is he right?

[Anonymous No.17889679]

>Einstein suggested that we live in a universe that has at least four spatial dimensions. They have to be spatial dimensions because that’s what a dimension is. In the case of the fourth dimension, there has to be one because Einstein said that space-time was curved, so it needs a dimension to be curved through. The fourth dimension is not time, but, rather, time is the way that we experience our movement through this fourth dimension. We actually exist in what is called a block universe that is an enormous space-time solid in which every moment that has ever existed or will ever exist is there forever.

....


>There are a lot of implications that come from that. One of them is that we live in an entirely predetermined universe, which I believe is what most modern physicists (although they don’t really like the idea) accept as the nature of the universe that we are in. It is predetermined. This, of course, immediately banishes the idea of free will and causes a variety of philosophical problems. It would probably cause some problems for science because a predetermined universe obviates the laws of cause and effect or, at least, makes them a little more unclear.

[Anonymous No.17889899]

>a predetermined universe obviates the laws of cause and effect
uh, no?

[Anonymous No.17889913]

>>17889899
t. doesn't appreciate the implications of block universe

[Anonymous No.17889915]

All that shit he's suggesting Einstein suggested is him clearly not even trying to understand Einstein.

[Anynomous No.17889917]

>>17889913
Every effect still has a cause. They're predetermined, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Anonymous No.17889920]

>>17889679

Get out of the way Time Cube fuck nuts, the age of Time Solid has begun.

[Anonymous No.17889938]

>>17889917
In a block universe, there is no special status given to the direction of time. One could just as well tell the universe backwards and it would be just as functional. Cause and effect may have a meaning from a structural point of view, but one moment no more affects the next than one point in a piece of string causes the next. The laws of nature would then be merely a description of the pattern the block universe takes rather than an account of genuine causality as it is usually understood.

[Anonymous No.17889945]

>>17889679
>In the case of the fourth dimension, there has to be one because Einstein said that space-time was curved, so it needs a dimension to be curved through.
This is actually incorrect: Gauss curvature can be defined on a manifold without reference to an embedding space.

[Anynomous No.17889963]

>>17889938
Interesting.
>merely a description of the pattern the block universe takes rather than an account of genuine causality as it is usually understood.
I don't understand the difference. I must be missing something.

[Anonymous No.17890035]

>>17889679
>They have to be spatial dimensions because that’s what a dimension is.
lol, popsci was a mistake

[Anonymous No.17890039]

>>17889679
>In the case of the fourth dimension, there has to be one because Einstein said that space-time was curve
lol

>>17889679
>so it needs a dimension to be curved through. The fourth dimension is not time,
lol
>>17889679
>rather, time is the way that we experience our movement through this fourth dimension.
lol

[Anonymous No.17890042]

>The fourth dimension is not time
BASED

[Anonymous No.17890043]

>>17889679
>>>There are a lot of implications that come from that. One of them is that we live in an entirely predetermined universe,
lol

typical turdbrain who parrot the atheist view of scientific realism. pathetic.


>>17889679
>It is predetermined.
lol false

[Anonymous No.17890052]

>Non-physicist using physics he doesn't understand in an attempt to claim profound insights on the nature of reality

[Anonymous No.17890057]

>>17890052
there goes my sci fi novel

[Anonymous No.17890061]

>>17889679
>One of them is that we live in an entirely predetermined universe, which I believe is what most modern physicists (although they don’t really like the idea) accept as the nature of the universe that we are in. It is predetermined.
Bugmen physicists love and promote that idea, though.

[Anonymous No.17890075]

>>17889963
If you consider time as a series of points, then one can say the laws of nature describe the order of those points. "After x, comes y". But I don't think this is all that we mean when we talk about causality. It is not enough that y appears after x at all times, but we ascribe to x a power that causes y to occur.
A block universe would be like a series of series of slides in a film. Laws of nature would describe what relation those slides have to one another, for example "Green slides always come after red slides" or something like that. This structure wouldn't be one of causation but just a description. Whatever created the film (if it had a maker) just decided to put the green slides all after red slides (or it merely contingency).

[Anonymous No.17890081]

>>17890075
>God is basically a filmmaker
b-based

[Anynomous No.17890102]

>>17890075
Hm... That's something to think about. Thank you, Anon.

[Anonymous No.17890106]

>>17890052
this
I don't think this is what Einstein was conveying at all

[Anonymous No.17890159]

>>17889679
Time being the 4th dimension has long been disproven. Moore's entire philosophy of eternalism is built on suspect grounds.

[Anonymous No.17890170]

>>17890081
Time is the moving image of eternity

[Anonymous No.17890173]

>>17890159
>Time being the 4th dimension has long been disproven.
Big if true. Source?

[Anonymous No.17890227]

>>17889938
but you'd still have "cause and effect" as an adjacency rule

[Anonymous No.17890238]

>>17890173
Check M-theory. This whole time worm schtick so pre-1995, but nerdculture is still stuck there.

[Anonymous No.17890254]

i do not know if anon is freely gay or if he's gay because it's predetermined, but i know time is real, because anon keeps getting gayer

[Anonymous No.17890266]

>>17890227
As a relation, yes. But causality conceived as force (not the scientific term) would be lost. It would be as if the whole history of the universe were a giant ice sculpture- utterly cold and inert.

[Anonymous No.17890267]

>>17889679
>In the case of the fourth dimension, there has to be one because Einstein said that space-time was curved
Well, if he said it, then I guess it must be true. Right?

[Anonymous No.17890306]

>>17890238
Any particular articles/books? What's the 4th dimension, then?

