What do you believe?

[Jaxly]

Awesome, awesome thread.  Thanks everyone!

I just gave karma to oldtrees. Was that a good deed?
I lost nothing doing it. I had no particular selfish want or need to do it at the time but am now using it to ellicit a hopefully entertaining response.
Is the "useless" karma point now sullied?

If I go on and give a point to everyone then am I being really good? (economics! yay!)Double cross has less karma - When I click the + button next to his name theres no difference to me than when I gave it to oldtrees, but since it means more to him is the deed more righteous?
(Not meant to be about karma system - Make it a dollar bill if you want)

"There is a concept of "levels". If, on any given level the history has changed, such that it is not even true that it once happened, you can "go one level up" to a history where you see it happening, and then being erased.

If, something somehow changes that level, you go one level further up.

Thus, no matter how much history could be erased, it always will have happened."

This sounds cool but I don't understand it - could you explain it a little bit? (sorry, Im slow)


Unhelpful comments below!
(seperate from the unhelpful comments above)

"You even have a velocity in the 4th dimension although I do not know how to represent that with units. Maybe 1sec/sec?) "

lollers for philosophysics

If a person in a white void moves at 100km/hr..
Time has passed in the statement - thats a motion in a plane.. I thought?
Also, motion relative to the motile is 0

Also also, if the guy takes a leak and then moves away from the floating puddle then wouldn't some part of him definitely be moving? (same as if he waved his hand in front of his face?)

Colour blind guy is given two identical coats; one black, one white.
He notices that when he wears the white one on a sunny day he sweats less.
(Colour indirectly affecting CB guy - reflection of heat)

"That which can be destroyed by the truth should be"
Mommy, mommy! Daddy got drunk and slept with aunty Jude!

"Please know your science before trying and using it to shoot down someone's beliefs."
Lollers for giving a definition of science

[Kakerlake]

I just gave karma to oldtrees. Was that a good deed?
I lost nothing doing it. I had no particular selfish want or need to do it at the time but am now using it to ellicit a hopefully entertaining response.
Is the "useless" karma point now sullied?

You actually gained something from doing that: a proof that folks can do good deeds for nothing.
But since you did it for something it's no more a proof, which means, it was useless to do it.
Because of that, you have again a proof which makes it useles again...
erm... we've got a paradoxon, the world will shortly explode because of that!!
Waaaahhhh the majas weren't right! the world ends NOW!!!

[Wonder]

I'm an Atheist.
My family isn't very religious, so I don't know whether or not I would be how I am now if I was brought up to believe in God, but I wasn't, and I don't feel the need to believe in something like God.
I don't have anything against religion, I actually think some of it is pretty cool.
I don't believe in God or choose to take part in religious beliefs because I don't like how being religious can cause you to be narrow-minded... the thought that a religion is perfect is a good example of that narrow-minded thought process.

[Bloodshadow]

Please know your science before trying and using it to shoot down someone's beliefs.

I apologize. I'm only a Grade 12 student, and we don't learn quantum theory in physics class, so I don't know too much about it. I'm sorry if I offended you.

[doublecross]

It is ok.

The point I am making is probably better not to use as an example something you don't actually know.


Similarly, it would be inappropriate for me to argue a point based one what I think the bible says, having never actually read it.


But you were not trying to cause any harm, so you are entirely forgiven, and I am sorry if I was at all harsh on you.


You know as they say: "A little bit of quantum theory is a dangerous thing"

Cheers, mate.

[Neopergoss]

I'm an atheist. I used to call myself agnostic, but then I realized that I misunderstood the two terms and that since I don't believe in God just as much as I don't believe in the Easter bunny, it's more meaningful to consider myself an atheist. I was raised Jewish. I still have a great affinity for Jewish symbols and things, but I don't consider myself Jewish anymore. I wanted to make it work, but I couldn't get around that the belief systems are fundamentally incompatible. You'd be surprised, though, how inclusive Reform Judaism is, and I was encouraged that it could be made to work and I could be fully accepted. I'm glad I was raised in a religious sect that is so understanding, even if it doesn't always make sense 

I wanted to comment about Gandhi, because he was mentioned a few pages back. The suggestion that in all likelihood, Gandhi is going to Hell because of what his particular metaphysical beliefs were (it sounded like Ajit said that basically although this seems wrong to us, we shouldn't make those kinds of judgements because only God is allowed to) hurts me. Though I don't believe in God, I have a deep admiration both for Gandhi and for Jesus. I believe in the power of nonviolence. I think that attaching so much importance to someone's metaphysical beliefs belittles their more important messages about peace and resistance and self-sacrifice. And it hurts me that we fight, often violently, over such trivialities.

