 99.9999999% empty space.
With the development of quantum theory, physicists have found that even subatomic particles are far from solid. In fact, they are nothing like matter as we know it. They cannot be pinned down and measured precisely. Much of the time they seem more like waves than particles. They are like fuzzy clouds of potential existence, with no definite location. Whatever matter is, it has little, if any, substance.
Our notion of matter as a solid substance is, like the color green, a quality appearing in consciousness. It is a model of what is "out there", but as with almost every other model, quite unlike what is actually out there.
Seedling
Well-Known Member
So basically what you're saying is that if a volcano erupted and there was no life form to perceive the heat, then the lava wouldn't "cool" and become "rock" after a duration of time?
You are confusing how we perceive motion in this universe compared to the actual motion.
There is heat, as evidence of lava flowing across the ground and burning up trees and changing them into ash, whether there is someone there to observe it or not. Entropy exists whether we are here to observe the effects or not.
Of course things are relative, that's all you're saying.
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Unless those things are in the preferred frame
Seedling
Well-Known Member
There is no "solid" in this universe, there is objects, and those objects are comprised of smaller objects. All of those objects are in motion. Everything is made of motion.
The difference between a solid, liquid, gas, and plasma is the volume, which is 3 dimensional distance. Do you know what volume is?
Seedling
Well-Known Member
All objects travel in the preferred frame, and they also have relative velocities to other objects at the same time.Unless those things are in their preferred frame
Case in point, you are riding on a bus traveling down the road. You can sit in your seat on the bus and consider yourself motionless on the bus, and at the same time consider yourself in motion relative to the road.
Moebius
Well-Known Member
Thats a chemical reaction too. burning trees etc .... and where did I mention Entropy?
The flow part is physics.
Moebius
Well-Known Member
That quote you quoted me on said just that. .....'With the development of quantum theory, physicists have found that even subatomic particles are far from solid. In fact, they are nothing like matter as we know it.'
lokie
Well-Known Member
Temperature is relative to the individual experiencing the temperature change.
My mother in law used to keep her house set at 80 and would still
put a sweater on at times in the summer and she lived in Florida.
and my wife likes it cold enough to grow icebergs in the toilet.
She has been known to open a window in the winter and turn the ceiling fan on.
My mother in law used to keep her house set at 80 and would still
put a sweater on at times in the summer and she lived in Florida.
and my wife likes it cold enough to grow icebergs in the toilet.
She has been known to open a window in the winter and turn the ceiling fan on.