[Anonymous No.17890316]

>>17890266
but flicking the lighter switch still precedes the flame going whoosh. and if you look at it the other way around the events will have the same relationship but inverted. and if you were to look at it in some other perspective unfathomable to the human mind, there would still be a fixed relationship of some kind between the events. im not really sure what mystical attribute could be said to have been lost

[Anonymous No.17890357]

>>17890306
There are 10 (or 11 or 26, depending on the theory) spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. All the spatial dimensions after the third are extremely small and exist on a quantum level. The "movement" (non-3D) of standard particles generate various effects in our larger 3D space. For example, electronmagnetic field isn't an emanation but rather a manifestation of the "movement" of electron strings in one of these spatial dimensions. Moore is combining bits and pieces from theories he doesn't understand.

[Anonymous No.17890412]

>>17889679
>a predetermined universe obviates the laws of cause and effect
This is a concept (A), which is caused by its being differentiated from what it isn't (A ≠ not-A). Cause and effect is not obviated.

[Anonymous No.17890444]

>>17890357
Yawn. Sounds like some gay nerd bullshit to me

[Anonymous No.17890452]

>>17890357
Alright, thanks for the answer.

[Anonymous No.17890459]

>>17890444
cope

[Anonymous No.17890512]

even if we are in a block universe, that doesn't in the slightest negate free will. this guy is retarded.

[Anonymous No.17890589]

>>17890444
These are the most accepted theories and have mathematical backing.

[Anonymous No.17890625]

>>17890589
>muh consensus
>muh math
embarrassing, learn to think for yourself for once

[Anonymous No.17890666]

>>17890444
Trips of truth

>>17890357
You can't replace one set of nerdculture word salad items with another.

[Anonymous No.17890739]

>>17890267
yes?

[Anonymous No.17890775]

>>17890625
Can you refute it?

[Anonymous No.17890810]

>>17890739
Einstein was wrong about that and has long since been refuted.

[Anonymous No.17890816]

Time isn't in the same category as space.
Saying time is a 4th dimension is like saying you can count the hair on your hand as 6th finger.

The 11+ dimensions ides are laughable garbage.
They involve drawing a series of dots on paper, then connecting them up. They say 'now imagine this dimension works like this' failing to realise they have drawn all 11 dimensions the exact same way, as a completely inert dot. They themselves are entirely incapable of imagining the functions of their dimension series.

They also try to describe 1 dimension and 2 dimensions using glib illustrations.
A dot on a piece of paper is not 1 dimensional.
It is a flat disc, a squat cylinder of pencil lead, or a blob of ink.
Two dots with a line between them does not show 2D space. You have simply drawn a line, a flat strip of ink on paper, a 3 dimensional shape.

Should you draw a 3rd dot and connect it to the other 2, have you now drawn a 3rd dimesnion? But a triangle is a 2D shape isn't it? The pyramid is the 3D version?
'just imagine the 3rd dot shows the 3rd dimension'
No
Wrong
You can either show me or you can't.

[Anonymous No.17890820]

>>17890625
Base my ideas of life on fiction? You are embarrasing yourself not me.

[Anonymous No.17890833]

>>17890666
Learn to read. Nerdculture hardly cares about this interpretation, these are what physicists believe. Moore is tryharding hard.

[Anonymous No.17890866]

>>17889679
>Einstein suggested that we live in a universe that has at least four spatial dimensions.
No he didn't.

>They have to be spatial dimensions
No they don't.

>because that’s what a dimension is.
No it's not. Dimensions can be both time-like or space-like, depending on their signature.


>In the case of the fourth dimension, there has to be one because Einstein said that space-time was curved,
You can have lower-dimensional spacetimes which are still curved.


>so it needs a dimension to be curved through.
No, this is sooo wrong. He has no idea about general relativity. Curvature is an inherent property of spacetime, it doesn't curve "into" anything, it is simply curved.

>The fourth dimension is not time,
Yes it is.

>but, rather, time is the way that we experience our movement through this fourth dimension. We actually exist in what is called a block universe that is an enormous space-time solid in which every moment that has ever existed or will ever exist is there forever.
Actually, I kind of agree here.

>There are a lot of implications that come from that. One of them is that we live in an entirely predetermined universe, which I believe is what most modern physicists (although they don’t really like the idea) accept as the nature of the universe that we are in. It is predetermined.
Nope, basically no modern physicist believes this, due to the inherent randomness in quantum mechanics.

>It is predetermined. This, of course, immediately banishes the idea of free will and causes a variety of philosophical problems.
Even if the universe is entirely predetermined, it doesn't banish free will. As he said, time is just how we perceive movement along the time-like dimension, we have still taken free choices at each point along the dimension even though they alle exist simultaneously in space-time.

>It would probably cause some problems for science because a predetermined universe obviates the laws of cause and effect or, at least, makes them a little more unclear.
What? It makes cause and effect perfectly clear. It's true randomness, the type which exists in quantum mechanics, which leads to problems with causality.

Honestly, the density of wrongness here is impressive.

[Anonymous No.17890885]

>>17890866
what do you think dimension means

[Anonymous No.17890908]

>>17889679
No, not at all. Time is a dimension because you can measure a "time-distance" as an interval between two events, and Einsteins innovation is recognizing that that this distance is relative depending on the observer. This observation comes from two postulates:

1. There exist waves that need no medium to propagate.
2. These waves are locally indistinguishable

These postulates have nothing to do chance and determinism. However deeper analysis finds that these postulates require only a single speed of light, limiting the "speed of randomness" i.e the speed by which uncertainty can be generated. This constraint is added to quantum mechanics (a fully stochastic theory) by way of the Dirac equation. The Dirac equation is extensively verified, and is both relativistic and stochastic.

The quotes author is wrong and should refrain from commenting on physics until he has educated himself on these topics.