I'm interested in OldTree's exploration of ethics. I used to struggle with the idea that we are morally obligated to improve the world, even if it meant our own suffering. If people are obligated to be unhappy for other's sake, wouldn't that make everyone unhappy if they were all moral? Eventually, I solved this problem for myself. I believe that a person's purpose in life is to seek true happiness, and that the more altruistic sorts of paths are ultimately the best ways of doing that -- more fulfilling, more full of meaning and purpose -- even if they involve suffering. In recent years, I've at least begun to grasp what I think are clear evils in the world and what really needs to be changed; or to put it differently, the truly great things and what needs to be promoted. For a long time, I believed that the ultimate consequences of an action were so unclear (ie: an apparently good deed could ultimately lead to great evil) that I was very unsure about what kinds of causes I wanted to advance.

But I've become better-informed since then and I'm no longer so uncertain. Exposure to what's really going on in the world beyond the media propaganda really opened things up for me. Since early this decade, I felt like crazy things were happening in the world and everyone in the news acted like nothing was particularly out of the ordinary. In fact, crazy ideas were espoused and were treated as "just another perspective." I found a few news sources that ridiculed this kind of coverage, but they weren't serious themselves. It wasn't until about two years ago that I found what I consider to be reliable sources of news and information about the world. It satisfied a great need of mine to hear someone say "This is crazy!" when reporting something and to take a stand against some of the great injustices of our time. I have the internet to thank for that. Now, I know it's not just me and a few people I know who think that way. At the same time, it has really energized me to be able to see clearly what's going on, and it's easier for me to understand right and wrong, even in my own life. That's not to say that there isn't nuance and subtlety, just that it's easier to make sense out of it all now.

But I still don't know how best to advance the right causes. Part of it is that I still haven't reconciled the competing goals of financial security and raising a family with improving the world. But I think that's just an excuse. If I have enough time to be writing this, I have enough time to be doing something more worthwhile. The real problem is that I don't know what I could do that would help effectively. Truth be told I think I'd like to help make other people aware of the truth the same way it was done for me, but I don't know how to do that kind of research or how to reach a wider audience. I'm also afraid that I can't do it on my own without someone else's help. I was seriously misinformed for a long time, even though I could feel that there was something crazy about it all. I guess just in general I don't have confidence in myself that I could do it right. So maybe I should do something else a little easier. That really isn't meant to be a cop-out, though it may sound like one.

Does anyone else feel the same way about having purpose in life? Does anyone have any particularly accessible ideas about how to improve the world? Perhaps I should make another topic for those questions.

[OldTrees]

@Neopergoss
You said you were interested in my exploration of ethics so I will lay it out in more detail:
The Pursuit of Moral Wisdom
1) Self Awareness:
To understand others you must first recognize and understand yourself. What do you believe? Why do you believe it? What can you do? What can't you do?
2) Humility:
We are fallible. As such we can be wrong even about things that were are sure of. Recognize that your beliefs about morality can be wrong.
3) Imagination:
If you are wrong, what then? What are all the other answers to the question?
4) Empathy:
Understand the other answers from their point of view. If you judge other answers by how they match your answer then none will pass that unreasonable test. So understand the worldview and mindset of the alternative answers.
5) Reason:
After understanding the alternative answers, eliminate the ones that are not internally consistent or that do not match reality. Be very careful in this step. Don't be hasty.
6) Repeat

A warning: This process can lead to periods of non belief where you do not have an active moral theory but rather are being driven by your moral intuition alone. These periods are painful, ugly and valuable.
Painful:
You will be unsure of what to do for by then you would have learned that you cannot rely on your moral intuition but you will not be able to pick a more trustworthy alternative.
Ugly:
The disappearance of your moral theory will leave some of your baser instincts unchecked. Before my first period I was very confident in my belief that theft of any kind even "harmless theft" like watching TV episodes online was wrong. However during my first period I got into the habit of committing these "harmless thefts". These habits will take time to break if you let them form.
Valuable:
When you have few moral opinions but lots of wisdom you become nigh objective. This allows for greater clarity in how you view other possibilities.

