Special Relativity. Lifetime.

[Alex K]

what he said

[ThinkingIsThinking]

Of course it is. The senses are measuring devices, empiricism relies on the senses and science relies on empiricism. Science obviously enhances the measuring with tools and methods ... hence why it's a big ol' measuring device.

Science is a measuring device--and none the worse for it.

Nah, mate.  Science is a methodology that uses measuring devices.  It's like saying if you drive, it means you're a car.

Boru

I'm clearly not talking about literal measuring devices. I'm not saying that science is a tape measure. And if I did I hope it would be clear that it was a metaphor.

The point was: that's what science does ... measure things. That's what the methodology is for. Sure, some people may say it's for finding the truth and stuff like that. Well, sure, that's fine, but you obviously can only find out truths that you're able to measure ... its function is measuring. And you can't know that you're actually measuring something beyond what you, and others like you, are perceiving. So it does not surprise me at all that observation sometimes appears to make subatomic particles behave differently. It could appear that way because we think we're looking at particles when really we're just looking at what looks like particles. It would be odd if observation didn't appear to affect reality when the only reality that we know is observation.

So, the point is that the knowledge is just knowledge of our own human sense-experience ... whether we extend it with tools or not ... because the tools themselves are also only known throughout our human sense-experience.

There could be advanced aliens out there who experience the world so differently that their scientific 'facts' completely contradict our scientific 'facts' and we couldn't say that theirs were wrong and ours are right.... or vice versa. So the point is that even theoretical science is ultimately entirely empirical and we don't really know how reality is in itself.

[Succubus]

There could be advanced aliens out there who experience the world so differently that their scientific 'facts' completely contradict our scientific 'facts' and we couldn't say that theirs were wrong and ours are right.... or vice versa.  So the point is that even theoretical science is ultimately entirely empirical and we don't really know how reality is in itself.

Wherever these advanced aliens hail from the speed of sound will be the same as here. The universe operates according to a set of rules and those rules apply everywhere.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Nah, mate.  Science is a methodology that uses measuring devices.  It's like saying if you drive, it means you're a car.

Boru

I'm clearly not talking about literal measuring devices. I'm not saying that science is a tape measure. And if I did I hope it would be clear that it was a metaphor.

The point was: that's what science does ... measure things. That's what the methodology is for. Sure, some people may say it's for finding the truth and stuff like that. Well, sure, that's fine, but you obviously can only find out truths that you're able to measure ... its function is measuring. And you can't know that you're actually measuring something beyond what you, and others like you, are perceiving. So it does not surprise me at all that observation sometimes appears to make subatomic particles behave differently. It could appear that way because we think we're looking at particles when really we're just looking at what looks like particles. It would be odd if observation didn't appear to affect reality when the only reality that we know is observation.

So, the point is that the knowledge is just knowledge of our own human sense-experience ... whether we extend it with tools or not ... because the tools themselves are also only known throughout our human sense-experience.

There could be advanced aliens out there who experience the world so differently that their scientific 'facts' completely contradict our scientific 'facts' and we couldn't say that theirs were wrong and ours are right.... or vice versa.  So the point is that even theoretical science is ultimately entirely empirical and we don't really know how reality is in itself.

What a lot of bollocks.

Boru

[Paleophyte]

Special relativity indicates that, for an observer in an inertial frame of reference a clock that is moving relative to him will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in his frame of reference. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation. The faster the relative velocity the greater the time dilation between one another, with the rate of time reaching zero as one approaches the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s).

This causes massless particles that travel at the speed of light to be unaffected by the passage of time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation


The mind can move fast.

So going by this special relativity can the mind stop time?

　
I do know we can enter another dimension going beyond our perceived space.
Out of body experiences show this place that we call reality is not the only place we can exist in.
Then why is this ability not being used to expand our minds and advance human potential?
　
Becoming multidimensional beings and also having timeless thought might be able to help solve some problems.

Several problems here:

(1) The mind does not have a physical velocity. You're conflating general usage and he rate at which you perceive your surroundings with the much more specific velocity that applies to SR.

(2) I don't know what particular advantage you think you'd have from possessing a mind running at a slower rate than the rest frame of its body. It would have less time to process the same amount of information as a stationary mind. I can't see how that would benefit you.

(3) OBEs have nothing to do with leaving the body and everything to do with altered states of consciousness. Everybody experiences these as dreams, but if you're experiencing altered states of consciousness while awake then you should seek medical attention immediately. I'm not saying this to be unkind but because what you describe could be the symptoms of something horrifying. Get it checked by a professional.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Several problems here:

(1) The mind does not have a physical velocity. You're conflating general usage and he rate at which you perceive your surroundings with the much more specific velocity that applies to SR.

Not being a physicist, does the measurement of hertz qualify as a type of velocity (or speed)? Because if it does then the mind does have a velocity. Moreover, Francis Crick and his colleague proposed that neurons firing synchronously at about 40Hz specifically is what gives consciousness it's cohesion.

[Paleophyte]

Several problems here:

(1) The mind does not have a physical velocity. You're conflating general usage and he rate at which you perceive your surroundings with the much more specific velocity that applies to SR.

Not being a physicist, does the measurement of hertz qualify as a type of velocity (or speed)? Because if it does then the mind does have a velocity.

No. If it did the processor in your computer, operating at several gigaHertz, would explode out of its casing and likely kill you with the blast.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Hmm why?

[Paleophyte]

Because if frequency (Hertz) was velocity then every microchip would have a lot of it. Most operate at millions to billions of Hertz. Imagine that every microchip in your computer spontaneously turned into a meteor. That's essentially what you're proposing.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Because if frequency (Hertz) was velocity then every microchip would have a lot of it. Most operate at millions to billions of Hertz. Imagine that every microchip in your computer spontaneously turned into a meteor. That's essentially what you're proposing.

The analogy doesn't quiet make sense.

But it should be noted that I'm not proposing anything, merely questioning the common language that exists between the two measures. We can talk about how fast a heart beats and how fast a car drives.