[Anonymous No.17890917]

>>17890866
No, he's right, the 4th dimension is not time.

[Anonymous No.17890931]

>>17890833
I can read fine.
>>17890816
Read this.
Physicists aren't allowed to believe in fairytales.
Science is supposed to be hard, backed by rigorous tests and evidence.

Scientists are currently unable to even describe their extra dimensions.
They can't even define the terms they spout in relation to them.

This topic is pure nerdculture.

[Anonymous No.17890941]

>>17890931
>Science is supposed to be hard, backed by rigorous tests and evidence.
You're mistaking proof with evidence. There is evidence already.

[Anonymous No.17890943]

>>17890917
But his idea of the 4th dimension as sonething we move through which is perceived as time is also entirely wrong.

[Anonymous No.17890961]

>>17890885
Essentially linearly independent vectors. In the case of GR we are describing spactime as manifold which has a certain dimensionality equivalent to the dimension of the matrix representation of its metric.

>>17890917
It doesn't matter in what way you order them, in our universe you have to have one time-like dimension.

>>17889945
Yes, basically the whole hypothesis can be dismissed by something a physics or maths undergrad could tell him.

[Anonymous No.17890968]

>>17890931
>Scientists are currently unable to even describe their extra dimensions.
You don't need to prove something to establish it exists. Scientists don't know how the movement through these dimensions happen but evidence for them both mathematical and experimental, is there.

[Anonymous No.17890982]

The theory of relativity (entirely one man's headmovie, a dream) is totally wrong, of course. Einstein would have me believe that if there is a sun sitting stable relative to me blasting out light, and another sun moving away from me at a literal billion miles an hour also blasting out light, that the light from these entities approaches me at exactly the same speed. Not relatively close but exactly the same. Have you ever dropped something from a moving car lmao? What happens, does it drop straight down? The fool. It's obviously nonsense and any experiment that claims to have verified it is clearly flawed in some currently unknown way.

[Anonymous No.17890999]

>>17890961
>Essentially linearly independent vectors.
So you do realize that they're spatial. Earlier you said they did not have to be

[Anonymous No.17891021]

>>17890961
>GR
Gravity's Rainbow?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_gravity_theory

[Anonymous No.17891022]

I don't understand the disconnect between predetermination/fate/etc. and free will. Even if God and/or the universe knows what my decisions are going to be, they're still mine. I still make them. Just because they are predetermined doesn't mean that my agency wasn't the causal factor.

[Anonymous No.17891026]

>>17890982
>It's obviously nonsense and any experiment that claims to have verified it is clearly flawed in some currently unknown way.
And you busted them all in a currently unknown way!

[Anonymous No.17891029]

>>17890999
Do you think vectors are spatial? What do you think they are? Arrows?

[Anonymous No.17891035]

>>17891021
General relativity.

[Anonymous No.17891040]

>>17890982

Sorry to break it to you, but it has been verified by observing the time of the light coming back.

[Anonymous No.17891042]

>>17891021
General relativity

>>17891022
Yeah, I also don't get it. Apart from the physics being very wrong, it seems like a non-argument. Would love if somebody could explain it to me.

[Anonymous No.17891045]

>>17890982
Wow man. You should publish this and claim your Nobel. If only Einstein had considered relative motion when he outlined the goddamn theory of relativity.

[Anonymous No.17891051]

>>17890999
Look up the definition of tensors. Vectors are not arrows in space.

[Anonymous No.17891067]

>>17891026
>>17891040
>>17891045
This clear and incisive argument threatens you because you've invested your egos in the funny hair man whom authorities told you to trust. I'm so sorry, bros. Will you be alright?

[Anonymous No.17891074]

>>17891067
You need to be more subtle. Look at >>17890816
It's hard to determine whether he is trolling or just legimately thinks higher dimensions don't exist because he can't draw them on a piece of paper.

[Anonymous No.17891079]

>>17891051
Try looking up the definition of dimension, you dimwit.
>n. A measure of spatial extent, especially width, height, or length.
>n. Extent or magnitude; scope.

[Anonymous No.17891090]

>>17891022
I remember seeing a post here some time ago that mentioned that Dante described fate as a small boat on its way to a waterfall: yes, the path is fixed but we can still move a bit inside the boat and move the boat to the left or to the right.

[Anonymous No.17891113]

>>17891090
Meant the ending not the path*

[Anonymous No.17891121]

>>17891067
There are countless textbooks where you can follow along the math that explains relativity and come to the slow realization of exactly how retarded you sound right now

[Anonymous No.17891141]

>>17891090
>>17891022
Found the post. Any thoughts?

[Anonymous No.17891154]

>>17891079
Try to read a bit of general relativity. Carroll has an excelent introduction (I used it myself).

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll2.html

You basically know a little bit of maths, enough to be wrong, but not enough to know that you are wrong.
We are discussing differential geometry, not linear algebra.

[Anonymous No.17891156]

>>17891121
You realize not even physicists think Einstein got it right... dont you? You're aware that to this day they're still trying to figure out why it doesnt work at various scales... I mean... you've at least heard of the concept of an ongoing search for a "theory of everything?" Just trying to gauge the extent of your ignorance before we continue, I mean do you think this book was closed in like 1920 lmao

[Anonymous No.17891164]

>>17891154
I'm a topologist and you dont even know what a dimension is, lad.

[Anonymous No.17891167]

>>17890266
>>17889938
Thoroughly stupid. There are several arguments I would use to contest this point.

First and simplest is that you should learn more mathematics. Cantor effectively debunked this years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument

The fact of the matter is even outside this framework, in regular or everyday terms every process is like this on a nuanced macroscopic view. The only reason one couldn't infer the totality of any process from whatever stage of it is a lack of tools or knowledge to determine the causal chain, but it remains extant.