The Pursuit of Moral Action
1) Moral Wisdom:
If you have no clue about what the moral imperatives (if any exist) then how can you follow them?
2) Self Awareness:
Once again understanding yourself, what you can do, what you will do and also your other lesser motives.
3) Empathy:
Understand the world you are in. How does it work? Who are these other people? What do they think and why?
4) Willpower:
The pursuit of moral action is not always easy. Often it is at odds with at least 1 lesser motive.
5) Humility:
Once again you still could be wrong.
6) Act

So far my answer as to how I can help is to promote Wisdom and Moral Action. (combined with my instinctual small deeds)

[Bloodshadow]

@doublecross:

I thought about quantum theory a bit more, and I think it can cause multiple histories on a macroscopic level. For example, take the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment. Each second the unstable particle has a 50% chance to decay, which will release the poison and kill the cat. After 10 seconds you open the box and find the cat dead, but you can never know at which second the particle decayed. There can be an infinite number of histories regarding this event, with the particle decaying at different times.

In fact, when I read your post again, I don't think you're entirely correct either. You basically said that the only thing true about quantum theory is the uncertainty principle, and denied the idea of quantum superposition. You thought that the particle still has one definite history even though it's impossible to predict. But actually the particle exists as a probability wave, occupying all possible positions and velocities simultaneously. The probability wave is only collapsed into one definite particle when it is observed. There is interference in the double slit experiment because the photon occupies all possible paths simultaneously and thus can interfere with itself.

I read all of this on Stephen Hawking's book, The Grand Design. Please correct me if I misunderstood anything.

[doublecross]

Ah. I consider the range of possibilities to be one history.


If someone said to you "The temperature yesterday was somewhere between 30 and 32 degrees, it is impossibly to say precisely where in that range"
you wouldn't say that there are many different histories of what that temperature was.

You would say that the history of the day was that the temp was between 30 and 32 degrees.


Even if precision is limited, there is one history, not several.

[Bloodshadow]

I guess this is where our beliefs clash. I consider the multiple histories to be different. If we consider your temperature example, most of the possible temperatures in the probability wave vary from 30 to 32 degrees, but there could be a really low chance of all the atoms of the Sun spontaneously teleporting to the Andromeda galaxy for a few seconds, drastically lowering the temperature. The chance of that happening is astronomically low, but it's still a possible outcome.

Of course, you don't have to agree with me. You can believe in whatever you want, and I can't do a thing about it.

[doublecross]

Ok. Normally I would agree to disagree (something I prefer not to do, but is often preferable when an argument is getting nowhere, and the alternative is heated tones, that still leads to no progress), but this time is different.


There is a big difference between saying that there are many possibilities, and saying that there are many different histories.

I guess this is where our beliefs clash. I consider the multiple histories to be different. If we consider your temperature example, most of the possible temperatures in the probability wave vary from 30 to 32 degrees, but there could be a really low chance of all the atoms of the Sun spontaneously teleporting to the Andromeda galaxy for a few seconds, drastically lowering the temperature. The chance of that happening is astronomically low, but it's still a possible outcome.

Of course, you don't have to agree with me. You can believe in whatever you want, and I can't do a thing about it.

OK, the "but there could be a really low chance of all the atoms of the Sun spontaneously teleporting to the Andromeda galaxy for a few seconds, drastically lowering the temperature. The chance of that happening is astronomically low, but it's still a possible outcome." does not, in any logical way I can think of, mean that there were multiple possible histories.


Even if that did happen, that would be the history.


Claiming parallel universes is one thing, but claiming that every possibility leads to an alternate HISTORY is just silly.

So far, nothing has undercut my statement that "Everything that has happened, always will have happened".


I would like to discuss this as a philosophy, and not as a physics argument that is flimsy at best.



I do not mean to be harsh on you. Trust me, I don't.   However, physics is not opinion.

Normally, it is completely justified to state your opinion.


However, if that context is using an incorrect interpretation of physics to undermine what someone has just said is a major part of their philosophy, that is, in my opinion, not appropriate.


I would put that up there with making up statistics or historical facts to try and ruin someone's philosophy.


Now, I am relatively sure you had no malicious intent. I am not at all angry or mad. I just think that this line of conversation should be discontinued.





If we could ignore this tangent, and get back to the main purpose of the thread, that would be lovely.

[Bloodshadow]

If we could ignore this tangent, and get back to the main purpose of the thread, that would be lovely.

I refuse. You keep claiming that my understanding of physics is false, and thus I will not stop this discussion until I grasp a correct understanding. However, I do not wish to derail this thread, so I will take the discussion to PMs.