Lastly the universe is infinite and ever expanding, science has been entirely wrong and the speed of its expansion has been increasing not decreasing. What kind of person calls infinite expansion inert? An ignorant one. Moore should stick to writing shitty fiction for middle schoolers and manchildren.

[Anonymous No.17891192]

>>17891074
I think platos realm of forms is a decent description of a higher 'dimension' - It has some purpose and connection to our world.

The 11+ dimensions larp has gone too far, there is nothing holding it up.
Not even a proper clear description of what they are supposed to be, or what they do.
It's nerdculture, used to justify fantasies of teleporation and time travel that people have seen in their favorite movies and video games.
It's a promise of 'dudes trust me, SCIENTISTS have just given us permission to pretend it's all real. Warp drives and visiting dinosaur times is basically just around the corner.'

[Anonymous No.17891201]

>>17891164
>doubt
In that case you should understand perfectly well what is meant by space-like and time-like vectors, right?

[Anonymous No.17891215]

>>17891192
>I think platos realm of forms is a decent description of a higher 'dimension' - It has some purpose and connection to our world.
No, you're thinking of the pop-culture description of dimensions basically being parallel universes. Simply thinkg of them as being different directions.

[Anonymous No.17891218]

>>17889679
He is right.

[Anonymous No.17891235]

>>17891167
Firstly, I only speak under the assumption that time is no different from any spatial dimension, a belief I do not hold.
Secondly, don't accost me with math. It has nothing to do with the matter. And an infinitely expanding universe would be no more lively than an neverending ice cream cone. Infinite at the end, surely, but it does not undergo any change.

[Anonymous No.17891258]

>>17891022
If all of your actions are themselves determined by other conditions then it's hard to say in what sense they're freely determined by you or anything else. I believe in will as you say, that we are ultimately the cause or owners of our actions, but if there is freedom it can't really be said to belong to me more than it does anything else. Even if both freedom and will exist it seems like are separate factors rather than a single coherent process like we think of them as intuitively.

[Anonymous No.17891260]

>>17890982
>It's obviously nonsense and any experiment that claims to have verified it is clearly flawed in some currently unknown way.
There's a guy on YouTube called Ken Wheeler who describes light as a perturbation through a medium rather than a substance shooting forward through space.
So think a ripple moving across water, rather than a boat sailing through it. Or a sound wave in the air rather than a bullet passing through the air.

This is interesting because femtophotography has filmed bursts of light impacting objects, and sometimes the light 'splashes' inward rather than outward.
It was suggested this was some strange time reversal process, but if you consider the idea of perturbation in an aether medium it would make as much sense.

[Anonymous No.17891265]

>>17891260
How does he reconcile it with the Michelson-Morley experiment?

[Anonymous No.17891279]

>>17891215
Why?

[Anonymous No.17891308]

>>17889679
>the fourth dimension is not time, rather it is time
Bravo Moore

[Anonymous No.17891329]

>>17891279
What do you mean "why"?

[Anonymous No.17891330]

>>17889938
The same could be said about time, which would mean that time isn't really a 4th dimension but the result of the momentum the universe has.

[Anonymous No.17891369]

>>17891265
If there was no possibility of final aether mediums then there would be no fabric of reality.
Time is travelling through something - space itself is some kind of ultimate medium. There has to be something supporting the existence of existing.

The Michelson Morley tests tried to show that the movement of the earth through space didn't affect the speed of light in any direction. OK, so then if that is true, how is it any less possible that Einstein relativity applies to aether medium peturbation instead of beams of light?

[Anonymous No.17891388]

>>17891329
You said to simply think of them of directions?
But what is the purpose of them?

[Anonymous No.17891443]

>>17891388
Things don't exist because they have a purpose. They simply are.

>>17891369
> OK, so then if that is true, how is it any less possible that Einstein relativity applies to aether medium peturbation instead of beams of light?
Because a perturbation in a medium will have a definite speed relative to that medium.

[Anonymous No.17891444]

>>17891079
Woah! No need to get so worked up. Your idea about dimensions is very philistinic and they are interpreted differently in mathematics which is the life giver to GR.

[Anonymous No.17891453]

>>17891443
>Things don't exist because they have a purpose. They simply are.
straw man

[Anonymous No.17891476]

>>17891443
>Because a perturbation in a medium will have a definite speed relative to that medium.
In other words - the speed of light

[Anonymous No.17891494]

>>17891476
Yeah, but the problem is that you also have a speed relative to that medium. As has any other inertial frame. This means that you have just defined a universal inertial frame. Now you need to reconcile that with the vast amount of experimental data aligning with special relativity.

[Anonymous No.17891499]

>>17891444
It's not even a dimension if you can't take a distance from it, dummy. Moore is dead right that it is therefore definitionally spatial.

[Anonymous No.17891506]

>>17890052
this was me when i was 20 years old

[Anonymous No.17891510]

>>17891453
Why do electrons exist? Why does spacetime?

[Anonymous No.17891514]

>>17890238
yes, i´ve also watched True Detective

[Anonymous No.17891515]

>>17891510
They all have functions. They exist to perform a function.

[Anonymous No.17891518]

>>17891499
Define spatial

[Anonymous No.17891528]

>>17891499
Moving through the 4th dimension is not perceived as time, you retard. Read a fucking book on it by a proper physicist not some comic book writer who has no idea what he is talking about.

[Anonymous No.17891531]

>>17891156

Not that anon, but the book was closed in 1920 and was later verified.

We need more science literacy in our schools is what I am getting from your posts.

[Anonymous No.17891533]

you can´t describe yourself as a materialist if you willingly want to believe in the idea of dimensions

[Anonymous No.17891538]

>>17891515
Explain the function of a tau-lepton then.

[Anonymous No.17891539]

>>17891514
Never watched it. All I know it has something to do with Ligotti.

[Anonymous No.17891634]

>>17891528
Well. If you define the 4-position in space-time as x=(x,y,z,ct), then I guess arguably the passage of time (t -> t+dt) would indeed correspond to a movement along the 4th dimension in the manifold.
That doesn't mean dimensions are "definitionally spatial" or that Moore is making any sense, though.

[Anonymous No.17891678]

>>17891634
This has a theoretical basis in Einstein's general idea, but Moore's idea of classifying Time as something you move through to justify eternalism is iffy. First of all there is no evidence of backwards travel in time, for it to be definitionally spatial there needs to be another point with which the line can be joined. So all you have is the now with past existing only in perception, you can point to the future but again, it doesn't exist until this moment has been lost. This is why in the modern dimensional theories time is set aside as a temporal dimension instead being included as a spatial one.

[Anonymous No.17891750]

>>17889679
>>Einstein suggested that we live in a universe that has at least four spatial dimensions. They have to be spatial dimensions because that’s what a dimension is. In the case of the fourth dimension, there has to be one because Einstein said that space-time was curved, so it needs a dimension to be curved through. The fourth dimension is not time, but, rather, time is the way that we experience our movement through this fourth dimension. We actually exist in what is called a block universe that is an enormous space-time solid in which every moment that has ever existed or will ever exist is there forever.
100%
>>There are a lot of implications that come from that. One of them is that we live in an entirely predetermined universe, which I believe is what most modern physicists (although they don’t really like the idea) accept as the nature of the universe that we are in. It is predetermined. This, of course, immediately banishes the idea of free will and causes a variety of philosophical problems. It would probably cause some problems for science because a predetermined universe obviates the laws of cause and effect or, at least, makes them a little more unclear.
Yes and no. The predetermined shape may very well include what we freely decide to do; i.e. free will shapes the universe. The answer is Compatibilism.

[Anonymous No.17891769]

>>17891494
I'm not denying the existence of relativity.

Relativity literally makes more sense as a description of a universal light medium.
Why is the speed of light consistent in a vacuum?
You could replace the term vacuum with the term medium.
The description of the speed of light in a vacuum describes the vacuum just as much as it does the light.
A vacuum isn't nothing, there's no such thing as nothing.
It's still measurable as space, things in the vacuum of space have a location. Time is somehow still governing the vacuum.

Described in the widely accepted sense, potential within a vacuum is allowing particles of light to travel through it already.
Described in the current fashion, light acts as both particles and waves. Waves of what? These waves pass through what?

[Anonymous No.17891817]

>>17891769
Also how can groups of particles have consistent wavelengths? What are they rippling/pulsating through?

You have all the colours of visible light, the rainbow. All different wavelengths. You have radio waves, microwaves, all these wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum.

But...despite the fact they are called waves and behave as waves and are acknowledged standardly as waves, they can't be waves in a medium.

[Anonymous No.17891820]

>>17891769
>You could replace the term vacuum with the term medium.
But can you really? Really? Can you show me the maths where it works, because I have a hard time seeing it.

>It's still measurable as space, things in the vacuum of space have a location. Time is somehow still governing the vacuum.
Yeah, this is where you have a misconception. There is no fixed background space in relation to which all position is measured. If there was you would be right, you could define the speed of light in relation to a medium. But there isn't, it is one of the core tenets of SR. Space is relative, it has to be to keep the speed of light fixed between inertial frames.

>Described in the current fashion, light acts as both particles and waves. Waves of what? These waves pass through what?
Fotons are quantised excitations of a U(1) gauge field in the modern description. They propagate through this field, but not in relation to a fixed spacetime background.

[Anonymous No.17891847]

>>17891817
>But...despite the fact they are called waves and behave as waves and are acknowledged standardly as waves, they can't be waves in a medium.
Yes, electromagnetic waves are self-propagating, they don't need a medium. You can see this if you set up and solve Maxwell's equations as a wave equation in a vacuum.

[Anonymous No.17891881]

>>17889938
>In a block universe, there is no special status given to the direction of time.
Sure there is: the direction of time is up and out on the fourth dimension of space. The shape and story of the universe is formed from the inside out: we're reading a finished book that we ourselves have and will have written, just as it wrote us.

[Anonymous No.17891903]

>/lit/izens who don't know math and have no idea how physics works trying to disprove relativity
Holy shit
GR is a model used to describe some phenomena, not everything behaves under the paradigm and it isn't a prescriptivist framework of The Nature of Reality™, shut the fuck up
Nobody has "disproven" relativity or time being a dimension just because their work is in a different field that doesn't involve relativity and use its geometries

[Anonymous No.17892025]

>>17891820
>Fotons are quantised excitations of a U(1) gauge field in the modern description.
So now we are splitting hairs. Field, but not medium.
So a field can pass through a vacuum, and it has waves.

You say there is no fixed background space in relation to the position of measurements, and yet we do measure positions in space. You may as well say there is no such thing as space.
You're basically saying measurements dont matter.

There are arguments offered in modern science that are so obtuse and contradictory, the meaning of words becomes loosely defined in order to support them.
The current system struggles to define things like what a 'point' is, what a 'field' and even if measurement is even real, or the universe itself.

This is a major problem.
You have people like Neil's Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye claiming 'lmao philosophy is gay' because pop science and academia have become so bloated and strained that they don't think it matters if you even make sense when you talk.
They don't think there has to be any meaning.

[Anonymous No.17892078]

>>17892025
None of what you're whining about is correct in the slightest. All of those words are very precisely defined, YOU just don't know their definitions because you're completely unfamiliar with any of the subject matter.

[Anonymous No.17892219]

>>17889679
And this is why girlfriends are so overrated?

[Anonymous No.17892236]

>>17891903
Imagine thinking physics is free of metaphysics. Also who the fuck is trying to disprove shit?

[Anonymous No.17892359]

>>17892236
It's not entirely free of it, but using physics to discuss metaphysics requires an actual working knowledge of the physics itself, which none of you bloviating retards have in any capacity.
Have you ever, in your life, integrated a function? Do you know what Maxwell's Equations are and how they are used? What a "basis" is, in terms of linear algebra? Why the fuck should I listen to you faggots shouting about how physicists fundamentally misunderstand their own fields if you know less math than any of them did in middle school?

[Anonymous No.17892384]

>>17889915
can you then elucidate what einstein really suggested?

[Anonymous No.17892416]

>They have to be spatial dimensions because that's what a dimension is.
This is a blatant falsehood and demonstrates that he has never even heard of the concept of a differential equation.

[Anonymous No.17892464]

>>17892078
Bullshit.
When spamming the word science loses effect, spamming the word math inevitably comes into play. When spamming of coined terms and arbitrary definitions for various theories reaches the wall, the current limit of understanding, rather than admit that science doesn't know all things and is very far from it, there's the great claim that outsiders to professional or academic science aren't equipped to see the invisible clothes of the naked emperor.

The current realm of science discussion is a byzantine mishmash of poorly defined terms and outright lies. Newspapers regularly report the invention of >teleportation
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/german-scientists-teleporter-transporter-3d-printing-star-trek
But this article is actually about a pair of 3d printers - an object is cut down layer by layer in one printer, and another printer creates a replica of the destroyed object. The two printers have nothing to do with each other. Basically it's a simple tribute to the idea of a teleporter in movies. Not a teleporter in any way.

So far I've read of various things being announced as the invention of teleportation.
>3D printing
>fiber optic cables
>radio transmitters
And the best one was a claim that some students got a plate full of Indian curry and teleported a few atoms of it. They didn't use a sample of Carbon or Iron, but a plateful of cooked food, containing 100s of substances and compounds. BAZINGA. All the articles have screenshots from Star Trek or The Fly with Jeff Goldblum. This may be the fault of the media, but it shows the absolute chronic pollution of the public perception of science.
It isn't just the media, but Scientists themselves. Michio Kaku makes garbage documentaries where he talks about useless space travel methods that are all stupid and impossible, talking about being able to travel at light speed in a ship when there's literally zero evidence you can do that with a vehicle. Nothing but Star Trek memeing all the way down.
Nick Bostrom, who is a real scientist, plagiarised the 1999 Matrix movie in his 2003 Simulation Theory. He has used his science credibility to push forward a completely unscientific idea. He literally hasn't even bothered to propose a real theory, it's just a word salad of daydreams where he says it's logical to assume super advanced aliens have somehow trapped us (our bodies, our spirits? He doesn't say) in an alternate reality they have somehow created, for reasons. OR it could be that they made The Matrix...I mean, the simulation, to figure out how early civilisations develop.
>lmao aliens
>lmao teleportation
>lmao travelling at the speed of light even though it would still take thousands/millions of years to reach other stars, for literally zero ultimate benefit to anyone. We wont run out of food or fuel or need to return
>lmao dyson spheres
>lmao The Matrix 1999 Neo so cool with the trenchcoat
>lmao dark matter
>lmao lmao lmao
>lmao lmoa lmao lmao lmao

[Anonymous No.17892478]

>>17892464

[Anonymous No.17892527]

>>17892416
Bro, I hate to break it to you, but a dimension is definitionally spatial. You just havent looked it up and Moore has. I'm so sorry.

[Anonymous No.17892542]

>>17889899
Concepts of "cause and effect" are just empirical habit. You can't prove definitively that one thing "caused" another, in a sense of dependency. But there is an apprearance that this is the case.

[Anonymous No.17892573]

>>17889679

>Fourth dimension is time

NO IT ISN'T. STOP REPEATING THIS. TIME ISN'T A DIRECTION TO MOVE IN. STOP STOP STOP.

[Anonymous No.17892581]

>>17892542
ive done enough programming and solved enough bugs doing so, to know causality is real

[Anonymous No.17892602]

>>17892478

Tyson probably gets a bad rap for being Reddit popular. I had the opportunity to talk with him after a conference and he's fully aware and respects the fact that science, religion, and philosophy are pursing entirely different ends.

[Anonymous No.17892622]

>>17889679

Space-time is a 'solid block' because cause and effect is just a grammatical rule and existence is a single event that doesn't preclude deterministic outcomes or free will.

This post brought to you by non-dualist gang.

[Anonymous No.17892627]

>>17892464
I'll tell you again that your own ignorance of even a surface-level understanding of physics does not mean everybody who does know it is just pretending. I do not give even the slightest bit of a fuck what the goddamn Guardian or Michio Kaku or retarded simulation bloggers say about anything, and the fact that you do is completely irrelevant beyond serving as yet another shining example of why mass literacy was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.17892655]

>>17892527
Bro, I hate to break it to you, but you are emphatically wrong. Any undergrad course that touches on Hamiltonian or Laplacian mechanics goes over this in great detail. Even simple mechanical problems like swinging pendulums can have their working dimensions reduced or increased according to the needs of the model. Time can easily be a dimension. So can pressure, temperature, density, and innumerable other non-spatial variables. Stop talking out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.17892666]

>>17892655
>Time can easily be a dimension.
Yes, it's a spatial dimension, as are all dimensions. Thank you for catching up to where we were before this thread even began.

[Anonymous No.17892705]

>>17892464
Not the anon you're replying to, but I think it's kind of brilliant how nothing you've said in this post is relevant to the discussion.
>>17891769
>Vacuum is interchangeable with medium and things within it still have a location. The speed of light is defined with that reference. Also, in the modern sense, light is both a particle and a wave, but a wave needs a medium to propagate. So what are light-waves propagating through?
>>17891820
>I don't think the maths hold up if we do what you said. Things in vacuum have a location, but it is relative. You can't define the speed of light based on an absolute frame of reference. Regarding the second point, in the modern sense photons (light) are excitations of a quantum field and they propagate through it. Furthermore, electromagnetic waves in the classical description (Maxwell's equations) don't need a medium to propagate.
>>17892025
>wtf saying space is relative basically implies that measurements don't matter. Modern physics is a hoax. The meaning of stuff like 'fields' or 'point's or even if the universe is real are unclear.
>>17892078
>None of those terms is ambiguous, you just don't know what you're talking about.

>What about this newspaper article saying some nerd has invented teleportation or this one guy I've cherrypicked tho, this proves that scientists don't know what they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.17892723]

>>17889679
How was I so STUPID? This completely elucidates this paper on Virasoro Algebras!! I'll suggest to my PhD advisor that we talk about this during our next seminar, this has just made everything done in theoretical physics for the last 70 years so obsolete!
FUCK OFF MOORE NOONE LIKES YOU

[Anonymous No.17892741]

>>17890866
>>The fourth dimension is not time,
>Yes it is.
I don't even agree with him but c=1.

>>There are a lot of implications that come from that. One of them is that we live in an entirely predetermined universe, which I believe is what most modern physicists (although they don’t really like the idea) accept as the nature of the universe that we are in. It is predetermined.
>Nope, basically no modern physicist believes this, due to the inherent randomness in quantum mechanics.
https://inspirehep.net/literature?sort=mostrecent&size=25&page=1&q=determinism&ui-citation-summary=true&ui-exclude-self-citations=true
Stop spreading lies on the internet. Imagine how many more results there'd be if I used arXiv or if I used more specific terminology.

[Anonymous No.17892747]

>>17892478
Tyson is based.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA9k-Qib-ok

[Anonymous No.17892794]

>>17892723
>I've heavily invested something, and that makes it true.

[Anonymous No.17892838]

>>17891167
>Lastly the universe is infinite and ever expanding, science has been entirely wrong and the speed of its expansion has been increasing not decreasing
I believe people always knew that, its just that its a hard pill to take for weak people (like most scientists are, just like 4channers --bugmen). Anyway, after Ylia Prigogine, thats something that cant be evaded.

[Anonymous No.17892857]

>>17892464
>>17892705
Also:
>When spamming the word science loses effect
No one has done this
>spamming the word math inevitably comes into play
No one has done this. Even if they had, why the hell would you argue about theoretical physics if you're not prepared to talk about maths?
>When spamming of coined terms and arbitrary definitions for various theories reaches the wall
Claiming that general relativity or quantum field theory are arbitrary or don't care about measurements is just delusional (due to the practice of renormalization, for a start)
>rather than admit that science doesn't know all things
This wasn't your claim. All the researchers I know are aware that Physics is a work in progress, otherwise they wouldn't have a job. What you're saying isn't that physical theories are incomplete, but rather that they're poorly constructed.
>The current realm of science discussion is a byzantine mishmash of poorly defined terms and outright lies
Science discussion doesn't take place in general newspapers or TV programmes. Yes, some hoaxes are published. This says nothing about the state of academia at large.

[Anonymous No.17892927]

>>17891515
>smoothbrain attempts deductive reasoning
>posts circular reasoning instead
lol

[Anonymous No.17893047]

look Josh I broke /lit/

[Anonymous No.17893488]

>>17890159
Yeah but Moore believes that if you believe something it’s real so he believes it which it’s real according to him.

[Anonymous No.17893495]

>>17893047
>I found a way i found a way

[Anonymous No.17893548]

>>17893047
that's not my name

[Anonymous No.17893595]

>>17891539
watch True Detective season 1 episode episode 5 because that´s the main argument one of the protagonist made in one of his monologues

[Anonymous No.17894574]

>>17893488
If he started on one of his magik tirades to explain his philosophy there would be no problem, but he wants The Science to do it for him. It's bullshit.

[Anonymous No.17894643]

all things aside, we still dont have a non circular definition of time, have no idea why its going one way instead of the other, why its "going" at all, and that things in the past are seemingly determined and cant be changed so from the point of view of the end of history, there is fatalism.

[Anonymous No.17894681]

>>17892384
not better than einstein

[Anonymous No.17894708]

>>17889679
>inductive scientific theory "proving" something about the fundamental constitution of reality
Yeah, pass.

[Anonymous No.17894792]

>>17889679
no he's not a physicist he's a demonically possessed comic book writer and occult tinkerer who shit out a book called Jerusalem that sucked immensely

he has zero authority, this is him reaching for an explanation because he has rejected the truth

[Anonymous No.17894860]

>>17889679
Yes, he is right and his conclusions are even spot on.

[Anonymous No.17895031]

>>17894708
this, sitting around and making stuff up has shown itself to be far more successful and powerful anyway

[Anonymous No.17895114]

>>17890052
/thread

[Anonymous No.17896168]

>>17895031
This is quite literally how einstein came up with general relativity.

[Anonymous No.17896207]

>>17889679
I sure do take the interpretation of a comic book writter who takes magic seriously when he talks about the philosophical application of modern physics.
If anything, Newton's physics implied a deterministic unviserse much more so than modern science with the quantum bullshit I won't claim to be an expert on

[Anonymous No.17896218]

>>17890238
M-theory is far from proven tho

[Anonymous No.17896224]

>>17896207
If you're not an expert then why not just refrain from having an opinion instead of basing it on irrelevant authority like what the guy's day job is? Be Socrates instead of Fallacies

[Anonymous No.17896227]

>>17890816
>They involve drawing a series of dots on paper, then connecting them up. They say 'now imagine this dimension works like this' failing to realise they have drawn all 11 dimensions the exact same way, as a completely inert dot. They themselves are entirely incapable of imagining the functions of their dimension series.
>bros the vulgarisation they gave for retards who can't understand the math looks retarded to me, means it's all false

[Anonymous No.17896230]

>>17891022
If our actions are determined, then it looks like, for all it feels like we're choosing to do X in a situation, there really was no other option. Given the constellation of effects which determines our action, we couldn't do anything other than X, even if it feels like we could have chosen to do Y, or just not to do X at all and go home instead. If our "choices" are really just a matter of doing something like vector addition of all the influences in our life that lead to us doing X, it's not clear why *we* are the ones responsible for the act, rather than the influences that lead to that act. If I kill a man, but was causally determined to do so by my poor upbringing, desperate social situation, etc, if I had no ability to act otherwise, it's not clear why *I* am at fault rather than the necessitating causes. I pulled the trigger, sure, but that's just a chronologically proximate event. It's not clear why that event should be called "mine" and make me morally guilty just because it's closer in time than my mother beating me as a child or my dad abandoning the family. All the acts were causally necessary to me shooting someone, but pulling the trigger makes me a murderer and for some arbitrary reason the other acts don't. This isn't a terribly well formatted post so feel free to ask for more clarification.

[Anonymous No.17896243]

>>17896224
you're right anon

[Anonymous No.17896293]

>>17890968
The problem with science is that scientific realism is completely retarded. Bible level of retardation. According to ‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’science’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ reality is composed by mathematical objects.

Nobody has ever witnessed those immaterial mathematical constructs.

It’s peak atheist midwitism . The main problem with determinism and science is that they use ‘’rules’’ and those ‘’rules’’ 1/ are not subject to determinism 2/ don’t live in the universe 3/ nobody knows where they come from 4/ no atheist is able to explain how a material system, say a particle, is supposed to know how to behave, ie following the immaterial rules during an interaction, before it interacts.
5/all the rules are followed not deterministically, but statistically at best

[Anonymous No.17896316]

>>17891369
>There has to be something supporting the existence of existing.
This is the classic problem of the elephants holding up the world, which stand on a turtle. If there MUST be a medium to support existence, then what medium supports the medium that supports existence? You're recycling a truism as old as writing.

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYqWRDiE No.17896738]

JUST KEEP DRAWING COMICS, STALE «HIPPIE».

[Anonymous No.17896802]

>>17894792
>demonically possessed
And you chastise him for not being a physicist

[Anonymous No.17896820]

>>17896293
I do agree that Science rebuffs its own foundation in faith (Newton realized it too). However, even ignoring the factual, what Moore is doing is pitting his own theory and perception against another one that has been revised and intrapolated over centuries. Even if the axioms require faith to be true they are a lot more sophisticated than Moore's hoky interpretations. The theories have evidence that concide with those axioms, that they don't have any logically proven basis at base is no critique against it; it will require an entirely different conception that rebukes it while being congruent with observable phenomena.

[Anonymous No.17896843]

>>17896218
Sure but it has far better chances of being closer to the truth than whatever Moore is suggesting. M-theory is consistent with einstein's theories which is what Moore is using as foundation for his fabrication.

[Anonymous No.17898309]

>>17893047
Fuck you. I hate these kinds of threads but I'm too autistic to just leave them alone.

[Anonymous No.17898396]

>>17891514
then start asking the right fucking questions

[Anonymous No.17898614]

>>17892478
was it Harris or Dawkins who was like "Plato got everything wrong" I think it was Dawkins

[Anonymous No.17898649]

>>17890820
Intuition you retard, INTUITION! One does not learn the truths of the universe by observing the universe alone but by feeling it as well.

[Anonymous No.17898674]

>>17898649
>feel the truth of the universe bro!!
Stop embarrassing yourself retarded poser.

[Anonymous No.17898774]

>>17898649
No way you are over 18.
>"invent your headcanon, that is the correct way"
>"No No No!! Don't believe that shit, it's all headcanon."

[Anonymous No.17899425]

>>17889679
Who cares?
Love one another. Why do you need to know more?

[Anonymous No.17899779]

>>17892236
>Also who the fuck is trying to disprove shit?

>>17890159
>Time being the 4th dimension has long been disproven.

[Anonymous No.17899988]

>>17889945
He makes no sense and you dont either. GR isn't even about gauss curvature and the necessity to have 4 dimension is just observational, nothing to do with the presence of curvature

[Anonymous No.17899999]

>>17899425
Ad gloriam Dei

[Anonymous No.17900033]

>>17899999
Amen

[Anonymous No.17900060]

>>17889679
Alan Moore is a pseud. A few years ago he suggested the (mostly Jewish) creators of early comics were inspired by Birth of a Nation.

[Anonymous No.17900644]

>>17899999
Based.

[Anonymous No.17900708]

>>17899999
Based and Amen

[Anonymous No.17901047]

what an embarrassing thread.

[Anonymous No.17901107]

>>17901047
it is now

[Anonymous No.17901130]

>>17900060
why wouldn't this be the case? birth of a nation is essentially the foundation of all cinema. disagreeing outs you as cinematically illiterate

[Anonymous No.17901679]

>>17899779
It was. Stop watching inept youtube videos

[Anonymous No.17901693]

>>17896738
kek
based